• k彩平台登陆
  • AZ Parks Proposal
  • Archive for September 2008

    Everything Explained

    Lenders Have to Lend

    I know this may be pointing out the obvious, but I think it needs to be said:  Lenders have to lend, just as much as borrowers have to borrow.  I know most people understand the "borrower" part of this phrase, but they seem to act as if lenders are somehow only putting their money on the street as some sort of charitable activity, and if we don't sufficiently kow-tow to all their needs, they will run away and never help us all again.

    The fact is that people with large pools of money -- banks, pension funds, insurance companies -- HAVE to lend.  And in a time where stocks are dicey, they probably have more, not less, cash than normal they want to lend, much of it short-term.  Now, they may be temporarily scared off from doing so for a few days or weeks as they try to assess what is safe and what is not, but they can't stick their money in a mattress or buy tons of gold or invest in ammunition and run for the hills.  Banks have to pay off depositors; insurance companies often aim to break
    even on premiums and payouts and make their money on investing the cash
    in between; pension funds can't make their long-term obligations
    without making steady returns.Their very survival, in many cases, depends on making continuous returns off their free cash. 

    Wisdom from Schoolhouse Rock:

    You got a couple hundred bucks saved up in your birthday stash.Why not deposit them dollars in the bank instead?
    Then at the end of the year you'll come out way ahead,
    Because the bank'll pay you money in exchange for the use of your cash!
    And that's called interest; you're makin' money that way,
    And you can buy that gear about a year from today.


    In Praise of Price Gouging

    As I have pointed out any number of times, when supplies of something are short, you can allocate them either by price or by rationing.  made the point that combining shortages with tough state price-gouging laws inevitably led to rationing and long lines:

    Someone asked during a panel discussion at ASPO whether we were going
    to have rationing by price. I answered that we are having that now. But
    prices aren't going up nearly as much as you would expect during these
    sorts of severe shortages. Why? I think it's a fear that dealers have
    of being prosecuted for gouging. So, they keep prices where they are,
    and they simply run out of fuel when the deliveries don't arrive on
    time. If they were allowed to raise prices sharply, people would cut
    back on their driving and supplies would be stretched further.

    made the same point yesterday, as the gas shortages in the southeast dragged out (unsurprisingly) for a second week:

    nearly 200 gas stations in Atlanta are being .  Don't investigate them!  Reward them!  Price gouging is exactly what we need!  It should be encouraged, not investigated....

    The real problem now is panic buying.  People will run their tanks
    down by about one-third and then rush off to a gas station.  Lines of
    cars are following gas tanker trucks around Atlanta. The supplies are
    coming back up, but as long as people insist on keeping every car they
    own filled to the top and then filling a few gas cans to boot, we're
    going to have these outages and these absurd lines. 

    So, how do you stop the panic buying?  Easy.  You let the market do
    what the market does best, control demand and supply through the price
    structure.  The demand for gas outstrips the supply right now, so allow
    gas stations respond by raising the price of gas .. raise it as much as
    they want.  I'm serious here so stop your screaming.  The governor
    should hold a press conference and announce that effective immediately
    there is no limit on what gas stations can charge for gas.  I heard
    that there was some gas station in the suburbs charging $8.00 a
    gallon.  Great!  That's what they all should be doing.  Right now the
    price of gasoline in Atlanta is artificially low and being held down by
    government.  That's exacerbating the problem, not helping it.  Demand
    is not being squelched by price. 

    As the prices rise, the point will be reached where people will say
    "I'm fed up with this.  I'll ride with a friend, take the bus or just
    sit k彩平台登陆 before I'll pay this for a gallon of gas."  Once the price of
    a gallon starts to evoke that kind of reaction, we're on our way to
    solving the problem.  When gas costs, say, $8.00 people aren't going to
    fill their tanks.  They also aren't going to rush k彩平台登陆 to get their
    second car and make sure it is filled up either ... and you can forget
    them filling those portable gas cans they have in the trunk.  Some
    people will only be able to afford maybe five gallons!  Fine!  That
    leaves gas in the tanks for other motorists.  Bottom line here is that
    people aren't going to rush out to fill up their half-empty tanks with
    $8.00 gas.

    Here is something else to think of about lines and shortages.  What is the marginal value of your time?  I think most people underestimate this in their day to day transactions.  Some will say it is whatever they make an hour at work, and that is OK, but I will bet you that is low for most folks.  Most folks would not choose to work one more hour a week for their average hourly rate.  Start eating into my free time and family time, and my cost goes up.  That's why overtime rates are higher.   

    So let's say an individual values his/her time at the margin for $25.  This means that an hour spent waiting in line or driving around town searching to fill up with 10 gallons raises the cost by $2.50 a gallon.  And this does not include the fuel or other wear on the car used in the search.  Or the cost of that sales meeting you missed because you did not have the gas to get there.  So an anti-gouging law that keeps prices temporarily down by a $1 or so a gallon may actually cost people much more from the shortages it creates.   

    The Alternate View

    Several people I know have argued with my "do nothing" approach to the current mortgage and liquidity mess.  Their argument is that the current crisis has frozen the short term money market, with banks refusing to lend to each other, and only doing so via central banks.  The problem, they claim, is that this could lead to an extended drying up of business to business credit.  For example, two people both used the fuel retailing example, arguing that inventory purchases are made on credit, and paid off as the inventory is sold.  The logic, I assume, is that businesses have all reduced their working capital, and so a drying up of short term business credit will cause the economy to lock up, with producers and retailers unable to buy components and inventory.  .

    I guess the questions are 1) for how long and 2) how best to fix it.  To the first question, this is by no means the first time in my lifetime that short-term credit has dried up.  Liquidity eventually returns, mainly because lenders need to lend as much as borrowers need to borrow.  As to the second question, central banks are currently handling this by increasing the amount of money they will lend short term.  Rather than lend to each other directly, bank A deposits with the Fed and then the Fed lends to bank B.  The cycle ends NOT when every bank is healthy but when banks and other institutions are confident they know which banks are healthy.  All the bailout is doing is delaying this reckoning.  I don't think it matters that banks and certain financial institutions survive, I think it matters that the ones who are not going to survive are identified quickly so the rest can start lending again to each other.

    Given these concerns, I reiterate my position that if the government is going to inject liquidity and create new financial asset insurance programs, it makes more sense to me to do it at the point of concern, i.e. in the credit market to main street businesses, rather than dumping the money into the toxic sludge of credit default swaps. 

    Two MILLION Visitors

    k彩平台登陆Medium_dr_evil_1  k彩平台登陆Twomillion_2

    Thanks, folks.  I still remember the first month I blogged about four years ago, when I wrote and wrote and was fairly sure not a single person was reading.  Like performing to an empty room.

    Where is the Credit Crisis?

    observes that if we are in for a credit crunch, its not showing up in the numbers yet, as bank loans and leases hit an all-time high and most other types of lending are still near their peaks.

    Shadegg on the Bailout

    I missed , whom I don't always agree with but is still way better than 99% of Congress:


    David Freddeso: Is a bailout necessary to save the economy at
    this point from complete collapse "” from a major failure of multiple
    institutions at the same time?

    Shadegg: I think that's the most difficult question that
    could be posed under these circumstances, and it's the question that I
    have struggled all week to find the answer to. I have talked to a lot
    of smart people who know Wall Street, know banking, know the economy
    quite well, and you hear different opinions. Some will tell you that it
    is absolutely essential. Quite frankly, I'm skeptical about that.

    But I think that in some ways the question doesn't matter any more.
    Because Secretary Paulson chose to raise the matter in the way he did "”
    that is, to go public in a very high-profile way, not just with his
    concern, but with a kind of Chicken-Little, the-sky-is-falling kind of
    demand "” it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    That is to say, once the secretary of the Treasury announces to the
    world that there is a pending financial collapse, perhaps as great as
    the Great Depression, and Congress must act "” he has sent a signal that
    essentially tells world markets that Congress must act. I will tell you
    that has been one of the most frustrating things about this since the
    very beginning...

    I can't tell you how many members of Congress were stunned at that
    news, and were stunned that none of their local bankers were calling
    them. And then they called their local bankers, as I called my local
    bankers, and my local bankers said, "I think things are just fine." I
    talked to one banker who said, "Gosh, we've got money, and we're
    liquid, and we're making a profit. And we're in the market selling
    loans, and we've got competitors trying to sell loans against us."

    So, at that point, there's a disconnect. Secretary Paulson is
    claiming that this is a catastrophe of generational proportions that
    could go worldwide. And none of what we were hearing back k彩平台登陆 matches
    that. And I'm not speaking just for myself, but also for many of my
    colleagues who were making similar calls. They weren't being called by
    their bankers, or by any of the businesses back k彩平台登陆 saying, "I can't
    borrow any money".... If, in fact, Paulson had struck a chord with the
    American banking community, wouldn't you think that after he announced
    on Friday that there was a crisis of liquidity that threatens the
    entire nation's financial solvency and Americans' jobs from coast to
    coast, that my community bankers in Arizona wouldn't have been picking
    up the phone by Monday morning, if not over the weekend, to say that "I
    share the Secretary's concerns"?


    Dale Franks on the Bailout

    I thought has a really good post on why the bailout is a crock.  Its quite long, but here is one excerpt:

    Banks that made bad mortgage choices get a buttload of money for their
    bad MBS paper. Banks that charted a more reasonable course"”and yes,
    there are quite a few"”get no reward.

    In a real free market, of
    course, the banks that made bad decision would have to take the hit.
    They'd auction them off at whatever price the market would bear, and
    they'd have to suck up the losses on the difference between face value
    and sale value, even if that meant driving them out of business.
    Meanwhile, the more rational banks would be able to pick up the MBS
    paper at a discount, and make some cash off of the distress sale from
    the incompetent banks.

    And, of course, the incompetent banks would probably be driven out of business.  Which, after all, is how it is supposed
    to work. But, the government seems entirely uninterested in letting the
    market work this out, which brings me to my next point....

    I keep hearing over and over again"”and I've even said it"”that no one
    knows what these mortgage backed securities are worth. But let's be
    clear here: the reason we don't isn't because the price is mystifyingly
    unknowable. It's because they haven't even tried to sell them off yet.
    We already know it's possible to find out what the price is, simply by
    offering them up for sale. Indeed, we did it in July when Merril Lynch sold off its entire MBS portfolio.

    The reason we're not doing it now is because the holders of MBS paper expect a government bailout, and they expect to
    receive through it a price significantly higher than they would in the
    secondary market. If it were otherwise, they'd already be auctioning
    them off.

    After all, we're talking about securities based on the
    value of mortgage repayments. We already know that the default rate on
    most of the MBS paper will be around 5%, with a maximum of probably no
    more than 10%. Everybody already knows this. Now, just to turn the
    screw, a buyer might want a discount of over"”perhaps well over"”50%.
    after all, it's a fire sale, and everybody wants a bargain, right.

    But there is a market-clearing price for these securities, and everybody on the street knows it.
    What they also know is that they have an excellent chance of receiving
    a much better price from the Feds, and that waiting for the bailout
    gives them a better chance to stay in business, even if the Treasury is
    a large shareholder in the company. And, after all, if the Treasury is
    a shareholder, how likely is it that the government will let them fail, losing all that equity?

    bailout doesn't solve the problem. It keeps the bad banks in business,
    lets them escape the worst consequences of their malfeasance, and
    prevents the better run banks from taking up the reins that would be
    otherwise dropped when the bad banks went out of business.


    Sometimes I snap at someone for their criticism of a particular politician.  Typically, they assume I am doing so because I support that politician.  But in reality, I am using just sick of the implication that somehow other politicians would have been much better.  I absolutely agree with comment:

    Fareed Zakaria (author of a truly fine book and columnist for the
    Washington Post) rightly argues that Sarah Palin is unqualified to be
    president of the United States (and, hence, by extension, unqualified
    to be V-P). Mr. Zakaria is correct that Gov. Palin's recent answer to a
    question about the economy "is nonsense - a vapid emptying out of every
    catchphrase about economics that came into her head." He's correct also
    that she's unfit to be entrusted with the power of the modern

    But Mr. Zakaria is incorrect to suppose that these traits separate
    Gov. Palin from other candidates for high political office. Calls by
    Senators McCain and Obama for cracking down on "speculators" are full
    of classic and wrongheaded catchphrases, as is Sen. Obama's vocal
    skepticism about free trade. Gov. Palin is merely less skilled in
    passing off inanities and claptrap as profundities.

    My Alternative to the Bailout

    This is taken from and expanded from the end of this post.

    Everyone involved in the bailout plan says, at least publicly, that they are not trying to bail out a bunch of Wall Street folks who lived high off the risk premium of these investments but now want to avoid the costs when the actual risks become clear.  They claim to be bailing out Wall Street and various large banks because they fear that a financial meltdown and liquidity crisis will starve main street businesses of cash, and create a deep economic slowdown.

    OK, if this is the real policy goal -- to maintain the ability of main street businesses to borrow -- then here is my alternative proposal:

    1. Immediately increase the SBA loan gaurantee authority by $100 billion dollars.  That is enough for a million new small business loans of $100,000 each.
    2. Authorize treasury to spend up to X hundred billion to buy rated new issues of bonds and commercial paper of US non-financial companies.  Some limits should be applied - such as the feds cannot buy any more than 30% of a single issue and/or more than 10% of the entire outstanding debt of one company.

    That's the plan.  Here are the advantages:

  • The government is addressing the actual policy goal of keeping liquidity in main street business directly
  • The government is investing in success, in main street companies trying to grow, and not in failed banks and financial institutions
  • Moral hazard issues are avoided with financial institutions. 
  • The SBA loan guarantees cost nothing today.  In fact, they are cash positive in the short term due to loan guarantee payments by borrowers.  Of course, they risk future losses,  but such losses in the future are in part covered by the guarantee payments, and a future loss is cheaper than a loss today.
  • Investments in corporate bond issues are much easier to value, and are far less risky, than investments in illiquid mortgage securities.  The taxpayer is far less likely to take a beating on these purchases.
  • Banks may still fail, but the FDIC has an infrastructure and experience for handling this.  If necessary to calm people, the FDIC could make a public commitment to assisted mergers to maintain all depositors.
  • If there is some big financial meltdown, which I still doubt, there might be a need to inject some mortgage liquidity, but since the Feds now own Fannie and Freddie, the vehicle for doing so is easily available.
  • Update:  I was not clear -- this is actually an alternative to by alternative.  My first, preferred alternative plan is "do nothing."

    Final Thoughts on the Bailout (I Still Don't Like It)

    I sat this weekend and pondered the pending financial bailout.  A number of fairly smart people who know more about Wall Street than I seem to think it a necessary evil, and this includes several folks who are nearly as libertarian as I.  Is a sort of knee-jerk libertarianism preventing me from accepting a necessary step to avert economic Armageddon?

    I don't think so.  By the light of day on Monday morning, I still think it a bad idea.

    Here is some of my thinking (to some extent my last point is the one that is most important to me -- if we want liquidity, let's put it in the right place).

  • I am tired of businesses heading to the government bailout trough and arguing that the continued functioning not only of their industry, but of all the existing players in their industry, is critical to the health of the US economy and thus requires some sort of government subsidy/bailout/protection.  Coyote's first law of rent-seeking is that companies will always claim that failure of their business will have a disproportionately negative effect on the economy.  Coyote's first corollary to this law is that Congress usually accepts this argument at the exact point in time when it is no longer true.
  • This bailout is even more grotesque than a normal industrial bailout.  GM can be said to have honestly tried to make the right cars, and just failed.  I don't like bailing them out, because I don't particularly like diverting capital into the hands of organizations that are proven failures at using capital well.  But the financial investors that we are bailing out today knew they were taking a lot of risk by purchasing risky securities and then leveraging them up on their balance sheets.  They lived high for years off of the fat returns for taking this risk, arrogantly explaining that they made lots of money because they were smarter than everyone else and because they were being rewarded for taking on risk.  But then they come running to the government when the returns on their risky securities turned south, which just makes me sick.  They were paid for taking this risk, so take it.  I am sorry that you have no cushion because all those earlier returns are already spent on Maserati's for your mistresses, but that is what chapter 7 is for.
  • As many as r (this number is very, very hard to pin down, as it is hard to separate personal from business bankruptcy with small business).  Something like 299,998 of them do not get bailed out by the feds.  Why do the other 2 get special treatment vs. other US taxpayers?  Because they are better at lobbying Washington that they are essential?
  • Yes, the government created the Alt-A and sub-prime mortgage markets,and caused them to flourish via Fannie and Freddie aggressively asking for and buying these loans.  And the feds, via tax policy, and local governments, via zoning, helped pump up the housing bubble.  But nothing forced private companies, particularly highly leveraged institutions like banks, to load up their balance sheets with these things, or, crazily, to write insurance policies on their value.  Libertarians want to use these government interventions as an excuse for the bailout, but it doesn't wash. I do think many banks reasonably have lawsuit material against ratings agencies Moodys and S&P, which is fine.  I think new blood in that business would be a very good thing.
  • The total market capitalization of traded equities of public corporations on NYSE and NASDAQ is between $15 and $20 trillion.  That means that the first $150 billion of the bailout is equivalent to about a 1% price move on the exchanges, something that occurs almost every day.  Have we really close-coupled everything so tightly that a cumulative balance sheet hole on the order of magnitude of a 1% move on the stock market can bring down the whole financial system?  If so, we should just let the whole thing come down and rebuild itself in a more robust form.
  • Wall Streeters pat themselves on the back all the time for how creative they are financially.  So get creative here.  Create some sort of new entity and have banks contribute toxic mortgages into the entity in exchange for equity.  Find some pension funds to invest in the new entity at a deep discount.
  • These banks, who are experts in this stuff, claim they cannot value these failing, complex, illiquid mortgage packages.  OK, that may be true.  But how is the government possibly going to do any better?  Such a situation cannot possibly end well for the taxpayers. 
  • I saw folks writing in fear last week that the commercial paper market might dry up.  The commercial paper market dries up all the time.  It comes back eventually.  People treat lending markets like they are charities or something, and they fear that lenders will give up and never come back.  But they are not charities.  They serve just as much of a purpose for lenders and for borrowers.  Businesses and folks with capital need to make money on short term cash.  They are not going to stop lending forever.  Even capital markets dry up from time to time.  The IPO market has disappeared several times, including several years in the post-Internet-bubble period. The junk bond market comes and goes.
  • What is the government really worried about?  I presume that they are worried that liquidity will dry up and the ability of main street businesses to borrow will be impaired.  OK, then save the freaking $700 billion and if main street starts to have trouble borrowing, have the government participate somehow in that lending market.  Buy corporate bond issues, and/or increase the limit on SBA loan guarantees by a $100 billion  (this latter would allow a million new $100,000 SBA loans, and would actually generate money now in guarantee fees and only potentially cost money much later if the loans fail).  This way, we are investing liquidity in successful companies trying to grow rather than in failing banks that got us all into this.  Let's invest in success rather than in failure.
  • Why Phoenix Light Rail is Doomed in One Chart

    The Arizona Republic had another of its cheerleading articles on light rail this morning.  In it was a chart that, contrary to the intent of the article, summarized exactly why Phoenix light rail is doomed.  Below is a chart of the employment density (top chart) and population density (bottom chart) at each stop along the first rail route.  Note that this line goes through what passes for the central business district of Phoenix and the oldest parts of town, so it was chosen to run through the highest density areas - all future extensions will likely have lower numbers.  Unfortunately, they do not reproduce this chart online so here is a scan:


    Take the population density chart.  As a benchmark, lets take Boston.  The is 12,199 people per square mile.  Phoenix's light rail line cut through the highest density areas of town has only one stop where density reaches this level, and most stops are less than half this density.  And this is against Boston's average, not against the density along its rail routes which are likely much higher than the average.

    Rail makes zero sense in a city like Phoenix.  All this will do is create a financial black hole into which we shift all of our bus money, so the city will inevitably end up with a worse transportation system, not a better one.  Cities that build light rail almost always experience a reduction in total transit use (even the great God of planners Portland) for just this reason - budgets are limited, so since rail costs so much more per passenger, other transit is cut back.   But the pictures of the train will look pretty in the visitor's guide.

    Postscript: Phoenix's overall average density is around 2,500 per square mile.  Assuming that the 12,000 in the chart above is one of the densest areas of Phoenix, this gives a ratio of about 5:1 between peak and average density.  This same ratio in Boston would imply peak density areas of 60,000 per square mile.  This may be high, but indicates how much higher route densities on Boston rail should be.  Oh, and by the way, Boston rail is losing a ton of money.

    .  People think of LA as spread out, but LA has a density over three times higher than Phoenix!

    So We Can't Have Even One Candidate Who Truly Understands Free Speech

    I stand by my no-McCain vow I made years ago after his role in campaign speech limitation.  But :

    The Obama campaign disputes the accuracy of the advertisement, which is
    fine. It has also threatened regulatory retaliation against outlets
    that show it, which isn't fine. Instead of, say, crafting a response
    ad, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a
    letter []
    arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading
    advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee
    responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC
    licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should
    refuse to continue to air this advertisement."

    In particular, I would love to see Obama actually say what positions that are ascribed to him on gun control are false, and what his actual, specific positions are.  A vague, gauzy support for the second amendment does not necessarily mean he has walked away from his earlier positions.  In fact, I am sure that McCain would say he supported the First Amendment but I would certainly feel comfortable pointing out how he fails to do so in the details.

    How Much Authority Are We Proposing to Give the Treasury?

    Much has been made of the bailout legislation provision that the administration would be immune to any scrutiny of any sort for any decision made vis a vis the $700 billion in bailout funds and the resulting spending decisions.  But I thought of the over-broad power grab that is going on at Treasury:

    The SHR [senior House Republican] calls this an insurance program and the original Paulson plan a
    purchase program. He says Treasury Department people have told him that
    they considered an insurance program but decided that a purchase
    program would be better. But he also added that in the draft
    legislation Paulson has advanced, the Treasury would have the authority
    to set up such an insurance plan without congressional authorization.
    From what he said, it struck me that both courses could be followed.
    After all, neither purchases nor insurance is contemplated to take
    place unless and until a financial institution comes forward and
    requests one or the other.

    Jeez, how much latitude are they asking for?  Is the bill really so broad that the secretary of the treasury could set up an entirely new government insurance program for financial assets without further Congressional approval?

    While I think Cantor is being overly-optimistic about the near-term cash flow of his insurance proposal, it does seem to be at least an incremental improvement over Paulson's plan.

    Critique of the Bailout, From A Banker

    From John Allison, CEO of BB&T  (via ).  Here is a taste:


    Download bailout_critique.pdf


    Couldn't The Taxpayer Make Money From the Bailout?

    So, apparently the US government is going to authorize up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase distressed financial assets.  I had an email today that said, to paraphrase, couldn't the government make money off these assets if they buy them for the right price?

    My first thought was that this was theoretically possible, though my internal cynic found it unlikely in a pricing game run by elected officials between the taxpayer and powerful Wall Street interests that taxpayers would get the upper hand.

    But then I realized there was no possible way this will end well for taxpayers.  Because the government cannot exercise discretion in day to day financial decisions.  It establishes rules and benchmarks and the typical bureaucrat is punished far worse for violating these processes and rules than he/she ever is for reaching a bad result.  So the government will establish rules and benchmarks for what price at which they will buy assets (this will be all the more true given the great rush everyone seems to be in).  And having set this in place, do you know what assets will be put to them?  All the ones that the current holders think are worth less than the benchmark.  This is the on steroids.

    Update from :

    there's a gigantic asymmetrical information problem:  the owners of
    these securities know much more about them than the Fed.  And there
    isn't (obviously) a large liquid market for the Fed to check against.
    So the Fed is likely to overpay, because there won't be a lot of
    bidders in any one auction.

    Megan, of course, reluctantly supports the bailout where I do not.  But she has her eyes open about what she is buying into. 

    Can We Go Back to Ignoring Naomi Klein Now?

    In her wild and somewhat bizarre polemic aimed at Milton Friedman, Naomi Klein argues that major historic crises have always been manufactured by capitalists to slip free market principles into action against the wishes of the socialist-leaning masses. 

    Really?  In what crisis, ever, did the government end up smaller?  What about the current crisis and carries any good news for free marketeers?  History is a series of problems created by government intervention but blamed on the free market, which can supposedly only be solved via more government intervention.

    Update:  .  Seriously, it is amazing that this rings true with anyone:

    Klein's basic argument is that economic liberalization is so unpopular
    that it can only win through deception or coercion. In particular, it
    relies on crises. During a natural disaster, a war, or a military coup,
    people are disoriented, confused, and preoccupied with their own
    immediate survival, allowing regimes to liberal-ize trade, to
    privatize, and to reduce public spending with little opposition.
    According to Klein, "neoliberal" economists have welcomed Hurricane
    Katrina, the Southeast Asian tsunami, the Iraq war, and the South
    American military coups of the 1970s as opportunities to introduce
    radical free market policies. The chief villain in her story is Milton
    Friedman, the economist who did more than anyone in the 20th century to
    popularize free market ideas.

    As is typical, Klein confuses support for capitalism with government support of individual capitalists.

    Michael Lewis on the Bailout


    Think of Wall Street as a poker game and Goldman as the
    smartest player. It's sad when you think about it this way that
    so much of the dumb money on Wall Street has been forced out of
    the game. There's no one left to play with. Just as Goldman was
    about to rake in its winnings and head k彩平台登陆, the U.S. government
    stumbles in, fat and happy and looking for some action. I imagine
    the best and the brightest inside Goldman are right this moment
    trying to figure out how it uses the Treasury not only to sell
    their own crappy assets dear but also to buy other people's
    crappy assets cheap

    Update:  LOL, :

    In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy. 

    "It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

    Could these be the dumbest guys in the room?   

    I Think I am Voting for Obama

    I am tired of watching the free markets trashed by people who claim to champion capitalism and free enterprise.  Better, I am starting to think, to have free markets trashed by someone who does not pretend to support them.  Besides, the Republicans in Congress tend to be much stronger supporters of small government, low taxes, and light regulation when they are in opposition.  Except possibly for Jeff Flake, who always seems to have his head in the right place.


    it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where
    they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance,
    where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

                -- Abraham Lincoln

    Think Again

    Been smugly thinking that you were smart enough not to take out an interest only mortgage to finance a house at the peak of the market?  Or savvy enough not to invest your savings in a mortgage portfolio or some sort of interest rate swap?

    .  Because GWB and the US Congress have decided to force you to be an investor in crappy, devalued investments.  To the tune of at least $700 billion.

    Four years ago, privatization of Social Security was scuttled in large part because Congress thought it unfair to toss the average taxpayer into the volatile marketplace with his/her retirement savings.  Now, the government is forcing us all to participate in the financial markets, but only allowing us to invest in the worst assets.  Just great.

    Climate Presentation

    One of the reason my posting has been light of late is that I was working on a climate presentation for the California Regional Council of Rural Counties.  That's behind me now, but you can read a brief report on the meeting and download my presentation .

    Save Our Industry, The Economy Depends on It

    I have been on a Civil War reading binge lately, which began when I read "", which is a really interesting economic analysis of American slavery.  Since I have read a number of other Civil War and Ante-Bellum history books, including .

    I was struck in several of these books by the reaction of British textile manufacturers to the war and, more specifically, the informal southern embargo of cotton exports in 1860-61.  These textile producers screamed bloody murder to the British government, demanding that they recognize the Confederacy and intervene on their behalf, claiming that the lack of cotton would doom their industry and thereby doom the whole country.  On its face, this was a credible argument, as textiles probably made up more of the British GDP at the time than any three or four industries account for in the US today. 

    Fortunately, the British chose not to intervene, and risked the economic consequences of not supporting the textile industry by jumping into the American Civil War.  As it turned out, the British economy was fine, and in fact even the textile industry was fine as well, as demand was still high and other sources around the world stepped up (because of the higher prices that resulted from the Southern boycott) with increased cotton supplies.

    This Seems Kind of Obvious in Hindsight

    Saul Hansell at has an interesting article about why risk assessment programs in investment banks were not sounding the alarm coming into the recent turmoil.  The article contains this gem:

    Ms. Rahl said that it was now clear that the computers needed to
    assume extra risk in owning a newfangled security that had never been
    seen before.

    "New products, by definition, carry more risk," she said. The models
    should penalize investments that are complex, hard to understand and
    infrequently traded, she said. They didn't.

    I continue to see parallels between recent problems and the meltdown at Enron.  In fact, in many ways events in the natural gas trading market were a dry run for events in the mortgage market.   One filmmaker coined the phrase "Smartest Guys in the Room" to describe the hubris of the guys who ran Enron.  To some extent the phrase was absolutely true - I knew Jeff Skilling at McKinsey and he was indeed the smartest guy in the room.  But everyone can be wrong, and sometimes the smartest guys can be spectacularly wrong as they overestimate their ability to predict and control complex events.  I think this is a fair description of what went on in Wall Street over the past several years.

    Best Take Yet on the Bailout


    The foundation of the U.S. economy could crumble, President George
    Bush said today, if Congress fails to approve a U.S. Treasury plan to
    foundering financial firms, a proposal which the president called "a
    much-needed 21st-century civil rights act for stupid people."

    "To sustain this shining city on a hill," Mr. Bush said, "we need to
    the ignorant, irresponsible folks "” from Wall Street to Capitol Hill to
    Main Street "” who got us to where we are today. We must that no American suffers the soft bigotry of being to live with the consequences of his bad decisions."

    The president, in remarks to the news media clearly aimed at
    reluctant Republicans in Congress, said, "Our financial system rests on
    a foundation of huge banks, brokerage houses and quasi-governmental
    agencies that followed Washington's lead by gambling on long-shot,
    poorly-collateralized investments. Now this glorious way of life is
    threatened, and we must act to preserve it."

    "We need to guarantee that the structures, systems, people and
    products that got us to this point won't be tossed on the ash heap of
    history," said Mr. Bush. "If these giant companies fail, then America
    will be left with nothing but thousands of small to mid-sized financial
    firms that made prudent investment decisions during the past 15 years."

    I'm Sure This Is Not In Any Way Relevant To Recent Events


    In a move that could help increase k彩平台登陆 ownership rates among
    minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is
    easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from
    banks and other lenders.

    The action, which will begin as a
    pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New
    York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend k彩平台登陆
    mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to
    qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to
    make it a nationwide program by next spring.

    Fannie Mae, the
    nation's biggest underwriter of k彩平台登陆 mortgages, has been under
    increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage
    loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock
    holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

    addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been
    pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime
    borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings
    are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get
    loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates --
    anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional

    ''Fannie Mae has expanded k彩平台登陆 ownership for millions of
    families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said
    Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer.
    ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch
    below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to
    paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime

    Demographic information on these borrowers is
    sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans
    in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent
    of loans in the conventional loan market.

    In moving, even
    tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on
    significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during
    flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run
    into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue
    similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

    the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift
    industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow
    at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government
    will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed
    out the thrift industry.''

    Those heartless free marketing guys at the AEI -- always predicting doom every time we open our hearts to poor people.  Bailout?  What ridiculous scare-mongering.

  • Recent Posts

  • George Floyd, A Memo to Conservatives
  • George Floyd, A Memo to Progressives
  • Another Climate-COVID Computer Modelling Similarity
  • Parallels Between COVID-19 Alarm and Global Warming Alarm
  • For the Left, Excess Hospital Beds Were "Too Many Deoderants" ... Until This Month
  • Archives

  • May k彩平台登陆
  • April k彩平台登陆
  • March k彩平台登陆
  • February k彩平台登陆
  • January k彩平台登陆
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • Categories

  • 2013 Shutdown
  • Accountability
  • ACME and Loony Toons
  • Arizona
  • Art
  • Banking and Finance
  • Blogging, Computers & the Internet
  • Books
  • Camping and Outdoors
  • Capitalism & Libertarian Philospohy
  • Climate
  • COVID-19
  • Coyote's Law
  • Crime
  • Data Analysis
  • Drug war
  • Economics
  • Education
  • Energy
  • Environment
  • Equal Marriage Arizona
  • Financial Markets
  • Gaming
  • Gender
  • Gender & Race
  • General Business
  • Good News
  • Government
  • Health Care
  • History
  • Hobbies
  • k彩平台登陆 Theater
  • Humor
  • Immigration
  • Incentives
  • Individual Rights
  • International Affairs
  • International Trade
  • Investing
  • Labor Law
  • Liability / Lawsuits / Insurance
  • Media and the Press
  • Military and War
  • model railroading
  • Movies & Entertainment
  • Music
  • Numbers and Statistics
  • Organizations and Incentives
  • Other
  • photography
  • Police and Prosecutorial Abuse
  • Politics
  • Privacy
  • Private Recreation Management
  • Property Rights
  • Public v. Private
  • Race
  • Rail and Mass Transit
  • Regulation
  • Scams
  • Science
  • Second Ammendment
  • Small Business
  • Sports
  • Taxes
  • Technology
  • The Corporate State
  • Trade Policy
  • Trans-partisan Plans
  • Travel
  • Trend That Is Not A Trend
  • Trends from Single Data Points
  • Tripartisan Plans
  • Uncategorized
  • War on Drugs
  • Search

    WWW Coyote Blog
  • Statistics

  • Site Admin