Protesters unfurled a banner asking President Obama's top economic aide Lawrence Summers to "We want our $$$$ back". The gruff-speaking Summers looked uncomfortable as a woman called him "toxic waste" today at the Washington Economic Club Undoubtedly, the man lustily booing the protesters was a banker.
WATCH THE VIDEO HERE.
Showing posts with label Larry Summers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Larry Summers. Show all posts
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Must See TV: Economist Explains The Criminality Of The Collapse
THE COLLUSION BETWEEN THE BANKS AND TREASURY IS SYSTEMIC
If you weren't watching PBS this past week, then you wouldn't know a leading economist leveled some of the most provocative and insightful views yet about the coziness of the bankers with our government and how it continues even in the face of angry Americans losing jobs and money from coast-to-coast.
William K. Black, a professor of economics at the University of Missouri, was also a thorn in the side of the Keating Five in the early 90s. Black told Bill Moyers the credit rating services colluded with banks to unleash high yield, but potential toxic loans to flourish with relatively little government oversight by the Bush Administration. The evidence that rating services like the once-venerable Moody's slapped dubious AAA ratings on so-called
pooled "liars loans" where the borrowers information was never verified has been well-known. Black said it was in both the borrowers and mortgage broker interest to inflate their earnings and credit history.
[CLICK HERE TO VIEW WILLIAM BLACK'S INTERVIEW ON BILL MOYERS]
Black's allegations point directly to the problem many people had with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's appointment last December. He is simply doing the bank's bidding within the Obama Administration. The Goldman Sachs cabal of Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers were involved with the company with as much a stake in the proliferation of subprime mortgages than any other institution, yet Federal bailout money was funneled back to Goldman Sachs and Geithner's plan to purchase toxic loans at a premium was cheered by Wall Street. I wonder why?
At one point during the interview Moyers asked if the Treasury was engaging in a cover-up to which Black said, "Absolutely."
To a banker the inclination to stem the amount of panic in the Market is clear. You don't make or maintain your wealth with a jittery Dow. To those who believe in transparency and justice for the bank's fraudulent behavior, the cover-up is beginning to be worse than the original crime since unemployment continues to rise at a clip of 650,000 jobs a month and the $700 billion allotted to jar open the credit markets have been essentially wasted.
In another interview this week Black sounded even more ominous about this crisis and the diagnosis made by the Treasury when he said it could paralyze the Obama presidency. "It will be the greatest looting of the American people in our history and it will destroy the Obama presidency if it continues." And we've seen the presidential hand-tying one bad policy can have on an Administration with Bush's war in Iraq.
The populist anger that continues to rise is partly a function of the inability to face the fact the same bankers who created this crisis in the name of sheer greed continue to flourish because they have gamed both sides for their financial benefit. At a time when the civic attitude of millions of Americans was at its highest in decades with the election of Barack Obama, no soon has the corruption of Washington totally squashed it.
If you weren't watching PBS this past week, then you wouldn't know a leading economist leveled some of the most provocative and insightful views yet about the coziness of the bankers with our government and how it continues even in the face of angry Americans losing jobs and money from coast-to-coast.
William K. Black, a professor of economics at the University of Missouri, was also a thorn in the side of the Keating Five in the early 90s. Black told Bill Moyers the credit rating services colluded with banks to unleash high yield, but potential toxic loans to flourish with relatively little government oversight by the Bush Administration. The evidence that rating services like the once-venerable Moody's slapped dubious AAA ratings on so-called
pooled "liars loans" where the borrowers information was never verified has been well-known. Black said it was in both the borrowers and mortgage broker interest to inflate their earnings and credit history.[CLICK HERE TO VIEW WILLIAM BLACK'S INTERVIEW ON BILL MOYERS]
Black's allegations point directly to the problem many people had with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's appointment last December. He is simply doing the bank's bidding within the Obama Administration. The Goldman Sachs cabal of Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers were involved with the company with as much a stake in the proliferation of subprime mortgages than any other institution, yet Federal bailout money was funneled back to Goldman Sachs and Geithner's plan to purchase toxic loans at a premium was cheered by Wall Street. I wonder why?
At one point during the interview Moyers asked if the Treasury was engaging in a cover-up to which Black said, "Absolutely."
They are scared to death. All right? They're scared to death of a collapse. They're afraid that if they admit the truth, that many of the large banks are insolvent. They think Americans are a bunch of cowards, and that we'll run screaming to the exits. And we won't rely on deposit insurance. And, by the way, you can rely on deposit insurance. And it's foolishness. All right? Now, it may be worse than that. You can impute more cynical motives. But I think they are sincerely just panicked about, 'We just can't let the big banks fail.' That's wrong.Black also maintains if the banks are, indeed, not insolvent why do they need up to $2 trillion in bailout money?
To a banker the inclination to stem the amount of panic in the Market is clear. You don't make or maintain your wealth with a jittery Dow. To those who believe in transparency and justice for the bank's fraudulent behavior, the cover-up is beginning to be worse than the original crime since unemployment continues to rise at a clip of 650,000 jobs a month and the $700 billion allotted to jar open the credit markets have been essentially wasted.
In another interview this week Black sounded even more ominous about this crisis and the diagnosis made by the Treasury when he said it could paralyze the Obama presidency. "It will be the greatest looting of the American people in our history and it will destroy the Obama presidency if it continues." And we've seen the presidential hand-tying one bad policy can have on an Administration with Bush's war in Iraq.
The populist anger that continues to rise is partly a function of the inability to face the fact the same bankers who created this crisis in the name of sheer greed continue to flourish because they have gamed both sides for their financial benefit. At a time when the civic attitude of millions of Americans was at its highest in decades with the election of Barack Obama, no soon has the corruption of Washington totally squashed it.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Friedman Says The Unmentionable
NYT COLUMNIST SEES A ROCKY FIRST-TERM FOR OBAMAIt seems like people don't want to face the truth. Some people have been calling this era of economic downturn as not a Great Depression in the making, but, instead the "Great Repression".
It has been said here many times the presence of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in tandem with the hovering spirit of Robert Rubin would portend for more of the same faulty economic decisions that got us into this fiscal turmoil. Nobody wants to say the banks are insolvent even as Citigroup flirted with sub-one dollar stock prices yesterday. And nobody would dare say the early-goings of the nascent Obama administration might flail in response to this crisis until Thomas Friedman wrote it yesterday in The New York Times and others quickly sought to skewer him. For instance, Vanity Fair's political blog.
"But do you know what I fear? I fear that his whole first term could be eaten by Citigroup, A.I.G., Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and the whole housing/subprime credit bubble we inflated these past 20 years," said Friedman before illustrating how big this banking beast really is and how nobody has a clue how to solve it.
I hope my fears are exaggerated. But ask yourself this: Why couldn’t former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson solve this problem? And why does it seem as though his successor, Tim Geithner, won’t even look us in the eye and spell out his strategy? Is it because they don’t get it? No. It is because they know — like Roy Scheider in the movie “Jaws,” when he first saw the great white shark — that “we’re gonna need a bigger boat,” and they’re too afraid to tell us just how big.Instead, the administration seems to be relying on the American people to become inured to the price tags zooming by them. $700 billion there. $350 billion there. $14 billion there and $2 billion in aid to some far-flung despotic third-world country. After time, what's a few billion here or there. Most of us cannot grasp what a billion looks like anyway. Republicans like Sen. John McCain, on the other hand, are appalled at a mere $1.7 million earmarked to study the foul smell of pigs.
In the meantime, things are continuing to get worse. Jobless claims again rose to 651,000 spearing any hope that the we have hit the bottom. In reality, we may have reached that point, but the bottom is just becoming wider and will only persist until the administration confronts the banks in earnest.
I heard an interesting fact last week on Real Time with Bill Maher. The Chinese character for crisis is the same for the word opportunity. An interesting notion that Obama's pledge of change is not wholly grasping.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
GOP Still Doesn't Get It Or Give It
WHO NEEDS TAX CUTS FOR A CAR WHEN YOU'RE BROKE?
Patriotism and necessity aside, forging a bipartisan bill with Republicans this early in the Obama presidency was always going to be a tall order. It's a quite normal for the minority party in Washington to show its mettle, if puny in relation to Democrats, but the political gamesmanship on the part of the GOP only further displays their disconnect to the plight of Americans.
I have a friend who depends on a 40-hour work week and medical insurance to pay the rent and stay healthy. Last week, her employer slashed her hours and nixed her health coverage. Another was recently laid off to sit at home with her three children and wonder what the next few months has to offer. State workers in California received what amounts to a 10 percent pay cut to stay home from their jobs two days a month. That times are tough is no longer a throwaway catch phrase nowadays but reality. Things are getting worse. The numbers even show it and we feel it.
Democrats could have probably been pushed into a worse compromise than the one made yesterday with Senate Republicans, but the existence of more tax cuts is only a reminder that the GOP doesn't get it.
Why would Americans need $30 billion tax cuts to encourage the purchase of new homes and automobiles. Shockingly, new digs and a fully-loaded Buick is not high on the wish list when you are wondering about your next paycheck. Besides, would the tax credits offset the inability of regular Americans to receive a fair interest rate on a loan? It's not likely.
I think this point of c0ntinued economic inequity and political blindness on the part of the GOP is becoming more pervasive since the day President Obama announced an executive salary cap on firms who accept bailout funds. By shaming CEOs into accepting only $500k, he made the beleaguered Titans of finance look petty and greedy. How ridiculous did countless talking heads and lobbyists of executives seem when they pleaded across the board that such a low salary would make it difficult to attract "good talent". To which the country screamed, "Where was the good talent before we got into this mess?" I've never found the stuffed suits traipsing along every Financial District as nothing more than falsely stoked bubbles of testosterone and mythologized machismo. Really? Are these "banksters" nothing more than football coaches in fine tailored suits fitted with bluetooths instead of head phones?
At the very least, we must continue to veer away from principles and characters previously associated with this downturn in America's economy and morally specific predilection towards greed. This means straying away from Obama's main guys at the Treasury--Tim Geithner and Larry Summers--and economic recipes like tax cuts and laissez-faire government. Recovery is about stimulus. As the President said this week the stimulus is about spending and it needs to reach the state and local level for the mood of disheartened unemployed Americans rise hopeful again. In the meantime, the GOP continue to be nothing but an opposition party to Democrats and to the American people.
Patriotism and necessity aside, forging a bipartisan bill with Republicans this early in the Obama presidency was always going to be a tall order. It's a quite normal for the minority party in Washington to show its mettle, if puny in relation to Democrats, but the political gamesmanship on the part of the GOP only further displays their disconnect to the plight of Americans.
I have a friend who depends on a 40-hour work week and medical insurance to pay the rent and stay healthy. Last week, her employer slashed her hours and nixed her health coverage. Another was recently laid off to sit at home with her three children and wonder what the next few months has to offer. State workers in California received what amounts to a 10 percent pay cut to stay home from their jobs two days a month. That times are tough is no longer a throwaway catch phrase nowadays but reality. Things are getting worse. The numbers even show it and we feel it.
Democrats could have probably been pushed into a worse compromise than the one made yesterday with Senate Republicans, but the existence of more tax cuts is only a reminder that the GOP doesn't get it.
Why would Americans need $30 billion tax cuts to encourage the purchase of new homes and automobiles. Shockingly, new digs and a fully-loaded Buick is not high on the wish list when you are wondering about your next paycheck. Besides, would the tax credits offset the inability of regular Americans to receive a fair interest rate on a loan? It's not likely.
I think this point of c0ntinued economic inequity and political blindness on the part of the GOP is becoming more pervasive since the day President Obama announced an executive salary cap on firms who accept bailout funds. By shaming CEOs into accepting only $500k, he made the beleaguered Titans of finance look petty and greedy. How ridiculous did countless talking heads and lobbyists of executives seem when they pleaded across the board that such a low salary would make it difficult to attract "good talent". To which the country screamed, "Where was the good talent before we got into this mess?" I've never found the stuffed suits traipsing along every Financial District as nothing more than falsely stoked bubbles of testosterone and mythologized machismo. Really? Are these "banksters" nothing more than football coaches in fine tailored suits fitted with bluetooths instead of head phones?
At the very least, we must continue to veer away from principles and characters previously associated with this downturn in America's economy and morally specific predilection towards greed. This means straying away from Obama's main guys at the Treasury--Tim Geithner and Larry Summers--and economic recipes like tax cuts and laissez-faire government. Recovery is about stimulus. As the President said this week the stimulus is about spending and it needs to reach the state and local level for the mood of disheartened unemployed Americans rise hopeful again. In the meantime, the GOP continue to be nothing but an opposition party to Democrats and to the American people.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Geithner & Summers: Financial Enablers Return
Admittedly, the economy will be first and foremost on Barack Obama's presidential agenda. The president-elect has liberally sprinkled ex-Clintonites throughout his early cabinet and administration posts, but filling the Treasury with acolytes of former Fed boss Robert Rubin is worrisome.
Amidst, calls to bailout ex-Enron enabler Citibank, the fingerprints of Rubin lie within that companies financial blunders and the economy as a whole.
The Sunday New York Times ran a lengthy article on Citibank's foolish investment practices which enhanced the short term while nearly ruining the country's one-time largest bank.
With the picks of New York Federal Reserve boss, Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary and former Clinton treasury chief Lawrence Summers, the point that the same guys at the helm during the nascent stages of the financial debacle have resurfaced under a Democrat in Washington.
It's inevitably that Geithner, while lauded as intelligent and capable, will have to answer questions why Wall Street, located in his jurisdiction, did not prepare for its precipitious fall.
The mentor/pupil scenario that Time magazine puts forth in the Dec. 8 issue is a bit disconcerting also. According to the articles, Geithner (the pupil) was given the secretary's job on the basis that he could "handle" Summers (the mentor). Presumably, Summers would have been reunited with the Treasury office is not for his sexist remarks about women while at the helm at Harvard.
We are to be believed that Summers will not wield power from the National Economic Council and the same people who felt deregulation was a viable option 10 years ago will see the nation's economy differently today?
It was a bit disingenious and politically expedient for Obama to vow to bring change to Washington without a few old hands, yet choosing the very men responsible for the crisis that may swallow his presidency is extremely foolhardy.
Amidst, calls to bailout ex-Enron enabler Citibank, the fingerprints of Rubin lie within that companies financial blunders and the economy as a whole.
The Sunday New York Times ran a lengthy article on Citibank's foolish investment practices which enhanced the short term while nearly ruining the country's one-time largest bank.
Citigroup insiders and analysts say that Mr. Prince and Mr. Rubin played pivotal roles in the bank’s current woes, by drafting and blessing a strategy that involved taking greater trading risks to expand its business and reap higher profits.It was under President Clinton that Rubin, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Act repealed much of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act allowing banks to consolidate seemingly every financial service under one house. Citibank was one of the main beneficiaries of the act allowing it to absorb Travelers Insurance.
With the picks of New York Federal Reserve boss, Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary and former Clinton treasury chief Lawrence Summers, the point that the same guys at the helm during the nascent stages of the financial debacle have resurfaced under a Democrat in Washington.
It's inevitably that Geithner, while lauded as intelligent and capable, will have to answer questions why Wall Street, located in his jurisdiction, did not prepare for its precipitious fall.
The mentor/pupil scenario that Time magazine puts forth in the Dec. 8 issue is a bit disconcerting also. According to the articles, Geithner (the pupil) was given the secretary's job on the basis that he could "handle" Summers (the mentor). Presumably, Summers would have been reunited with the Treasury office is not for his sexist remarks about women while at the helm at Harvard.
We are to be believed that Summers will not wield power from the National Economic Council and the same people who felt deregulation was a viable option 10 years ago will see the nation's economy differently today?
It was a bit disingenious and politically expedient for Obama to vow to bring change to Washington without a few old hands, yet choosing the very men responsible for the crisis that may swallow his presidency is extremely foolhardy.
Monday, November 03, 2008
An Election Day For The History Book
2008 ELECTION DAY PREVIEWelection'08: the race to clean the place - 1 day to go
[This election] will be remembered as the year when the not only younger people revived their interests in the issues but also first time voters. A mandate will be reached...because of this group.
These two lines appeared in LFR on November 1, 2004, on the eve of President Bush's re-election victory over Sen. John Kerry, yet they could be written in the same tone on the eve of the 2008 presidential election.
Ultimately, young voters did not respond any more disproportionately than any other election and the nation endured four more years of President Bush.
It is likely to occur again, yet because of sizable gains among white males, young voters showing up at the polls at roughly the same rate could give Sen. Barack Obama the White House.
Here's what to look for Tuesday:
McCAIN NEEDS TO WIN 5 OF 6 BATTLEGROUND STATES
Like Kerry four years ago, McCain has only a few quite iffy scenarios to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat as he said this weekend.
McCain unrealistically must win a combination of five of six battleground states that include Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Virginia and Colorado.
Kerry needed to win Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida to beat George W. Bush. He only won the Quaker State.
OBAMA HOVERS OVER 50 PERCENT IN THE POLLS
According to data compiled by realclearpolitics.com, Obama leads in all 15 major national polls. More importantly, Obama holds a slight majority of the vote in 14 of the 15 polls, with the International Business Daily poll having him leading 48-43.
Fifty percent is the key for Obama, making any number of undecideds moving to McCain relatively moot.
PRESIDENTIAL LANDSLIDES
When it comes to election landslides it is hard to beat Reagan trouncing Walter Mondale by 18 points in 1984 and Richard Nixon laying the wood on George McGovern in 1972.
Presidential "landslide" is a relative term within politics. Where a seven point win other races might be a squeeker, the 6-7 point average margin of victory most polls show for Obama constitute a landslide.
Merely reaching 50 percent would be historical for Democrats. Obama would be the first to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. President Clinton was stymied by third party candidate Ross Perot in 1992 and scored 49.2 of the vote against Bob Dole four years later.
OBAMA BEGINS TO NAME CABINET
Invariably as it becomes apparent Obama will be elected president, campaign staffers will begin peddling the names of possible cabinet members.
Thus far, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, a former Clinton staffer has been mentioned as a possible Chief of Staff, while a New York magazine story quotes sources saying Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will not be retained by Obama. In his place another former Clintonite and Harvard president Larry Summers may be summoned.
Obama may go Republican with Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana at the state department and Colin Powell may play some role in bringing the nation's military thought process back to circa 1998.
REPUBLICANS BEGIN THE BLOODLETTING
The losing party usually brings out the knives for their guy's failed attempt at the White House. This year it could get more ugly than usual.
McCain may have religious conservatives angry he did turn towards Jesus before selecting their darling, the lovely Sarah Palin. Old time conservatives are already seething over the loss of the "real McCain", "The Maverick". Of course, this is the McCain persona those same people found incorrigible on Capitol Hill
What is likely to happen in the next few weeks is cover stories and columns showing infighting, constant bickering and a case of too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.
SENATE NEARS FILIBUSTER-PROOF
Democrats in the Senate need 60 members including Connecticut's Joe Lieberman and Vermont's Bernie Sanders in their caucus.
They appear to be falling just short of sixty with 58 looking likely. Saxby Chambliss in Georgia and Al Franken in Minnesotacould be the key for Democrats to crack a filibuster-proof 60, something a presidential has not had since President Carter in 1976.
THE RISE OF THE LATINO VOTING BLOC IN THE WEST
In 2000, Al Gore barely won New Mexico. Four years later, President Bush won it by less than one percent. In 2008, New Mexico, with a large influx on Latino voters and a Republican bent on alienating this burgeoning majority, the state is firmly blue for Obama.
The fever may be spreading. Colorado is leaning blue. So is Nevada. Most surprisingly in recent weeks, has been the movement in the electorate towards Obama in Big Sky states like Montana and North Dakota. Neither of these states are likely to turn blue in 2008, but may go the way of New Mexico in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
