Paper Pitchforks

Class warfare is traditionally a top down affair. The recent outrage over the AIG bonuses has been pretty amusing - millionaire congresscritters bleating about how awful it is that masters of the universe at AIG's financial products division want to pay themselves fat gobs of cash after wrecking the world economy. Left out of their faux-populism is the fact they are complicit in the looting that has been conducted by the wealthy in our country for thirty years, and which was virulently accelerated in the 1990s.

And as much as I take perverse pleasure in watching CEOs squirm a bit, this "tax the bonuses back" is just stupid policy. Paul Krugman is on the case:

I’ll leave to others the question of who knew or should have known that the bonus firestorm was coming; but it’s part of a pattern. At every stage, Geithner et al have made it clear that they still have faith in the people who created the financial crisis — that they believe that all we have is a liquidity crisis that can be undone with a bit of financial engineering, that “governments do a bad job of running banks” (as opposed, presumably, to the wonderful job the private bankers have done), that financial bailouts and guarantees should come with no strings attached.

Better dead than...unionized?

Quite probably.

Behold Matthew Yglesias:

I’m probably not breaking any news if I tell you that American business really hates unions and, thus, really hates the Employee Free Choice Act. Thus, even though John Boehner is trying to destroy the American economy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is squarely focusing its fire on pro-EFCA Democrats. Your typical business executive would rather let the world burn, or see his children fed to a pack of wild boars, then see a union form at his firm. And it makes a certain amount of sense—businessmen appreciate the value of class solidarity. If you run your company into the ground, you get a nice severance package and another job at another company. But if you let your company be unionized, you’d be dead to your brethren. An attack on one is an attack on all, and they all stand together on this point.

Bear this in mind as you watch the fight against EFCA play out in the coming weeks/months. The battle over stimulus wasn't even a warm up by comparison to the scorched earth tactics now being deployed. And it will get much worse.

More On Citi Shenanigans

From Jane Hamsher:

Citi held a private conference call on Wednesday, hosted by a lobbyist for the US Chamber of Commerce, to "build opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act" according to the Huffington Post's Sam Stein. During the call, Weinswig cited dubious research funded by an astroturf front group for the Chamber to make the claim that the bill's passage would increase the following year's unemployment rate by 1%. (In 2006 the OCED did an exhaustive analysis and concluded that there was no correlation between unionization and unemployment rates.)

Citi Uses Your Money To Wage War On...You!

Citicorp, on the heels of downgrading Walmart because EFCA might pass (though Walmart has remained profitable during the economic disaster, in which, btw, Citi has a central role), is using taxpayer bailout funds not only to stay afloat, but to run an aggressive and dishonest campaign against EFCA. The same analyst who performed the downgrade on Walmart stock leads the conference call.

Matt Yglesias tells the tale:

This, it seems, is capitalism. First you manage your business so catastrophically badly that your company not only becomes worthless, but that it threatens to destroy the livelihoods of billions of people around the planet. Second, you get the taxpayer to keep you in business. And third, you turn around and warn that higher wages for workers might destroy the world economy! As I’ve said before I don’t think we want congress meddling with the details of business decisions at major companies, even companies that are receiving taxpayer support. But there’s a fairly clear case to be made that firms on the public dole shouldn’t be engaged in lobbying or political activities.

These fuckers ought to, as the kids say, "die in a fire". A really hot fucking gasoline-liberally-sprinkled-with-napalm fire. Nationalize them, all of them, and throw the bastards out. Let the shareholders eat it. Sell them off, bit by bit, making them small enough to fail next time around. This has to end.

Simon Johnson on Fresh Air

Great listen.

Notice his comments about the strategy Treasury has been pursuing with the financial sector (about 17:00 in). This guy knows what he is talking about.

Ezra Checks EFCA

And makes a salient point not often visible in the recklessly dishonest discussion about EFCA.

The more impressive strike came, however, earlier this morning, when Citibank downgraded Wal-Mart's stock from a "buy" to a "hold" on fears that passage of EFCA could force the company to unionize which would in turn decrease shareholder profits as more of the company's worth was distributed to employees.

There are two things worth saying on this. The first is that it's a useful moment when the interests of the stock market and the broader economy diverge. Citigroup's analyst is right to worry that shareholders would see smaller gains if Wal-Mart were unionized. Conversely, it would probably be a stimulative thing for the economy if Wal-Mart's massive low wage workforce suddenly enjoyed a quick boost in take-home pay. The interests of shareholders are not the same as the interests of workers, and the various sides in the argument would happily talk your ear off about how the interests of the broader economy align.

The second is that it's hard to recall another time when an analyst actually downgraded a stock on fears of legislation that few expect to pass. Indeed, many on the Left are arguing that this is more about generating a controlled stock market panic that will convince wavering senators to vote against EFCA than about accurately pricing Wal-Mart's stock. "When I see upgrades to the stocks of Wal-Mart's already-unionized competitors (grocery stores like Safeway who will gain back market share if easier unionization results in higher Wal-Mart labor costs) specifically pegged to the specter of EFCA, then I'll admit that Citi is engaged in good-faith prognosticating here," e-mails Josh Bivens at the Economic Policy Institute. "Otherwise, not so much."

This is going to be a fight to the death, one I expect cannot get past the Senate and those self-described Democratic "moderates", whose sole function it seems is to hamstring their party's president and enable the foaming-a- the-mouth rabid dogs of the right, as they have for decades.

Why Nationalize?

Paul Krugman gets right to it.

The benefits from nationalization come from (a) giving taxpayers a share of the upside rather than just a share of the downside, which is where we are now (b) ending the gaming of the system, even looting, that is encouraged by the current system of implicit guarantees (Simon Johnson has been very good on that) (c) making it politically and fiscally feasible to put in enough capital to revitalize the system. These advantages are there whatever you decide to do with junior bank debt.

And finally:

What’s clear, however, is that the current system, of implicit maybe-kinda guarantees on bank liabilities — call it wink-wink-nudge-nudge-say-no-more banking policy — is failing badly.

Crybabies

Jon Stewart annihilates Raick Santelli, Cramer, and all those other douchebag cheerleaders at CNBC, the propaganda arm of Wall Street.

(Embed slaughters my page, so here is the link. Do watch, its damned funny)


Epic fucking win.

Shrill?

Remember when it seemed like those on the Left most concerned with civil liberties and our constitutional rights were being shouted down as shrill fear mongers for criticizing Bushian theories of limitless executive power?

Turns out, they weren't so shrill at all:

The essence of this document was to declare that George Bush had the authority (a) to deploy the U.S. military inside the U.S., (b) directed at foreign nationals and U.S. citizens alike; (c) unconstrained by any Constitutional limits, including those of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. It was nothing less than an explicit decree that, when it comes to Presidential power, the Bill of Rights was suspended, even on U.S. soil and as applied to U.S. citizens. And it wasn't only a decree that existed in theory; this secret proclamation that the Fourth Amendment was inapplicable to what the document calls "domestic military operations" was, among other things, the basis on which Bush ordered the NSA, an arm of the U.S. military, to turn inwards and begin spying -- in secret and with no oversight -- on the electronic communications (telephone calls and emails) of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

That the U.S. Government had suspended the Fourth Amendment itself isn't exactly news. A fleeting reference to that event (largely ignored by the media) was made in a footnote to one of Yoo's previously released torture memos (release of which was also compelled not by the U.S. Congress or the media, but by the ACLU). But reading the document that actually effectuated (in secret) that suspension -- released only yesterday -- is genuinely breathtaking.

Entire article should be read to get a start on wrapping your fragile, eggshell mind around this. Click the small photo files and read the actual verbiage - it is hair raising shit.

Dean Baker Sounds Disgusted

The bank stress tests are rigged:

Okay, unemployment will almost certainly reach 8.0 percent and possibly 8.1 percent in February. It might cross 8.5 percent in March. The worst case scenario is that it hits 8.9 percent by the rest of the year?

Remember, this is the same crew that told us that there was no housing bubble. When it became clear that there were serious problems, they assured us that they would be contained in the subprime market. After Bears Stearn collapsed they told us that they didn't see another Bear Stearns out there.

These stress tests indicate that our economic policy makers are still in a serious state of denial. Why isn't the media ridiculing them and telling the public that the folks making economic policy still don't understand the economy.

This is a disaster in the making. Policies going forward, whether or not to perform major intervention (temporary nationalization) in particular, hinge on an honest accounting of just how insolvent some of these "too big to fail" institutions really are. Using less than drastic forecasts as the metric guarantees too small a response.

The Crisis of Credit Visualized

Easily one of the coolest - and most understandable - explanations of how the house of cards was created, and how it came tumbling down on top of us all.


The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Let's Get Swedish On Their Ass!

Matthew Richardson and Nouriel Roubini make the case that nationalization is the only useful option left to us to rehabilitate the banking sector:

Nationalization -- call it "receivership" if that sounds more palatable -- won't be easy, but here is a set of principles for the government to go by:

First, and this is by far the toughest step, determine which banks are insolvent. Geithner's stress test would be helpful here. The government should start with the big banks that have outside debt, and it must determine which are solvent and which aren't in one fell swoop to avoid panic. Otherwise, bringing down one big bank will start an immediate run on the equity and long-term debt of the others. It will be a rough ride, but the regulators must stay strong.

Second, immediately nationalize insolvent institutions. The equity-holders will be wiped out, and long-term debt-holders will have claims only after the depositors and other short-term creditors are paid off.

Third, once an institution is taken over, separate its assets into good and bad ones. The bad assets would be valued at current (albeit depressed) values. Again, as in Geithner's plan, private capital could purchase a fraction of those bad assets. As for the good assets, they would go private again, either through an IPO or a sale to a strategic buyer.

The proceeds from both these bad and good assets would first go to depositors and then to debt-holders, with some possible sharing with the government to cover administrative costs. If the depositors are paid off in full, then the government actually breaks even.

Fourth, merge all the remaining bad assets into one enterprise. The assets could be held to maturity or eventually sold off with the gains and risks accruing to the taxpayers.

The eventual outcome would be a healthy financial system with many new banks capitalized by good assets. Insolvent, too-big-to-fail banks would be broken up into smaller pieces less likely to threaten the whole financial system. Regulatory reforms also would be instituted to reduce the chances of costly future crises.

The longer the delay, the higher the actual costs. Not to mention the entire collapse thing. Standing on some ridiculous notion of ideological purity at this late date is exactly equivalent to insanity.

Market Case For Nationalization

Hilzoy makes a market based case for the nationalization of banks that would otherwise vanish into insolvency without government intervention (entire post well worth the read):

In the case of the large banks, I assume that we do not want them to go bankrupt not because it would hurt their shareholders, but because their bankruptcy would have broader systemic effects that we find unacceptable. That's fine. But in figuring out what to do about that fact, we need to try to preserve the incentives that bankruptcy normally provides.

To my mind, this means that we should proceed as follows. First, figure out exactly what it is that makes letting these firms declare insolvency such a bad idea: what effects we are trying to avoid. Second, try to craft a policy that avoids this particular bad consequence, while leaving the other disincentives to go bankrupt (or to invest in firms that are at risk of bankruptcy) in place. Third, if we can't do that, try hard to create incentives that mimic the operation of the normal market incentives that our actions are preventing. (E.g., if we prevent banks from declaring insolvency, we need to provide some other disincentive to becoming insolvent, in order to avoid moral hazard.)

This is the main reason why I tend to favor nationalizing those banks that are insolvent, clearing up their balance sheets, recapitalizing them as needed, and sending them back into the private markets as soon as is prudent. I am not, in general, in favor of the government controlling individual banks. But in this case, if we don't want to let the large banks declare bankruptcy, we need to provide some serious disincentives to their managers, investors, and bondholders. (I exempt depositors since I think that they should be insured, given the systemic value of avoiding bank runs.)

Nationalization would accomplish that. It would wipe out the shareholders and holders of unsecured debt, which is what the market would have done if left to its own devices. It would allow us to replace the senior management at the banks, which would give them every incentive to avoid needing to be nationalized. We would need to own the banks in order to do what needs to be done, and to do it as quickly as possible. This would mimic the market by treating the government as an owner in those cases in which it is, in fact, putting up the money: anyone else who provided this sort of capital would get ownership, and making an exception for the government would make government money more attractive than private capital. This would, I think, be a bad thing.

Nationalization would, in short, accomplish what my market principles tell me we should do: specify exactly what the bad consequence is that we want to avoid, and craft a policy solution that avoids this particular bad thing while either leaving other market signals intact or (where this is impossible) mimicking them. It would also allow us to return to what I take to be the right state of affairs (in which banks are private, and privately funded, and the government regulates them) as quickly as possible. (If you don't like excessive government involvement in banking, it's not clear why you'd prefer a long, drawn-out period of heavy government involvement over a shorter period of outright nationalization.)

This isn't rocket science. Models exist which can provide a blueprint for how to proceed. The only limiting factors in all of this are political and ideological. Our current crop of politician's fear the word "nationalization" almost as much as they fear openly contested elections.

Tech Shit You Gotta Have

Very funny. Very bad language, too.


Sony Releases New Stupid Piece Of Shit That Doesn't Fucking Work

Rallying The Troops

President Obama speaks to Democratic lawmakers about the stimulus bill. Apparently leaving the teleprompter behind, he finally stops mincing words and gets to it. Refreshing, to say the least, but in the wake of the Senate Republicans voting 36 of 41 to scrap all stimulus in favor of more massive, Bush style tax cuts, methinks Obama ought to be giving this speech to the obstructionists.

In two parts:

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Stimulus

Holy crap.

7.6% unemployment.

And U6 is now at 13.6%.

In this environment Republican intransigence becomes a criminal conspiracy, even if it is born of stupid adherence to a failed ideology.

When cops become soldiers

And why it is bad to issue warrants that don't contain a no-knock provision and then have local police SWAT teams serve them as if they did. The extraordinary militarization of police forces has almost universally been a very bad trend.

The Supremes need to have another look at this sort of crap.

Just ask the Mayor of Berwyn Heights, MD.

In the mean time, protect your dogs.

In the kitchen, Georgia spun to face the sound of the splintering door. Men in black burst through the front door and into the living room.

Georgia stood trembling in front of the kitchen stove. Payton, who had been stretched out in a corner of the living room farthest from the front door, his head resting near the threshold to the kitchen "turned toward the front door when I turned," Georgia recalled. "He didn't have time to do anything else." Almost instantly, men in black ran forward and shot Payton in the face, Georgia said. "They kept shooting," she recalled. "I didn't know how many times they shot Payton because there was so much gunfire."

"Down on the ground!" Georgia recalled someone screaming at her. She was too terrified to move.

Chase, always timid even when there was nothing to fear, did what he did best -- he ran. He ran away from the men in black, zipped past Georgia at the stove, Georgia recalled. The screaming, running men followed Chase, shooting as he tried escaping into the dining room, Georgia said. She watched in horror as men in black rushed the dining room from all directions. "I could hear Chase whimpering," Georgia said. Then she heard someone shoot at Chase again, she said.

Men kept yelling at Georgia to get down, but she couldn't budge. "Somebody pushed me on the ground, and they put a gun to my head," she said. Face down on the kitchen floor, Georgia felt someone yank her hands behind her, rip the spoon away and secure her hands. When she lifted her eyes, she could just see Payton's big head resting near the kitchen threshold. He wasn't moving.

Not So Deep Thought

How is that Democrats find themselves in power, but we are having the exact same dishonest debates we've had for the last eight years? Did the recent election actually take place?

The Just Say No Crowd

The modern Republican party, be it in or out of power, has a single strength: playing the role of the obstructionist opposition. For the sake of it. In power, they hold up straw men and push though policies intended to fix problems that don't exist, while annihilating the ability of government to function effectively.

Out of power, it looks like this:

In the midst of an economic crisis, the GOP and its allies have convinced a whole lot of people that the only sensible recovery plan is a bad idea. The minority party has not only persuaded news outlets to give them airtime to spew this obviously-ridiculous nonsense, they've also convinced a lot of media figures that they're right.

I do wonder if they have any clear idea of the potential, even likely consequences of doing nothing about the imminent global economic collapse, already well in progress. If they do, then their actions are criminal. If they don't, then we are in deep deep trouble.

Boys Will Be Girls & Girls Will Be Boys

Pandagon has a post about assumptions made about women every day in restaurants and retail settings when in the company of a man.

Some years ago a friend wanted to buy a new television. I was, at the time, still in the audio/video business and recommended an establishment I once worked for, as my current employer did not sell TVs.

I am male. My friend is female, employed, makes boatloads of money, and is the primary earner in her household (husband takes care of the kids and home).

We three journeyed to the electronics store (a higher end place, where the salespeople actually know what they are selling) where I introduced my friend to the store manager, told him generally what she was looking for, and off we went. Understand that this manager was a younger man, 26 at the time (and a rank asshole to his staff but sophisticated enough to treat his customers with respect, or so I thought), so we are not dealing with some dinosaur likely to pop off about the "little lady" and whatnot. Yet, invariably, he spoke directly to the husband, or even me, though both of us made a point of standing a little further back from him than was she. It was weird. I deflected everything back to her, as did her husband, but he continued making eye contact with either of the men while ignoring her, even though she was the only one asking him questions or responding verbally to him.

When we reached the register, J. took out her wallet and began dating a check. The manager looked right past her to her husband and asked for their phone number. He looked away, and the manager's gaze finally came to rest on his wife. She gave him the number, lips pursed, expression galactically irritated. When the transaction ended, he handed the receipt to her husband, who was several feet away from the counter. The guy had to extend his arm right over her shoulder to do it.

On the ride home she was understandably livid. I was pretty embarrassed, as I had recommended this guy and that shop, and said so. While I received absolution for my unintentional sin, she never returned to that particular establishment. For my part I wrote a letter to the sales manager of the company (someone I knew personally) advising him of the incredibly sexist behavior of the current manager. Nothing happened, as far as I know.

In years since I've seen this sort of thing over and over again. I've even seen female sales staff defer to the male partner when a married couple is buying something, even if there are no overt signs that one or the other person is "taking the lead" in the purchase, so to speak. It's incredibly insulting to women, and all too common.