Skip to main content

Is the true extent of the status quo's looting of U.S. taxpayers about to be spelled out to the general public in black and white this week?  See: "Fed Program to Spur Loans May Start With Few Deals."

Over the next few days, this is all going to get very, very clear...at least to anyone that bothers to pay attention.

The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve are "about to announce"  (they've been talking about this for many months) a massive Wall Street "bad bank" plan that is, effectively, nothing more than a recycled, $2 trillion-plus, Bush administration taxpayer giveaway to the very entities and individuals that created our economic freak show in the first place. (And, we may have reached a tipping point where even the MSM may no longer be mincing words about these truths.) They are still spinning this like it's new information when little could be farther from the truth. See: "Geithner Says He'll Soon Offer Details on Toxic-Asset Cleanup."

The details, for the most part, were "offered" back in the Fall. It's pretty much the same plan as it was then.

Among other monickers, actually all designed to do little more than confuse the public, they're calling it the "Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility ("TALF"). The New York Federal Reserve Bank--by far and away the most powerful entity in our nation's economy--within the Federal Reserve System will run the program, and it will start distributing funds from it as of March 25th, according to the article link at the very top of this diary.

The problem with all of this is that the Federal Reserve System is broken. But, more about that later.

Most people aren't aware of the reality that the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks within the Federal Reserve System, like all 25 of the Federal Reserve System Branches, are actually owned by the banks headquartered within the Branch's trading area. In the case of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, that means that Wall Street, for all intents and purposes, owns the New York Federal Reserve Branch.

As an FYI, here's a list of the 19 current "Primary Member-Dealers" in the Federal Reserve System. These are the biggest players in the U.S. when it comes to buying and selling U.S.-backed paper. If this list looks familiar to anyone, that would be due to the reality that these folks comprise the lion's share of the widely-circulated counterparties' lists of 20-25 entities that have received most of the AIG bailout money over the past few months, too:


Primary Dealers

A primary dealer is a bank or securities broker-dealer that may trade directly with the Federal Reserve System of the United States.[47] They are required to make bids or offers when the Fed conducts open market operations, provide information to the Fed's open market trading desk, and to participate actively in U.S. Treasury securities auctions.[48] They consult with both the U.S. Treasury and the Fed about funding the budget deficit and implementing monetary policy. Many former employees of primary dealers work at the Treasury, because of their expertise in the government debt markets, though the Fed avoids a similar revolving door policy. [4] [5]

Between them, these dealers purchase the vast majority of the U.S. Treasury securities (T-bills, T-notes, and T-bonds) sold at auction, and resell them to the public. Their activities extend well beyond the Treasury market, for example, according to the Wall Street Journal Europe (2/9/06 p. 20), all of the top ten dealers in the foreign exchange market are also primary dealers, and between them account for almost 73% of forex trading volume. Arguably, this group's members are the most influential and powerful non-governmental institutions in world financial markets.

The primary dealers form a worldwide network that distributes new U.S. government debt. For example, Daiwa Securities and Mizuho Securities distribute the debt to Japanese buyers. BNP Paribas, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, and RBS Greenwich Capital (a division of the Royal Bank of Scotland) distribute the debt to European buyers. Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup account for many American buyers. Nevertheless, most of these firms compete internationally and in all major financial centers.

Current list of primary dealers

As of February 11, 2009 according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York the list includes:

    * BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
    * Bank of America Securities LLC
    * Barclays Capital Inc.
    * Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
    * Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
    * Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
    * Daiwa Securities America Inc.
    * Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
    * Dresdner Kleinwort Securities LLC.
    * Goldman, Sachs & Co.
    * Greenwich Capital Markets Inc.
    * HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
    * J. P. Morgan Securities Inc.
    * Mizuho Securities USA Inc.
    * Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
    * UBS Securities LLC.

Three notable changes to the list have occurred in 2008. Countrywide Securities Corporation was removed on July 15 due to its acquisition by Bank of America. Lehman Brothers Inc. was removed on September 22 due to bankruptcy. Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. was removed from the list on October 1 due to its acquisition by J.P. Morgan Chase. On February 11, 2009, Merrill Lynch Government Securities Inc. was removed from the list due to its acquisition by Bank of America.

It would not be a stretch to say that these are the most influential players when it comes to the management of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, as well. (No coincidence there.) Personally, I would go as far as to say that when you use the term, "Wall Street," it's these folks first, and then everyone else there is a distant second.

Essentially, what the government is doing (technically they're "proposing to do this" but they really don't need anyone's authorization) is allowing hedge funds--many of which are owned and operated by the very individuals that created our international economic nightmares--and "other investors" within our "shadow banking system" to buy distressed bank assets (many/most sellers being from the list above), almost entirely at taxpayer expense.

We're talking about people like John Paulson, CEO of Paulson and Company (not to be confused with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson), who almost singlehandedly brought down the British banking industry last year. It's also folks such as Stanford Kurland, Angelo Mozilo's number two guy at Countrywide Financial, perhaps the entity that originated more toxic mortgages than any other.

In a very underregulated environment, our government let them make a pantload of money going up. And, on the backs of taxpayers now--and still in a grossly underregulated environment--they fully intend to subsidize these same individuals coming down.

The government intends to "loan" 85 to 94 cents on every dollar of every purchase made by hedge funds and other investors, so that they may then buy "toxic trash for cash" (those are Joseph Stiglitz' words, not mine) from U.S. banks and other Wall Street firms.  (See list above.)

There is little or no downside for these "investors." That's because these "loans" really aren't "loans." Their risk has been mitigated by you, the American taxpayer. The government, via the Treasury Department and/or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), is "insuring" virtually every other cent of every investor's purchase.

In other words, these funds and investors may pay Wall Street up to 100 cents on every dollar--or whatever Wall Street wants for their trash--with no concern whatsoever about incurring a loss because the government is saying to the buyers: "You cannot lose money; we will make you whole no matter what."

These are all facts. And, these facts fly in the face of virtually every Progressive economist's advice on the planet.

If there's one thing positive to say about this matter, it's that it's now self-evident, from a contextual standpoint, why Treasury Secretary Geithner has appeared so "vague" about the matter over the past seven or eight weeks,  since President Obama's been in office. We're talking about a "solution" which has barely evolved since it was first announced by the Bush administration months ago; it's one that's more akin to merely sticking the $2 trillion+ under a massive playing card, and placing two cards next to it while our government plays three-card monty with the press and the U.S. taxpayer ever since. This game's been going on for quite a few months, as is evident just in Wikipedia's explanation of the TALF program (see link above), which they peg as having commenced around Thanksgiving '08:


Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility

The Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) is the name of a program created by the US Federal Reserve (the Fed), announced on November 25, 2008[1]. The facility will support the issuance of asset-backed securities (ABS) collateralized by student loans, auto loans, credit card loans, and loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Under the TALF, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) will lend up to $200 billion on a non-recourse basis to holders of certain AAA-rated ABS backed by newly and recently originated consumer and small business loans.

Purpose

The Fed explained the reasoning behind the TALF as follows:

New issuance of ABS declined precipitously in September and came to a halt in October. At the same time, interest rate spreads on AAA-rated tranches of ABS soared to levels well outside the range of historical experience, reflecting unusually high risk premiums. The ABS markets historically have funded a substantial share of consumer credit and SBA-guaranteed small business loans. Continued disruption of these markets could significantly limit the availability of credit to households and small businesses and thereby contribute to further weakening of U.S. economic activity. The TALF is designed to increase credit availability and support economic activity by facilitating renewed issuance of consumer and small business ABS at more normal interest rate spreads.

In short, this is neither "new" or "about to be announced."

This program has been set in stone since last Fall. Even the latest words on Bloomberg.com tacitly acknowledge this. Much of it is right here (link available at the very top of this diary):


 Fed Program to Spur Loans May Start With Few Deals
Scott Lanman and Sarah Mulholland

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve's program to revive the market for securities backed by consumer loans may start with just a handful of deals, according to participants in the preparations, delaying its prospects of easing the credit crunch.

--SNIP--

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is counting on the so- called TALF, a joint program with the Fed, to expand to as much as $1 trillion to unfreeze credit markets. Any sign of failure of the effort may leave lenders less willing to boost lending for everything from car purchases to farming equipment.

--SNIP--

...The New York Fed is administering the program, which was announced in November....Under the TALF, investors such as hedge funds would borrow $84 to $95 from the Fed for every $100 in ABS posted as collateral, meaning they will put up $5 to $16 of their own capital, depending on the type of security...

The reality is this is being further supported with ongoing TARP  (not to be confused, as much as they'd like us to be confused, with "TALF") fund money, which is--except for $100 billion--being used "elsewhere." (Provided to Wall Street via other means.)

A $500 billion program is also being put in place at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as it was just "announced" by Messrs. Geithner and Bernanke, as well as FDIC head Sheila Bair over the past couple of weeks.  The FDIC is, essentially, just an extension of the Treasury Department, and not really much of a "bank-funded insurance program," as it was intended to be when it was first established by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930's. Effectively, it's just another means by which the government may extend credit to banks. Read about that here: "FDIC to Guarantee Bank Debt That Converts Into Equity."


FDIC to Guarantee Bank Debt That Converts Into Equity
By Gabrielle Coppola and Jody Shenn

Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. plans to back new debt sold by banks that would later convert into common shares in an expansion of its Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program.

Under the interim rule approved today at an FDIC board meeting, the agency's backing will be available to senior unsecured debt that converts into shares no later than the guarantee's expiration, which can last through June 30, 2012.

"This modification will give institutions greater flexibility to attract longer-term sources of funding that otherwise may be unavailable in today's distressed funding markets," FDIC financial analyst Steve Burton said today.

But, getting back to TALF,  and adding insult to injury, according to the Bloomberg article, the TALF's "$200 billion first phase would finance AAA rated securities" for car loans, student loans, credit cards and small businesses. What this tells us is that those without "AAA" credit, or just about everyone in the U.S. with a FICO score under 720 (which comprises roughly 2/3 of the U.S. consumer public, which is mostly comprised of folks that also pay their bills, by the way), will see little benefit from this effort. In other words, as the consumer credit markets have retrenched here in the U.S., this does little or nothing to credit-enable the majority of the consumer public, where the median FICO score is 678.

One of many realities here is a statement noted in this article made by Geithner at a Senate Budget Committee hearing a few weeks ago:


...the effort "goes around the banking system to try to get the securities markets working again."

The facts are, the money ends up in the hands of the banking system and Wall Street. (See the list of firms, above, with regard to who's been in receipt of most of the funds from most of these programs, all along.) Period. So, it's little wonder that we're confused; our Senators and Congressmen are being grossly victimized by Geithner's double-speak, as well.

And, as this historical travesty becomes clearer and clearer, the closer we get to seeing it play out, we now have an acknowledgement in the press that the hedge funds and other potential investors in the "TALF" are really the ones controlling and rewriting the actual rules of these transactions in conjunction with Wall Street--because they are Wall Street more now than ever--as well. If you had any doubts about  this, also from the March 13th Bloomberg article:


The Managed Funds Association, the main trade group for hedge funds, circulated a "fact sheet" on March 11 outlining 15 concerns of its members with a customer agreement provided by primary dealers, the 16 brokers who trade with the New York Fed's markets desk and help the central bank implement monetary policy...

...Attorneys for the dealers revised the contract, though many investors hadn't signed off on the terms, one participant said on condition of anonymity.

On top of this, three more very disturbing facts:

DISTURBING FACT #1: All the bloviating we're hearing about executive compensation is really just that.

While the papers are loaded with spin about how we're "clamping down" on all those executive pay raises, the truth about the TALF is exactly the opposite of this bogus hype:


Fed Eliminates Compensation Limits for TALF Program
By Scott Lanman

March 3 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury eliminated executive-compensation limits for companies that bundle loans accepted under a new $1 trillion program, indicating the rules may have hampered efforts to start the plan.

The rules won't apply to the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility out of "desire to encourage market participants to stimulate credit formation and utilize the facility," the New York Fed said in a document on its Web site today. The government separately said it will expand the TALF to support vehicle-fleet leases and loans for business, construction and farm equipment.

The change suggests the government doesn't intend to apply compensation limits beyond firms that receive direct investments from the Treasury's $700 billion bailout fund. Officials have yet to announce whether such requirements will be imposed on firms participating in a separate effort to remove as much as $1 trillion of distressed assets from banks' balance sheets.

"Just like salesmen toward the end of the month get kind of worried if they're not meeting their quota, the Federal Reserve has got to worry," former Fed monetary-affairs director Vincent Reinhart said. Today's moves are "an attempt to make the facility more accommodating," said Reinhart, now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

DISTURBING FACT #2: In addition to the reality that these programs only accommodate the credit needs of the top third of our population, at best, the truth is that much of our consumer credit infrastructure has been all but eliminated--downright gutted--in the past few months.

Citigroup's CitiFinancial unit, HSBC, GE,  Wells Fargo, AIG's American General consumer finance business, Bank of America, American Express and many other firms have simply walked away, or are planning to walk away, from many--or most--of their retail lending initiatives over the past few months and into the near future. Read about it right here: "Depression Daily News: Geithner Clueless; Main St. Loses Again."

DISTURBING FACT #3: We tried this before. It didn't work! All we ended up with was a Federal Reserve Bank in New York, with $1.087.8 trillion dollars in it as of January 21, 2009, as opposed to the NY Fed's balance a year earlier, $311.9 billion as of January 23, 2008. In other words, Wall Street kept much of our government's bailout money right where it was, but under their respective names, on account at the New York Fed.  The NY Fed Bank had approximately $776 billion more on account from member banks six weeks ago than it had a year prior to that. (See Chart within Federal Reserve System Wiki link at beginning of this paragraph.) And, the kicker? The NY Fed Bank was actually distributing interest on these initial government bailout payments to the entities that received them, too. (Again, see William Greider's article in the March 30th edition of The Nation:  Fixing the Fed.")


In a shocking new arrangement, the Fed, with approval from Congress, has started to pay interest to the banks on their reserves. The commercial banks already enjoyed privileges and protections from the government that were unavailable to any other business sector. Now they insist on getting paid for their public subsidy.

In case you were wondering where all that taxpayer money was going--knowing that it never made it back into the consumer credit marketplace--now you know. The banks determined it was not in their best interests to add liquidity to the consumer marketplace at the time--despite protestations from both the Bush and Obama White Houses--but to just sit on this bailout money and have it earn interest as it lay parked at the NY Federal Reserve Bank, as it has for the most part up until today.

So, what's our government's solution? Well, since the first plan didn't work (because Wall Street didn't cooperate with us; and there are numerous stories about this throughout the MSM in 2008 and into this year, too), they're now going to throw much MORE money at them via an intermediary, the very underregulated "shadow banking system."

Yes, it's all about to get very, very clear to the general public. The Federal Reserve is out of control--more accurately it no longer controls the lion's share of activity in our economy which now occurs in our virtually unregulated "shadow banking system," which is comprised of hedge funds owned and managed by the very folks who exploited our system to play Russian Roulette with toxic investment vehicles.

As the articles linked above tell us, the proposed cures for this mess were orignally devised back in October and November of 2008, and then implementation of them commenced with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson working alongside Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, who (at the time) was working in conjunction with the director of the most powerful--by far and away--Fed Reserve Bank of New York Branch, our current U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

And, here we are today, concluding these Bush policies with the very same folks that initiated them--but at much greater funding levels than even they envisioned--a few months ago.

What's wrong with this picture? Just about everything!

Contrary to what we're being told by Larry Summers, this Depression is not just a frame of mind! There are many, many reasons as to why we should be asking the question: [http://www.prospect.org/...
Are things about to get "Worse than 1929?"]

As author, Boston Globe columnist, distinguished Progressive economist and urban planner Robert Kuttner now tells us, referring to what he's now calling "The Great Collapse," there are three things that are very different now than they were in 1929:

1.) When the stock market crashed in 1929, the banks were relatively healthy.


In the aftermath of the crash of 2008, the process of sorting it all out and getting banks functioning again is something that markets simply cannot do.

We are not even clear who owns what. The wise guys on Wall Street invented a doomsday machine from which there is no market escape.

In 1929 when the stock market crashed, the banking system was relatively healthy. Bank customers played these speculative games and took the losses, not banks. This time, the banks drank their own Kool-Aid.

2.) Roosevelt's biggest peacetime deficit was only about six percent of Gross Domestic Product ("GDP").


 This year, the deficit will exceed 11 percent, and the recession will deepen all year. It took the truly massive deficits of World War II -- nearly 30 percent of GDP -- to finally end the Great Depression.

3.) We're a debtor nation now. In 1929, we were a major international creditor.


In 1933, we could go off the gold standard, not hold the dollar hostage to international currency trading, and concentrate on domestic recovery. If foreign currency traders feared that deficits would cause a drop in the value of the dollar, they didn't matter because we didn't owe them anything. This time, we have to worry about keeping their confidence. (The only reason why the dollar is holding its value is that the euro, for now, looks even shakier, and the Japanese and Chinese are resisting letting their currencies appreciate -- but that could also change.)

After reading this, you may have come to the same conclusion I have: a lot of our problems go back to the "broken" Federal Reserve System in this country. And, in conclusion, I'd like to bring your attention to that article by author William Greider in the March 30th edition of The Nation: "Fixing the Fed."

It's nothing short of an amazing piece, in terms of getting real historical context of what's occurring right now with regard to Bernanke and Geithner.

History is very much repeating itself.

You see, from a historical perspective, the Federal Reserve screwed up massively in 1929 and 1930, behaving almost exactly like they are right now, by responding too conservatively, and in a manner much like they are now, too--one which myopically protected Wall Street's big money interests, perhaps at the expense of just about everything else.

Greider tells us to follow the wisdom of Boston University economist Jane D'Arista.


Congress and the Obama administration face an excruciating dilemma. To restore the crippled financial system, they are told, they must put up still more public money--hundreds of billions more--to rescue the largest banks and investment houses from failure. Even the dimmest politicians realize that this will further inflame the public's anger. People everywhere grasp that there is something morally wrong about bailing out the malefactors who caused this catastrophe. Yet we are told we have no choice. Unless taxpayers assume the losses for the largest financial institutions by buying their rotten assets, the banking industry will not resume normal lending and, therefore, the economy cannot recover.

This is a false dilemma. Other choices are available. Throwing more public money at essentially insolvent banks is like giving blood transfusions to a corpse and hoping for Lazarus--or, as banking analyst Christopher Whalen puts it, pouring water into a bucket with a hole in the bottom. So far Washington has poured nearly $300 billion into the bucket, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has suggested it may take another $1 trillion or more to complete the banks' resurrection. The president has budgeted $750 billion for the task. Morality aside, that sounds nutty.

Here is a very different way to understand the problem: to restore the broken financial system, Washington has to fix the Federal Reserve. Though this is not widely understood, the central bank has lost its ability to govern the credit system--the nation's overall lending and borrowing. The Fed's control mechanisms have been severely undermined by a generation of deregulation and tricky innovations that have substantially shifted credit functions from traditional banks to lightly regulated financial markets. When the Fed tried to apply its old tools, starting in the 1980s, the credit system perversely produced opposite results--an explosion of debt the policy-makers could not restrain. In its present condition, the Fed may even make things worse....

...In this crisis the central bank has so far flooded credit markets and financial institutions with trillions of dollars in new liquidity and loan guarantees, which may help to stabilize credit markets. But the Fed has been unable to engineer what the economy desperately needs--renewed lending to companies and consumers that can finance renewed growth. The confused purpose of monetary policy stands in the way. The Fed could not restrain credit expansion when it was exploding, and now it cannot stimulate credit expansion when it is frozen.

This analysis is drawn from the work of Jane D'Arista, a reform-minded economist and retired professor with a deep conceptual understanding of money and credit. (Read her recent essay, "Setting an Agenda for Monetary Reform.")

In her essay, D'Arista tells us that we won't fix anything if we don't effectively regulate the grossly unregulated shadow banking system first. I'd strongly suggest you read Greider's complete article and Ms. D'Arista's essay which is linked to it. It's powerful stuff.

In the meantime, in 10 days, with a total lack of regulatory control unaddressed in this regard, whatsoever, we're going to give that very shadow banking sector access to up to $2 trillion, or more, in taxpayer funds? That is tantamount to what is nothing less than free reign over what may very well turn out to be the last large chunk of taxpayer cash available to address our nation's current economic crisis.

It is nothing less than insanity. But, then again, so was this:  "TARP Oversight Panel Says It's Been Ignored By Geithner and Paulson."

Once more, and for what may be the last time--because after this there really may be nothing left--I invoke Albert Einstein's definition of the word: "The definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result."

Originally posted to http://www.dailykos.com/user/bobswern on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:38 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Yes (12+ / 0-)

      Excellent diary.

      I am firmly of the opinion that the human race is barking mad. Every last one of us, including me.

      Would you like another disturbing fact?

      The Size of Derivatives Bubble = $190K Per Person on Planet

      That's 1.44 QUADRILLION

      Whilst outstanding derivatives are notional amounts until they are crystallised, actual exposure is measured by the net credit equivalent. This is normally a lower figure unless many variables plot a locus in the wrong direction simultaneously. This could be because of catastrophic unpredictable events, ie, "Black Swans", such as cascades of bankruptcies and nationalisations, when the net exposure can balloon and become considerably larger or indeed because some extremely dislocating geo-political or geo-physical events take place simultaneously. Also, the notional value becomes real value when either counterparty to the OTC derivative goes bankrupt. This means that no large OTC derivative house can be allowed to go broke without falling into the arms of another. Whatever funds within reason are required to rescue failing international investment banks, deposit banks and financial entities ought to be provided on a case by case basis. This is the asymmetric nature of derivatives and here lies the potential for systemic risk to the global economic system and financial markets if nothing is done.

      via boingboing

      Excuse me while I go huddle in a corner.

      There's nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight - Lon Chaney

      by MnplsLiberal on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:18:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  government (5+ / 0-)

      of the (rich) people,

      by the (rich) people,

      and for the (rich) people.

      Not quite what Lincoln said, but we voted for "change", eh ? ? ?

    •  Excellent Example of "Fact-Based" (5+ / 0-)

      I just wish it weren't so. Now tell me, how am I'm gonna be able to sleep tonight?

      Hope this makes the rec list.

      After having a POTUS who couldn't watch TV and eat a pretzel at the same time, it's great to have one who can.

      by OnlyWords on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:55:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So Wall Street and the Banks have a gun to (3+ / 0-)

      our heads.  We are being held hostage in our own country by these crooks.  We are being blackmailed yet again, by the Federal Reserve.  Thanks for the diary.  Very illuminating.  Now I will know without a doubt that whenever I hear any member of Congress 'pretend' to be outraged about the bailout money, and the billions in dollars that the CEO's are getting (such as AIG) this weekend, that it is obviously just a bunch of shit.  

      For anyone that is interested I suggest this site, because what I found out is that this is not the first time this kind of thing has happened, it has happened repeatedly.  Those that control the money have actually caused 'depressions' to happen on purpose, so that they could do exactly what they are doing now, which is robbing us not once, but twice, and getting away with it.  Time for a serious revolution in our country.

      LINCOLN WATCHES
      In Washington the statue of Lincoln sitting in his chair is facing a building called the Federal Reserve Headquarters. This institution would not be there if Lincoln's monetary policy had been adopted by the USA. It is not Federal and it has doubtful reserves. The name is an open deception designed to give this private bank the appearance that it is operating in the public's interest, when in fact it is run solely to gain private profit for its select stock holders. It came into being as the result of one of the slickest moves in financial history. On 23rd December 1913 the house of representatives had past the Federal Reserve Act, but it was still having difficulty getting it out of the senate. Most members of congress had gone home for the holidays, but unfortunately the senate had not adjourned sene die (without day) so they were technically still in session. There were only three members still present. On a unanimous consent voice vote the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was passed. No objection was made, possibly because there was no one there to object. Charles Lindbergh would have objected. "The financial system has been turned over to... the federal reserve board. That board administers the finance system by authority of... a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other peoples money."
      Rep Charles A, Lindbergh (R-MN) Louis T. McFadden would have objected. "We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board... This evil institution has impoverished... the people of the United States... and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through... the corrupt practice of the moneyed vultures who control it."
      Rep. Louis T, McFadden (R-PA) Barry Goldwater would also have objected. "Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders... The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and... manipulates the credit of the United States."
      Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) Most Americans would object if they knew. The Federal Reserve is the largest single creditor of the United States Government, and they are also the people who decide how much the average persons car payments are going to be, what their house payments are going to be, and whether they have a job or not. The three people who passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, knew exactly what they were doing when they set up this private bank, modelled on the Bank of England and the fact that THE BANK OF ENGLAND had been operating independently unopposed since 1694 must have given them a great deal of confidence.

      http://www.xat.org/...

      So much for Nancy Pelosi and Russel Feingold being 'outraged' about the money that AIG is getting.  What a crock of shit.

      "When the house is on fire, it's time for everyone to grab a hose." President Obama

      by Badabing on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:49:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree but let's not forget the moron that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Badabing

        signed the bill into law, one Woodrow Wilson.

        President wilson campaigned upon the promise he wouldn't sign any law that created the federal reserve bank.

        $85,000 is what wilson was paid as a campaign contribution. $85,000 stinking dollars and America was sold out.

        Off topic but nonetheless connected,... I watched the documentary again today re Wal-Mart: High cost, low prices.

        During this program I wondered what would have happened back in the 50s or 60s if this documentary had been shown to the American people. My guess is there wouldn't be a Wal-Mart today. People were very much different back then.

        Another thingy that captured my attention and in fact a show all of its own could be produced about what was displayed.

        At one point the info was displayed that the Walton family had given $3,600,000 to politicians that year while Wal-Mart's employess had given over $5,000,000 to a fund to help other co-workers in time of stress.

        Do you see it? There is a TRUTH right before your eyes! An example of everything wrong with America while inherently being right.

        The employees should have bought the Congress with their $5,000,000 like the Waltons did with their $3,600,000.

        The obvious lesson to be learned is that working class people help one another in time of need while the greedy wealthy only help other greedy people.

        The question begs to be asked, how can anyone justify their participation in wal-mart's way of life?

        Low prices at WHAT DAMN COSTS?????

        Everything you want or need is owned and/or controlled by others.

        by 0hio on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 08:56:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Savings and Loans (8+ / 0-)

    was clearly just a practice run for the Bush  "family".

    I want to know more about offshore bank accounts.

    Think Tank. "A place where people are paid to think by the makers of tanks" Naomi Klein.

    by ohcanada on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:55:42 PM PDT

    •  one of the Bush crime family members (0+ / 0-)

      is probably on twitter.

      So ask how it's done, though I suspect that their answers will NOT fit into 140 characters.

      My guess is that a very significant amount of the money stolen in Iraq is in their offshore bank accounts, either directly as in pallets of money "disappearing" or as kickbacks from various "grateful" CEOs.

      I never believed that the Bushes were facilitating massive thefts out of fellow feelings towards their fellow scam artists, I suspect that the real Bush family motto is "nothing for nothing".

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:37:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh man (4+ / 0-)

    Marx and Engels are pointing and laughing like that kid from The Simpsons.

    "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" ~J. Lydon

    by ActivistGuy on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:58:09 PM PDT

  •  The Obama admin has a sales job on its hands. (5+ / 0-)

    IFFFFF this stuff is really necessary to pull the economy out of the toilet, then they need to get busy explaining to the American public just why it is in plain and simple language. So far they really don't seem to be making much effort to do that.

    There was a point when they first took office where it was reasonable to give them some time to clean up Bush's mess. However, these initiatives are coming about on their watch. They are actively expanding those created by Bush and creating new ones of their own. I am moderately familiar with finance and economics and I am not convinced that they are going in the right direction.

    •  We've already bought it! Nothing to "sell." (5+ / 0-)

      There's really not much that needs to be done, legislation-wise. The Fed can do whatever it damn well pleases...which is very much at the heart of the matter.

      Perhaps the only thing that would delay this would be a massive public protest...but the only protest I know of scheduled to occur the first week of April, or a week after this is all supposed to be implemented.

      It's going to take a miracle to save this from being fact. And, I truly believe it's going to be far more difficult pushing through any more stimuli for Main Street than it will be to have Congress continuing to kowtow to Wall Street.

      It's the most pathetic thing I've witnessed in this country in my lifetime.

      We are truly going off of a cliff...and the lack of outrage is perhaps the most frightening aspect of all.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:44:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How about the Iraq War? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern

    It is true this is pretty crazy shit, but the Iraq war killed a million Iraqis, killed or seriously maimed 30,000 Americans, and will cost $2 trillion before it is over.

  •  This issue is bigger than I can really comment on (0+ / 0-)

    ...with any degree of knowingness, but I just want to say that the "gutting of consumer credit" is to my mind a positive thing.  The excessive supply of consumer credit prevented people from taking realistic stock of their economic situation, and it deadened them to the decline in real income over the past several years.   Certainly we need some consumer credit for genuinely large purchases, but there was nothing healthy, for families or for the economy generally, about purchasing $399 dishwashers with no payments for 24 months.

    Al que no le guste el caldo, le dan dos tazas.

    by Rich in PA on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:27:49 PM PDT

    •  Tell that to small businesses shutting their door (5+ / 0-)

      ...or to millions of people going unemployed as a result of that.

      Then again, what I'm reading and responding to is someone making a generalization about a population that, for the most part, does pay their bills.

      No, it's not okay to just shut them down.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:47:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Small business isn't shutting its doors... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yoduuuh do or do not

        ....because of the gutting of consumer credit.  Since your opener isn't true, I don't really have anything to engage in the rest of your comment.

        Al que no le guste el caldo, le dan dos tazas.

        by Rich in PA on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:59:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What on earth makes you say that ??? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          0hio, bobswern, polar bear

          "The military industrial complex not only controls our government, lock, stock and barrel, but they control our culture." - Mike Gravel

          by Wilberforce on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:16:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Unemployment's just peachy, too, right? n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          0hio

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:21:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Reads like an ad hominem attack to me n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          0hio

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:24:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It would be fine (0+ / 0-)

            to limit credit as a general principle. However, this comes on the heels of a massive, two decades long assault on worker wages. It's like weening a person off food until he's only got an apple a day to eat and then yanking that away.

            This whole clusterfuck will accomplish one thing. Now that everything we have -- with homes at the top of the list -- has lost even the value we put into it, the banks -- armed with our fucking tax dollars! -- will buy our assets and lives for pennies on the dollar.

            Combined with global climate change and the need for our military-industrial complex to continue, you will see the unemployed shipped off to ever increasing conflicts and wars (the ones that don't outright starve, of course).

            Government should not exist to prop up a monetary system and cadre of crooks like we see in this country. Unfortunately, our "representatives" are in cahoots, and are living well off this system. I'd like to see the change of tune if they were being foreclosed on watching their kids die from tooth abcesses.

            I think the best way to view this is that our own government is being held hostage to the cabal of bankers and oligarchs who pull the strings. As it ever was.

  •  excellent post (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, polar bear

    ugh...

    Essentially, what the government is doing [...] is allowing hedge funds--many of which are owned and operated by the very individuals that created our international economic nightmares--and "other investors" within our "shadow banking system" to buy distressed bank assets (many/most sellers being from the list above), almost entirely at taxpayer expense.

    ... and GULP:

    3.) We're a debtor nation now. In 1929, we were a major international creditor.

    My takeaway nugget:

    Here is a very different way to understand the problem: to restore the broken financial system, Washington has to fix the Federal Reserve. [...] [T]he Fed has been unable to engineer what the economy desperately needs--renewed lending to companies and consumers that can finance renewed growth. The confused purpose of monetary policy stands in the way. The Fed could not restrain credit expansion when it was exploding, and now it cannot stimulate credit expansion when it is frozen.

    The Fed is useless in its current incarnation. Needs to be ripped apart and rebuilt from the ground up... as a completely publicly-held and transparent institution. Don't always agree with Dennis Kucinich, but I think he had this one right:

    This idea of an independent Federal Reserve, what actually happened from 1913 on is a privatization of the money supply. Now, you know, right now, we have to look at the Federal Reserve, with two cuts in the interest rates recently [this was in 2005], they're creating winners and losers. People have to look at the implications of this for Wall Street. I think that the Federal Reserve -- they have to be accountable. And I'm one of the few people who have been able to bring someone from the Federal Reserve to talk about the crisis in subprime loans, to ask about their responsibility. The Fed has a responsibility here.

    •  Whoops (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      0hio, bobswern, Badabing, polar bear, Susipsych

      Kucinich said that in 2007. But he's been on them for years. 2005 quote:

      Washington needs to understand that questions must be raised about why in effect did we give up our control of this asset, this ability to be able to issue money. Why did we give it to the Federal Reserve? We need to look at that again. It's not as though this country should be headed for bankruptcy or our people for destitution. The money's there. We need the will there, to begin to look at America in a new way and look at our potential to create material wealth in a new way

      These were pulled off Wikipedia, he's actually been even more firebrand-y recently (YouTube link: Federal Reserve No More "Federal" Than Federal Express). Speaking truth to power here, "ponzi scheme between banks and hedge funds."

  •  i could use a home equity loan, to help me pay (0+ / 0-)

    off debt i incurred in school, mostly, and to help me be more productive with what money i do have.  Since i'm no longer AAA i likely won't get it.

    However, even if I were eligible to get such a loan, I'd gladly forego the loan if it meant stopping this highway robbery.  Thanks for the links.  

    The only thing i question is, why do you think this will be clear to Americans soon?  I haven't seen anyone explaining that we are giving them money to use to "borrow" more money that we then guarantee the risk on.  Usually it's a one-liner, like, "AIG wants to give more bonuses," followed by many lines of explanation from the administration and AIG.  We need to be getting the story you are telling, but i just don't see it.

    I didn't even realize that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury could literally go behind our backs with so much money until I had read quite a bit on this.

    Thanks for the diary.

  •  1. Start a federally owned commercial bank (3+ / 0-)
    1.  lend out that two trillion at one percent over "market rate" however you want to define it so that private banks can easily outcompete it if they feel like doing so.
    1.  Let the other banks crumble.  Laugh at them.
    1.  ????
    1.  PROFIT

    Seriously, why is it my problem if a bunch of fat cat banks and insurance companies gambled on derivatives and lost?  More precisely, why SHOULD it be my problem?  They have proven their unfitness to survive as corporate entities.  Let them rot.  

    All I know about this subject is pretty much what I read here, but it certainly looks like it's all going to fall apart anyway.  Why try to fix it at all?  Save the money for something that might actually do some good.  

    It's just starting to look like the financial services industry is looting the treasury and plans to flee before the country falls apart. I want to be wrong.

    They see me trollin'. They hatin'

    by obnoxiotheclown on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:46:33 PM PDT

  •  But... but... but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polar bear

    Bernanke was JUST on 60 Minutes

    He said, 'We cannot let the banks fail - at any cost!

    Besides, he's from small town SC. He understands Main St.

    I want  to hire his PR firm!!!

    The goal of life is living in agreement with nature. - Zeno

    by yellow dog in NJ on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:52:01 PM PDT

  •  Nice Work! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JuliaAnn, bobswern, polar bear

    What does SOON actually mean to Geithner?

    The end of the look see into the banks books?  What did he call that?

    Profitable, my ars.  Borrow $45B, because BOA had a $37B loss, and suddenly they are profitable?

    The think we are all so stupid.

    Poverty does not mean powerless. Unite!

    by War on Error on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:28:34 PM PDT

  •  i hope some kossack knows someone that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JuliaAnn, yoduuuh do or do not

    can at least make sure that Obama reads the Greider article, Fixing the Fed, linked in the diary.

  •  They want to take our money, loan it back to us (4+ / 0-)

    at interest for them.

    I've quit using a bank altogether.  I never will use a bank ever again.

    Fuck the banks.  Let them all die.

    William Casey "We will know that we have succeeded when everything the public believes is false"

    by Inky99 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:46:03 PM PDT

  •  Since it is time for desperate measures... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yoduuuh do or do not, polar bear

    And since the unregulated derivatives market is THE problem, why don't we just say a big FUCK YOU to them and the associated derivatives marekt players. The Fed should just say that these are not legitimate products, and say the contracts are unenforceable, the derivatives are no longer worth the paper they are printed on and lets just move on.

    This would help sellers of derivatives more than buyers, but it this point, who cares about the players. These children ruined our financial system, so lets do whatever we want that helps us start over. And if terminating all derivatives solves the problem, we should do it, just nullify them.

    •  Because they have legal contracts and the (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dfarrah, JuliaAnn, MindRayge, polar bear

      truth is that Congress recognized the value of these instruments in the Commodiites Future Modernization Act of 2000, Congress has complete control over the deriatives sutation and has not done a thing.   Did you notice that none of the work that they did in that act has been reversed, the Enron Loophole was closed but they have done nothing about the deriatives products or their regulation.  We have being had, we are being played here.

  •  New World Order baby. This is the final (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dfarrah, ActivistGuy, polar bear

    stage to truly get the peasants under their thumb.

    "Peace cannot be achieved by force. It can only be achieved by understanding" Albert Einstein

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:52:59 PM PDT

    •  when you are broke and have lost your home and (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JuliaAnn, BigAlinWashSt

      your dignity, you might find working for a corporation a necessity.  and they loves that.  it brings me to tears, and they are doing it to the whole world.  

      i still can't believe that part of the bailout for GM was to cut jobs.  Cut jobs with one hand, make them with the other.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site