Citizen...I hope I am wrong, but the fact of the matter is that Obama raised twice as much money as McCain. The big boys put who they want in the white house.
I have no idea if Ron Paul would have been the best Pres, but the fact that he wanted to abolish the federal reserve would have made a lot sense. Remember who the were the REAL culprits in this downturn...the FED RESERVE. They artificially kept the interest rates low for FAR too long and caused the overheating of the economy. Not only that, but they failed to monitor where the money was going.
Was it Bush's fault? Yes. Was it congress's fault? Yes. Was it Greenspan's fault? Yes and a triple YES. It's far more the fed reserve's problem than all of those dirty crooks combined. And now the fed reserve is giving our money to those dirty greedy banks...again. With Obama's approval may I add. Meanwhile the economy continues it's downward spiral. My friend just tried to get a home loan and has good credit. They turned him away saying that his loan amount was too high, but they could lend him a lower amount. He qualified for twice that amount 3 years ago.
-----
Thomas Jefferson once said:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill,
AP
Obama: Economy to get worse before it improves
Sunday December 7, 3:04 pm ET
By David Espo, AP Special Correspondent
Barack Obama says economy to get worse before it gets better; priority is on recovery plan
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday the economy will get worse before it gets better, pledged a recovery plan "equal to the task" and warned lawmakers that the days of pork barrel spending are ove
As a day trader, I'm conflicted on this. I could see a reason behind this with larger players or large single orders. I have a ton of questions on this law, and will have to investigate it further. But just by going off what you posted, there is already a way to circumvent it.
For starters, if the .25% is off the entire value of the stock itself in question in a spot exchange (i.e. buying or selling shares), then traders will go to the options. Because it is a "transaction fee" that means a percentage of what is being changed hands. Traders would be paying the .25% on the price of the option versus the underlying. So for example, say IBM for example. It's around $80.50 a share. To purchase 100 shares, that would be $8050. That tax would be $20.125. Now I know traders who (like myself) will unload a stock after a few cents, so in ibm's case, I need the stock to move 20 cents in my favor just to break even. Now instead I could by an April 09 at-the-money 80 Call for $10 or $1000 (10 x 100 shares underlying that is represented in one options contract). My tax would be$2.50.
Speculators, though hated perhaps by folks like you and many others, provide liquidity to markets. Liquidity that allows folks like pension funds and yourself (assuming you invest in the market) a chance to buy or sell what you want. If Congress is not careful, this liquidity could easily move to London which has been heavily advertising their wares.
Now, I agree with you about the state of the Congress and our 'business establishment'.
Yet we have Obama. And do not forget what Mr. Franklin so aptly said:
'We must hang together or we will most certainly hang separately.'
I don't think even the levels of corruption we see in Congress will be able to resist the screams for change from the polity more than a second or two when it really hits home just how fucked up Bush has left us.
Nor do I think Obama will hesitate for a split-second in throwing Goldman Sachs et. al. under the fuckin' bus if they try to stand in his way. The guy has demonstrated, and I was no fan of his at the beginning, that he is one cold-blooded dude when it gets down to you or him. It's gonna be you, the financial looters, not him that's gonna go under the bus.
He is smart enough to know that if he cannot pull our chestnuts, holiday metaphor for ya Robert, our of the fire right frikin' now that he won't need Wall Street for his next run.
'Cause there will not be one.
Time will tell which of us has the right of it. I'm betting on human nature.
....when was the last time you saw the workers get up on their hindlegs and....
Fight Back!
Been a while has it not. I in no way excuse the scum who have 'financialized' our nation into disaster but...
...'the workers' appear to have been too busy watching the NBA to bother with their rights. I do believe that that is changing.
If the Democratic Leader$hip allows the auto industry to fail for the chump change of 50 to 70 Billion it might take to save it while allowing rivers of money to be thrown away at the likes of AIG & Co.....
This will change big time.
The 'establishment' is playing with fire here. Every one I talk to an every bar I go to, that's where a lot political discussion takes place here in the SF Bay area, knows about AIG and their looting of the treasury so they can pay double bonuses and they all know that what the economy does not need is 18 million, EP's rough estimate of the effects of an auto industry flameout, more unemployed right now.
I predict the auto industry will get it's dough, due to public outcry, but after that it's a crap shoot as to what happens next...
Latest from Obama is that there does not appear to be enough 'shovel-ready' projects out there to spend Krugman's recommended 1 Trillion on.
Rep. Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, has been circulating a letter to other lawmakers calling for a 0.25 percent transaction fee on the sale and purchase of stock and more exotic transactions such as those involving credit default swaps, options and futures
so let's say someone bought 100k worth of stock, that would be $250 dollars.
$5000 dollars worth of stock is $12.50
I think it's reasonable and would have raised $150 Billion per year.
It also would have seriously messed up the day traders and short sellers as a disincentive.
Come on Will, you're posting every day and that will stop your comments from going into the moderation queue where they sit waiting for me to check the queue and approve it.
New Deal...I appreciate your level headed response, however I must admit that I have lost faith in the gov't and feds. Many in congress are against the bailout. I personally think that the feds have a personal vested interest in bailing out the banks which is why they are doing it.
I do not like either the republicans or democrats. I think many in both parties are corrupt. Obama and his administration will NOT forsake their buddies in the banking industry.
One of the top economist in this nation was on CNBC about 6 months ago and pretty much said that the way the fed was going about this is totally wrong. Yet, not only are they going down the wrong path, they are going down the path with greater force. The critics are correct. This has nothing to do with what's best for the economy. It has more to do with bailing out wall street. Look for Obama to continue to protect his buddies in the banking industry while the rest of us lose.
Read Obama's lips...NO REAL CHANGES.
Have a great day. I really mean that. Might as well while you can.
What they don't talk about is the incredible economic pain once she was in office and they just claimed "oh this is transitional" and nothing about it was transitional until her and her thought police were booted out of power.
I saw that sit in and at first thought I was reading about Argentina. Oh yeah, we kind of are becoming like Argentina.
The backlash in this country against working people is astounding. So many do not get it that them are us.
Not unless Congress hauls in these executives and this time do their God damn job. We got no concessions from the bankers. Paulson's blackmail did work for the most part, but now we got a second chance here. We have grilled the automakers more than we did the guys who...in reality, are more a cause of the mess we are in that the Detroit 3! Where's the hours of testimony from the heads of Goldman Sachs? Where's Jaime Dimond of JP Morgan Chase? How about Vikram Pandit of Citigroup? The gang at AIG have a lot of explaining to do as well. No, they want the money, and we want answers and give backs then. The British, for crying out loud, got a better deal from their banks than we did!
They may or may not work, but the point is, even though you express the fatalistic attitude that "there is not going to be a recovery for years", at the very same time you are proposing solutions that can ameliorate or change that scenario.
Elections have consequences. The election of a laissez-faire, klepto-plutocrat free market fundamentalist Administration in 2000 and 2004 had real consequences. State actions to clamp down on predatory loans were pre-empted. A do-nothing SEC allowed Wall Street banks to lever up at levels of 30 or 40 to 1. Just for example.
Changes in these policies can also have consequences, and those consequences can be for the better. Even a belief that things are going to get better can have real economic consequences.
You are commenting on a blog post that is nearly two months old, and obviously the question of whether that was the bottom of a (regular, shallow) recession has been answered with a resounding "NO". I've written subsequent diaries indicating we are in a full fledged deflationary bust since then. I'll have more to say about Leamer's work shortly.
There is still reason to believe that a new Administration, populated by Economic Adults, can produce at least a tepid recovery in 2009, if proper solutions are put in place.
To be honest, no matter who reads this, I don't see any changes. Paulson only sees ONE solution to ending this crisis, and that is by pumping the banks with good money and acquiring their toxic debt. Peter Schiff says that is not the answer. I agree. The banks aren't lending out the money anyway because they are loaded with debt and also have to pay their CEO high exec salaries and bonuses. Not only that, but the banks are scared to loan out money on assets such as houses that are falling in value. The banks are stupid idiots who are not doing their job and managing their money, so why would anyone in their right mind give them more money? Why reward bad behavior?
The FEDS need to think creatively, such as setting up their own fresh lending channel DIRECTLY to the public. The fed rate is around 1% if I am not mistaken. What's wrong with the gov't loaning that money directly to the public for say...2-3% for a home? I'm sure that there are many other ideas out there. This is just one.
Imagine...the feds already have pumped in $7 trillion, with virtually no results. That could finance 35 million home mortgages @ $200K loan values. 35 MILLION! The US housing market only needs about needs about 3.5 % of that money to supply about 1.35 million housing starts which is average for a given year. I think there are many people who can qualify for a 2-3% fixed loan, and wouldn't be in a hurry to bailout even IF prices dropped, because the mortgage at those rates are still less than rent.
I'm sure there are better ideas than this one. I don't have a PHD in economics, but I can say with certainty that bailout out the banks is not the best way to stimulate the economy.
I hate to be negative because even Robert Schiller (professor at Yale) says that negative public sentiment can hurt the economy. But the reality is that no matter how much we try to hide the truth, it will come out. This is not like past recessions where all we needed to do is just keep a positive sentiment. This is the real deal...the mother of all recessions. No positive spin can conceal what is happening.
did surprise me by picking Jared Bernstein as his chief economic adviser. You know Bernstein has given talks on H-1B and is on our side. I think he used Hira's research, but Hira also has worked for EPI, so to get someone who is really aware of what is going on with global labor arbitrage and how these guest worker Visas are a critical component of that, to have him even in the white house was a very pleasant surprise!
(he's great on a host of economic issues but it's so rare to have a major economist aware of our issue to that level!)
Citizen...I hope I am wrong, but the fact of the matter is that Obama raised twice as much money as McCain. The big boys put who they want in the white house.
I have no idea if Ron Paul would have been the best Pres, but the fact that he wanted to abolish the federal reserve would have made a lot sense. Remember who the were the REAL culprits in this downturn...the FED RESERVE. They artificially kept the interest rates low for FAR too long and caused the overheating of the economy. Not only that, but they failed to monitor where the money was going.
Was it Bush's fault? Yes. Was it congress's fault? Yes. Was it Greenspan's fault? Yes and a triple YES. It's far more the fed reserve's problem than all of those dirty crooks combined. And now the fed reserve is giving our money to those dirty greedy banks...again. With Obama's approval may I add. Meanwhile the economy continues it's downward spiral. My friend just tried to get a home loan and has good credit. They turned him away saying that his loan amount was too high, but they could lend him a lower amount. He qualified for twice that amount 3 years ago.
-----
Thomas Jefferson once said:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill,
http://www.barefootsworld.net/prophesy.html
---------
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081207/obama.html
AP
Obama: Economy to get worse before it improves
Sunday December 7, 3:04 pm ET
By David Espo, AP Special Correspondent
Barack Obama says economy to get worse before it gets better; priority is on recovery plan
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday the economy will get worse before it gets better, pledged a recovery plan "equal to the task" and warned lawmakers that the days of pork barrel spending are ove
Worse still, the bailout was intended to unfreeze the credit markets. Seems it may not be working so well, Mr. Paulson.
I think he had it all everything, options, spreads, swaps.
I mean what's this in comparison to raising capital gains?
Maybe they could lower it.
Bill Issacs also had warrants and other vehicles which cost the taxpayer nothing (on the bail out).
I do hate people who won't pick a blockquote format! ;)
As a day trader, I'm conflicted on this. I could see a reason behind this with larger players or large single orders. I have a ton of questions on this law, and will have to investigate it further. But just by going off what you posted, there is already a way to circumvent it.
For starters, if the .25% is off the entire value of the stock itself in question in a spot exchange (i.e. buying or selling shares), then traders will go to the options. Because it is a "transaction fee" that means a percentage of what is being changed hands. Traders would be paying the .25% on the price of the option versus the underlying. So for example, say IBM for example. It's around $80.50 a share. To purchase 100 shares, that would be $8050. That tax would be $20.125. Now I know traders who (like myself) will unload a stock after a few cents, so in ibm's case, I need the stock to move 20 cents in my favor just to break even. Now instead I could by an April 09 at-the-money 80 Call for $10 or $1000 (10 x 100 shares underlying that is represented in one options contract). My tax would be$2.50.
Speculators, though hated perhaps by folks like you and many others, provide liquidity to markets. Liquidity that allows folks like pension funds and yourself (assuming you invest in the market) a chance to buy or sell what you want. If Congress is not careful, this liquidity could easily move to London which has been heavily advertising their wares.
...or we can kiss any recovery good-bye.
Now, I agree with you about the state of the Congress and our 'business establishment'.
Yet we have Obama. And do not forget what Mr. Franklin so aptly said:
'We must hang together or we will most certainly hang separately.'
I don't think even the levels of corruption we see in Congress will be able to resist the screams for change from the polity more than a second or two when it really hits home just how fucked up Bush has left us.
Nor do I think Obama will hesitate for a split-second in throwing Goldman Sachs et. al. under the fuckin' bus if they try to stand in his way. The guy has demonstrated, and I was no fan of his at the beginning, that he is one cold-blooded dude when it gets down to you or him. It's gonna be you, the financial looters, not him that's gonna go under the bus.
He is smart enough to know that if he cannot pull our chestnuts, holiday metaphor for ya Robert, our of the fire right frikin' now that he won't need Wall Street for his next run.
'Cause there will not be one.
Time will tell which of us has the right of it. I'm betting on human nature.
Obama's not going under the bus for anyone.
What are they saying at your pubs about the situation with the automakers?
....when was the last time you saw the workers get up on their hindlegs and....
Fight Back!
Been a while has it not. I in no way excuse the scum who have 'financialized' our nation into disaster but...
...'the workers' appear to have been too busy watching the NBA to bother with their rights. I do believe that that is changing.
If the Democratic Leader$hip allows the auto industry to fail for the chump change of 50 to 70 Billion it might take to save it while allowing rivers of money to be thrown away at the likes of AIG & Co.....
This will change big time.
The 'establishment' is playing with fire here. Every one I talk to an every bar I go to, that's where a lot political discussion takes place here in the SF Bay area, knows about AIG and their looting of the treasury so they can pay double bonuses and they all know that what the economy does not need is 18 million, EP's rough estimate of the effects of an auto industry flameout, more unemployed right now.
I predict the auto industry will get it's dough, due to public outcry, but after that it's a crap shoot as to what happens next...
Latest from Obama is that there does not appear to be enough 'shovel-ready' projects out there to spend Krugman's recommended 1 Trillion on.
I don't believe that.
Do you?
reuters.
so let's say someone bought 100k worth of stock, that would be $250 dollars.
$5000 dollars worth of stock is $12.50
I think it's reasonable and would have raised $150 Billion per year.
It also would have seriously messed up the day traders and short sellers as a disincentive.
Any info on this? Is this that transaction bill?
Come on Will, you're posting every day and that will stop your comments from going into the moderation queue where they sit waiting for me to check the queue and approve it.
I was playing around with a script to intelligently know when to place paragraph and line breaks within posts.
It clearly crashed any embedded code and since I was just working on it, didn't check that.
It also crashed a table, which is a lot of work so no fun if someone tanks the layout!
Anyway, I fixed it back now so all embedded will work.
Thanks for the heads up and it wasn't your fault, it was mine.
youtubes works as it should, you can embed them again.
Sorry!
when I added my latest comment to the post I made earlier today. Something about the youtube source code that did it.
New Deal...I appreciate your level headed response, however I must admit that I have lost faith in the gov't and feds. Many in congress are against the bailout. I personally think that the feds have a personal vested interest in bailing out the banks which is why they are doing it.
I do not like either the republicans or democrats. I think many in both parties are corrupt. Obama and his administration will NOT forsake their buddies in the banking industry.
One of the top economist in this nation was on CNBC about 6 months ago and pretty much said that the way the fed was going about this is totally wrong. Yet, not only are they going down the wrong path, they are going down the path with greater force. The critics are correct. This has nothing to do with what's best for the economy. It has more to do with bailing out wall street. Look for Obama to continue to protect his buddies in the banking industry while the rest of us lose.
Read Obama's lips...NO REAL CHANGES.
Have a great day. I really mean that. Might as well while you can.
Will
What they don't talk about is the incredible economic pain once she was in office and they just claimed "oh this is transitional" and nothing about it was transitional until her and her thought police were booted out of power.
I saw that sit in and at first thought I was reading about Argentina. Oh yeah, we kind of are becoming like Argentina.
The backlash in this country against working people is astounding. So many do not get it that them are us.
There are bills in both houses to pull the rest of the TARP money and I full agree with it.
Even worse, Peter DeFazio proposed a simple stock transaction fee that was pennies, absolutely pennies to pay for this and it was rejected outright.
Now why is something that really doesn't add a lot of cost to traders immediately rejected?
But this is clearly a pig fest, something horribly wrong, corrupt from all of our many posts with the details.
Not unless Congress hauls in these executives and this time do their God damn job. We got no concessions from the bankers. Paulson's blackmail did work for the most part, but now we got a second chance here. We have grilled the automakers more than we did the guys who...in reality, are more a cause of the mess we are in that the Detroit 3! Where's the hours of testimony from the heads of Goldman Sachs? Where's Jaime Dimond of JP Morgan Chase? How about Vikram Pandit of Citigroup? The gang at AIG have a lot of explaining to do as well. No, they want the money, and we want answers and give backs then. The British, for crying out loud, got a better deal from their banks than we did!
They may or may not work, but the point is, even though you express the fatalistic attitude that "there is not going to be a recovery for years", at the very same time you are proposing solutions that can ameliorate or change that scenario.
Elections have consequences. The election of a laissez-faire, klepto-plutocrat free market fundamentalist Administration in 2000 and 2004 had real consequences. State actions to clamp down on predatory loans were pre-empted. A do-nothing SEC allowed Wall Street banks to lever up at levels of 30 or 40 to 1. Just for example.
Changes in these policies can also have consequences, and those consequences can be for the better. Even a belief that things are going to get better can have real economic consequences.
You are commenting on a blog post that is nearly two months old, and obviously the question of whether that was the bottom of a (regular, shallow) recession has been answered with a resounding "NO". I've written subsequent diaries indicating we are in a full fledged deflationary bust since then. I'll have more to say about Leamer's work shortly.
There is still reason to believe that a new Administration, populated by Economic Adults, can produce at least a tepid recovery in 2009, if proper solutions are put in place.
Cheers.
To be honest, no matter who reads this, I don't see any changes. Paulson only sees ONE solution to ending this crisis, and that is by pumping the banks with good money and acquiring their toxic debt. Peter Schiff says that is not the answer. I agree. The banks aren't lending out the money anyway because they are loaded with debt and also have to pay their CEO high exec salaries and bonuses. Not only that, but the banks are scared to loan out money on assets such as houses that are falling in value. The banks are stupid idiots who are not doing their job and managing their money, so why would anyone in their right mind give them more money? Why reward bad behavior?
The FEDS need to think creatively, such as setting up their own fresh lending channel DIRECTLY to the public. The fed rate is around 1% if I am not mistaken. What's wrong with the gov't loaning that money directly to the public for say...2-3% for a home? I'm sure that there are many other ideas out there. This is just one.
Imagine...the feds already have pumped in $7 trillion, with virtually no results. That could finance 35 million home mortgages @ $200K loan values. 35 MILLION! The US housing market only needs about needs about 3.5 % of that money to supply about 1.35 million housing starts which is average for a given year. I think there are many people who can qualify for a 2-3% fixed loan, and wouldn't be in a hurry to bailout even IF prices dropped, because the mortgage at those rates are still less than rent.
I'm sure there are better ideas than this one. I don't have a PHD in economics, but I can say with certainty that bailout out the banks is not the best way to stimulate the economy.
I hate to be negative because even Robert Schiller (professor at Yale) says that negative public sentiment can hurt the economy. But the reality is that no matter how much we try to hide the truth, it will come out. This is not like past recessions where all we needed to do is just keep a positive sentiment. This is the real deal...the mother of all recessions. No positive spin can conceal what is happening.
did surprise me by picking Jared Bernstein as his chief economic adviser. You know Bernstein has given talks on H-1B and is on our side. I think he used Hira's research, but Hira also has worked for EPI, so to get someone who is really aware of what is going on with global labor arbitrage and how these guest worker Visas are a critical component of that, to have him even in the white house was a very pleasant surprise!
(he's great on a host of economic issues but it's so rare to have a major economist aware of our issue to that level!)
Pages