No politics: 20 of the Worst Men’s Hairstyles


posted by Quiddity at 11/10/2009 03:21:00 PM

Reaction to Frederic Mishkin:

I consider Mishkin's remarks that "pure irrational exuberance bubbles" are no big deal, to be one of the most significant statements ever made by a (former) Fed Governor (see this post). Mishkin is clearly sending a Bernanke-approved signal about how they judge these things. The blithe acceptance of non-credit bubbles tells you all you need to know about where their priorities are: it's the banks and only the banks. Bubbles mean poor allocation of capital and when they eventually pop, a significant number of people are hurt very badly.

Below is a collection of blog posts in reaction to Mishkin. All are negative.

• Naked Capitalism (I think this is the best of the lot) Excerpts:

  The Fed is clearly involved in a concerted program to reflate distressed assets (most notably housing) that has spilled into just about every type of investment (and a few that have not traditionally been investments, namely commodities).
  
  By definition, a bubble is a massive price distortion in certain types of assets. That is already not a good thing. If you believe in markets, you believe in the value of price mechanisms because they lead to efficient allocation of goods and services and help channel investment funds to productive uses. At a minimum, bubbles are bad because they suck capital into seriously suboptimal uses at the expense of better ones. So ANY defense of bubbles has to be regarded with considerable skepticism. Bubbles are bad even when they fall short of the standard of wrecking an economy, which appears to be the base line Mishkin is using in his FT piece.
  
  What is truly disconcerting about Mishkin’s remarks is that, even though he is no longer at the Fed, they probably represent conventional wisdom there. And that means the officialdom has gained perilous little insight from this disaster.

• Henry Blodget (somebody who knows about bubbles; he was a cheerleader in the dot.com era)
  
• Interest Rate Roundup (short and angry)
  
• Financial Post / National Post
  
• Jesse's Café Américain
  
• Seeking Alpha
  
• Agnes Crane at Reuters
  
• The Big Picture
  
• Market Talk
  
• Credit Writedowns

posted by Quiddity at 11/10/2009 12:29:00 PM

Hey Rupert Murdoch!

Put this little file (robots.txt) on all your websites:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

The world will be a much better place.


posted by Quiddity at 11/09/2009 09:47:00 PM

The Fed is comfortable blowing bubbles:

“The second category of bubble, what I call the “pure irrational exuberance bubble”, is far less dangerous …

Because the second category of bubble does not present the same dangers … as a credit boom bubble, the case for tightening monetary policy to restrain a pure irrational exuberance bubble is much weaker. …

But if bubbles are a possibility now, does it look like they are of the dangerous, credit boom variety? At least in the US and Europe, the answer is clearly no.

Tightening monetary policy in the US or Europe to restrain a possible bubble makes no sense… At this critical juncture, the Fed must not take its eye off the ball by focusing on possible asset-price bubbles that are not of the dangerous, credit boom variety.”

So said Fed Governor Frederic Mishkin. (CORRECTION: former Fed Governor)


posted by Quiddity at 11/09/2009 07:54:00 PM

DOW up 500 points in 5 days:

Apparently a reaction, in part, to the Fed's suggestion it will hold rates down for a very long time.


posted by Quiddity at 11/09/2009 03:37:00 PM

Revoke Goldman Sachs' bank status; take back the through-AIG-payments:

Reason.


posted by Quiddity at 11/09/2009 12:33:00 PM

Do ya like tariffs?

I do. I think, especially with imports from low-wage countries, they give labor the economic power to negotiate with business for a portion of productivity growth. Tariffs also help manufacturers (most notably in the 19th century from British competition).

In any event, Paul Krugman has a chart showing tariffs over the last two centuries. Worth a look.


posted by Quiddity at 11/09/2009 05:26:00 AM

Snapshot of the economy:

Bloomberg:

Nov. 9 -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s investment bank, survivors of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, are set to pay record bonuses this year.

The firms -- the three biggest banks to exit the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- will hand out $29.7 billion in bonuses, according to analysts’ estimates. That’s up 60 percent from last year and more than the previous high of $26.8 billion in 2007. The money, split among 119,000 employees, equals $250,400 each, almost five times the $50,303 median household income in the U.S. last year, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

What this illustrates is the growth of the financial sector in the United States over the last 30 years. It's become it's own economic island, divorced from manufacturing and the service sector, both of which are where real economic prosperity are generated.

As Kevin Drum and others have asked, what are these financial institutions doing that's so valuable? To a certain extent, they are raising money for businesses and providing hedge insurance, but the overwhelming amount of activity appears to be in outright speculating. That bet-the-trend works well when you have an accommodating Fed (the Greenspan years) and when you screw up, your back is covered as well (Bernanke shoveling money via AIG). So it's win-win for a bloated sector of the economy.


posted by Quiddity at 11/09/2009 05:10:00 AM

Patrick at politicalbyline.com speaks out:

[Joseph Cao] is the RINO traitor that voted for the Bill, that flies in the face of liberty. (...)

I will be totally honest with you. I am seriously starting to distrust those of eastern decent. I mean, first we had John Yoo, who gave President George W. Bush some very horrible advice during the war on terror, then we had Obama’s Energy Secretary telling us, that we should pay China back. I mean, I hate to say it, we have Michelle Malkin; who honestly, at times, be-clowns the Conservative movement with her writings. How do we not know that it is some sort of a plot to take over America? I am not saying that I totally believe that, but there are times, when I do really wonder about it. I mean, some of us have not forgotten about what happened on December 7, 1941 and what Truman did to end the war. How do we know that this is not some sort of revenge thing by the eastern bloc to get back at us for what happened? Is it a moral crime to wonder about these things? If so, Why? Why do we, as Americans, just automatically trust what is fed to us by the corrupt and tainted Main Street Media; and yes, that does include Fox News.

Racist? Meh… Please, that card is worn out. This is just someone who sees things for what they are; and this guy is a traitor to America and to the Conservative movement, not to mention the G.O.P.

Observations:

• Michelle Malkin should definitely be investgated to see if she's part of a plot to take over this country. Her pretending to be a conservative was quite the deception, but the mask is slipping.
• The next Tea Party rally should alert citizens to hee "revenge by the eastern block" threat.
• Is there a potential split - evidenced by this blog post - between Fox News and the Conservative movement?

posted by Quiddity at 11/08/2009 03:12:00 PM

Question:

If we are going to prevent anyone receiving a federal subsidy from buying a health insurance plan that covers abortions, why not also prevent anyone receiving federal unemployment benefits from from buying a health insurance plan that covers abortions?


posted by Quiddity at 11/08/2009 03:02:00 PM

Website:

http://loathinglieberman.com/


posted by Quiddity at 11/08/2009 10:57:00 AM

About the House bill:

From McClatchy (via Yahoo), this summary:

WASHINGTON — These are some of the changes in the way health insurance would work in the United States if the House bill were to become law:

1. Creates a government-run plan, or "public option," to offer insurance coverage to compete with private sector insurance companies.

2. Sets up health insurance "exchanges," or marketplaces, where consumers can easily compare coverage and rates.

3. Requires nearly everyone to obtain health insurance coverage starting in 2013.

4. Ends blanket exemption for insurers from anti-trust laws.

5. Provides federal financial help for lower and middle income consumers so they can obtain coverage.

6. Bars insurers from denying or limiting coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

7. Bars insurers from imposing lifetime limits on coverage.

8. Expands Medicaid coverage to more people.

9. Imposes a 5.4 percent surcharge on adjusted gross incomes of more than $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for joint filers.

10. Imposes penalties on people and businesses who fail to comply with the new law.

If this gets signed into law, there would be a new bracket and rate for income tax of 40%

It seems that people earning $500,000 to, say, a few million, are not anywhere like those making tens or hundreds of millions per year. Why are they all lumped together?


posted by Quiddity at 11/08/2009 02:05:00 AM

Why the Stupak amendment was necessary:

We need it to protect the souls of the unborn. When the soul enters the fetus is still a matter of debate: is it upon conception or at the first quickening? But that's for the theologians to decide, not us, nor our representatives.


posted by Quiddity at 11/08/2009 01:55:00 AM

Is this a good summary of the House bill?

From a commenter at FDL:

36 million more people will be insured or become eligible for Medicaid
There will be a trillion dollars raised to help subsidize this.
There will be multiple measures to help control the costs of Medicare
We will stop subsidizing private insurers in Medicare Advantage
Closes the donut hole
Allows Medicare negotiation for drugs
Includes the seeds of a public option
Prohibits denials based on prior conditions; ends rescissions except for fraud
Funds more education for doctors/nurses
Begins dozens of health prevention programs, pilots, surveys
Creates entities to evaluate and recommend better treatment, cost saving

I did not know about closing the donut hole, ending Medicare Advantage subsidies, and allowing Medicare negotiation for drugs. BTW, Medicaid is no day at the beach; it's a bureaucratic maze for those in it. And there is the Stupak restriction which is a huge bring-down for many at FDL. On the whole, it looks substantial and if trends continue - with employers withdrawing health care - this could be the start of a near-nationalization of basic health care.

BooMan is conflicted, and comments:

The difficulty of passing this bill in the House has surprised me more than anything I've seen in Washington since the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I am usually the one counseling progressives about how unrealistic their expectations are considering how conservative the Senate is. Now I learn that the House is just as conservative. There is no way anyone could pass a single-payer system through this Congress, even if we won oodles of new seats. It just won't happen. It's not a matter of leadership. Why does the entire South oppose even this lukewarm reform?

but notes:

... the insurance reform elements of the bill are rock-solid ...

Also, he's pissed at Kucinich.

CODA: I haven't seen anybody mention Teddy Kennedy tonight.


posted by Quiddity at 11/08/2009 01:23:00 AM

Which Democrats voted for the Stupak amendment, then voted no on the overall health care bill?

From the roll call on the amendment and roll call of final passage:

1. John Adler (NJ)
   
2. Jason Altmire (PA)
   
3. John Barrow (GA)
   
4. John Boccieri (OH)
   
5. Dan Boren (OK)
   
6. Bobby Bright (AL)
   
7. Ben Chandler (KY)
   
8. Travis Childers (MS)
   
9. Artur Davis (AL)
   
10. Lincoln Davis (TN)
    
11. Bart Gordon (TN)
    
12. Parker Griffith (AL)
    
13. Tim Holden (PA)
    
14. Daniel Lipinski (IL)
    
15. Jim Marshall (GA)
    
16. Jim Matheson(UT)
    
17. Mike McIntyre (NC)
    
18. Charlie Melancon (LA)
    
19. Collin Peterson (MN)
    
20. Mike Ross (AR)
    
21. Heath Shuler (NC)
    
22. Ike Skelton (MO)
    
23. John Tanner (TN)
    
24. Gene Taylor (MS)
    
25. Harry Teague (NM)

posted by Quiddity at 11/08/2009 12:38:00 AM

Barry Ritholtz of the Big Picture pens a scathing post about Warren Buffet:

Triggered, in part, by the recent attempt by Goldman Sachs and Berkshire Hathaway to purchase tax credits from Fannie Mae.


posted by Quiddity at 11/07/2009 03:50:00 PM

This may explain why reporting the recession is lacking the gloom-and-doom tone of prevous recessions:

NYTimes: (emp add)

One of the more striking aspects of the Great Recession is that most of its impact has fallen on a relatively narrow group of workers. This is evident primarily in two ways.

First, the number of people who have experienced any unemployment is surprisingly low, given the severity of the recession. The pace of layoffs has increased, but the peak layoff rate this year was the same as it was during the 2001 recession, which was a fairly mild downturn. The main reason that the unemployment rate has soared is the hiring rate has plummeted.

So fewer workers than might be expected have lost their jobs. (...)

Second, wages have continued to rise for most people who still have jobs. The average hourly wage for rank-and-file workers, who make up about four-fifths of the work force, actually accelerated in October, according to the new report. (...)

Even though some companies have cut the pay of workers, the average hourly wage has still risen 1.5 to 2.5 percent over the last year (...)

In the other two severe recessions in recent decades, workers with jobs fared considerably worse. At the same point in the mid-1970s downturn, real weekly pay had fallen 7 percent; in the early 1980s recession, it had fallen 4 percent.

It is a strange combination: workers who still have a job are doing better than in other deep recessions, but the unemployment and underemployment have risen to their highest level since the Depression.

posted by Quiddity at 11/07/2009 03:31:00 PM

ABC's This Week has hit rock bottom:

The latest change in the format is to ditch the "Roundtable" and replace it with a "Powerhouse Roundtable" which takes up more of the hour at the expense of interviews with government and policy figures.

And who will be sitting at the Powerhouse Roundtable this Sunday?

• George Will
• Cokie Roberts
• Sam Donaldson
• Donna Brazile
• Frank Luntz

Do you expect anything thoughtful or informative from this group?

Oh yeah, the Powerhouse Roundtable is preceded by interviews with Republican Chairman Michael Steele and Democratic Chairman Tim Kaine. Gee, what do you think they are going to say? Will Steele tout the Republican wins in New Jersey and Virginia? Will Kaine talk about the Dem win in NY-23? Tune in to find out.


posted by Quiddity at 11/07/2009 09:31:00 AM

Getting tired of this stupid "one year" business:

From this weekend's Meet the Press webpage: (emp add)

... one year after President Obama was elected to the White House, what has his administration accomplished and what more needs to be done? We look back and ahead at all the challenges this president has faced over the past year, including Afghanistan, the economy, health care reform and more. Insights and analysis from our political roundtable: David Brooks, E.J. Dionne, Rachel Maddow and Ed Gillespie.

Yeah, let's look at the challenges President Obama faced in December of 2008, shall we?


posted by Quiddity at 11/07/2009 09:26:00 AM

Anybody watch Friday's edition of ABC's World News?

It was 100% about the Fort Hood shooting. Nothing else was covered.

On a day when unemployment hit hew highs and other events had taken place in Congress and throughout the nation.

A comprehensive news program should have covered several stories, not just one. If there is a lot to say about the Fort Hood shooting, that should be part of a special later that night (say in the 20/20 or Nightline slot).


posted by Quiddity at 11/06/2009 08:39:00 PM

Good comment:

Over at TNR's The Plank, in response to a Chait post on Obama (and Ben Nelson), this comment by raylward:

When an entire political party disbelieves Keynes' theory (Nixon, it turns out, was wrong when he said "we are all Keynesians now"), many if not most members of the other political party don't understand the theory, the Democratic leadership let the legislative process regarding the stimulus legislation devolve into an excuse for public funding of the members' favorite pet projects, the public either has never heard of Keynes or believes the General Theory has something to do with evolution, and a tepid president focuses his attention and by extension the attention of the public on give aways to big banks and car companies, is it any wonder there was/is little enthusiasm for more public spending as a way to avoid a high unemployment, low output equilibrium, especially, early in the year, when unemployment wasn't particularly high ...

Repeat after me, "Ben Nelson doesn't believe in Keynes' General Theory".


posted by Quiddity at 11/06/2009 11:35:00 AM

Brad DeLong recants his allegiance to Greenspanism:

Finally!

Well, give the DeLong credit, he owned up to it.

He's on the run now. The next step is for him to recant his allegiance to free trade with low-wage nations.

He has already done an about-face on how recessions impact management-labor power relations.

Re Greenspan: He wasn't wrong on everything, but his tolerance for bubbles was completely irresponsible.


posted by Quiddity at 11/06/2009 10:52:00 AM

Good news everybody!

Remember, unemployment is a lagging indicator.

Also, the increase in unemployment is taking place at a slower rate (so we're assured by NPR).

In any event, this confirms that the Fed will hold rates down for much longer, forcing a steep yield curve, which means big profits for banks. Even non-banks like Goldman Sachs that masquerades as a bank. Big bonuses as far as the eye can see.

Break out the champagne!


posted by Quiddity at 11/06/2009 08:33:00 AM

Bad optics:

To the list of hundreds of schools, hospitals, and community health centers that have received limited allocations of the H1N1 swine flu vaccine, you can now add some of New York’s largest employers. In the past week or so 13 companies, including Citigroup (C) and Goldman Sachs (GS), have begun receiving small quantities of the vaccine, according to city health authorities.

posted by Quiddity at 11/05/2009 07:02:00 PM

This is an actual Bloomberg story headline:

BOE May Expand Bond Plan as Officials ‘Throw Money’ at Economy

posted by Quiddity at 11/05/2009 06:42:00 AM

Shorter David Broder:

In reviewing this week's election results, I shall quote:

• A leader of the moderate-conservative "Blue Dogs" from Tennessee
• Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander
• Democratic pollster Peter Hart
• Former Republican congressman Vin Weber

posted by Quiddity at 11/05/2009 06:26:00 AM

Kingmaker?



No.


posted by Quiddity at 11/04/2009 09:36:00 PM

The Fed hopes that eventually there will be a turn-around:

From today's statement:

The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period.

They kind of sugar-coat it with two of the three reasons for the low rate being inflation ("trends" and "expectations").

It's good for the banks, but there is nothing much the Fed can do in a post-credit-bust environment short of spending money (which it has via Quantitative Easing) but that option is about to run out.

So here we are, basically at zero percent. It's not a position of strength.


posted by Quiddity at 11/04/2009 08:14:00 PM