Socialism and the End of the American Dream

Paying fair market values for the assets will not work. Only by overpaying for the assets will the banks be adequately recapitalized. But overpaying for the assets simply shifts the losses to the government. In other words, the Geithner plan works only if and when the taxpayer loses big time. Some Americans are afraid that the government might temporarily "nationalize" the banks, but that option would be preferable to the Geithner plan. After all, the F.D.I.C. has taken control of failing banks before, and done it well. It has even nationalized large institutions like Continental Illinois (taken over in 1984, back in private hands a few years later), and Washington Mutual (seized last September, and immediately resold). What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a "partnership" in which one partner robs the other. And such partnerships - with the private sector in control - have perverse incentives, worse even than the ones that got us into the mess. So what is the appeal of a proposal like this? Perhaps it's the kind of Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves - clever, complex and nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets. It has allowed the administration to avoid going back to Congress to ask for the money needed to fix our banks, and it provided a way to avoid nationalization. But we are already suffering from a crisis of confidence. When the high costs of the administration's plan become apparent, confidence will be eroded further. At that point the task of recreating a vibrant financial sector, and resuscitating the economy, will be even harder.

Incredible article by Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). He puts the focus of the financial crisis on the shoulders of a powerful and politically influential group he calls the "financial oligarchs". I caught Simon on Charlie Rose, and hunted down his article. This is a must read. Simon manages to put everything into the larger context of how things work in this world. "....Of course, the U.S. is unique. And just as we have the world's most advanced economy, military, and technology, we also have its most advanced oligarchy. In a primitive political system, power is transmitted through violence, or the threat of violence: military coups, private militias, and so on. In a less primitive system more typical of emerging markets, power is transmitted via money: bribes, kickbacks, and offshore bank accounts. Although lobbying and campaign contributions certainly play major roles in the American political system, old-fashioned corruption-envelopes stuffed with $100 bills-is probably a sideshow today, Jack Abramoff notwithstanding." Instead, the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of cultural capital-a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America's position in the world.

The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government-a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF's staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we're running out of time.

Government debt has remained at a relatively consistent percentage of GDP for the past 50 years, but the debt of companies, consumers, and financial businesses has soared.  The problem now is that the value of the assets that serve as collateral for that debt (houses, stocks, cars, etc.) is plummeting.  Thus, the percentage of debt to equity is increasing, and in many areas, the equity is being wiped out.

Giving Capitalism Its Due :: The head of the Kauffman Foundation on the importance of entrepreneurship. "Then there is the question of the public perception of entrepreneurship. In the most recent survey that the foundation sponsored, pollsters found that 63% of respondents "prefer giving individuals the incentives they need to start their own businesses as opposed to allowing the government to create new jobs directly." Conducted last month, the survey also showed that instead of the government's stimulus package, two-thirds of respondents would prefer "reducing legal barriers and red tape for new business development" as a way to jump-start the economy. Finally, 89% of respondents said that "capitalism is still the best economic system for our country." Despite this popular attitude, Mr. Schramm worries that there is a tendency on the part of some citizens to want the government to prevent market chaos. Prior to the financial meltdown this fall, "I think we were in full tide of entrepreneurial capitalism and now there's an introspection, where the vocabulary is all about regulation and the importance of the government to restart the economy," he says. While Mr. Schramm believes that the government has a role to play, he argues that "historically through the last seven recessions it's been entrepreneurs who essentially restarted the economy."

Daniel Henninger Says Blaming Capitalism for the Crisis Overlooks the Housing Bubble - WSJ.com: "Heads of state, perplexed finance ministers, inflated retinues and journalists from 20 nations arrived in London yesterday to address "the greatest financial crisis since the Depression." By 4 p.m. London time today they will hold a press conference and go home." "Beware of real-estate salesmen. The housing bubble that floated into view in 2007 is turning into the blob that ate the world. Real-estate mortgages and their derivative securities are a significant problem. That discrete problem, however, has been pumped up to an historic "crisis of capitalism." Capitalism didn't tank the U.S. economy. Overbuilt housing did. Overbuilt housing tanked the economies of the U.K. and Ireland and Spain. If little else, we've learned that artificially cheap housing sets loose limitless moral hazard." "In a normal environment, the problems revealed by the crisis in mortgage finance would produce fixes relevant to the problem, such as resetting the ratios of assets to capital for banks and hedge funds, or telling the gnomes of finance to rethink mark-to-market and the uptick rule. More energetic reformers might consider Gary Becker's suggestion that as financial institutions expand in size, their capital requirements tighten, so that compulsive eaters like Citigroup can fit inside their capital base." "Two signal events in history are shaping the politics of the current economic crisis: the Great Depression and the Reagan presidency (and in Europe, Thatcherism)." "The Depression put in motion an historic tension between public and private sectors over who sets a nation's course. After 50 years of public dominance, Reagan's presidency tipped the scales back toward private enterprise. The economic life of the ensuing 35 years became "the American model." Every waking hour of this economically liberal era, the losing side has wanted to tip the balance back toward public-sector

The UK Times has a lengthy interview with George Soros, the primary financier and backer of Obama. His hatred of American Capitalism is legendary, but no one really knows what Soros-Socialism is going to be like? Anyone looking for the Obama puppet master need look no further than Soros. The question now however is that of understanding his game plan. Soros' skill has been to predict moments of seismic change by identifying a disjunction between perception and reality. RELATED LINKS Soros hints that pound has hit the bottom George Soros: Crunch will bite deeper in UK George Soros When everyone else was convinced that the markets would automatically correct themselves, the 78-year-old "old fogey", as he calls himself, was one of the few warning of recession. He put all his chips on "the Barack guy" early on when all around him were still gunning for Hillary Clinton. It's almost as if he has been waiting for the Great Recession for the past ten years. When we ask whether he prefers booms or busts, he replies: "I have to admit that actually I flourish, I'm more stimulated by the bust." This recession, he explains, is a "once-in-a-lifetime event", particularly in Britain. "This is a crisis unlike any other. It's a total collapse of the financial system with tremendous implications for everyday life. On previous occasions when you had a crisis that was threatening the system the authorities intervened and did whatever was necessary to protect the system. This time they failed."

Series of articles by leading economist discussing the Fedreal Reserves connection to the housing - mortgage securities disaster

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama's budget deficits in context of President Bush's. What's driving Obama's unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

Interfluidity has some very "Dark musings" about Treasury Sec Geithner's plan to bailout the big banks with trillions of dollars of taxpayer funds. The plan is "enronic" in that it proposes to use taxpayer funds to create a market for the toxic assets threatening to take down the big banks. The banks need to dump these AAA Fannie-Freddie mortgage securities, but the market has factored in a reality roughly discounting the value by 60% to 70%; Housing values having plummeted across the nation. If the Banks were to take the hit, and sell this GSA crap at true market value, they would not only suffer enormous losses for their high risk gambling, bu they would also be taken out of the lending market. Banks regulations require strict ratios between assets and lending funds.

So the idea is to have the taxpayers create a toxic asset market enabling banks to dump their crap at above market prices, with taxpayers takign the hit. This hit is masked by a tricky equation; Taxpayers will put up 97% of the funds for the overpriced purchase of crap, with private sector banks, hedge funds, and bond holders contributing 3%. Such a deal!

Heads the banks and Hedge funds win; tails the taxpayer loses. And loses to the tune of over $10 Trillion. GSA wonderkinds Fannie and Freddie have put $5 Trillion of securitized mortgages into the secondary money markets. Leverage that out at 40 : 1, and you have a $200 Trillion problem. Hummm, $10 Trillion looks cheap. "....I am filled with despair, not because what we are doing cannot "work", but because it is too unjust. This is not my country. The news of today is the Geithner plan. I think this plan might work very well in terms of repairing bank balance sheets...." Of course the whole notion of repairing bank balance sheet is a lie and misdirection. The balance sheets we should want to see repaired are household balance sheets. Banks have failed us profoundly. We want them reorganized, not repair

The holders [of this debt] are not just banks, but insurance companies, pension funds, foreign lenders, and others. Even so, there is no way to prevent huge, ongoing losses, because the cash flows off of these assets are not sufficient to service the debt. The only question is whether the bondholders appropriately bear those losses, or whether the public bears them inappropriately. A continued policy of protecting all of these bondholders would eventually require U.S. citizens to be put on the hook for something on the order of $10-14 trillion. We are nowhere near the end of this process. We simply cannot make these bad investments whole unless we are willing to hand the next 10-20 years of U.S. private savings over to the bondholders who financed reckless lending.

The new Obama administration needs to understand that greatest heist in history is underway - at least $1 trillion is being transferred from taxpayers to debt holders of failed financial institutions - and take steps to stop it before taxpayers suffer further unnecessary losses. Whitney Tilson explains the financial crisis and makes his recommendation. Rather than sticking it to the taxpayers, these insolvent banks should be put into conservatorship: "..... So what's a better solution? I'm not arguing that BofA (or Citi or WaMu or Fannie or Freddie or AIG or Bear) should have been allowed to go bankrupt - we all saw the chaos that ensued when Lehman went bankrupt. Rather, if a company blows up (and can't find a buyer), the following things should happen: 1) The government seizes it and puts it into conservatorship (as Fannie, Freddie, IndyMac and AIG effectively were, to one degree or another); 2) Equity is wiped out (again, as with Fannie, Freddie, IndyMac and AIG); 3) However, unlike Fannie, Freddie, IndyMac and AIG (and certainly Citi and BofA), everything in the capital structure except maybe the senior debt is at risk and absorbs losses as they are realized; the government would only provide a backstop above a certain level. This is what happened in the RTC bailout; 4) Over time, in conservatorship, while the businesses continue to operate (no mass layoffs, distressed sales, etc.), the government disposes of the companies in a variety of ways (just as the RTC did via runoff, selling the entire company or piece-by-piece, etc.), depending on the circumstances (as it's doing with AIG and IndyMac, for example - these are good examples, except that the debt holders were protected). ......"

Business Insiders John Carney describes what happened at evil doer, AIG. In describing the black hole that is swallowing up endless volumes of taxpayer wealth, Carney points out that AIG is a channel for redistributing American wealth to International Bankers. ".... In last summer's blockbuster "The Dark Knight," the Joker invites one of the top crime lords of Gotham City to the rundown warehouse where he has stashed his ill-gotten gains. The mobster stares in awe at the huge stack of money the arch-criminal has amassed. But a moment later, his awe turns to horror as the Joker sets the money aflame. "This town deserves a better class of criminal," he explains. The exchange reveals the deep evil of the Joker. Unlike a common criminal, he doesn't just want to steal money from others. He wants to destroy their wealth....... At the heart of AIG's problems is a financial product called a credit default swap, which is really just an insurance contract on debt. If a borrower failed to pay off a loan fully, an investor protected by a credit default swap would be able to collect the outstanding amount from the insurance company. The idea was that credit default swaps would reduce the risk to any investor who bought bonds. In the best of worlds, they would reduce risk throughout the financial system by spreading out the costs of defaults. But that's not how things worked out. Instead, credit default swaps came to be used by banks in a way that no one anticipated-to avoid banking regulations. And AIG decided to get into the business of enabling this scheme...... "

Of course he's a socialist. The real question is, how does he feel about America? His favorite Sunday preacher for the last twenty years is simply obsessed with a frothing hatred for this country. His good buddies Bill and Bernardine have been expressing their rage loud and proud since the Sixties. As president, O is trying to put Chas Freeman in charge of the National Intelligence Estimates, a man who is neither competent, nor temperamentally suited, nor emotionally able to restrain his animosity against American Jews who love Israel just as they love America (... because, for one thing, they love democracy, and can recognize fascists even in drag.)  Newsweek tells us we're all socialists now. That's an obvious lie, because the Newsweek socialists like Evan Thomas suffer from regular nightmares that American conservatives will find another Ronald Reagan. But that raised the question of socialism. Obama danced away from it, of course, when a NYT reporter actually asked him. Whoooo me? Socialism is internationalist, and that means a genuine dual loyalty for a president of the United States. Marxists are convinced there is an inevitable contradiction between love of country and love of humanity. That's why it's called the Socialist International, and why the anthem is the Internationale. They haven't made a secret of it. Internationalist fervor controls their actions, including very successful efforts to whip up black feelings against whites, women against men, and everybody against capitalism, no matter how many billions of people it has raised out of poverty. The whole point about the global warming scam is to empower the internationalist Ruling Class.

Mayor Bloomberg should read the Obama budget chapter, "Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced Priorities." The economy as most people understand it was a second-order concern of the stimulus strategy. The primary goal is a massive re-flowing of "wealth" from the top toward the bottom, to stop the moral failure they see in the budget's "Top One Percent of Earners" chart. The White House says its goal is simple "fairness." That may be, as they understand fairness. But Figure 9 makes it clear that for the top earners, there will be blood. This presidency is going to be an act of retribution. In the words of the third book from Mr. Obama, "it is our duty to change it."

Tax cheat and treaasury secretary Timothy Geithner is featured in this SNL skit. Having no idea what to do about the financial crisis, Geithner comes up with a plan to offer a reward for a plan to solve the crisis. Various callers put forward their plans, giving the bureaucratic Geithner plenty of opportunity to demonstrate his cluelessness. The last call proves to be a bonanza, as Geithner falls for the ole Nigerian prince eMail ploy. Very funny! Even though at this point, it hurts to laugh

This is a killer sketch featuring Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and George Soros along with the so called "victims" of the mortgage crisis. The setting is a joint press conference between Bush and congressional leaders Pelosi and Frank to celebrate the $750 Billion TARP bailout package. The sketch became so problematic for the NBC and the Socialist Party, the YouTube version was edited (gutted). When that didn't work, it was removed from YouTube.

Remember that controversial SNL sketch where Golden West's Herb and Marion Sandler were described as People Who Should Be Shot? NBC actually took it off the internet, prompting howls from Republicans who saw the media gagging a sketch that succesfully tied Democrats to Big Mortgage. Anyway, an edited version has back up on Hulu for awhile, but our friends at Guest of a Guest have obtained an edited version, replete with the People Who Should Be Shot descriptor. Oh if only this unedited version had become re-available before the election! November 6th, 2008

This morning Business Insider discussed how the size of the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac already dwarfs the benefits the supposedly accrued to home buyers. Over the entire course of their existence, Fannie and Freddie may have saved homeowners $100 billion in mortgage interest. The government, however, has now had to pledge $400 billion to rescue them. $60 billion of that has already been withdrawn. The Business Insider argument this morning demonstrated that the GSE's were colossal policy failures. But we were assuming then that the policy goal was something as benign as delivering tangible benefits to the American people. If you take away that assumption--that is, if you allow for the idea that the GSE's were cynical rent-seeking operations to begin with--you can see that they may actually have succeeded. If the goal of the GSE's wasn't to provide a net savings but to transfer wealth from future generations, they seem to have succeeded wildly. There was no free lunch or extra value or savings created by the implied government guarantee. Instead, the liability for the interest supposedly saved was just pushed forward in time. And now it has come due. That's right: the GSE's operated on the same basis as an exploding mortgage. Low interest at first, with a huge balloon payment at the end. And like a borrower victimized by a predatory lender, we just hadn't paid enough attention to the details to realize that this is how this deal would work out.

James Madison was not specifically contemplating Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, when he wrote Federalist No. 63. But reading the document - one of the seminal arguments in favor of adopting the U.S. Constitution - it's clear Madison knew their type. And he knew they would come along again and again in American history, if Americans were lucky enough to have a long history. Obama and Pelosi, along with their most ardent supporters, are the types to see a crisis, like our current economic mess, as a "great opportunity," as the president put it last Saturday. They are the types, after a long period out of power, to attempt to use that "great opportunity" to push through far-reaching changes in national policy that had only a tangential connection, if at all, to the crisis at hand. And they are the types the Founding Fathers wanted to stop. In the Federalist Papers, written 221 years ago, Madison addressed the need for a Senate to accompany the more populist House of Representatives. An upper body, he wrote, "may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions."