Civility is the ability to disagree with others while respecting their sincerity and decency. Civility begins with understanding. We can best understand our political differences by first understanding the moral foundations upon which political views are built. This site features research, resources, and commentary related to the pursuit of Civility through understanding.
 

 

There is a “shadow banking” system that has massively and often unknowingly leveraged client assets into possibly the largest credit bubble the world has ever seen.  Because of more favorable rules, much of the leverage has occured in the Euro, meaning a collapse of the Euro will be much more catastrophic than the public is aware.

One of the shadow banking systems favorite tools is re-hypothocation.   This means institutions can use client funds as collateral for the institutions own investments.  The institutions take $1 of client collateral and use it to purchase $1.40 to $2.00 of investments for the institution.   So for $1 of client money, the client may be trading at leverage, and the institution is trading at leverage.

A much more thorough explantion is provided by Reuters, who concludes

The volume and level of re-hypothecation suggests a frightening alternative hypothesis for the current liquidity crisis being experienced by banks and for why regulators around the world decided to step in to prop up the markets recently. To date, reports have been focused on how Eurozone default concerns were provoking fear in the markets and causing liquidity to dry up.

Most have been focused on how a Eurozone default would result in huge losses in Eurozone bonds being felt across the world’s banks. However, re-hypothecation suggests an even greater fear. Considering that re-hypothecation may have increased the financial footprint of Eurozone bonds by at least four fold then a Eurozone sovereign default could be apocalyptic.

For further reading we suggest this dire post from zerohedge.com,  who sees truly frightening possiblities

It turns out the next AIG was among us all along, only because it was hidden
deep in the bowels of the unmentionable shadow banking system, out of sight (by
definition) meant out of mind. Only it was not: and at last check there
was $15 trillion in the shadow banking system
in the US alone, where the
daisy chaining of counteparty risk meant that any liquidity risk flare up would
mean the AIG bankruptcy was not even a dress rehearsal for the grand finale.

The real threat is not the collapse of financial institutions, but the threat of governments stepping in to resuce so called “to big to fail” insitutions.   Governments don’t have the money, so they will print it up via the central banks.  This will certainly lead to inflation, and perhaps hyper-inflation.

A more hopeful opinion on the odds of hyper-inflation is provided by dailycapitalist.com

I respect many of the writers who believe that we will experience hyperinflation. A number of them are, like me, students of Austrian theory economics. I think most of them are jumping the gun. At this point none of the economic or political factors required to set off hyperinflation are present. A careful analysis of theory, fact, and history leads me to conclude that inflation/stagflation is our future. It is quite a leap of fancy to say we are certain to have hyperinflation.

 

 

CBS’s 60 Minutes documents how wrongful wealth was created in the run up to the mortgage crisis.

Mortgages are ‘originated’ between the borrower and the original lender through the services of it’s brokers.  The originating lender then may keep the loan, or may decide to resell the loan to another lender.  Originating lenders can also bundle loans into a package and then resell the package.   The originating lender makes money from the fees charged to originate the loan, and from selling the loan to others.

When reselling the loans to other lenders, the originating lender represents that the loans meet certain guidelines pertaining to the ability of the borrower to repay the loan and the value of the collateral.  High risk loans (sub prime), with less qualified buyers and less collateral, command higher fees and higher interest rates, and earned higher profits for the originating lender.  Much higher.

If the originating lenders made loans that did not meet the standards, and then knowingly resold these loans to other lenders, they would be profiting from a crime.  Managers and executives who received compensation from the resale of the misrepresented loans would be profiting from a crime.  If the originating companies stock price rises as a result of the profits from reselling these loan packages, executives made millions of dollars in stock options from a crime.   And if the whole thing fell apart, the investors who bought the loans, and the investors who bought the stock of the originating company, would lose billions of dollars from a crime.  And if the losses were so large as to endanger the financial system and cause government to bail out the failing loan originator, the tax payers would be paying for the crime.

In the two pieces below, 60 Minutes documents Countrywide and Citicorp both knowingly engaged in fraudulent loan origination.  This is the kind of wrongful wealth we can all agree should be stopped.

 

 

Not sure whether to laugh or cry over this excellent piece by Jon Stewart and The Daily Show.   The original Bloomberg article focuses on $13 billion in profit that banks accrued from $7.7 trillion in near zero rate loans from the Fed.   The US government spends $40 billion a day, to put the $13 billion in context.  The Fed claims the loans have been repaid and that they actually made money for the US government.  Well, that may be so if you choose the ignore the inflationary effect of printing up $7.7 trillion.  The money may have been “paid back”, but it’s still in the money supply.  To put that inflation of the money supply into perspective, it’s about half of our annual GDP.

The Bloomberg article also highlights the fact that decision makers in Congress were kept in the dark.  A Congress that had trouble passing a $700 billion TARP program surely would have been impacted by the news that the Fed was bailing out the banks with $7.7 TRILLION.

Enjoy…

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
America’s Next TARP Model
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook
 

Everybody (left and right, young and old) agrees fairness is important. Much depends on how fairness is understood.

Fairness is proportionality.  The left tends to view proportionality in terms of outcomes, therefore disproportionate wealth accumulation is seen as unfair.  The right tends to view proportionality in terms of effort, so wealth unevenly distributed yet proportionate to effort is fair.

Where the two find common ground is opposing wealth not accumulated by effort, but by cheating, illegallity, gaming of the system, political manipulation, etc..  Wrongful wealth is universally seen as unfair.

A smart, technically enabled, generation coming of age with a sense that they are/have been screwed can’t be good. For them, it’s the fault of everyone between 45-65.  And they’re right.   It is this age group that wrote the tax code and the federal regulations. We all know, and have known for a long time, that there is a game (many games) going on, and it’s rigged.

Bloomberg knew the game was riggied when they fought all the way to the Supreme Court for a Freedom of Information Act request to release data on just who the Fed bailed out.  What they found won’t surprise you, won’t even shock you.

Members of Congress can legally trade stocks based on information they receive on the job.  Former Washington State Rep. Brian Baird has been fighting to end the practice for years, with almost no support.  60 Minutes did a segment on his efforts, and now the idea is quite popular.

So there is hope.  We are to blame for wrongful wealth, but we can also fix it.

Will we?

 

Oct 042011
 

‘Occupy Wall Street’ has one thing right:  The U.S. is in crisis.  Here is a tour de force documentation of exactly where we stand.

 

Originally posted by Jim Quinn at theburningplatform.com

 

WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS NOW IS HOPE

 

Finch: Why are you doing this?
Evey Hammond: Because he was right.
Finch: About what?
Evey Hammond: That the world needs more than just a building right now. It needs hope.

 

The dialogue above occurred at the end of the dystopian movie V for Vendetta. It is a tale of revenge and restoring hope among citizens who had chosen safety and security over freedom and liberty. Even though this movie was fictional and adapted from a comic strip, its message and warnings should be heeded. Millions of middle class citizens in the U.S. sink deeper into despair every day. Day by day hope is being lost that the future for our children will be better than our past. The political, financial, and corporate leaders of our country are intellectually and morally bankrupt. The major Wall Street banks are bankrupt. Social Security is bankrupt. Medicare is bankrupt. The whole damned world is bankrupt. Anyone with an unbiased view of our planet would conclude that we are in unfathomable danger. The list of impending catastrophic issues that will blow up the world for millions in the U.S. and across the globe is virtually endless:

U.S. Debt

  • The national debt is currently $14.6 trillion, up from $5.7 trillion in 2000. It took over 200 years to accumulate the first $5.7 trillion of debt and only 11 years to tack on another $8.9 trillion.
  • With the new $450 billion jobs package proposed by President Obama, the deficit in FY12 will likely exceed $1.8 trillion, or 12% of GDP. Greece’s 2010 deficit was 10.5% of GDP.
  • Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart in their book This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, using data from 44 countries over 200 years, concluded that once a country’s national debt exceeds 90% of GDP, the economy stagnates and ultimately makes that country vulnerable to a debt crisis. The U.S. national debt as a percentage of GDP is currently 97% and will reach 107% in 2012. This does not count state and local debt, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt, and the unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare. We are at the same place Greece was in 2007. But we’re no Greece, right? This time is different.

  • Total credit market debt of $52.5 trillion is 3.5 times GDP, versus a long-term leverage ratio of 1.6. This is called living well above your means on borrowed money. We have a long way down before we reach the bottom of this mountain of debt.

  • Despite the rhetoric out of Washington D.C. by the thieves and knaves about cutting deficits, the National Debt is on course to increase by $9 trillion in the next 10 years. It will reach $20 trillion by 2015.

Entitlements

  • The commitments made by politicians over decades in order to get elected have resulted in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare exceeding $100 trillion.

 

  • In 1980, just 11.7% of all personal income came from government transfer payments.  Today, 18.0% of all personal income comes from government transfer payments. Wages and salaries paid by private industries totals $5.5 trillion per year, while wages paid by government total $1.2 trillion and social welfare payments from the government total $2.3 trillion. Only ten years ago wages and salaries from private industries totaled $4.1 trillion, while government wages were only $800 billion and welfare payments totaled $1.1 trillion. In ten years the percentage increases paint the true picture: 
    • Private wages & salaries increased 34% 
    • Government wages & salaries increased 50% 
    • Government social welfare transfer payments increased 109% 
  • Despite the rhetoric from politicians, there is no lock box and there is no cash in the Social Security fund. John Mauldin summed it up nicely: “Social Security funds are an entry into a government accounting book that don’t really exist except as an IOU. Politicians of all stripes have used the Social Security money to pay for other government expenses. Those funds were even counted to offset the deficit, although now that Social Security is no longer in a surplus that has gone away.”
  • This year, about 3.3 million people are expected to apply for federal Social Security Disability benefits. That’s 700,000 more than in 2008 and 1 million more than a decade ago. Today, about 13.6 million people receive disability benefits through Social Security or Supplemental Security Income. Last year, Social Security detected $1.4 billion in overpayments to disability beneficiaries, mostly to people who got jobs and no longer qualified, according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

Employment

  • The official unemployment rate in the U.S. is 9.1% with 14 million people unemployed. The true unemployment rate, taking into account discouraged workers, part time workers who want a full time job, and people who have dropped out of the work force, is above 20%, or 31 million people.
  • It now takes the average unemployed worker in America about 40 weeks to find a new job.

  • Even after a supposed recovery, there are approximately 7 million less people employed today than there were in 2007.
  • The employment to population ratio of 58.2% is at the same level as 1969, before women entered the workforce in record numbers. As wages stagnated and inflation drove costs higher, families were forced to send two parents into the workforce, with predictable consequences to their latchkey children. The ratio peaked in 2001 at 64.4% and has declined precipitously since 2008.

civilian population ratio

Poverty

  • The number of people on food stamps has gone from 27 million people receiving $30 billion of aid in 2007 to 45 million people (14.5% of U.S. population) receiving $72 billion in aid today.

 food stamp participation

  • The number of uninsured Americans totals 49.9 million.
  • Those covered by employer-based insurance continued to decline in 2010, to about 55%, while those with government-provided coverage continued to increase, up slightly to 31%. Employer-based coverage was down from 65% in 2000.
  • One out of every six elderly Americans now lives below the federal poverty line.
  • Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the Census Bureau has been publishing figures on it.
  • The percentage of Americans living below the poverty line last year, 15.1%, was the highest level since 1993. (The poverty line in 2010 for a family of four was $22,314)
  • Blacks experienced the highest poverty rate, at 27%, up from 25% in 2009, and Hispanics rose to 26% from 25%. For whites, 9.9% lived in poverty, up from 9.4% in 2009. Asians were unchanged at 12.1%.

Income

  • Median household income fell 2.3% to $49,445 last year and has dropped 7% from the peak of $53,252 reached in 1999.
  • Median household income for the bottom tenth of the income spectrum fell by 12% from a peak in 1999, while the top 90th percentile dropped by just 1.5%.
  • Between 1969 and 2009, the median wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 dropped by 27% after you account for inflation.
  • Median income fell across all working-age categories, but the sharpest drop was among young working Americans, ages 15 to 24, which experienced a decline of 9%.
  • When you adjust wages for inflation, middle class workers in the United States make less money today than they did back in 1971.

Wealth Inequality

  • The wealthiest 1% of all Americans now controls 43% of all the financial wealth in this c
 

Class warfare, or fairness?  The Brookings Institute explains.

From a well done article at brookings.edu. concisely describing the “Buffett Rule”.   Since it is brief, we quote the entire article below:

On Monday, the administration released its deficit reduction blueprint. One part of the administration’s proposal, which has received enormous attention, was that the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction observe the “Buffett Rule” if it attempts tax reform. The furor over this proposal is surprising and the debate about it seems to have largely missed the point.

For background, the proposed Buffett Rule, so named from Warren Buffett’s op-ed in the New York Times, says, “No household making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-class families.” Setting aside the ambiguous definition of “middle-class,” the intent of the proposed rule is clear: tax reform should follow the principle of vertical equity, a hallmark of the progressive tax system—that as one’s income increases so should one’s tax payments as a share of income.

To see why the furor is surprising, note that the Buffett rule is an extremely mild form of progressivity—it just says that tax payments as a share of income shouldn’t be lower for someone with high income than for someone with low income. Is anyone seriously proposing the opposite? That people with income above $1 million should pay a lower share of their income in taxes than a middle-class family? If not, then what is objectionable about the Buffett Rule?

Opponents to the Buffett Rule frequently make the point that households with the highest-incomes already, on average, pay a higher portion of their income in taxes than middle-income households. Indeed, according to estimates from the Tax Policy Center, those making over $1 million in cash income paid an average federal tax rate (excluding excise taxes) of 29.1 percent while those with cash income between $50,000 and $75,000 paid an average federal tax rate of 15 percent.

This type of analysis, though, is based on averages. The Buffett Rule as proposed by the administration would apply—precisely and only—to those high income households who are paying less than the middle class average tax rate. The fact that the average tax rate among very high income households is higher than among middle class households means that the system, on average, is progressive, but it can still be the case—and is—that some people with very high income pay little or no taxes. That is what the Buffett Rule is addressing.

The Buffett Rule is also a matter of horizontal equity, a concept often used when analyzing the fairness of tax proposals but notably absent from the current debate. In an equitable system, people of similar means should have similar tax burdens. The Buffett Rule could improve both the vertical equity and the horizontal equity of the federal tax system by ensuring that every millionaire pay a minimal rate.

To be clear, the administration did not suggest how the Buffett Rule be implemented nor did it score specific versions. Rather, it proposed that the Joint Select Committee observe the principle of vertical (and horizontal) equity when trying to reform taxes. The Buffett Rule could be a guideline either for tweaks to the tax code that will reduce the deficit or for comprehensive tax reform. In any case, the vehement opposition to the proposed rule seems unfounded.

 

Well said.  The New York Time cites Treasury Department estimates that there about 60,000 “some people”, and taxing them per the Buffett Rule would raise approximately $1.3 billion per year…about 1/10 of what the government spends every day.

 

 

Krugman: More stimulus.  Much more.

The nobel laureate argues we aren’t doing enough and urgently need to reverse course through government spending and expansion of the money supply.

What should be happening? The answer is that we need a major push to get the economy moving, not at some future date, but right now. For the time being we need more, not less, government spending, supported by aggressively expansionary policies from the Federal Reserve and its counterparts abroad. And it’s not just pointy-headed economists saying this; business leaders like Google’s Eric Schmidt are saying the same thing

 

Be sure to catch Eric Schmidt’s recent comments too…

But the current strategy is ludicrous. You have a situtation where the private sector sees essentially no growth in demand. The classic solution is to have the government step in, and with short-term initiatives help stimulate that demand. If they do it right, they’ll invest in income and growth producing things, like highways and bridges and schools.

 

 

Paul Volcker cautions the Fed against playing fast and loose with inflation.

 

 

Top strategist: “I believe printing money to be a fundamentally dishonest endeavour”

Dylan Grice takes a strong stand against government money creation.  Mr. Grice is one of the world’s foremost finacial strategists according to the Thomson Extel Survey.

Here’s his view, heavily edited for brevity.  Read the full transcript here.

…I believe printing money to be a fundamentally dishonest endeavour. Think about how it works. When the central bank, at zero cost, increases the monetary base by 1%, where does that money go? Answer: into the market for government bonds.

By issuing bonds to itself the government seems to have miraculously raised
revenue without burdening anyone else. This is probably why the mechanism is
universally adopted throughout the world’s financial system. Yet free money does
not, and cannot, exist… someone, somewhere has to pay.

But who? This is where the subtle dishonesty resides, because the answer is that
no-one knows…The point is we can’t know who will pay, only that
someone will pay. Thus the government has raised revenues
without even knowing upon whom the burden falls, let alone telling them.

The burden of this money printing…seeps silently into the
economy, falling indiscriminately but indubitably on unseen, unknowing victims.

 

The full article is much more extensive and highly worth reading.  In particular he makes the point that increases in asset valuations, not just goods as measured by the CPI, should be included in the inflation calculation.

Mr. Grice prefers the classical definition of inflation, which is inflation of the money supply.  For those who share this view, here’s a sobering chart…

 
090220_money_stack
Huffington Post published top 10 wealthiest members of Congress, 8 are Dems, 2 Republican.  Interesting comments from readers include this:

“Capitalism — A brain-power dictatorship
Brains like handsome good looks pass from father to son, those with excessive wealth run things and until we reach the ultimate conclusion of evil they always shall.
For we are all given a different ability to earn income as a test, to see if we pass our excessive wealth down to those less fortunate where it belongs.”

Featuring Recent Posts WordPress Widget development by YD