Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Timeline from Hell

2008's Economic Crisis In Review

January

Bong Insurers (Monolines) Near Failure
Bad MLK Day for World Markets / Fed Rate Cut Next Day
Societé General Fraud: Jerome Cerviel

March
Bear Stearns Failure & Bailout (Mar 17)

July
Oil shoots to nearly $150 barrel (July)
ECB raises interest rate due to inflation fears (see oil)

September
Fannie/Freddie nationalized (Sept 7)
Oil shoots downward
Lehman Brothers bankrupt (Sept 14)
Merill Lynch sells to B/A (Sept 15)
US Treasury Bill hits lowest level ever
TARP proposed (3 pages) (Sept 19)
Iceland banking system collapses
WaMu fails; sold to JP Morgan
Fortis Bailed-out (Europe banking problems)
House rejects TARP (Sept 29)
-- biggest sell-off in 21 years (2nd largest ever)

October
First week --> Market Crash; worst week since 1931, second worst ever
Wachovia purchased by Citi then Wells Fargo
Britain announced bank recapitalization plan
TED Spread hits historic high (mid-Oct)
Dollar shoots up against world currencies
Currency collapse in emerging markets

November
Obama elected, stocks decline
No troubled assets for TARP, decline of markets
-- worst credit market ever
-- highest daily volatility and weekly volatility (VIX)
-- lowest S+P since 1997
-- Citi bailed out
-- turnaround on troubled assets

December
$50 billion Madoff ponzi scheme
Interest rates move toward 0
3-Month T-Bills negative
$17 trillion in value lost

Friday, December 12, 2008

What to Do with the Big 3

As I've thought about this carefully -- and looked into the ramifications of different courses of action -- it's become increasingly clear to me that we have to avoid a Chapter 7 bankruptcy (ie, liquidation) of the Big 3 auto makers. I suppose it possible to do that by just allowing them into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and having them restructure. But since financing will likely be untenable for such restructuring, it seems that doing nothing right now is tantamount to paying Russian roulette. Therefore, I would have preferred if Congress had passed the compromise $16 billion in loans (i.e., the bailout). Tonight, it has been rejected by Senate Republicans, many of whom represent states that have non-Big 3 auto plants (Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mercedes, BMW) and were simply trying to cause wages at those plants to decrease as result of forcing UAW wages to decrease (or, for that matter, cease to exist at all).* This increases the likelihood of the Chapter 7 scenario. If that were to happen, then we should expect a Second Great Depression. It's really that simple.#

Of course, I think Ford, Chrysler, and GM have been mismanaged, but I could say the same thing of the banks. (I'm still expecting Bank of America to go under, for all of their reckless buying of companies with land mines on their balance sheets.). We bailed out the banks to save the larger economy, now we probably need to do the same for the auto industry. Bailouts cannot end, because the economy is unable to survive market forces. Things are that bad. We're a couple big failures away from 15% unemployment and unrest in the street. (We're likely loosing 750,000 jobs each month already.) I know this sounds alarmist, but I've done the math and the modeling, and that could be where we're heading. This kind of loss of production resultant from a Big 3 collapse would nearly complete the parallels between now and the early 1930s. (All we need are protectionist tariffs in a couple countries, and we will have hit them all.)

-----

*In fact, the recommended decrease for the UAW wages would actually put them lower than the ones paid to Southern plant workers. This, in turn, would allow Southern automakers to competitively decrease the wages they pay. Ironically, the liquidation of the Big 3 would likely destroy the Southern auto plants as well, since the part manufacturers that supply them are often able to exist only due to large Big 3 orders. If the parts suppliers all go under, than Toyota et al. will be unable to make cars.

#Of course, there are several other events that could similarly cause such a bad outcome. The liquidation of the Big 3 is just one of them.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Times' Endorsements Past

I was looking back at NY Times editorial endorsements from past elections, and I came across ones from 1940 and 1944. It was interesting, because they actually backed Wilkie in '40 but returned to Roosevelt in '44. The main reasoning was that the Democrats foreign policy was better in latter contest. In these two short editorials, one can learn about the agenda of Roosevelt. The paper essentially faulted the president for taking too much control over the economy, advocating deficit spending, and acting imperial (the court packing plan, "purges" of moderate Democrats, etc.). Nevertheless, these editorials made me feel that a) if Roosevelt would have been allowed to do what he really wanted, this country would have been better, and b) if Roosevelt wouldn't have died in 1945, most of his agenda would have been passed. We could have ended up with a country that strived for full employment, national health care, and guaranteed housing. It seems likely that if Roosevelt didn't attempt the Supreme Court power grab in 1937 (which undermined his domestic agenda for good, because it raised the specter of abuse of power) and managed to hang on until 1948, he could have passed most of his Second Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, when he died, his cult of personality died with him. Truman could not fill the vacuum, and a large part of the reason that the Democrats got wiped out in 1946 was a mixture of public dislike of Truman and poor labor-related decisions he made.

This led me to look more critically at Truman's record, and, in fact, it's awful. He dropped the Bomb(s). He recognized Israel without conditions. He twice try seizure, nationalization, and forced enlistment to end strikes. He stoked the flames of the Cold War in '45-'46. All four of his Supreme Court choices were awful, and they decidedly moved the Court to the right and ruined any attempt to solidify a left-leaning majority. (It took Eisenhower's ironic picks of Warren and Brennan to do that.*) His main (and perhaps only) significant domestic contributions were the Housing Act, which has had a mixed legacy, and some civil rights legislation, which was admittedly quite significant. In general, however, his presidency was a failure. The fact that historians have reassessed it positively makes me fear that something like this could eventually happen to Bush's.

What are the implications of this window into the past? It made me realize that the popularity of the president is important. Roosevelt's popularity sustained the Democrats not only in elections, but in the passage of legislation. The same perhaps could have been said of Johnson in 1964-66, following the Kennedy assassination. But the poor popularity of Cater and Clinton (during his first two years) damaged the Democratic party and the respective presidencies. If Obama wins, he will need to keep his popularity high in order to maintain a Democratic majority and allow his policy initiatives to be passed. With these conditions, it's possible the dams could burst and we could finally get Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights and Truman's Fair Deal passed in full. And it will have taken only 60 years.

One final thing about the Democratic party: There has only been a few periods in the last 100 years in which substantial domestic changes have been passed by the Democrats.

1913-1916
1933-1938
1964-1966
1993


----

*A few facts about the Court. The last time that it had a clear 5-4 liberal majority was between the years of 1956-1969. Those were the only 13 years of the entire 20th Century (and arguably the history of the Republic) that this happened. Additionally, it has been 55 years since the Court had a Democratic-appointed Chief Justice. Imagine what the country would have been like if we had something like the Warren Court for the last forty years. Gay marriage probably would have been made legal a decade ago, and gun bans would have been upheld. Instead, the Court today teeters between center-right and full-blown reactionary.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Liberal Laundry List

This is adapted from recent writings by others about what a Democratic majority could bring:

Universal healthcare (perhapsmoving toward single-payer)
Re-regulation of finance, industry, and communications
More power for unions ("card check"; repeal of Taft-Hartley)
Tax increases for top 2% earners
Elimination of payroll tax cap

Doubling of capital gain tax
Regulation of the environment though carbon taxes or cap-and-trade
Increased fuel and clean energy standards
Same-day voter registration
DC representative in Congress

Elimination of No Child Left Behind (or, at least, its flaws)
Loosening of consumer bankruptcy / credit laws
Closing of Guantanamo
Due process for detainees
Net Neutrality

(and, of course)

An End to the War in Iraq

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Worst Week Ever

From the open on Monday until the end of trading on Friday, the Dow fell 18.15%, making it either the worse week ever or the second worse. It is worthy of the title crash. (Most foreign markets did worse, between 20 and 25%)

It all depends on how one measures it. If five days are considered a week, then it is not the worse five days ever for the Dow. From Tuesday, July 18, 1933, to Saturday, July 22, 1933, the Dow dropped 18.33%. If this week is compared with any other Monday-Friday or Monday-Saturday, it is the worst week for the Dow ever. I heard on a web video, however, that for the S&P 500, that same week in 1933 was slightly worse than this week. However you look it at, it was really bad.

How does the generally trend over the past 11 months compare with other bear markets?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/11/business/20081011_BEAR_MARKETS.html

Also, try this on the five year setting (pretty scary looking):

Yahoo chart

Friday, October 10, 2008

Let's Wait for Bottom (Even If It's Zero)

Recently, there has been a growing chorus of right-wing/libertarian investors who suggest that we stop all this government involvement and just the let the market find the bottom (which I say is 0). Once it reaches this bottom, they argue, things will go back to normal. Along the way, they expect mass bankruptcies, but they say that is the normal course of events.

This is the same thing that many business leaders said back in the 1930s. They were led by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon who famously said:

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people …"

It's funny how things never change.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

How Low Can You Go!

The limbo game continues. Most argue that the ultimate bottom is about 7500 (the low during the last recession/bear market). If it goes below that, the bottom is 0. I'm old enough to remember 4000 but not anything below that.

We're starting to see some scary echoes of the 1930s. The Republicans are stealthy and not-so-stealthy blaming minorities (black and Hispanics) for this crisis. They are scapegoating them by saying that minority quotas on mortgage lending at Fannie and Freddie (backed by Democrats) led to the subprime crisis. I hope most people understand that this is only about 5% of the whole cause, but I could explain in much greater detail.

In any case, without widespread, definitive, and radical action this weekend by all of the world's major economies, we are looking at what may be the end of capitalism. Not to be dramatic or anything.

Although my dire predictions are usually one day off, tomorrow could very well be Black Friday. (At this point, though, it's going to be the Black Week of October regardless. It may be more accurate to call it the Blood Red Week; we're on pace for a 20% drop.) But I'm sure Bernanke and Paulson know this about tomorrow as well, so I'm sure they will do something drastic in the morning. Unfortunately, they have to compete with Bush. During his pronouncements, the Dow usually loses 100-200 points.

Remember that TED Spread (of which I previously spoke): It's at 4.23.

And, right now, the Nikkei is currently down 11%.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Wall Street Is Laying Another Egg

The market went down 500 points today. This is the 8th loss of more than 350 points (or 3%) this year. The market declined nearly 20% between Oct 2007 and Sept 2008. In the past month, however, it's dropped more than 17% and looks headed for a 20% drop during a period of 30 days.

11 months since Oct 2007 peak - 20% drop
last month - additional 20% drop

That's a rapid acceleration of the crisis.

Combined with the lack of credit between banks, this decline mirrors those in the winter of 1930-31, which continued in extreme until the end of 1931. Then, bank panics riddled the country and the Dow dropped 70%. It's not going to be that bad this time. But the 40-50% decline that we are likely to witness is comparative. So far, this is the worst drop since the 1937 crash. (It will take the Dow dropping below 7500 for it to be the worse since the beginning of the Great Depression. Between Sept 1930 and July 1932, the Dow fell 81.25%, an Armageddon percentage if it were to occur today.)

The past month doesn't compare easily to 1929, because it wasn't as sudden of a purge. But the rate of loss is as bad as October of that year. In no time since then has the market fallen as quickly and consistently as it has in the past 10 days. If the speed and overall panic compares to 1929, the overall negative economic environment and the one year trend of the market decline mirrors the decrease between Sept 1930 and Sept 1931. During that period, the Dow "broke" 42%. So far this year, the market is down almost 29%. If it goes below 34%, it will become the 3rd worst year ever behind 1907 (panic year) and 1931. I'd call it a crash if the market drops below 9000 in the next week or if the market is below 8000 at the end of the year.

9000 would be 20% drop in one month
8000 would be 40% decline for the year

But that's all trivia -- empiricism lagging behind a general atmosphere of discontent.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Why I'm For the Bailout

Not as cogent of an argument as I would have liked, but here it is:

Watch any cable news network in the past two weeks and you will hear countless times that the American people are against this "bailout" package. Anecdotes about congressional offices receiving calls 300-to-1 against the bailout spring from the lips of many congressmen and commentators. One even said that half of the correspondence his office received said "no" to the bailout and the other half intoned "hell no." It's not very popular, one might gather from all of this. Of course, those who are the most worked up about the whole thing will be the ones calling. And save a few brokers and CEOs here and there, no non-lobbying constituent is going to be passionate about supporting it. There's an enthusiasm gap, and the less passionate don't make the effort to send email to CNBC at 3am. The haters, therefore, appear to outnumber the more moderate souls who perhaps believe their politicians.

We shouldn't believe them. We shouldn't even be listening to them. Instead, we should turn to the economists (who have studied past crises -- that is, a relatively small group) and also to those involved with the industry that is failing. Sure, one might say, the latter is biased by selfish concerns and the former are wrong most of the time anyway. But what if they're not wrong, and what if selfish concerns of Wall Street have some relevance to us all? The market -- and by market, I mean not only stocks, but credit and other financial instruments -- is mostly a psychological affair. What those people on Wall Street (and their brethren on Bond St. and elsewhere) believe affects what they do, which affects the way events play out. If Wall Street gets indigestion, the proverbial Main Street ends up with the hiccups. If Wall Street falls off a cliff, Main Street is pulled over the precipice.

Shouldn't the fat cats pay for their sins? Sure, they should feel some pain, but let's not burn down the place to teach them a lesson. The potential for catastrophe is clear. Modeling shows the chain of events that could precipitate a large increase in unemployment and unavailability of credit to large segments of the population, including businesses. It all stems from the failure to act. The time to punish Wall Street, to crucify them on a cross of gold, was a couple years ago, or four years before that, or in the late 1980s. Now, it's too late. We thought we were sticking it to them with Sarbanes-Oxley -- the new regulatory requirements after Enron -- but we used a pin instead of a sword. For thirty years, we could have raised taxes on not just Wall Street fat cats, but all such creatures with bursting wallets. We could have put measures in place to stop the demands for rapid increases in corporate growth, and we could have passed restrictions intended to limit CEO pay. We could have moved interest rates up earlier to prevent the explosion of free money, and we could have cracked down on abusive mortgage practices and fraudulent mortgage-takers. We could have kept Glass-Steagal in place or maintained limits on leverage for investment banks. We could have even de-emphasized home ownership while ensuring that people were able to find affordable, safe, and clean rental properties. Now, we may be able to do some or all of these things, but it won't make a difference. It's no longer about finding a remedy for past ills, it's about keeping US society afloat -- welfare for the nation, paid through Wall Street.

Why would I, as a committed leftist on economic issues, support this package intended to save capitalism? Because I don't think human misery is the right price to pay for most equally distributed resources. The ultimate and irrevocable failure of all "bailout" package proposals would ensure 10% unemployment within six months, and it would greatly damage the country. From this turmoil could spring positive changes, but it would likely also portend demagoguery from the right. We would likely see massive campaigns against immigrants, a revival of dangerous populism, and total disenchantment with the government. The likely result would be problems at home and warfare abroad, once economic decline hits developing markets. Of course, such a situation would provide an opportunity for a great leader to radically change things. I just think this scenario is a bigger gamble than $700 billion. I'm not sure I trust Obama and Biden 100%. And, even with this bailout package, the potential for wide scale change in the economy exists.

By passing a bill, panic can temporarily be averted through a program that will prevent some short-term panics. This will also give the government some breathing room and cover to pass additional, better legislation that addresses this problems more effectively. The bankruptcy laws need to be changed; they are embarrassment now. Credit practices need to be reigned in, so credit card companies don't abuse consumers under the auspices of extending credit more broadly. More than anything, the economy has to be rejiggered so that so many citizens are not dependent on pay day loans, high-interest credit cards, and home equity to pay for necessities. This could be accomplished by large scale government investment in infrastructure, energy, and public transit; control of health care costs through a national health care framework; radical changes in the tax code; and smart investment in education. For Wall Street, liquidity can be boosted by the government buying preferred shares in banks (ie. a nationalization of the banking industry). If absolutely necessary, housing could also be nationalized to a large degree. Finally, the government could abandon its support for 401(k) plans and allow citizens to pool money into secure, fixed yield retirement accounts (that is, movable pensions) used to supplement social security.

The bailout addresses the current debacle by providing massive cash infusions to the banking and financial industry (through the purchase of bad assets and equity). By doing this, confidence in these organizations will increase, averting sell-offs, downgrades, and overall panic. Of course, many institutions are not only illiquid but insolvent, so this is far from a long term solution. Relief will only last a few months at the most. Nevertheless, this plan will allow them to fail in a way that does not damage other institutions. If the financial industry is a big metal chain connecting money to individuals, then a massive institutional failure causes a single link to fall off. The chain breaks. The governments job is to provide a thread that runs through all of the links. If one link falls off, they are still connected by the thread.

It's not a perfect or even good plan by any stretch of the imagination, but the failure to act right now could be catastrophic. Let's hope that the House can pull just enough votes tomorrow morning to get it past.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

The Scary Chart...

that most people have never heard of (make sure it is set to 3Y, for maximum effect)

I typically mention the stock market in my updates, but it's also important to look at the credit markets. As you may remember, banks lend to each other at rates closely related to the Fed Funds rate but, in reality, based on the whatever given banks will charge each other. The TED Spread (see scary chart link above) is the difference between the rates that banks charge each other for loans (as calculated by the LIBOR -- London Interbank Offered Rate -- the best measure of short term interest rates on bank-to-bank loans) and the yield of 3-month US Treasury bills (the best measure of short term bond rates -- bank to government loans, that is). Since banks are in the business of giving out money and getting more money back in return, they are always looking for the best place to put their money. Putting consumer and business transactions aside, is it better for banks to lend their excess money to other banks or to lend it to the US government by buying bonds? The safer it is to lend to other banks, the lower the LIBOR rate. When more risky, the rate goes higher. Conversely, when it is safe to lend to other banks, bond sales decrease, causing their yield ("interest rate") to increase. When it is unafe, everyone buys bonds and their yields approach zero in the short term. Therefore, the higher the TED Spread, the scarier the current climate. Right now, it's above 3. The historical average over the past fifty years is less than 0.5. This is what a credit crisis looks like...

Monday, September 29, 2008

Oops...

Take a peak at the Dow and match it with big headline in the news.

I've never seen anything like this -- and I've watched seven of the eight largest point drops live on CNBC. The markets closed at 4pm down 590. Now, fifteen minutes later, trades are still coming through, and the market is down 750 points. I wonder if it will keep going down. The futures (that is, estimates of tomorrow's trades) are down sharply as well. This could be the disaster than so many predicted.

Nasdaq down 10% (third worse percentage ever)
Dow down 7% (largest point drop ever)
S&P down 9% (worse since 1987 crash)

Saturday, September 27, 2008

The First Debate: In Review

It's really not my place to say who won the debate, because as the McCain people would say, I'm "in the tank" for Obama. What I will do is list my disappointments:

Obama missed an opportunity to show an FDR streak on the economic crisis. He could have explained the credit meltdown to the American people and how it will effect them. With some sense of savvy, he could have done so without sounding condescending and pedantic. This would have gone a little way toward building greater popular support for something that is wildly unpopular among regular people but necessary for the health of the country. Instead, he listed his principles for the plan, which I don't think was particularly necessary. He should have explained how these principles apply to regular people, instead of just listing them. He also didn't have a good "I feel your pain" moment. I did like this, though:

And that's why it's so important, as we solve this short-term problem, that we look at some of the underlying issues that have led to wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down, the -- a health care system that is broken, energy policies that are not working.

Wage stagnation, a disastrous health care system, a bankrupt energy policy, lax regulation, and regressive taxation are the major failures that led to this mess. From an intellectual point of view, I like how he touched upon all of these, but I don't think he succeeded on bringing these down to ground level. The Keynesian in me would have liked him to say, in response to Lehrer's question about cutting back on priorities, "I don't have to cut back my agenda, because not only will it be paid for by cuts in waste and tax breaks, it will help to grow the economy by investing in green energy production and reducing health spending so companies can free up more money to create jobs."

On foreign policy, Obama echoed Kennedy in 1960. How did Kennedy compensate for his lack of experience compared to Nixon? He spoke continuously about how America was less safe by falling behind in the "missile gap". Although this was untrue, Kennedy's tough-on-communism stance made him a respectable choice for middle America. Obama is trying to do the same thing with the Afghanistan issue. In it, he frames McCain as being weak on terror by avoiding the real threat there. He does the same thing with the Pakistan issue, in which he says McCain coddles Pakistan's dictatorial government while al-Qaeda flourishes within its borders. On the other hand, Obama supports diplomacy with Iran and other such nations as well as a concerted effort to improve US standing in the world. His biggest weakness here is his inability to easily explain what he means by sitting down with foreign leaders without preconditions. Overall, however, much like 1960, the distance between the two candidates is not as great as it should be on foreign policy. Obama is playing to center. His tough stance against Russia is also problematic, as is his call for a buildup of troops in Afghanistan. (Don't get me started about "missile defense".) What we have to hope is that some of this is pandering rhetoric and will not be turned into policy in an Obama administration.

On the other side, McCain seemed obsessed with the earmark issue to the point that he came off more senatorial than presidential. (Five straight responses from him were about earmarks, which make up less than 2% of the budget but nearly 15% of his debate time. And this is a foreign policy debate, mind you.) He seems more comfortable in this terrain (earmarks, cost-plus bills, commissions). If I were Obama, I would have said, "John, you have a great handle on the details of the Senate, and I look forward to working with you during my administration to get things done in a bipartisan manner." McCain's consistent rebuttal to Obama's foreign policy remarks were along of the lines of "but I've been to (country) many times and Obama has not". I'm not sure this experience argument flies when Biden has been to all of those countries as well, and Palin never left the U.S. until last year. He also likes to use patriotic anecdotes about soldiers sacrificing for their country, from himself to Eisenhower to Vietnam vets to soldiers in Iraq. The underlying message is always that the Iraq occupation should not be fought in vain, and that we should stay there until we can proclaim victory. Beside earmarks, Iraq (and with it, unconditional love for General Patraeus) is McCain's chief issue. He didn't win the argument on either tonight.

One final note: McCain's rhetoric on Russia was paranoid and hinted at a further disintegration of relations with them if he becomes president.

The verdict (I lied earlier): Obama underperformed on the economic crisis issue but still managed to best John "earmark" McCain. Obama, while too hawkish, did well during the foreign policy side of the debate but wasn't perfect enough to fully match McCain. For the neutral observer, McCain had a slight edge in the second half. Obama was more likable, but McCain was more emotive. Overall, a tie, but one which benefits Obama. (Very similar to the Kennedy/Nixon debate in 1960.)


Obama

As populist:

And unless we are holding ourselves accountable day in, day out, not just when there's a crisis for folks who have power and influence and can hire lobbyists, but for the nurse, the teacher, the police officer, who, frankly, at the end of each month, they've got a little financial crisis going on.

Award for accurate tax policy analysis:

Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.

Award for accurate tax policy analysis, runner up:

Just one last point I want to make, since Senator McCain talked about providing a $5,000 health credit. Now, what he doesn't tell you is that he intends to, for the first time in history, tax health benefits.

So you may end up getting a $5,000 tax credit. Here's the only problem: Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you're getting from your employer. And if you end up losing your health care from your employer, you've got to go out on the open market and try to buy it.

It is not a good deal for the American people. But it's an example of this notion that the market can always solve everything and that the less regulation we have, the better off we're going to be.

Pretty Good Metaphor:

The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are under funded. I went to increase early childhood education and the notion that we should freeze that when there may be, for example, this Medicare subsidy doesn't make sense.

Maverick? What Maverick?

I just want to make this point, Jim. John, it's been your president who you said you agreed with 90 percent of the time who presided over this increase in spending. This orgy of spending and enormous deficits you voted for almost all of his budgets. So to stand here and after eight years and say that you're going to lead on controlling spending and, you know, balancing our tax cuts so that they help middle class families when over the last eight years that hasn't happened I think just is, you know, kind of hard to swallow.

Highest-polling attack:

And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni. And you were wrong.

Scary proposition for future policy:

And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, "Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator."

---- Does this mean that we are going to challenge the dictatorships of the Middle-East (Saudi Arabia, for example) in order to be pro-democracy and seek to get the population on our side. This would be an interesting policy.

Weird response that I really like:

Jim, let me just make a point. I've got a bracelet, too

---- I like the way that Obama mocked McCain's use of a sob story to justify his Iraq position. Risky move.

Foreign policy truth-telling:

And ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran's mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we've seen over the last several years is Iran's influence grow.

Funniest line, echoing Rachel Maddow from MSNBC:

[McCain] even said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he -- you know, he wasn't sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally.

The juxtaposition, made clear for swing voters:

Look, over the last eight years, this administration, along with Senator McCain, have been solely focused on Iraq. That has been their priority. That has been where all our resources have gone.

In the meantime, bin Laden is still out there. He is not captured. He is not killed. Al Qaida is resurgent.


McCain

Hypocrisy?

And we have former members of Congress now residing in federal prison because of the evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending. You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana.

--- Sarah Palin's Alaska received a $3 million earmark to study the DNA of seals.

This is a good proposal:

I think that we have to return -- particularly in defense spending, which is the largest part of our appropriations -- we have to do away with cost-plus contracts. We now have defense systems that the costs are completely out of control.

Problem with this time-frame:

Back in 1983, when I was a brand-new United States congressman, the one -- the person I admired the most and still admire the most, Ronald Reagan, wanted to send Marines into Lebanon.

And I saw that, and I saw the situation, and I stood up, and I voted against that, because I was afraid that they couldn't make peace in a place where 300 or 400 or several hundred Marines would make a difference. Tragically, I was right: Nearly 300 Marines lost their lives in the bombing of the barracks.

--- McCain wasn't even in Congress when the vote to commit troops to Lebanon was passed. He did support ending the commitment, but this was after the bombing.

Oft-repeated line that polled poorly:

Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand....

--- If Obama's performance shows that he does, in fact, understand, then these just look like a baseless attacks. They polled poorly among independents.

Nope:

The point is that throughout history, whether it be Ronald Reagan, who wouldn't sit down with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko until Gorbachev was ready with glasnost and perestroika....

---- Reagan tried to sit down with those Russian leaders (whose McCain, to his credit, named correctly and in order), but they died before he could make it happen. And he met with Gorbachev before glasnost and perestroika.

Pathetic ploy to the Republican base:

I don't even have a seal yet.

---- This is a reference to the pseudo-Presidential seal that Obama had emblazoned on his speaking podium while on the campaign trial. The right used its presence to call Obama presumptuous (read: uppity).

Tacit recognition that Bush has committed war crimes:

And we've got to -- to make sure that we have people who are trained interrogators so that we don't ever torture a prisoner ever again.

The Award for Chutzpah:

And I -- and I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas, including his initial reaction to Russian invasion -- aggression in Georgia, to his -- you know, we've seen this stubbornness before in this administration to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge is -- shows to me that we -- that -- that we need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that.


Addendum

On what issues does Senator Obama "agree" that McCain is "right":

  • more responsibility in Washington
  • a reduction in wasteful earmarks
  • lobbyists often push for earmarks
  • business taxes -- on paper -- are high
  • cuts in wasteful spending must be made
  • efforts by US troops has reduced violence in Iraq
  • presidents should be prudent in their use of language
  • negotiations with rogue states are difficult
  • we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran*
  • the Russia situation*
  • the importance of energy independence

*McCain is actually wrong on these things

What Obama doesn't "understand"/"won't acknowledge", according to McCain:

  • the difference between a tactic and a strategy
  • that we are winning in Iraq*
  • that a surge needs to be employed in Afghanistan, as it was in Iraq*
  • why the surge was so successful
  • that Pakistan was a failed state in the late-1990s*
  • the adverse effect that "defeat" in Iraq will have on Afghanistan*
  • that foreign leaders are trying to sucker him into sitting down with them for propaganda purposes*
  • that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia*
  • that if we fail in Iraq, al-Qaeda wins*
*Obama doesn't need to understand these, because they are inaccurate

Friday, September 26, 2008

Great Depression Comparison

Many people think of the Great Depression as: stock market crashes, depression immediately ensues, with soup lines beginning in Nov '29. In fact, it took a few years for everything to play out. (I am currently looking at a chronology of 1929-1933 to get a better understanding of how things occurred.) Although 1929 was scary, 1930 saw a little bit of a recovery. It was 1931 that was the real disaster, with hundred of bank failures and contracting credit. And, while Treasury Secretary Mellon sat on his hands and talked about liquidating everything, Hoover did try to take some action Many of his measures were similar to those that we have recently proposed (ie., they were not large enough to make a big difference). It took the concerted effort of dozens of programs in the New Deal to turn things around -- at least a little.

Today, things are again playing out slowly. (If a bailout package doesn't pass, this will change. Everything will speed up, and we will see a week with a 1000 point loss for the Dow. Banks will collapse in scores. The economy will be paralyzed.) When the bailout package passes this weekend, things will slow down. The markets will likely go up for a few weeks. Then, two areas will become the concern. One, Wall Street will analyze how the bailout is working. It likely won't work as well as needed, so confidence will slowly decrease. Two, the real economy numbers (GDP, unemployment, durable goods production, houses prices, etc) will likely decline, causing worries and further decline. The economy right now is structurally unsound, so we are going to see a lot of pain. The extent of it will be a reverse function of the ingenuity of our policymakers.

What If It Doesn't Pass?

What, one might ask, would happen if they don't pass a good bailout plan? Here's a quick summary.

No one will be able to get a mortgage unless they have 780+ credit (top 10%), a large down payment, and high income
- Why? Most banks that give out mortgages will become risk-adverse, because they will not have access to easy credit from other banks (see below)
- Result: Real estate market will crash (further). Houses will not be able to sell. Prices will decline another 20% from peak value.

Small companies will not be able to get loans and credit issuers will likely decline their line of credit/credit limit
- Why? Bank will become weary of lending without collateral (but then, they won't except a house anymore, anyway) and credit issuers, stung by high defaults and low cash flow, will look to shore up their books by reducing potential liabilities
- Result: Several small businesses go bust; their employees are layed off; business investment crashes

Large companies, especially large banks, will not be able to access enough money to shore up their balance sheets.

- Why? Fear in the market causes investors to hoard cash and treasury bonds. This contracts the money supply.
- Result: This will cause investors to lose confidence, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which: 1) the stock price decreases; 2) the bank's commercial paper (read: bonds that companies use to raise money for operations) loses value; 3) rating agencies downgrade their rating of this paper; 4) investors sell this paper; 5) bank cannot find buyers for this paper; that is, they can't find people to lend them money for their operations; 6) their cash flow decreases to the point at which they can no longer give out loans and, eventually, allow withdrawals from accounts (ie. no ATM); 7) the bank fails. For every bank that fails, other can potentially fail, because banks lend to other banks. Eventually, if enough large banks fail, half of the banking industry could collapse.

Local banks fail.
- Why? Because they invested in larger banks, rapidly falling equity securities, or in mortgage-backed securities
- Result: This will kill small business across the country; damage local governments; create rampant unemployment; and essentially eliminate the ability of any consumer to get credit, mortgages, car loans; student loans; etc.


General results:

1) The auto industry in Detroit will completely collapse, even perhaps with government intervention, due to its ability to sell cars to the US market. (That is, consumers can't get car loans.) This will send Michigan into depression-like conditions. The US Auto industry will be unable to recover its standing in the world.
2) The banking industry in the US will be decimated. Much of it will be nationalized and in the hands of a couple large banks, like JPMorgan. At least 2-3 other large banks will likely fail. Wachovia is at the top of the list. Wells Fargo has recently become a good candidate. And Bank of America may as well, due to their recent acquisitions.
3) The shadow banking industry (hedge funds, credit default swaps, private equity) will likely collapse, destroying a trillion dollars of wealth, if not more.
4) The Dow Jones Industrial Average will sink below 7,000, representing a more than 50% decline from its Oct 2007 peak value.
5) Unemployment will top 8% by year's end and may hit double digits by April of next year.
6) The insurance industry will suffer catastrophic losses, which will damage several reinsurance companies in Europe.
7) Consumer spending will contract at rate that hasn't been witnessed since the early 1930s
8) Downward spiral ensues


Fortunately, most of this will not come to pass, because Congress will pass a good package to help prevent it. Right? Well, the package presented today is probably too vague to be successful. They need to insert more safeguards and work to ease lending between banks. If they don't do this -- or if the Republicans roadblock the plan in general -- well, see above.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Yes, yes, I know that I'm not an economist. But I spent a few hours on Friday running some numbers, doing so modeling, and analyzing data. So, here's my chain of causes, with a (knowing me) predicable conclusion. Each item is linked to its cause.

Why?

(--> = caused by)

credit freeze & stock market panic
--> the collapse of a handful of large institutions
--> institutions did not have enough cash
--> devaluation of mortgage investments owned by institution*
--> large number of defaults on sub-prime mortgages by homeowners
--> atypical lending: adjustable rate mortgages, fraudulent mortgages, and other devices*
--> (a) interest rates were too low*
--> economy was in recession following dot com crash
--> dot com bubble
--> income inequality (see below)
--> (b) people could not afford to buy houses
--> price of housing was too expensive in many markets
--> (1) workers wages were stagnant
--> excessive profit-taking (see below)
--> (2) speculation
--> income inequality / excessive saving & investment among high income people
--> excessive profit-taking / extraordinary high wages at top, stagnant at bottom
--> (1) successful new business models
--> opening of world market, tech boom, market excess, etc
--> (2) upper bracket taxes too low
--> Ronald Reagan, the Chicago school, Laffer, Howard Jarvis, and Republican in general




* these three situations were also caused by the failure of government regulation/oversight

The early 1980s tax rate cuts for high earners (and its legacy) has completed altered the course of the economy. The United States, which saw slow growth in the 1970s, traded moderation for chaotic dynamism. And at what cost! The glut of money concentrated at the top contributed to the ridiculous surge in the stock market leading up to the 1987 crash, the savings & loan crisis of the late 1980s, the dot com bubble, and the housing bubble. What happened is: when upper income people have too much money, they don't spend. They save/invest it. This is supposed to be a good thing. The result, however, is that they heavily tilt the balance in favor of demand for securities and, therefore, bid up their prices. (Additionally, in recent years, income inequality abroad has also hurt us. The foreign rich are also increasing demand for security. A large portion of the blame for this is the US's failure to move away from oil consumption.)

Not only this, such demand caused security sellers to devise new ways to attract investors in the highly competitive environment. As a result, instruments such as junk bonds (in the 1980s), unwise mortgages (in the 1980s and 2000s), mortgage securitization (2000s), and hedge funds (2000s) were developed or expanded. If one needed any evidence of the glut of money at the top, one need not look any further than the hedge funds, which have seen a ten-fold increase in the money they manage over the past five years. Bubbles occur when too much speculation occurs. Excessive speculation is caused by excessive money or access to it through loans. In the early years of this decade, we had the perfect storm: steep income inequality and extremely low interest rates (= easy access to money). Combined with the failure of government regulation, something that has been problematic for at least a decade and as many as three (one could chart this all the way back to the deregulation of banking in 1980 -- something for which we can blame the Democrats of that time), this excess of money to save or invest yielded the situation that we have to day.

At the same time, the situation for average Americans worsened as wages remained flat, prices increased (albeit slowly), and stealth inflation occurred in the widespread rise of credit fees, interest rates, (and due to speculation) house prices. Even if someone was trying to plan an economic catastrophe, I don't think they would be this successful. Ah, the invisible hand of the free market, working wonders.

How to fix it?

Stave off panic
Find a way to keep enough credit available, so business can function
(have govt buy equities stake in financial corporation that are in trouble)
then
Government should subsidize employment in the short term
Government should renegotiate mortgage terms/principle for some houses to stop excessive foreclosures
Top 0.1% tax rates should be raised above 60% (they were above 65% for all but one year between '45 and '75)
Top 1% tax rates should have a 40% floor (they never dropped below 42% until 1981)
Financial industry should be regulated (hedge funds, derivatives, credit default swaps, cap executive pay)
Financial industry should be re-regulated (reinstate Glass-Steagal, reinstate usury laws, reinstate leverage limits)

If nothing else, this crisis should be the stake through the heart of voodoo (supply-side) economics and its thirty year legacy.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Palindome: Just Another Page from the Same Playbook

The Palin-dome speech broken down:

Begin

Part 1:

Her family, her small-town-ness, her record of reform(?)

Part 2:

On the attack:

-Mocks Obama for being a "community organizer" (x 2)
-Bogeyman of big government/excessive spending mentioned (x 4)
-Washington/media elites bashed (x 3)
-Bashing Obama's campaign branding or stagecraft (x 3)
-Bashing Hollywood (x 1)
-Obama will raise your taxes (x 9)
-Attack on Obama the "author" (x 1)
-Obama = a surrender monkey/weak on terror/un-American (x 4)
-Obama condescends to real "small town people" (x 3)

Policy:

-Drill for more oil (x 3)
-Small town people are better than everyone else (x 5)
-Government/Washington needs to be "reformed" (x 4)
-She is a real, small town American (x 2)
-She opposed the Bridge to Nowhere (x 1) - inaccurate

Part 3:

John McCain is a POW war hero, so you must vote for him

The End


So, like campaigns of the past, this is about the small town/big city divide, big government, and higher taxes. It's about how the Democratic candidate is weak on national defense. It's the same playbook as 1972, the same as 1980, and the same as 2004. The sole new issue is oil and how we should drill for it in every last corner of the earth. The other issues she mentioned were vague notions of government reform (that is, government destruction) and the "war on terror". It feels like an amalgam of 2000 and 2004. McCain has been swallowed by the Bush base. He's no m-word, he's a pandering hypocrite with a smug, ignorant, and classless VP. But can they repeat Bush's success, or will Palin take the ticket down? I'm still leaning toward an Eagleton.

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Palin = Eagleton

Palin is starting to look like Eagleton.

Similarities:
  • She was a last-minute pick
  • She was not thoroughly vetted
  • She is in her mid-40s
  • She has been in a major office for less than 4 years
  • She was a desperation pick when the preferred choices were unavailable (Potential VPs did not want to be on a losing ticket in '72; today, the conservative base refused to consider Lieberman or Tom Ridge, both pro-choicers who McCain wanted)
  • She has personal issues that draw headlines (pregnant daughter vs. shock therapy treatment)

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Electoral Map - Best Case for Obama

<p><strong>><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p>

Sunday, March 23, 2008

What's Happening to the Economy?

What's happening to the economy?

As you may have read, Bear Stearns -- a large, ruthless investment bank that has been around since 1923 and survived the Great Depression without firing a single employment -- essentially failed last week. Due to their investment in mortgage securities and the fear that they could not meet their obligations, they suffered a bank run on their investments. People took their money out of the company, which caused them to, in fact, be unable to meet their debt obligations. Assessing Bear Stearns as "too big to fail", the federal government with assistance from JP Morgan bailed them out, that is, they lent them to the money to help them survive. But, upon announcement of this deal, Bear Stearns common stock (code: BSC) plunged nearly 50%. That was the end. JP Morgan, two days later, announced a plan to buy Bear Stearns for $2 a share; it had been $60 just a few days earlier and $140 a year ago. The Chairman of the company, James Cayne, lost $100 million overnight (bye, bye Forbes 400). And with that, we had panic.

How could this have happened? Bear, as people on the Street refer to the firm, had been around for over eight years, had over 14,000 employees, and some of the most aggressive (read: high yielding) hedge fund portfolios. What injected fear into the hearts of economists and registered as a foreboding curiosity to those not of the investor class was in fact the first culmination of a new era. It is one of declining house prices, bank runs (Northern Rock, Citigroup), and the realization that our "growth" over the past thirty years have been far more superficial than we realize.

Bear Stearns was not the first company to fail. New Century Financial, a sub-prime mortgage provider, went into bankruptcy in what turned out to be the opening salvo of this new econ-epoch. Countrywide Financial, a similar company also based in suburban Southern California (the Valley as opposed to New Century's O.C. base), neared bankruptcy in August of last year, until Bank of America came to its rescue and, like in the Bear and JP story, bought the failing mortgage-monger. Around the same time, all the big investment banks announced major write-downs (meaning assets they owned sunk in value). No one was immune and the market was scared. But the Dow Jones Industrial Average still managed to bounce back to an all-time high by October. Some even though the worst was over.

***

Back in 2005, new Dow highs were finally being reached, five years after the dot-com bubble popped. The gains from Iraq War spending and (supposedly) the earlier tax cut were causing the economy to rapidly expand. But some economists looked at house prices and didn't like what they saw. Yale economist Robert Schiller's housing index showed a blatant peak in house prices, a trend that was most severe in Florida, California, and a few cities in the Northeast. Ed Gramlich, who worked for the Federal Reserve, cautioned about this "housing bubble". NY Times columnist and Princeton economics professor Paul Krugman cautioned that the bubble, not mere "froth" as Alan Greenspan had noted, would pop and the population could suffer a "hard landing", that is, large drops in house prices and its result on the economy.

But why would the landing be "hard"? It was not merely that an important asset's value was going to decline, it was that this asset was financing a good portion of the population's well being. It seemed that everyone was taking advantage of increasing house values by tapping it to take out home equity loans. What good was a house if it couldn't be used to buy cars, vacations, and, hell, medicine for little Johnny, Jr., after Johnny, Sr., lost his job? And if people weren't taking out loans on their free-lunch "equity" surge, then they were waiting for the house to max out in price so that they could "flip" it and make a "tidy" or just absurd profit. (In fact, today nearly 1/4 of houses that cannot sell are such speculation investments.) But with so many families relying on tapped equity and so many people "in real estate" (as the speculators say), most still thought that house price declines -- and they would be small in any case, right? -- would cause only a soft landing...on, say, feathers. A soft landing, they say. Yet, what if the feathers were artificially puffed, giving only the illusive of a suitable landing spot? What if spikes lied beneath them? There might be blood.

And blood there would be. No safety net of regulation was there to prevent us from the fall. Excessive spending sped our fall, while the Iraq War and tax cuts swallowed up all of our parachutes. The lack of real upward change in medium wages ensured that the majority wouldn't have enough feathers to protect them from the drop. Plus, they were made in China, so they were worthless anyway. (The mixed metaphor meter just exploded.)

***

House prices declined and Bear Stearns failed. A Bushie waved his sword and Katrina drowned. The connections are clearer now. House prices just couldn't go up anymore. Eventually, everyone who wanted a house -- even those who could not afford one -- had one. The marketed dried up, and when supply, pumped by illusory expectations, exists when demand doesn't, prices fall. It started in Florida. It spread. It ended up in Cleveland and Detroit, cities where house prices never even increased in the first place. But what was the factor of house price inflation, especially in those (literal) hot spots. Was it small enough to ensure a "soft landing"? In Florida and California and Las Vegas, the declines have already exceeded 10 percent, much to high to walk away with a mere broken leg. House prices in the first half of this decade nearly doubled. The Case-Schiller index predicts a 20-30% decrease to get prices back on the long term trend; that's a 30-story fall. Maybe Keynes got it wrong; in the short term, we all are dead, especially if we own a negative equity mortgage or are fighting in Iraq.

While house prices fall, so do soldiers. (Am I making a stretch? Nope, my flexibility just ain't that good.) In 2002, the US economy was in shambles. Even with the burst of spending due to our Afghanistan takeover, business languished; things were still a mess from the dot-com collapse and Enron provided the beginning of the land-mines-in-the-wreckage era. What saved America? Well, George Bush and Alan Greenspan, of course. The unelected president, now popular, launched an invasion and Maestro kept interest rates so low that everyone bought a house. Mr. Federal Reserve even waxed weepy about the power of adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) and sub-prime mortgages (sub-primes) to give Americans their titular dream.

"The American dream, we're going to steal it." (Wayne Malloy, "The Riches") But no one needs to steal it when it's given to them for free. Bush gave us the Iraq Invasion Party, intended to return our lives to the carefree past, free of mushroom clouds, free-of-charge: without sacrifice or debate. Oh, but this was only a teaser rate; we forgot to read the fine print. The rates increased to 800 lives and $200 billion per year. Think you can afford that? And while we're at it, your mortgage rate has now doubled and -- thanks in part to our business practices, endorsed by Greenspan himself -- your house has just lost one-fifth of its value. We'll give it to you free but then we'll take it away, the American dream as shareware.

***

Wal-Mart is the American dream: everything one wants at low prices. Everyone wants a bargain, but maybe they need one too. Real medium wages (that is, adjusted for inflation) have flatlined over the past 35 years. Sure, many of us have plasma TVs, enhanced automobiles, and Super Wal-Mart to fill in the gaps. The middle class has Louis Vutton, Coach, and Tiffany to the point that luxury has lost its luster. And the upper class has seen their tax rates cut in half, their incomes triple, and their portfolio of property grow to include islands in Dubai or a Gulfstream V jet. Everyone's consumin' but do they have the coin to do so? Read just a few sentences up: real medium wages have flatlined. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

But it's not. The dual trends of globalization and the internet have given us goods faster and cheaper. Chinese production has lowered prices and decreased quality only marginally, save a little lead, poison, and a few other inconsequential "inconveniences". Deregulation has increased competition and lowered quality and prices. Oil prices remained low from 1984 through 2003, ensuring industry and consumers were suitable greased. Yet while wages are still at 1973 level, the economy is finally starting to get the time-warped message: we're still in "me" decade. Even after 35 years of deregulation, extreme increases in upper quintile incomes, massive increase in quality-of-living and consumerism, fluctuations in oil prices, the internet, and two wars in the middle the east, the U.S. has gone full circle. Record oil prices, whispers about stagflation, large capital infusions from Asia, and rapid consolidation due to financial woes in major industries -- we've seen this movie before and the people in it were wearing bell-bottoms and had feathered hair.

The U.S. economy, even through rapid changes over three decades, merely avoided the inevitable conclusion: increased government dominance of the economy (its spending, its research/developments, its soul) made the post-war boom possible, but the 1970s provided the first real challenge. Instead of evolve to face it, we retrogressed slowly back to the 1920s ideology coupled (absurdly) with 2000s technology and large government spending. The result is one big circle (or spiral). Only, the problems of the 1970s (commodity inflation, consumer good deflation, depressed wages, structural problems) have been made several times worse by the ironic mix of increased government and decreased economic regulation.

***

The recent "calamities" on Wall Street are merely symptoms of this acid flashback. In fact, their causes are also symptoms. All the new fangled mortgages of this decade were needed to increase home ownership, because people just didn't have the money to make this orthodoxical pillar of the American dream possible. People tapped their houses for money, because they did not have enough money to live, either in the absolute sense or in the keeping-up-with-the-jones one. Credit card debt surged thanks to a commerical-backed consumer culture of must-have things, available cheap, easily assessable, and often made in China. If the ;20s brought us automobiles and houses, the '50s refrigerators, televisions, and the suburbs, the '90s/'00s brought us not only computers but Best Buy, Wal-Mart, and a bunch of embellishments. People are buying most things in Version 6.0. People aren't buying cars but transport devices with video screens, iPod connectors, and the perception of safety. We are re-inventing and re-branding too great a percentage of consumer goods. Consumerism guaranteed maxed out credit cards and tapped houses. Falling house prices guaranteed Americans would reap what they sow. Add the disastrous health care system, ARM and subprime mortgages, and inflation into the mix and the US economy becomes unhinged.

Meanwhile, the financial system, trying to keep pace with consumers in the valiant effort to fully realize one's raison d'etre, decided that old was not good enough for them either. They also decided that post-modern repackaging was the key. Mortgages didn't have to be debts on houses; they could be collateralized debt obligations (CDO) as part of structured investment vehicles (SIV), guaranteed (S&P stamp of approval) to see large gains. Still, afraid that your SIV may get a flat or roll-over? No worry, just buy a credit default swap (CDS) as insurance . The theory was that, up or down, there was no way to lose. Those mortgages packages as CDO in SIV funds were supposed to be a safe investment, like a government bond. But what if one of every 10 mortgages (or even one out of 3) is bad (i.e., a person defaults)? What seems safe is not so; the SIV becomes infected, and since everyone owns them (why not?), the virus spreads. "But I have CDS," a man might say to his broker. "Shouldn't I be okay?" Not if the same people who insured your SIV also certified it was safe. If the insurer loses credibility, people pull out their money and decrease the insurer's cash reserves. Now, lots of people SIVs have crashed and when investors try to claim their insurance, the insurer cannot cover the losses and goes bankrupt. Oops.

***

And that brings us back to Bear, not only as in Bear Stearns but also as in bear market. In the first case, the SIVs failed and brought down several of Bear Stearns funds. Some failed, other declined in value, and Bear extended cash to cover them. But they had made too many bets on these SIVs, and as house prices declines, the investment bank ran out of money. The SIV insurer couldn't provide cash, and so Bear Stearns was left with no cash and margin call debts due the next day. No more Bear Stearns.

The bear market, conversely, is very real indeed. Analysts on Wall Street like to dismiss the idea; they believe everything's always sunny in the new economy. But the "shadow economy" that I outlined above, in which creators thought they could eliminate risk and ensure the proverbial free lunch, was just as dark and opaque as its name suggest. And within the murkiness lay several million monsters: Jack and Jill homeowners leaving their house to foreclosure. In the end, Wall Street was defeated by the same average Americans that they see themselves miles above.

***

The have-mores were not smiling as much any more. Their portfolios were somewhat diminished, the quality of life somewhat declined (only a month in the Hamptons this year instead of the typical two -- oh, no). But behind their shortened summering, it was not just John Q. Public that caused this marginal demise. Their patron saint president, slightly-less-than-dear leader George W. was to blame as well.

It was not just the Iraq occupation debacle, the unnecessary, profligate tax cuts, the complete dismissal of the regulatory regime, or the unyielding faith in "free" markets. It was the rhetorical climate that pronounced illusive economic gains as if they were substantial, that proclaimed the American economy was stronger than ever, that failed to ever recognize these weak underpinning of the new economy. The Iraq war drained (hell, drains) funds from the treasury. Tax cuts did the same, while arguably having no affect on job growth. The lack of regulation, spearheaded under Reagan and continued under Clinton with the (in retrospect) disastrous repeal of the New Deal era Glass-Steagal Act, was taken to an extreme over the last several years. The shadow economy may have begun under Clinton but grew to mirror the real economy in size by 2007. And free markets? Nothing was more free, less regulated, then SIVs and their ilk. Most of the mortgage companies that sold subprime and ARM mortgages were outside of government oversight, just as Saint Greenspan wanted it. With budget deficits increases and markets in chaos, collapse was inevitable.

***

What have we wrought?

In a country where only the select gain to the determent of the many; where creativity means repackaging; where cheap and easy matter over everything else; where a free lunch is possible; where growth is ensured and insured and infinite; where people are told, begged, to consume but not compensated enough to do so; where billions are wasted on bloodshed; we have damned ourselves.

Fast, cheap, and out of control, the American economy hoped that it could get away without any pesky obstacles getting in the way. At the same time, in the fast lane, we called the contractor to build our dream house. Little did we know that it would be built in the middle of the road. CRASH!

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

To The Convention

Well, unless something significant happens in the next few days, it looks like the Democrats are going to the convention. Neither Carter nor Kennedy nor Clinton had to wade through a contested conventions, and they were the only Democrats to win in the last sixty years. Disputed conventions in '68, '72, and '80 all yielded losses, big losses. Nineteen eighty-four was also somewhat in dispute and that was a landslide defeat for the Democrats. With the party screwed, it's time to look for external factors. The Democrats need either a bloodbath in Iraq or a complete economic collapse to win.

"Yes, she will" -- that's what they are saying at the Clinton rally. They are stealing the equally weak "Yes, we can'" from the Obama campaign. The Clinton campaign has been run ruthlessly, Karl Rove campaign, just like her husband did in '96 and '92. Rovian tactics didn't win on the Republican side; McCain beat out Romney and Huckabee, who each used pages out of that playbook. But, on the Democratic side, the Clinton campaigns loves the fight. I like fighting, but only if it is against corporations, capitalism, and war-mongering. Clinton, however, likes the politics of personal destruction.

Ultimately, Clinton is all about the personal, so is McCain. Obama, who seemingly is the personality candidate, is ironically not so. He is a movement campaign, about ideas. Clinton is about her and her husband, about her fight, her comeback. McCain is about he Hanoi Hilton and his supposedly impeccable ethics record. Obama is not really about him. (No one seems to know anything about him. They think he is all surface, when he is in fact the smartest candidate with the most innovative, though not always the best, agenda. They think he doesn't have any experience, but only because he's young. He has more legislative experience than Clinton and more time spent with working people. Oh, the ironies...) Obama's campaign is all about ideas. Not about empty terms such as change, but about the country reassessing itself. The campaign presents a communitarian ideal; what can we do for our country, a la Kennedy. (Clinton is all about what she can do for us, that is, give us this or that.) Obama, although not as dogmatic on the issues (sometimes to my chagrin), does have that spirit of Roosevelt, of radically changing thing. Clinton is all about incrimentalism. So, in the end, Obama is the new politics, not of "change" or "hope," but of the community, of the people, and of the larger world. (His speech tonight echoed that.) After so long of personality and individuals trumping ideas, we finally have someone to reverse but course. But the Clinton and their negative campaigning are going to cost us this possibility. President McCain awaits.

Obama lost Texas in four large counties in which Hispanics make up over 80% of the population: Webb, Cameron, Hidalgo, and El Paso. Clitnon netted 130,000 votes out of these counties; Obama lost by about 95,000 overall in the state. Hispanics killed Obama in Texas.

In regards to Ohio, either the exit polls in Ohio were fucked up or 100% of white people who did not finish high school voted for Clinton. While that latter is possible, it's unlikely. In either case, Clinton won Ohio by winning uneducated whites in Northeast part of the state, in cities like Youngstown and Akron. They provided half of Clinton's margin, but Obama only won four counties out of 88! Yikes! Pennsylvania is going to break similarly, if not worse.


"She was doing what George Bush does so well, which was going negative on your opponent but looking happy while doing it." - Mark Halperin on Hillary Clinton

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Decided at the Convention: It Could Happen

If current trends continue, it seems to me that both the Democratic and Republican nominees will not be selected until or right before their respective conventions. That would mark the first time that this has happened in a while.

[In 1980, Ted Kennedy could have beat Carter at the convention if all the superdelegates went to him. Of course, against a sitting president, this was impossible and everyone knew it. I don't think that counts. Eight years earlier, Herbert Humphrey tried to challenge George McGovern's delegates in California. A final decision wasn't delivered until shortly before the convention, but most expected McGovern to get them all, as California law at the time stated. A similar scenario occurred in 1968, thanks to Kennedy's death. If we dismiss all of these, then 1956 was the last time. In that year, Adlai Stevenson was re-drafted to be the nominee over vote-winner Estes Kefauver.]

So, yes, a brokered convention (or two) might lie in the near future. For the Republicans, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney have all won initial contests. McCain is disliked by evangelicals and traditional, wealthy conservatives, but has good numbers among moderates/independents and pro-military types. The majority of Huckabee's following is among evangelicals/fundamentalists, the poorest Republicans, and Southerners. Romney, meanwhile, is the establishment Republican candidate of the rich, fiscal conservative and business types. He also a good following among Northerners and Westerners, especially Mormons. Basically, these three candidates have split the Republican party in thirds. On top of all of this division, Ron Paul is taking away about 5-10% of the party's strong libertarian faction. (I am fairly confident that he will run as the Libertarian candidate and win about 4% of the vote)

The two other significant Republican candidates are Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani. If Thompson does not win or come within three percentage points of winning South Carolina next week, he will drop out of the race. He is covering much of the same ground as Romney and his Southern support is being taken away by Huckabee. I think he's gone. Guiliani, meanwhile, could win Florida, though I don't think he will. He may come close, though, and stay in the race. If so, no single Republican will get more than 35% of the delegates on Super Tuesday. According to my math, if at least three Republicans stay in the race, then again no one will finish with enough delegates to be automatically selected the nominee. I'd even say that there is now a 30% chance that the Republicans could try to draft someone, with possibilities such as Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour, or some other Republican governor.

On the Democratic side, Clinton looks like she will get the most delegates but not enough to clinch the nomination. Edwards' delegates or the super-delegates may be the deciding ones at the Democratic convention. (I am estimating the following delegate percentage breakdown, based solely on contests: Clinton - 46%, Obama - 38%, Edwards - 16%) Under such circumstances, the superdelegates (who are not chosen by primary voters or by caucuses, but who are mainly elected officials within the Democratic party) may decide to just crown Hillary the winner. Or they could split, leaving no clear winner. Especially if Obama's support remains strong, I think the latter will happen.

Whatever the case, though, it does appear that Clinton will ultimately end up with the nomination, though this could happen as late as the convention. What could prevent this inevitability? Obama would have to win Nevada by more than 5% and South Carolina by more than 10%. (I would not bet on either of these.) Clinton would also have to make some kind of obvious mistake over the next three weeks. Ultimately, Obama will probably end up winning white men, black men and women, those under 30, moderates, and the most left-leaning. Clinton will win white women (who vote in the heaviest numbers), those over 45, stalwart Democrats, and (significantly) Latinos. I would also say now (with about 70% certainly) that both the eventual president and v.p. nominees with be chosen from these three candidates.

Addendum: Shortly after writing this, I noticed this piece in the Washington Post.