Thursday, April 02, 2009

Event: A hundred Wagoner loads of thoughts will not pay a single ounce of debt.



"Here’s the part I find odd. Now, the government didn’t ask any of those Wall Street C.E.O.s to quit. Isn’t that kind of a double standard? I mean, if you build Cadillacs, you’re screwed. But if your chauffeur drives a Cadillac, you’re O.K. Whew!"
- Jay Leno



Two or three days ago, I forget what it was, the news was packed dense with details on the travails of Chrysler and GM, and most of this focused on the ouster of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner. The Danziger cartoon above encapsulates some of the ironies of the current situation; a career-long affiliation and decade plus executive tenor coupled with an inability to move product. In fact, this is a constant theme in the books I've been reading on the American auto industry: the inability of the executive financial class to reconcile public demand with a speculative market. For a half-century their strategy has favored the latter, and so their decline in actual market share was foreseen and, once started, ongoing.

What I've noticed in the Free Press and among many Michigan politicians (and, surprisingly, late night talk show hosts who usually like to castigate Detroit and the Big Three) is the increasing tendency to contrast the disparity between the treatment of Detroit and that of the New York financial firms. After all, who has been ousted there? There's no question that, at least where the corporate class is concerned, bankers have retained more autonomy and have received less scrutiny than manufacturers, despite the fact that the mistakes made in the financial sector have been by far the worse.

But the ideas and contradictions embodied in the Leno quote are where things really start to get interesting. It prefers conflation by industry over separation by class, which runs somewhat counter to reality. It's actually a pretty funny joke, but not quite correct when we get down to things. Those who "build Cadillacs," that is, the autoworkers and management, are likely to be subject to forced contract renegotiations in the upcoming weeks and months -- in bankruptsy court if not out of it -- and this is where the force of contrast is a source of dark humor. But then Leno also assumed this slight applies to Wagoner personally: "Now, the government didn’t ask any of those Wall Street C.E.O.s to quit." The former GM CEO isn't hurting these days. He received something of a $20 million severance package, so in the words of our president he's "doing fine," he'll "still be affluent." To put it a little differently, in the Danziger cartoon, our sympathies ought to be with the bedraggled dealer who has worked hard to push his unwanted vehicles, not with a hapless and besuited Wagoner.

I don't share the sympathy of the press for GM's former CEO; he had a decade worth of chances, and while he tried harder than some of his predecessors, he didn't try hard enough. The disparity in the government's response is telling, and has more to do with politics than with our economic health. This week is important as the G20 summit will determine whether we will continue to push our economies through aggressive spending (per the US) or whether we will instead pursue aggressive international financial regulation (per the EU). The fact that this is only posed as an either/or proposition shows how unequal governing forces have been to the economic crisis so far. The fact is, we need both.

In the U.S. where we are enacting broad spending programs and will need to enact more, there is no injustice or impropriety in the government's demands on Chrysler and GM. However, we need to see more oversight of the financial sector, and when it comes, it should be in terms as strong as and stronger than the chastisement the auto industry has received this week.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, October 03, 2008

Event: Well, so much for instantaneous victory.





... some problems cannot be solved just by throwing money at them...

Labels: ,

Event: The Bill Passed.



Now I go from stern to angry.

If the upcoming months show this to pan out the way the "restraint" argument has predicted they will (ie. poorly), then this will be an excellent point for primary race candidates to raise with me. In fact, I will seek out their position on this issue, and be sympathetic to them if they opposed the bill.

IN THE HOUSE:
Dale Kildee voted aye.
Jan Schakowsky voted aye.
Edolphus Towns voted aye.

IN THE SENATE:
Barack Obama voted aye.
Dick Durbin voted aye.
Hillary Clinton voted aye.
Charles Schumer voted aye.
Carl Levin voted aye.

Dabbie Stabenow voted nay.

Again, a thank you to Senator Stabenow. You get an A+.

All of the others have failed the Econ homework today.

Labels: , , , ,

Event: House Begins Bailout Debate.



I'm excited, and you should be too, that while both VP candidates performed at their height of their ability last night, viewers overwhelmingly felt that Biden won. Many arguments point to Palin's lack of experience and dependence upon memorized talking points. I would add to that list that McCain has left her with a crap record on the issues most pressing in this election.

And yet, while the election remains of great importance, and shouldn't be underestimated, this is looking less and less like a close race.

Meanwhile, the House is debating the Senate's bailout plan.

DON'T LET THE KITCHEN CATCH FIRE WHILE WATCHING A CANDLE IN THE LIVING ROOM.



New York Times: House Begins Debate on Bailout.

New York Times Economix: Live-Blogging the House's Bailout Debate.

This ghastly bill has a large chance of passing, with absolutely no guarantees or even a reassuring number of favorable models suggesting that it will work. It will ironically exacerbate the environment of deregulation that is behind so many of America's (and the world's) economic instabilities, and that still lacks any robust standards of accountability.

Meanwhile, 200 economists have signed a petition against the plan. The petition includes members of the Chicago School of economics. As an undergrad I railed against these people, because they represent a very pro-market perspective. It is telling that even they, with a whole gulf of idological and philosophical differences separating us, agree that the arithmetic and big numbers involved in this bill are unlikely to take us anywhere pretty.

Consider if the bailout does not prevent a financial meltdown, and we are forced to resort to government programs similar to those that got us through the Depression. Is another $700 billion in debt something we need going into such a crisis?

Keep up those calls and letters!

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Event: My favorite senator tonight.



In 2006 I wrote Debbie Stabenow a scathing letter denouncing her support of the Military Commissions Act and pledging to write in a candidate symbolically instead of her or her Republican opponent. Since then, she has recanted her vote on that issue (one of only a few senators), and her record has been one of the most impressive in the senate. She has all the idealism that represents this party at its best, and an obstinacy that flies in the face of the wimpy Democratic leadership; she is practical in a pure Michigan tradition of reconciling drastically different constituent needs.

I wrote six democratic senators a letter last night asking them to vote down a bill that pandered to the banking industry: they are Clinton, Durbin, Levin, Obama, Schumer, and Stabenow.

Of these, only Stabenow voted the proposal down.

Thank you, Debbie Stabenow, for voting with clarity, sense, resolve, and restraint, and for recognizing Michigan residents before the panic machine that has been driving our domestic policy this week.

Labels: , , ,

Event: Here's an article.



I lied about not posting again today...

NPR: 200 Economists Vs. The Senate.

Labels: , , ,

Event: The Bailout. A letter to Jan Schakowsky.



This is the only post that I will be writing today; the subject is too important and I do not want anything else to distract from it.

Below please find a copy of the letter I sent to Jan Schakowsky, my congressional representative. I will also be sending letters to Representatives Dale Kildee of Michigan, Edolphus Towns of New York, Senators Barack Obama and Dick Durbin of Illinois, Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer of New York, and Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

I think this issue is very important. I encourage you to write your own letters, and you can borrow any portion of mine if you think it would be helpful. In this case, letters to Representatives will be more significant than letters to Senators. Be sure to note whether you are part of their constituency.




Dear Ms. Schakowsky,

I remember hearing you speak with Senator Biden at a rally in Skokie in 2004, so that day has been prominent in my memory for the last several weeks. I'm writing you today to urge you to reconsider your vote of "yes" on the bailout package that will be moving through congress again in a few days.

I know that you and many of your peers in Congress supported this bill while "holding their noses," to paraphrase Senator Clinton. And yet while I know that the economic crisis is real, and a response is needed, it is just as important to respond appropriately and rationally as it is to respond quickly. It is a feature of the stock market (as we saw in the Monday decline of the DOW and its resurgence Tuesday) that investors have the advantage of responding quickly and the tendency to not respond in a particularly deliberative manner.

We look to our elected officials for responsible leadership, not the stock market.

It is with this in mind that I offer a few considerations, and point out that, yes, these are things I consider about when deciding who to vote for:

1) The White House plan to address this crisis represents almost every possible extreme. It is an extreme in the amount of money requested ($700 billion being an arbitrarily high figure), in the lack of oversight required for that money (the last bill's tax penalties for companies seeking protection and "transparency" via the agency distributing the money), and from all reputable news sources, the new bill is largely being shaped by concessions to Republicans.

2) Many economists, such as David Sirota, Paul Krugman, and the team at The Nation, among others do not believe that this plan will best amend the problem, largely because it does not provide sufficient oversight. The "concessions" to CEO compensation caps and transparency are a joke: what meaningful oversight occurs when the agency that disburses money gets to monitor the use of the funds?

3) It is appropriate that Paulson plan is a response to a sub-prime mortgage; $700 billion dollars in short order would mortgage the Obama administration. The last time Democrats had the opportunity to make real progress on issues such as health care and education was fourteen years ago. Any acceptable bill has to incorporate a timetable of disbursements, because unnecessary expenditure at even a small percentage of $700 billion is a horribly large chunk of our economy. A timetable, on the other hand, attached to $50 or $100 billion disbursements would give Obama and the next congress an opportunity to introduce progressive changes to the bill, and so doing, provide the long term solution that we cannot obtain in this deregulated environment.

4) When doctors practice with incompetence, it is malpractice and illegal. When an attorney misrepresents the law or her client, it is malpractice and illegal. We require our legal and medical professionals to act with knowledge and discipline because their actions constantly and profoundly affect the lives of those with whom they interact. It is time for Wall Street to be held similarly accountable. Those who brought about this crisis through greed and incompetence should be held guilty of malpractice, and this is the right and fitting time to establish such a notion.

I won't tell you to unconditionally vote down the bill that will be presented very shortly to the House of Representatives. I do urge you to act with deliberation, and do not support any bill that panders to a shrinking Republican minority. It is rightly observed that the costs of inaction are high, but Democrats should not forget that the middle and lower-class have been suffering for years under a housing and health care crisis that did *not* require immediate action and did *not* result in a congressional bailout.

The sky is not falling today.

Don't vote for any bailout plan that does not deserve your vote.

Sincerely,

Connor Coyne

Labels: , , ,

Monday, September 29, 2008

Event: MONEY$ AVAILABLE TO YOU OUR LOW-RISK HIGH YEAL DEAL!!!



MY DEAR AMERICAN FRIEND:
I AM NEEDING TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AN URGENT SECRET BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH A TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE.
I AM MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA. MY COUNTRY HAS HAD CRISIS THAT HAS CAUSED NEED FOR LARGE TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF 700 BILLION OF YOUR DOLLARS (US). IF YOU WOULD ASSIST ME IN THIS TRANSFER IT WOULD BE MOST PROFITABLE TO YOU.
I AM WORKING WITH HIGHLY REPUTABLE MR. PHIL GRAM, LOBBYIST FOR UBS, WHO WILL BE MY REPLACEMENT AS MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY IN JANUARY IF MY POLITICAL PARTY WINS UPCOMING ELECTION, WHICH WE CERTAINLY WILL BECAUSE WE ARE IN CONTROLING OF THE HIGHEST SUPREME COURT. YOU MAY REMEMBER HIM AS A SENATOR AS LEADER OF THE AMERICAN BANKING DEREGULATION MOVEMENT IN THE 1990S.
THIS TRANSACTIN IS 100% SAFE. YOU MUST TRUST ME COMPLETELY AND NOT ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TRANSACTION. YOU HAVE MY WORD NO ONE WILL DO ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE MONEY.
THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY. WE NEED YOUR BLANK CHECK. WE NEED THE FUNDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE CANNOT DIRECTLY TRANSFER THESE FUNDS IN THE NAMES OF OUR CLOSE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER SURVEILLANCE. MY FAMILY LAWYER ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTH PERSONAGE WHO WILL ACT AS A NEXT OF KIN SO THE FUNDS CAN BE TRANSFERRED. YOU ARE THAT PERSONAGE.
PLEASE REPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, IRA AND COLLEGE FUND ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THOSE OF YOUR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN AND THOSE YET UNBORN TO WALLSTREETBAILOUT@TREASURY.GOV SO THAT WE MAY TRANSFER YOUR COMMISSION FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AFTER I RECEIVE THIS INFORMATION I WILL RESPOND WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SAFEGUARDS WE PROMISE WILL BE USED TO PROTECT THE FUNDS AND PRODUCE A LONG-TERM RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR YOU AND THOSE YOU LOVE.

YOURS FAITHFULLY
MINISTER OF TREASURY H. PAULSON




Update - Just FYI, this is very clever, and I wish I had written it but I did not. It was posted on the New York Times' Laugh Lines and has been circulating this afternoon. Meanwhile, the DOW dropped 777 points today.

Labels: , , ,