I don't think there's enough money on Planet Earth to save AIG at this point.
I can't believe they were allowed to take on as much risk as they did. I can't believe that any sane businessperson didn't raise a red flag. What we have here is a clear case of greedy executives that took profits and bonuses from bond insurance during good times without any thought of the long term risk. They pursued a quick buck, collected hefty bonus checks based on those artificially inflated profit numbers, then left the mess for us to clean up while they flew their corporate jets to the Caymans.
Giving AIG more money, now, is using a single 5 gallon bucket to bailout water from the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. AIG is sinking because of poor risk management, insane amounts of risk related obligations, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
By the way, isn't risk management the primary business of an insurer?
The government needs to be preparing to deal with the fallout, not negotiating to trade semi-valuable bonds for worthless stock.
The government should have sent in experts back in September to assess the real value of the company. They didn't, so I think you can, pretty much, write off the $150 billion they've given AIG.
The $150 billion is a sunk cost. There's no good business reason to give them more money when the outcome is certain: AIG will fail.
Once again you insert something in that was not written. Isolationism is not genocide- it's merely defending one's land against a hostile invader. European/American banks have proven themselves to be hostile invaders, with hostile intent.
You're reading between the lines again.
On another matter, how the heck do I delete/edit a "reply"? I only see a reply link, not an edit link like a blog post.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
All this while our leader (Sam P) annouced that IBM has record earnings and the executives are getting raises and bonus. Today we have been given the choice of a 10% pay cut or out the door. Sam has proven that he has lied directly to Obama and on CNBC.
I'm asking for publicly available archives, to be specific. AND THAT IS IT. Not "something for nothing". Just links that don't go dead just because somebody, belatedly, wanted to enforce copyright on something they aren't going to get any more money for no matter how hard they try.
And, if we had actually had the truth about what went down in September, do you really think EITHER Obama or McCain would have been electable? In fact, if we actually had DEMOCRACY in this country instead of an OLIGARCHIAL DICTATORSHIP, do you really think either of the so-called "major political parties" would be anything more than a minority ground under the heel of "tyranny of the majority"?
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
One of the early concepts in the global meltdown was that emerging market economies would decouple from the G7 economies, and be spared much of the pain. Didn't happen. The bottom line is that the global economy is, in fact, global, the banks are interconnected and the shadow banking system is still operational. Those looking for the next shock with national blinders in place could be in for a surprise.
The European banking system is a festering pool of decay ready to erupt like a diseased pustule. Yves Smith has been following this closely. Eastern Europe economies are collapsing under the weight of currency shocks and a number of European banks have a substantial portfolio of loans in these countries. The Austrians and the Swiss are particularly vulnerable. Add on the fact that they have all the same problems with a housing bubble and collapsing RMBS asset values and significant exposure to credit default swaps (perhaps some of the AIG money is going over there?), and the magnitude of the potential for disaster is apparent.
I won't argue about the public being well informed. Ignorance of issues and actions needed for reform is one of this nation's biggest problems. Saying this, seabert, I take issue with you implying that I would want to live in a dictatorship. Frankly, that's a reckless statement to make. When it comes to the democratic process, that is our electoral process and the candidates, please show me where info is being withheld? Last election season, you couldn't make a step without hearing about Obama this...McCain that. And I would say the same for more local elections.
So are we talking about information about things that could kill you? If there is a chemical leak or something worse like say a Chernobyl, then odds are that it won't be a secret for long. Not in an age of 24 hour news networks and wire services like the Associated Press. Even mundane info like road construction is made public?
Regarding economic info, please tell me who is keeping info like job cuts and company bankruptcies from you? No one is. You want the price of oil? Futuresource.com has it for "free." Want to know the latest bid/ask on IBM or GE or Microsoft? Yahoo Finance.
You'll notice I said "free" instead of free. Whether its price quotes or information on say kuala bears. Whether it's at your local library or the internet. It costs money to host this information, costs that need to be recouped some how. The question becomes where the cash comes from. Futuresource and Yahoo Finance pays for itself through advertisments. Your library gets it from taxes. If I wanted to read articles on the Financial Times, I need to pay a monthly or yearly price.
Even if the news story is long since become old, there is still costs involved. How do you plan on accessing say a housing story from a month ago? Chances are the internet, and that means server costs. The question now changes to who will house that old info? If it's a commercial news site, well chances are you will either get bombarded with ads or have to pay a fee. But sometimes ad revenue does pay the bills. Ask yourself this, how is it out of all the newspapers that have gone online, only the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times is moderately profitable or at least not underwater like the New York Times? The economics of information is changing, the old industrial era models do not work anymore. If news organizations are to warehouse this information, then they have a right to ask for a fee if they want. I'm sorry seabert, but you can't get something for nothing.
Anyone notice today we get these issues that mask the real inequality? For example, we get outrage over funky political cartoons, raging preachers, magazine covers, shock jocks and the latest stupid thing they said, etc....
but do we hear protests, riots in the street over the fact the black unemployment rate is approaching 25%?
To me, that is the most outrageous thing out there.
In terms of wages, labor supply, I imagine a lot of racism was due to economics.
In other words, by giving equal rights to black workers, they also increase the labor supply, or it is perceived to increase the labor supply. I've heard the same argument for women entering the labor force, completely discounting the fact that women have always been in the workforce.
Ok, reality check. From what I can see in the statistics:
When one already has a labor supply in existence, in other words it's already a labor supply within a domestic market, we're not bringing in a massive increase from outside the country, it's reasonably stable....
When trying to repress one segment of the labor supply by race, sex when that segment already exists in the workforce...they actually lower their bargaining power and also create a subclass of workers, who by their nature will undercut the wages of the other subclass of workers.
In other words, by using race discrimination of a peoples already citizens, already here, working, the white workers automatically created a subclass of black workers and by that very discrimination were forced to work "more cheaply" than the white workers, thus repressing wages for white workers because they could be undercut.
I'll have to see if I can find a study in labor economics which has looked at this specifically, but it's an interesting issue for any increase in a labor supply, all else being static, should lower wages, yet in these cases I believe few recognize there was no real increase in a labor supply. The labor supply already existed, but was separated as a subclass, which was a drag on all wages as a result of this sublcass being required to work for less wages, worse working conditions in many of the same occupational areas (your example being teamsters).
def. PC - politically correct
(How I justify the statement most discrimination stems from economic inequality, threat of economic loss, is the slave trade, which is the ultimate subclass of cheap labor).
Look, argumentative rants are not something I want to spend my own time on.
A film, media, documentary is not "information" or raw data. And....nothing is "for free". Your library is funded with public funds, your education is funded with taxpayer funds.
I'm saying INFORMATION for free- as in, one should be able to have access to all information in a democracy to be a good citizen to vote.
If economics gets in the way of that (and it does) then we need a reasonable mechanism to free the information from the economics.
I worked on public domain and shareware programs LONG BEFORE open source was ever dreamed of. But that's not entirely what I'm talking about- artists and original content creators deserve to get paid for the hours they work. But I see no reason to pay somebody, in perpetuity, for something they've had nothing to do with for several years. And I see a very real argument FOR historical data being available for free in a democracy.
Otherwise, you might as well live in an Oligarchial Dictatorship, like China, where information is restricted on a need to know basis.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
A well-educated public is necessary for the conduct of business in a democracy.
That's one of the basic principles of democracy. VERY basic principles.
If you don't believe that information should be free, then you might as well live in a dictatorship- because you believe that only a minority should be making the decisions.
That is why I do not believe information should be hidden behind "a princely sum each month".
Having said that- yes, for profit news services should be allowed to exist; I'm just saying that their copyright should be subject to the public need to know.
I'm also of the belief that they can make a very decent profit off of the initial "scoop". And yes, I have released in the past, many writings and software programs into the public domain.
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
And is approximately 54%. Now that isn't real unemployment- it counts people living off of investment income (the retired) as unemployed, it counts the disabled as unemployed, it counts young children as being unemployed.
But I still hold that it is the real number.
Census website, however, doesn't give us the data we need for historical calculation of this number past 1940, and even that we only have the July 1 datapoint for each DECADE.
------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
And the Trappists, and the Carmelites, and a dozen other Catholic orders who have made communism as a microeconomy work.
Personally, I think isolated self-sufficiency is a REALLY GOOD IDEA- a much better idea than relying on international trade for your needs. Ideally, every community should be self-sufficient first, and then trade out of surplus, and then it doesn't matter one whit if the local economy is cooperativistic or competitive.
----
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
Well, 1500 years of Catholic Religious Orders kind of proves that Communism is viable- as a microeconomic method.
I have great doubts at the moment that ANYTHING is viable as a macroeconomic method- regulated capitalism included, since it seems far too easy for small minority groups of oligarchists to pool their money together to change the regulations.
But communism is not a viable macroeconomic method- too much centralization. Same problem with regulated capitalism, and just about any other system I can think of other than distributism- and the last isn't really a macroeconomic method at all, just a collection of protected microeconomies.
--------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
you're about to get yourself in serious trouble. What do you think "kill the foreigners" is? Do you think that is ok to write on here?
I don't think there's enough money on Planet Earth to save AIG at this point.
I can't believe they were allowed to take on as much risk as they did. I can't believe that any sane businessperson didn't raise a red flag. What we have here is a clear case of greedy executives that took profits and bonuses from bond insurance during good times without any thought of the long term risk. They pursued a quick buck, collected hefty bonus checks based on those artificially inflated profit numbers, then left the mess for us to clean up while they flew their corporate jets to the Caymans.
Giving AIG more money, now, is using a single 5 gallon bucket to bailout water from the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. AIG is sinking because of poor risk management, insane amounts of risk related obligations, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
By the way, isn't risk management the primary business of an insurer?
The government needs to be preparing to deal with the fallout, not negotiating to trade semi-valuable bonds for worthless stock.
The government should have sent in experts back in September to assess the real value of the company. They didn't, so I think you can, pretty much, write off the $150 billion they've given AIG.
The $150 billion is a sunk cost. There's no good business reason to give them more money when the outcome is certain: AIG will fail.
Once again you insert something in that was not written. Isolationism is not genocide- it's merely defending one's land against a hostile invader. European/American banks have proven themselves to be hostile invaders, with hostile intent.
You're reading between the lines again.
On another matter, how the heck do I delete/edit a "reply"? I only see a reply link, not an edit link like a blog post.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
All this while our leader (Sam P) annouced that IBM has record earnings and the executives are getting raises and bonus. Today we have been given the choice of a 10% pay cut or out the door. Sam has proven that he has lied directly to Obama and on CNBC.
delete this post or edit it. Somehow I do not believe genocide is good economic policy!
Would do well to go isolationist at this point- kill the foreigners, nationalize the assets, tell the European Banks to go hang, and mine the borders.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
I'm asking for publicly available archives, to be specific. AND THAT IS IT. Not "something for nothing". Just links that don't go dead just because somebody, belatedly, wanted to enforce copyright on something they aren't going to get any more money for no matter how hard they try.
And, if we had actually had the truth about what went down in September, do you really think EITHER Obama or McCain would have been electable? In fact, if we actually had DEMOCRACY in this country instead of an OLIGARCHIAL DICTATORSHIP, do you really think either of the so-called "major political parties" would be anything more than a minority ground under the heel of "tyranny of the majority"?
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
One of the early concepts in the global meltdown was that emerging market economies would decouple from the G7 economies, and be spared much of the pain. Didn't happen. The bottom line is that the global economy is, in fact, global, the banks are interconnected and the shadow banking system is still operational. Those looking for the next shock with national blinders in place could be in for a surprise.
The European banking system is a festering pool of decay ready to erupt like a diseased pustule. Yves Smith has been following this closely. Eastern Europe economies are collapsing under the weight of currency shocks and a number of European banks have a substantial portfolio of loans in these countries. The Austrians and the Swiss are particularly vulnerable. Add on the fact that they have all the same problems with a housing bubble and collapsing RMBS asset values and significant exposure to credit default swaps (perhaps some of the AIG money is going over there?), and the magnitude of the potential for disaster is apparent.
I won't argue about the public being well informed. Ignorance of issues and actions needed for reform is one of this nation's biggest problems. Saying this, seabert, I take issue with you implying that I would want to live in a dictatorship. Frankly, that's a reckless statement to make. When it comes to the democratic process, that is our electoral process and the candidates, please show me where info is being withheld? Last election season, you couldn't make a step without hearing about Obama this...McCain that. And I would say the same for more local elections.
So are we talking about information about things that could kill you? If there is a chemical leak or something worse like say a Chernobyl, then odds are that it won't be a secret for long. Not in an age of 24 hour news networks and wire services like the Associated Press. Even mundane info like road construction is made public?
Regarding economic info, please tell me who is keeping info like job cuts and company bankruptcies from you? No one is. You want the price of oil? Futuresource.com has it for "free." Want to know the latest bid/ask on IBM or GE or Microsoft? Yahoo Finance.
You'll notice I said "free" instead of free. Whether its price quotes or information on say kuala bears. Whether it's at your local library or the internet. It costs money to host this information, costs that need to be recouped some how. The question becomes where the cash comes from. Futuresource and Yahoo Finance pays for itself through advertisments. Your library gets it from taxes. If I wanted to read articles on the Financial Times, I need to pay a monthly or yearly price.
Even if the news story is long since become old, there is still costs involved. How do you plan on accessing say a housing story from a month ago? Chances are the internet, and that means server costs. The question now changes to who will house that old info? If it's a commercial news site, well chances are you will either get bombarded with ads or have to pay a fee. But sometimes ad revenue does pay the bills. Ask yourself this, how is it out of all the newspapers that have gone online, only the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times is moderately profitable or at least not underwater like the New York Times? The economics of information is changing, the old industrial era models do not work anymore. If news organizations are to warehouse this information, then they have a right to ask for a fee if they want. I'm sorry seabert, but you can't get something for nothing.
Anyone notice today we get these issues that mask the real inequality? For example, we get outrage over funky political cartoons, raging preachers, magazine covers, shock jocks and the latest stupid thing they said, etc....
but do we hear protests, riots in the street over the fact the black unemployment rate is approaching 25%?
To me, that is the most outrageous thing out there.
Another beyond belief outrageous thing is over 50% of all women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics are dropping (forced out) of their field by their 30's. There is also a clear glass ceiling.
Then, black engineers, nobody is talking about dramatic decline in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics at all.
In terms of wages, labor supply, I imagine a lot of racism was due to economics.
In other words, by giving equal rights to black workers, they also increase the labor supply, or it is perceived to increase the labor supply. I've heard the same argument for women entering the labor force, completely discounting the fact that women have always been in the workforce.
Ok, reality check. From what I can see in the statistics:
When one already has a labor supply in existence, in other words it's already a labor supply within a domestic market, we're not bringing in a massive increase from outside the country, it's reasonably stable....
When trying to repress one segment of the labor supply by race, sex when that segment already exists in the workforce...they actually lower their bargaining power and also create a subclass of workers, who by their nature will undercut the wages of the other subclass of workers.
In other words, by using race discrimination of a peoples already citizens, already here, working, the white workers automatically created a subclass of black workers and by that very discrimination were forced to work "more cheaply" than the white workers, thus repressing wages for white workers because they could be undercut.
I'll have to see if I can find a study in labor economics which has looked at this specifically, but it's an interesting issue for any increase in a labor supply, all else being static, should lower wages, yet in these cases I believe few recognize there was no real increase in a labor supply. The labor supply already existed, but was separated as a subclass, which was a drag on all wages as a result of this sublcass being required to work for less wages, worse working conditions in many of the same occupational areas (your example being teamsters).
def. PC - politically correct
(How I justify the statement most discrimination stems from economic inequality, threat of economic loss, is the slave trade, which is the ultimate subclass of cheap labor).
I suspect the natural level of consumer confidence is zero. But why is 1985 considered to be the high point?
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
Look, argumentative rants are not something I want to spend my own time on.
A film, media, documentary is not "information" or raw data. And....nothing is "for free". Your library is funded with public funds, your education is funded with taxpayer funds.
Wikipedia has paid for staff, benefactors.
I'm saying INFORMATION for free- as in, one should be able to have access to all information in a democracy to be a good citizen to vote.
If economics gets in the way of that (and it does) then we need a reasonable mechanism to free the information from the economics.
I worked on public domain and shareware programs LONG BEFORE open source was ever dreamed of. But that's not entirely what I'm talking about- artists and original content creators deserve to get paid for the hours they work. But I see no reason to pay somebody, in perpetuity, for something they've had nothing to do with for several years. And I see a very real argument FOR historical data being available for free in a democracy.
Otherwise, you might as well live in an Oligarchial Dictatorship, like China, where information is restricted on a need to know basis.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
Have yet to see the REAL VILLAINS get fined or go to jail for it.
Did I miss something last week? Who got put in jail, the poor indentured slave H-1b visa holder, or the guy who hired him?
It is the second, not the first, that we should be throwing into jail.
-------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
A well-educated public is necessary for the conduct of business in a democracy.
That's one of the basic principles of democracy. VERY basic principles.
If you don't believe that information should be free, then you might as well live in a dictatorship- because you believe that only a minority should be making the decisions.
That is why I do not believe information should be hidden behind "a princely sum each month".
Having said that- yes, for profit news services should be allowed to exist; I'm just saying that their copyright should be subject to the public need to know.
I'm also of the belief that they can make a very decent profit off of the initial "scoop". And yes, I have released in the past, many writings and software programs into the public domain.
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
And is approximately 54%. Now that isn't real unemployment- it counts people living off of investment income (the retired) as unemployed, it counts the disabled as unemployed, it counts young children as being unemployed.
But I still hold that it is the real number.
Census website, however, doesn't give us the data we need for historical calculation of this number past 1940, and even that we only have the July 1 datapoint for each DECADE.
------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
And the Trappists, and the Carmelites, and a dozen other Catholic orders who have made communism as a microeconomy work.
Personally, I think isolated self-sufficiency is a REALLY GOOD IDEA- a much better idea than relying on international trade for your needs. Ideally, every community should be self-sufficient first, and then trade out of surplus, and then it doesn't matter one whit if the local economy is cooperativistic or competitive.
----
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
Well, 1500 years of Catholic Religious Orders kind of proves that Communism is viable- as a microeconomic method.
I have great doubts at the moment that ANYTHING is viable as a macroeconomic method- regulated capitalism included, since it seems far too easy for small minority groups of oligarchists to pool their money together to change the regulations.
But communism is not a viable macroeconomic method- too much centralization. Same problem with regulated capitalism, and just about any other system I can think of other than distributism- and the last isn't really a macroeconomic method at all, just a collection of protected microeconomies.
--------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
We3're very close to that now. Marshall Brain wrote a nice SF story about this
----
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
Pages