Pollster.com

Lincoln's Grave Warning Realized

...a letter from President Abraham Lincoln to William F Elkins on 21 November 1864:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Eight Principles of Uncivilization

by Paul Kingsnorth and Dougald Hine


‘We must unhumanise our views a little, and become confident
As the rock and ocean that we were made from.’


  1. We live in a time of social, economic and ecological unravelling. All around us are signs that our whole way of living is already passing into history. We will face this reality honestly and learn how to live with it.

  2. We reject the faith which holds that the converging crises of our times can be reduced to a set of‘problems’ in need of technological or political ‘solutions’.

  3. We believe that the roots of these crises lie in the stories we have been telling ourselves. We intend to challenge the stories which underpin our civilisation: the myth of progress, the myth of human centrality, and the myth of our separation from ‘nature’. These myths are more dangerous for the fact that we have forgotten they are myths.

  4. We will reassert the role of story-telling as more than mere entertainment. It is through stories that we weave reality.

  5. Humans are not the point and purpose of the planet. Our art will begin with the attempt to step outside the human bubble. By careful attention, we will reengage with the non-human world.

  6. We will celebrate writing and art which is grounded in a sense of place and of time. Our literature has been dominated for too long by those who inhabit the cosmopolitan citadels.

  7. We will not lose ourselves in the elaboration of theories or ideologies. Our words will be elemental. We write with dirt under our fingernails.

  8. The end of the world as we know it is not the end of the world full stop. Together, we will find the hope beyond hope, the paths which lead to the unknown world ahead of us.



The Dark Mountain Manifesto

(excerpt)
Walking on lava

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilisation
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it is to die.

The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don’t think about too carefully will still be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.

What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric, but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where the unravelling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.

Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation is nothing new.

‘Few men realise,’ wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, ‘that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings.’ Conrad’s writings exposed the civilisation exported by European imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that civilisation believed ‘blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion,’ but their confidence could be maintained only by the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls, the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, but the city-dweller was no longer equipped to face it directly.

The remainder of the essay can be read online: Dark Mountain manifesto.


Paul is the author of One No, Many Yeses and Real England. He was deputy editor of The Ecologist between 1999 and 2001. His first poetry collection, Kidland, is forthcoming from Salmon Poetry. His website is www.paulkingsnorth.net

Dougald writes the blog Changing the World (and other excuses for not getting a proper job). He is a former BBC journalist and has written for and edited various online and offline magazines. His website is www.dougald.co.uk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The "Eight principles of uncivilisation" are expanded in the Dark Mountain manifesto (also available as PDF or purchased as a limited-edition, hand-stitched pamphlet.

See the site for the blog and information about their upcoming festival May 28-30.

Several Energy Bulletin contributors are on their Blogroll, including John Michael Greer, Sharon Astyk, Rob Hopkins and Dmitry Orlov. Also mentioned are Wendell Berry and Ivan Illich.

George Monbiot recently wrote a column in the Guardian about Dark Mountain Project: I share their despair, but I'm not quite ready to climb the Dark Mountain.

On Common Dreams, Robert C. Koehler wrote a related piece: Dark Green.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Original article available here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our American Objectives

"Our national goals must be to rejuvenate the domestic economy; transfer the economic basis of our nation from consumptive to productive; recapitalize education and the technologies industries; achieve complete energy independence; move towards renewable energy sources;
restore public confidence in the government's ability to undertake large national infrastructure projects, and re-assert its right to set goals and policies to ensure those projects proceed smoothly; define the overarching standards for a reconstructed America including a federal review of the building and planning codes now in use, and probably the writing of new mandates that set out 21st-century standards and priorities for energy use, urban and transportation planning, and environmental design, which once put into law and accepted into general use, will be very difficult to change; commit funding for a massive 10- or 20-year program that will upgrade or replace failing components of America's infrastructure as the nation is broke (as it was in FDR's day) and this kind of spending needs to be seen as the long-term investment in our economic future that it is; restore a fair, honest, broad-based system of public contracting that will put large numbers of Americans to work on these new projects (and write the new rules in a way that ensures that the firms doing the most innovative work don't have to compete with unfair behemoth corporations like Halliburton and Lockheed for the lion's share of the funding) so that once there is a healthy, competitive construction industry that knows how to build sustainable projects—and is relying on the government to keep it in business—we will get a political constituency that will fight to ensure that the rebuilding will continue for the next several decades, regardless of what political party is in power; use the forces of globalization and information to strengthen and expand existing democratic alliances and created new ones; employ these alliances to destroy terrorist networks and establish new international security structures; lead, through our historic principles, on international cooperative efforts in spreading economic opportunity and democratic liberties, nation building, counter-prolification, and optimum environmental protection and safeguards; and cherish, honor, and protect our history and traditions of liberty and freedoms domestically particularly with respect to the Bill of Rights."

"The renewed social contract for America with its middle class and poor must:
  • Raise the minimum wage still higher and on a regular basis. It has fallen far behind increases in inflation since the 1970s, and that affects higher level wages as well.
  • Encourage living-wage programs by local governments. Governments can demand that their contractors and suppliers pay well above the minimum wage. There is substantial evidence that this does not result in an undue loss of jobs.
  • Enforce the labor laws vigilantly. Minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws are violated to a stunning degree. American workers shouldn't be forced by their employers to understate the number of hours worked or be locked in the warehouse so they can't leave on time. Workers often make only $2 and $3 an hour.
  • Unions are not seeking a free pass to organize secretly when they advocate for open check-offs on cards to approve of a union vote. They are seeking to organize without persistent and often illegal management interference. Penalties for illegally deterring such organizing are so light, it makes little sense for management not to pursue strategies to stop organizing even at the cost of prosecution.
  • Request that trading partners develop serious environmental standards and worker-protection laws. This is good for them, bringing a progressive revolution and a robust domestic market to their countries. It is good for America, which will be able to compete on a more level playing field.
  • Demand that the president, governors and mayors speak up about unconscionable executive salaries and low wages. The influence from the top cannot be underestimated. A president who looks the other way sends a strong signal to business. A president who demands responsible treatment of workers will get a response. Business does not like such attention.
  • These measures should be accompanied by serious investment in modernized infrastructure and energy alternatives, which can create millions of domestic jobs that pay good salaries. It should also be accompanied by a policy that supports a lower dollar -- contrary to Rubinomics -- in order to stimulate manufacturing exports again. Accomplishing this may require a new system of semi-fixed currencies across the globe. The unabashed high-dollar policy of the past twenty years has led to imbalances around the world that have contributed fundamentally to US overindebtedness.
  • And finally, the nation needs more balance on the part of the Federal Reserve between subduing inflation and creating jobs. Americans can live with inflation above 2 percent a year. There is no academic evidence to support a 2 percent annual target, although the Fed has made this its informal target."

The Continuing Case for The Second Bill of Rights for All American Citzens

...from Michael Lind on Salon.com on 11 January 2010 ....

The Case for Economic Rights

FDR said it and it holds 66 years later: There are benefits and opportunities every American should expect to enjoy

Three score and six years ago, the greatest president of the 20th century gave one of his greatest speeches. On Jan. 11, 1944, in a State of the Union address that deserves to be ranked with Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" and King's "I Have a Dream" speech, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for recognition of a "Second Bill of Rights." According to FDR:

"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights -- among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however -- as our industrial economy expanded -- these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness."

Roosevelt did not argue that economic rights had superseded basic, old-fashioned political and civil rights. The argument of authoritarians and totalitarians that economic rights are more important than non-economic liberty was abhorrent to him. Instead, with the examples of the fascist and communist regimes of his time in mind, he argued that the purpose of economic rights was to support and reinforce, not replace, civil and political liberties:

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed."

President Roosevelt was not promoting economic rights that were necessarily enforceable in court, but rather economic benefits and opportunities that every American should expect to enjoy by virtue of citizenship in our democratic republic. Many of the rights he identified have been secured by programs with bipartisan support. These include:

"the right to a good education" (the G.I. Bill, student loans, Pell Grants, Head Start, federal aid to K-12 schools) and

"the right of every family to a decent home" (federally subsidized home loans and tax breaks for home ownership). But even before the global economic crisis, the U.S. fell short when it came to full employment --

"the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation"

-- and a living wage --

"the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation."

Roosevelt's vision was controversial at the time and is contested today. When it comes to providing a safety net for Americans, there are three distinct paradigms, which I would describe as economic citizenship, welfare corporatism and faith-based charity.

Supporters of faith-based charity among "theoconservatives" such as Marvin Olasky argue that modern social insurance like Social Security and Medicare was a mistake. The medieval British and colonial American systems of relying on religious institutions to care for the sick and poor should have been continued and built upon, with government subsidies to "faith-based institutions."

The secular business-class right, however, has shown little interest in faith-based charity, perhaps because it is difficult for rent-seeking bankers, brokers and other private sector actors to extract huge amounts of money from tax-exempt church hospitals and church soup lines. The right's preferred alternative to the progressive vision of economic citizenship is what I call "welfare corporatism." Whereas economic citizenship views protection against sickness, unemployment and old age as entitlements of citizens in a democratic republic, welfare corporatism treats these necessities of life as commodities like groceries or appliances, to be purchased in a market by people who are thought of as consumers, not citizens.

Let's contrast ideal versions of the two approaches. In the ideal America of economic citizenship, there would be a single, universal, integrated, lifelong system of economic security including

single-payer healthcare,

Social Security, unemployment payments and

family leave

paid for by a single contributory payroll tax (which could be made progressive in various ways or reduced by combination with other revenue streams). Funding for all programs would be entirely nationalized, although states could play a role in administration. There would still be supplementary private markets in health and retirement products and services for the affluent, but most middle-class Americans would continue to rely primarily on the simple, user-friendly public system of economic security. As Steven Attewell points out, the Social Security Act of 1935 was intended not merely to provide public pensions for the elderly but to establish a framework for a comprehensive system of social insurance corresponding to President Roosevelt's "right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment." Attewell writes: "We need to go back to the original drawing board -- the Social Security Act of 1935 -- to finish the job it began and create a truly universal and comprehensive social welfare state."

In the utopia of welfare corporatism, today's public benefits -- Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and, in a few states, public family leave programs -- would be abolished and replaced by harebrained schemes dreamed up by libertarian ideologues at corporate-funded think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Tax subsidies would be funneled to insurance companies, brokers and banks. Social Security would be replaced by a bewildering miscellany of tax-favored personal savings accounts. Medicare would be replaced by a dog's breakfast of tax subsidies for purchasing health insurance and personal medical savings accounts. Unemployment insurance would give way to yet another Rube Goldberg scheme of tax-favored unemployment insurance accounts. As for family leave -- well, if you're not wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for a nanny for your child or a nurse for your parent, you're out of luck.

The strongest case for economic citizenship instead of welfare corporatism is economic. Economic citizenship is more efficient and cheaper in the long run, because the government need only meet costs, while subsidized private providers must make a profit. The Democratic and Republican supporters of welfare corporatism justify their system of massive subsidies for for-profit healthcare and retirement security with the claim that market competition will keep down prices. If only that were true. Competitive markets are probably impossible to create, in the highly regulated insurance sector and the highly concentrated financial sector that sells private retirement goods and services.

It follows that a policy of subsidizing oligopolies and monopolies, via government subsidies to consumers, in the absence of government-imposed price controls, is a recipe for cost inflation, as the providers jack up their prices, sending the consumers back to Congress to demand even more public subsidies. By its very nature, welfare corporatism funnels public resources, in the form of tax breaks, to rent-seeking, predatory firms in the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector, with ever-swelling dead-weight costs on the economy. Welfare corporatism equals corporate welfare.

Unfortunately, most progressives have failed to make the case against the libertarian myth of market competition in the provision of social insurance. All too many, including President Obama, have made the too-clever-by-half argument that the public option would keep prices down by means of market competition. In other words, the center-left has borrowed a bogus argument about competition from right-wing free-market fundamentalism in order to defend a token public program that ceased to be of any interest once Obama and the Democrats in Congress ruled that Americans with employer-provided insurance would be banned from joining the public option. When you're reduced to parroting the opposition's erroneous theories, in the process of begging for a slight modification of the opposition's pet program, you clearly don't have the nerve or the patience to play the long game in politics.

In a response to one of my earlier columns, Will Marshall wonders how I can dare to criticize the legacy of Bill Clinton, a Democrat. My reasons should be clear by now. I am not a partisan Democratic operative focused on winning the next election. I am interested only in strengthening the republic through a gradual expansion of economic citizenship in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights. If this means criticizing Democratic presidents who expand welfare corporatism instead of economic citizenship, so be it.

As part of his opportunistic policy of triangulation between his own party and the opposition, Bill Clinton joined the Republicans in a three-pronged assault on New Deal economic citizenship. He and the Republican Congress abolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children, a flawed and unpopular means-tested program for the poor that should have been reformed as a national program rather than turned over to the states as the neo-Confederate right insisted. Instead of piecemeal expansion of single-payer healthcare, Clinton pushed a version of employer-based welfare corporatism plus subsidies that came out of the playbook of moderate Republicans like Nixon. And we now know that Clinton secretly agreed to support Newt Gingrich's drive to partly privatize Social Security, in return for dedicating the federal government's imaginary future surpluses to what was left of Social Security. In 2005, Will Marshall argued in favor of private accounts, on the grounds that they would soften up Americans for cuts in Social Security: "If today's workers start saving and investing more in stocks and bonds, the returns they earn would allow us to trim their Social Security benefits later, without reducing their overall standard of living."

While George W. Bush pushed for partial privatization of Social Security, he failed because of massive public opposition. But Bush and the Republican majority in Congress succeeded in enacting the Social Security drug benefit, a flawed but genuine expansion of economic citizenship. Clinton is the only president to have successfully supported the destruction of a New Deal entitlement, while Bush presided over the greatest expansion of the Rooseveltian entitlement system since Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare.

For his part, Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton, rejected single-payer in favor of a moderately conservative welfare corporatist approach to healthcare reform. In contrast, Obama's proposal for student loan reform, an idea discussed in the Clinton years, would move in the right direction, away from welfare corporatism and toward economic citizenship, by replacing subsidized third-party lenders with direct government provision of student loans to needy college students.

Parties are coalitions of interest groups, they are not public philosophies, and presidents, great and minor, are and have to be opportunists. In contrast, reformers only have a chance of succeeding if they stick to their basic principles and keep their eyes on the prize. Progressives should support any politician, Democrat or Republican, who expands economic citizenship to the detriment of welfare corporatism, and they should oppose any politician, Democrat or Republican, who expands welfare corporatism to the detriment of economic citizenship.

Any more questions?

Monetary Cost of Iraq War

15 February 2009

An Alternative Approach to Attacking the Economic Collapse

....From Karl Denninger in the Market Ticker blog on Thursday 12 February '09...

To Republicans,





Ok, you lost the election.

But your response to what has happened thus far with the Obama Administration ranks somewhere below "pathetic" and is dangerously close to "puerile."

You are still soliciting people to donate to the RNC under the rubric that you were and are a better choice. Your standard-bearer, McCain, made a fool of himself in the Senate the other day. And you still maintain that "tax cuts" are the fix for all that ails us.

If you want any chance of ever having a majority in Congress again, say much less The White House, you need to cut the crap and examine why you lost - then change it.

Here's the facts folks:

The Republican Party not only sat idly by while various banksters and their pals looted the public and the Treasury, they were actively complicit in allowing it. Paulson came to a republican Congress and SEC to ask for leverage limit removal in 2004, remember?

These frauds and scams, the root of the problems in our economy, were not born overnight. The CRA was not a major part of this. Not by any stretch of the imagination. The root of this credit bubble was the willful and deliberate destruction of oversight and regulation that would have prevented it from happening. Specifically, the evisceration of reserve requirements via sweeps and other games and the evisceration of leverage limits via off-balance-sheet nonsense, "deregulation" of the banking and Wall Street investment houses and willful blindness to blatant corrupt and fraudulent practices. Both political parties were evenly involved in the creation of this mess.

The reason this mess got out of hand was excessive leverage. For the last 20 years the banksters and their cronies (including a whole bunch of Republicans) have dismantled regulations capping leverage at sane ratios. The only way to prevent this from happening again is to reinstate those limits.

If you want to regain power in Washington DC and once again become a party of the people, you can - since it appears The Democrats are refusing to step to the forefront and seize the opportunity (damn foolish of them too, as they have power now and were they to take this advice they would literally feed The Republican party into a wood chipper feet-first) then you must become the "first mover" and shift the debate.

Americans are angry, and with just cause. The 535 Moes, Larrys and Curlys on Capitol Hill have taken hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions which have purchased the right to blow serial bubbles and skim off fraudulent profits - their scheme of serial fraud has collapsed, destroying the average American's retirement, job security and economic prospects.

Here's the prescription to fix it now and forward - your platform on economics:

Reinstate Glass-Steagall. No more "Chinese Wall" nonsense. If you're a commercial, government-backed bank that accepts customer funds (e.g. anything with an FDIC guarantee) you may not offer investment products of any sort (including insurance-style products such as annuities) nor may you have cross-ownership or control with a firm that does. Period. Banking - the fractional reserving of depositor funds and issued debt for the purpose of issuing loans - is a utility function and its plenty profitable (if a bit stodgy) when operated as one.

Drop the 10% deposit concentration cap to 5%, and give existing banks that are over the 5% limit three years to get under it by splitting off or selling off assets. This applies to fewer than 25 institutions, and it needs to happen right now to control systemic risk. Bluntly, if you're too big to fail you're too dangerous to the banking system as a whole. See #1 above - commercial/retail banking is a utility function and should be regulated as same.

Repeal the "Bankruptcy Reform" law. Consumers must have the same right to go bankrupt and discharge debts that corporations have. Banks and others who grant loans must have this Sword of Damocles over their head - you make a bad loan and the borrower can file Chapter 7 and stick you with it, without exception. This will immediately collapse the outrageously overpriced bubbles that remain and are credit-driven, including post-secondary education.

Remove the obscure little change made in the EESA/TARP legislation that allows Bernanke to set the reserve ratio to ZERO for banks, and set it statutorily to 8%. Enhance the law by declaring that ALL funds taken in by a bank irrespective of their source are subject to the 8% reserve requirement (thereby removing the "sweeps" exemption that started this mess.) This will force leverage in the regulated banking system to no more than approximately 12:1.

Set the lawful leverage limit to 12:1 for all investment banks and other entities including hedge funds. Any firm that wishes to be domiciled or operate in the United States must comply. Period. I know what the counter-argument is - "they'll go somewhere else." Fine! Go blow up some other nation's economy. We've had enough of it.

Said 12:1 leverage limits must apply to all assets. Yes, even US Treasuries. If you hold it at most (for the safest assets) you can gear it at 12:1. Period.

Ban all off-balance-sheet vehicles; no exceptions of any sort. If you have control of it or are responsible for it in any form or fashion you must consolidate it on your balance sheet. "Shell corporations" set up to evade this requirement that have no capital or assets of their own are deemed a fraudulent shell company. Close the SIV loopholes.

No more Level 3 anything may count as "assets" and all model-marked assets in Level 2 must be disclosed specifically along with their pricing models and the inputs for same in quarterly and annual reports. The proper disinfectant for chicanery and fraud is sunlight. If a regulated or public company wishes to hold an "asset" without marking it to a market price they're free to do so - what they're not free to do is claim a value on it. This forces the recognition of the "worst case" value of all such "assets" at inception; there can thus only be upside surprises when they are eventually disposed of. Bingo - no more incentives to claim "value" that doesn't exist.

Bar the trading of derivatives contracts by commercial banks except where those contracts are backed by or insure a hard asset (e.g. a CDS on an actual bond or mortgage) and they are exchange-traded with a central clearing counterparty and thus guaranteed "good". If some Hedge Fund wishes to write or hold naked CDS and immolate themselves that's fine, but they cannot blow regulated financial firms (including insurance companies) to pieces nor can they distort share and debt-pricing mechanisms in the public, regulated markets.

Bar The Federal Reserve from any action that results in other than fully-collateralized lending. Further, force The Federal Reserve to publicly post in real time all transactions they undertake identifying the counterparty, the asset(s) taken in as collateral and the terms thereupon so that the public can verify that violations are not taking place and favoritism is not being employed.

All derivatives traded by regulated financial entities must be cleared and traded through a public exchange with a central counterparty, nightly margin supervision and published bid/ask/open interest.

Extend bank fraud statutes to explicitly cover actions taken by The Fed or any banking or financial institution in violation of statutory limits and name the members of the board of any such institution as personally responsible for violations. This stops the game-playing where institutions feel free to be "fast and loose" because all they will get is a slap on the wrist by FINRA or the SEC. With these offenses being federal criminal offenses the calculus changes immediately on what someone will and will not attempt.

The Republicans are the party of "law and order." Calculate the economic impact of violent crimes and set penalties for financial and other "white collar" criminal offense commensurately. For "white collar" criminal offenses that have more financial impact than an actuarial analysis shows would be the case for a murder, the appropriate penalty is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Change the law to make it uneconomic to pull scams and many of the scammers will stop. Those who don't we lock up and the good news is that unlike most violent offenders the scammers have enough money to pay for their own incarceration via disgorgement proceedings.

Stop trying to prop up asset (especially house!) prices. Instead, preach the truth - affordable housing means no more than 28% of your income goes toward all housing expenses, you should put 20% down, and you should not take anything more aggressive than a 30 year fixed-rate loan. For many areas this means median home prices must still contract. A house is shelter, not a speculative vehicle.

Make the following changes to the ratings paradigm:

Ratings agencies have no "speech" protection for opinions that prove flawed due to errors, omissions or acts of commission.

All data used by said agencies must be made available for verification by individual or firm that wishes to verify a claimed rating (e.g. no "proprietary" lockdown on data which is inhibiting firms like Egan-Jones from being able to fully analyze deals)

Purchasers of instruments may not rely on ratings soundness for "haircut" or "reserve" provisions under BASEL or similar regulations unless they paid for the opinion (that is, it was a "buyer's opinion", not a "sellers opinion".) Absent same the instrument is considered "unrated" for reserve purposes.

NRSRO certification is removed; any firm that wishes to offer opinions on debt instruments is free to enter the business.

Pledge to lock up all of the parties who engaged in fraud during the bubble years and to seek and obtain disgorgement of all of their profits, stock (restricted or not), salaries and bonuses during the time the fraud was going on.

Ban all "dark pool" trading. You want to trade it, the market has a right to know about it. Transparency and honest markets require public disclosure of bid, offer and size. Period.

The Fair Tax. Period. No more IRS. No more BS. No more lobbyists gaming the system. Nobody has to file a tax return ever again, save businesses who already do monthly for their sales tax returns. Taxation becomes completely transparent and voluntary based on your desired level of consumption. It is a radical step, it will create a huge boost to GDP as every firm that has fled the US for Bermuda and similar will repatriate and in addition it will cut the compliance costs out of every American's budget. Finally, it will tie government income inexorably to GDP, prohibit raising taxes without it being instantly visible to the public and provide incentives for capital formation - exactly what we need to create millions of new jobs.

The bank "stress test" that President Obama has proposed is a good start - provided that it is "clean". I have my doubts. I was planning on penning a Ticker on the "stress test" this morning but frankly one of the forum's brighter lights, Mtgspy, penned a blog entry that says it at least as well as I could have - go take a read.

The essence of why we continue to have these zombies walking around and the shorts are pressing their bets in all markets they can access is simple - the banks continue to run their scam by keeping all their worthless toilet paper in "Level 3" at or near par. So long as this charade continues - and it will until the cashflow shortfall from these "assets" forces their free cash flow below zero or the cops put a stop to it - the market cannot and will not clear. This has resulted in a loss of fifty percent in the equity markets, and we both can and will lose another fifty percent in short order (and perhaps another one after that!) until and unless this game is stopped.

Private investment money will not return until the fraud is flushed out. The people with private capital have been screwed blind by the charade of "Level 3" toilet paper sold off as "Grade AAA" securities, suffering hundreds of billions of dollars in losses, along with more than $10 trillion in public equity market losses. The banks have literally trillions of dollars of so-called "assets" marked at or near par because they don't like the market price, with even more held off-balance sheet in ENRON-esque structures that must be collapsed. Many of these "assets" are fully-synthetic monstrosities or second lines that have no actual physical asset behind them - they're literally unsecured credit with no real hope of principal repayment despite claims to the contrary. They are worthless or nearly so, despite the protests of those with "computer models" and as the market has seen through these fictions money has fled the markets.

There is only one way to get that capital back into the market and working - the frauds must cease, the malefactors must go to jail, and the bright sunlight of truth must shine upon the firms and individuals involved in this charade from the top down.

The political party that does this owns Washington DC and The White House for the next 20 years.

While lobbyists make lots of campaign contributions they cannot vote. The body politic, on the other hand, can and does, and it is looking for real change, not faux promises wrapped in a fancy suit that hides yet more used toilet paper - all marked "AAA", of course.

*

This could be more well said and stated.

*****
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)