FedUpUSA

Archive for December 23rd, 2009

Of course, we do not intend that Zero Hedge should become a center of excellence for the review of obscure Senate rules, but, as a consequence of the full-court-press-rush to pass the health care bill, this was too interesting not to reprint:

Under Senate Rule XXII, “a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules… the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting” to end debate. Yet there were only 60 votes for cloture on the Reid bill. So unless there is some basis for giving special treatment to rules changes that are buried into other legislation, it would seem that either a) cloture was not achieved, or b) the entrenchment provisions do not actually alter the Senate rules.

Woops.

I’m told that a fine point of distinction means that Reid’s entrenchment clauses were blessed by a Senate parliamentarian with respect to the 60 needed.  I suppose one needs to be far more versed in the minutia of Senate procedure than an honest citizen could claim to be.

UPDATE:

Here was DeMint on the topic yesterday:

The entire thing is worth watching, but here is our favorite part:

DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.

Either way the process continues:

Senate Democrats cleared the last 60-vote hurdle on U.S. President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul on Wednesday, virtually ensuring final passage of its version of the biggest health policy changes in four decades.

By Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns

Yesterday, I indicated I would write a few thematic posts as a look back at some of the more important economic topics that this credit crisis has uncovered. Tying posts together in a theme definitely gives a better holistic view of a the themes than the posts do in isolation. But I also enjoy writing this because the review process gives me a better perspective of where we have come from and helps judge where we are headed.

Yesterday, I wrote about economic stimulus. My conclusion was that while stimulus may have helped avert crisis, the process made clear that crony capitalism is alive and well. So, the second topic I wanted to address today was crony capitalism. However, in writing this post, the lead in describing kleptocracy became so long that I decided to cut this into two bits; this first one is on kleptocracy and a later one will be on crony capitalism.

The first post I wrote related to kleptocracy was in March of 2008 called “A populist interpretation of the latest Boom-Bust cycle.” At the time, I wasn’t really blogging very seriously. I had just started two weeks earlier and wanted to flesh out some ideas that I had long considered germane to the understanding of the credit crisis. But, in retrospect, the thesis I developed in this post has become central to my thinking about how the American and global economy have evolved in the fiat currency era.

Kleptocracy defined as the status quo

The thesis was this:

[Jared] Diamond postulates that more stratified societies are by definition less egalitarian, but more efficient and are, thus, able to eradicate or conquer more egalitarian, less stratified societies. Thus, all ‘advanced’ societies with high levels of GDP are complex and hierarchical.

The problem is: these more stratified, more complex societies are in essence Kleptocracies, where those in power re-distribute societal wealth to themselves. Those at the bottom of the society’s pyramid accept this unequal, non-egalitarian state of affairs because they too benefit from their society’s relative advancement. It’s a case of a rising tide lifting all boats.

In short, the playing field in all modern day nation states is by definition unequal. The question is whether this should be tolerated, mitigated or eliminated. An unwritten assumption I made when I wrote the post is that humans are genetically programmed for fairness. My understanding is that scientific studies have convincingly demonstrated that human beings will actually consciously disadvantage themselves to seek revenge as a means of restoring justice and fairness.

This would suggest that a major flaw in neoclassical economic models, especially as regards a self-equilibrating economy, is the focus on rational expectations and efficiency at the expense or fairness and/or irrationality. A neoclassical economist might tell you that a rising tide lifts all boats and it is rational self-protection for economic agents (aka real human beings) to accept inequality for this very reason. But, in the real world, fairness and justice are important as well. And when an economic system is deemed unfair, people will go so far as to hurt themselves economically in order to level the playing field.

Stability of status quo leads to overreach and instability

So, my thinking is this: because of the natural state of inequality endogenous to any stratified society, over time the natural tendency of any ruling elite is to deploy the state’s coercive power for greater and greater self-benefit. I liken this to Hyman Minsky’s instability of economic stability theorem. The stability of power leads to overreach and overthrow. This is a view largely consistent with Paul Kennedy’s themes of imperial overstretch in his book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

In the post I expressed these sentiments saying:

Diamond says the Kleptocrats maintain power using 4 different methods:

“1. Disarm the populace, and arm the elite.”

“2. Make the masses happy by redistributing much of the tribute received, in popular ways.”

“3. Use the monopoly of force to promote happiness, by maintaining public order and curbing violence. This is potentially a big and underappreciated advantage of centralized societies over noncentralized ones.”

“4. The remaining way for kleptocrats to gain public support is to construct an ideology or religion justifying kleptocracy.”

Kleptocracy in America?

The obvious corollary of this theory is that most successful modern societies are, in fact, kleptocracies. The key is to use the four methods to gain popular support in order to re-distribute as much wealth to the ruling class as the populace will support. If the ruling class takes too much, it will be overthrown and replaced by a new ruling class (which in turn will re-distribute wealth to itself using the same four methods).

How the status quo maintains the status quo

Let me take these points one by one. I will preface this by saying that, as the stability of the economic status quo disintegrates into instability via economic depression, you should expect the ruling elite to step up uses of these methods of retaining power.  So when I wrote in my Depression piece about “more muscular forms of government,” this is part of what I was referring to.

As Libertarians see it, the right to bear arms is an essential in stopping the elite from maintaining power unjustifiably. Obviously, which arms, when they can be borne and how is a constitutional issue that goes to the heart of American democracy.

The second issue is about “bread and circuses” or what I call the anesthetizing of the populace as ironically demonstrated in this Star Trek “Bread and Circuses” from TV, our own modern-day agent of mental anesthesia.

The third issue is about totalitarianism.  Civil libertarians like myself see the permanent war state as promulgated by the Bush administration post 9/11 — and now maintained by the Obama Administration — as a clear sign that the state’s use of the monopoly of force to promote order is rising and will continue to do so. Eisenhower’s military industrial state warnings were warranted. You can see some of the articles on that very topic here in my bookmarks. And you should note Obama’s poor record on civil liberties.

The last (and perhaps most important) issue, in my view, has to do with the unabiding faith in free markets that many now have. It is with religious zeal that these so-called Libertarians defend the primacy of markets over all else when in reality common sense would tell you that those with the greatest influence and money will always be at an advantage without some check on that influence and power.

How ideology is central to retaining the status quo ante

I think this last point is important. Think of how Diamond phrased this:

The remaining way for kleptocrats to gain public support is to construct an ideology or religion justifying kleptocracy.

The important thing to realize here is that ideology is a tool used to control the masses while those in power re-distribute to themselves. Diamond was probably talking here about ancient societies: the Mayans, Incas, the Greeks, the Romans, Easter Island. But, it does apply quite well to the modern-day. After all, in the U.S. average hourly earnings peaked more than 35 years ago. And we can see that most of the economic gains of the last two decades has been an illusion masked by gobs of debt.

But freshwater economists have this view that the economy is always self-equilibrating and this means government must be held at bay any- and everywhere lest it reduce the efficiency of the free market. This is an extreme ideological position which gained sway in the aftermath of the disaster of the 1970s. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan was an adherent of this ideology despite holding a central planning position as Federal Reserve Chairman which was antithetical to the views he espoused.

Markets are wonderful. A largely market-based economy is certainly more ‘efficient’ than a non-market based one (ask the Soviets). But, markets are not self-regulating. They fail – and catastrophically so. But no manner of real world experience seems to shake ideologues’ free-market zeal. To give you an example of the mindset, Alan Greenspan is reported to have thought that markets could even self-regulate fraud – no regulatory oversight necessary. 

See the video in Frontline – The Warning: Who Knew About the Looming Financial Crisis for this particular revelation and Ms. Watkins, why does Charlie have lit dynamite? for why this is absurd. Even when you think Greenspan has learned something, he proves time and again that he just doesn’t get it. And don’t think he is alone in officialdom. Former Fed official Frederic Mishkin has shown he doesn’t get it either.

Not only is the freshwater view of rational economic agents and efficiency completely ignorant of the role of fairness, it also disregards the very real tendency for power to consolidate over time and to lead to crony capitalism. This is what I refer to as “deregulation as crony capitalism.” I see it as central to the causes of the crisis.

I will pick up on this theme in a later post. Next up on my year in review is a post on crony capitalism in action and how the credit crisis solutions reveal that the ruling elite want to return to the status quo ante. Overreach has been the order of the day and will ultimately invite an opposing response.

One sure way we know a second wave to the crisis is likely coming is the preemptive denial of it by those who never saw it coming. Please consider Geithner: There Will Be No ‘Second Wave’ Crisis.

“We are not going to have a second wave of financial crisis,” Geithner said in an interview with National Public Radio. “We cannot afford to let the country live again with a risk that we are going to have another series of events like we had last year. That is not something that is acceptable.”

Geithner, interviewed on NPR’s “All Things Considered” program, rejected the idea that a serious new crisis could be triggered by lingering problems with commercial real estate loans or with a sudden weakening in the value of the dollar.

“We will do what is necessary to prevent that and that is completely within our capacity to prevent,” he said.

However, in a separate interview he conceded that it would take several months before the economy yields positive job growth. Job losses have been easing in recent weeks but the economy still saw 480,000 new claims for unemployment benefits last week. That number is expected to shrink just a bit this week.

Geithner on NPR

Inquiring minds might be interested in the complete NPR interview. Please consider Geithner Voices Confidence About Economic Rebound.

Here is the Transcript of the interview with Michelle Norris. Some snips follow …

NORRIS: You know that businesses are spending again. The administration has been asking the banks to try to free up more money for small business in particular. And I want you to help me understand something because on one hand the administration is telling the bankers that they need to take fewer risks, that they need to deleverage, that they need to have higher capital reserve. And at the same time you’re also telling them that they need to lend more money. Those two things don’t seem to square.

Sec. GEITHNER: It is very important that we work with Congress to pass legislation that can put in place financial reforms that can prevent the next crisis. So it’s pretty important in the future we build a more stable financial system. We constrain risk taking in the future. But right now the real risk we face is that banks are not lending enough and not going to provide the capital businesses need to grow for the economy to strengthen going forward.

NORRIS: So it’s okay for them to take risks right now?

Sec. GEITHNER: Absolutely. Right now the real risk is that the pendulum having been too soft and easy on the lending side. Right now the risk is that banks overcorrect or that supervisors overcorrect. And that’s something we need to work against, lean against, because, again, the strength in recovery will depend in part on credit being available to businesses across the county.

NORRIS: You know, pardon me for presenting you with all these doomsday scenarios, but as you know, many people are worried about a second wave of systemic crisis, that either because of commercial real estate or the value of the dollar…

Sec. GEITHNER We’re not going to have, Michele, a second wave of financial crisis.

NORRIS: You’re that confident? You’re certain of it.

Sec. GEITHNER: We’ll do what is necessary to prevent that. We cannot afford to let the country live again with a risk that we’re going to have another series of events like we had last year. That’s not something that is acceptable. And we will prevent that. We will do what is necessary to prevent that, and that is completely within our capacity to prevent.

NORRIS: You’re saying you’re confident that it won’t happen. What levers can you press or pull to make sure that does not happen again?

Sec. GEITHNER: As people saw, when you have the will to act, we have substantial ability to prevent that, and we’ll do what’s necessary.

The arrogance and ignorance of Geithner are both appalling.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Mike “Mish” Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management. Sitka Pacific is an asset management firm whose goal is strong performance and low volatility, regardless of market direction.
Visit http://www.sitkapacific.com/account_management.html  to learn more about wealth management and capital preservation strategies of Sitka Pacific.

I managed to catch up with my old friend, Santa Claus, the other day, before he took off on his global gift giving rounds. I have had a rocky relationship with old Saint Nick over the years, usually finding coal or potatoes in my stocking, as one who lives a feckless life might expect. But one year I found a Mercedes S600 V-12 under the tree! I ended up regifting it because I didn’t like the cup holders, but hey, it was a nice thought! Things are not good at the North Pole. The cost of the software upgrade needed to switch from children’s handwritten letters to email has been a killer. And what the hell is Twitter? The First National Bank of the North Pole won’t let him roll over his debt because snow appraisals aren’t coming in like they used to. Labor costs are rocketing. Elves used to work for a few pieces of candy cane a day, but no more. Now they want black snowmobiles with chrome wheels, big screen TV’s, and Blue Ray HD players. There are rumors of a strike over health care costs, which are bleeding him snow white. The Amalgamated Confederation of Elves must be the only union that gets Viagra with their benefits, besides the United Auto Workers. And now they want free mistletoe, to boot! He’s going to have to skip the unfortunate children of Afghanistan and Iraq once again because Obama’s budget cuts won’t allow the US Air Force to provide needed fighter cover. The price of reindeer food is going through the roof, thanks to Chinese hoarding, and Donner and Blitzen are down with the swine flu. Rising costs, lower revenues, and an unruly workforce are not a good business model. Since the government forced that TARP money down his throat, the green eye shades from the Treasury have been camping out in accounting. To top it all, compliance is telling him he’s being investigated for backdated stock options in Santa Claus Inc. All this while the debate rages on over whether he even exists. Tell that to the SEC! Coming on top of all the shareholder carping about his ten figure compensation package, and unlimited use of the corporate sleigh, he needs this like a hole in his head! To be honest, he would have retired by now if he had not invested so much of his savings with Bernie Madoff. Sure, being Santa Claus is a bitch, but somebody’s got to do it.

By Thomas Adams, at Paykin Krieg and Adams, LLP, and a former managing director at Ambac and FGIC.

Readers may have noticed Janet Tavakoli’s recent article at Huffington Post on Goldman Sachs and AIG. While much of it covers territory that Yves and I already wrote about previously, Ms. Tavakoli stops short of telling the whole story. While she is very knowledgeable of this market, perhaps she is unaware of the full extent of the wrongdoings Goldman committed by getting themselves paid on the AIG bailout. The Federal Reserve and the Treasury aided and abetted Goldman Sachs in committing financial and ethical crimes at an astounding level.

She notes, accurately, that Goldman used AIG to hedge its bet on CDO’s, either for itself with the Abacus deals, or for its clients, with the Davis Square deal. Had AIG failed, Goldman would have been on the hook for the losses: to execute the CDO with synthetic mortgage bonds, Goldman went “long” the CDS and then turned around and went “short” with AIG, effectively taking the risk of the mortgage bonds defaulting and then transferring it to AIG.

But Ms. Tavakoli fails to note that the collapse of the CDO bonds and the collapse of AIG were a deliberate strategy by Goldman. To realize on their bet against the housing market, Goldman needed the CDO bonds to collapse in value, which would cause AIG to be downgraded and lead to AIG posting collateral and Goldman getting paid for their bet. I am confident that Goldman Sachs did not reveal to AIG that they were betting on the housing market collapse.

To help hasten the housing market collapse, Goldman ran a huge mortgage lending and issuance program with low quality loans virtually designed to fail, including dozens of deals backed by completely toxic non-prime second lien loans (these loans help pump up the housing bubble and let borrower’s suck the equity out of their homes). In soliciting AIG’s insurance for the CDOs, Goldman was not disclosing that the transaction was highly speculative. Goldman was offering AAA, or even super AAA bonds. Goldman designed and sold these bonds and purchased a rating from the rating agencies that represented the risk to be AAA. In fact, the bonds did not provide real protection, despite their AAA rating, and when the housing market turned down, the AAA CDO bonds collapsed in value exactly as they were designed to do.

Goldman never wanted these CDOs to succeed – their bet depended on them failing. This is why they used AIG as their insurer – AIG posted collateral, which enabled Goldman to still get paid even when AIG inevitably got downgraded for taking on such toxic deals.

Goldman needed AIG’s insurance to complete this bet and get them off risk for the CDO they created. Hedge fund manager John Paulson and others used the same strategy. Goldman’s bet was risky because they depended on AIG being solvent in order to get paid. Other parties who made similar betters, but relied on the other bond insurers to pay them off ended up getting hurt when the bond insurers got downgraded and the trade did not pay off, as well.

Months before AIG received its bailout, Goldman was well aware of the risk that insurers would pay less the full amount of the CDOs – Goldman was advising FGIC in its restructuring efforts and FGIC negotiated a CDO commutation for ten cents on the dollar. Goldman mitigated the risk of downgrade by dealing exclusively with AIG, which was required to post collateral in the event of a downgrade.

Goldman also misled shareholders and investors by proclaiming that they were not exposed to toxic CDOs because they were hedged with AIG, even as the bond insurers (AIG’s direct competitors in the CDO market), were getting downgraded.

It is bad enough that the creators and sellers of the CDOs, such as Goldman, BlackRock and TCW, have not been held to account for selling worthless bonds while representing them to be of AAA quality. Most of these influential power brokers have succeeded in blaming the victim (investors and insurers who believed their lies about the quality of the bonds) for the financial crisis to distract from their own questionable activities.

Goldman goes quite a few steps further into despicable territory with their other actions and the body count from Goldman’s actions is so enormous that it crosses over into criminal territory, morally and legally, by getting taxpayer money for their predation.

Goldman made a huge bet that the housing market would collapse. They profited, on paper, from the tremendous pain suffered by homeowners, investors and taxpayers across the country, they helped make it worse. Their bet only succeeded because they were able to force the government into bailing out AIG.
In addition, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, by helping Goldman Sachs to profit from homeowner and investor losses, conceal their misrepresentations to shareholders, destroy insurers by stuffing them with toxic bonds that they marketed as AAA, and escape from the consequences of making a risky bet, committed a grave injustice and, very likely, financial crimes. Since the bailout, they have actively concealed their actions and mislead the public. Goldman, the Fed and the Treasury should be investigated for fraud, securities law violations and misappropriation of taxpayer funds. Based on what I have laid out here, I am confident that they will find ample evidence.

Update 12/23, 1:00 PM: Yves here. Some readers in comments are dismissing this post as mere Goldman bashing, when its behavior was far more pernicious. I was remiss in not adding a critical bit of Tom’s argument, which he provided in a separate post:

While the subprime deals and CDOs were obviously going bad, an argument was made by many people at the time that the aggressive mark downs by AIG acelerated the death spiral for the market. It is pretty clear, here and elsewhere, that Goldman was the one that initiated the mark downs of collateral value. it would be interesting to explore this all the way through. Though not discussed in this article, Goldman shorted subprime through the Abacus deals, and perhaps elsewhere. this gave them an incentive to force mark downs. the intermediation deals described in the article, combined with AIG’s collateral posting, gave them another incentive to be agressive with mark downs. they were acting like they wanted to grab the money before anyone else could get their hands on it. this would have raised some issues in an AIGFP bankruptcy. (note — Hank Greenberg suggested that this was going on in his october 2008 testimony but there was a chorus of attacks on him for being a crook and unreliable, thanks to his problems with Spitzer.)

So here we have the pattern:

1. Goldman creates or sells $23 billion (or more) of CDOs and stuffs them into AIG.

2. Goldman proclaims to the world they have no exposure to CDOs and warns that banks and insurers with CDO exposure will get downgraded.

3. Goldman initiates the mark downs of CDOs with AIG and others, acelerating the market’s downward spiral.

4. Huge mark to market losses lead insurer and bank credit to freeze, short term markets to lock up, ABCP to collapse.

5. AIG posts as much collateral as it has to Goldman, who has more aggressively marked down the exposure.

6. Bond insurers are downgraded, banks begin commutations with them.

7. AIG fails, Fed steps in, Goldman gets bailed out at par.

Two modification-renter related quotes: the first on modifications essentially turning homeowners into renters, and the second, a proposal from Dean Baker on making the renter-landlord relationship more formal.

From an article by Carolyn Said in the San Francisco Chronicle: 2009′s mortgage modifications pretty minor

“The problem with affordability-only modification is that it essentially makes homeowners renters for the foreseeable future and locks them into their homes so they can’t move elsewhere for better jobs.” [said] Paul Leonard, director of the California office at the Center for Responsible Lending in Oakland.

Exactly. Any modification that leaves a homeowner deep underwater is really converting the homeowner into a renter. And eventually most of those modifications will fail.

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, suggest giving former homeowners the right to rent their home after foreclosure.
…
“If you give people the right to rent, it changes the logic from the lender’s standpoint and makes foreclosure less attractive,” he said. “Many lenders of their own volition will decide to work on loan modifications – otherwise they could be stuck with a renter for five to 10 years. It would shift the balance of power hugely in favor of the homeowner.”

There is no good solution, but at least we are acknowledging that many “homeowners” are really renters.