Rebane's Ruminations
February 2009
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

President Obama’s speech last night – awesome delivery, the man sure can talk us up proud.  And with Nancy and ol’ Joe sitting behind him, I had a feeling similar to what the liberals must have felt when W was at the podium with VP Cheney and Speaker Hastert bringing up the rear.  I guess we all take our turn in the barrel.  The message I heard was ‘Don’t worry, be happy, and my fellow Americans, if you’re going to be stupid wholesale, then your government will (make the prudent ones) bail you out.’

LockedGate The 21feb09 Economist (‘World’s oldest newspaper’) is headlining the global “collapse of manufacturing” and documenting that we have not seen such contraction since the 1970s.  Meanwhile our benighted electorate agrees with the populist demagoguery asking why should Wall Street (aka financial institutions) be bailed out and not also Main Street.  The Economist explains the fundamental importance of freely flowing finances to a healthy economy while warning that “sectoral aid (e.g. manufacturing) is wasteful”.  Bottom line, not all of us should be stretching out our hands if the overall economy is to heal itself sooner than later.

Glassman and Nolan have a good idea (25feb09 WSJ ‘Bankers Need More Skin in the Game’) about restructuring the banking system – smaller banks that are partnerships instead of big corporations.  Partners aren’t protected by the ‘corporate veil’ and therefore will be more careful with the bets they make, even if it’s with your money.  Worth pondering before we write two more tons of regulations and hire added government legions in an attempt to enforce them.  Years ago Garrett Hardin gave an example of how good and minimal governance would work in the enforcement of environmental standards for the Mississippi River.  All riveside cities take in their drinking water upstream and dump their supposedly cleaned up waste water downstream.  Most of them didn’t do a good job cleaning up, and the monitoring and testing of each city’s discharge was expensive and faulty.  St. Louis dumped dirty water back into the river which the folks in Vicksburg had a doubly hard time cleaning up before they could drink it.  Hardin proposed that the government simply pass a law that said all such cities intake their drinking water downstream of their location, and discharge their cleaned water upstream of their location.  Hmmm.

The amnesty bill (S1639) of 2007 was an atrocity that did harm to the cardio-vascular systems of many Americans who heard about it.  If yours can still take the strain, then watch this CNN Lou Dobbs video.  Does anyone know whether there is a stealthy resurrection of this piece of …, this piece of …, well OK, this piece of legislation being contemplated in Congress?

[update] A correspondent sent a revealing 30sep99 NY Times report that contributes to the debate on the origins of the current financial mess with the note – “In case you ever wondered who to believe on this topic, and how it all started, here it is in black and white.”  Download NYTimes1999

 

Posted in

10 responses to “Ruminations – 25feb2009 (updated)”

  1. She Rocks Avatar
    She Rocks

    Like

  2. Wade Avatar
    Wade

    “Meanwhile our benighted electorate agrees with the populist demagoguery asking why should Wall Street (aka financial institutions) be bailed out and not also Main Street.”
    Mmmm, no. Rather, we’re asking why are we simply giving away huge sums to Wall Street without getting “freely flowing finances” which we understand quite well as being fundamentally important to a healthy economy. Until the books are balanced, the insolvency acknowledged and corrected, the Wall Street bailout is simply looting the Treasury in broad daylight. We, the “benighted electorate” can see this. Capital will find it’s way to the right places only if the rather considerable structural impediment of an insolvent, yet animated by free money, financial industry goes away. The status quo is truly the worst of both capitalism and socialism combined with the benefits and corrective mechanisms of neither.
    The insolvent banks have to go into receivership, market value must be given for the hundreds of billions the taxpayer has invested. By any sane measure, that likely means that the federal government now owns outright most, if not all, of the banks involved in the TARP program. Breaking them up is probably one of several decent moves that needs to be made. Nationalize, write down the losses, break up, recapitalize, and eventually sell. Press charges where appropriate. Someone in the “Toxic Assets Relief Program” needs to start addressing the “Toxic Assets” and not just the “Relief.”
    Right now, we’re just subsidizing not only derelict management and board members, but shareholders and bond holders who need to eat their bad investments and move on. Yes, that likely includes my own pension fund but to continue shoveling money over the cliff helps very few in the long run.

    Like

  3. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    Who said this???
    “Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.” Government is the problem, not the solution.
    http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/

    Like

  4. Wade Avatar
    Wade

    eh, I’m not sure I get it. Sound currency and reasonable curbs on leveraged speculation sound sensible to me… in which case government would actually not be the problem. Are you making a case for the opposite?

    Like

  5. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    Agreed, “sound currency and reasonable curbs on leverage and speculation” are sensible… my point is that FDR (and governments before him) knew the same and have regulated, manipulated and pontificated solutions… yet, here we are again.
    I wholeheartedly agree that intentions and goals may be sensible, but, government’s ability to reach such ends is fallible (foolish, irresponsible, unreliable, erring, etc).
    Our (government’s) design (3rd time was the charm) of a Federal Reserve to reach the same ends described by FDR helped generate The Great Depression, fiat currency, derivatives, financial markets moral hazard, etc etc.

    Like

  6. Wade Avatar
    Wade

    I’m not sure what the solution (in broad terms) is then? It is all well and good to assert that the government is fallible, it is, but we are witnessing the fruits of the “free” market “regulating” itself. The global shadow financial industry has proven itself to be “…foolish, irresponsible, unreliable, erring, etc…” Said fruits are bitter and rotten.
    Our currency has, since Nixon “pulled out” of Bretton Woods, been backed by petroleum, rather than gold, as petrodollars are used to buy American asset-backed paper. That it is the world’s reserve currency of first and last resort has thus far enabled us to leverage ourselves far beyond what is wise or, for other nations, even possible. The petro-dollar, however, has run its course and there will be a great deal of upheaval as it’s replacement and a new, global monetary scheme takes shape… It is likely that we will, at least, lose the equity premium if not full reserve status to the Euro. In any case, a return to specie, is probably not desirable and certainly not very likely. It remains to be seen what though the new global monetary system will look like…
    Interestingly, I don’t think we get a sound currency without the leveraged speculation curbs these days.

    Like

  7. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    What is the goal? Economic stability? GDP growth? Liberty?
    I agree that the global financial industry has proven (and will again) itself to be Foolish etc.
    But, no one pointed a gun to investors heads and said, “you must invest here or there.” In fact, many old timers who remember (lived through) the Great Depression refused to take on debt, refused to invest in the likes of Lehman Brothers.. they hold gold/silver, guns/ammo, water/food and most importantly they live within their means. There is liberty in their decision. I respect their decision to not participate.
    However, once the government enters the equation with “solutions” it takes liberties and steals from its people (via unfair progressive tax system, lame laws, or inflation via printing money).
    Yes, I declare, let the market and its participants bear the risk of their endeavors, not the entire society. Liberty first, then worry about GDP etc.
    The point I was making with FDR’s speech is that we know that liberty (free markets) come at a price… yet governments won’t accept this truth. So, they engineer “solutions” in vacuums that are doomed to fail. And the beat goes on. The next verse of government “solutions” will end the same as the first.

    Like

  8. Wade Avatar
    Wade

    The goal? There are many. Reasonable GDP growth, full employment, etc. Liberty, if narrowly defined as no or minimal taxes, may be a means to achieve economic goals, true.
    I disagree that all government economic solutions are inherently worthless, flawed, yes, and some more so than others, but outright worthless, no. I do not believe, as many here do, that “Atlas Shrugged” is the purest, immutable, final truth in economic thought, nor do I believe, as Rand, that the New Deal was a terrible disaster. Quite the contrary.
    So progressive taxation is “unfair?” I suppose I knew you believe this but, just so we’re clear: it’s your belief that everyone should pay (if at all, of course) the exact same sum, say $20,000, in taxes? And that that is the only fair way to do it? If so I find this interesting — it’s even more radical than the “flat tax.”
    I’d ask you your own question? What are the goals? Besides not paying taxes that is? Is no taxes a means towards a better economy or just to right the inherent wrong of taxes themselves and the imposition on personal economic liberty they represent?
    I don’t have a problem with people practicing economic survivalism. That is different, though, from capitalism, of which I am a fan. Do you have any ideas about what inflation (via printing money) looks like in the context of the ongoing deflationary wave? That is something I am wondering about more often these days…
    I understand your declaration and have some sympathy for it, but is it not true that we’re all “market participants” these days? That its failure hurts everyone? Surely that is the other gun pointed to our heads…

    Like

  9. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    I believe that the New Deal was a disaster that we will never recover from. The travesties of 1916 (federal reserve and income taxes) were exacerbated by the New Deal (the genesis of big government-the belief that big government IS the solution). Obama is well on his way to “super-sizing” the new deal (At this very minute, an American child is born into $184,000 of debt- conservative estimate).
    “I disagree that all government economic solutions are inherently worthless, flawed, yes, and some more so than others, but outright worthless, no.”- Ok we have a decent Armed Forces. But, education, SS, Medicare, Welfare, federal reserve…. have all failed in my opinion.
    Yes the progressive tax system is “unfair” by definition (by design). If there must be an income tax (I don’t think there needs to be one) then I would side with a flat tax. The government steals the same Percentage (%) from everyone.
    “What are the goals?” It always comes down to Liberty with me. Taxes, at least at the rate I am paying them is an injustice and an attack on my liberty- even more so that I pay more (% and dollar amount) than 95% of my fellow voters.
    It would seem that you and I have a different definition of capitalism. The “economic survivalists” as you call them are capitalist, they just don’t spend what they don’t have. I believe that booms and busts would be less volatile and less frequent if governments and voters together did not spend more than they have. It is still capitalism, just not capitalism on steroids. (I also believe that “corporations” design and structure needs an overhaul- discussion for another day).
    “…that we’re all “market participants” these days? That its failure hurts everyone?”- great question. It only hurts those who cannot produce (have no value to give society, those leveraged, or those on the government teet via pensions and wages). One could argue very well that deflation helps the lower and middle classes while penalizing the upper class. You’ve heard “it takes money to make money?” Well, what about “it takes money to lose money?”

    Like

  10. Wade Avatar
    Wade

    Oh, I was referring to economic solutions per se, not things like “education.” And that “decent” Armed Forces costs more than the rest of it combined.
    I wonder why you assume a strictly linear relationship between amount of money made and public services / public benefit consumed or acquired? Because that’s the notion upon which the flat tax being “fair” rests.
    The economic survivalists you describe don’t sound like capitalists to me unless you just mean “not communist” or something by that. Capitalism requires the formation of capital, and if you’re not investing, just hoarding precious metals and lead, it’s hard to see any capital formation or participation in such going on. There are, in addition to wealthy individuals, other ways to form capital, such as pension funds, which you strangely think of as the government “teet.” They are funds built up by employee / employer contributions that invest in stocks and bonds. They are not a handout and they supply a good deal of capital. And wages? Please explain.
    I’d also like to hear more about your deflation theory. How does it help working & middle class? Falling prices? Of what?
    If you want to abolish the income tax, how would you fund the military?

    Like

Leave a comment