Notes Tagged ‘economy’

Krugman on Sachs

July 17th, 2009
674. 

So Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Chase all reported multi-billion dollar profits during the second quarter this week. The NY Times’ Paul Krugman weighed in on Sachs:

First, it tells us that Goldman is very good at what it does. Unfortunately, what it does is bad for America.

Second, it shows that Wall Street’s bad habits — above all, the system of compensation that helped cause the financial crisis — have not gone away.

Third, it shows that by rescuing the financial system without reforming it, Washington has done nothing to protect us from a new crisis, and, in fact, has made another crisis more likely.

The rest of his column is a must read.

Tags: , , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Can they really be this dumb?

March 11th, 2009
557. 

I can’t help but think the current Republican Party really is Beavis and Butthead, as Krugman stated a week or so ago. The more I read about their take on the current economy and other issues, I consistently come to the conclusion they are either really dumb, clueless people OR they are just playing dumb to act as a counter to Obama’s proposals. I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt and go with the second option, but either way it’s a no win situation for the United States.

On the economy…

Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking member of the Banking Committee on insolvent banks:

“Close them down, get them out of business. If they’re dead, they ought to be buried,” he said. “We bury the small banks; we’ve got to bury some big ones and send a strong message to the market. And I believe that people will start investing [again] in banks.”

And related, the Johns (McCain and Boehner) have both been echoing the ‘let them fail’ mantra and speaking out against nationalization. Do these fellows not know about the FDIC? The FDIC taking over banks (which they have to do, since they guarantee deposits — as well as all the other guarantess that have come through the bailouts, TARP, etc.) and putting them in receivership IS effectively nationalization.

Luckily Krugman is out in the media, putting the story straight:

On Shuster today, Krugman very calmly explained that if what they mean by “letting them fail” is that we put them into receivership, then they’re right. After all that’s what the FDIC is doing about twice a week now with banks all over the country. If it makes these bozos feel better to call it “letting them fail” rather than “nationalization” that’s fine with me. Maybe that’s a good way to phrase it. Unfortunately, it’s pretty obvious that they don’t understand it that way. They think these banks can go “bankrupt,” just close the doors and stop operating like the corner hardware store. Apparently they don’t understand that the government has to take over banks that are deemed to have failed.

And on “spending restraint” — Boehner and the Repub’s latest brilliant idea — Krugman effectively dismisses that

First, the Boehner quote:

“It’s time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we ‘get’ it.”

And Krugman:

What’s insane about Boehner’s remark? He’s talking about the current economic crisis as if it were a harvest failure — as if we faced a shortage of goods, so that the more you consume the less is left for me. In reality — even most conservatives understand this, when they think about it — we’re in a world desperately short of demand. If you consume more, that’s GOOD for me, because it helps create jobs and raise incomes. It’s in my personal disinterest to have you tighten your belt — and that’s just as true if you’re “the government” as if you’re my neighbor.

Plus, who is “the government”? It’s basically us, you know — the government spends money providing services to the public. Demanding that the government tighten its belt means demanding that we, the taxpayers, get less of those services. Why is this a good thing, even aside from the state of the economy?

Again, this is what the leaders of a powerful, if minority, party think. Can this country be saved?

Amen, Krugman.

Then to pile on, my favorite quote on the Repub’s economic “theories”:

I think it’s actually quite clear that these self-professed guardians of the free market and the capitalist system know less about economics than the average high school sophomore. And that is profoundly disturbing.

Then we move on to health care non-sense:

Seriously? Being healthy, fighting disease and sickness, etc. is a want or a privelage in our modern society? That is utterly ridiculous. I am fine if you don’t agree with nationalized healthcare (even though virtually every other industrialized country provides it to their citizens), but to swing so far in the opposite direction? I mean, owning a really fancy car or a mansion or even buying really expensive shoes can be classified as a want or privelage… but health care? Come on. They can’t be serious!?

And finally, the whole “I hope Obama fails” meme going through the Repubs. How is this not treason? Actively hoping and campaigning that the leader of your country fails?  In essence that your country fails? The Repubs called out the Dems for far less than that during the Bush years… and yet, they get away with this in the media. It’s purely strategic politics and selfish. Especially in times like this… but, I guess when all you have are really bad ideas, it’s all you have left.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

It's automatic!

February 19th, 2009
523. 

CLINTON: [T]here’s 100 economic studies which show that you get a better return in terms of economic growth on extending unemployment benefits or investing money in energy conservation jobs to improve buildings than you do giving people in my income group a tax cut. But it doesn’t stop them. Those guys are on automatic. You punch a button and they give the answer they give you.

[via Think Progress » Clinton hits GOP for automatically opposing Obama’s agenda.]

This quote makes me think of this site:

http://gopproblemsolver.com/

Tags: , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Two Must Read Articles

November 10th, 2008
477. 

Two more on the economy and the Treasury Department…

First up, the Tresury Department released a notice during the September bailout hullabaloo that could give banks a windfall up to $140 billion due to tax policy change. Tax experts and congressional members have weighed in on this change, calling it everything from exceeding authority to illegal.

And finally, the Treasury Department refuses to release the names of recipients of $2 trillion in emergency taxpayer loans or the troubled assets the government is accepting as collateral. All despite Paulson’s promise to comply with congressional demands for transparency.

The bailout is beginning to feel like Bush’s last great heist before leaving office.

Tags: , , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Krugman on the economy

November 8th, 2008
473. 

<object width=”512″ height=”296″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.hulu.com/embed/jdRRl4K9zjY9pffKK4r99Q”></param><embed src=”http://www.hulu.com/embed/jdRRl4K9zjY9pffKK4r99Q” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash”  width=”512″ height=”296″></embed></object>

UPDATE: And some more on New Deal economics on his blog.

Tags: , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Joe Six Pack

October 9th, 2008
394. 

This one is a little shorter than my previous post!

Just wanted to point out that I am glad someone in the media finally called Joe Six Pack what it really is…

George Packer in the New Yorker:

No one with a sharp, clear image in her head of a hard-pressed American would use a term like “Joe Six Pack,” an insulting cliché on the order of “the little people.”

Couldn’t agree more. Every time I hear Joe Six Pack, I wince. It’s sad that Palin actually thinks it is in the same ballpark as Hockey or Soccer Mom. Sorry, but insinuating that all average folks have to live for is a six pack is derogatory and ignorant. But it seems as if the whole Republican ticket is out of touch with the middle class. Not only does McCain not mention the term ‘middle class’, but he’s said a good definition of rich is $5 million and that Americans wouldn’t pick lettuce for $50 an hour.

Update: And that isn’t even mentioning that Palin is no where near an ‘average joe”.  The Palin household is worth at least $1.2 million dollars and they routinely pulled down six figure incomes, even before she was governor. And remember, this is ALASKA. She’s well off, face it.

The estimate includes 5 properties, a few planes, some boats, and don’t forget, the very non-elitist gubernatorial salary of $125K/year, but it doesn’t include the $11K the family receives every year in state oil dividends that help enable Alaskans to be so anti-tax.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Will McCain punk out?

September 26th, 2008
380. 

So the first presidential debate is tonight and McCain is threatening to not show up, in order to work on the financial crisis. He’s even “suspended his campaign” (or not.)

First off, I have to agree with Obama on this one: Presidents should be able to handle more than one major task at one AND what better time to hear from the two candidates than now? I think American deservcs and neeeds to hear from both of them on this issue (and many others). The debates need to happen.

Secondly, from all the reports I’ve read McCain really hasn’t done much to help the process so far. The big meeting he called for with Bush, Obama and top leaders? McCain sat quietly for most of the meeting. And:

spoke only at the end to raise doubts about the rough compromise that the White House and congressional leaders were nearing.

So, not sure it is because he doesn’t understand the economy or the crisis or maybe he’s using this entire thing as a political stunt. Either to look “presidential” (by calling the meeting and ‘suspending’ his campaign to focus on the issue – even though Obama contacted him first suggesting they work together) or maybe he’s keeping quiet so a proposal is agreed upon that he can later vote against and say wasn’t the right plan (too much socialism, not enough ‘whatever’) so he can distance himself from Bush and the Republican Congress? I’d think probably the latter, since that is McCain’s biggest issue right now. He’s tied too closely to Bush and the Republicans who have pretty much destroyed our country (or at the very least gave us a major setback) through the war and handling of the economy.

What else does he have to gain by pushing back the debate? The McCain camp suggested the new date be in place of the VP debate (which would also need to be pushed back or as even suggested, canceled!), meaning Palin either gets more time to be brainwashed (which isn’t working so well – see my previous post) or even off the hook. Given her poor performances in softball-type interviews, I can’t imagine she’s too excited to take part in a debate. So, with a delayed debate the McCain camp wins either way.

Word is, Obama will make it a townhall type event if McCain doesn’t show up, which I can’t imagine the McCain camp would be too thrilled about – so I am betting McCain shows up and debates.

Speaking of Palin, I’ve seen a lot of buzz centered around McCain replacing Palin. (Even at the conservative National Review ) If that does happen, I just wanted to make sure McCain knows I am still available.

Update: Apparently, McCain wasn’t all that familiar with the House Republican plan he briefly and vaguely mentioned at the White House, either. You know, the one that caused all the negotiation and work to fall apart? Thanks McCain!

Tags: , , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Huge Bonuses – Part 2

September 23rd, 2008
373. 

More Wall Street goodness here:

In 2007, Wall Street’s five biggest firms — Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley — paid a record $39 billion in bonuses to themselves.

That’s $10 billion more than the $29 billion loan taxpayers are making to J.P. Morgan to save Bear Stearns.

Those 2007 bonuses were paid even though the shareholders in those firms last year collectively lost about $74 billion in stock declines — their worst year since 2002.

Between the golden parachutes and these insane bonuses, I need to get me one of these CEO/Wall Street jobs. I could run a company into the ground just as well as these folks did and I’d even accept half of their pay.

Tags: , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

Declare bankruptcy, get a (huge) bonus

September 23rd, 2008
371. 

Not even going to touch the horribly bad Paulson proposal yet, but thought this was interesting:

Up to 10,000 staff at the New York office of the bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers will share a bonus pool set aside for them that is worth $2.5bn (£1.4bn), Barclays Bank, which is buying the business, confirmed last night.

Emphasis mine.

How the f&$@ can you declare bankruptcy, file Chapter 11, and still get to keep this frickin’ huge bonus pool? Not to mention this beauty:

Many of Lehman’s UK staff are particularly angry about the US payouts because it has emerged that in the days running up to the bankruptcy, some $8bn in cash was transferred out of the account of the bank’s European business into accounts at the New York head office.

Something is seriously screwed up with corporate America and Wall Street. And the Paulson deal isn’t going to make it better. Serious reform and regulation needs to be put in place.

Tags: , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link

The Bush Economy

July 7th, 2008
210. 

Today’s Krugman goodness… Op-Ed Column and Blog.

From the blog, a graph comparing the ‘expansion’ during Bush to other post-WWII expansions. The only winner? You guessed it… corporate profits.

Tags: , , , ,
Noted in Politics    |    Permanent link