Tag Archives: Economy

Separation of Economy and State

“It is not the business of government to own, even on a limited and fleeting basis, our financial or other private sector corporations…”
Thursday, October 9, 2008

I’m an ardent capitalist who understands the occasional usefulness of traditional fiscal and monetary policy to accomplish marginal changes to the economy in an effort to smooth out naturally occurring business cycles. I emphatically do not, however, believe in the nationalization of our country’s financial institutions. It is not the business of government to own, even on a limited and fleeting basis, our financial or other private sector corporations, nor should it attempt to affect the behavior of our financial and other markets through the establishment and support of quasi-public institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Forget President Bush, the first zero President in my lifetime. He understands and does nothing. Our current Administration and the Federal Reserve, under the leadership of Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, have told us that our economy in very deep trouble of a nature and to an extent that requires extraordinary measures to avoid catastrophic consequences from which only they can save us.

For the second time in this Administration’s history – the first being the authorization of the use of military force in Iraq due, in large part, to the threat of non-existent weapons of mass destruction – our Administration has convinced Congress to authorize the use of massive amounts of money to solve a major problem which they have blown way out of proportion. Without question, their rhetoric and sense of panic has contributed to the problem, to a loss in consumer and entrepreneurial confidence, and has allowed us to be played for everything we’re worth, and then some, to the advantage of certain corporate interests. (Unbelievable, but I’m beginning to sound like some nutball talk radio host – and all I really wanted to do is write stuff.)

Their solution – from the same people who allowed and even encouraged the problem – has been hurriedly and ill-conceived. It is not at all clear that other, less expensive solutions might not have been more effective at facilitating the natural recovery process in which the economy was already engaged, and would have been more helpful to reduce the extent and duration of the negative impacts of any downturn on our families and businesses.

Careful, wise regulation of financial institutions is prudent and essential. No doubt about it. No, what I find disturbing is the way in which the Administration has chosen to involve itself in the finances of specific companies such as AIG, for example, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs which they have now allowed to become banks, and others. Paulson and Bernanke are selectively reaching into the economy and using public money we don’t have to affect the fortunes of specific firms. With what impact on their competitors? With what consequences for their markets? Not that our economy doesn’t need help from time to time, but from a government that understands the difference between assistance and control. This is not fiscal policy which focuses on employment and income (personal and corporate) on a broad spectrum basis. This isn’t monetary policy that uses changes in the interest rates to affect the cost and supply of money on a broad spectrum basis. This is something very different.

It is, at the risk of sounding overly dramatic, nothing less insidious than a form of the nationalization of our economy – and I don’t think partisan politics has anything to do with it. Republicans, as a party, certainly don’t believe in this kind of government. Quite to the contrary, Senator McCain is a champion of less government participation in our economy. If anything, it’s more consistent with Democratic thinking given the endless stream of promises Senator Obama has made, the realization of which will involve much more government spending and involvement in our lives. This is a Paulson/Bernanke thing. – with President Bush having lunch on the sidelines.

In today’s headlines, and within the authority granted by the bailout program legislation Congress has just passed, Secretary Paulson is considering taking an ownership interest in certain of our major banks. This is not a good thing. True, it’s something which has happened in Europe, but I don’t live in Europe. This is my country, and I like our brand of capitalism.

I want Paulson and Bernanke out of office. Paulson goes in January with the change in Administration. Bernanke should be replaced as quickly as possible – by Greenspan II, if we can find one. And I want a new Administration which is, from the top down, committed to assisting the economy by using traditional fiscal and monetary policies in a way which allows a well-regulated, but otherwise free market economy to accomplish its own recovery.


Site Meter

The Forgotten Class: Upsizing the American Family

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Whatever happened to the “small Coke”?

“Yes, I’ll have a cheese Whopper, extra onions…”

“Extra onions?”

“Yes. I’m single.”

“No kidding.”

“…small fries, and a small Coke.”

Remember those days? Sad to say, there is no more small Coke, or small fries for that matter. “Medium” is the new “small.” The old small no longer exists. Unfortunately, this is where the analogy I’m about to make breaks down.

The candidates, especially Barack Obama who considers himself their champion, have been talking a lot about the “Middle Class,” offering tax and other programs to save them. Promises, promises, saying whatever it takes to get elected without regard to costs or other practical considerations. “Blah, blah, blah.” (So I’m becoming a tad cynical. It’s been a long, long campaign, and I don’t like anyone who’s running. Every four years I ask myself the same question, “Is this the best we can do?”)

Here’s the thing about the Middle Class. It’s not real, and it’s not relevant. If you define the middle using too broad a spectrum of household income, let’s say $25,000 to $125,000, you’ve included families at the low end who face a very different set of challenges than those at the upper end of that range. Household definition is also a factor. Do you honestly think a single parent family of three making $40,000 a year has anything in common with a single person household making the same salary? Of course not. And there are other factors that need to be taken into account related to education and training, profession and industry affiliation, location, age and, unfortunately, ethnicity and gender.

Even more important, and the reason for the title of this simple observation, the very fact of a Middle Class suggests that there is a lower one where the working poor and others who aren’t part of the economy live. What about these people whose problems have been largely omitted from the rhetoric of this campaign? It’s a particularly striking oversight given that the leading candidate is a person of color. Could be, come to think of it, a reason why he’s leading, that he’s managed to distance himself and his campaign from the poverty and constant recession we never think or do enough about. Not enough voters. Not enough contributors.

This is a Middle Class election. Tax the higher income families. Forget about the lower income families. The Middle Class is the only class that counts.

There’s the inference that somehow we’re all in the Middle Class or higher, that there is no “lower class.” Even the term is disparaging. But who are either of the candidates kidding? Ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away. Think of the productivity we’re missing from our economy, the social costs in terms of quality of life not realized, the real costs of the services we actually do provide, and the potential increased levels of consumption that would benefit all of us if only we could help this other, invisible segment of our people have its shot at the American dream.


Site Meter

Crying “Wolf!” …again.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Have you noticed that the Bush Administration has a propensity for crying “Wolf!”? Remember the non-existent weapons of mass destruction on the basis of which our Congress voted to authorize what turned out to be a war in Iraq? That’s what I’m talking about.

I think it’s happening again, this time in the form of an assertion that our economy is hanging on by a thread, on the edge of oblivion. Other than the Administration and representatives of the banks and other financial institutions that stand to benefit from a bailout, and the reporters that cover the financial sector, what independent confirmation, what detailed information do we have to confirm that there is a crisis and that, even if there is, it has anything to with the subprime mortgage mess?

How much of the stress the economy may be showing is real, or the result of our government telling everyone how bad things are? If our Secretary of the Treasury and President tell us the economy is tanking, couldn’t that have a depressing effect on consumer spending and business investments? Of course it will. Worse, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more bad news they shout, the more severe their predictions, the worse the impact of those proclamations which those same government leaders then use to justify their warnings.

Our government needs to calm down. Our Congress needs to demand independent proof of the extent of our crisis, and consider alternative solutions. We’ve made this mistake before at the cost of lives that shouldn’t have been lost, and a fortune that could have been spent in so many more productive ways. Rushing to spend our way out of a problem we don’t even understand will be no less costly or more effective at accomplishing objectives we have yet to adequately define.

To paraphrase the old adage … Fool us once, shame on the Bush Administration. Fool us twice, shame on Congress and those of us who failed to raise their hands and say, “No. Not this time.”


Site Meter

Just because the Dow drops 777.68 points…

Monday, September 29, 2008

… doesn’t mean the entire economy is having a bad day.  Sure, if you’re holding stock that’s gone down, you’re net worth is lower – but then the market has a long history of coming back.

What it could also mean is that a lot of people were betting on the fact the government was getting ready to spread around some serious money.  That didn’t happen today and so lots of people got nervous and assumed that everyone else would get nervous, so they sold to get out ahead of the drop, and then the other people saw the prices falling and said, “I knew it!” and they sold…  Hey, it’s a speculative market.  What did you expect?

Actually, stock prices are driven by two factors:  real changes in the fortunes of our publicly held companies, and speculation.  Some of the speculation is about profits and potential growth, but a lot of it, especially in the context of wild ass (pardon me) doomsday language coming out of the Administration, is just pure speculation, plain and not so simple.  (Keep in mind that some people on Wall Street and elsewhere in investment banking make as much or more money during downturns than upswings.  Even among we ordinary people, who out there on isn’t wondering, “You know, honey, maybe this would be a good time to buy?” …”Don’t be ridiculous. Not until we redo the kitchen.”)

The point is, nothing has happened to the real component of our economy in the last few hours.  Prices will go back up, eventually.  They always have.  This is not the end of our economy as we know it.  Not even close.  (Citicorp helped out Wachovia today, and they did it all by themselves without government assistance.)

I’d like to personally ask Congress to avoid being distracted by stock prices, whichever way they’re moving, and focus on defining the extent of the current problem and evaluating alternative solutions.  To borrow a phrase from James Carville of the Bill Clinton campaign, “It’s about the economy stupid,” which is something much larger, much more powerful, much more deserving of your attention, than the momentary fluctuations of a very, very speculative market.


Site Meter

Headline of the Day: “HOUSE REJECTS BAILOUT BILL”*

Monday, September 29, 2008

*www.MSNBC.com , 3:06 PM ET
Leadership pressure fails
House defeats a $700 billion emergency rescue package, ignoring urgent pleas from President Bush and congressional leaders to quickly bail out the staggering financial industry.”

How ‘bout that. A House of Representatives that is actually listening to the people it represents. Isn’t that something?

Once again, will someone please tell the Administration – and Congressional leadership – to calm down and demand that someone – someone other than Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke or, heaven forbid, President Bush – confirm, in detail, that we are, in fact, in the midst of a crisis and that that the financial sector isn’t already in the process of healing itself without the need for massive government assistance?

Remember, this is the same Administration that rushed us into a war in Iraq because of the threat of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.


Site Meter

Secretary Henry Paulson: Is this the person we want devising a program to save Wall Street?

“He also owns options to purchase 680,474 shares of [Goldman Sachs] common stock, all of which [were] exercisable.”
Monday, September 29, 2008

Before we go any further, I don’t have an answer to the question posed by the title.

On one hand, it’s certainly a good idea to have someone with Secretary Paulson’s understanding of finance and our financial institutions handling the current crisis. On the other hand, do we really want someone this close to Wall Street in charge? The same Secretary of the Treasury who, for more than two years, has watched us inch closer and closer to the emergency he now tells us the worst peril for our economy since The Great Depression? Close advisor, maybe, but in charge? The primary source of information about the crisis on the basis of which our Congress is ready to spend $700 billion?

The first of the two enclosed PDFs is the Treasury Department biography for Mr. Paulson.* (I’m giving you the link to the PDF I made, but also to the website which contains the original material.) It confirms that, prior to assuming his current position at Treasury, he “was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs since the firm’s initial public offering in 1999,” and where he had been employed since 1974.

What’s interesting is what the Treasury biography omits, that being any reference to the $492 million of Goldman Sachs stock Secretary Paulson sold when he was confirmed by the Senate, and his other Goldman Sachs-related holdings and options. See the Wall Street Journal “Market Watch” report I’ve included below.** Interesting reading, to say the least. Among other notable details, “He also owns options to purchase 680,474 shares of common stock, all of which [were] exercisable” as of the publication date, June 30, 2006.

Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) closed on Friday at $137.99. Over the past 52 weeks, Goldman Sachs has traded between $86.31 and $250.70.

So what do you think?

*Link to PDF… PDF Version of Treasury Biography
Link to original source… Original Treasury Biography

**Link to PDF… PDF Version of WSJ Market Watch Report
Link to original source… Original WSJ Market Watch Report


Site Meter

Note to Barack Obama: Follow the leader. His name is “John McCain.”

“Senator Obama did what he does best: He’s remaining calm, seeking advice, forming a consensus, and waiting to see which way the political winds blow.”
Wednesday, September 24, 2008

No less an authority on life than Woody Allen once observed that “Eighty percent of success is just showing up.” Apparently Senator Obama never got the memo. Oh, he’s showed up to run for President alright, since he was 10 years old according to legend. Unfortunately, that qualifies him to be a candidate, but little else.

Today, in the midst of what our government tells us – but I don’t buy – is our greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, Senator McCain called Senator Obama to suggest a joint, non-partisan statement on the subject, and to recommend that Friday’s debate be postponed to allow them both to go to Washington where our Congressional leaders who are sincerely interested in being part of the solution belong.

Instead of agreeing to the postponement, Senator Obama did what he does best: He’s remaining calm, seeking advice, forming a consensus, and waiting to see which way the political winds blow. It’s good to be laid back, so I’ve heard. It’s not a something I have time to be. Too much to worry about, I guess. I don’t know about you, but I want a President who gets excited now and then, who feels my angst and maybe shows some occasional frustration in the face of a government that’s not even close to working.

It’s reassuring to know that Senator Obama talks to Congressional and Administration leaders over the phone as he explained at today’s press conference. That’s great. All he needs to run the government is a cell phone. Think of the all money we’ll save. And he told them if he’s needed in Washington, just let him know and he’ll be there. Translation: That’s campaign-speak for “I’m busy running for President. Wake me when the crisis is over.” Senator McCain is not waiting for anyone to call, and deserves credit for taking the initiative.

Was suggesting the postponement a political ploy, a desperate measure given his recent slipping in the polls? One poll shows him down by 10 points, but that’s unlikely. Others show him down by only two, within the margin of error. Sure. Maybe. I don’t know, nor do I care. What’s becoming apparent is that Senator McCain’s in the fight of his life, and so is our country. They’re a good match.

Now could someone please remind me which one of the two candidates is the old one?


Site Meter

Financial Armageddon: Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Sequel?

Monday, September 22, 2008

Much in the same way the Bush Administration convinced us of the need to invade Iraq, once again it is asking us take emergency action to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to solve a problem that we have little more than its word to believe exists. Sound familiar?

We need to calm down, and demand that the Administration answer the following questions, among others, in detail and with hard evidence to prove their assertions:

1. Define the objective(s). What, specifically, can we reasonably expect to accomplish by spending the $700 billion dollars our Administration has requested?

2. Other than the understandable panic and tightening of credit associated with our government leaders predicting a worst case scenario for the economy, what specific evidence is there that our financial markets will not recover in due time, on their own? What proof is there, in other words, that the private sector will not recover, that there will be vast and horrendous repercussions for our citizens, without government assistance?

3. How does the government explain the resolution of problems at Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and other corporations involved in trading (Constellation Engery, for example) without the need for government support? Please include in that list the pending merger of Wachovia with Morgan Stanley which was derailed when the Administration allowed Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to become commercial banks.

4. Other than spending $700 billion to buy defaulted subprime mortgages, what other solutions might accomplish the same objectives, perhaps even more effectively? Alternatives to be considered might include: Guarantying the firms who hold these notes against losses resulting from their liquidation, including the sale of collateral real estate, to be paid when those losses are realized, and not before. Directing our resources to protect those ordinary citizens who may eventually suffer as a result of this bad debt – given that it’s not clear what these losses might be, if any. And my personal favorite, doing nothing at all.

5. Precisely how was the $700 billion calculated, within what margin of error? What assurances do we have that this $700 billion will accomplish the objective, rather than just being the down payment on a more expensive program with additional installments to come?

6. And finally, what specifically are the negative consequences of our incurring this gross amount of additional national debt, while interfering with the natural corrective measures and other competitive behavior of our economy?

For being asked to spend $700 billion dollars we don’t have, and to put control of that money in the hands of a single person without meaningful oversight, answering the questions I’ve posed would seem to be the least our government can do – which is ironic given that doing the least it can do is certainly a major explanation for how we got into this mess.


Site Meter

Thinking Out Loud About Our Government’s Turning Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Into Banks

Monday, September 22, 2008

I’ve got to be careful here. Things are moving so fast in Washington that it’s hard to keep track of the specifics of what’s happening, let alone conduct a thorough analysis of the situation – all for what amounts to a hobby while I work, probably like you, 10+ hour days making a living doing something else. And then there’s the problem that, while my education and experience are helpful, I’m no world class authority on finance and banking. On the other hand, those shortcomings have never stopped me before, so, what the hell, here goes…

My gut and my brain both tell me that allowing Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to function as banks may be a bad idea, certainly one that needs a lot more careful consideration on the part of the Bush Administration and Congress. True, as banks they will be more tightly regulated, and will have access to capital from depositors and from within the banking system itself the way commercial banks do. If only that was all there was to it.

1. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs made some bad investment decisions. So, instead of allowing the economy to impose its own, naturally occurring penalties, we reward them by allowing them, in perpetuity, to be commercial banks.

2. In addition to allowing them to be commercial banks, are we also going to buy the bad subprime debt they’re carrying on their books?

3. There are other ways to regulate investment banking behavior other than turning the investment banks into commercial banks or “thrifts.”

4. In the process, we’re not only pulling the rug out from under Wachovia which was negotiating a merger with Morgan Stanley, we create two huge new competitors in a commercial banking system our own government tells us is already struggling. (Talk about interfering with the economy.)

5. I’m fairly certain our regular banks are constrained by law and regulation in their ability to also engage in investment banking and securities transactions. The idea is that we don’t want unacceptably high risks to be taken with our deposits. Doesn’t turning two of the world’s largest investment banks and brokerages into commercial banks fly in the face of that general principle? Are they no longer going to be allowed to do investment banking?

6. What about the other investment banking firms – such as Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers – who managed to save themselves without being allowed to be commercial banks? Are we penalizing them for having resolved their problems without public assistance?

Yes, I have more questions than answers, but the one thing I am sure about is that our government is moving way too fast. In what’s got to be the “bum’s rush” of the decade – any decade – the Administration is asking Congress to give our the Secretary of the Treasury what is basically unfettered authority to spend upward to $1 trillion dollars to resolve the current crisis – the extent of which, and the array of possible solutions for which, we have yet to confirm or debate. And they expect Congress to legislate this authority by Friday. One unnamed media contact in Congress went so far as to describe the legislation they have been asked to approve as a “Financial Patriot Act.” To quote from Senator McCain’s reaction, “We can’t solve a problem that has poor oversight with [a solution that has] no oversight.”

We need to calm down. Congress needs to stay all Administrative actions, including this conversion of investment banks into commercial banks, until it (Congress) has had time to study the situation more carefully.


Site Meter

Dear Senator Obama:

“… how about if you stop accusing Senator McCain of “flip-flopping” just because he has the intelligence and experience to have a less than simple-minded, formulaic approach to resolving our many national problems?”
Sunday, September 21, 2008

Hello. Because I know you are sincerely committed to quality and continuing education, I would like to make the following two points about your campaign’s interpretation of Senator McCain’s recent statements about the economy. Here goes…

1. It is entirely possible and often the case that the fundamentals of our economy would be strong, even while the economy itself is dealing with serious problems. You, for example, are working hard to become President of the United States. In the process, you have had a number of problems, such as the mess with Reverend Wright, and yet, throughout it all, I’m sure you never doubted that the fundamentals of your person and your campaign remained strong – strong enough to recover with a major taxpayer subsidy. See how easy that was?

By the way, on this first point, if the fundamentals of our economy were not strong, how do you explain the way the difficulties at Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Constellation Energy and others are resolving themselves – and doing so without government assistance? How do you explain the way our banking system continues to function – albeit a bit skittishly, which is to be expected in light of the profoundly negative prognosis we keep hearing from Washington? There is and will continue to be less credit available, at higher costs to more accurately reflect risk, but then the problem we’re trying to correct is that there was too much credit available at rates which were too low. Tightening the availability of credit is the whole idea of “The Big Fix” our Congress is about to debate. If the fundamentals of our economy are not strong, how is it that economy is moving so quickly to repair itself?

2. It is also entirely possible to be generally opposed to government intervention in the economy, while at the same time being in favor of some specific regulatory programs. I am, for example, adamantly opposed to our buying the bad debt these various financial institutions are carrying on their books, in favor of allowing the economy to handle that problem on its own, while at the same time being in favor of limited regulations designed to prevent the continued origination of such paper and its derivatives. What’s wrong with that?

I suspect that both you and especially Senator McCain agree that we need to leave our economy alone, within limits designed to prevent adverse practices which tend to escape the natural self-correcting tendencies of our capitalist system. The only debate between you and Senator McCain is the extent of those limits, Senator McCain being less restrictive than you seem to be.

Certainly, Senator Obama, you’re not suggesting that your approach to economic, social and national security policies is “all or nothing,” that we should do everything one way or another according to some rigid doctrine without the common sense flexibility to make adjustments depending upon circumstances. Of course not. So, how about if you stop accusing Senator McCain of “flip-flopping” just because he has the intelligence and experience to have a less than simple-minded, formulaic approach to resolving our many national problems? …and I’ll ask him and his campaign to do the same for you.

Thank you.


Site Meter