...he looked over the edge...into infinity...and there in front of him was what he'd been searching for...a peanut butter sandwich...with jelly...he knew the search would continue until he found...milk.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Puppet Masters of the World Unite!
Friday, December 12, 2008
Xmas Lost and Found
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Good Advice From Robert Reich
I agree that we let the financials file chapter 11 and help the Big Three.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
bailout blues
The Following is from Daggatt Blog.
bailout blues
The Washington Post reported that those “fiscal conservatives” in the Bush administration managed to slip by a stealth $140 billion tax break for the financial industry in the fog on the financial bailout:
By way of comparison, during the campaign Obama proposed spending $150 billion over ten years to help wean our economy from fossil fuels. That sounds like a lot of money, but it is the equivalent of a mere “five sentence notice” providing the financial industry with yet another tax massive break. “How are we going to PAY for all of Obama’s proposals?” reasonable people ask. Another financial industry tax break … not so much.The financial world was fixated on Capitol Hilll as Congress battled over the Bush administration's request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry. In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention.
But corporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications of the document: Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion.
Another way of thinking of Obama’s decade-long transformation of America’s energy economy: The cost of bailing out ONE insurance company that is not even subject to federal regulation. It was reported yesterday that the cost of bailing out one company – ONE COMPANY – AIG has now reached $150 billion. Because of its counterparty exposure on derivatives that the federal government was prohibited from regulating:
Some might say, if a company is too big to fail … it is too big. But that would be interfering with the “free market.”The federal government announced on Monday an overhaul of its bailout of the insurance giant American International Group, saying it would purchase $40 billion of the company’s stock, after signs that the initial bailout was putting too much strain on the company. …
When the reorganized deal is complete, taxpayers will have invested and lent a total of $150 billion to A.I.G., the most the government has ever directed to a single private enterprise.
Oh, and did I mention that HALF of the bailout funds going to the nine biggest banks – funds that were supposed to free up the credit markets and get banks lending again – will be paid out to shareholders as dividends over the next two years:
Treasury Secretary Paulson’s primary concern throughout this crisis, apparently, is to avoid making the federal bailout too painful for bank shareholders. If the big, bad Democrats in Congress hadn’t insisted on equity in exchange for bailout funds, Paulson would have just given the banks a disguised equity infusion by overpaying for bad assets. For example, we wouldn’t want to “penalize” bank executives for the rewards they have “earned” for their brilliant risk-management strategies:U.S. banks getting more than $163 billion from the Treasury Department for new lending are on pace to pay more than half of that sum to their shareholders, with government permission, over the next three years.
The government said it was giving banks more money so they could make more loans. Dollars paid to shareholders don't serve that purpose, but Treasury officials say that suspending quarterly dividend payments would have deterred banks from participating in the voluntary program.
Critics, including economists and members of Congress, question why banks should get government money if they already have enough money to pay dividends -- or conversely, why banks that need government money are still spending so much on
dividends.
And you don’t even want to KNOW where the $2 TRILLION in Fed bailout funds are going. (If you are having trouble comprehending these sums, just think of it as roughly one Iraq War.) Even if you DID want to know, they aren’t telling (presumably because it might cause you to “lose confidence” in the recipients – so you can just lose confidence in the entire system instead). From Bloomberg:Financial giants getting injections of federal cash owed their executives more than $40 billion for past years' pay and pensions as of the end of 2007, a Wall Street Journal analysis shows.
The government is seeking to rein in executive pay at banks getting federal money, and a leading congressman and a state official have demanded that some of them make clear how much they intend to pay in bonuses this year.
But overlooked in these efforts is the total size of debts that financial firms receiving taxpayer assistance previously incurred to their executives, which at some firms exceed what they owe in pensions to their entire work forces.
I feel like I’m coming off as some kind of raging populist. But, seriously, when President Obama takes office and starts talking about things like extending unemployment benefits and children’s health insurance and other economic stimulus measures, we’re going to have to endure a lot of hand-wringing over the cost of those initiatives. Because the recipients don’t have the ability to bring down the global financial system. But let’s put the cost in perspective.The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.
No wonder Obama was elected. Chris Rock summed it up:
"[Bush has] made it hard for a white man to run for president. People are saying, 'After Bush, I'm not sure we can take another chance on a white guy."
Monday, November 03, 2008
Election Angst...
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Why Ask Why?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Links to Reality
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2008/09/scary-stuff-political-lamp-is-lit.html
Below a link to Russ Daggats Blog (daggat blog) for Sept 23, 2008 in it he includes a letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders from Warren Buffet from 2002. It describes the "derivatives and the trading activities that go with them: We view them as time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system."
http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/09/financial-weapons-of-mass-destruction.html prescient
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Issues over the Horizon
(the following lifted from the Rand website linked above)
Some interesting perspectives on the future, worth a read.
Eleven Emerging Challenges
To celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the RAND Corporation and to uphold its tradition of taking on the big issues of tomorrow, a call went out to all RAND staff around the world, inviting them to propose essays on “important policy issues not currently receiving the attention they deserve in the public debate” — issues, in other words, that might be on the back burner today but will likely become front-burner issues within the next five years.
More than 100 issues were raised. The final product: the 11 essays published here. These were selected either because they highlight major public policy problems that have eluded the mainstream media radar or because they point toward major public policy solutions that have been likewise overlooked — or both.
Despite the wide range of topics, from corporate malfeasance to antimicrobial resistance, common themes emerge. The biggest one is the shaky financial footing that threatens to undermine several pillars of the public interest: Medicare, Social Security, roads, bridges, water systems, power grids, elections, military operations, diplomatic endeavors, and public health. At the same time, there are national and global reasons for hope. There is even a concluding vision of a new and better form of statecraft.
Readers might be tempted to connect the issues outlined here with those being debated on the U.S. presidential campaign trail, but that is not the intent. Our goal is to raise public awareness of several salient issues that will likely grow in prominence regardless of the election outcome.
—John Godges
Monday, August 18, 2008
China outsourcing no longer cheap
Friday, June 27, 2008
Questionable Answers....
I may be simplifying this a little but...it is something to think about...does this fuel increase make the resurgence of manufacturing in the US doable in the future?
One more thing on the China juggernaut. The ignored fact that they are degrading their environment on an unprecedented scale. This neglect will have to be faced in the near future. I do not believe that there is a river in China now that does not dry up at some time in the year. The waters are very polluted.
China's manufacturing has been growing a conservative 10% a year. This growth has fueled a middle class growth with expectations of a clean, healthy environment (clean air, clean water, proper disposal of toxic wastes) for their families to be raised in. It is this middle class that will force the Government to face the cleanup issues in the near future. This cleanup will be expensive and may slow down the growth curve we are seeing now.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Windy Detritus
Monday, February 04, 2008
Super Bowl Sunday...
I know for a fact that I am not a God. So this is a assinine viewpoint.
I got to McGuires after 4 so the game was well under way. I think of the dozen or so people there, 9 favored NYG to win and only 3 for NE. There is an underdog underground in America. We love winners. We worship perfection. Yet the majority in that bar were pulling for the underdog. Perhaps it is not so much an underdog thing as an anti-hubris factor. When winning becomes the norm (and seemingly easy) for a team/person/country...am thinking we all have that kernel of doubt that winning always is a good thing...that they should be brought down a notch, that losing would actually be a good thing for them...the building character thing. I do not know.
This was a game that will for some time be the yardstick to measure future Super Bowls against.
So...I did watch the game. Yes, the team I wanted to win, lost. These facts are indesputable.
What now?
I AM THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE OZ!!!