Friday, September 26, 2008

The Geezer Is The Champion Of Deregulation & We Ignore That Fact At Our Peril

The Geezer and all of the Dumbo Deregulators (including The Geezer's fiscal guru, Phil "ET" Gramm) have worked the mischief of our age. These Masters of the Universe have come to ruin. The dreams of avarice fueled their every waking moment and now, after the dance, they must pay the fiddler. Sadly, The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave faces disaster. If this is a (fair & balanced) nightmare, so be it.

[x HNN]
The Parallel With 1929 We Ignore At Our Peril
By Robert Brent Toplin

With markets teetering at the abyss, the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and the federal government's rescue of faltering behemoths like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, some Americans are looking at the history of the 1930s in search of clues to the causes of the Great Depression. They want to know what went wrong in the past so they can make more educated judgments about what needs to be done to improve conditions in the present. Unfortunately, answers cannot be identified with confidence. Historians and economists still disagree sharply about the principal factors that produced an economic collapse nearly eighty years ago. But information that has emerged about the current economic crisis may throw new light on the events that led to disaster in the 1930s.

When Americans consult the history books for information about causes of the Great Depression, they are likely to be confused by a long list of complex explanations. The key factors listed in monographs and textbooks appear to be only loosely connected. Readers get little sense of a hierarchy of causes. Interpreters usually mention stock market speculation as a catalyst for the meltdown on Wall Street in the fall of 1929, but then they mention an abundance of other causes. Interpreters often suggest that the stock market crash represented only an early indication of problems. The Great Depression lasted for a decade, they point out, because more profound economic weaknesses were operating under the surface. A decline resulted from mal-distribution of wealth, trade protectionism, Allied war debts, currency contraction, failed leadership at the Federal Reserve, overdependence on the gold standard, poor banking practices, a flawed credit structure, and several other problems. Alan Brinkley, author of a popular history text, reports correctly that scholars "still have not reached anything close to agreement" regarding an explanation for the Depression. A reader examining histories of the troubles is likely to conclude that no clear lesson can be drawn from the past, since there is no consensus about what went wrong.

One element in the story of the Depression that began in the late 1920s, however, strongly resembles the emerging narrative about economic problems in our own times. In both 1929 and 2008 there was an absence of effective regulation for purposes of promoting sound business practices. Reckless speculation got dangerously out of hand. Business adventurers were able to market risky investment products free from public oversight. Those practices contributed to a meltdown of the national and international financial systems in the early 1930s. In our times, related practices have brought America's finances to the brink of a catastrophe. Decisive action by leaders from the Fed, Treasury and Congress may save America and the world from the kind of disintegration that plagued U.S. and global markets in the 1930s, but the factors that triggered economic shocks in 1929 and 2008 are strikingly similar.

Americans are now asking how the sub-prime mortgage debacle got so far out of hand during the years when various market analysts told the public that the American economy was fundamentally sound. Americans of the Depression era raised the same question. During the 1920s, analysts often expressed supreme confidence about conditions. The Wall Street Journal announced at the beginning of 1929 that, "One cannot recall when a new year was ushered in with business conditions sounder than they are today," and economics professor Irving Fisher of Yale judged in the autumn of 1929 that "Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."

While the optimists were celebrating economic progress in the 1920s, investment leaders were marketing highly speculative and risky financial instruments to a gullible public. In the stock market, brokers got attractive commissions for selling securities with money borrowed from banks. They lent the cash to customers at a higher rate of interest. Lots of investors bought stocks on "margin," providing only a fraction of the cost as a down-payment. They believed their gamble was worthwhile, since the value of securities appeared to be surging permanently. When the crash came, they could not pay their debts. Also troubling were "investment trusts" which pooled money to speculate in many different securities. The managers of these instruments refused to disclose their stock holdings. Sometimes they invested in other investment trusts. With relatively small amounts of capital, they leveraged funds excessively. Their investments could produce handsome profits in boom periods, but these trusts could collapse like a house of cards in anxious times.

The crisis of the 1930s might have been averted if there had been more transparency so that investors had access to useful information and stronger regulation of investments for purposes of promoting responsible business practices. This oversight was noticeably lacking in the 1920s. When markets began their slide in late 1929, America's political leaders, enthusiasts of laissez faire, did not call immediately for strong government intervention. A crisis quickly got out of control.

The actors and scenes in the current financial drama are different, but the structure of the play looks quite similar. Once again, most of America's market analysts seem to have been caught off-guard. Few warned about the impending mortgage disaster, and few recognized that a profound credit crisis was on the horizon. Audiences that heard upbeat commentaries on C-NBC's television programs in recent years could easily imagine that the American economy was fundamentally robust, and the biggest challenge investors faced was choosing stocks that would produce large gains.

The worst abuses occurred in the mortgage industry. Like the stock brokers of the twenties who eagerly pushed questionable securities, collected commissions, and left vulnerable customers in the dark about risks, mortgage brokers in the 2000s eagerly registered debt-laden customers and then passed on the toxic documents to poorly informed buyers of bundled loans. Credit-rating agencies abetted the deception by granting Triple-A grades to institutions that marketed the mortgages.

As in the 1920s, in the 2000s the public lacked information about many unregulated business transactions that had the potential to make a huge impact on the economy. Americans were poorly informed about risky practices at major financial institutions, from Lehman Brothers to AIG to Freddie and Fannie. They were not aware that major firms were grossly undercapitalized and highly leveraged. The public had little knowledge about the workings of huge investments held through private equity funds and hedge funds, and they knew little about the largely unregulated credit default swaps, secret derivatives valued in the trillions of dollars. As in the 1920s, lots of newly designed business practices came into play in the years immediately preceding the financial crisis of this year. The shadowy and speculative trading system was little understood by outsiders and hardly visible to the American public.

Inadequate oversight in the twenties led to economic catastrophe in the thirties, and the lack of effective regulations in our own times almost produced a catastrophe during the week of September 14. As many economists acknowledged, the American and global financial system almost crumbled during that tumultuous week.

The causes of financial crises are infinitely complex, and no analysis of the troubles should neglect the multiple causes that historians and economists explore when trying to explain what went wrong. But the related conditions of 1929 and 2008 suggest a question if not an answer. Should one factor in particular — poorly regulated markets — receive the strongest emphasis when scholars try to identify the main cause of collapse?

In this case the present may inform our understanding of the past, and an understanding of the past can illuminate our thinking about the present. Conditions that fostered reckless speculation appear to be the prime factor behind the current mess, and it now seems clearer that related conditions were significant in the crises that led to the Great Depression. During the 1930s, leaders in Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal created regulatory measures that kept the American economy on a generally even keel for nearly half a century. It appears that we need a modern update of that governmental activism today to establish greater financial security.

[Robert B. Toplin is Professor of History at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. He has published a dozen books, including Radical Conservatism: The Right's Political Religion (2006). Toplin received his undergraduate training in Psychology at Pennsylvania State University and received a Ph.D. in History from Rutgers University in 1968. Before teaching at The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, he was Associate Professor of History (with tenure) at Denison University in Ohio.]

Copyright © 2008 History News Network


Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader.

The "Savior" O'The Land Of The Free & The Home Of The Brave

Ben Sargent is a national treasure. 'Nuff said. If this is (fair & balanced) admiration, so be it.


[x Austin Fishwrap]
Ben Sargent's Take On The Geezer's Bailout Gambit

Click on the image to enlarge.

[Ben Sargent has been drawing editorial cartoons for the Austin American-Statesman since 1974. His cartoons are also distributed nationally by Universal Press Syndicate. Sargent was born in Amarillo, Texas, into a newspaper family. He learned the printing trade from age twelve and started working for the local daily as a proof runner at fourteen. He attended Amarillo College and received a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Texas at Austin in 1970. Sargent won the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning in 1982. He has also received awards from Women in Communications, Inc., Common Cause of Texas, and Cox Newspapers. He is the author of Texas Statehouse Blues (1980) and Big Brother Blues (1984).]

Copyright © 2008 Ben Sargent/Austin American-Statesman


Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader.

Who's Dumber? The Turtle Or The Dumb Ass?

Now and then, this blogger receives viral e-mail from Tom Terrific. Tom is terrific because he reads this blog (and he knows a helluva lot about U.S. history) and recognizes the code in this blog: The Geezer and The Mighty Q. Speaking of that Dynamic Duo, both of them appeared on CBS News yesterday and the day before. The Geezer, in response to a question about the Paulson Plan (2-½ pages), evaded the question and said that he hadn't read it even though it had been in his hands for 5 days. Duh! Then, The Mighty Q appeared on CBS Evening News with Katie Couric and Couric's "grilling" left The Mighty Q looking like a moose caught in the headlights. Now, Tom Terrific sends along a Texas-based joke about The Geezer and The Mighty Q. This blogger couldn't resist. If this is (fair & balanced) drollery, so be it.

[x Tom Terrific]
Viral E-mail: Texas Post Turtle

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Sarah Palin and her bid to be a heartbeat away from being President.

The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Palin is a post turtle."

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.

The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. "You know she didn't get up there by herself, she doesn't belong up there, she doesn't know what to do while she is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put her up there to begin with."

[Tom Terrific lives Up North in retired bliss after a career teaching U.S. history in a suburban high school.]

Copyright © 2008 Tom Terrific (Or Someone)


Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader.

The BoBo Boy Endorses The Hopester?

The proof of the pudding in The BoBo Boy's critique of The Geezer is in the collapse of the Bailout Deal that crashed despite The Geezer's theatrical campaign suspension. Freed from campaigning, The Geezer "rushed" to DC to save the day. In truth, The Geezer made campaign appearances both on CBS News and at The Slicketer's Global Initiative meeting later in the day after the theatrical campaign-suspension. The Geezer arrived at the White House late in the following day. It's a good thing The Geezer isn't a fireman because a burning house would be ashes by the time he arrived "to save the day." The BoBo Boy says that The Geezer is without substance. The collapse of the Bailout Deal negotiations — despite The Geezer's "heroism" — clearly shows that The Geezer is an empty suit. If this is a (fair & balanced) critique of grandstanding, so be it.



[x NY Fishwrap]
Thinking About McCain
By David Brooks

I’ve been covering John McCain steadily for a decade. A few years ago, I worked on a book, which I foolishly never completed, on the U.S. Senate with McCain as the central character. So when I step back and think of McCain, even in the heat of this campaign, I still think of him first in the real world of governing, not in the show-business world of the election.

I think first of the personal qualities. He was an unfailingly candid man. When other politicians described a meeting, they always ended up the heroes of the story. But McCain would always describe the meeting straight, emphasizing his own failings with more vigor than his accomplishments.

He is, for a politician, a humble man. The most important legacy of his prisoner-of-war days is that he witnessed others behaving more heroically than he did. This experience has given him a basic honesty when appraising himself.

His mood darkened as the Iraq war deteriorated, but his accomplishments mounted. I don’t think any senator had as impressive a few years as McCain did during this span of time.

He lobbied relentlessly for a change of strategy in Iraq, holding off the tide that would have had us accept defeat and leave Iraq to its genocide. He negotiated a complicated immigration bill with Ted Kennedy. He helped organize the Gang of 14 and helped save the Senate from polarized Armageddon over judicial nominations.

He voted against opportunist bills like the pork-laden energy package and the prescription drug plan. He led a crusade against Jack Abramoff and the sleaze-meisters in his own party and exposed corrupt Pentagon contracts.

I could fill this column with his accomplishments during this period, and not even mention the insights. At a defense conference in Munich, I saw him diagnose and confront Russian hegemony. Week after week, I saw him dissent from G.O.P. colleagues as their party lost its way.

Some people who cover the campaign seem to have no knowledge of anything but the campaign, but I can’t get these events — which were real and required the constant application of judgment, honor and courage — out of my head.

Do I wish he was running a different campaign? Yes.

It’s not that he has changed his political personality that bothers me. I’ve come to accept that in this media-circus environment, you simply cannot run for president as a candid, normal person.

Nor is it, primarily, the dishonest ads he is running. My friends in the Obama cheering section get huffy about them, while filtering from their consciousness all the dishonest ads Obama has run — the demagogic DHL ad, the insulting computer ad, the cynical Rush Limbaugh ad, the misleading Social Security ad and so on. If one candidate has sunk lower than the other at this point, I’ve lost track.

No, what disappoints me about the McCain campaign is it has no central argument. I had hoped that he would create a grand narrative explaining how the United States is fundamentally unprepared for the 21st century and how McCain’s worldview is different.

McCain has not made that sort of all-encompassing argument, so his proposals don’t add up to more than the sum of their parts. Without a groundbreaking argument about why he is different, he’s had to rely on tactical gimmicks to stay afloat. He has no frame to organize his response when financial and other crises pop up.

He has no overarching argument in part because of his Senate training and the tendency to take issues on one at a time — in part, because of the foolish decision to run a traditional right-left campaign against Obama and, in part, because McCain has never really resolved the contradiction between the Barry Goldwater and Teddy Roosevelt sides of his worldview. One day he’s a small-government Western conservative; the next he’s a Bull Moose progressive. The two don’t add up — as we’ve seen in his uneven reaction to the financial crisis.

Nonetheless, when people try to tell me that the McCain on the campaign trail is the real McCain and the one who came before was fake, I just say, baloney. I saw him. A half-century of evidence is there.

If McCain is elected, he will retain his instinct for the hard challenge. With that Greatest Generation style of his, he will run the least partisan administration in recent times. He is not a sophisticated conceptual thinker, but he is a good judge of character. He is not an organized administrator, but he has become a practiced legislative craftsman. He is, above all — and this is completely impossible to convey in the midst of a campaign — a serious man prone to serious things.

Amid the stupidity of this season, it seemed worth stepping back to recall the fundamentals — about McCain today and Obama on some other day in the near future.

[David Brooks is an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times and has become a prominent voice of politics in the United States. Brooks graduated from the University of Chicago in 1983 with a degree in history. He served as a reporter and later op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal, a senior editor at The Weekly Standard from its inception, a contributing editor at Newsweek and The Atlantic Monthly, and a commentator on NPR and "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." Brooks has written a book of cultural commentary titled Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There. Brooks also writes articles and makes television appearances as a commentator on various trends in pop culture, such as internet dating. He has been largely responsible for coining the terms "bobo," "red state," and "blue state." His newest book is entitled On Paradise Drive: How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader.

A Dozen Foreign Policy Questions For Tonight's Debate

The NY Fishwrap tapped major figures from around the world to offer a question to both The Geezer and The Hopester. The Mighty Q had better read these questions because the queries contain references and concepts that — if comparable questions are asked in the VP debate — will produce a "moose in the headlights" look. The best question that could be asked of The Mighty Q is "Why on earth did you take The Geezer's offer of a place on the ticket?" If this is a (fair & balanced) examination, so be it.



[x NY Fishwrap]
What the World Wants to Know
By Asif Ali Zardari, Michelle Bachelet, Bernard-Henry Lévy, Hu Shuli, Rory Stewart, Lilia Shevtsova, Enrique Krauze, Yoichi Funabashi, Paul Martin, Vicente Fox, Ramachandra Guha, and Ivan Krastev

Well, there’s supposed to be a presidential debate tonight in Oxford, MS And it’s supposed to be about foreign policy. With that in mind, the Op-Ed editors asked leaders and writers from around the world to pose questions they’d like to hear John McCain and Barack Obama answer.

Q: How would you work with America’s allies in the Muslim world to turn around the widely held misperception there, as evidenced in opinion polls, that the global war against terrorism is actually a war against Islam?

ASIF ALI ZARDARI, the president of Pakistan

Q: Many developing countries — mine included — have made sacrifices to carry out tough economic reforms and have sought “trade and not aid.” To succeed, we need to compete on a level playing field with more developed economies. Is the United States ready to shoulder some of the burden by advocating the elimination or tempering of protectionism and subsidies? The United Nations by itself, with its faults and many achievements, does not lead. Nation-states do. American commitment and leadership is a must for effective multilateral cooperation. Will you demonstrate a renewed commitment to multilateralism and the rule of international law? Will you negotiate actively to agree on a post-Kyoto treaty on global warming and seek to join the United Nations Human Rights Council? Lastly, what would you do to regain the trust of your allies who would like to see the United States engaging in respectful dialogue and leading the way in the fight not merely against terrorism — which must be done — but also against world hunger, poverty, inequality and disease?

MICHELLE BACHELET, the president of Chile

Q: American foreign policy is now inextricably tied to the financial situation in the United States and to the image this crisis gives the country in the eyes of the world. How, for example, will this financial tsunami change your Iraq policy and its timetable? How will you manage both the horribly high cost of rescuing the banking system and the no less exorbitant cost of the American military presence in Baghdad? What will you say to all those countries the United States has so long lectured on the right way to govern their economies and that now see that America has refused its own medicine? The rest of the world is absorbing America’s deficits. How do you plan to convince them to continue doing so as though nothing has happened? Has the place of America in the world changed in your view? Can its role be the same? Will the America you are going to lead still be the great power it was before last week?

BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY, the author of Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism

Q: Do you view China simply as an emerging great power, or as an emerging great power with a conflicting ideology? And how will this perception shape your China policy?

HU SHULI, the editor of the Chinese business magazine Caijing

Q: Why do you think that terrorism is the No. 1 strategic threat to the United States? How does it compare to the threat from an economic meltdown, from an environmental catastrophe, or from another nation? Should the United States continue to put hundreds of times more effort and investment into Afghanistan than into Pakistan, Egypt or Iran? China is now too wealthy and powerful to be intimidated by the United States. What are America’s interests in the Asia-Pacific region? How should you protect them?

RORY STEWART, the author of The Places in Between, a former British foreign service officer, and the chief executive of Turquoise Mountain, a foundation in Afghanistan

Q: When their presidencies began, both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were enthusiastic toward Russia, but by the end relations were decidedly cooler. What measures can you propose that would ensure that your presidency ends more constructively? How can the United States encourage transformation in the new independent states, especially Ukraine and Georgia, without further alienating Russia?

LILIA SHEVTSOVA, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Moscow

Q: Do you think the American embargo of Cuba is a mistake? Does the ascension of Raúl Castro, Fidel Castro’s brother, represent an opportunity to open relations with that country? Wouldn’t better relations with Cuba help neutralize Hugo Chávez, whose anti-Americanism is finding support in Latin America?

ENRIQUE KRAUZE, the editor of the magazine Letras Libres and the author of Mexico: Biography of Power

Q: How do you plan to formulate American policy with respect to the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran? In particular, what steps would you take to deal with North Korea’s nuclear threat if its regime collapses? In what specific ways would you try to lower the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions to achieve the goals each of you have outlined in your campaigns?

YOICHI FUNABASHI, the editor of the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun

Q: The Group of 8 was set up as a steering committee of the world’s most powerful economies. Do you believe that to make globalization work, such a steering committee is required? If so, do you believe that the group in its current configuration, without the presence of the major emerging economies, fits the bill? Deforestation, which causes at least 20 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions each year, is a leading cause of climate change. The world needs to protect its rain forests — for example in the Congo and Amazon basins — but not at the expense of the desperately poor people who live in them. Do you believe that any plan to combat climate change must include measures to compensate the people of the world’s tropical rainforests, to make these forests more valuable standing rather than cut down?

PAUL MARTIN, the prime minister of Canada from 2003 to 2006

Q: Free trade and immigration have made the United States the world’s richest nation. But many of your country’s friends worry that you may react to the current financial crisis, and to a rise in protectionist sentiment and immigrant-bashing, by turning inward. As president, would you work to allow freer movement of guest workers and trade in our hemisphere? Would you support the continuation and expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement? Mexico is a thriving democracy that buys more goods and products from the United States than do the four leading economies of Europe combined, while President Felipe Calderón leads an all-out war on narco-traffickers to make our country safer. Given this progress, do you support the $1.4 billion package to fight narco-terrorism that Presidents Bush and Calderón proposed last year? Shouldn’t we mutually strengthen our countries, rather than feuding about issues that divide us, like immigration?

VICENTE FOX, the president of Mexico from 2000 to 2006

Q: How would you work to restructure the United Nations to make it more representative as well as more effective? Clearly, the makeup of the Security Council is anachronistic. Would you support the expansion of its permanent membership to include (among other countries) Brazil, India, Japan and South Africa?

RAMACHANDRA GUHA, the author of India After Gandhi

Q: It is important to know not only what the next president will do, but also why he will do it. I am somewhat puzzled by the absence of “why” questions in the presidential campaign. Why, for example, do you, Mr. McCain, advocate the expulsion of Russia from the Group of 8? Do you believe that this will change Moscow’s behavior? Or do you believe that undemocratic states should not be members of the group? Also, why do both of you support Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Do you believe this policy would expand the West’s sphere of influence? Are you convinced that it would be good for the alliance, or do you think NATO has lost its centrality in American foreign policy? Is it possible that each of you advocates the same policy for very different reasons?

IVAN KRASTEV, the editor of the Bulgarian edition of Foreign Policy magazine

[NY Fishwrap Editorial Board: Andrew Rosnethal, Carla Ann Robbins, David Shipley, Robert B. Semple, Jr., Adam Cohen, Serge Schemann, Richard E. Benfield, Philip M. Boffey, Maura J. Casey, Francis X. Clines, Carolyn Curiel, Lawrence Downes, Carol Giacomo, Verlyn, Klinkenborg, Eduardo Porter, Eleanor Randolph, Dorothy Samuels, Brent Staples, David C. Unger, and Teresa Tritch]
Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader.