A Complacent Capital

Matthew Yglesias » A Complacent Capital:

If you had asked me in 2006 about the political reaction to 10 percent unemployment I would have said “total freak out!” Heck, as late as 2009 I would have said “total freak out.” After all, the Obama administration was projecting 10 percent unemployment as a nightmare scenario in which there was no policy response to rising unemployment. The specter of 10 was supposed to prompt a freak-out. Well now here we are at 10 percent unemployment and there’s an eerie calm.

Pollster.com: The Rapidly-Changing Issue Environment and What It Means

We are in one of the longest sustained periods of voter dissatisfaction in modern history. Except for a few weeks in the spring of 2009, perceptions of the direction of the country have been strongly "wrong track" since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. That is seven years. The only comparable period is 1973-1983. This helps explain why we are in the middle of a third successive "change" election. Moreover, trust in government to do what is right is at an all-time low. In a Pew Research Center poll last month, less than one fourth (22%) of respondents said they could trust government most of the time. This is one of the lowest percentages in more than 50 years.

Pollster.com goes on to note a number of indications that Republicans -- and extremely, irrationally conservative Republicans, at that -- will sweep into office.

Democrats have had two change elections, to change something, anything that dissatisfied the country, and they've done nothing, but confirm the policies of the worst, most unpopular President since Herbert Hoover.

Here Is Why the Fed Cannot Simply Continue to Inflate Its Way Out of Every Financial Crisis That It Creates

Jesse's Café Américain: Here Is Why the Fed Cannot Simply Continue to Inflate Its Way Out of Every Financial Crisis That It Creates:

The return on each new dollar of US debt is plummeting to new lows according to figures from the Federal Reserve. . . .

The ability to expand debt is contingent on the ability to service debt. If the cost of the debt rises over the net income of the country's capital investment, or even gets close to it, the currency issuing entity is trapped in a debt spiral to default without a radical reform.

In other words, if each new dollar of debt costs ten percent in interest, largely paid to external entities, and it generates less than ten cents in domestic product, it is a difficult task to grow your way out of that debt without a default or dramatic restructuring.

So we are not quite there yet. But we are getting rather close on an historic basis. Without the implicit subsidy of the dollar as the world's reserve currency it would be much closer.

As it is now, this chart indicates that stagflation at least, rather than a hyperinflation, is in the cards for the US. But the trend is not promising, and the lack of meaningful reform is devastating. . . .

The economy is out of balance, heavily weighted to a service sector, especially the financial sector which creates no new wealth, but merely transforms and transfers it. With stagnation in the median wage, and an historic imbalance in income distribution skewed to the top few percent, with the banks levying de facto taxation and inefficiency on the economy as a function of that income transfer, there should be little wonder that the growth of real GDP is sluggish in relation to new debt.

Or as Joe Klein so colorfully phrased it, the elite have been strip-mining the middle class in America for the past thirty years.

Along with the 'efficient market hypothesis,' trickle-down economics is also a fallacy. This is why the stimulus program being conducted by the Federal Reserve, in an egregious expansion of its authority to conduct monetary policy, in subsidies and transfer payments to Wall Street is not working to stimulate the real economy. It merely inflates the bonuses of the few, and extends the unsustainable.

So obviously one might say, "The Banks must be restrained, and the financial system reform, and the economy brought back into balance, before there can be any sustained recovery."

Plus they just enjoy ruining things for other people.

digby at Hullabaloo contemplates the psychology of the right, and recalls a family experience: "I'll never forget sitting in a crowd of wingnuts at a family gathering watching some footage of the Exxon Valdez spill and watching them all laugh uproariously at dying, oil covered birds flopping around on the beach."

Consider the previous post and this one together.

Politics -- at least the part of politics, which is ideas and rhetoric, as opposed to interest and personal ambition -- is a product of human ambivalence combined with the need to reach collective decisions.

Assemble any small group, and you will see the process in operation. To get along in a group, each person has to choose what they will say, and when, while choosing also when to allow others to speak. Automatically, almost, we choose our identities, we choose what ideas to specialize in expressing.

I would allow that laughing at a dying bird is one of several responses any human has available, not unique to someone with a peculiar pathology. The pathology lies in not caring to self-govern in a way that suppresses that impulse, in favor of a higher rank order for empathy.

In other words, it is a social choice.

As American politics has simplified and become a single continuum of worldviews, what divides our politics is more and more this kind of choice. And, one side of our politics is choosing greed and destruction and torture and corruption and cheating and waste.

And, he's good with that . . .

Jesse's Café Américain: Trading in Hubris: Pride, Overreach, and the Inevitable Blowback and Consequences

I had a conversation this morning with a trader that I have known from the 1990's, which is a lifetime in this business. I have to admit that he is successful, more so than any of the popular retail advisory services you might follow such as Elliott Wave, for example, which he views with contempt, a useful distraction for the little guy, the same way that casino operators view most gambling systems except counting cards. He is a bit of an insider, and knows the markets internals and what makes them tick. I remember a time when some of the more obvious market shenanigans used to bother his conscience a little. But he is well beyond that point now. . . .

He thinks the euro is done, and the dollar will remain the sole currency. His attitude is, "What will replace it?" He cannot even imagine anything different than what we have today. But interestingly enough he does not believe that the US government is running things. "Things are being run by a new world order, and have been for some time." He said that so matter of factly that it made me catch my breath.

And he's good with that. Does not bother him in the least little bit, as long as he is making money. And that is where our conversation started to go downhill, quickly. I was in no mood to hear his usual perspective on the future and the triumph of the willful.

If there is a new Mussolini in the US to maintain order, he's good with that. If they start putting people on trains to resettlement camps in the southwest, he's ok. If there are starving people in the streets, it doesn't bother him because he lives in a gated community. If the middle class gets crushed by a new market crash that is ok. He made a killing shorting the Crash of 1987, and was able to enjoy the resort where he spent the winter even more than ever because they were so few people there.

I would like to say he is an outlier, a one of a kind. But he is not. He is typical. He is driven purely and almost solely by personal greed, and he makes no bones about it. Life is a war, and he wants to conquer you.

But he is not a monster. If you met him you might like him. He's affable, conservative, a decent conversationalist, and personally well kept and engaging. But he is missing something, like the derivative of a human being. If you talk about the 'bad guys' he doesn't identify with them. He thinks he is 'us.' It's never occurred to him that he is the problem. Because his value system is utterly one dimensional and egocentric. In some ways he is the most intelligent twelve year old I have ever met. But I am sure he considers me a fool and an idealist. And I might agree. But it is not so much who you are, but why. Who or what do you serve?

He is a microcosm of Wall Street, and the prevailing attitudes in the Big Banks in particular. If you wish to form public policy, if you want to create a stable system, one based on human values, never ask a trader or a trading company for advice. They are incapable of framing the question in a way that will provide you a workable answer. What is good is whatever works for them in the most narrow definition of the terms. They think they are being altruistic when they take a little bit of a haircut on terms that are already well into the realm of usury.

The problem is the ability of Wall Street to buy power and influence among the regulators and politicians, and bring their unbalanced world view to bear so heavily on the formation of public policy and governance.

That is not to say that they are necessarily bad people. They are what they are. It's just that they need to be restrained by regulation, and certainly should not be in the driver's seat of anything outside of their own accounts, and those with external supervision and transparency. But certainly not in control of things in general, of running the system by proxy, which is where they are today. Or at least where they think they are.

Explaining Inequality Trends: Pretty Simple? | Progressive Fix

Explaining Inequality Trends: Pretty Simple? | Progressive Fix says its all about financial regulation, and has a chart to illustrate it.

Existential Threat

Economist's View: Galbraith: The Role of Fraud in the Financial Crisis
From the Statement by James K. Galbraith, Lloyd M. Bentsen, jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, before the Subcommittee on Crime, Senate Judiciary Committee, May 4, 2010:

the country faces an existential threat. Either the legal system must do its work. Or the market system cannot be restored. There must be a thorough, transparent, effective, radical cleaning of the financial sector and also of those public officials who failed the public trust. The financiers must be made to feel, in their bones, the power of the law. And the public, which lives by the law, must see very clearly and unambiguously that this is the case.

What they did

Atrios of Eschaton:

"Basically the Fed printed a huge amount of money. Some of that money they used to do what TARP was originally supposed to do, buy up Big Shitpile at inflated prices. Some of that money they lent to banks at basically 0 interest. Of course there were plenty of other things they could have done with 2 trillion bucks, if preserving the executive compensation at megabanks wasn't thought to be crucial for the survival of the economy. They could have dropped it from helicopters. They could have paid off mortgages directly. They could have given it to state governments. They could have bought me a SUPERTRAIN. But, no, they decided that propping up an obviously failed system of financial intermediaries was the important thing, so that's what they did."

Much has been made, for propaganda purposes, of the Big Banks (most of them, anyway) repaying loans with interest, and redeeming equity investments. As Dean Baker explains, this doesn't signify.

Bank Bailouts: Goldman's Debt to Society - CEPR:

"At the time the government made money available to the banks through TARP and even more so through the Fed, liquidity carried an enormous premium. The major banks charged each other 5 percent interest on 90 day loans because they did not have confidence in their ability to survive.

In this environment, the government stepped in and providing banks with huge amounts of money (we don't know exactly who got how much because the Fed refuses to tell us what it did with our money), at a cost far below what they would have been forced to pay in private markets. The banks could lend this money at enormous premiums or use it to just buy government bonds and pocket the difference in interest rates. As a result, most banks have been able to get back on their feet.

As a bookkeeping matter we can say that the government 'profitted' from these deals in the sense that it got interest on its loans. (It also received warrants from banks that it sold at a profit.) However, as a practical matter, these profits no more benefit the government's accounts than if the Federal Reserve Board just printed the same amount of money and handed it to the Treasury by purchasing government bonds. Unfortunately, few reporters covering the economy and the bailout understand this point, so they end up writing pieces that imply the country was somehow benefitted by the fact that the banks repaid their loans with interest."