hoover

10 Reasons to Believe That We're in a Depression

Excellent. You have an unusual perspective, and a corect one I would opine. The idea of exporting freedom as our primary contribution to the world during the last century, is an enormous intangible export that few ever consider. It has spawned hundreds of democracies and semi-democracies around the world. And, I would agree that our current downfall is mostly, as you say, caused by greed, vanity, and deceit. Thanks.


On Nov 19 12:23 PM User 353732 wrote:

> America's greatest export during its great ascent in the 20th century
> was freedom. Free markets, free speech, free elections, free minds.
>
> The freedom to innovate and succeed or fail;the freedom to be accountable
> for one's decisions and actions; the freedom to take the lonely path
> less traveled that often led nowhere but sometimes led to rich hidden
> treasures and unexpected vistas that inspired and motivated entrepreneurs
> and inventors and liberators.
>
> When America stopped exporting freedom because its Bosses no longer
> believed in it and its reigning elites began to import collectivism
> , class warfare and contempt for entrepreneurship and middle class
> values, then the moral and intellectual balance of trade turned against
> the USA and continues to worsen by the month.
>
> The worse the moral and intellectual balance the more debased and
> devalued becomes the polity. This devaluation is now being made tangible
> in the disgrace of the dollar( from as sound as the dollar to as
> fake as a dollar....), in the glorification of entitlements and instant
> gratification, in the mutilation of markets and institutions, in
> the accelerating corruption of the US Regime and in eroding civil
> society. As the moral and intellectual net worth of America is depleted
> so is its capacity to create real wealth and enduring competitive
> advantage.
>
> America cannot "be" Europe or Asia : it can only "be" itself; either
> much worse than Europe or Asia, which is the present trajectory or
> far, far, better which is what a rediscovery of liberty and the truths
> of the Constitution will lead to.
>
> Yes, there is a depression but it is a moral and intellectual one.
> Unless faced and cured, it will surely become a social and economic
> one. This depression is from within and from within may come the
> cure and restoration.
>
> No contender is defeating America the Champion; it is defeating itself.
> Greed, vanity, deceit is what the US Regime now gorges itself on
> every day.......This is not the breakfast of champions.

Ron Paul's audit-the-Fed measure makes it out of committee with the power to look at the central bank's balance sheet as well as monetary policy. The panel chose Paul's proposal over a weaker one offered by Mel Watt; it joins the other proposals in the bank reform package now set for a Dec. 1 vote.

OMG! The generation of fake U.S. money and how it is created out of thin air will be exposed.

Big Banks: The Consensus Is Cracking

Capatilism is failing precisely because mega monopolies are allowed to exist, reducing their need to compete in the market, while creating an impossible playing field for their competitors. The idiotic "too big to fail" lunacy reduces these worthless giant's need to compete to ZERO! Even a kid can see that a monoply game rigged toward one player (like, a rule that Joey is not allowed to lose) while the other three players have to compete with him, has a pre-determined winner. When you end the rewarding of those that produce the best product or service for the best price, it is the end of capitalism and prosperity.

The Economic Recovery That Isn't

Peter, excellent article. But, there aren't enough influencial people that are listening and those that do listen don't like reality. Your main point that job creation and real recovery go hand in hand, is simply falling on deaf ears. In time, however, what you have said will become painfully obvious.

Brazil Catches a Bid

In addition to economic trends, the outward hostility (basically a war) between the two U.S. politcal parties (one of parties actually cheering that we lost the Olympics because it looks bad for Obama) does not indicate a good future. Simply put, the U.S. is going downhill in too many ways, and Brazil is going uphill in lots of ways.

The Future of Banking

Many large banks are insolvent. Simple solution. They should close and sell what assets they have and divide what they get with bondholders and shareholders. I have owned a small business in a major city for 25 years. If I had run it irresponsibly and taken extreme risks and lost, I would have to close it, sell the assets, and pay off as many liabilities as I could. So, when exactly did the capitalist system in the U.S. CHANGE and decide that after a certain size, government allows you to operate a useless zombie enterprise forever? Just curious.

Case-Shiller's Recent Strength: It's Not Just Seasonality

I'm skeptical whether we've reached a point of stabilization in housing prices. But, I do believe there is more inherent value in housing than the market is currently indicating. Housing is down to the level it is today only because people can't pay their mortages. Stocks, by contrast, are overpriced because buyers have lost the sense that stocks have to eventually produce real net returns, like profits and dividends, rather than phoney accounting entries, more debt, and glowing reports by paid cheer leaders. On Main Street things look dismal, which is probably the most accurate reading of the real economy. Just some thoughts.

Funding FDIC: Why Banks Should Pay

I would just opine that since the public put up hundreds of billions of dollars for banks to reward them for their gross incompetence over the past twenty years, that the banks should now show their gratitude by screwing the public even more. Charge the public a percentage per month of their savings balances to pay for the FDIC insurance to cover their own accounts. Why not? Lobbyists run the government, so why should anyone care about voter (or bank customer) opinions?

Doug Kass Bearish on Equities

I have owned and operated a small business in a major city for 25 years. I would only say that looking UP through the economy from main street, like I view it, is far different from looking DOWN through the economy from Wall Street. I don't believe more money for banking conglomerates, more large corporate mergers, more glowing stock market BS, more loans for business large and small, more leverage, more exotic financial instruments, or magic Wall Street tricks are going to fix anything. I would suggest the financial gurus start looking at the economy from the botom up, instead of the top down, and be prepared for a major shock.

Leveraged ETFs: New Source of Systemic Risk

Too much leverage is what created the world Ponzi economy and brought it crashing down. Leveraged ETF's should be either be outlawed or offered only by casinos. Casinos could offer a 100 to 1 leveraged ETF for example (why fool around with a 3X leveraged ETF). But, the stock market should be restricted to responsible investment instruments.

On Apr 20 02:47 PM Whippet wrote:

> Jolly Rancher- I take it that you would agree with the statement
> that "the gun killed the man, not the shooter." Leveraged ETFs, used
> properly, are a wonderful way to hedge risk or pick up swings on
> a short term basis. Especially as a short element of IRAs- you could
> have watched your retirement savings grow instead of helplessly deteriorate
> if you hedged properly with these instruments. The constant leverage
> trap takes care of fools who use them as buy and hold investments.
> Margin laws regard using leverage to buy/sell stock positions; no
> more, no less. These instruments use options, futures, and margin
> to create vehicles that legally perform a specific function.
>
> To say these create market-wide systemic risk is absurd. In that
> case, throw all the institutional quants out on the street yesterday-
> their effects are orders of magnitude higher on the overall markets.
> Leveraged ETFs actually give the little guy a chance to have skin
> in the game- albeit skin he can very easily lose. Whatever happened
> to caveat emptor?

The Seduction of America

I agree. I also believe the monopoly problem goes deeper than just the banking industry. Free markets and relatively fair markets require rules of the game to be established and enforced. If you establish real competition in a capitalst game with free and fair markets, smart regulation instead of corrupt lobbyist induced regulation, and constant monitoring to stop monopolistic practices (both old methods and new high tech methods), I believe most economic problems would eventually disappear. Just an opinion.

On Apr 19 10:15 AM derryl wrote:

> John,
> Great article. A few weeks ago a former chief economist of the IMF
> published an article warning of the excessive influence of bankers/Wall
> St on US government policy. His conclusion was that these extremely
> rich people were manipulating the political system to get even richer,
> at the expense of the interests of the nation as a whole.
>
> I see a couple of comments claiming you are guilty of envy of 'successful'
> people. If some group (bankers) enjoys such power that they can hijack
> government policy to enrich themselves without producing anything
> of value for the economy, it is not 'envy' to denounce this. If socialists
> hijack the US agenda and implement fiscally unaffordable universal
> health care, would you be guilty of 'envy' for denouncing these unearned
> benefits which some are given at the expense of others?
>
> In 1848 Karl Marx noted that 'capitalism tends inevitably toward
> monopoly'. In the tradition of Adam Smith I think what we want is
> not 'capitalism' per se but free enterprise. Enterprise cannot be
> free and competitive in a monopoly environment If some relatively
> small group gains control of the monetary apparatus and concentrates
> economic power in a few hands, this is not free enterprise but oligarchy
> and tyranny.
>
> Since the beginning the Founding Fathers have warned against this
> development, against the 'European banking powers' (Benjamin Franklin's
> term) who seek to control the issue of nations' money and thereby
> own and control the nation. A democratic republic has the right and
> duty to limit the concentration of the nation's wealth in too few
> hands, because overconcentration chokes out real economic development
> and a free market distribution of incomes.
>
> Mammon, the god of capital, is not the god of free enterprise. We
> do not need to honor this false god by surrendering our economy to
> the clutches of Money.

Why Felix Should Walk Away

Felix, few people would actually share a REAL story like this -- so I congratulate you. The financial institutions have zero morality and they would take advantage of you in a heartbeat if they could make money on it. Capitalism works by pushing morality down to the 90% of the population, while they themselves cut people off at the knees for a profit using the excuse that, "they are just following business practices," or some such BS. Capitalism works OK (I own a business myself), but a business is not a moral organization. It only creates a lot of PR so the population BELIEVES it has some moral obligation. My suggestion is to do what is best for YOU just as the corporation will always do what is best for it. But, wharever you do, don't quit writing articles. Yours are some of the best.

The Unintended Consequences of Levying a .25% Stock Transaction Tax

Thanks for the comment, but I not sure that mutual funds really need to trade as much as they do. Some financial experts suggest they are churning stocks, receiving some form of gratuity from brokerages for their excessive trading. Look at how many of the funds do worse than the Dow or S&P averages (a shorter list is those that do better that the averages). ETF's don't trade much except when they initially buy or change their index. They seem to do as well as the mutual funds although that would be strongly debated by mutual funds. Just some thoughts.

On Feb 26 12:49 PM GeminiAtlas wrote:

> These guys in congress sure can think things through, now can't they?
>
> Are they thinking of all the mutual funds, pension plans, etc who
> have to actively manage their portfolios? And the folks those funds
> represent?
> They want the markets to go back up, right? Less trading will make
> things "murkier" as price discovery works better with more trading,
> in my current understanding, tell me if I am wrong. Less trading
> will make the markets more "clunkier" if that is a technical term.

The Unintended Consequences of Levying a .25% Stock Transaction Tax

Ron, I respectfully disagree. First, let me say that stock trades are already down 60 to 80% using online trading, versus the older phone-call-to-your broker trades 20 years or so ago. So, a quarter of a percent on, say, a $10,000 trade, would be $25. That won't kill anyone. Of course on 10 million dollar trades it would cost $25,000 if there is no cut-off point. So, those with $10 million to trade will just have to pay. The tax will also discourage excessive trading which would likely be a good thing since too much speculation is what often brings markets down. While, I don't like taxes, someone always gets hit when new taxes are sought. And, this time around the haves, rather than the have nots, will have to pay more.

Lessons for the U.S. Banking Authorities

It is true that there have been a number of cycles of transfer of massive wealth from the working people to Wall Street during economic "crises". And a number of wealthy always get caught up in this also. The Bush tax cuts were an attempt to do this slowly with its philosophy of "trickle up" economics. But, once the house of cards created by the parasites began imploding, grabbing everything possible and having government contribute working people's money to the pot, became urgent. I think it is pretty obvious right now the game of bankers is to confuse everyone, drag the crises out as long as possible, while they rob the bank shareholders and fools (or accomplices) in government, using the "bonus scam" and other means of grand larceny. The public stands by while the theft goes on, unable to do anything about it.


On Feb 23 06:00 PM pimpjui wrote:

> The issue of banks being nationalized or not is not really relevant
> to the main topic, which is: the transfer of wealth from working
> people to Wall Street. This is what is happening, and it's happening
> because that is the natural way things have worked for the history
> of our great nation. I can name 4 different transfers of wealth from
> 1970 to the present (e.g. oil crisis 1970's, S&L fiasco '80's,
> dot.com bust, sub-prime). If I go back to the begining of the country's
> history, I suspect I could find 20 or so. Today, the banker parasites
> will continue to milk this taxpayer cash cow for as long as they
> can. Nationalization has not occured becuase it would become painfully
> obvious that the people running the banks are doing nothing (and
> have been lying and/or doing something illegal). This would mean
> firing the parasites/criminals. When banks become nationalized, you
> can be rest assured that the US government will have been milked
> so dry, that it will be more beneficial for the banker parasites
> to simply quit. That's the telltale sign. Look for it. I suspect
> that it will occur when bankers have to accept government employee
> wages (i.e. nationalization), or when massive infaltion and stagnating
> wages (including for bankers) destroys any incentive to hang on--this
> is coming soon, or when it becomes obvious to the public that the
> bankers are doing something illegal (e.g. lying, again, about profits,
> etc).