Why We Need A New Left Party - NowHosted by the Green Party New York City
Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.
Location: Laura Parsons Pratt Conference Center,
The Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies building, ground floor,
291 Park Ave. South, at the southeast corner of 22 Street, New York, New York
(1 block from 6 train -23rd St. Station, near N, R trains -23rd St. Station)
Has Capitalism finally hit the fan? And, if so, why do we need a powerful Left third party to deal with the mess?
Professor Rick Wolff will discuss some of the reasons why we need a new left party in the United States, including the Democratic Party’s dependence on Wall Street and other big business interests; how this dependence has silenced the voices of the poor and middle class in our current political debates; and how left parties in Europe have contributed both to a stronger safety net and more egalitarian society, and to more widespread and militant resistance to corporate power.
(Prof. Wolff has written a book, Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It (Olive Branch Press, 2009)
and a DVD, Capitalism Hits the Fan: Richard Wolff on the Economic Meltdown (Media Education Foundation, 2009).)
(Review of Wolff's DVD.)
This event is sponsored by Green Party New York City, consisting of members of the Green Party of the United States.
Showing posts with label economic crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic crisis. Show all posts
Monday, September 12, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Lisa Dodson on pushing back against the Immoral Economy
The Moral Underground: How Ordinary Americans Subvert an Unfair Economy:
Sociologist Lisa Dodson investigates the growing grassroots movement against unethical standards within the workplace.
March 4, 2011
TAKE ACTION
Petitions by Change.org|Get Widget|Start a Petition �
The following is an excerpt from The Moral Underground: How Ordinary Americans Subvert an Unfair Economy, by Lisa Dodson (Copyright © 2009 by Lisa Dodson), publisher, New Press.
Sociologist Lisa Dodson investigates the growing grassroots movement against unethical standards within the workplace.
March 4, 2011
TAKE ACTION
Petitions by Change.org|Get Widget|Start a Petition �
The following is an excerpt from The Moral Underground: How Ordinary Americans Subvert an Unfair Economy, by Lisa Dodson (Copyright © 2009 by Lisa Dodson), publisher, New Press.
Roots of DisobedienceRead more at the original article on alternet.org.
On the surface, the people I met who practiced economic disobedience would seem quite diverse. They included middle-aged, white Bea, managing that big-box store in rural New England and thinking that after years of hard work, you should be able to buy a prom dress for your daughter. They included Ned, white and in his thirties, the chain grocery store manager who thought working families should have enough to eat. And also Ray, in his fifties and the son of immigrants, a community-center director for a small city, who doesn’t ask for a “pedigree” before signing people up for desperately needed services. They included Aida, a Latina in her thirties, the director of a child care center, who misplaced paperwork so that children wouldn’t lose child care and parents wouldn’t lose jobs. And they included urban teacher Lenora, in her twenties and African American, who broke school rules all the time to help out a student in her class.
Labels:
economic crisis,
inequality,
wealth inequality
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Merle Hazard "Feelin Lousy" wins PBS competition
Story in PBS News Hour tonight, Paul Solman:
Go to Solman's post at PBS News Hour site, with a Merle Hazard (that's right, not Merle Haggard).
EDITOR'S NOTE: Last month, we featured a week-long series of songs by our country crooning friend Merle Hazard about the Euro-debt crisis: Spain, Ireland, Italy and Germany, and an encore of the infamous Greek Debt song. We invited you to submit your own lyrics about countries facing economic woe. The promised prize was a rendition of the winning song by Mr. Hazard himself.
Without further ado, here's Merle's interpretation of the winning entry: "Feelin' Lousy," by Davidthewriter about the financial crisis here in the U.S. It's sung to the Simon and Garfunkel tune, "Feelin' Groovy."
Go to Solman's post at PBS News Hour site, with a Merle Hazard (that's right, not Merle Haggard).
Labels:
economic crisis,
Merle Hazard,
Paul Solman,
PBS NewsHour
Monday, March 29, 2010
Great American manufacturing conversation on Thom Hartmann Show on Air America Radio
Thom Hartmann spoke this afternoon (March 29, 2010) with Scott N. Paul, executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing.
(See AAM's general site at http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/
See their blog at "ManufactureThis.org.")
Paul debunked many trade myths, and he pointed out the heavy devastation that China has done to American manufacturing since 2000.
Go to this AAM site, "The China Job Drain: Millions of U.S. jobs lost in trade with China," for an interactive map on the loss of jobs in the United States, in every state, in every Congressional District.
Great links at AAM site:
e.g.,
At Daily KOS: "China Currency Manipulation Costs U.S. Jobs"
"WJBC News: A new report shows thousands [over 100,000] of IL jobs lost to China"
(See AAM's general site at http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/
See their blog at "ManufactureThis.org.")
Paul debunked many trade myths, and he pointed out the heavy devastation that China has done to American manufacturing since 2000.
Go to this AAM site, "The China Job Drain: Millions of U.S. jobs lost in trade with China," for an interactive map on the loss of jobs in the United States, in every state, in every Congressional District.
Great links at AAM site:
e.g.,
At Daily KOS: "China Currency Manipulation Costs U.S. Jobs"
"WJBC News: A new report shows thousands [over 100,000] of IL jobs lost to China"
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Atlantic Monthly's ideas on the future for American cities
Here are the general patterns that we can see in American cities, regions and the nation:
Creative people, graduates of the more competitive colleges, high technology industries, entertainment industries, finance industries concentrate in coastal California and in the Northeast, particularly in the metropolitan areas. (David Brooks has cited this, and has connected this to the liberalism and the Republican Party's lost of an educated audience for a "sensible center.")
A basic social contract in the broadly conceived Midwest, spanning from Minnesota, following all of the states adjacent to the Great Lakes, on through the Erie Canal belt of central New York State, of industries committed to the region, to the country, to their employees was broken. Manufacturing plants, coal and steel operations closed down, as corporate America shifted jobs to the Sun Belt, the anti-union states from Arizona to the Deep South states of the former Confederacy.
And a general migration of other industries, jobs and people flowed to those states, encouraged by a smattering of conservative journalists breezily boosting this migration.
{Not mentioned in the article cited below, but related to this are the political side-products of these unequal patterns of population settlement and power: power envy, and the competing values that people in the regions place on certain economic sectors. As industry has left the Northeast, there is less interest in sustaining troubled industries than there is in the Midwest. States with lower proportions of farmers in their populations are less enthusiastic about federal crop maintenance programs and price supports than are the farm region areas that are densely situated in states west of the Mississippi River.}
* * *
Now, the Atlantic Monthly (in its March 2009 issue and an associated web-exclusive site) is posing its own prediction of what grand trends will portend from the shake-up engendered by the current meltdown. (Before we look at the magazine's predictions of a Sun Belt's loss and a gain for New York, we can give attention to particular considerations and patterns. There are weather-related challenges in the Sun Belt: life in much of the Southwest has been made bearable with air conditioning. In the new conservationist philosophy and thrift minded climate, power for air condition may be seen as a bane for the environment, and a drain on the pocketbook. Southern Florida and parts of the Gulf Coast are beset by increasingly intense hurricanes. The Southwest and the Southeast have divergent social structures. Incomes are divergent; unionized workplaces are rare, owing to "right-to-work laws." In New Mexico, high tech employees live side by side with a huge percentage of the state struggling by on minimum wages. Taxes are less progressive in both Souths, with a heavy emphasis on sales taxes.)
Next, to the Atlantic Monthly's web-only interactive map of the United States. From the website's introduction to the site:
* * *
The interactive web-site accompanies Richard Florida's article, "How the Crash Will Reshape America."
"How the Crash Will Reshape America
Urban theorist Richard Florida explains how the current meltdown will forever change our geography.
“No place in the United States is likely to escape a long and deep recession. Nonetheless, as the crisis continues to spread outward from New York, through industrial centers like Detroit, and into the Sun Belt, it will undoubtedly settle much more heavily on some places than on others. Some cities and regions will eventually spring back stronger than before. Others may never come back at all. As the crisis deepens, it will permanently and profoundly alter the country’s economic landscape. I believe it marks the end of a chapter in American economic history, and indeed, the end of a whole way of life."
SEE ALSO, The Atlantic's interview, Feb. 11, 2009, with Florida, "The Great Reset," in which Florida argues that recession is the mother of invention.
Creative people, graduates of the more competitive colleges, high technology industries, entertainment industries, finance industries concentrate in coastal California and in the Northeast, particularly in the metropolitan areas. (David Brooks has cited this, and has connected this to the liberalism and the Republican Party's lost of an educated audience for a "sensible center.")
A basic social contract in the broadly conceived Midwest, spanning from Minnesota, following all of the states adjacent to the Great Lakes, on through the Erie Canal belt of central New York State, of industries committed to the region, to the country, to their employees was broken. Manufacturing plants, coal and steel operations closed down, as corporate America shifted jobs to the Sun Belt, the anti-union states from Arizona to the Deep South states of the former Confederacy.
And a general migration of other industries, jobs and people flowed to those states, encouraged by a smattering of conservative journalists breezily boosting this migration.
{Not mentioned in the article cited below, but related to this are the political side-products of these unequal patterns of population settlement and power: power envy, and the competing values that people in the regions place on certain economic sectors. As industry has left the Northeast, there is less interest in sustaining troubled industries than there is in the Midwest. States with lower proportions of farmers in their populations are less enthusiastic about federal crop maintenance programs and price supports than are the farm region areas that are densely situated in states west of the Mississippi River.}
* * *
Now, the Atlantic Monthly (in its March 2009 issue and an associated web-exclusive site) is posing its own prediction of what grand trends will portend from the shake-up engendered by the current meltdown. (Before we look at the magazine's predictions of a Sun Belt's loss and a gain for New York, we can give attention to particular considerations and patterns. There are weather-related challenges in the Sun Belt: life in much of the Southwest has been made bearable with air conditioning. In the new conservationist philosophy and thrift minded climate, power for air condition may be seen as a bane for the environment, and a drain on the pocketbook. Southern Florida and parts of the Gulf Coast are beset by increasingly intense hurricanes. The Southwest and the Southeast have divergent social structures. Incomes are divergent; unionized workplaces are rare, owing to "right-to-work laws." In New Mexico, high tech employees live side by side with a huge percentage of the state struggling by on minimum wages. Taxes are less progressive in both Souths, with a heavy emphasis on sales taxes.)
Next, to the Atlantic Monthly's web-only interactive map of the United States. From the website's introduction to the site:
These interactive maps show historic changes in different U.S. cities, suggesting how well each area might bounce back from the current downturn.
The first map displays innovation, in the for of patents issued between 1975 and 2007. The second map reflects changing income levels between 2001 and 2008. The third follows shift in population between 1980 and 2007.
Use the sidebar at the bottom of each map to view these changes over time. You may click on a city to view more data or compare it with a second city.
* * *
The interactive web-site accompanies Richard Florida's article, "How the Crash Will Reshape America."
"How the Crash Will Reshape America
Urban theorist Richard Florida explains how the current meltdown will forever change our geography.
“No place in the United States is likely to escape a long and deep recession. Nonetheless, as the crisis continues to spread outward from New York, through industrial centers like Detroit, and into the Sun Belt, it will undoubtedly settle much more heavily on some places than on others. Some cities and regions will eventually spring back stronger than before. Others may never come back at all. As the crisis deepens, it will permanently and profoundly alter the country’s economic landscape. I believe it marks the end of a chapter in American economic history, and indeed, the end of a whole way of life."
SEE ALSO, The Atlantic's interview, Feb. 11, 2009, with Florida, "The Great Reset," in which Florida argues that recession is the mother of invention.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Senate reaches compromise, on the backs of education / Media giving heavy exposure to Republican critics
THE U.S. SENATE HAS APPARENTLY SETTLED ON A COMPROMISE ON PRES. OBAMA'S STIMULUS PACKAGE
Reports early Friday (2/06/09) evening indicated that a Senate compromise was made. The compromise was reached via the support of three Republicans.
NEEDY SCHOOLS TO PAY FOR COMPROMISE
The Republicans, who gave us eight years of the president (G.W. Bush) who claimed to be the education president, insisted on a thick host of cuts.
Prominent among the cuts was education spending. This will hurt financially needy districts profoundly. They can look forward to increases of student class sizes, such as 30 students in a kindergarten class.
The cuts will pit district against district and school against school (given the combination of cuts and the protection of pay for No Child Left Behind "NCLB"); this from Huffington Post:
2010 RACES START NOW
The Democrats need to call attention to the destructive role that Republicans have played in this mess. When cities and states have to slash budgets, due to Republican-triggered cuts, the Democrats need to publicly highlight this. When the recovery is weak, because of modest federal infusions of cash, Democrats need to call attention to the Republican pressures for austere financial contributions to the recovery.
Democrats need to call attention to the guns/butter dichotomy. Every dollar for the military is money withheld from useful social spending or useful injection into the civilian economy.
The Democrats need to start a drumbeat of these talking points NOW. There are many vulnerable Republican senate incumbents, in seats in economically depressed areas, e.g., George Voinovich of Ohio. The Republicans need to go. Spector too. The Republican pair in Maine are lucky that their seats aren't up for reelection in 2010. They (Collins and Snowe of Maine) and the other so-called moderates have shown their true colors on this urgent stimulus package. Moderate Republicans are generally liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues. That kind of posture is not helpful in this true national emergency.
President Obama has offered an olive branch to the Republicans. They have not responded in kind --not even the moderates. Instead, they have, as he has recently pointed out, pursued the same old thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
*THANKFULLY, HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI IS COMMITTED TO PROPELLING A STRONG BILL THROUGH CONGRESS, AGAINST THE CALLS FOR BIPARTISANSHIP*
From Glenn Thrush and Patrick O'Connor at Politico, Friday afternoon (2/7/09):
NETWORKS DEMONSTRATE BIAS IN BOOKING MORE REPUBLICAN APPEARANCES THAN DEMOCRATIC APPEARANCES
The Democrats need to hold press conferences, to call attention to the media bias for Republicans, a bias that has led to a (recent) public appetite for austerity.
See this study at ThinkProgress.org, for factual demonstration of this partisan bias in booking of guests.
Reports early Friday (2/06/09) evening indicated that a Senate compromise was made. The compromise was reached via the support of three Republicans.
NEEDY SCHOOLS TO PAY FOR COMPROMISE
The Republicans, who gave us eight years of the president (G.W. Bush) who claimed to be the education president, insisted on a thick host of cuts.
Prominent among the cuts was education spending. This will hurt financially needy districts profoundly. They can look forward to increases of student class sizes, such as 30 students in a kindergarten class.
The cuts will pit district against district and school against school (given the combination of cuts and the protection of pay for No Child Left Behind "NCLB"); this from Huffington Post:
In a key reduction from the bill that reached the Senate floor earlier in the week, $40 billion would be cut from a "fiscal stabilization fund" for state governments' education costs, though $14 billion to boost the maximum for college Pell Grants by $400 to $5,250 would be preserved, as would aid to local school districts for the No Child Left Behind law and special education.
2010 RACES START NOW
The Democrats need to call attention to the destructive role that Republicans have played in this mess. When cities and states have to slash budgets, due to Republican-triggered cuts, the Democrats need to publicly highlight this. When the recovery is weak, because of modest federal infusions of cash, Democrats need to call attention to the Republican pressures for austere financial contributions to the recovery.
Democrats need to call attention to the guns/butter dichotomy. Every dollar for the military is money withheld from useful social spending or useful injection into the civilian economy.
The Democrats need to start a drumbeat of these talking points NOW. There are many vulnerable Republican senate incumbents, in seats in economically depressed areas, e.g., George Voinovich of Ohio. The Republicans need to go. Spector too. The Republican pair in Maine are lucky that their seats aren't up for reelection in 2010. They (Collins and Snowe of Maine) and the other so-called moderates have shown their true colors on this urgent stimulus package. Moderate Republicans are generally liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues. That kind of posture is not helpful in this true national emergency.
President Obama has offered an olive branch to the Republicans. They have not responded in kind --not even the moderates. Instead, they have, as he has recently pointed out, pursued the same old thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
*THANKFULLY, HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI IS COMMITTED TO PROPELLING A STRONG BILL THROUGH CONGRESS, AGAINST THE CALLS FOR BIPARTISANSHIP*
From Glenn Thrush and Patrick O'Connor at Politico, Friday afternoon (2/7/09):
In a statement sure to rile Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Friday dismissed calls for bipartisanship as “process” arguments extraneous to passing a stimulus bill — and warned Senate Democrats against slashing proposed increases to education spending.
. . . .
“Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship, when the rest of the country says they need this bill,” the California Democrat said, seeming to sweep aside the Obama administration initial desire to have broad GOP support for the plan.
“We must have a bill [quickly],” she said, in a clear message to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has spent the past two days wrangling with moderates who want to cut proposed education funding for the states by as much as $50 billion.
“These cuts are very damaging — [the House bill] was put together very carefully. ... The funding goes directly to school districts, they are stimulative because they maintain jobs instead of cutting jobs.”
NETWORKS DEMONSTRATE BIAS IN BOOKING MORE REPUBLICAN APPEARANCES THAN DEMOCRATIC APPEARANCES
The Democrats need to hold press conferences, to call attention to the media bias for Republicans, a bias that has led to a (recent) public appetite for austerity.
See this study at ThinkProgress.org, for factual demonstration of this partisan bias in booking of guests.
REPORT: GOP Lawmakers Outnumber Dem Lawmakers By Almost 2 To 1 In Cable News Stimulus Debate Again»
Last week, ThinkProgress released a report showing that, in the debate over the House economic recovery bill on the five cable news networks, Republican members of Congress outnumbered their Democratic counterparts by a ratio of 2 to 1. The analysis tallied interview segments about the stimulus on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC during a three-day period, finding that the networks had hosted Republican lawmakers 51 times and Democratic lawmakers only 26 times.
The economic recovery package passed the House last week with zero Republican votes, shifting the focus to the Senate. Though the venue has changed, the debate on cable has not improved much.
In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers 75 to 41 on cable news interviews by members of Congress (from 6am on Monday 2/2 through 11pm on Thursday 2/5):
Some observations from our analysis:
* Last week, Fox News came the closest to balance with 8 Republicans and 6 Democrats. But the so-called “fair and balanced” network was not able to maintain such a ratio this week, hosting 24 Republicans and only 11 Democrats.
* The business news networks were particularly egregious this week. CNBC had more than twice as many conservatives, with 14 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Fox Business was even worse, hosting 20 Republicans for just 4 Democrats.
* In the previous study, the supposedly liberal MSNBC favored Republicans 15 to 9. This week, however, MSNBC became the only network to host more Democratic members of Congress than Republicans, with 17 Democrats and 12 Republicans.
Though the imbalance is already stark, the tilt of the coverage would have been even more lopsided if the analysis had been broken down into whether a lawmaker who appeared on TV was a supporter or a critic of the economic recovery plan. Some of the most frequent Democratic guests this week were outspoken critics of the proposed stimulus plans, such as Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Kent Conrad (D-ND).
Fortunately, the imbalance on the networks is not going unnoticed. A House Democratic leadership aide told Politico’s Michael Calderone yesterday that “what happened with cable last week is that Republican House members were the only show in town.” A “very senior” Democratic aide told The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that the leadership is “aware of the problem and are taking steps to fix it.” The aide noted that “there is also an onus on producers to remedy this issue.”
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Steve Hilderbrand, William Greider Obama's economic advisors
Kudos to brother blogspot blogger at choosingdemocracy for bringing attention to Steve Hilderbrand's blog post at Huffington Post, and to William Greider's column at The Nation. (Hilderbrand's bio at HuffPo reports that he was "National Deputy Campaign Manager where he oversaw the state, field and political operations [of Obama's campaign.")
Hilderbrand asks President -elect Barack Obama's left critics to go easy on him.
Huh??
In a time of economic crisis that threatens to get worse, and snowballing corporate layoffs, why should we accept Obama's economic appointments? These people are corporate neo-liberal retreads from the Clinton administration. The status quo got this economic sick.
This is the time to reverse course, not to listen to the conventional wisdom from the pro-corporate establishment.
In fact, many of these advisors are straight from the disreputable mega-banks themselves. Witness, the Citigroup connection that William Greider called attention to last month in "The Nation," "Past and Future."
An opening excerpt from the Nation opinion piece:
Hilderbrand asks President -elect Barack Obama's left critics to go easy on him.
Huh??
In a time of economic crisis that threatens to get worse, and snowballing corporate layoffs, why should we accept Obama's economic appointments? These people are corporate neo-liberal retreads from the Clinton administration. The status quo got this economic sick.
This is the time to reverse course, not to listen to the conventional wisdom from the pro-corporate establishment.
In fact, many of these advisors are straight from the disreputable mega-banks themselves. Witness, the Citigroup connection that William Greider called attention to last month in "The Nation," "Past and Future."
An opening excerpt from the Nation opinion piece:
A year ago, when Barack Obama said it was time to turn the page, his campaign declaration seemed to promise a fresh start for Washington. I, for one, failed to foresee Obama would turn the page backward. The president-elect's lineup for key governing positions has opted for continuity, not change. Virtually all of his leading appointments are restoring the Clinton presidency, only without Mr. Bill. In some important ways, Obama's selections seem designed to sustain the failing policies of George W. Bush.
William Greider: Timothy Geithner is responsible for much of the generous deal-making now underway with Wall Street. If Obama's not careful, he will be blamed.
This is not the last word and things are changing rapidly. But Obama's choices have begun to define him. His victory, it appears, was a triumph for the cautious center-right politics that has described the Democratic party for several decades. Those of us who expected more were duped, not so much by Obama but by our own wishful thinking.
. . .
. . . . Now [Robert] Rubin is himself a Citicorp executive and his bank is now being saved by his old protégé (Geithner) with the taxpayers' money.
The connections go way beyond irony. They raise very serious questions about where the new president intends to lead and whether he has the nerve to break from the weak and haphazard strategy of the Bush administration. It has dumped piles of public money on the largest financial institutions and demanded little or nothing in return, hoping for the best. Geithner has been a central player in the deal-making, from Bear Stearns to AIG to Citi. The strategy has not only failed, it has arguably made things worse as savvy market players saw through the contradictions and rushed out to dump more bank stocks.
Labels:
Barack Obama,
cabinet,
economic crisis,
neoliberalism,
The Nation,
William Greider
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
president de facto -almost; tackling of econ "starts today".
Times of London:
Barack Obama effectively took control of the US economy - two months before he takes office - by declaring that his plan to confront the financial crisis "starts today".
As he unveiled his new economic team, Mr Obama struck a very different note from the diffident election winner of three weeks ago who stressed that America is led by only "one president at a time".
Today, he appeared fully aware that the US and global markets are looking to him, not President Bush, for solutions to the deepening crisis.
Labels:
Barack Obama,
economic crisis
Monday, November 24, 2008
Obama announces economic team; immediate task: stimulating economy
Today President-elect Barack Obama announced his new economic team:
As has been already known, Timothy Geithner, president of the New York Federal Reserve, will be Secretary of the Treasury.
*Lawrence Summers --White House economic director, coordinating economic policy
*Peter Orszag --head of the Congressional Budget Office, will be charged with assembling the new president’s budget
"Chief Economist
Christina Romer, a University of California, Berkeley, professor, will head the Council of Economic Advisers."
"Melody Barnes will be domestic-policy council director, Obama said today." --Bloomberg News
* * *
National media outlets have emphasized the Obama administration's imminent economic stimulus program. Washington Post, datelined tomorrow, Tuesday, November 25:
Perhaps as important as the plan's size is its timing and composition. No doubt the economy is in such bad shape that it could use what Mr. Obama called a "jolt" right away, under President Bush and the lame-duck Congress. But given the magnitude of federal borrowing Mr. Obama is likely about to seek, and the risk that funds allocated in haste could be inappropriately targeted, he is right to try to give his advisers until after the New Year to craft a program and get it to the Congress that will be sworn in Jan. 3. Alas, the recession will still be around, as it will be when the new president takes the oath of office Jan. 20. Better to take a few weeks to devise the best possible mix of tax breaks, infrastructure spending and energy investments than to rush out a suboptimal one.
ad_icon
Mr. Obama wisely observed yesterday that budgetary "reform" must be part of the package, "so that we have a path towards a sustainable and responsible budget scenario down the line." We hope that what he has in mind goes beyond an attack on wasteful congressional "earmarks" and other pork-barrel spending. Important as those items are, Mr. Obama properly noted during the campaign that they constitute only a tiny portion of the federal deficit. The structural deficit, caused by uncontrolled entitlement spending, especially for Medicare, is the real menace. A credible blueprint for long-term entitlement reform would go a long way toward ensuring the viability of Mr. Obama's short-term anti-recession efforts, both politically and economically. The macroeconomic repairs Mr. Obama has in mind won't last unless he can also eventually put the federal government's finances back on a sound foundation.
As has been already known, Timothy Geithner, president of the New York Federal Reserve, will be Secretary of the Treasury.
*Lawrence Summers --White House economic director, coordinating economic policy
*Peter Orszag --head of the Congressional Budget Office, will be charged with assembling the new president’s budget
"Chief Economist
Christina Romer, a University of California, Berkeley, professor, will head the Council of Economic Advisers."
"Melody Barnes will be domestic-policy council director, Obama said today." --Bloomberg News
* * *
National media outlets have emphasized the Obama administration's imminent economic stimulus program. Washington Post, datelined tomorrow, Tuesday, November 25:
In announcing the picks, Mr. Obama made it clearthat his team's first job will be preparing an economic stimulus package of unspecified, but probably enormous, size. As he noted, this is now the consensus prescription of economists across the ideological spectrum, notwithstanding the fact that it could expand the federal deficit to well over $1 trillion. In fact, the whole point is to increase the deficit at a time when potential private-sector sources of economic life, whether consumers or businesses, are tapped out.
Perhaps as important as the plan's size is its timing and composition. No doubt the economy is in such bad shape that it could use what Mr. Obama called a "jolt" right away, under President Bush and the lame-duck Congress. But given the magnitude of federal borrowing Mr. Obama is likely about to seek, and the risk that funds allocated in haste could be inappropriately targeted, he is right to try to give his advisers until after the New Year to craft a program and get it to the Congress that will be sworn in Jan. 3. Alas, the recession will still be around, as it will be when the new president takes the oath of office Jan. 20. Better to take a few weeks to devise the best possible mix of tax breaks, infrastructure spending and energy investments than to rush out a suboptimal one.
ad_icon
Mr. Obama wisely observed yesterday that budgetary "reform" must be part of the package, "so that we have a path towards a sustainable and responsible budget scenario down the line." We hope that what he has in mind goes beyond an attack on wasteful congressional "earmarks" and other pork-barrel spending. Important as those items are, Mr. Obama properly noted during the campaign that they constitute only a tiny portion of the federal deficit. The structural deficit, caused by uncontrolled entitlement spending, especially for Medicare, is the real menace. A credible blueprint for long-term entitlement reform would go a long way toward ensuring the viability of Mr. Obama's short-term anti-recession efforts, both politically and economically. The macroeconomic repairs Mr. Obama has in mind won't last unless he can also eventually put the federal government's finances back on a sound foundation.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The fine economic mess that Obama has stepped into
Now Obama Can Look Forward to Fixing the Horrible Economy!
Dan Amira in the "Daily Intel" column/ blog of "New York" magazine yesterday (11/5/08) offered a valuable compilation of article leads on the challenges that President-elect Barack Obama faces in dealing with the economy.
Lead examples from the column:
• Matt Cooper [in Capital/ Portfolio] expects Obama's transition to be "unlike any other since 1932, when that economic crisis dominated the transfer of power." There are many uncertainties, since "we don't really know what direction the Obama economic plan will take given the realities of the market crash." But he's most likely to "move at his briskest pace" on bringing "America's financial architecture" under federal supervision.
"Obama Sweeps to Historic Victory: Nation Elects Its First African-American President Amid Record Turnout; Turmoil in Economy Dominates Voters' Concerns": • Jonathan Weisman and Laura Meckler [in "The Wall Street Journal"] expect Obama to "start fast, with a large economic-stimulus package, legislation to fund embryonic stem-cell research and an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a government insurance program which will be financed with a rise in the tobacco tax." But "Democrats are divided over how to proceed" after that.
• James Politi [in "The Financial Times" of London] notes the nervousness over Obama's protectionist trade rhetoric during the primaries, but says that "in Washington trade policy circles, few believe these fears are entirely justified."
If the following is true, then this would be cause for government-driven jobs programs. Obama's proposal to increase spending on infrastructure would address part of this job decline (but this is only in the construction sector). • Chris Isidore [in CNN Money] predicts that "another half-million jobs likely will be lost between now and Inauguration Day," and many economists think "there's little Obama can do to stop more job losses in the short-term, even if he's able to get a new economic stimulus package passed by the lame-duck Congress and signed into law by President Bush."
Speaking of stimulating the economy: • James Pethokoukis ["How President Obama Will Deal With the Economy in 2009" in "U.S. News and World Report"] says Obama has to "kick-start" the economy "as quickly as possible." He'd definitely be willing to sign in a $200 billion government-aid package despite "a budget deficit of $1 trillion or more next year." Why? "A rotting economy can be poison to any new administration, sapping it of public support."
Dan Amira in the "Daily Intel" column/ blog of "New York" magazine yesterday (11/5/08) offered a valuable compilation of article leads on the challenges that President-elect Barack Obama faces in dealing with the economy.
Lead examples from the column:
• Matt Cooper [in Capital/ Portfolio] expects Obama's transition to be "unlike any other since 1932, when that economic crisis dominated the transfer of power." There are many uncertainties, since "we don't really know what direction the Obama economic plan will take given the realities of the market crash." But he's most likely to "move at his briskest pace" on bringing "America's financial architecture" under federal supervision.
"Obama Sweeps to Historic Victory: Nation Elects Its First African-American President Amid Record Turnout; Turmoil in Economy Dominates Voters' Concerns": • Jonathan Weisman and Laura Meckler [in "The Wall Street Journal"] expect Obama to "start fast, with a large economic-stimulus package, legislation to fund embryonic stem-cell research and an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a government insurance program which will be financed with a rise in the tobacco tax." But "Democrats are divided over how to proceed" after that.
• James Politi [in "The Financial Times" of London] notes the nervousness over Obama's protectionist trade rhetoric during the primaries, but says that "in Washington trade policy circles, few believe these fears are entirely justified."
If the following is true, then this would be cause for government-driven jobs programs. Obama's proposal to increase spending on infrastructure would address part of this job decline (but this is only in the construction sector). • Chris Isidore [in CNN Money] predicts that "another half-million jobs likely will be lost between now and Inauguration Day," and many economists think "there's little Obama can do to stop more job losses in the short-term, even if he's able to get a new economic stimulus package passed by the lame-duck Congress and signed into law by President Bush."
Speaking of stimulating the economy: • James Pethokoukis ["How President Obama Will Deal With the Economy in 2009" in "U.S. News and World Report"] says Obama has to "kick-start" the economy "as quickly as possible." He'd definitely be willing to sign in a $200 billion government-aid package despite "a budget deficit of $1 trillion or more next year." Why? "A rotting economy can be poison to any new administration, sapping it of public support."
Labels:
Barack Obama,
economic crisis,
pundits
Monday, October 13, 2008
Howard Zinn on bailout: Take a tip from the New Deal
Howard Zinn in "The Nation": Take a tip from the New Deal: invest that $700 billion in jobs and mortgage aid for those who need it most.
How refreshing it would be if a presidential candidate reminded us of the experience of the New Deal.
Lead points in historian and activist Howard Zinn's article on stimulating the economy, via the people:
How refreshing it would be if a presidential candidate reminded us of the experience of the New Deal.
Lead points in historian and activist Howard Zinn's article on stimulating the economy, via the people:
It is sad to see both major parties agree to spend $700 billion of taxpayer money to bail out huge financial institutions that are notable for two characteristics: incompetence and greed. There is a much better solution to the financial crisis. But it would require discarding what has been conventional wisdom for too long: that government intervention in the economy ("big government") must be avoided like the plague, because the "free market" can be depended on to guide the economy toward growth and justice. Surely the sight of Wall Street begging for government aid is almost comic in light of its long devotion to a "free market" unregulated by government.
Let's face a historical truth: we have never had a free market. We have always had government intervention in the economy, and indeed that intervention has been welcomed by the captains of finance and industry. These titans of wealth hypocritically warned against "big government" but only when government threatened to regulate their activities or when it contemplated passing some of the nation's wealth on to the neediest people. They had no quarrel with big government when it served their needs.
. . .
In framing the Constitution, the founders created "big government" powerful enough to put down the rebellions of farmers, to return escaped slaves to their masters and to put down Indian resistance when settlers moved westward. The first big bailout was the decision of the new government to redeem for full value the almost worthless bonds held by speculators.
From the start, in the first sessions of the first Congress, the government interfered with the free market by establishing tariffs to subsidize manufacturers and by becoming a partner with private banks in establishing a national bank. This role of big government supporting the interests of the business classes has continued all through the nation's history. Thus, in the nineteenth century the government subsidized canals and the merchant marine. In the decades before and during the Civil War, the government gave away some 100 million acres of land to the railroads, along with considerable loans to keep the railroad interests in business. The 10,000 Chinese and 3,000 Irish who worked on the transcontinental railroad got no free land and no loans, only long hours, little pay, accidents and sickness.
The principle of government helping big business and refusing government largesse to the poor was bipartisan, upheld by Republicans and Democrats. President Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, vetoed a bill to give $10,000 to Texas farmers to help them buy seed grain during a drought, saying, "Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." But that same year, he used the gold surplus to pay wealthy bondholders $28 above the value of each bond--a gift of $5 million.
. . .
[Now, to the present}
We have a historic and successful precedent. The government in the early days of the New Deal put millions of people to work rebuilding the nation's infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of young people, instead of joining the army to escape poverty, joined the Civil Conservation Corps, which built bridges and highways, cleaned up harbors and rivers. Thousands of artists, musicians and writers were employed by the WPA's arts programs to paint murals, produce plays, write symphonies. The New Deal (defying the cries of "socialism") established Social Security, which, along with the GI Bill, became a model for what government could do to help its people.
That can be carried further, with "health security"--free healthcare for all, administered by the government, paid for from our Treasury, bypassing the insurance companies and the other privateers of the health industry. All that will take more than $700 billion. But the money is there: in the $600 billion for the military budget, once we decide we will not be a warmaking nation anymore, and in the bloated bank accounts of the superrich, once we bring them down to ordinary-rich size by taxing vigorously their income and their wealth.
When the cry goes up, whether from Republicans or Democrats, that this must not be done because it is "big government," the citizens should just laugh. And then agitate and organize on behalf of what the Declaration of Independence promised: that it is the responsibility of government to ensure the equal right of all to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
This is a golden opportunity for Obama to distance himself cleanly from McCain as well as the fossilized Democratic Party leaders, giving life to his slogan of change and thereby sweeping into office. And if he doesn't act, it will be up to the people, as it always has been, to raise a shout that will be heard around the world--and compel the politicians to listen.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
ECONOMIC CRISIS for DUMMIES
Economic crisis for dummies.
<<< PLEASE SEE THE ABOVE FOR THE ACTUAL LINK FOR ORIGINAL ARTICLE WITH THE CHARTS >>> --also from blogger.com
Whenever I wade into a new topic like digital photography, gardening or what have you, I visit the local bookstore and get a "For Dummies" book to guide me. I figure that it's the best way to get up-to-speed quickly without actually looking like a dummy.
So, for those of you who want the 3-minute version of the present crisis, here it is in 20 short steps:
1. In 2001, following a massive stock market and capital spending bubble, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan worried that the U.S. faced a severe recession. He began cutting interest rates down to 1% and kept them at that level until 2004, raising them slowly only 0.25% at a time thereafter.
2. With interest rates so low, the financial services industry sensed a lot of money could be made and went all in on real estate, seemingly unaware that low interest rates were masking large risks.
3. Meanwhile, Americans had been anticipating a nasty downturn after the bubble burst. But, they soon realized that money lost in the stock market was more than offset by rising home prices. So, Americans continued to spend freely.
4. As Americans spent freely, the U.S. went further into debt with the rest of the world. Foreigners, used their dollar IOUs from these debts to start their own bubbles too.
5. Eventually, things started to unravel in 2006 when those that could least afford to purchase homes -- so called subprime borrowers -- started to default in the U.S., prices having run well out of their range of affordability.
6. In February 2007, HSBC issued the first major warning, a harbinger of things to come, writing down tens of billions in losses from their ill-timed 2002 acquisition of U.S. subprime lender Household International. At first things looked fine and policy makers convinced themselves and the wider public that the problem was contained to subprime.
7. However, when two Bear Stearns hedge funds with exposure to the US housing market blew up in June 2007, people became worried that the risks had been underestimated.
8. It was in August 2007 when BNP Paribas, a large French bank, froze withdrawals in three investment funds that people began to panic. If a bank with zero obvious exposure to the U.S. mortgage sector could have this measure of difficulty, anyone could be hiding untold losses. This marked the official beginning of the credit crisis. The result was mutual distrust amongst large banks operating in the global market for interbank loans which meant credit was hard to come by for many banks.
9. By September, liquidity in the interbank market was so bad that rumors were swirling about various institutions which received most of their funding in wholesale markets. One of these was Northern Rock, an aggressive British mortgage lender. The British public panicked and began lining up to pull their money out of the institution. The Bank of England was forced to bail out the company, subsequently nationalizing it altogether.
10. Meanwhile U.S. housing prices continued to decline. The result was massive losses in the alphabet soup of mortgage-related derivative assets held by large global banks. These instruments are called derivatives because their value is derived from the value in underlying assets like mortgages. The first wave of mortgage-related losses were concentrated in these instruments and investing vehicles: RMBSs (Residential Mortgage Backed Securities) CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligations), and SIVs (Structured Investment Vehicles) and CDOs of CDOs. Merrill Lynch was the first to report a large loss, at $5.5 billion on 5 Oct 2007. Only to come back less than three weeks later on 24 Oct 2007 to say that the losses were now over $8 billion. Eventually, losses reached $500 billion a year into the crisis for all global institutions.
11. The Merrill losses were followed by losses at most of the large global financial institutions. Many CEOs lost their jobs and the companies were forced to raise capital. By August 2008, the amount raised was to reach $350 billion.
12. The situation seemed to quiet down in early 2008. However, in March the failures of hedge funds Peloton and Carlyle Capital put the credit crisis back in full view. Another 2nd period of panic resulted in the sudden collapse of Bear Stearns, America's 5th largest investment bank. The Fed organized a takeover by JP Morgan Chase that was a catastrophic 90% loss for Bear's shareholders.
13. Eventually the collapse of Bear Stearns faded and, for the third time, we were lulled into a false sense of security that the worst was over. Nevertheless, writedowns continued unabated as did capital raising. When Lehman Brothers announced a massive $3 billion loss 0n 9 Jun 2008, the crisis came into full view yet again -- much as it had when Bear Stearns' hedge funds collapsed the previous June.
14. This time, market fears did not recede and the financial markets remained in a constant state of stress. Things started to unravel very quickly. IndyMac, an aggressive mortgage lender, an American version of Northern Rock, was taken over by the FDIC. And a panic was on for the third time.
15. Next were the GSEs. The end result of the market panic was a questioning of the viability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest mortgage lenders in the United States and at the core of the residential property market. Eventually the U.S. Government was forced to take the two companies into conservatorship.
16. Afterwards, all financial shares generally came under assault. The ones considered the weakest came under the heaviest selling pressure, resulting in the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Without government support and unable to close a merger in around-the-clock negotiations at the weekend, the company filed for bankruptcy on Sep. 15.
17. Merrill Lynch, the venerated US investment bank, sensing trouble, sought and received cover in a takeover by Bank of America that very same weekend.
18. Financial markets smelled blood after Lehman collapsed. Apparently no company was too big to fail. So, the assault on financial service companies continued. Eventually, AIG, the largest insurance company in the world, succumbed to this pressure. The Federal Reserve, citing special considerations, bailed out the non-depositary institution.
19. At this stage, we were in free fall and the entire banking system was on the verge of collapse in the United States. Global shocks had not ended either, as UK institutions were increasingly under attack as well, having been damaged by their own property bubble. At the urging of the British Prime Minister and the UK regulatory authorities, Lloyds TSB bought Britain's largest mortgage lender HBOS, which was in jeopardy of failing.
20. By this time, the Feds had had enough. The time for ad hoc crisis management was at an end. Hank Paulson moved decisively and put forward his $700 billion bailout plan. It awaits congressional approval.
And that's where we stand.
UPDATE: Since I wrote this a number of significant events have occurred. So, let me make an addendum to "The Guide."
1. Before Congress could approve the Paulson Plan, the credit crisis had moved to Europe where several banks were nationalized. Markets around the world suffered.
2. Congress eventually approved the Paulson Plan after much debate and initial setbacks. The Plan was augmented to include $100 billion in relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax and offer tax breaks for specific businesses as well. In addition, it raised the limit on federal bank deposit insurance from $100,000 to $250,000.
3. Meanwhile, turmoil in both the credit markets and the stock markets continued. Europe was still the focus as French President Sarkozy called a European crisis summit to address the situation. As the crisis worsened, National governments were forced to react and Ireland, Greece, Denmark, Austria, and Germany all offered sweeping deposit guarantees. Britain partially nationalized its banking system in a £400 Billion bailout of the UK's financial system. Iceland was forced to nationalize its largest banks and teetered on the verge of bankruptcy as it received financial assistance from Russia in return for a 75-year lease to an Icelandic air base.
4. Central Banks around te world acted in a coordinated fashion, cutting rates and injecting massive amounts of liquidity into themarkets. However, the markets were still unhappy and plunged anew. With the U.S. markets flirting with 2003 lows and financial stocks down by haf on the year, U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson admitted that he might inject capital directly into American banks.
And that is now where we stand.
For the full timeline of news, visit my credit crisis timeline. I believe it to be the most comprehensive data set of credit crisis events on the web. And I update it often.
<<< PLEASE SEE THE ABOVE FOR THE ACTUAL LINK FOR ORIGINAL ARTICLE WITH THE CHARTS >>> --also from blogger.com
Whenever I wade into a new topic like digital photography, gardening or what have you, I visit the local bookstore and get a "For Dummies" book to guide me. I figure that it's the best way to get up-to-speed quickly without actually looking like a dummy.
So, for those of you who want the 3-minute version of the present crisis, here it is in 20 short steps:
1. In 2001, following a massive stock market and capital spending bubble, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan worried that the U.S. faced a severe recession. He began cutting interest rates down to 1% and kept them at that level until 2004, raising them slowly only 0.25% at a time thereafter.
2. With interest rates so low, the financial services industry sensed a lot of money could be made and went all in on real estate, seemingly unaware that low interest rates were masking large risks.
3. Meanwhile, Americans had been anticipating a nasty downturn after the bubble burst. But, they soon realized that money lost in the stock market was more than offset by rising home prices. So, Americans continued to spend freely.
4. As Americans spent freely, the U.S. went further into debt with the rest of the world. Foreigners, used their dollar IOUs from these debts to start their own bubbles too.
5. Eventually, things started to unravel in 2006 when those that could least afford to purchase homes -- so called subprime borrowers -- started to default in the U.S., prices having run well out of their range of affordability.
6. In February 2007, HSBC issued the first major warning, a harbinger of things to come, writing down tens of billions in losses from their ill-timed 2002 acquisition of U.S. subprime lender Household International. At first things looked fine and policy makers convinced themselves and the wider public that the problem was contained to subprime.
7. However, when two Bear Stearns hedge funds with exposure to the US housing market blew up in June 2007, people became worried that the risks had been underestimated.
8. It was in August 2007 when BNP Paribas, a large French bank, froze withdrawals in three investment funds that people began to panic. If a bank with zero obvious exposure to the U.S. mortgage sector could have this measure of difficulty, anyone could be hiding untold losses. This marked the official beginning of the credit crisis. The result was mutual distrust amongst large banks operating in the global market for interbank loans which meant credit was hard to come by for many banks.
9. By September, liquidity in the interbank market was so bad that rumors were swirling about various institutions which received most of their funding in wholesale markets. One of these was Northern Rock, an aggressive British mortgage lender. The British public panicked and began lining up to pull their money out of the institution. The Bank of England was forced to bail out the company, subsequently nationalizing it altogether.
10. Meanwhile U.S. housing prices continued to decline. The result was massive losses in the alphabet soup of mortgage-related derivative assets held by large global banks. These instruments are called derivatives because their value is derived from the value in underlying assets like mortgages. The first wave of mortgage-related losses were concentrated in these instruments and investing vehicles: RMBSs (Residential Mortgage Backed Securities) CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligations), and SIVs (Structured Investment Vehicles) and CDOs of CDOs. Merrill Lynch was the first to report a large loss, at $5.5 billion on 5 Oct 2007. Only to come back less than three weeks later on 24 Oct 2007 to say that the losses were now over $8 billion. Eventually, losses reached $500 billion a year into the crisis for all global institutions.
11. The Merrill losses were followed by losses at most of the large global financial institutions. Many CEOs lost their jobs and the companies were forced to raise capital. By August 2008, the amount raised was to reach $350 billion.
12. The situation seemed to quiet down in early 2008. However, in March the failures of hedge funds Peloton and Carlyle Capital put the credit crisis back in full view. Another 2nd period of panic resulted in the sudden collapse of Bear Stearns, America's 5th largest investment bank. The Fed organized a takeover by JP Morgan Chase that was a catastrophic 90% loss for Bear's shareholders.
13. Eventually the collapse of Bear Stearns faded and, for the third time, we were lulled into a false sense of security that the worst was over. Nevertheless, writedowns continued unabated as did capital raising. When Lehman Brothers announced a massive $3 billion loss 0n 9 Jun 2008, the crisis came into full view yet again -- much as it had when Bear Stearns' hedge funds collapsed the previous June.
14. This time, market fears did not recede and the financial markets remained in a constant state of stress. Things started to unravel very quickly. IndyMac, an aggressive mortgage lender, an American version of Northern Rock, was taken over by the FDIC. And a panic was on for the third time.
15. Next were the GSEs. The end result of the market panic was a questioning of the viability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest mortgage lenders in the United States and at the core of the residential property market. Eventually the U.S. Government was forced to take the two companies into conservatorship.
16. Afterwards, all financial shares generally came under assault. The ones considered the weakest came under the heaviest selling pressure, resulting in the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Without government support and unable to close a merger in around-the-clock negotiations at the weekend, the company filed for bankruptcy on Sep. 15.
17. Merrill Lynch, the venerated US investment bank, sensing trouble, sought and received cover in a takeover by Bank of America that very same weekend.
18. Financial markets smelled blood after Lehman collapsed. Apparently no company was too big to fail. So, the assault on financial service companies continued. Eventually, AIG, the largest insurance company in the world, succumbed to this pressure. The Federal Reserve, citing special considerations, bailed out the non-depositary institution.
19. At this stage, we were in free fall and the entire banking system was on the verge of collapse in the United States. Global shocks had not ended either, as UK institutions were increasingly under attack as well, having been damaged by their own property bubble. At the urging of the British Prime Minister and the UK regulatory authorities, Lloyds TSB bought Britain's largest mortgage lender HBOS, which was in jeopardy of failing.
20. By this time, the Feds had had enough. The time for ad hoc crisis management was at an end. Hank Paulson moved decisively and put forward his $700 billion bailout plan. It awaits congressional approval.
And that's where we stand.
UPDATE: Since I wrote this a number of significant events have occurred. So, let me make an addendum to "The Guide."
1. Before Congress could approve the Paulson Plan, the credit crisis had moved to Europe where several banks were nationalized. Markets around the world suffered.
2. Congress eventually approved the Paulson Plan after much debate and initial setbacks. The Plan was augmented to include $100 billion in relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax and offer tax breaks for specific businesses as well. In addition, it raised the limit on federal bank deposit insurance from $100,000 to $250,000.
3. Meanwhile, turmoil in both the credit markets and the stock markets continued. Europe was still the focus as French President Sarkozy called a European crisis summit to address the situation. As the crisis worsened, National governments were forced to react and Ireland, Greece, Denmark, Austria, and Germany all offered sweeping deposit guarantees. Britain partially nationalized its banking system in a £400 Billion bailout of the UK's financial system. Iceland was forced to nationalize its largest banks and teetered on the verge of bankruptcy as it received financial assistance from Russia in return for a 75-year lease to an Icelandic air base.
4. Central Banks around te world acted in a coordinated fashion, cutting rates and injecting massive amounts of liquidity into themarkets. However, the markets were still unhappy and plunged anew. With the U.S. markets flirting with 2003 lows and financial stocks down by haf on the year, U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson admitted that he might inject capital directly into American banks.
And that is now where we stand.
For the full timeline of news, visit my credit crisis timeline. I believe it to be the most comprehensive data set of credit crisis events on the web. And I update it often.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Knowing the players in the G7 meeting
The G7 meeting could not come at a more momentous moment than the present. Yes, this is obvious and it is a grand understatement. (The G7 finance ministers are meeting at the White House, hosted by United States President George Bush, today.)
(Let me give you the spoiler of this article: the G7 is Conservative leaning.)
That said, let's get to business. In the current situation of the stock markets and finance sector, we would hope that governments would act toward lessening the deleterious impact upon their populaces, and that they would act to draw the benefits of state intervention in the direction of the state. In plain English, let's hope that finance reforms include government interventions in the banking system that channel profits toward the government, and thence to the taxpayers/populace, either in the form of rebates or in social spending.
This latter direction is one that the Democratic leadership in the United States Congress has undertaken. Among G7 members, this direction would be more likely pursued by Social Democratic Parties. As we see below, the tilt of the G7, in political party, is toward the Conservative direction. So, the implementation of a Social-Democratic direction, of a populist minded finance policy, is not likely to happen.
I have just taken an inventory of the finance ministers of the G7 member states and their partisan orientations. And the tally is as follows:
Canada: Conservative
France: Conservative
Germany: Social Democratic
Great Britain: [de facto Social Democratic]
Italy: Conservative
Japan: Conservative
Russia: ?
The United States: Conservative
(I have taken the liberty of changing formal party names to the kind of ideological and policy-oriented direction that they lean- Conservative or Social Democratic. In European (+ Israeli + Japanese) understanding of political lexicon, Social Democratic would apply to Great Britain's governing Labour Party, even though it is distinct from the "Social-Democratic Party" of Great Britain/United Kingdom.
As to Russia, it is difficult to place the finance minister. Their government is a de facto presidential government --regardless of his title of prime minister, and as such we would extrapolate the philosophies of the finance minister as following the prerogatives of Vladmir Putin. Despite Putin's CCCP roots, his government has not acted to stanch trends of increasing cost of living or an unstable financial sector, as this reading --by Edward Hugh, October 3-- of the financial scene indicates. I put very little stock in his moving to steer financial policy in an economic populist direction.)
Germany provides the sole left of center minister of finance (Peer Steinbrück-SPD), aside from Great Britain (Alistair Darling-Labour).
Translation: I am anticipating "changes" or "reforms" that serve banks interests, without a mind toward socially-minded channeling of profits or government-directed oversight. Thus, in the long term, I am pessimistic that G7 reforms will improve the current crisis.
On the other hand, this is a fluid time. It appears that free-market oriented political party-led governments are now contemplating or enacting state takeover of banks. Let's hope that the G7 ministers act toward charting financial markets in a stable direction. But let's also hope that they consider the ordinary depositors and taxpayers, not simply the major banks. I'm holding my breath on the latter point.
(Let me give you the spoiler of this article: the G7 is Conservative leaning.)
That said, let's get to business. In the current situation of the stock markets and finance sector, we would hope that governments would act toward lessening the deleterious impact upon their populaces, and that they would act to draw the benefits of state intervention in the direction of the state. In plain English, let's hope that finance reforms include government interventions in the banking system that channel profits toward the government, and thence to the taxpayers/populace, either in the form of rebates or in social spending.
This latter direction is one that the Democratic leadership in the United States Congress has undertaken. Among G7 members, this direction would be more likely pursued by Social Democratic Parties. As we see below, the tilt of the G7, in political party, is toward the Conservative direction. So, the implementation of a Social-Democratic direction, of a populist minded finance policy, is not likely to happen.
I have just taken an inventory of the finance ministers of the G7 member states and their partisan orientations. And the tally is as follows:
Canada: Conservative
France: Conservative
Germany: Social Democratic
Great Britain: [de facto Social Democratic]
Italy: Conservative
Japan: Conservative
Russia: ?
The United States: Conservative
(I have taken the liberty of changing formal party names to the kind of ideological and policy-oriented direction that they lean- Conservative or Social Democratic. In European (+ Israeli + Japanese) understanding of political lexicon, Social Democratic would apply to Great Britain's governing Labour Party, even though it is distinct from the "Social-Democratic Party" of Great Britain/United Kingdom.
As to Russia, it is difficult to place the finance minister. Their government is a de facto presidential government --regardless of his title of prime minister, and as such we would extrapolate the philosophies of the finance minister as following the prerogatives of Vladmir Putin. Despite Putin's CCCP roots, his government has not acted to stanch trends of increasing cost of living or an unstable financial sector, as this reading --by Edward Hugh, October 3-- of the financial scene indicates. I put very little stock in his moving to steer financial policy in an economic populist direction.)
Germany provides the sole left of center minister of finance (Peer Steinbrück-SPD), aside from Great Britain (Alistair Darling-Labour).
Translation: I am anticipating "changes" or "reforms" that serve banks interests, without a mind toward socially-minded channeling of profits or government-directed oversight. Thus, in the long term, I am pessimistic that G7 reforms will improve the current crisis.
On the other hand, this is a fluid time. It appears that free-market oriented political party-led governments are now contemplating or enacting state takeover of banks. Let's hope that the G7 ministers act toward charting financial markets in a stable direction. But let's also hope that they consider the ordinary depositors and taxpayers, not simply the major banks. I'm holding my breath on the latter point.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Economics and tonight's debate ... liveblogging
McCain?: he is merely offering the same Gilded Age, late nineteenth century inflexible orthodoxy, of no regulation. This is not reform, this is not change; this is a commitment to the kind of policies that got the economy into the current crisis.
No, this is not a matter of isolated corruption (contrary to McSame's claims tonight).
No, this is not the time to make solitary scapegoats, as New York's "Daily News" did today, spotlighting Richard Fuld, former Lehman Brothers CEO. This is not a matter of one man's errors. This is a systemic crisis. The deregulation mentality needs to be reversed. Obama properly targeted McCain for supporting the deregulatory trend that led to this financial crisis.
ECONOMISTS FOR OBAMA
Obama is creaming McCain tonight. Obama is speaking to the crisis. McCain is just mouthing the same cliches of traditional free market economics. No analysis of the contemporary economic crisis.
No wonder economists are supporting Barack Obama over John McCain by a two-to-one margin. (See the site, "Economists for Obama.")
The list of major economists supporting Obama --these are the early supporters. This is a list of economists/supporters as of June 3, 2008.
BUFFET FOR OBAMA?
Yep, Warren Buffett --that's not Jimmy "Margaritaville" Buffett. Buffett, the famed Berkshire Hathaway investor, is supporting Obama.
(See the news about Buffett's May 19 endorsement.)
So, don't believe the right wing radio delusional hype. Obama is not a socialist; he will not institute socialism. Why would Wall Street people such as Buffet supporting Obama if he were a socialist?!
Recall Buffett's statement, "Obama could run a business."
No, this is not a matter of isolated corruption (contrary to McSame's claims tonight).
No, this is not the time to make solitary scapegoats, as New York's "Daily News" did today, spotlighting Richard Fuld, former Lehman Brothers CEO. This is not a matter of one man's errors. This is a systemic crisis. The deregulation mentality needs to be reversed. Obama properly targeted McCain for supporting the deregulatory trend that led to this financial crisis.
ECONOMISTS FOR OBAMA
Obama is creaming McCain tonight. Obama is speaking to the crisis. McCain is just mouthing the same cliches of traditional free market economics. No analysis of the contemporary economic crisis.
No wonder economists are supporting Barack Obama over John McCain by a two-to-one margin. (See the site, "Economists for Obama.")
The list of major economists supporting Obama --these are the early supporters. This is a list of economists/supporters as of June 3, 2008.
BUFFET FOR OBAMA?
Yep, Warren Buffett --that's not Jimmy "Margaritaville" Buffett. Buffett, the famed Berkshire Hathaway investor, is supporting Obama.
(See the news about Buffett's May 19 endorsement.)
So, don't believe the right wing radio delusional hype. Obama is not a socialist; he will not institute socialism. Why would Wall Street people such as Buffet supporting Obama if he were a socialist?!
Recall Buffett's statement, "Obama could run a business."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

