Peter Blane


Ben, Shut Up

Posted in 1 by wusspett on October 23, 2009

Ben Bernanke is in front of congress opening his mouth again.  His perogative is still to have “regulation reform” for the “financial system”.  Let’s go with the main points:

  • Congress to have a way to “wind down” to-big-to-fail companies paid through an assessment on the financial industry, not by taxpayers
  • The Obama Administration proposed expanding the power of the Fed.
  • Bernanke wants more protection for consumers to help nurture this “budding recovery”.

First of all, since when is GDP a flower?

Anyway, I think there is merit to what Ben is saying.  We need to not be idiots and follow the rules that are already in place.  Where I disagree is the amount of new rules he and the government are proposing.  Would we be in this severe situation if AIG hadn’t insured highly risky derivatives?  Probably not would be my guess.  Just don’t put all your eggs in one basket!  Done. You don’t need more rules.  If the SEC is doing their job – which they don’t do a lot (Madoff) – and the Fed is doing their job – enacting monetary policy (not proposing new legislation) – and the government is doing its job (do you really need an example?) then the rest will fall into place.

But, since no one wants to do their job and no one wants to own up to anything or pay for the consequences, we (the U.S. Citizens) are stuck hearing reports about new policies that will “protect” us from making bad decisions.  Yes, they want to make sure we don’t make bad decisions.  I mean, who else would these rules apply to?  The banks have OUR money.  The banks are run by US.  These proposed laws will effect YOU and ME.  What should be happening is the SEC and Fed and the Government get new rules imposed by US to regulate THEM.  I think that would nurture this budding recovery.

Matt Costa

Posted in 1 by wusspett on October 21, 2009

That title is funny to me because Matt Costa wrote a song called “Sunshine“.  The reason that I think it’s funny is because Senate bill 604 is referred to as the Sunshine Act (or the Transparency Act in the House of Reps – 1207).

If you’re not familiar with Ron Paul, you may not be aware there is actually a representative in Washington D.C. not acting like a child with our money.  Ron Paul presented H.R. 1207 to Congress proposing to audit the Federal Reserve:

The crucial issue of Federal Reserve transparency requires an analysis of 31 USC 714, the section of US Code which establishes that the Federal Reserve may be audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), but which simultaneously severely restricts what the GAO may in fact audit.

Currently the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is supposed to do the auditing of the Federal Reserve.  The GAO has some limitations, and, thus, cannot report or keep track of any of the following:

  1. transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;
  2. deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations
  3. transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
  4. a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)-(3) of this subsection of US Code.

So, if this Sunshine Act were to be passed, the Federal Reserve would be audited on the above 4 points for THE FIRST TIME EVER.  Check out the below video.  The Federal Reserve can’t seem to keep track of any of our money.  If you listen, Elizabeth Coleman essentially denies her job description.  Try and make it through this 5 minute clip without getting mad.

Alan Grayson (D-FA) questions Federal Reserve Inspector General

economic recovery?

Posted in economy by wusspett on October 8, 2009

Peter Schiff continues to put to words what I cannot.

“For those market boosters who are prattling on about the possibility of a “jobless recovery,” I offer an invitation to join me for a breakfast of “fat-free bacon,” “eggless omelets,” and “no-carb bread.” As unappetizing as such a meal may sound, it would nevertheless offer more substance than the oxymoronic concept of an economic resurgence without job creation.”

Are we going to recover soon? This guy doesn’t think so

“The U.S. economy is starting on its second dive into a deflationary spiral, towards what could be labeled as a new great (global) depression.”

Peter Schiff mentions that a recovery without new jobs is a false recovery.  Here’s what the WallStreet Journal reports:

“Unemployment in the U.S. threatens to slow — and some fear derail — the economy’s recovery from recession.”

IMF

Posted in 1 by wusspett on October 5, 2009

This article is all I’m concerned with today as it covers a number of issues.

The main interviewee in this article by Gordon Isfeld is IMF Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.  I would like to at least give Jim credit for his tone.   In my opinion, he sounds like he’s trying to communicate what he does to a classroom of children on career day.  The reason I’m giving him credit is because this is largely the case.  A lot of people have no idea what all he does or why it’s important – it just sounds important – and that’s how people with no skills and a great resume get into the work force (different article required; for now let’s stay with Jim).

Jim mentions, at 2 different points, 2 things I find interesting.  Firstly

“Confronted with the biggest threat to the global economy in 70 years, many countries took extraordinary measures to protect both their economies and citizens from economic collapse.”

Secondly

“But we’re going to see a lag. We’re going to see joblessness lag the recovery of the economy.  That’s always happened during a recession in modern times, so we have to expect that, and that’s why we have to continue stimulating the economy.”

Now, right away, why do we need the IMF at all then?  He didn’t say how the IMF helped other countries, he said what they did.  He also is saying what the IMF will do – future tense.  So, what’s the selling point here?

Then Jimbo says this:

“The IMF is a member-based institution, and if members do not take their responsibilities seriously, it does not matter if the IMF is legitimate or credible. It still will not be effective. The fund membership needs to improve its record of responding to and implementing IMF policy advice.”

Hahahaha, man what I would give to have that job!  So far, it sounds like the IMF’s members were lazy, good-for-nothin’s that gave bad advice.  I could be both serious and advise effectively.