Meltdown

[Coopmv]

European rating agency could launch in 2012.  I believe the American rating agencies gave the Greek debt some excellent rating as well a number of years ago.  Go figure ...

[Todd]

Hmm, a few months ago the Europeans talked about limiting the ability of ratings agencies to donwgrade during dire situations, and now they are aiming to create a new ratings agency, with the twist that it will be legally liable for the ratings.  Nope, I don't see any political involvement here . . .

[Karl Henning]

They may just be too accustomed to centralization, to allow for the old healthy checks-&-balances . . . .

[Coopmv]

They may just be too accustomed to centralization, to allow for the old healthy checks-&-balances . . . .

What checks & balances?  Both parties are controlled by the lobbyists ...

[DavidW]

What checks & balances?  Both parties are controlled by the lobbyists ...

I thought that until I saw politicians step back from sopa when people made their voice heard.  I think it's more like if we don't object they'll let lobbyists do their thinking.  So we just have to let our voices be heard more often.

[Coopmv]

I thought that until I saw politicians step back from sopa when people made their voice heard.  I think it's more like if we don't object they'll let lobbyists do their thinking.  So we just have to let our voices be heard more often.

Perhaps.  But from what I have observed over the years, the passing or the defeat of any legislation merely reflects which lobbying camp wins out.  I am particularly leery of the free trade advocacy, you have to wonder if they are the paid lobbyists for China.

[snyprrr]

Seven-ish years ago I got a job at this... store... and shortly thereafter they changed over to the company's more upscale brand name. Well, we just got the news that we will be changing BACK,... yes, the old store sign will be gotten out of mothballs,... oh, this is so rich,... this company (no, I will not) is just so typical in its corporate bad mistakes policy kind of way.

I guess, since I'm asking everyone else,... what would I possibly go back to school for?

oh, forget it, I'm just being a provoking asshole here.


I have this horrible urge to just get free money for life,... my body just won't bust its own ass for slave wages,... for what???,... ha, this company I work for has a 1% raise policy...


Hey, if this is a fiat economy, why is 'stealing' bad? It's all money out of thin  air, so, what, would I be stealing...air? Since you can't steal air, how can scamming the system be fraud?


All of a sudden, I feel I can see the logic that Our Masters use for their own benefit. (good for us, but you don't get to play)



Will we REALLY have riots in the US, or are we just too dumb, lazy, whatever??






I think 2012 just hit me.

[snyprrr]

Seven-ish years ago I got a job at this... store... and shortly thereafter they changed over to the company's more upscale brand name. Well, we just got the news that we will be changing BACK,... yes, the old store sign will be gotten out of mothballs,... oh, this is so rich,... this company (no, I will not) is just so typical in its corporate bad mistakes policy kind of way.

I guess, since I'm asking everyone else,... what would I possibly go back to school for?

oh, forget it, I'm just being a provoking asshole here.


I have this horrible urge to just get free money for life,... my body just won't bust its own ass for slave wages,... for what???,... ha, this company I work for has a 1% raise policy...


Hey, if this is a fiat economy, why is 'stealing' bad? It's all money out of thin  air, so, what, would I be stealing...air? Since you can't steal air, how can scamming the system be fraud?


All of a sudden, I feel I can see the logic that Our Masters use for their own benefit. (good for us, but you don't get to play)



Will we REALLY have riots in the US, or are we just too dumb, lazy, whatever??






I think 2012 just hit me.

oh boy, this guy is bitter

[Karl Henning]

Katrina vanden Heuvel to the Occupiers: Grow Up

[DavidW]

Katrina vanden Heuvel to the Occupiers: Grow Up

I strongly disagree with that article.  For those rebelling against the system... become part of the system, what!?

Also the people like that on the other side, the tea party republicans ruin everything by refusing to cooperate at any level with not only dems but other republicans!  They've become part of the problem and not the solution.  More of the same on the other side would be just as bad.  In fact, I bet it would make the congress completely ineffectual instead of mostly ineffectual.

And I'm also sick and tired of mavericks being popular just because it's seen as a bad thing to have political experience.  Excuse me but I'm sick of unqualified people being elected... okay rant over.

[Karl Henning]

Nice rant! : )

[snyprrr]

Katrina vanden Heuvel to the Occupiers: Grow Up

Join us, join us, join us


C'mon,... Katrina vanden Heuvel???... that's not 'Merkin!! This is the devil saying, C'mon, we've got bright shiny lights here, join us.

Great, let's ALL become pundits! That should solve the problem.

Bend over and say, Ahhhh!!!


Maybe Katrina should GET A JOB!!!!!!!    HUH?

Amerika is f*****. Why not just get a job as a stormtrooper so you can go and bash people in the head? Hey, join us!!!! We, the Elite, are a fun bunch of crooks...

Katrina, have you ever held a job (no, what you do is not a job, it is part of your inheritance,... who the **** cares what this ************* says? ***** you Katrina, you old dog ******* ***** ** ******* **** **8****


oh, and btw, *** ** ******* * ******** **** ****** *** ** **********!!!!!!!!!! (oh yea, that will leave them reeling!!!!)




I've got a 'job' for ya



yea, I'm still bitter from yesterday,... will probably rant much more this year...


Hey Katrina, why don't you just go invade Iran for Israel, or something?


Yea, 'join' the Elite,... just how do you do that? I didn't get my invitation...



spit, spit, spit




(I could do this all day,... I really have some therapy to keyboard out )


Maybe you secretly want to be a dirty hippie?









ok, rant: OFF

[Todd]

In fact, I bet it would make the congress completely ineffectual instead of mostly ineffectual.

The American system has it pluses.  The tendency for Congress to act slowly, if at all, is, or can be, a good thing.

For instance, despite the tough talk from Republicans, and upcoming budget "cuts" in defense, etc, the US federal government has in fact been pursuing a moderately expansionary policy and will continue to do so.  In contrast, most Europeans just showed how effective their political system is by opting for greater fiscal coordination and fiscal austerity.  Based on evidence where "austere" (read: contractionary) fiscal policies have been pursued in the last few years, this may not end up benefitting everyone.  Germany may benefit, though. 

Further, the US is further along in deleveraging private debt than most of Europe is now, or Japan was at a similar time after its bubble burst.  That is, privately held debt is down, though public debt is up.  There are a variety of reasons for this, and things are not necessarily as rosy as the McKinsey study that pointed this out states, but one big reason for this is because in the US, it is still comparatively easy to foreclose on homes.  (Shhh, don't ever let anyone know that getting/forcing borrowers out from under debt they cannot afford could have beneficial effects.)  Yes, the federal government and some state governments have tried to slow the asset disposition process – and in New York, New Jersey, and Florida the state governments have done a good job of it – but overall they have not and really cannot stop the process. 

(The federal efforts [eg, HAMP] are really poorly designed and cumbersome to execute, and result in silly scenarios.  For instance, under HAMP, if a borrower and servicer meet all performance criteria, both the borrower and asset owner receive an incentive payment.  The borrower incentive payment is sent directly to the servicer and must be passed through to the asset owner as a principal reduction.  This means that the asset owner gets paid twice, and instead of assisting borrowers with paying the next installment, which is generally more important from their perspective, their debt burden is reduced by an irrelevant amount while they may go delinquent again.  Thank goodness the program is being extended to non-owner occupied homes and larger scale debt reduction.  I don't see tons of opposition from asset owners, either.)

[drogulus]

The American system has it pluses.  The tendency for Congress to act slowly, if at all, is, or can be, a good thing.

For instance, despite the tough talk from Republicans, and upcoming budget "cuts" in defense, etc, the US federal government has in fact been pursuing a moderately expansionary policy and will continue to do so.  In contrast, most Europeans just showed how effective their political system is by opting for greater fiscal coordination and fiscal austerity.  Based on evidence where "austere" (read: contractionary) fiscal policies have been pursued in the last few years, this may not end up benefitting everyone.  Germany may benefit, though. 

Further, the US is further along in deleveraging private debt than most of Europe is now, or Japan was at a similar time after its bubble burst.  That is, privately held debt is down, though public debt is up.  There are a variety of reasons for this, and things are not necessarily as rosy as the McKinsey study that pointed this out states, but one big reason for this is because in the US, it is still comparatively easy to foreclose on homes.  (Shhh, don't ever let anyone know that getting/forcing borrowers out from under debt they cannot afford could have beneficial effects.)  Yes, the federal government and some state governments have tried to slow the asset disposition process – and in New York, New Jersey, and Florida the state governments have done a good job of it – but overall they have not and really cannot stop the process. 

(The federal efforts [eg, HAMP] are really poorly designed and cumbersome to execute, and result in silly scenarios.  For instance, under HAMP, if a borrower and servicer meet all performance criteria, both the borrower and asset owner receive an incentive payment.  The borrower incentive payment is sent directly to the servicer and must be passed through to the asset owner as a principal reduction.  This means that the asset owner gets paid twice, and instead of assisting borrowers with paying the next installment, which is generally more important from their perspective, their debt burden is reduced by an irrelevant amount while they may go delinquent again.  Thank goodness the program is being extended to non-owner occupied homes and larger scale debt reduction.  I don't see tons of opposition from asset owners, either.)

      I don't think the Repubs are acting slowly. For one thing they have no useful modifications or alternatives to offer, just a more brutal contraction than the Europeans.

      How about this for acting slowly? Why don't we let the Bush tax cuts lapse? We could blame "gridlock", and at one stroke we'd get rid of the largest component of future deficits, and I predict that if we do that there will be moaning from taxpayers about the new (old) high tax rates and on the next up-cycle we'd go into surplus.

[Todd]

I don't think the Repubs are acting slowly. For one thing they have no useful modifications or alternatives to offer, just a more brutal contraction than the Europeans.

Well, only if you take their rhetoric at face value.  What they say and what they do are not always the same.  And of course, Republicans as a rule want to maintain existing tax cuts and offer new ones, which is expansionary by nature, though it also increases the deficit and thus debt, and thus contributes to long-term fiscal issues.  You need to keep both sides of the budget in mind.  Federal spending cuts don't always amount to real spending cuts.  Even after the defense cuts on offer now, defense spending will be higher in ten years than it is today and any drop as a percentage of GDP will be relatively small.  And that's if the spending reductions aren't themselves curbed, which they almost certainly will be.  This is how it is with most federal spending.

If all of the Bush tax cuts lapsed, the effect would be to reduce spending further down the income spectrum (not just the rich got a cut), which would have a contractionary effect.  Increasing taxes on higher income people would also have a contractionary effect, though far less of one.  It seems that partisanship leads to even basic Keynesian thought being forgotten.  With Democrats now in full campaign mode offering basically meaningless policy options like the so-called Buffett Rule – sounds good, raises comparatively insignificant amounts of revenue – little progress will likely be made until after November.  Also, Medicare and Medicaid spending increases represent the largest component(s) of potential future outlays, and hence potential future deficits.  Even Democratic budgeting folks say that.

What is most intriguing about recent developments – the Fed pledging to keep rates at current level until 2014, US debt deleveraging, and minimal changes to fiscal policy in the short term on this side of the Atlantic, and a more parsimonious ECB and pledges to pursue fiscal austerity by most European countries on the other side – is that there will be quantifiable evidence on which macroeconomic approaches works better.  Recent history in European countries that have cut back significantly show the outcome, but this will offer an even more significant contrast.  Assuming, of course, the Europeans do what they say they are going to do.

[DavidW]

You make some valid points Todd... but it is pretty frustrating right now because it feels as if is urgent to make important, useful decisions to shape our economy and our future... and nobody will bend even a little to see it done.

I don't want to see the agenda of either party pushed through, I think both are damaging.  I want to see both parties work with each other to come up with legislature that benefits the American people.  That would be preferable to stalemate.

[Todd]

but it is pretty frustrating right now because it feels as if is urgent to make important, useful decisions to shape our economy and our future

I guess the key word here is 'urgent'.  We need to do something right now.  Except maybe we don't.  Pass appropriations to keep the government going, sure, and perform some other housekeeping items (eg, the annual AMT fix), but long-term budget fixes do not need to happen in the next few months, or even this year.  I'd rather that reforming the tax code and entitlements took a while to hash through everything.  If that takes ever mounting pressure on both sides, that's what it takes.

[Karl Henning]

The search for an actual solution is one of the first casualties of our election campaigns. Todd's points well taken, that the feeling of urgency may be a shadow of the rhetorical hype; and that the solution will probably be a matter of responsible slogging. If there could be responsible bipartisan slogging, all the better . . . .

[drogulus]

You make some valid points Todd... but it is pretty frustrating right now because it feels as if is urgent to make important, useful decisions to shape our economy and our future... and nobody will bend even a little to see it done.

    The points are valid. I would let the cuts lapse anyway and balance elsewhere with spending increases. Why cancel the Bush cuts now? Because you can get a very useful and necessary policy reversal, a huge amount of revenue, something close to a balanced budget without damaging any programs people care about. It's a big win. The contractionary effects can be fought and we'll get the expansionary effects fairly soon. My observations of how business decisions are influenced by fiscal developments leads me to estimate that a program like the one I recommend would have a stimulative effect.

   

I don't want to see the agenda of either party pushed through, I think both are damaging.  I want to see both parties work with each other to come up with legislature that benefits the American people.  That would be preferable to stalemate.

     Oh please, spare us these "I wish the Nazis and Jews would stop being mean to each other" equivalencies. The Republicans are far worse. The worst thing about the Dems is they can't get it done. What they want to do is generally good. Not perfect, but good.

[snyprrr]

Diebold Voting Machines made in Israel