I'm trying to figure out what you are slamming these guys...
on the corporate personhood I'm positive DeFazio supports that and I have written about it on here...
I think that's a good idea..
Government owning the land? I just don't know...seems that has some downside and upsides and the US does own quite a bit of public lands already and i do think the public works, or infrastructure and so on should be expanded.
But we also have a highly dysfunctional government right now that needs to be made efficient, streamlined...it's been so damn corrupted I worry bout any agency effectively manage anything.
I think maybe the issue (I'm trying to boil it down) is this one bill does not preclude other bills, another pieces to the puzzle...
When they introduced this bill is was a 1st step in a series of pieces of legislation, not the end, this was just the beginning...
so nationalization of the banks is another one I mentioned and that's also been bubbling around because Sweden came out of their financial crisis the fastest by doing that..
but now we have "G7" meeting say "oh we won't do anything in the US that might hurt another country" and this is a "global coordinated effort" which I find frightening as to what that really means.
Paul just say he's going to give cash to banks for stock...
that's the equity stakes but honestly I'm not so sure how great that is...and as far as I know it's not nationalizing the banks...better than just handing them money for bad assets though.
Hell no this isn't DK, I'm just trying to get to the meat of the argument on why you are blasting that bill cause I just don't see the problem and when they introduced it they said it was the 1st step.
The fact that there hasn't been a single comment on a single one of these ideas is rather depressing. When I made this diary I was hoping people would make comments like "that's an interesting idea. I've never heard of it before", or "I don't agree with that idea, but I like this one that you didn't mention even more."
Instead we get debate about something that is already in the past. It's feeling very similar to DKos.
On her website has a lot of the details from other economists on why they put this bill together. Plus links to other legislation to accompany this bill.
Hey, she's quoting Greider, surely that will appease your wrath! ;)
I do not agree that guarantees of the
FDIC deposit are progressive. They may be necessary depending on the level of insurance. All such FDIC insurance has a huge cost. When TheReserve broke the buck, it was said they needed FDIC insuranc for money market funds!.
The whole idea of MM funds is a lack of insurance in exchange for higher risk. Every day the risk of model of capitalism is re-written in fave or lower risk, high social guarantees.
So the question now is why capitalism and in what form? If the US and Germany and Britain nationalize the banks, and Hugo Chavez nationalizes the Bank of Venezuala, the important difference between Bush/Bernamke/Poulson and Chavez is that only one of them speaks good Spanish.
It's a matter of what will work and this is how they got rid of all of the oversupply of commercial real estate in the S&L crisis...
it's a matter of what will actually work the best and this has been proven to work as well as a modified HOLC...
so ....
as far as mark-to-market there is a serious timing issue and note, they are not saying to go back to Enron, they are talking about a review. Not the same thing.
Before you blast them, at least understand the issues on mark-to market and what they are trying to do...
they simply are not promoting accounting fraud here.
Honestly do you think opposing Paulson's bail out of his Goldman Sachs/Citigroup et al pals and keeping these institutions afloat is really the way to go and comparing this to that?
This is completely different from that and does not require $700 Billion of taxpayer money to implement.
I also don't believe this bill precludes anything about bailing out homeowners or anything else.
I mean come on, DeFazio? The guy who fights against the privatization of all public works constantly and just fought to get chair of the transportation committee to stop it, Mr. perfect voting record (on our side) on trade is magically out to screw the middle class? No way, they put this together based on analysis of what would actually work and not waste $700 Billion to Paulson's pals.
Roubini echoes much of what we have said. The question is whether polictos understand and know what to do about this crisis. RGE understands it is not just finance but the productive economy that matters. I hear such utterances from the Obama camp but they remain unclear.
By 'rapid resolution of banking ...' we understand freeing liquidity by regulation and investment.
By 'rapid agreement between lender and creditor' this should be the SWFs, but who says they are willing?
We have discussed a 'triage' amongst financial instutions.
This triage should identify
1) insolvent and under-capitalized
2) undercapitalized
3) liquid and well capitalized (strong regional banks)
For Bank Finance 101 - Banks are required to mark ecurities to market under FASB 157 (a long story). This means that a bad loan or bad CMO must be written down to its market value. When a financial institution marks to market, they charge a loss, and credit the reserve (loan or security). Reserves are an offset valuation to the loan or bond asset. So bad assets are carried at the written value already.
Important to contrast with the 1930's, when FDR did not require the insurance companies and brokers to mark to market but to carry securities at face value. FASB 157 was suspended.
"A massive direct government fiscal stimulus packages that includes public works, infrastructure spending, unemployment benefits, tax rebates to lower income households and provision of grants to strapped and crunched state and local government"
On target, and right-on. Consider when the US borrowed 4 times GDP from 1939 to 1942. Will it take a bigger war instead? Or can we have peace with economic stimulus?
Are you sane?
Roubini, Congress and Senate needs to co-opt what the populist economists (and our site) has been saying for months in detail. I expect little leadership from the administration, so it falls to the people to lead.
I don't think that raising the FDIC insurance to $250K is very progressive. It certainly has no effect on the middle class and poor.
As for defending "mark-to-model" accounting, I find that simply offensive. If an economist defends this and still calls himself "progressive" then I have to ask him what his definition of "progressive" is, because his definition isn't anything close to mine.
But the real problem I have with this bill, and the one thing that you don't seem to understand, is not that it isn't better than Paulson's plan, its that it lacks any progressive values.
Is it workable? Maybe, maybe not. Does it incorporate a larger vision of the world? Absolutely not. It does nothing to reform the current system. It functions on getting the current, dysfunctional status quo moving again while trying to limit the amount of pain.
That's it. Nothing more.
And that's all the current progressive movement ever comes up with. If we can't demand something more during a so-called crisis, why should we expect any difference when the crisis is over?
There you see the Net certificates program, which is the real meat of the bill.
Then DeFazio was immediately shot down on trying to have a very, very small fee increase on market transactions to fund this entire thing. Blasted down by a lobbyist, who of course Pelosi was fine with.
Then...of all people, Hillary Clinton as you know has many plans which are highly Progressive including a HOLC...
now McCain of all people just adopted her plan and now the left is blasting McCain!
But most economists seem to recommend something along the lines of a hybrid HOLC/RFC/RTC type of situation
and these guys are trying. The No Bail Out bill is endorsed by a series of economists, that's what they recommended.
I have tried to outline a series of proposals put forth by people who live in the real economic world on here...
So, I disagree, they acted very Progressive, bucked their own party leadership and their plan is simply not a bad one as you claim.
It's not...and they are talking about the uptick rule being reinstated and no one is talking about going back to
Enron accounting....that's not what they are recommending on the mark-to-market.
Naked shorts are supposed to be illegal anyway...so what is the issue with that?
I think you're just upset because we don't have a Progressive running for President. ;)
To put it simply, I think the proposal was pathetic. There is nothing daring and bold about this bill. Aren't we supposed to be in some sort of economic crisis? Then why is the progressive left giving lukewarm alternatives? How come conservatives never worry about getting liberals and progressives "on board", but liberals and progressives do? Hell, if you start out your negotiating by conceding nearly everything that isn't already mainstream then you aren't going to get anywhere but further to the right-wing.
As I said above, there is no bold and daring leadership in the progressive movement anymore. No one thinks outside the box anymore but conservatives, and I won't stand for it any longer.
There are real issues with mark to market but focusing on on that very small portion is simply the wrong thing.
The thing to focus in on is the RTC plan, which is the meat of the proposal.
Since most announcements of the bill were rushed, I don't even know if the entire plan is written up yet but focusing in on a couple of things where conservatives have a point...
that's a huge mistake that is going on right now.
I 100% completely disagree with you on the Bill because there are so many experts recommending precisely what they put together.
Those are the real Progressives, believe me and I know for a fact they have been talking extensively to economists on what would actually work and that's what they are recommending.
They are the real deal and I would never question their motives, not a one for I have watched some of their votes for a very long time....they are the few "good ones" we have left in Congress.
Then, one must realize they need to get conservatives on board to pass a bill and some of the conservative ideas are not that bad.
I attached the actual ruling to the point versus translate it through "interested parties" who are "open border advocates".
I read through the ruling and what they are saying is this particular protest does not directly relate to working conditions because in essence, they were generally 'advocating' and also protesting the enforcement of US labor law...which basically won't affect negatively US legal workers. They also are saying a political philosophy the employers have zero control over and that's true, this is US federal labor law and immigration policy and not a specific issue of labor law, directly affecting legal US workers isn't something that is protected.
It's about this particular instance not being covered and from what I'm reading as well as the protests arguing against enforcement of US employment law....well, to me the ruling looks about right.
It's subtle, I may be wrong but I don't think this limited political protests at all for US workers.
I think you have a spin article being promoted by open border/illegal immigrant advocates that isn't quite right in consequences of the ruling for legal US workers.
Between 1939 and 1942, the US economy expanded four fold from GDP of $50 Billion in 1939 to $200 Billion in 1942, on War Bonds, Federal Debt.
All because of the War and because FDR disbelieved JM Keynes when told to expand the federal deficit to get out to the depression. It is not debt that is the issue at this time but the productive use of debt. Will the debt go to the corrupt finance capital or the productive economy?
The crisis of finance will likely soon become the crisis of the base economy 'Main Street'. The question is whether we undestand the difference, know how to finance the industrial base, and provide equity and liquidity rules for finance capital.
At this point of history the important difference between George Bush and Hugo Chavez, who natioanlized the Bank of Venezuala, is that only one speaks good Spanish.
There is an action by Programmer's Guild in Federal Court here. A 'band of brothers' against Homeland Security Rules.
We are proving that there is an absence of regulation of H1B Visas by Homeland Security.
My part is to prove discrimination/fraud by locat body shops who not only discrimate but use 'deposits' required to get part time work.
These are people in the U.S. illegally? Then, they shouldn't even be working here, never mind protesting US policy for they are not even authorized to be in the US.
So, I don't see the point here at all. U.S. jobs are for U.S. workers, not people who border jumped without authorization and took a job.
The article is completely obfuscated whether these workers are illegal or not but if they are, they shouldn't have the job in the 1st place so it's quite unclear if this ruling has any basis on U.S. labor for they are refusing to differentiate between US workers and illegal workers. Illegal workers are....illegal, so of course they could not have their jobs back because they are not supposed to have those jobs in the first place...
so it's quite unclear here if this is the ruling the title states....
Perhaps this article is ignoring that fact and thus misstating the ruling?
Let's see the original text of the ruling and who specifically made the complaint and if they are legal, authorized to be in the U.S. or not.
These deficits are incredible and also sudden. The US still is nowhere near the deficits they ran in the Great Depression WWII but honestly I wonder because they threw away the production economy....so where are future tax revenues going to come from?
Did you see yesterday that the deficit clock in New York ran out of numbers?
it would be interesting to analyse why Conrail succeeded yet Amtrak hasn't
I think some key issues is that passenger rail has historically far more politicised than mundane old freight moving rr's. The air lobby has long sought to undermine opassenger rail, as well as was the darling for subsidies, plus the US had a love affair with personal transportation which was the root of the decline in rail travel
If the US were serious about passenger rail it could be succesful ala most of Europe and Japan, and the high cost of fuel may eventually lead us to that point.
This is so bad and both candidates have been completely oblivious, an enemy really to a production economy and someone prove me wrong, but that's the only way out of this. Bush/Clinton/Bush literally offshore outsourced our economy through corporate written trade agreements and to me it's clear that having so many finance lobbyists running the show, looking at their short term profit agendas by investing in China and so on....has royally screwed America.
I have a side note, Gold is crashing right now and it makes no sense to me if the dollar is being decoupled at the reserve currency.
I'm trying to figure out what you are slamming these guys...
on the corporate personhood I'm positive DeFazio supports that and I have written about it on here...
I think that's a good idea..
Government owning the land? I just don't know...seems that has some downside and upsides and the US does own quite a bit of public lands already and i do think the public works, or infrastructure and so on should be expanded.
But we also have a highly dysfunctional government right now that needs to be made efficient, streamlined...it's been so damn corrupted I worry bout any agency effectively manage anything.
I think maybe the issue (I'm trying to boil it down) is this one bill does not preclude other bills, another pieces to the puzzle...
When they introduced this bill is was a 1st step in a series of pieces of legislation, not the end, this was just the beginning...
so nationalization of the banks is another one I mentioned and that's also been bubbling around because Sweden came out of their financial crisis the fastest by doing that..
but now we have "G7" meeting say "oh we won't do anything in the US that might hurt another country" and this is a "global coordinated effort" which I find frightening as to what that really means.
Paul just say he's going to give cash to banks for stock...
that's the equity stakes but honestly I'm not so sure how great that is...and as far as I know it's not nationalizing the banks...better than just handing them money for bad assets though.
Hell no this isn't DK, I'm just trying to get to the meat of the argument on why you are blasting that bill cause I just don't see the problem and when they introduced it they said it was the 1st step.
The fact that there hasn't been a single comment on a single one of these ideas is rather depressing. When I made this diary I was hoping people would make comments like "that's an interesting idea. I've never heard of it before", or "I don't agree with that idea, but I like this one that you didn't mention even more."
Instead we get debate about something that is already in the past. It's feeling very similar to DKos.
On her website has a lot of the details from other economists on why they put this bill together. Plus links to other legislation to accompany this bill.
Hey, she's quoting Greider, surely that will appease your wrath! ;)
I do not agree that guarantees of the
FDIC deposit are progressive. They may be necessary depending on the level of insurance. All such FDIC insurance has a huge cost. When TheReserve broke the buck, it was said they needed FDIC insuranc for money market funds!.
The whole idea of MM funds is a lack of insurance in exchange for higher risk. Every day the risk of model of capitalism is re-written in fave or lower risk, high social guarantees.
So the question now is why capitalism and in what form? If the US and Germany and Britain nationalize the banks, and Hugo Chavez nationalizes the Bank of Venezuala, the important difference between Bush/Bernamke/Poulson and Chavez is that only one of them speaks good Spanish.
It's a matter of what will work and this is how they got rid of all of the oversupply of commercial real estate in the S&L crisis...
it's a matter of what will actually work the best and this has been proven to work as well as a modified HOLC...
so ....
as far as mark-to-market there is a serious timing issue and note, they are not saying to go back to Enron, they are talking about a review. Not the same thing.
Before you blast them, at least understand the issues on mark-to market and what they are trying to do...
they simply are not promoting accounting fraud here.
Honestly do you think opposing Paulson's bail out of his Goldman Sachs/Citigroup et al pals and keeping these institutions afloat is really the way to go and comparing this to that?
This is completely different from that and does not require $700 Billion of taxpayer money to implement.
I also don't believe this bill precludes anything about bailing out homeowners or anything else.
I mean come on, DeFazio? The guy who fights against the privatization of all public works constantly and just fought to get chair of the transportation committee to stop it, Mr. perfect voting record (on our side) on trade is magically out to screw the middle class? No way, they put this together based on analysis of what would actually work and not waste $700 Billion to Paulson's pals.
Roubini echoes much of what we have said. The question is whether polictos understand and know what to do about this crisis. RGE understands it is not just finance but the productive economy that matters. I hear such utterances from the Obama camp but they remain unclear.
By 'rapid resolution of banking ...' we understand freeing liquidity by regulation and investment.
By 'rapid agreement between lender and creditor' this should be the SWFs, but who says they are willing?
We have discussed a 'triage' amongst financial instutions.
This triage should identify
1) insolvent and under-capitalized
2) undercapitalized
3) liquid and well capitalized (strong regional banks)
For Bank Finance 101 - Banks are required to mark ecurities to market under FASB 157 (a long story). This means that a bad loan or bad CMO must be written down to its market value. When a financial institution marks to market, they charge a loss, and credit the reserve (loan or security). Reserves are an offset valuation to the loan or bond asset. So bad assets are carried at the written value already.
Important to contrast with the 1930's, when FDR did not require the insurance companies and brokers to mark to market but to carry securities at face value. FASB 157 was suspended.
"A massive direct government fiscal stimulus packages that includes public works, infrastructure spending, unemployment benefits, tax rebates to lower income households and provision of grants to strapped and crunched state and local government"
On target, and right-on. Consider when the US borrowed 4 times GDP from 1939 to 1942. Will it take a bigger war instead? Or can we have peace with economic stimulus?
Are you sane?
Roubini, Congress and Senate needs to co-opt what the populist economists (and our site) has been saying for months in detail. I expect little leadership from the administration, so it falls to the people to lead.
I don't think that raising the FDIC insurance to $250K is very progressive. It certainly has no effect on the middle class and poor.
As for defending "mark-to-model" accounting, I find that simply offensive. If an economist defends this and still calls himself "progressive" then I have to ask him what his definition of "progressive" is, because his definition isn't anything close to mine.
But the real problem I have with this bill, and the one thing that you don't seem to understand, is not that it isn't better than Paulson's plan, its that it lacks any progressive values.
Is it workable? Maybe, maybe not. Does it incorporate a larger vision of the world? Absolutely not. It does nothing to reform the current system. It functions on getting the current, dysfunctional status quo moving again while trying to limit the amount of pain.
That's it. Nothing more.
And that's all the current progressive movement ever comes up with. If we can't demand something more during a so-called crisis, why should we expect any difference when the crisis is over?
Now hold yer horses, let's read the bill draft
There you see the Net certificates program, which is the real meat of the bill.
Then DeFazio was immediately shot down on trying to have a very, very small fee increase on market transactions to fund this entire thing. Blasted down by a lobbyist, who of course Pelosi was fine with.
Then...of all people, Hillary Clinton as you know has many plans which are highly Progressive including a HOLC...
now McCain of all people just adopted her plan and now the left is blasting McCain!
But most economists seem to recommend something along the lines of a hybrid HOLC/RFC/RTC type of situation
and these guys are trying. The No Bail Out bill is endorsed by a series of economists, that's what they recommended.
I have tried to outline a series of proposals put forth by people who live in the real economic world on here...
So, I disagree, they acted very Progressive, bucked their own party leadership and their plan is simply not a bad one as you claim.
It's not...and they are talking about the uptick rule being reinstated and no one is talking about going back to
Enron accounting....that's not what they are recommending on the mark-to-market.
Naked shorts are supposed to be illegal anyway...so what is the issue with that?
I think you're just upset because we don't have a Progressive running for President. ;)
To put it simply, I think the proposal was pathetic. There is nothing daring and bold about this bill. Aren't we supposed to be in some sort of economic crisis? Then why is the progressive left giving lukewarm alternatives? How come conservatives never worry about getting liberals and progressives "on board", but liberals and progressives do? Hell, if you start out your negotiating by conceding nearly everything that isn't already mainstream then you aren't going to get anywhere but further to the right-wing.
As I said above, there is no bold and daring leadership in the progressive movement anymore. No one thinks outside the box anymore but conservatives, and I won't stand for it any longer.
There are real issues with mark to market but focusing on on that very small portion is simply the wrong thing.
The thing to focus in on is the RTC plan, which is the meat of the proposal.
Since most announcements of the bill were rushed, I don't even know if the entire plan is written up yet but focusing in on a couple of things where conservatives have a point...
that's a huge mistake that is going on right now.
I 100% completely disagree with you on the Bill because there are so many experts recommending precisely what they put together.
Those are the real Progressives, believe me and I know for a fact they have been talking extensively to economists on what would actually work and that's what they are recommending.
They are the real deal and I would never question their motives, not a one for I have watched some of their votes for a very long time....they are the few "good ones" we have left in Congress.
Then, one must realize they need to get conservatives on board to pass a bill and some of the conservative ideas are not that bad.
Jim Cramer just said SEC chair might be Marie Antoinette cross dressed because he will not reinstate the uptick rule.
I attached the actual ruling to the point versus translate it through "interested parties" who are "open border advocates".
I read through the ruling and what they are saying is this particular protest does not directly relate to working conditions because in essence, they were generally 'advocating' and also protesting the enforcement of US labor law...which basically won't affect negatively US legal workers. They also are saying a political philosophy the employers have zero control over and that's true, this is US federal labor law and immigration policy and not a specific issue of labor law, directly affecting legal US workers isn't something that is protected.
It's about this particular instance not being covered and from what I'm reading as well as the protests arguing against enforcement of US employment law....well, to me the ruling looks about right.
It's subtle, I may be wrong but I don't think this limited political protests at all for US workers.
I think you have a spin article being promoted by open border/illegal immigrant advocates that isn't quite right in consequences of the ruling for legal US workers.
Between 1939 and 1942, the US economy expanded four fold from GDP of $50 Billion in 1939 to $200 Billion in 1942, on War Bonds, Federal Debt.
All because of the War and because FDR disbelieved JM Keynes when told to expand the federal deficit to get out to the depression. It is not debt that is the issue at this time but the productive use of debt. Will the debt go to the corrupt finance capital or the productive economy?
The crisis of finance will likely soon become the crisis of the base economy 'Main Street'. The question is whether we undestand the difference, know how to finance the industrial base, and provide equity and liquidity rules for finance capital.
At this point of history the important difference between George Bush and Hugo Chavez, who natioanlized the Bank of Venezuala, is that only one speaks good Spanish.
There is an action by Programmer's Guild in Federal Court here. A 'band of brothers' against Homeland Security Rules.
We are proving that there is an absence of regulation of H1B Visas by Homeland Security.
My part is to prove discrimination/fraud by locat body shops who not only discrimate but use 'deposits' required to get part time work.
These are people in the U.S. illegally? Then, they shouldn't even be working here, never mind protesting US policy for they are not even authorized to be in the US.
So, I don't see the point here at all. U.S. jobs are for U.S. workers, not people who border jumped without authorization and took a job.
The article is completely obfuscated whether these workers are illegal or not but if they are, they shouldn't have the job in the 1st place so it's quite unclear if this ruling has any basis on U.S. labor for they are refusing to differentiate between US workers and illegal workers. Illegal workers are....illegal, so of course they could not have their jobs back because they are not supposed to have those jobs in the first place...
so it's quite unclear here if this is the ruling the title states....
Perhaps this article is ignoring that fact and thus misstating the ruling?
Let's see the original text of the ruling and who specifically made the complaint and if they are legal, authorized to be in the U.S. or not.
I wrote about the ultimate question of can the US default?
Elephant in the Room.
These deficits are incredible and also sudden. The US still is nowhere near the deficits they ran in the Great Depression WWII but honestly I wonder because they threw away the production economy....so where are future tax revenues going to come from?
Did you see yesterday that the deficit clock in New York ran out of numbers?
The ultimate sign of the times!
We need to start naked shorting MSFT
it would be interesting to analyse why Conrail succeeded yet Amtrak hasn't
I think some key issues is that passenger rail has historically far more politicised than mundane old freight moving rr's. The air lobby has long sought to undermine opassenger rail, as well as was the darling for subsidies, plus the US had a love affair with personal transportation which was the root of the decline in rail travel
If the US were serious about passenger rail it could be succesful ala most of Europe and Japan, and the high cost of fuel may eventually lead us to that point.
This is so bad and both candidates have been completely oblivious, an enemy really to a production economy and someone prove me wrong, but that's the only way out of this. Bush/Clinton/Bush literally offshore outsourced our economy through corporate written trade agreements and to me it's clear that having so many finance lobbyists running the show, looking at their short term profit agendas by investing in China and so on....has royally screwed America.
I have a side note, Gold is crashing right now and it makes no sense to me if the dollar is being decoupled at the reserve currency.
This is a lobbyist agenda and they stop at nothing to try to labor arbitrage Americans...It's pathetic. I hear ya.
Pages