1. Is it good if  a vacuum really sucks?   2. Why is the third hand  On the watch  Called the second hand?   3. If a word is misspelled  In the dictionary,  How would we ever know?   4 If Webster wrote the first dictionary,  Where did he find the words?   5. Why do we say something is out of whack?  What is a whack?   6. Why does “slow down” and  ”slow up” mean the same thing?   7. Why does “fat chance” and “slim chance”> Mean the same thing?   8. Why do “tug” boats push their barges?   9. Why do we sing  ”Take me out to the ball game”  W hen we are already there?   10. Why are they called ” stands”  When they are made for sitting?   11. Why is it called “after dark”  When it really is “after light”?   12.. Doesn’t “expecting the unexpected”  Make the unexpected expected?   13.. Why are a “wise man” and  A “wise guy” opposites?   14. Why do “overlook” and “oversee”  Mean opposite things?  15. Why is “phonics”  Not spelled  The way it sounds?   16. If work is so terrific,  Why do they have to pay you to do it?   17.. If all the world is a stage,  Where is the audience sitting?   18. If love is blind,  Why is lingerie so popular?   19. If you are cross-eyed  And have dyslexia,  Can you read all right?   20. Why is bra singular  And panties plural?   21.. Why do you press harder  On the buttons of a remote control  When you know the batteries are dead?   22. Why do we put suits in garment bags  And garments in a suitcase?   23. How come abbreviated  Is such a long word?   24. Why do we wash bath towels?  Aren’t we clean when we use them?   25.. Why doesn’t glue  Stick to the inside of the bottle?   26. Why do they call it a TV set  When you only have one?   27. Christmas——-  What other time of the year  Do you sit in front of a DEAD TREE  And EAT CANDY OUT OF YOUR SOCKS?   28. Why do we drive on a parkway  And park on a driveway?

 

Bettmann/CORBIS

C-SPAN Supreme Court Series: Prayer in Public School

Arguments in Abington School District v. Schempp offer a candid snapshot into the way Americans perceived the intersection of government and religion nearly 50 years ago.

 

Richard Smith, a London-based capital markets information technology manager, was kind enough to provide an advance copy of his review for the book ECONned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism by Yves Smith, the author of the well-known financial blog Naked Capitalism.

Mr. Smith (real name, and no relation to Yves) helped in the proofing of the copy and fact searches, so he was already well familiar with the text. Perhaps this makes him a not entirely dispassionate source, given the regard that even copy editors can obtain for their associated works. But I thought it was a very nice summary of many of the salient points, and that you would enjoy having the opportunity to read it.

I intend to read the book in order to both learn something, and to be entertained as well. I love reading accounts of this period of time that are both authoritative and well-written, and understandable by the non-expert. Given the author’s performance on her blog, and her detailed industry knowledge and experience, it looks to be a ‘must read’ for those following the financial crisis and its associated developments.

Reading ECONned
By Richard Smith

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/03/guest-post-econned-book-review.html

 

by Harvey M. Sapolsky, Benjamin H. Friedman, Eugene Gholz, and Daryl G. Press

“Restraint would offer the opportunity to reinvigorate the foundations of America’s strength. Foreign distractions, among other causes, have led the United States to neglect its transportation infrastructure, its educational system, its finances, and its technology base. If we were to restrain the global interventionism that has become our second nature since the end of World War II, we could ensure our safety while preserving our power to deal more precisely with threats that may materialize in an uncertain future.”

Read Essay

 

[goldenben.GIF]

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/

 

From Supreme Allied Commander to … Ethanol Front Man? The Strange Journey of Wesley Clark. Lydia DePillis

 

A bald man with a wooden leg gets invited to a Halloween Party.
He doesn’t know what costume to wear to hide his head and his
Leg, So he writes to a costume company to explain his problem.

A few days later he received a parcel with the following note:

Dear Sir,
Please find enclosed a pirate’s outfit. The spotted handkerchief will
cover your bald head and, with your wooden leg, you will be just right
as a pirate.

Very truly yours,
Acme Costume Co.

The man thinks this is terrible because they have emphasized his
Wooden Leg and so he writes a letter of complaint. A week goes by and he
Receives another parcel and a note, which says:

Dear Sir,
Please find enclosed a monk’s costume. The long robe will cover your
Wooden leg and, with your bald head, you should really look the part.

Very truly yours,
Acme Costume Co.

Now the man is really upset since they have gone from emphasizing his
Wooden leg to emphasizing his bald head, so again he writes the
Company another nasty letter of complaint..

The next day he gets a small Parcel and a note, which reads:

Dear Sir,
We have TRIED our very BEST
Please find enclosed a bottle of molasses and a bag of crushed nuts.
Pour the molasses over your bald head, pat on crushed nuts, stick your
Wooden Leg up your ass and go as a caramel apple.

Very truly yours,
Acme Costume Co.

 
Here’s why a NC-17 rating is so critical:
  • An R rated movie easily makes its way to the cinema in your local neighborhood. Thankfully, many local cinemas still won’t show the movie if it’s NC-17.
  • An R rated movie stands a chance to make more money than NC-17 and this will only encourage some producers in Hollywood to make more vile movies like this.
  • And most importantly, children under 17 cannot get into movies with an NC-17 rating, unlike R rated movies, which admit them.
Currently the movie has elected to be “Not Rated” which will allow ANYONE OF ANY AGE TO VIEW THIS HORRIFIC, WICKED MOVIE.
THE MOVIE not only includes deliberately explicit and pornographic sex scenes, it also contains graphic close-ups of sexual mutilation and murderous, accidental violence, including the death of a baby.

A woman is portrayed as the antichrist in this film. The main female character in the movie takes a two by four to her husband’s private parts. And then drills his leg to a millstone while doing other acts of mutilation. This is not the kind of thing we want our children to observe.

The movie is designed not only to shock and titillate the audience. It is also designed to contain symbols, metaphors and other content referring to Christian, biblical themes.

We must act now, today since the movie is coming out next week. Please stand with us and others who care about how movies affect our kids. Click here and sign the petition.

Please forward this petition to everyone in your address book who cares about protecting the eyes and minds of children (as well as adults!).

Click here to sign the petition www.movieguide.org/antichristpetition

Click here to read the review of ANTICHRIST at www.movieguide.org/box-office/7/10015/antichrist

Click here to read reviews of other, more positive movies at www.movieguide.org

 

Washington Post Crashed-and-Burned-and-Smoking Watch: …[The Washington Posts's] Fred Hiatt this morning:

Re-Stimulating. Unemployment is bad. More fiscal debt might be worse: At 9.8 percent, the unemployment rate is higher than it has been since it hit 10.1 percent in June 1983. Since the recession began 21 months ago, the economy has shed nearly 7 million jobs. Whole industries — cars, housing, finance — have been devastated and may never recover fully. Nevertheless, White House economists reported in September that “employment is estimated to be between 600,000 and 1.1 million higher than it would otherwise have been” because of the Obama administration’s stimulus plan and other government policies, especially the Fed’s monetary expansion. While no one can prove or disprove that — much less apportion credit between fiscal and monetary policy — basic economics suggests that things might have been even worse if the government had done nothing…

It does not necessarily follow, however, that the economy needs more stimulus now. Government has managed to blunt the recession, but at a cost — a higher national debt burden, which future Americans must pay off by working harder and saving more than they otherwise would have…

Ummm…

So far the stimulus spendout has been some $160 billion. The midpoint estimate by Christy Romer and company is that GDP is now 1% higher than it would have been otherwise. That higher level of production and employment than we would have seen otherwise is going to lead to the collection of an extra $80 billion in tax revenues. That means that the net effect of the $160 billion we have pushed out the door has been to raise the national debt by $80 billion. The Treasury can now borrow through its TIPS program for 20 years at an interest rate of 2% plus inflation. That means that taxes in the future have to be higher by $1.6 billion per year–by $5 per person per year.

Thus the stimulus package so far:

  • Incur an extra forward-looking tax burden per person of 1.3 cents per day…
  • Get an extra 800,000 people productively at work–and get all the stuff they make and do–this year…

That looks like a very good deal: buying an extra productive job for an American today at a cost of $2000 per year in higher taxes looking forward–particularly when you think that some of those extra jobs build up our productive capacity to make us richer in the future as well.

The stimulus arithmetic suggests we should be doing more of it. The benefit-cost ratio at current stimulus spending levels is very good…

But nobody on Fred Hiatt’s staff realized this. For nobody on Fred Hiatt’s staff thinks that doing any arithmetic is part of their job description. Indeed, nobody on Fred Hiatt’s staff is capable of doing any arithmetic at all.

 
Incredible.  A phenomenon that is still not fully understood.  Maybe, someday, scientists/physicians will uncover the mystery of these beautiful minds.

 
Church Signs in England…
The English have always had a
way with words!
cid:1.1302608346@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:2.1302608347@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:3.1302608347@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:4.1302608347@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:5.1302608347@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:6.1302608347@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:7.1302608347@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:8.1302608347@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:9.1302608347@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:10.1302608347@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:11.1302608347@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
cid:12.1302608347@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
SRC=”aoladp://MA28227058-0021/ATT000391313.jpg”>
cid:13.1302608347@web81501.mail.mud.yahoo.com
 

I just want to thank all of you for your educational e-mails over the past year. I am totally screwed up now and have little chance of recovery.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I no longer open a public bathroom door without using a paper towel or have them put lemon slices in my ice water without worrying about the bacteria on the lemon peel.
>
> I can’t use the remote in a hotel room because I don’t know what the last person was doing while flipping through the adult movie channels.
>
> I can’t sit down on the hotel bedspread because I can only imagine what has happened on it since it was last washed.
>
> I have trouble shaking hands with someone who has been driving because the number one pastime while driving alone is picking ones nose (although cell phone usage may be taking the number one spot).
>
> Eating a little snack sends me on a guilt tripbecause I can only imagine how many gallons of Trans fats I have consumed over the years.
>
>
> I can’t touch any woman’s purse for fear she has placed it on the floor of a public bathroom.
>
> I MUST SEND MY SPECIAL THANKS to whoever sent me the one about poop in the glue on envelopes because I now have to use a wet sponge with every envelope that needs sealing.
>
>
>
> ALSO, now I have to scrub the top of every can I open for the same reason.
>
>
> I no longer have any savings because I gave it to a sick girl (Penny Brown) who is about to die in the hospital for the 1,387,258th time.
>
> I no longer have any money at all, but that will change once I receive the $15,000 that Bill Gates/Microsoft and AOL are sending me for participating in their special e-mail program.
>
> I no longer worry about my soul because I have 363,214 angels looking out for me, and St. Theresa’s Novena has granted my every wish.
>
>
> I no longer eat KFC because their chickens are actually horrible mutant freaks with no eyes or feathers..
>
> I no longer use cancer-causing deodorants even though I smell like a water buffalo on a hot day.
>
> THANKS TO YOU I have learned that my prayers only get answered if I forward an e-mail to seven of my friends and make a wish within five minutes.
>
> BECAUSE OF YOUR CONCERN, I no longer drink Coca Cola because it can remove toilet stains.
>
>
> I no longer can buy gasoline without taking someone along to watch the car so a serial killer won’t crawl in my back seat when I’m pumping gas.
>
>
>
> I no longer drink Pepsi or Dr. Pepper since the people who make these products are atheists who refuse to put ‘Under God’ on their cans.
>
> I no longer use Saran Wrap in the microwave because it causes cancer.
>
> AND THANKS FOR LETTING ME KNOW I can’t boil a cup of water in the microwave anymore because it will blow up in my face.. Disfiguring me for life.
>
> I no longer check the coin return on pay phonesbecause I could be pricked with a needle infected with AIDS.
>
> I no longer go to shopping malls because someone will drug me with a perfume sample and rob me.
>
> I no longer receive packages from UPS or Fed Ex since they are actually Al Qaeda in disguise.
>
> I no longer shop at Target since they are French and don’t support our American troops or the Salvation Army.
>
> I no longer answer the phone because someone will ask me to dial a number for which I will get a phone bill with calls to Jamaica , Uganda , Singapore , and Uzbekistan
>
>
> I no longer buy expensive cookies from Neiman Marcus since I now have their recipe.
>
> THANKS TO YOU I can’t use anyone’s toilet but mine because a big brown African spider is lurking under the seat to cause me instant death when it bites my butt.
>
>
> AND THANKS TO YOUR GREAT ADVICE I can’t ever pick up $5.00 dropped in the parking lot because it probably was placed there by a sex molester waiting underneath my car to grab my leg.
>
> I can no longer drive my car because I can’t buy gas from certain gas companies!
>
> I can’t do any gardening because I’m afraid I’ll get bitten by the brown recluse and my hand will fall off.
>
>
> And I now keep my toothbrush in the living room, because water splashes over 6 ft. out of the commode.
> If you don’t send this e-mail to at least 144,000 people in the next 70 minutes, a large dove with diarrhea will land on your head at 5:00 p.m. Tomorrow afternoon and the fleas from 12 camels will infest your back, causing you to grow a hairy hump. I know this will occur because it actually happened to a friend of my next door neighbors’ ex-mother-in-law’s second husband’s cousin’s beautician . . .
>
>
> Oh, by the way…..
>
> A German scientist from Argentina , after a lengthy study, has discovered that people with insufficient brain activity read their e-mail with their hand on the mouse..
> Don’t bother taking it off now, it’s too late.

 

In Asset Allocation, Rick Bookstaber takes issue with the notion of being able to construct an all-weather portfolio and argues that there is “no magic asset allocation that protects you from the buffetings of financial storms without it also trimming your sails during fair weather.”

 

Most Downloaded White Papers

 

Getty Images

A balloonist in Bristol, southwest England checks the ropes as he prepares for take-off Friday. Bristol’s annual International Balloon Fiesta is Europe’s largest hot air balloon festival and attracts thousands of spectators. This year’s perfect weather conditions allowed more than 100 balloons to rise into the skies above the city on the river Avon.

 

It’s hard to imagine that the monetary policy talk can get any nuttier, but we’ve likely only just begun. After all, despite the Federal Reserve growing its balance sheet by 140 percent and dropping rates essentially to zero, the bankruptcies just keep on coming. Ex-Fed governor Wayne Angell told Larry Kudlow’s CNBC audience, “monetary policy always works!” Although Angell does stipulate that it takes time before the tromping on the monetary gas pedal will spin the economic tires and spray the prosperity gravel.

But good grief, the Fed started cutting rates in September 2007, dropping the federal-funds rate from 5.25 percent to 4.75 percent, and it was cut, cut, cut until daddy set the target rate at 0 to .25 percent in December of last year. In the meantime, one trillion dollars has been added to the M-2 money supply.

Despite all this money creation, Circuit City, Sharper Image, Goody’s, Gottschalk’s, Comp USA, Levitz Furniture, Chrysler, General Motors, General Properties, and — most recently — Eddie Bauer have filed for bankruptcy protection. And personal bankruptcy filings are up in every state and soaring in Nevada, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana, and Michigan.

In May, forty-eight states had more people out of work than in the previous month or year, with the national unemployment rate increasing from 8.9 percent to 9.4 percent. Moreover, California, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Carolina had their highest rates of unemployment on record. Maybe Mr. Angell will change his mind when he gets laid off. Just how long are we supposed to wait for this monetary magic to work?

Now the word is that zero-percent interest rates are just too darn high. That’s why we haven’t seen a reinflation of bubble America. The Financial Times reports the existence of a Federal Reserve staff memorandum that makes the case for a negative-five-percent federal-funds rate. Meanwhile, Japanese authorities are toying with the idea of outlawing cash in their country. Despite using every fiscal trick in the book and keeping interest rates at zero percent for a decade, that economy has been mired in a postbubble depression. So the current theory “would suggest that nominal interest rates of [negative four] percent might be closer to what is required to rescue the economy from another deflationary spiral,” reported the Times Online.

The talking heads and policy wonks are trying to tell us that we’re not borrowing enough, and that’s why we’re in a depression and why the Japanese economy has been depressed for more than a decade.

However, the real reason we’re in a depression is because businesses and individuals borrowed too much and invested it poorly. Economist Murray Rothbard explained that a depression is the recovery stage: “The liquidation of unsound businesses, the ‘idle capacity’ of the malinvested plant, and the ‘frictional’ unemployment of original factors that must suddenly and en masse shift to lower stages of production — these are the chief hallmarks of the depression stage.”

That’s why monetary policy isn’t working and won’t work. People must save and pay off their debts. The malinvestments of the boom must be liquidated. New liquidity and zero-percent interest rates will only create new malinvestments, not a sound economy.

But you won’t hear that on TV or read it in the New York Times. The Nobel Prize–winning economist and Gray Lady columnist Paul Krugman is now worried about the “paradox of thrift,” the theory that, when consumers save too much en masse, the economy is worse off because there is not enough consumption.

But as economist Frank Shostak explains, it is savings — not demand — that enables the expansion of production of goods and services. “In short, no effective demand can take place without prior production,” Shostak writes. “If it were otherwise, then poverty in the world would have been eradicated a long time ago.” In other words, you can’t print production and prosperity, much as the Fed may try. And Ben Bernanke is trying.

For those not familiar with Krugman’s policy suggestions, he wrote back in August 2002 that “[t]o fight this recession, the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”

Sir Alan followed Krugman’s advice, and look where we are now. More of the same will only create more financial pain.

Douglas French is president of the Mises Institute and author of Early Speculative Bubbles & Increases in the Money Supply. See his tribute to Murray Rothbard. Send him mail. See his article archives. Comment on the blog.

 

Walking Away When You Can Pay By Kelsey VanOverloop

Homeowners are turning to the “strategic default” — walking away from a mortgage even when there are funds available to keep paying. “Increasingly, the determination of when to default is not guided by the moral question: Is this the right thing to do? It is guided by the pragmatic concern: Am I too far underwater on my mortgage?” writes Kelsey VanOverloop. Read more »

 

We are now looking at unemployment numbers that undermine any confidence that we might be nearing the bottom of the recession. The appropriate metaphor is not the green shoots of new growth. A better image is to look at the true total of jobless people as a prudent navigator looks at an iceberg.

What we see on the surface is disconcerting enough. The estimate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of job losses for June is 467,000. That increases by 7.2 million the number of unemployed since the start of the recession. The cumulative job losses over the past six months have been greater than for any other half-year period since World War II, including demobilization. What’s more, the job losses are now equal to the net job gains over the previous nine years, making this the only recession since the Great Depression to wipe out all employment growth from the previous business cycle.

That’s bad enough. But here are nine reasons we are in even more trouble than the 9.5 percent unemployment rate indicates.

One. June’s total included 185,000 people who were assumed to be at work, many of whom probably were not. The government could not identify them; it made an assumption about trends. But many of the mythical jobs are in industries that have absolutely no job creation: finance, for example. When the official numbers are adjusted over the next several months, look to some of the 185,000 boosting the unemployment totals.

Two. More companies are asking employees to take unpaid leave. These people don’t count on the unemployment roll.

Three. No fewer than 1.4 million people wanted or were available for work in the past 12 months. They were not counted. Why? Because they hadn’t searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey. The assumption is that they had found work or don’t want it, but there are other explanations: school attendance, family responsibilities, sheer exhaustion.

Four. The number of workers taking part-time jobs because of the slack economy, a kind of stealth underemployment, has doubled in this recession to about 9 million, or 5.8 percent of the workforce. Add those whose hours have been cut to those who cannot find a full-time job, and the total of unemployed and underemployed rises to 16.5 percent, putting the number of involuntarily idle workers in the range of an overwhelming 25 million.

Five. The inside numbers are just as bad. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory private-sector employees, around 80 percent of the workforce, dropped to 33 hours. That’s 48 minutes a week less than before the recession began, the lowest level of activity since the government began tracking such data 45 years ago. Full-time workers are being downgraded to part time as businesses slash labor costs to remain above water and factories operate at only 65 percent of capacity. If American workers were still putting in those extra 48 minutes a week now, 3.3 million fewer employees could perform the same aggregate amount of work. With a longer workweek, the unemployment rate would reach 11.7 percent, not the official 9.5 percent (which in turn dramatically exceeds the 8 percent rate projected by the Obama administration).

Six. The average length of official unemployment increased to 24.5 weeks. This is the longest term since the government started to track these data in 1948. The number of long-term unemployed (those out of a job for 27 weeks or more) has now jumped to 4.4 million, an all-time high.

Seven. The average worker saw no wage gains in June, with average compensation running flat at $18.53 an hour.

Eight. The jobs report is even uglier when you consider that the sector producing goods is losing the most jobs–223,000 in the last report alone.

Nine. The prospects for job creation are equally distressing. The likelihood is that when economic activity picks up, employers will first choose to increase hours for existing workers and bring part-time workers to full-time status.

Many unemployed workers looking for jobs once the recovery begins will discover that jobs as good as the ones they lost are almost impossible to find because more layoffs in this recession have been permanent and not temporary. Instead of shrinking operations, companies have closed whole business units or made sweeping structural changes in the way they conduct their business. For example, General Motors and Chrysler shut down hundreds of dealerships and reduced brands; Citigroup and Bank of America cut tens of thousands of jobs and exited many parts of the world of finance. In other words, we could face a very low upswing in terms of the creation of new jobs, and we may be facing a much higher level of joblessness on an ongoing basis. Job losses may last well into 2010 to hit an unemployment peak close to 11 percent. And then joblessness may be sustained for an extended period.

Can we find comfort in knowing that employment has long been considered a lagging indicator? It is conventionally seen as having limited predictive power because employment reflects decisions taken earlier in the business cycle. But today is different. Unemployment has doubled from 4.8 to 9.5 percent in just 16 months, a record rate so fast it may influence future economic behaviors and outlooks. Bear in mind that the lackluster increase in inventories suggests that there’s little prospect in the pipeline of real growth in consumption, investment, and exports. So the terrible state of the labor market is likely to be a strong head wind against consumer spending for a long time as wages and overall income growth are decelerating and households, within a fairly short period, will have received their full portion of the stimulus package.

How could this happen when Washington has thrown trillions of dollars into the pot, including the famous $787 billion in spending that was supposed to yield $1.50 in growth for every dollar spent? For a start, too much of the money went to transfer payments–Medicaid, jobless benefits, and the like–that do nothing for jobs and growth. The spending that creates new jobs is new spending, particularly on infrastructure. It amounts to less than 10 percent of the stimulus package today.

Second, the stimulus package may have been well intentioned, but it was too small and too badly constructed to get money into the economy fast enough to replace lost consumer and business spending and to slow unemployment. Workers’ pessimism is justified: About 40 percent believe the recession will continue for another full year. As paychecks shrink and disappear, consumers are more hesitant to spend and won’t lead the economy out of the doldrums quickly enough.

It may have made him unpopular in parts of the Obama administration, but Vice President Joe Biden told it as it is when he said the administration misread how bad the economy was. The administration inherited the problem, but then it failed to understand how ineffective its solution would be. The program was supposed to be about jobs, jobs, and jobs. It wasn’t. The recovery act may have been a single piece of legislation, but it included thousands of funding schemes for tens of thousands of projects, and those programs are stuck in the bureaucracy as the government releases the funds with typical inefficiency.

An additional $150 billion, which was allocated to state coffers so as to continue existing programs like Medicaid, did not add new jobs. Hundreds of billions of dollars were set aside for tax cuts and for new benefits for the poor and the unemployed, and that did not add new jobs. Now state budgets are drowning in red ink as jobless claims and Medicaid bills climb.

Next year, state budgets will have depleted their initial rescue dollars. Absent another rescue plan, they will have no choice but to slash spending or raise taxes, or both. The complete state and local government sector, which makes up about 15 percent of the economy, is beginning the worst contraction in postwar history in the face of a deficit gap of $166 billion for fiscal year 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and a cumulative gap of $350 billion in fiscal year 2011.

Similarly, households overburdened with historic levels of debt will be saving more. The savings rate has already jumped from zero in 2007 to almost 7 percent of after-tax income now, and it is still rising. Every dollar of saving comes out of consumption. Because consumer spending is the economy’s main driver, we are going to have a weak consumer sector, and many businesses simply won’t have the means or the need to hire employees. In the aftermath of the 1990-1991 recession, Americans bought houses, cars, and other expensive goods. This time, the combination of a weak job picture and a severe credit crunch means that people won’t be able to get the financing for big expenditures, and those who can borrow will be reluctant to do so.

In recent times, Americans found myriad ways to fuel spending, even as incomes stagnated: borrowing against the once rising price of their homes and tapping plentiful credit cards. No longer. The paycheck has returned as the primary source of spending, and pay is eroding even for those who have jobs. This process is nowhere near complete, and, until it is, the economy will barely grow, if at all, and may well oscillate between sluggish growth and modest decline for the next several years until the rebalancing of the excessive debt has been completed. Until then, the private economy will be deprived of adequate profits and cash flow, and businesses will not start to hire. Nor will they race to make capital expenditures when they have vast idle capacity.

In other words, there are many more reasons today to expect the downturn to continue than to expect a turnaround. Consumer spending and residential investment could be even weaker than most estimates, and, as the level of fiscal stimulus begins its decline in the second half of 2010, we may be facing an even more difficult future.

No wonder poll after poll shows a steady erosion of confidence in the stimulus measures. One survey even showed 45 percent believe the limited results suggest they should simply be abandoned midway. The disappointment is understandable–but that would only make things worse. So what kind of second-act stimulus program should we look for? This time, it should not be an excuse to pass a lot of programs like those in the first stimulus package that do not really have the kind of multiplier effect on job creation and on economic growth that was intended. In any event, given the trends, it is absolutely critical that the Obama administration not play politics with the issue but really begin to prepare a second stimulus program, so that if the economy does take a major downturn, it will be possible this time to provide much more rapid government support to infrastructure spending that will maximize the creation of jobs. The time to get ready is now.

 

On April 27, Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs, sat down for a meeting at Goldman headquarters with Gretchen Morgenson, reporter, columnist and senior editor of the New York Times. The Wall Street titan and the Pulitzer Prize winner had never met, but this wasn’t the usual polite getting-to-know-you session between reporter and source.

“I feel like I’ve been waterboarded,” Blankfein told her, according to people familiar with the discussion. Blankfein was being dramatic, but he had reason to feel that way. It was Morgenson, after all, who had written the story this past fall that stripped the veil of secrecy from the most momentous closed-door deal in the annals of US finance: the government rescue of fallen insurance colossus American International Group. The September 28 story, “Behind Insurer’s Crisis, a Blind Eye to a Web of Risk,” was the first article published by a major news organization to reveal that the true beneficiaries of the bailout were the institutions to which AIG owed money, known as counterparties (mainly Wall Street investment banks). The 2,700-word piece said, among other things, that an AIG collapse “threatened to leave a hole of as much as $20 billion in Goldman’s side” and that Blankfein attended a meeting at the Federal Reserve on September 15, the same day decisions were made to let Lehman Brothers fall and to save AIG.

Today this is common knowledge; until this story ran, though, it wasn’t. The article was about as bold and valuable as business stories come and involved no small journalistic risks for the Times. Goldman, for instance, was able to wring a correction on the story and still feels wronged today. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who was then president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, called Morgenson and her editor to question the article’s premise, The Nation has learned. The piece has been the subject of endless parsing on financial blogs and, privately, sniping by Morgenson’s peers. Was Goldman really exposed to AIG? And if so, how? Was it fair to mention Blankfein’s presence at the Fed?

It would be too much to say that the story was all in a day’s work for Morgenson. It was extraordinary. But it does open a window onto what makes Morgenson the most important financial journalist of her generation.

At 53, Morgenson is at the height of her career, read and feared in the corridors of power running from Wall Street to Washington. As a reporter and columnist (a controversial dual role), she is enormously productive. During the period following Lehman’s bankruptcy, her byline appeared on major stories on Henry Cisneros and good housing goals gone bad, Merrill Lynch’s collapse, corrupted rating agencies and Washington Mutual’s boiler-room culture, in addition to the September 28 blockbuster on AIG–not to mention weekly 1,200-word columns on everything from rating-agency hypocrisy (“They’re Shocked, Shocked, About the Mess,” October 26) to a convoluted tax deal that imperiled an Indiana electrical cooperative (“Just Call This Deal Hoosier Baroque,” December 21).

She breaks business-press taboos constantly. Her prose is blunt; some even say crude. (“Everybody knows that executive compensation at many companies has been obscene. What everybody does not know is how obscene obscene is now,” she wrote in February 2006 in a not untypical column.) Morgenson doesn’t just cover subjects but sometimes hammers them into submission, as when she banged out more than three dozen stories on Countrywide in 2007 and 2008 and almost single-handedly made CEO Angelo Mozilo the face of a rogue industry. Not coincidentally, on June 4 the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Mozilo with securities fraud, alleging that he misled investors about the increasing risks Countrywide was taking with loans that Mozilo privately called “toxic.”

At this point, it is almost impossible for business reporters and editors not to have an opinion about Morgenson. Supporters cheer her tell-it-like-it-is style; detractors call her simplistic and agenda-driven. In certain Wall Street and business circles, she is flatly detested.

“She rules,” says Aaron Elstein, a senior writer who covers Wall Street for Crain’s New York. “She grasped that the game was rigged way before it was fashionable to do so.” (He was talking about bogus accounting practices, but the remark holds more generally.)

“Unreadable,” snaps a business journalism peer. “She writes like an Escalade running into a concrete barrier. And her relentless and repetitious pounding of simplistic issues is maddening.”

“The consensus view of her among actual business people I know is pure contempt,” says Jim McCarthy of CounterPoint Strategies, a public relations firm that has represented high-profile business-press targets. “Her work has a sort of drive-by, potshot quality to it that leads to habitual mistakes and ideological laziness. She is reflexively opposed to free markets and assumes bad faith in almost every subject or person she examines.”

What both sides miss, and what sets Morgenson apart, is that she combines the blunt writing style with a prodigious fact-gathering ability and an accountability mindset all too rare in the business-press culture. This allows her to go beyond merely reporting and commenting on the public agenda. She helps to set it.

Why Gretchen Morgenson Is So Important – Dean Starkman, The Nation

 

“In their desire for mathematical order and elegant models,” he wrote in his firm’s quarterly letter to clients earlier this year, “the economic establishment played down the role of bad behavior” — not to mention “flat-out bursts of irrationality.”

He continued: “The incredibly inaccurate efficient market theory was believed in totality by many of our financial leaders, and believed in part by almost all. It left our economic and government establishment sitting by confidently, even as a lethally dangerous combination of asset bubbles, lax controls, pernicious incentives and wickedly complicated instruments led to our current plight. ‘Surely, none of this could be happening in a rational, efficient world,’ they seemed to be thinking. And the absolutely worst part of this belief set was that it led to a chronic underestimation of the dangers of asset bubbles breaking.”

(Mr. Grantham concluded: “Well, it’s nice to get that off my chest again!”)

Poking Holes In a Market Theory – Joe Nocera, New York Times

 

Their standing dinner reservation at the country club is for 6:30 p.m., because at least that much never changes. Every Wednesday night, Charles and Mimi Cluss dress in pleated slacks and suit jackets and drive to the manicured playground where Uniontown’s elite have gathered for 101 years. It is like a “second home,” Charles says of the place where he finalized deals for his lumber company and hosted weddings for two daughters. Except on this night in mid-May, he no longer knows what to expect.

Tough times for the country club set. (WashingtonPost)

 

“Wall Street will market the VIX as bullish no matter what it does.” (Daily Options Report also Trader’s Narrative, Freakonomics)

We should take it as good news that after a substantial stock price run up on Monday, the VIX responded on Tuesday by falling — a sign that the increase was moving us toward lower future volatility.

 

The Biggest Stimulus Won’t Come from Obama – Randall Forsyth, Barron’s

THE BIGGEST STIMULUS to the economy in the next 12 months won’t come from the Obama administration’s vaunted fiscal plans but from the rather arcane operations of the Federal Reserve.

David Greenlaw, chief fixed-income economist at Morgan Stanley, estimates that mortgage refinancings will put nearly twice as much money in the pockets of U.S. consumers as the fiscal stimulus over the next 12 months.

Meanwhile, the slowing of the wealth losses of Americans will also be a major swing factor over the next year, he estimates.

The rebound in prices of equities and corporate and municipal bonds, along with the deceleration in house-price declines, owe much to the Fed’s massive provision of liquidity, along with the federal government’s efforts to shore up the financial system.

But incomes will continue to fall as employment declines, albeit at a slightly slower rate. Net-net, various factors affecting consumers’ spending power should be slightly in the black in the next 12 months, a reversal from the deep negative over the last year, according to the Morgan Stanley economist’s projections.

In assessing the consumer, Greenlaw estimates that job losses drained some $250 billion from consumers’ wallets over the past 12 months. Even more severe was the drop of $400 billion from the loss of wealth from the decimation of securities and property values.

The decline in energy prices was equal to a $150 billion boost to consumers’ purchasing power, according to Greenlaw’s sums. But that didn’t come close to offsetting the hit to their income from job losses or drop in wealth.

That helps demonstrate the silliness of the notion that falling energy and commodity prices would rescue the economy last year when that deflation was the result of the same credit collapse that produced massive job cuts and wealth losses.

Be that as it may, Greenlaw estimates mortgage refinancings and tax refunds kicked in $25 billion each in the last 12 months. Unemployment benefits provided consumers an additional $60 billion. Bottom line: he reckons the net effect of all these factors was a $390 billion loss of spending power for U.S. consumers in the past 12 months.

Looking ahead, the economist forecasts job losses will drain $175 billion from consumers’ purchasing power while wealth losses will deduct $80 billion over the next 12 months. The latter is based on the assumptions stock prices will be flat while house prices drop another 10%.

Unemployment benefits will add $75 billion over the next 12 months while fiscal stimulus will provide $65 billion, according to Greenlaw’s estimates.

But mortgage refinancings will nearly equal impact of those fiscal boosts, totaling some $125 billion of increased purchasing power, according to his projections. That’s based on relatively conservative assumptions about who can actually take advantage of the decline in conforming mortgage rates, from an average of over 6% to the high 4% range.

Significantly, Greenlaw is not assuming that homeowners with all sorts of wacky, aggressive subprime loans are suddenly going to get safe, conforming, Ozzie-and- Harriet-style fixed-rate mortgages. He assumes many of the latter cohort will be able to take advantage of current, historically low fixed rates. But not everybody, given the stringent terms being imposed by lenders these days, as evidenced in the Fed’s most recent loan-officer survey.

Greenlaw says this boost to consumers is consistent with the Fed’s objectives in bringing down mortgage rates via its program to purchase Treasury and agency obligations and mortgage-backed securities.

 

The Problem With Our Regulatory Process


There have been and still are three obvious problems with our regulatory structure.

1. Influence Peddling

2. Conflicts of Interest

3. Corruption

Reorganizing to more fully centralize the regulatory process is exactly the wrong thing to do.

It was often individuals and the individual States, standing against the pressure of federal regulators, which exposed unethical and illegal practices.

And as for the idea that the Fed can take on more of these functions, just remember what will happen the next time a Greenspan gets in that position.

The Fed is a private organization owned by the banks, too often opaque, and with a highly questionable independence and objectivity.

Reorganization to centralize bad decision making and conflicts of interests is right out of the 1990′s corporate playbook.

If Obama has a pair of his own he will appoint someone like Eliot Spitzer, Ron Paul, or Dennis Kucinich as the new Chairman of the SEC or the CFTC.

© 2012 New Jersey CFO Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha