Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Metacomet who wrote (105028)	9/11/2009 10:43:55 PM
From: Broken_Clock	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

" I don't think there is any doubt that the middle class will be substantially strengthened if their health care concerns can be relieved. Preferably at the expense of a health insurance industry that has grown fat on profits accumulated on the backs of people they underserved. Since these have been the dual priorities of the Obama administration to date, it is hard to take the incessant bitching seriously." ---- September 4, 2009 BILL MOYERS: The editors of THE ECONOMIST magazine say America's health care debate has become a touch delirious, with people accusing each other of being evil-mongers, dealers in death, and un-American. Well, that's charitable. I would say it's more deranged than delirious, and definitely not un-American. Those crackpots on the right praying for Obama to die and be sent to hell — they're the warp and woof of home-grown nuttiness. So is the creature from the Second Amendment who showed up at the President's rally armed to the teeth. He's certainly one of us. Red, white, and blue kooks are as American as apple pie and conspiracy theories. Bill Maher asked me on his show last week if America is still a great nation. I should have said it's the greatest show on earth. Forget what you learned in civics about the Founding Fathers — we're the children of Barnum and Bailey, our founding con men. Their freak show was the forerunner of today's talk radio. Speaking of which: we've posted on our website an essay by the media scholar Henry Giroux. He describes the growing domination of hate radio as one of the crucial elements in a "culture of cruelty" increasingly marked by overt racism, hostility and disdain for others, coupled with a simmering threat of mob violence toward any political figure who believes health care reform is the most vital of safety nets, especially now that the central issue of life and politics is no longer about working to get ahead, but struggling simply to survive. So here we are, wallowing in our dysfunction. Governed — if you listen to the rabble rousers — by a black nationalist from Kenya smuggled into the United States to kill Sarah Palin's baby. And yes, I could almost buy their belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, only I think he shipped them to Washington, where they've been recycled as lobbyists and trained in the alchemy of money laundering, which turns an old-fashioned bribe into a First Amendment right. Only in a fantasy capital like Washington could Sunday morning talk shows become the high church of conventional wisdom, with partisan shills treated as holy men whose gospel of prosperity always seems to boil down to lower taxes for the rich. Poor Obama. He came to town preaching the religion of nice. But every time he bows politely, the harder the Republicans kick him. No one's ever conquered Washington politics by constantly saying "pretty please" to the guys trying to cut your throat. Let's get on with it, Mr. President. We're up the proverbial creek with spaghetti as our paddle. This health care thing could have been the crossing of the Delaware, the turning point in the next American Revolution — the moment we put the mercenaries to rout, as General Washington did the Hessians at Trenton. We could have stamped our victory "Made in the USA." We could have said to the world, "Look what we did!" And we could have turned to each other and said, "Thank you." As it is, we're about to get health care reform that measures human beings only in corporate terms of a cost-benefit analysis. I mean this is topsy-turvy — we should be treating health as a condition, not a commodity. As we speak, Pfizer, the world's largest drug maker, has been fined a record $2.3 billion dollars as a civil and criminal — yes, that's criminal, as in fraud — penalty for promoting prescription drugs with the subtlety of the Russian mafia. It's the fourth time in a decade Pfizer's been called on the carpet. And these are the people into whose tender mercies Congress and the White House would deliver us? Come on, Mr. President. Show us America is more than a circus or a market. Remind us of our greatness as a democracy. When you speak to Congress next week, just come out and say it. We thought we heard you say during the campaign last year that you want a government run insurance plan alongside private insurance — mostly premium-based, with subsidies for low-and-moderate income people. Open to all individuals and employees who want to join and with everyone free to choose the doctors we want. We thought you said Uncle Sam would sign on as our tough, cost-minded negotiator standing up to the cartel of drug and insurance companies and Wall Street investors whose only interest is a company's share price and profits. Here's a suggestion, Mr. President: ask Josh Marshall to draft your speech. Josh is the founder of the website talkingpointsmemo.com. He's a journalist and historian, not a politician. He doesn't split things down the middle and call it a victory for the masses. He's offered the simplest and most accurate description yet of a public insurance plan — one that essentially asks people: would you like the option — the voluntary option — of buying into Medicare before you're 65? Check it out, Mr. President. This health care thing is make or break for your leadership, but for us, it's life and death. No more Mr. Nice Guy, Mr. President. We need a fighter. That's it for the Journal. I'm Bill Moyers. See you next time.

To: Metacomet who wrote (105028)	9/11/2009 10:47:45 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

"It appears to some of the financial prognosticators that the anticipated total financial meltdown has been avoided. I remain agnostic on that point," .............. From: maxncompany 9/11/2009 8:31:19 PM 1 Recommendation of 101856 "Hope and change." If there's no change how can there be any hope? (my comment) From Naked Capitalism Today Friday, September 11, 2009 Guest Post: Top Economists Say We Must Break Up the Insolvent Banks (Government Says Let’s Make Them Bigger) By George Washington of Washington’s Blog. The following top economists and financial experts believe that the economy cannot recover unless the big, insolvent banks are broken up in an orderly fashion: Nobel prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz Nobel prize-winning economist, Ed Prescott Dean and professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School, and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, R. Glenn Hubbard MIT economics professor and former IMF chief economist, Simon Johnson President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Thomas Hoenig Deputy Treasury Secretary, Neal S. Wolin The President of the Independent Community Bankers of America, a Washington-based trade group with about 5,000 members, Camden R. Fine The Congressional panel overseeing the bailout The head of the FDIC, Sheila Bair The leading monetary economist and co-author with Milton Friedman of the leading treatise on the Great Depression, Anna Schwartz Economics professor and senior regulator during the S & L crisis, William K. Black Economics professor, Nouriel Roubini Economist, Marc Faber Professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the Chicago Booth School of Business, Luigi Zingales Economics professor, Thomas F. Cooley Former investment banker, Philip Augar Chairman of the Commons Treasury, John McFall Others, like Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, think that the giant insolvent banks may need to be temporarily nationalized. In addition, many top economists and financial experts, including Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer - who was Ben Bernanke’s thesis adviser at MIT - say that - at the very least - the size of the financial giants should be limited. And yet, the top economic policy makers (Summer, Geithner and Bernanke) are doing just the opposite - allowing the giant banks to get even bigger. The Washington Post put it succinctly with a story entitled “Banks ‘Too Big to Fail’ Have Grown Even Bigger”. As Bloomberg points out: The Obama plan would label Bank of America, New York-based Citigroup and others as “systemically important.” It would subject them to capital and liquidity requirements and stricter oversight, relying on the same regulators who didn’t understand the consequences of a Lehman failure. And while companies could be dismantled if they got into trouble, they, their creditors and shareholders could also be bailed out with taxpayer money, according to the plan. The chief architects, Geithner, 48, and National Economic Council Director Lawrence H. Summers, 54, say they don’t think it would be practical to outlaw banks of a certain size or limit trading activities by deposit-taking banks, according to people familiar with their thinking. They said the two men, who declined to be interviewed, and others on Obama’s team believe the lines are too fuzzy between banking and investing products and that forcing the divestiture of units and assets would create bedlam. “It’s a very difficult thing to say as a national policy goal that we’re going to limit the success of an American firm,” said Tony Fratto, 43, a spokesman for President George W. Bush and former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson who now heads a Washington consulting firm. In other words, the people guiding America’s economic policy don’t want to break up the insolvent giants or even keep them from growing, don’t want to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and want to let the banks keep using their same inaccurate models, overseen by the same spineless regulators. The President of the Independent Community Bankers of America put it succinctly when he said: “Does anyone think it’s a coincidence that less than 10 years after they repealed Glass-Steagall, the financial markets collapsed?” … He called current rules for banking a recipe for a “Molotov cocktail.”