Even if the government failed to pass these reforms I still don't get it. Why would the leaders of these companies set themselves up to go bankrupt? I know that hindsight is 20/20 but any halfway intelligent person could see that real estate was going to make a big correction to the downside. Are they really this greedy and/or incompetent?

fistf: i think it's at that point in thinking about this situation that you have to start looking for more structural explanations. the bromides about "greed" don't let you think about what enabled any particular sequence of actions; the assumption about market actors as "rational" doesn't let you say anything about why a particular set of actions could have unfolded that would have lead to irrational or self-destructive outcomes.

this is all of a piece with a characteristic of neoliberalism that makes it so abberant and destructive: it is predicated on dissocation: of the present from the past, of markets from the rest of the social; of economic activity from politics on and on and on. these gaps, which are created through the application of a priori beliefs, are filled back in again with metaphysics.

at the limit, you get stuff like the economy can be understood as a fictional boxer. anthropomorphism isn't that big a leaf is you believe in stuff like the famous "invisible hand"--which (stealing a line from somewhere or another) has certainly given us a lesson in the modalities of invisibility in this particular situation. something that invisible, all the time, might not exist. just saying. or maybe it's god that the invisible hand is attached to.
if she existed, i wonder what she would have been doing with that invisible hand these past months.
i'd like to think that she'd have gone bowling.


addition:
an interview with george soros from le monde (in french) that describes this fiasco in much the same terms...neoliberalism is imploding...

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/artic...ens_id=1089411

For reasons I mentioned earlier, I am quite disturbed by the lack of judgement of those in charge of these companies. These people are paid millions a year with high priced research departments to guide their companies to profitability and to anticipate future market conditions. If "neoliberalism" requires one to suspend belief in reality and instead depend on some "invisible hand" to guide their thinking, well that just sucks, but your explaination is better than any I've read to date.

I sometimes think I am so ignorant of macroeconomics that I don't even know how to ask the right questions much less understand the reasoning behind the situation we find ourselves in.

Sorry to keep picking on you roachie, it's just that you have been one of the more vocal ones on this subject and I wanted to hear more elaboration and elucidation on your part. But yeah, thanks for the response, that's pretty much what I was looking for. I would like to hear more when you get a chance.
-----Added 19/9/2008 at 03 : 45 : 24-----
Ah, ok. I was just wondering. Seemed a bit odd (a lot of Ayn Rand references lately). It's piquing my curiosity to the point of me ordering all of her books to see what the fuss is about.
-----Added 19/9/2008 at 03 : 48 : 07-----
You and Teddy Roosevelt.

In short, the big boys take a financial shit and the rest of us little guys are left to wipe their ass.


Ok


No. I'm just trying to smooth out some of the rough edges around here (mostly caused by me) and improve communication.

The people making the decisions know they are accountable for today's results. They needed to continually show profitable growth quarter after quarter. Their salaries and bonuses were based on short-term results. The executive willing to sacrifice short-term results for long-term results is rare unless they are accountable to people with a lont-term view. The incentives of these organization's executives were not aligned with the long-term good of their shareholders, the public, or other constituents. When we look at problems in capitalist markets, this conflict is usually at the root of the problem.

What can I say, he made liberals tough. We need a big stick that says "LIBERALZ!" on it, so people can be reminded that we can be tough when necessary, too.
That's what Eisenhower said.

Sometimes the root cause of major problems are pretty simple.

Analogy alert...:eek:Analogy alert...:eek:

Fannie Mae is like the guy who picks apples from his neighbor's apple trees. At first he picks the good ones, packages them up, sells them for a nice profit. Then the good ones get harder to get, so occupationally he puts a few rotten ones in the package, he is still making a profit. Then more and more of the packages contain rotten apples. Instead of not using the rotten apples and reducing profits he keeps using them. Eventually his greed causes his business to come to an end, because eventually the customers stop buying rotten apples.

Analogy concluded:oogle:...Analogy concluded:oogle:

What?

How about Jason in those Halloween movies? Is that better, when you think he is dead and the water is calm....:eek::eek::eek:


Usually people won't let her do her work. Sometimes you have to let greedy people fail. That is a part of the cleansing process.

Ace, I think I understand the short term vs long term outlook and the lack of the "vision" thing. I still can't get my head around the fact that boards spend millions for executive searches and more millions in bonuses etc.. to get the best CEOs with the best political connections to guide these companies and it all boils down to short vs long term decisions. Heck, "Joe Sixpack" could have made the decision to take the fast easy money and not look past tomorrow.

I think there must be more to it. Perhaps they did not worry about the long term because they had connections and knew they would be bailed out anyway if things went wrong. Like you and others have pointed out, they are going to make the big bucks even if they fail.

Here is the problem. Shareholders who hold stock on a temporary basis don't care about long-term results. When a company is heavily traded by thousands or millions of shareholders with no one shareholder with a "large" ownership stake who can sell their interest with a few key strokes will do that as soon as they perceive there is a better investment. Executives know this and they manage to manage the share price rather than managing to manage the long-term success of the company. A mistake is to pay managers (executives, CEO's, etc) in stock, the illusion is they have ownership interests, the relaity is they can make the stock price go up, cash-out and leave. This can happen before the "house of cards" collapses.

So when you have transient shareholders, then the company has to depend on the Board of Directors to look out for the interest of the company. Often board members are part-time, in over their heads, or in-bed with management. So, then you have a board not holding management accountable. Hence you have major corporate failures due to management focused on short-term results to drive the share price.

True, the above is a simplification. But the basics apply. I was VP at a company the went bankrupt after it was purchased by a group of Wall Street types with degrees from big business schools. Their focus was totally on short-term results to drive the share price. They used the conservatively run company I worked for as leverage for other acquisitions, and eventually it all failed. Ironically, they made a lot of money before the failure. They did not care about the company, the employees or the clients - just cashflow.

Its pretty simple to me.

The deregulation of S&Ls through the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act cost the taxpayers more than $150 billion in the 80s

The more recent deregulation of banking, insurance and financial services institutions through the Financial Services Modernization Act will cost the taxpayers more than $500 billion.
-----Added 19/9/2008 at 09 : 20 : 56-----
Its too late to look back now...but it is time to re-regulate NOT deregulate.

The Financial Services Modernization Act was Clinton, right? Was that due to the troubles he had late in his second term? I can't imagine a president that won because Bush couldn't fix the problems from S&L not vetoing something similar without good reason.

It was initiated by the Republican Congress, led by Sen. Phil Gramm, who is now McCain's chief economic adviser...but, yes, Clinton shares the blame. It is also probably fair to say that Clinton was influenced by the Wall Street crowd around him, most notably Robert Rubin, his Sec. of Treasury

Friends, in a private meeting in Pelosi's offices, Bernanke and Paulson told Congressional Leaders “that we’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system".

I hate that it's come to this. I hate even more that some Americans are indulging in the fantasy-land view that this is what happens in the fourth act of a boxing movie, and that our boy's on the ropes but he's going to fight back.

People are throwing around the term "epoch-changing" to describe the current events. I pray that whatever replaces this system is better than this system is. I pray that whatever happens between now and when whatever that is is in place, it's not too disruptive for the citizens of the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/wa...d-cong.html?hp

Ah, that's what I suspected. Thanks for the info.

Administration Is Seeking $700 Billion for Wall Street Bailout

Nice... $700 billion.... wonderful! :(

Yep, about 7K per tax payer. I'd like to know if I cut a check today can I get myself out of paying the interest?

From the above article:
I don't think he is totally accurate. The free market will still work for the not so wealthy who will still be allowed to fail. This type of socialism will mainly bail out the politically connected wealthy. Washington doesn't want to send the wrong signal and reward the little guy who makes bad decisions.

People still equate socialism with fascism. Socialism would be turning over control of production of goods and management of services to the workers (or mass, super-unionizing), not a market bail-out. What's going on now is more like temporary directed economy due to market failure.

If the free market is dead, the wound was self-inflicted.

this bailout idea isn't in itself anything beyond a bailout idea. the more complex and comprehensive changes will be hammered out in the afterburn of this disaster.

but it's funny--the american press still can't say it, still cannot say that what's dead here is an ideology, a way of thinking about economic activity, a way of separating it from everything else. they keep talking in substantives--"free markets are dead"--well they're neither dead nor alive because they haven't existed. they're fictions. it's be a whole lot easier, i think, for the money people to navigate this if they could relativize their own position--and that inability is simply mirrored in the press accounts.

i have to go wrestle chickens.

Can't help but note a sudden silence on the part of the conservative status-quoists on this thread.

Worry not, once Rush's show comes out on Monday there'll be new spin to be spewed.

I'm betting the whole problem (if it's even being called a problem yet) can be traced to the last two years where the Dems held a slim, non-veto proof, majority. That or it's Obama's fault... or Clinton's... or Carter's... Johnson? Who knows? One thing's for sure it won't be the the borrow and spend GOP it'll be those damned tax and spend liberals.

Edit:

As I finished this post this song hit my shuffle. For some reason it seemed fitting, not really sure why, just did-

Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar. youre gonna go far, fly high,
Youre never gonna die, youre gonna make it if you try;theyre gonna love you.
Well Ive always had a deep respect, and I mean that most sincerely.
The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think. oh by the way,
Which ones pink?
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy, we call it riding the
Gravy train.

Were just knocked out. we heard about the sell out. you gotta get an
Album out,
You owe it to the people. were so happy we can hardly count.
Everybody else is just green, have you seen the chart?
Its a helluva start, it could be made into a monster if we all pull together
As a team.
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy, we call it riding the
Gravy train.

It was the pitch the "machine" made to Obama when they approached him to run for president.

Hmm, I see it the other way around. Obama didn't get a pitch from the "machine." The Dem. machine (and pretty much everyone in the press) didn't even consider him a serious contender until after he knocked them awake in Iowa.

I've been posting on a conservative forum recently, and they say the same thing about us and the Daily Kos and Olbermann/Maddow. And to be honest there is some truth to it. I do get some of my news from the Kos and I love Olbermann's diatribes. And I agree with them often enough.

It's a sad fact of our time that the news media is so very biased, biased to it's core, which can fool people into thinking that because they're both biased, they're both equally wrong or both equally reasonable to each side. I'm afraid, though, that Olbermann and BillO do not occupy opposite sides of the same coin. Limbaugh and Huffington are not equal but opposite.

/threadjack

Uh, no. Considering there's so few of us, like 1-2 tops on this forum and add the fact that it's the weekend of course responses will be slow to come. Some of us have lives. Come on now, stop fishing.
-----Added 21/9/2008 at 04 : 46 : 59-----
Thank you will for your honesty and openess. I do disagree because I feel like Oberman, Huffington , Rush are pretty much the same. Why anyone listens to them at all is a huge mystery to me. None of them are "experts" or trained in the field of political science. As far as I am concerned, they are entertainers liek Chris Rock, Lindsey Lohan, and Krusty the Clown, Therefore, their political opinions should be treated as such.

Are you saying you agree with the status quo conservative mantra of free markets and deregulation?

If so do you think the situation is a crisis?

If you do what do you think the solution should be.

I agree with that, though I admit I hate lumping Krusty into that mix simply because I think he deserves more respect then that.

After Bush's handling of 9-11 I started watching/reading Micheal Moore, Keith Olbermann, Al Franken more and more. I'd started fact checking people on the right and was pretty pissed off. I think somewhere in the back of my head I figured if these guys are lying those guys must be telling the truth. Not so. I don't think their level of, or quantity of, lying matches that of Fox News, I don't even think they try to hide it anymore. But they (the left's talking heads) make shit up too. I've watched Countdown many times I have seen him take facts or comments completely of of context. I don't like Bush Jr. even slightly but I seen him speak in the afternoon and then end up on Oldbermann only to have what he said cut to the point it's not even close to what he was saying. Oldbermann's recently taken to throwing up poll numbers and making claims like "that's a 15 point swing." I hit pause and no Kieth, unless you failed 3rd grade math that's and 8 point swing.

I met Micheal Moore, have a picture of he and I shaking hands. I liked what he was saying. Until you fact check it it makes sense. I remember watching "Roger & Me" years ago. I liked it, he's kind of funny in it and it points out some pretty screwed up stuff. The film pretty much launched him into the national spot light. The main premises of the film is him trying and repeatedly failing to get an interview with GM CEO Roger Smith. You watch has he tries and tries, failing each time. It's like watching an old episode of Gillian's Island. You just know at the end of the show they'll still be stuck on the island and Gillian will be to blame. Only in this case he won't get the interview and Roger will be to blame. It makes the movie fun and funny. And it makes sense until you find out he did interview Roger Smith for the film and simply left it out. Putting it in would have ruined the entire premise Mike was selling. Lying by omission is still lying Mike. So basically Moore's first film was based on a lie.

so what it looks like is that the administration has no idea what to do really but thinks it important to get congressional approval for it.

they waited so long to do anything beyond react that they are now in a position of making reaction into a virtue, so telling congress: we don't know but give us the umlimited power to figure it out...is a marketing thing. yes Everybody, what we're proposing here is Big.

given its appalling performance, i would not give the bush administration unlimited authority to clean dogshit off my lawn.

the Magickal Debt Absorption Machine they are proposing is a curious thing because it is to magically absorb debt the amount of which no-one seems to actually know.

the assumption seems to be the Bad Apple theory writ very very large.

if, as this analysis and most others clam,

Rough Week, But America's Era Goes On - washingtonpost.com

the origin of this is collapsing house values in the united states, then what do you think should or even can be done to address this?

if the problem is that the mortgage crisis has happened because unregulated lending practices has exposed the banking system to the social consequences of the reconfiguration of production under neoliberalism, to the wobbliness of the distribution of decent=paying jobs, to the untenability over even the medium term of the american model of doing things as it has unfolded since reagan, what should be done?

do you really think that the Magickal Debt Absorption Machine is adequate? it seems to me that it addresses symptoms and not causes, and symptoms that affect the institutions whose lunatic actions in the context of deregulation are amongst the two main causes for this mess in the first place (the other being--i think---the implications of allowing corporate organization to mirror the nature of capital flows, to become deterritorialized, so that profits are unhinged from any social relation which might obtain in any particular region where actual people live---and the rationale for it is cheap-ish consumer goods and easy debt availability)---it looks to me like a bubble, but a much bigger and different one that what we've been talking about, which follows the way this crisis has been framed in limiting it to the collapse of the derivatives market.

personally, i think that the proposed mechanisms should unfold in multiple stages and that should be built in--at least at the level of outline--into what congress is being asked about. maybe the Magickal Debt Absorption Machine can be legitimated as a stop-gap, the meaning of which is more psychological (the Appearance of Doing Something) than material...

i think it not unreasonable to convene an international-level commission---perhaps working out of the G8 perhaps out of the united nations---certainly not under the auspices of either the imf (where is the imf on this?) and world bank, which are the simple arms of neoliberalism at this point, a neoliberalism which is THE problem---the commission should probably formally bury neoliberalism, maybe have a little party for it, and outline steps that can be taken to basically transform the ways in which transnational capital flows are regulated, perhaps with an idea of encouraging something like economic planning in some sectors, not least of which is a plan to encourage a different, more coherent distribution of decent jobs for people. that way you could re-hinge credit to something.

but this seems partial, early sunday morning over an initial cup of coffee type stuff.

what do you think should be undertaken at this point?
from where you sit, how would you think the problems we are watching unfold on tv as this mini-series i like to call "the financial catastrophe show"--should be approached.
how far would intervention have to go to stabilize things?
what direction should we be heading in?

personally, i think not only is neo-liberalism done but the era of the nation-state is probably cooked as well, so we are basically confronting a situation that will result in some new forms of transnational regulation, which will require some new forms of transnational enforcement.

so whaddya think?
have a cup of joe and be bravely speculative about this.
it's not like what we think matters in the bigger scheme of things, so we should be free with it.

Ive heard this before from this administration regarding another huge international fiasco.

"Hey, hey!" --Keith Olberman

Although it's probably a matter for another thread, I agree that the hackery among the commentator-media on both sides of the line is appalling.

First I'd like to vent a little. I am sick of hearing Forbes, Buffet, and other financial pundits on the news shows saying that the drop in real estate values is the reason behind this credit crunch. They act like this is some kind of unforeseen event as if we were hit by lightening or something when it was obvious to many of us that prices were way out of line. How in the hell could those in charge of these companies not know this? I guess the answer is that they did know and continued to make/buy shaky loans anyway for reasons that must have benefited them.

Then the pundits say that no one knows how long this will last because they don't know how much lower real estate will go. Is it so hard to figure out that prices will drop to the point where the average person can afford them?

As far as what to do now that we are in this mess, I guess the "Magical Dept Absorbtion Machine" is necessary to stop a short term free fall in the markets. Capitalism is supposed to reward those who make good decisions and punish those who make bad decisions. I know this probably doesn't jive with the "neoliberalism" view but I wish there was some way to at least make those responsible for these loans, tranches, derivatives etc.. take some losses like the rest of us.

Maybe we could move more towards Chinese capitalism, whereby if you, as a capitalist, fuck up too badly you get executed.

Sampling the Sunday morning talking heads infomercials I heard a couple things over and over- For the right- "it's not a complete loss, the tax payers will get something for their money." and for the left- "this is maintaining privatization of the gains while burdening the tax payers with the losses."

It seems, from what little attention I paid, both sides have their talking points down. I don't know who's being more truthful. To be honest I doubt they themselves have much of a clue. I fear the left is being more realistic. Yet hope the right is, well, right.

I know I'm tried of watching the CEO's of these failing financial giants leave with millions after running the companies into the ground. While the share holders (yes, I've taken a few hits, who hasn't?) are left holding a fraction of what they once had. It's also extremely hard to watch the worker bees collect their belongings in cardboard boxes and head for the subway while knowing many in upper management left via the helo pad on the roof.

Edit:

Found this at ABC news. I have to say if you're a conservative candidate for POTUS and you loose George Will you've got problems.


http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5849844

One of the interesting points made on this show was that if this bailout goes through the next president will have a much harder time getting funding for health care reform or any other large projects and perhaps that is just what the administration and some members of congress want.

In regards to your other comments, I don't know who George Will was for before but it seems obvious that it is not McCain now. Other members of the panel questioned whether McCain's age was the reason for making so many errors in judgement last week but I think it probably has more to do with his campaign wanting to do something without having to explain why McCain voted in the past against financial reforms.

In general, broad terms and in theory, yes. As for status quo, no. I don't think it's a free market. On the other hand some regulation and reform is necessary.

I'm not sure. At first I didn't think so and just figured it was routine ups and downs and that the market would correct itself. But by the 2nd, 3rd day, it seemed pretty serious. It's hard to tell if it's actually a problem or just the media fanning the flames and panicking.

I'm not so sure my solution would be very popular. I would let the corporations crash and burn even if it means we all have to suffer for a bit in the short term. I'm against corporate bailouts. I would let the market sort itself out.




Wow interesting insight. I didn't know all that. I loved Roger & Me (and I'm a conservative!!). I became a fan and watched The Big One, and Bowling for Columbine. Fahrenheit 911 crossed the line for me. It just seemed so manipulative. It's too bad really. Moore is a very talented documentary/filmaker and could have used the opportunities to greater effect in my opinion. But unfortunately, he lost some credibility with me.
-----Added 21/9/2008 at 03 : 56 : 14-----
Yes, I agree with you here Rat. It's childish and annoying. I find it insulting to our intelligence at times. Lucky for me, I don't get a lot of it. I get most of my news from NPR and the BBC. The commentator-media is excellent on both sides on these channels. I highly recommend it.

Keith Olberman is one of the worst. He was really bad at sports commentating and it doesn't surprise me he left sports to go into politics. What a tool. I would rather hear Charles Barkley commentate on politics than that hack Olberman.
-----Added 21/9/2008 at 03 : 57 : 19-----
Ouch! Talk about lax standards. They are the worst socialists ever. Corrupt and oppressive to the core.

I know. I know. But they did execute the guy who decided that poisoning toothpaste was a good business strategy.

well, rather than bother to define democratic socialism again, i'll just leave you to twist, jorgelito...

meanwhile, this just appeared on the ny times front page and is kinda interesting. i have to go, so i'll only say
1. the key point i think is buried about half-way down: what exactly *is*an "american bank"?
travel along this direction and you'll see why i think nation-states are cooked, it's just a matter of time.

meanwhile, it looks like a whole lot of chickens may be coming "home" to roost here--and it should be clearer why letting this take it's course was not an option--the credibility of the united states is obviously on the line here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/bu...global.html?hp

meanwhile, if there's an actual thing/bill to be implemented, it is not at all sure what it is or if anything will happen before tomorrow. there are hearings scheduled for wednesday about the content of the proposal--i'd be surprised if anything happens before that. but i've been wrong before, and will be again.

either way, tomorrow should be an adventure.

I'm not sure George Will was for McCain before. He wrote and said some pretty hard stuff on McCain. Most of that, from what I saw, was during the primaries. Since then he's seemed to be standard conservative, pro McCain (or at least anti-Obama) the clip from yesterday show seemed to me to be a shift from him, almost like "I just can't support this guy (McCain.)" Though I'm pretty sure he's not going to be supporting Obama either.

I have been thinking about this and I don't think this is the end of neoliberalism... it will (try to) rise again. The ideology is entrenched (as we can see in this thread).

It will enjoy the bailout and then wait for the right time to strike. Probably when our economies are struggling under the debt load that has been added thanks to the bailout.

The best solution is to properly regulate. Inadequate regulation is bad. Excessive regulation is bad. We need more than campaign slogans and playing "blame the others" politics. As I listened to and read scores of interview over the weekend from politicians that was #1 on their list of points.
-----Added 22/9/2008 at 11 : 10 : 45-----
A bit of hyperbole, perhaps?