Showing posts with label Federal Reserve. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Reserve. Show all posts

Friday, September 14, 2012

What the Federal Reserve did yesterday, in plain english...and why it's good news.

This is Ezra Klein's complete article: Here’s why everyone is so excited about what the Fed did yesterday.

I was going to use a snippet, but when Ezra's on his game, he's on his game, and there's nowhere good to cut, so to explain it all...you've got to read it all:

I want to explain why everyone is so excited about what the Federal Reserve did yesterday. But I want to do it without using the words “quantitative easing,” because those words are almost designed to get you to give up and stop paying attention.

Imagine you got a choice of superpowers. You could be invisible, you could fly, you could be really strong, or you could create unlimited amounts of money. You might well choose the money one. The other ones are cool for a bit, but they’re not all that versatile, and they may well get you into trouble.

The best way to think about the Federal Reserve is that it basically has a superpower. It can create as much money as it wants. Real, American money.

And the Fed doesn’t need anybody’s permission. It’s not like when the president says he wants to do something, like the American Jobs Act, and you have to ask, “What does Congress think?” Or when John Boehner wants to pass something, and you have to ask, “Well, what does Harry Reid think?” Once the Board of Governors decides to move forward, they don’t need 60 votes in the Senate — they just do it. And that makes them incredibly powerful.

But, as Spider Man would say, with great power comes great responsibility. And so the Fed is very cautious in using its powers.

By law, it needs to try to keep unemployment and inflation low. Over the past two years or so, inflation has stayed low, and unemployment has been very, very high. But the Fed has not been doing all that much about it. It’s been hoping the situation would turn around of its own accord, or that Congress and the president would stop bickering and unleash more stimulus — anything so that the Fed didn’t have to further unleash its powers.

But it didn’t happen. And so, on Thursday, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed had finally decided to do something about unemployment. Something big. Something that might actually work.

He said it was going to buy hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of government and housing bonds for as long as it takes to get the recovery back on a solid footing, and then keep buying them for as long as it takes to be absolutely certain the recovery will stay on a solid footing.

The way the Fed’s plan works — if it works — is that buying all these bonds will drive down long-term interest rates, which will give businesses and investors more incentive to spend now as opposed to sitting on their money waiting for later. It will make mortgages even cheaper, which should accelerate the housing market’s recovery.

But the other part of the plan, and this part is really important, is that Bernanke just sent a signal to businesses and investors and the market and everyone else that the Fed is going to use its powers in a big, unusual way to get the economy moving. That’s a hugely important statement to make.

Imagine a business trying to decide whether it should hire more workers. The basic question it needs to answer is whether people will be buying a lot more stuff next year than they’re buying this year. If business owners don’t see any good reason to think the economy will improve, then the answer is probably, “No, people aren’t going to be buying more stuff next year,” so there’s no need to hire more workers.

But if they think the recovery is going to come, if they think people will be buying more stuff, then they need the workers. They don’t want to be caught without enough product — then their competitors would get those sales.

The Fed is trying to influence that decision. Fed officials are saying: “We’re going to use all our power to make sure there are people out there buying your stuff. So go hire. Do it now. We’re behind you.”

Or you can think of it this way. The Federal Reserve is kind of like the economy’s tough, older brother. If the economy is having problems with some kids at school, and the tough, older brother seems distant, or uninterested, then the economy’s in trouble.

But if the tough, older brother makes it clear that he’ll be there to back up the economy, come what may, and even says that he’s going to go have a talk with some of these kids tomorrow, then the economy is going to be a lot more confident walking to school from now on. And right now, what the economy needs, more than anything, is confidence.

Now, as some of us learned when we were young, tough, older brothers aren’t invincible. And few economists believe that the Fed can solve our ongoing economic problems on its own. But it can do more to help then it’s doing now, and with the housing market beginning to come back and Europe appearing to stabilize, there’s a mounting argument that the conditions for a recovery are beginning to look pretty good. If there’s a policy dark spot here, it’s that Congress is still a mess, and there’s no clarity as to how they’ll bridge the fiscal cliff, or even if they’ll bridge the fiscal cliff. And then, of course, there’s the fundamental fact of the economy right now, which is that consumers are still digging out of debt and businesses remain skittish. Sometimes, even a big older brother isn’t enough to make you feel better.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Rep. Ron Paul is a blithering idiot. (VIDEO)

Sorry, I take that back. Calling Ron Paul a blithering idiot would give blithering idiots a bad name.

I wouldn't trust Dr. Ron Paul give me first aid. It's probably a safe bet that if you go to his son, the Senator from Kentucky, you'd probably go blind.

The following should serve as testament once and for all about this man's complete inability to understand even the most basic of economic concepts. Thank you Stephen Colbert, you may have done as big a service as Jon's recent efforts to get the 9/11 Health Bill passed. You exposed Ron Paul as a fraud.

Problem is, most people (especially his supporters) don't know it, or won't acknowledge it.

Well, watch the two clips...and learn something.

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Gold Faithful
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire Blog</a>March to Keep Fear Alive

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Gold Faithful - Ron Paul & David Leonhardt<a>
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire Blog</a>March to Keep Fear Alive

I was only pissed off at New York Times writer David Leonardht for not just cutting to the chase and calling Rep. Paul a @#$%ing moron to his face.

Did Rep. Paul really suggest utilizing Gold "Certificates" to represent how much gold you have?

And the difference between than the Federal Reserve Notes (Dollar Bills) in your pocket is...what exactly??

Don't expect an answer. Ron Paul's got his ideology...that and a room temperature IQ.

Friday, September 17, 2010

"Things said by Elizabeth Warren tend to be more interesting than things said about Elizabeth Warren..." (VIDEO)



Fine, this is the President talking about Elizabeth Warren. Still, the man's got to introduce her.

From President Obama's prepared remarks:

I have known Elizabeth Warren since law school. She’s a native of Oklahoma. She’s a janitor’s daughter who has become one of the country’s fiercest advocates for the middle class. She has seen financial struggles and foreclosures affect her own family.

Long before this crisis hit, she had written eloquently, passionately, forcefully, about the growing financial pressures on working families and the need to put in place stronger consumer protections. And three years ago she came up with an idea for a new independent agency that would have one simple overriding mission: standing up for consumers and middle-class families.

Thanks to Elizabeth’s efforts, as well as the dedication and persistence of the person to my right, Secretary of Treasury Geithner, as well as leaders in Congress like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, that agency will soon become a reality.

And we got to hear from Elizabeth Warren herself:

President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again for families and creating protections that work not just for the wealthy or connected, but for every American. The new consumer bureau is based on a pretty simple idea: people ought to be able to read their credit card and mortgage contracts and know the deal. They shouldn’t learn about an unfair rule or practice only when it bites them—way too late for them to do anything about it. The new law creates a chance to put a tough cop on the beat and provide real accountability and oversight of the consumer credit market. The time for hiding tricks and traps in the fine print is over. This new bureau is based on the simple idea that if the playing field is level and families can see what’s going on, they will have better tools to make better choices.

This is the best part of Elizabeth Warren taking on the special advisory role. She gets to set up the CFPB. She gets to pick the staff. And because she's not going through Senate confirmation, she gets to start talking to the American people about the CFPB right now, and not go into the cone of silence that apparently Senator Dodd demands.

Liberals seem very happy about even this temporary appointment, because I think they have a better job for her in mind.

Of course, as Ezra Klein says: "things said by Elizabeth Warren tend to be more interesting than things said about Elizabeth Warren."


Elizabeth Warren on Consumer Protection (MMBM) from Roosevelt Institute on Vimeo.

Video taken from the Make Markets Be Markets conference, March 3, 2010, New York City.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

On Warren, "It's always nice to see someone rewarded for being right, for a change."

Wow.  Lotsa Rachel Maddow tonight.

In addition to the interview with the Vice-President, Rachel also covered the President's Tax speech, and Elizabeth Warren's appointment with Chris Hayes.



I hope Josh and Matt were paying attention to this.

Elizabeth Warren is doing exactly what, again??

Jake Tapper over at ABC has apparently gotten himself a bit of a scoop:

President Obama will announce this week that Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law School professor who first proposed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, will be named to a special position reporting to both him and to the Treasury Department and tasked with heading the effort to get the new federal agency standing, a knowledgeable Democrat told ABC News.

A Democratic Senator I used to have some respect for has been going out of his friggin' way to trash a potential Warren nomination with virtually every last breath he takes while still in office:

Outgoing Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) warned Tuesday that an interim appointment of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "jeopardizes the existence" of the nascent agency.

The White House is considering naming Warren interim head, as the law establishing the CFPB allows, in order to get her into place immediately and head off a Senate filibuster of her nomination. Once she's in place, Obama could nominate her for the permanent position.

"I'm not enthusiastic about that and I think it'll be met with a lot of opposition," Dodd told reporters after coming off the Senate floor.

Dodd said that an interim appointment would deprive the director of the legitimacy that comes with Senate confirmation. He added that such an appointment could create a backlash that would lead Congress to defund the bureau.

"This is a big job, an important job, and it needs to be -- you've got to build the support for that institutionally or the next Congress - and none of us know what the outcome's going to be politically -- you could gut this before it even gets off the ground. If you don't have someone running it early on, it jeopardizes the existence of the consumer protection bureau," he said. Asked how Congress would gut it, he said: "Money. Take away the money. That's how you always do it."

What? Does he want the job himself? Beats Bank Lobbying, I suppose. I'll never understand why he's so focused on pissing all over this nomination. Needless to say, I won't miss Dodd when he's gone.

Needless to say, Josh Marshall (at TPM) is confused:

We're seeking more clarification now, but it sounds like the White House has decided that instead of nominating Warren to head up the new consumer financial protection bureau, or alternatively avoiding the confirmation process and appointing her as interim director, the President will take a third way and make her a special adviser to help set the bureau up.

And Matthew Yglesias (at Think Progress) tweeted this, apparently pissed off:

With Warren, Obama showing real innovation in developing odd, satisfying to nobody compromises.

The Elizabeth Warren P.R. Firm of Huffington Post is spiking the ball like they...say...scored the only touchdown in the Dallas-Washington Game from Sunday night.

The White House has tapped Elizabeth Warren as a special adviser to help set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ABC News is reporting. The move allows her to act as an interim head of the CFPB and will enable her to begin setting up the agency immediately and prevent the GOP from filibustering her nomination. Warren could serve until Obama nominates a permanent director -- a nomination he's not required to make for some time. Obama could also nominate her as the permanent director in the near future, a prospect that has been discussed among top aides, according to a person familiar with the White House deliberations. Warren will also be named as a special adviser directly to Obama, ABC reported.

(I hate to rub it in Cowboys fans, but I am like that).

But this is why you've got to read the whole piece. Josh and Matt didn't horn in on the last part of Jake's story which said:

Naming Warren as an assistant or counselor to both the president and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner would allow the president to bypass a Senate confirmation process that could prove lengthy and contentious.

“I’m concerned about all Senate confirmations these days” including if he were to “nominate somebody for dog catcher,” the president said Friday when asked if he was concerned about Warren’s ability to be confirmed. “I’ve got people who have been waiting for six months to get confirmed who nobody has an official objection to and who were voted out of committee unanimously, and I can’t get a vote on them.”

Since nominees facing the confirmation process also enter a period of public silence, avoiding the confirmation process would also allow Warren to publicly discuss the agency and its benefits, which the president is eager for her to do.

Truth be told, this sounds exactly like the Interim posting story that we've been hearing about all week. So finally, allow me to fire up the wayback machine from the distant past of Tuesday, and quote, myself:

He appoints Elizabeth Warren to the position on an Interim basis. If the Senate continues to act like...you know...the Senate...and resists her nomination, we get both the benefit of a fight where Republicans are tarnished as people against protecting consumers, and she gets to do her job in the meantime.

Excellent.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

TPM: False Alarm.

On Elizabeth Warren.  Never mind.  Everyone's walking it back now.

Of course, the original reportage came from Fox News.

I still think it's going to be her, though.

It's Elizabeth Warren...

Looks like she wanted it after all.

I think the reasons highlighted on September 10th (mostly through Noam Scheiber's excellent work) came to pass, but there's no absolute proof of this.  Just a hunch.

Now understand, she's being named Interim Head of the Consumer Protection Bureau. This is key.

Because the Senate can't get its act together, and pass the large number of other appointments waiting on their desk because of Republican obstructionism, the President has taken on a new tactic.

He appoints Elizabeth Warren to the position on an Interim basis.  If the Senate continues to act like...you know...the Senate...and resists her nomination, we get both the benefit of a fight where Republicans are tarnished as people against protecting consumers, and she gets to do her job in the meantime.

Excellent.

Time to start throwing knuckleballs high and inside. If someone gets hit, tough @#$!!

(Yeah, that was a Baseball reference. It means that...never mind.)

Anyway, I'm glad she got the job. I'm glad she wanted the job. I think this is a good thing for America.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Maybe it will be Elizabeth Warren after all...

Remember, not so long ago, when I wrote this?:

I think she's the best choice. I would prefer it be her, though I have no idea of her capacities as an Administrator (a suitable No. 2 can be hired for that). With Christina Romer leaving the Council of Economic Advisers, there's a serious girl shortage on the Obama Econ team, and Prof. Warren would fill in that role nicely (or at the Fed).

Either way, Warren not getting this job is not the end of the freaking world. (Plus, she may want to go back to Harvard. Anyone consider that??)

Well...

It looks like she ain't goin' back to Harvard.

This from Ezra Klein:

Elizabeth Warren is the frontrunner to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She's also, however, a professor at Harvard Law School, which isn't very compatible with taking a full-time job in Washington. Something's going to have to give. And if this e-mail Brady Dennis obtained is any indication, it's not Warren's political ambitions:

When fall classes began Wednesday at Harvard Law School, Elizabeth Warren was scheduled to be teaching contract law to first-year students. But something happened on the way to the chalkboard.

"I'm writing to let you know that Professor Jerry Frug will be teaching your Contracts class this term instead of Professor Elizabeth Warren," law school dean Martha Minow wrote to students on Tuesday, according to an e-mail obtained by The Washington Post. "Professor Warren regrets that she will not be able to teach you this fall and we regret the last minute change."

Last-minute change?

I'd also note that as the election outlook grows grimmer for the Democrats, the White House seems to be picking a new fight on jobs. I wouldn't be shocked if they decided to pick one on consumer protections, as well.
Fingers crossed.

Friday, August 13, 2010

More Elizabeth Warren.

Ezra Klein, following up on the possibility of appointing Elizabeth Warren to head Consumer Protection Agency. ( You should be familiar with itIt's not like we haven't been covering it).

Elizabeth Warren fans and Elizabeth Warren foes will both want to read Brady Dennis's profile of the consumer-protection advocate. To make the political point, it seems to me that the importance of Warren's nomination is being dramatically overblown. And that seems great for the administration.

I'd prefer to see Warren appointed, but it's hard to be incredibly confident about something as unpredictable as agency leadership. Think of it this way: You're a credit-card industry trade group and you're given two choices to lead the consumer protection agency: The first is an aggressive, charismatic and media-savvy regulator who seems likely to clash with the administration and thus is likely to lose some important bureaucratic battles. The other is a less charismatic and media-savvy regulator who is still substantively aggressive, skeptical of your business, but who has great internal administration relationships and seems likely to win a lot of internal battles on behalf of the agency. Who would you pick? The answer isn't obvious to me.

But the elevation of the Warren appointment into a major priority for liberals gives the administration something easy they can hand to their base. It's not like the public option, which seemed capable of sinking the health-care bill. Financial regulation has already passed. If Warren runs into Republican opposition in the Senate, then all the better: All eyes will focus on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and since the administration believes it hasn't gotten enough credit for financial regulation and also believes the CFPB is the most popular part of the bill, that's a gift for them -- particularly so close to the election.

It's of course possible that Republicans will filibuster her nomination and Democrats won't be able to break their hold. But so what? In that case, Warren will either be recess appointed or replaced. Which is why, at this point, it seems pretty likely that Warren will be appointed. If she's not, I think it'll be substantive fears -- there are those who think she's much too skeptical of financial products and her presence will chill lenders at a time when we want them to start pushing money out again -- not political concerns, that derail her. But given that the administration can't actually say "we believe Warren will protect consumers too much," it'll be hard for them to act on that concern.

One last point: It's worth taking a moment and marveling at how much one well-crafted policy proposal published in a little-read journal can lead to.

I still think she's the best candidate, but there are others out there. It's not a disaster if she's not appointed. But Ezra may be right, the fight may be worth it.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

What really happened with Elizabeth Warren today

Everyone's was all (ha-ha) a-Twitter over the Elizabeth Warren sighting at the White House. But before you start jumping for joy over this development:

Warren's Congressional Oversight Panel released a new report today saying – unsurprisingly – that foreign firms benefited more from the $700 billion US bank bailout than US firms benefited from foreign rescue efforts.

The watchdog cited that the US bailout basically flooded money into as many banks as possible – including international ones – but other nations specifically targeted their rescue efforts towards their own domestic firms that had no US operations.

“As a result, it appears likely that America’s financial rescue had a much greater impact internationally than other nations’ programs had on the United States,” the panel said. “This outcome was likely inevitable given the structure of the TARP, but if the US government had gathered more information about which countries’ institutions would most benefit from some of its actions, it might have been able to ask those countries to share the pain of rescue.”

The most egregious case? AIG, naturally, where tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars went to Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale, among others. The US bore the entire $70 billion risk of the insurance giant’s capital injection program, far exceeding the size of France’s entire $35 billion overall stability program and nearly half the size of Germany’s $133 billion efforts.

Going forward, the panel said, an international plan should be developed to “handle the collapse of major, globally significant financial institutions.”

And now, before you get too depressed, the same Jake Tapper report also said:

Elizabeth Warren this afternoon met at the White House with David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, where the possibility of her heading the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was discussed, but not decided on, a White House official confirms.

President Obama did not meet with Warren today.

“The President believes that Elizabeth Warren is a champion for middle class families and consumers and she, among others, is a strong contender for this position,” White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said in a statement. “The President has not yet made a decision and no announcement is imminent.”

This week White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton echoed those sentiments during a press gaggle en route to Texas, saying that he has no update on timing beyond that an announcement wouldn’t be made this week. And Burton also downplayed the notion that Elizabeth Warren would be hard to confirm on the Hill, should she be the nominee.

“A lot of folks have opinions about Elizabeth Warren and other candidates,” Burton said Monday. “It’s the White House’s view that Elizabeth Warren would be confirmable.”

In effect, I reversed the priorities given in the Jake Tapper piece. (Kinda makes you think twice about the importance of the story. It did for me.)

What I think has honestly happened was that the Warren Commission was meeting anyway, so David and Valerie took a moment to feel her out on becoming head of the Consumer Protection Agency.

The time to get excited is when she meets with the President. That hasn't happened yet.

Again, I think she's the best choice. I would prefer it be her, though I have no idea of her capacities as an Administrator (a suitable No. 2 can be hired for that). With Christina Romer leaving the Council of Economic Advisers, there's a serious girl shortage on the Obama Econ team, and Prof. Warren would fill in that role nicely (or at the Fed).

Either way, Warren not getting this job is not the end of the freaking world. (Plus, she may want to go back to Harvard. Anyone consider that??)

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection...if she wants it.

I'm generally of the mindset that Elizabeth Warren would make an excellent head for the forthcoming Consumer Protection Agency that's going to be inside the Fed. I first saw her in the Frontline episode, "the Secret History of the Credit Card". She stood out because she said this:

I teach contract law at Harvard Law School, and [also] commercial law and bankruptcy ... but if you put me under oath right now, I tell you, I don't know what the effective interest rate will be on my credit card next month, because I can't read it in my contract.

That told me a lot, and impressed the hell out of me. It laid the problem bare, and in its own small way, led us to where we are today.

Now, I'm glad that the Labor Unions are going to lobby on her behalf. I'm not sure what Geithner's problem is with her, and I don't really care, either. Though I remain a Geithner fan, he's not going to be making this appointment, is he?

Some of the dumber pundits on my side of the (Liberal) Aisle are drawing yet another line in the sand, demanding that she be appointed, whining that a failure to appoint Elizabeth Warren is yet another reason for them to be disappointed with the insufficient Liberalism of the Obama Administration.

Whatever. (Yawn).

Let me maintain the ever-constant position of this blog that Simon Johnson, Robert Kuttner, David Sirota and Amy Siskind can all stick it.

What fascinates me about these douchebag demands, is that I'm 99% certain that none of these guys have actually spoken with Warren. I know I haven't. (Have you?) Thus, none of these guys...let me repeat, none of them...is even sure if she wants the job.

I'm not saying she doesn't. She may be chomping at the bit for the gig, but it'd be nice to hear the words from her lips before these morons start hemming and hawing. If she says she wants it, then at least their plaintive cries stand on firmer ground.

Even so, Erza Klein speculates that while Elizabeth Warren is well qualified, there may be even better (though less-known) people out there who could do the job:

My colleague Neil Irwin has a post this morning throwing some cold water on the heated advocacy for Elizabeth Warren to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I'd group the objections into two buckets -- innovation and administration -- and both are fair.

Irwin's first concern is that an overzealous consumer regulator could, in his or her enthusiasm for ridding the market of trickery, also rid it of products that make credit available to the working class. Does keeping a small number of people from getting into serious debt justify keeping a large number of people from accessing credit instruments they could use effectively?

It's a legitimate concern, and only Warren can answer it. Of course, it's possible she's already explained the test she would apply to decide whether consumer financial instruments were legitimate, and I just haven't seen the speech.

Irwin's second concern actually worries me less. It's hard to predict who will and won't be good at building an agency. It's a task that's not quite like any other, and fairly few people have much of a track record at it. It's also not a task that's solely dependent on the director. Deputy directors and other high-level managers have a lot of influence over hiring and administering and creating a workplace culture. But only the person at the top can set the agency's vision and sensibility and appeal.

The question, to me, is whether Warren is the only person who can do that. I've made the argument that she will have a unique appeal to the sort of talented young lawyers and consumer advocates that we want working in the agency. She's also brilliant at working the media and acting as a public advocate, and she's clearly got an ambitious and restless vision for what this institution can become. But the other finalists aren't slouches.

Michael Barr is a Treasury official who deserves as much credit -- or, depending on your perspective -- bears as much blame -- as anyone in the country for shepherding the financial regulation bill to passage. He's good at working with legislators and the media, has excellent internal relationships that will be important for guaranteeing the agency's autonomy, and has the intellectual heft that his previous life as a law professor at Michigan and a Brookings scholar would suggest.

The third candidate, Gene Kimmelman, is the Justice Department's chief counsel for competition policy and intergovernmental relations, and was formerly a vice president at the Consumer's Union. The National Journal called him "one of the best known consumer advocates in Washington." He knows the field well, and probably already knows everyone he'd like to see working at the agency.

Moreover, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a much-hyped agency being built amidst a grim job market. It won't have trouble recruiting, even without Warren's star power at the top.

So in the end analysis, the question is whether you think Warren's unique prominence and pedigree as the person who created the idea for this agency and put the issues beneath it on the map is worth more than the managerial experience and administrative relationships Barr and Kimmelman have. I come down on Warren's side, but her nomination has achieved a level of symbolism on the left that's out of proportion to the merits of the different candidates.

For me, it's Elizabeth Warren's skill at communicating that makes her my favorite. There may be better administrators, but no one is going to be able to explain the myraid bull@#$% of the Banks and Credit Rating Agencies better. So the job should be hers...

...if she wants it.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Ben Bernanke Reconfirmed 70-30

Good.

I know some of y'all out there have doubts, should bear in mind that the man is an actual expert on the Economics of the Great Depression. He did a crappy job under Bush, but honestly, consider that President's agenda. Bush was a President who did not believe in accountability, regulation or Government for that matter. Is it any surprise the Economy nearly tanked?

For those of you with doubts, I refer you back to this interview from back in March. It let me know there was a man behind this job, told he that he got it, and was worth keeping on...at least with a President who believes in accountability, regulation and Government.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Krugman on the Spending Freeze...

Krugman is freaking out, of course. I wish he'd wait until the State of the Union, and see what the details are before melting down...but this is what he does. He's in GET IT DONE mode...again. He writes with a temper, I've said so before.

That being said, both he and Ezra are right about the appalling way the Senate is about to behave...

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

5 Things You Need To Know about the President's Financial Reform Plan

I can't claim credit for this. This originally appeared as part of a slideshow on the Huffington Post, but since the text was so much more valuable (and well written) than the pictures were interesting, I thought I'd provide them here:


1. The Financial Services Oversight Council: President Obama wants to install a single agency that’s charged with overseeing the entire financial system -- and which would make sure that government regulatory bodies actually work together. Call it a National Department of Risk.

Bottom line: Presumably, someone will be watching out for those now-ubiquitous “systemic risks.”


2. A Bigger, Beefier Fed: Under Obama’s plan, chairman Ben Bernanke and the Fed will keep their newly expanded powers. The Fed will oversee, well, almost any financial institution. If companies don’t behave, the Fed can now “compel corrective actions” and has “emergency authority.”

Bottom line: Don’t mess with the Fed. Wall Street will continue to have to placate the central bank.


3. Leverage, So Outdated: Obama’s reforms will require companies like the failed Lehman Brothers to have certain levels of cash on hand for emergencies, and to cover consumer deposits. Safety nets, in other words.

Bottom line: The days of cheap loans are likely gone, both for corporations and consumers. Capital requirements could also dampen Wall Street earnings.


4. Safer Financial Innovation: The Obama plan will rein in those combustible and exotic financial products like over-the-counter derivatives and credit default swaps. The plan also aims to remedy loan securitization.

Bottom line: The company that gives you a loan will now have a stake in making sure you’ll pay it, which should help prevent another mortgage crisis.


5. The Consumer's New Best Friend: Say hello to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which will try to protect Main St. from complex mortgages, credit cards and predatory lenders. Think of it as the FDA for finance.

Bottom line: Curbing abusive practices from lenders and financial companies will certainly help. But no word on whether or not this new agency will make your credit card statements any easier to read.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Ben Shalom Bernanke (VIDEO)

The President sooo told him to do this.

A year in the making? Humanizing the Fed Chair? He's from Dillon, freakin' South Carolina?? His family business was once located on Main Street in Dillon? How, if you're our President, do you not promote that??

By the way, that's not a joke, or a dig. That's the man's name, Benjamin Shalom Bernanke.

Couple this with Geithner's recent (and I think successful) appearance on Charlie Rose, and this appears to be a coordinated effort by the Federal Government to tell America, "Hey, we hear you. You're pissed. We get it. We got this."

Here's Part 1:



And Part 2: