November 17, 2010

Financial Briefing: Back from the sickbed
— Monty

Apologies for the lack of posting recently. I was colonized by a virus of the family Orthomyxoviridae, which had me lying on my humble pallet alternately sweating with fever and then shaking like a scared dog. Apparently I was in the "give this chump a placebo" control group when I received my influenza vaccine a couple of weeks back. At any rate, my immune system finally got off its lazy, goldbricking ass and drove off the invaders, so once again...DOOM!

Acting Man points out that even the very best jugglers cannot keep the balls in the air forever. Sooner or later, they're going to fall.

I don't know that I'd say that "businesses are doing great" (a lot of those "profits" they're making are coming from reduced headcount and tightened internal processes, not increased sales), but it is true that the government is still a bloated and inefficient mess.

Ireland might get another bowl of porridge from the IMF. Pride doesn't fill an empty belly, as my mom always said. EU exposure to Irish debt? A nice round $650 billion. I'm still amazed that people think that this can end in any way other than a default. Oh, the EU or the IMF can "bail out" Ireland, but what they're really doing is bailing out German and French banks. As with the Greeks, there may be a level of austerity the citizens will simply refuse to tolerate simply to make sure that foreign bondholders don't have to take a haircut.

If I had to pick the very choicest morsel from this banquet of bitter rage, it would have to be the phrase "wanker-banker buddies".

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.

Hamtramck, MI seeks bankruptcy. You're going to see more of this in the coming year, count on it.

Headlines like this are why British newspapers are better than American ones: "Austria tells Greece to get stuffed". Who would have thought that a nation full of layabouts, tax cheats, and public-sector leeches would lie about a thing like their finances?

Saddle up, boys! We're going to find the Bernanke gang and put things a-right.

Dow 14,000 in 2012, baby! Sometimes it's hard to tell cockeyed optimism from pure insane dementia. Though I guess if Helicopter Ben gets the inflation he's been working so hard for, it's not out of the question. (And it is just possible, you know, that sad old bears like me are wrong. Sometimes it's good to hear from the optimists just to remind myself that there's an alternative point of view. An insane, nonsensical, reality-denying, alternate point-of-view.)

Three reasons the G-20 talks hit a dead end. Actually, you don't need three reasons. You only need one: nobody wants to take the hit. It's a game of musical chairs, and everybody is jostling and shoving to make sure that they're close to an empty chair when the music stops.

If the Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction plan was at least a serious attempt at solving the various intractable problems involved with shrinking America's colossal indebtedness (and reducing our liabilities), what would you call the Schakowski plan? I think I would call it the "Squeeze 'Em Until They Pop" plan, because it's composed mostly of taxes on businesses and "the rich". It's basically another chorus sung straight out of the Democrat hymnal.

LEAVE BEN ALONE!!!ONE Editorial Comment: I don't believe this "it's not Ben's fault" line a single bit. Bernanke has wide latitude as to what he can and cannot do, and he is choosing to do some fantastically stupid stuff. No, Bernanke is not at fault for all of it; but he bears a significant portion of the blame. And QE2 sits on his shoulders alone. If it works, he'll be the hero of the hour; if it fails (as seems likely), his legacy as a dimwitted chump will be sealed. His rep in the global financial world is probably already damaged beyond repair. Ben Bernanke is not a helpless victim who only acted under orders and mandates, remember that. He chose the path he has taken. He could have chosen a different one. Judge him on the basis of choices he has made -- in that light alone, he has failed.

Deny it though they may, the Federal Reserve is a politcal entity; there fore any action they take is political as well as economic. It's inherent to their mission. To complain that the Fed is getting pulled into "partisan politics" is silly; the myth that the Fed is above such things is (and has always been) nonsense.

Father: "Son you'd better get that barn door closed!"
Son: "But paw! The horse done run off already!"
Father: "Don't back-talk me, son. If your mother finds out that her horse is gone and that I left the door open, a certain amount of unpleasantness will ensue. Maybe the kind of unpleasantness that calls for stitches and leaves a scar. But if the door is closed, it will simply be a mystery that cannot be explained, like those crabs I caught from the carny gal who ran the Tilt-A-Whirl at the county fair last year."
Son: "What are crabs, paw?"
Father: "Never you mind, son. Just get that door closed."

"He had to be told by the French and the Germans that his socialism was too far left for them to deal with.” When the French are telling you that you are too socialist, you have got some serious fucking issues, dude. I'm just saying. V. I. Lenin was not "too socialist" for the French.

China's economic miracle is over? Thomas Friedman will be crushed. (My own take? China has built up enough forward momentum to racket along at a good speed for awhile yet -- maybe even for another decade. But the juice is used up, and the train will inevitably begin to slow down. It's all over now but the physics of the situation.)

Alas, poor California; I knew her, Horatio, a state of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Monty at 06:54 AM | Comments (78)
Post contains 1014 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Glad to hear your feeling better. Your flu shot was not a placebo but a subcutaneous chip implant. I head down to the local Walmart and run a degaussing magnet over your upper arm for 30 minutes.

Posted by: Radioactive Satellite Of LOVE at November 17, 2010 07:03 AM (LdYLm)

2 I had the same thing last week....glad you're feeling better. Our economy? meh.

Posted by: Cheri at November 17, 2010 07:07 AM (oiNtH)

3 Thomas Friedman will be crushed. (My own take? China has built up enough forward momentum to racket along at a good speed for awhile yet -- maybe even for another decade. But the juice is used up, and the train will inevitably begin to slow down. It's all over now but the physics of the situation.)

And so will George Soros, who thinks that China has better functioning government than U.S.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 17, 2010 07:09 AM (9hSKh)

4

Glad you're back in the saddle, Montague.

Little Tommy Friedman's tears will be particularly sweet when we don't have to listen to his insane Keynesian ramblings anymore. I've forgotten more about economics than he'll ever know, and I'm a designer.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 17, 2010 07:10 AM (3jxR/)

5 Shit, Monty. Literally. Placebo your ass. You took the flu shot with the virus.

Posted by: maverick muse at November 17, 2010 07:10 AM (H+LJc)

6 I've been pretty sick lately, too.  What's my prognosis, doc?

Posted by: Gold at November 17, 2010 07:11 AM (gQ+XA)

7 Does anyone know what kind of dispute the MI town has with Detroit?

Posted by: Vic at November 17, 2010 07:12 AM (e4sSD)

8 You took the flu shot with the virus. Yeah, I know -- the idea is that you get a milder form of the virus to keep the really bad one from knocking you down. But if this was the mild version...I shudder to think what the bad one would have been like. (This one wasn't as bad as the flu I had five or six years back, though. That was one for the books. It pretty much knocked me out of the land of the living for about two weeks.)

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 07:15 AM (4Pleu)

9 Apparently I was in the "give this chump a placebo" control group when I received my influenza vaccine a couple of weeks back.

Or you got the newly mutated subtype and yet survived.  Congratulations, .  Good to know you're well again.  I always look forward to my morning coffee G2 Gatorade with your Financial News of Doom!

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 17, 2010 07:16 AM (9hSKh)

10

On the economy, how's the airline business profit margin?

A Ryanair flight took off late for Paris, and the airport nearby was closed when they arrived, so the flight diverted for a Brussels landing and the passengers refused to disembark. The pilot and crew locked the toilets but left the cockpit unlocked when they disembarked, abandoning the plane and passengers who stayed seated four hours before accepting a bus trip to their destination.

Airports near Paris close after business hours?! Those union demands.

Posted by: maverick muse at November 17, 2010 07:17 AM (H+LJc)

11 Speaking of gold -- I sold a chunk of mine a few days ago to fund some repairs to the house. I got lucky and sold pretty near the $1400 peak; it's fallen back to about $1350/oz or so now. Will it fall further yet? I'm not sure. I'm not selling any more in any event; the rest of my hoard stays intact until and unless the economy ticks back up. (I actually kind of hope gold *does* go down in price 20% or so; maybe then I could afford to buy some more.)

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 07:17 AM (4Pleu)

12

Got the flu after getting a flu shot, eh?

Another data point to add to my "I ain't getting a shot, cuz I did once and got the flu" dataset.  My wife will not be pleased.

I guess I'm just one of those who sneers at science.

Posted by: rockhead at November 17, 2010 07:18 AM (RykTt)

13 That's why I never take the flu shot- in all the years I haven't gotten one (most of my life) I've had the flu two or three times.  The years I take the shot (three) I've gotten the flu every time.  I don't like those odds.

Mostly, I think  the elderly and the very young should get the shots, and then I think it's still a crap-shoot.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 17, 2010 07:19 AM (8y9MW)

14 Yeah, I know -- the idea is that you get a milder form of the virus to keep the really bad one from knocking you down. But if this was the mild version...I shudder to think what the bad one would have been like.

It's not just mild. It's dead. It can't infect you. But any different live strain that's floating around can. Glad you're feeling better.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at November 17, 2010 07:19 AM (CinaY)

15 (This one wasn't as bad as the flu I had five or six years back, though. That was one for the books. It pretty much knocked me out of the land of the living for about two weeks.) -- Posted by: Monty

And five or six years back, did taking the shot precede that bout with the flu?
 


Posted by: maverick muse at November 17, 2010 07:20 AM (H+LJc)

16 Posted by: maverick muse at November 17, 2010 11:17 AM (H+LJc)

You know, I haven't heard AA or Southwest or United or any of those talk about what they think about the new TSA regs.  I wonder what the TSA Porn Patrol is doing to their bottom line?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at November 17, 2010 07:20 AM (8y9MW)

17 The pilot and crew locked the toilets but left the cockpit unlocked when they disembarked

And none of the passengers thought of flying it to Paris at that point?

Posted by: John Galt at November 17, 2010 07:22 AM (F/4zf)

18 even the very best jugglers cannot keep the balls in the air forever

Someone needs to throw that little clue-bone to Janet Napolitano.

Posted by: Ambiguously Gay Richard Simmons at November 17, 2010 07:23 AM (nR7pG)

19 No, the Bernanke isn't doing stupid things, that would show some evidence of some even-distribution to his decisions. Rather, what he is doing is deliberate. He thinks he is a smart financial guy, all he knows are self-appointed smart financial guys. So, he is going to make decisions that benefit all these smart financial guys. And we stupid taxpayers never will be able to understand all the smart things he knows and we need to sit down and shut up (after we hand over our wallet, of course).

I've said it before: All the money they have spent, the government could have bought up every single one of the "bad" mortgages that were supposedly the cause of the crisis (blame the poor, how convenient). When, in reality, the losses are all paper-losses that the banks would have to eat, and it would destroy them--not our country, not our economy, just them fuckers. But, they are already dead, they know it, but they are going to drag us down with them.

Anyone want to tell me how our economy would be worse if we closed down and broke up Bank of America, Wells Fargo and a few of the other "too big to fail" financial firms?

We busted up AT&T and Microsoft--but for their billions in campaign contributions to the establishment, we'd be busting up all of the top 10 financial firms in America.

Posted by: Jimmuy at November 17, 2010 07:27 AM (ImAna)

20 @10 Ryanair is a piece of crap airlines that doesn't fly into Brussels. They fly into Sharl-WA! and bus you back and forth. I know cos I spent 2 days trying to get the hell out of Belgium. Any problems they had are most likely due to their cheap business plan to avoid major airports.

Posted by: Alice's Clone Army at November 17, 2010 07:29 AM (DjCjS)

21 Anyone want to tell me how our economy would be worse if we closed down and broke up Bank of America, Wells Fargo and a few of the other "too big to fail" financial firms? Counterparty risk. Don't kid yourself: if a big bank like Wells, Citi, or BofA goes down, you're going to feel it. We all are, globally. Remember the Lehman bankruptcy -- the fucking opaque derivatives that all these banks buy from each other and the investment houses makes the whole foundation a rotten latticework. Take away any of the supports, and the whole thing threatens to collapse. Having said that: it might collapse anyway, so maybe it's time to start building something else that isn't so rotten underneath.

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 07:32 AM (4Pleu)

22 Market is up 0.04%. Happy days!

Posted by: Radioactive Satellite Of LOVE at November 17, 2010 07:34 AM (LdYLm)

23 Monty, I'm an economic idiot, so I'd really appreciate it if you'd explain in detail - or point me to a place that can better explain - what you mean by "the whole thing threatens to collapse."

I always got the impression that the derivatives were like insurance policies. So if they all vanish into thin air, I understand that businesses will have to do business in very different ways, but will businesses actually collapse? How and why?

Posted by: Josef K. at November 17, 2010 07:45 AM (7+pP9)

24 California Deathwatch:

Brown likely to retain most of Schwarzenegger's administration

As the gov.-elect's transition effort got underway Tuesday, aides said he isn't looking to restaff every department in the state.
Los Angeles Times November 17, 2010


Brown advisors say the governor-elect is focused on the budget; filling a couple of thousand government posts with new faces is not his priority now, they say. Even on financial matters, Brown may not bring in a new top-level advisor. He has praised Schwarzenegger's budget director, who people close to the transition say may be invited to keep the job.

Brown had consulted the budget director, Ana Matosantos, for insight on state fiscal matters during the campaign. At one point he showed up at her office unannounced and without any entourage, and the two sat down and drilled deep into budget policy.

Another prominent official who could easily hold over would be one of the state's top environmental regulators, Schwarzenegger appointee Mary Nichols, who heads the Air Resources Board. She worked for Brown when he was governor three decades ago.



California officially a one party state. We're all Democrats now...

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 17, 2010 07:48 AM (rgL27)

25 California officially a one party state. We're all Democrats now...

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 17, 2010 11:48 AM (rgL27)

All cattle in the stockyard, waiting for the killing floor.

Posted by: Radioactive Satellite Of LOVE at November 17, 2010 07:50 AM (LdYLm)

26 AllenG (Dedicated Tenther)

That's been our experience as well.

It isn't as if everything the pharmaceutical industry produces or promises is right for everyone.

First, flu-like symptoms do not equate to a case with the flu virus.

Next, given the last fraud of a 2009 pandemic for profit, critics have strong evidence to base arguments given the contaminated vaccines. Gerald Ford deja vu.

Finally, the rush to produce and disseminate vaccines in order to corner the market spreads misery as with the first federally supported polio vaccine.

It wasn't that long ago that this history was detailed in a PBS broadcast.

Posted by: maverick muse at November 17, 2010 07:51 AM (H+LJc)

27 Monty, average people are uninformed about the hundreds of trillions of derivatives hanging over their heads. What the hell are we going to do when those start their domino collapse?

Posted by: texette at November 17, 2010 07:52 AM (o38K+)

28 I haven't heard AA or Southwest or United or any of those talk about what they think about the new TSA regs.

Yeah, bottom line vs. federal strong-arming. As is, the gubnit's to blame for a catastrophe from terrorism, not the airlines. So long as it isn't their ass being probed, Airlines will go the way of McDonalds and get their employees special consideration with a Presidential exemption from security checks. And travelers? Well, dhimmi status for America's citizenry is Obama's point.

Posted by: maverick muse at November 17, 2010 07:59 AM (H+LJc)

29 Texette, I know the size of the derivatives, but I'm just unsure how they will effect businesses. I read an interesting article earlier this year that basically said most started their lives as insurance of some sort - contracts to but raw materials at a set price, for example, in an attempt to mitigate risk.

If that derivative vanishes, then a business could be badly hurt if it has to pay more for raw materials that the derivative called for. That much I understand.

What I don't understand is how much material damage will occur. I see banks collapsing, and their assets being bought for pennies on the dollar. I see some businesses having to pay more for supplies, and a wave of adjustments rippling through society, starting with farms, mines, and other primary sources having to pay more, and thus charge more, and so on ...

But how does that get us to Mad Max land? Or to Argentina in 2000?

I think a clear, succinct description of this could open a lot of eyes, and perform a real public service.

Posted by: Josef K. at November 17, 2010 08:02 AM (7+pP9)

30 Josef K.: Derivatives are a real hairball, and I really can't do them justice in a short bit, but here goes: Derivatives are basically risk-abatement tools. Most derivative instruments are backed by an actual security: stocks have futures, calls, puts, and so on; bonds have various kinds of "insurance" like CDS and other swaps. So far so good. But the problem is...there aren't that many originators of derivatives, so everyone just ends up buying stuff from each other. You have maybe thirty or forty major players out there, max. So if one big originator has problems (think AIG with the CDS fiasco a couple of years ago), it causes huge ripples. AIG can't meet its obligations to Lehman, which means Lehman can't meet their obligations to their investors, which means.... And so on. It's the ripple-effect. Everybody thought they were adequately hedged when in fact no one was. Risk-abatement depends on accurately assessing the risk environment, and it turns out that the entire world dramatically underpriced the risk they were facing. First in real estate, now in sovereign debt. There are many tens (maybe hundreds) of trillions of dollars in notional derivative contracts floating around out there -- many multiples of the entire world GDP for a decade or more, by some estimates. When a big player falls (Lehman, AIG), it causes others to fall in a domino pattern -- which was the rationale for Uncle Sam's bailouts of the investment houses and banks in 2008 and 2009. But the problem was not fixed; it was just papered over. Everyone is afraid to reprice everything to reflect the true risk of default, because it would simply exacerbate the hole the sovereigns are facing right now. (Example: most state pension funds estimate a rate of return at 7.5-8%, when the actual rate of low-risk return over the past 20 years has been more like 4.5-5%. Can you imagine the hole it would blow in a state's budget if they had to fund their pensions to assume a 4.5% rate of return instead of an 8% return? California would collapse overnight.)

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 08:03 AM (4Pleu)

31 But what does collapse mean? Say CA, for example, what does its collapse look like? Are we talking about a complete cessation of services and functions, all state gov't workers dumped on the streets, etc?

Posted by: KG at November 17, 2010 08:06 AM (DeCj1)

32 Another problem with many derivative contracts: anyone can buy risk protection, not just the owner of the underlying security. This was what blew up the mortgage-backed securities market. If I owned an MBS, I could buy a CDS to cover that MBS -- but so could anyone else. It gave speculators a way to "short" a bond that had never existed before. Thus a risk-abatement tool instead became a speculation tool that rapidly spun out of control.

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 08:07 AM (4Pleu)

33 But what does collapse mean? You're already seeing it. The cities and counties go bankrupt -- no city services, no trash collection, no lights at night, no cops, no firemen. The counties go bankrupt: no licensing, no county services, no road construction. The state defaults: everybody gets paid with IOU's, state workers get laid off, etc. Civil unrest, riots, dissolution. You can't pull taxes out of people who have no money, any more than you can squeeze blood out of a rock. And Uncle Sugar's cupboard is bare.

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 08:10 AM (4Pleu)

34 Monty - so your saying good times

Posted by: Jean at November 17, 2010 08:13 AM (lnUW/)

35 Can you imagine the hole it would blow in a state's budget if they had to fund their pensions to assume a 4.5% rate of return instead of an 8% return? California would collapse overnight.)

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 12:03 PM (4Pleu)


Bad? Yes. Inevitable? Also yes. The way I see it, we let the shit hit the fan now, or we just delay the SHTF moment, making the eventual day of reckoning even worse.

One other thing. The people who assumed - and the ones who signed off on and allowed the assumptions of 8% returns - should all be fired, and maybe prosecuted for financial misfeasance, malfeasance, whatever. And that goes for the fools at the Lehmans and AIGs of the world. These people knew just what they were doing, and what risks they were taking with the economy of the world. If they didn't, they were such fools and idiots they never should have had those jobs to begin with.

And as for California, this is why some judge somewhere is going to have to strap on some balls and a sense of reality, and release the state and its municipalities from its pension obligations. GM bondholder screwing proved we no longer have the rule of law in place. We might as well profit from that sad fact before we reinstitute it.

Posted by: Josef K. at November 17, 2010 08:15 AM (7+pP9)

36 And as for California, this is why some judge somewhere is going to have to strap on some balls and a sense of reality, and release the state and its municipalities from its pension obligations. A judge can't do it (in California, at least). State employee penions are guaranteed in the state constitution as a vested benefit. To change that, you'd need to call a state convention and re-write the constitution. Chances of that happening in the newly GOP-free zone of Callie? Zero. Here's the thing: outside of a formal bankruptcy, a judge can't just set aside a legal contract (yeah, there are technicalities here, but bear with me). States cannot legally go bankrupt. Ergo bankruptcy law would not apply at the state level regarding pensions (though it would -- and does -- apply at the municipality level). Now, alleviating the municipal pension debt in California would make a huge difference -- but it would require most of the big cities in California to declare bankruptcy. Chances of that actually happening? Zero.

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 08:22 AM (4Pleu)

37 Another problem with many derivative contracts: anyone can buy risk protection, not just the owner of the underlying security. This was what blew up the mortgage-backed securities market.

Oh please.  Buying protection on a MBS or a corporate bond, whether or not you own the underlying security, has nothing to do with the default of that bond.  Either the issuer can meet its debt service obligation or it can't.  Giving me the ability to buy insurance on your car wouldn't make you crash into a bridge abutment.  What blew up the MBS market was the inability of borrowers to maintain their payments when real estate values collapsed.  You're making this far more complicated and sinister than it really is.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at November 17, 2010 08:29 AM (+lsX1)

38 Ace, you're missing a turning point moment in American history. The Robo-signing bill, the Interstate Recognition of Notarization ACt, HR3808, is up for a veto override today. This bill would allow the bankster gangsters to shop their fraudulent broken chain of title MBS documents to any sleazy bought and paid for notary they can find, who then magically cure their lack of the proper promissory note ownership. If this veto is overridden, it will be the end of rule of law in America as we know. The banksters will own us. We will be serfs.

Posted by: Unsk at November 17, 2010 08:33 AM (P2osf)

39 36 A judge can't do it (in California, at least). State employee penions are guaranteed in the state constitution as a vested benefit. To change that, you'd need to call a state convention and re-write the constitution.
_____________

Given the Prop. 8 fiasco, can't a judge just rule that part of the constitution to be unconstitutional?

Posted by: Anachronda, lobbing a Molotov cocktail at November 17, 2010 08:33 AM (FzhYM)

40 You're making this far more complicated and sinister than it really is. Oh, horseshit, Ted. We've been over this before. Let's say I buy a house for $120K. I then buy fire insurance on my house for $120K. If my house burns down, it zeros out. But if anyone can buy fire insurance on my house for $120K, the insurer could be out millions if it burns down -- way more than the actual replacement cost of the house. And there are a lot of disinterested third-parties who stand to profit if my house burns down, you know what I mean? You're telling me that scenario wouldn't draw a lot of arsonists into the fray?

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 08:34 AM (4Pleu)

41 [SUMMON: "Ted Kennedy's Gristle-Encased Head"] [Category: Demon] [Description: Uttering the phrase "financial derivative" in a negative context will summon a huge gristle-encrusted disembodied head modeled on the famously meaty noggin of the late US politician.] [Effect: The head will shoot out waves of contempt while croaking "Idiot!"] [Dispel: Can only be dispelled by "Ignore" spell or "Mockery" charm. -3 Enervation to the entire group.] [Spell Class: Financial] [Spell Level: 1] [Spell School: Economics, Voodoo, Conjuration] [Cost: Time and aggravation] [Cooldown: At least 3 followup posts] [Target: Area]

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 08:35 AM (4Pleu)

42 OK, so we can count on California's state, county and local governments to not do the right thing right up to the point of economic collapse. I think we all knew that, though, being the kind of morons who read your posts.

But what about when the SHTF? What then? Care to blue sky what happens then? I'm really thinking buying silver coins, gold chains,  (2 or more of the sake kind of) pistols, shotguns, rifles and ammo is no longer a worst case strategy - more like a most-likely strategy.

Posted by: Josef K. at November 17, 2010 08:36 AM (7+pP9)

43 oops....that's "same kind of"

Posted by: Josef K. doesn't type well at November 17, 2010 08:39 AM (7+pP9)

44 Thanks for the explanations on some of this stuff. I'd ask for a, "Doom for Dummies" post if you get the time.

RE: the flu shot. One has to remember that the WHO/CDC makes a WAG (Wild Ass Guess) a year in advance to determine which variants of the flu virus are gonna be in the flu shot we get. I believe there are 4 different ones this year. They do a pretty good job of this most times, but you need to remember there are other varieties out there and you may still be exposed to one of those.
Also, flu has an incubation time of around 7-10 days, so if you get exposed prior to the shot, you're boned anyway.
My guess is that happens a lot and folks blame the shot for giving them the flu.

Thanks again.

Posted by: GrumpyUnk at November 17, 2010 08:40 AM (i/RqL)

45 A judge can't do it (in California, at least). State employee penions are guaranteed in the state constitution as a vested benefit



Not sure how that works in practice.  The state pension funds. California Public EmployeesÂ’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the California State TeachersÂ’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) and the University of California Retirement System (UCRS) made bad investments and, with increasing civil service salaries and early retirements, is seeing increased payouts, so now they're underfunded.

The funds go to the state to refill the kitty, but the state is even more broke than the funds are.  So the state goes to the Feds, who are even more broke than the states. 

Don't see being "vested" as much of a guarantee at that point.
 

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 17, 2010 08:46 AM (rgL27)

46 So you're saying that CDS buyers conspired to trick millions of homeowners into overleveraging themselves and defaulting on mortgage payments?  Can you demonstrate a single instance of any CDS buyer causing the collapse of a single mortgage backed security?  Just one?

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at November 17, 2010 08:46 AM (+lsX1)

47 Ted, You're missing my point (deliberately, I think). The problem with derivatives is not the underlying asset. The problem is that these baroque derivatives are a) allowing large funds to build up far too much leverage over the base value of the underlying asset; and b) that in the event the underlying asset loses value, the derivatives then create a chain-reaction of insolvency when the notes are called due to counterparty risk. The vast leverage (100-to-1 in some cases) turns a small problem into a catastrophic one. There is no earthly rationale for why a financial institution should be levering itself at 100-to-1, or even 50-to-1. 20-to-1 even makes me uncomfortable. It's just asshole, heedless greed, and an unfounded reliance on complex derivatives that no one really understands all that well. In my example above: bad enough if my house burns down and the insurer has to pay out all those fire-insurance policies. But what if the insurer doesn't have the assets to pay off? Suppose they go broke? And suppose the holders of those policies were counting on that money to fund other things they were doing? And so on. The ripples expand out; the dominos fall.

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 08:59 AM (4Pleu)

48 Monty, can you 'splain  to me the GM IPO?  Taxpayers essentially bought shares, while other taxpayers got wiped out so the government (taxpayers) can sell shares they own to the favored taxpayers?  This entire GM thing makes my head spin, and I'm sure eventually spew forth green puke.  Can you break this down for me?

Posted by: SJR2 at November 17, 2010 09:07 AM (oCbCP)

49 [SUMMON: "Monty"]
[Category: Buffoon]
[Description: Uttering the phrase "financial derivative" will replace necessity for actual knowledge.]
[Effect: The mouth will shoot out waves of contempt while croaking "conspiracy!"]
[Dispel: Can easily be dispelled by "Fact" spell or "Common Sense" charm. -3 Enervation to the entire group.]
[Spell Class: Financial Fiction]
[Spell Level: 1]
[Spell School: Absurdity, Olbermann, Conjuration]
[Cost: Time and aggravation]
[Cooldown: At least 3 followup posts]
[Target: Area]


P.S.  It was sad and a little bit creepy/funny the first time you posted this weeks ago.  This time it's kind of pathetic.  Although I will admit to being curious about the other bits you have saved in your "scathing Ted comebacks" file.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at November 17, 2010 09:09 AM (+lsX1)

50 Let's just burn this mf'er down! Click on clever name below...

Posted by: Something Wicked This Way Comes.. at November 17, 2010 09:12 AM (GOG1H)

51 The ripples expand out; the dominoes fall.

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 12:59 PM (4Pleu)

So why can't we control this situation? Instead of passing the idiotic laws they are currently working on, why can't we require that, going forward, leverage on any derivatives issued after a certain date should be at a manageable level (like maybe what it used to be 50 years ago). I don't know what that level is, but I'm sure it can be determined fairly easily.

As for currently issued derivatives with > 20-to-1 leveraging, well, I don't have an answer, beyond lynching the fools who perpetrated this nightmare. Which may well happen, anyway. If this country actually collapses, I bet there will be boatloads of financial types who don't get out of the country to their hidey-holes in Costa Rica in time. It will certainly suck to be them.

Posted by: Josef K. doesn't type well at November 17, 2010 09:13 AM (7+pP9)

52 SJR2: Imagine that you're a little girl with a younger brother. You're smart, quiet, obedient, and keep your room clean. Your younger brother, on the other hand, is a rude, disrespectful slob. Yet somehow he always gets the cool toys at Christmas and for his birthday. Somehow the best cuts of meat end up on his plate instead of yours at the dinner table. Somehow he gets new school-clothes while you make do with the rummage-sale stuff. Your mom and dad insist that they love both of you the same, but the truth is plain: they love him more. It's not your fault, but there it is all the same. It's a truth everyone can see but too painful for anyone to say out loud. Now replace "dad" with "Obama", "your brother" with "GM", and "you" with "taxpayers" and you have the essence of the story. The technical name for this kind of thing is "mercantilism", which is a union between the government and corporations to produce outcomes favorable to both. It's the norm in China and in the old fascist dictatorships; it used to be fairly uncommon here, even in the bad old days of the so-called "robber barons". (Robbers they might have been, but at least they were private sector robbers.)

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 09:13 AM (4Pleu)

53 So what you're saying is this doesn't end well (this is based on my experience with my younger brother).

Posted by: SJR2 at November 17, 2010 09:21 AM (oCbCP)

54 The technical name for this kind of thing is "mercantilism", which is a union between the government and corporations to produce outcomes favorable to both. It's the norm in China and in the old fascist dictatorships; it used to be fairly uncommon here, even in the bad old days of the so-called "robber barons". (Robbers they might have been, but at least they were private sector robbers.)

Since the benefits of the robbery at the hand of the government went to the unions and not the company or the shareholders and bondholders I would say that this is closer to communism than it is to mercantilism.

In any case what it really is pure out corruption when in the old days the government created laws that favored the railroad barons (BTW the idea of robber barons is a progressive myth anyway).

It is the same thing now. It is out and out corruption that they create laws that favor some companies at the expense of others. What gives them the power to do that is called Fascism. That is where they have accumulated the power to "regulate" anything they want.

In any case, at all boils down to the same thing. An all powerful government that has long ago abandoned any pretense at capitalism and is now working on elimination of contract law and private property.

Posted by: Vic at November 17, 2010 09:29 AM (e4sSD)

55 More good news: a 6.2% national sales tax (VAT) might be on the way. (In addition to, not in place of, the current tax regime -- though they are making noises about a 1-year tax "holiday" to ease the burn.)

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 09:30 AM (4Pleu)

56 From the encyclopedia Britannica:

Economic theory and policy influential in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century that called for government regulation of a nation's economy in order to increase its power at the expense of rival nations. Though the theory existed earlier, the term was not coined until the 18th century; it was given currency by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations (1776). Mercantilism's emphasis on the importance of gold and silver holdings as a sign of a nation's wealth and power led to policies designed to obtain precious metals through trade by ensuring "favourable" trade balances (see balance of trade), meaning an excess of exports over imports, especially if a nation did not possess mines or have access to them. In a favourable trade balance, payments for the goods or services had to be made with gold or silver. Colonial possessions were to serve as markets for exports and as suppliers of raw materials to the mother country, a policy that created conflict between the European colonial powers and their colonies, in particular fanning resentment of Britain in the North American colonies and helping bring about the American Revolution. Mercantilism favoured a large population to supply labourers, purchasers of goods, and soldiers. Thrift and saving were emphasized as virtues because they made possible the creation of capital. Mercantilism provided a favourable climate for the early development of capitalism but was later severely criticized, especially by advocates of laissez-faire, who argued that all trade was beneficial and that strict government controls were counterproductive.

Posted by: Vic at November 17, 2010 09:31 AM (e4sSD)

57 The problem with derivatives is not the underlying asset. The problem is that these baroque derivatives are a) allowing large funds to build up far too much leverage over the base value of the underlying asset; and b) that in the event the underlying asset loses value, the derivatives then create a chain-reaction of insolvency when the notes are called due to counterparty risk. The vast leverage (100-to-1 in some cases) turns a small problem into a catastrophic one.

This part I agree with.  But the existence of CDS did not cause the collapse of their associated MBS, it was the other way around.  The problem with the institutions that got in trouble wasn't access to CDS, it was incompetent risk management.  This is the difference between Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs or Citi and JP Morgan.  Competence vs. incompetence.

Nick Leeson blew up Barings Bank 15 years ago by mishandling Nikkei futures.  Daiwa Securities, Societie Generale and countless other firms have taken massive hits due to poor risk management.  This is part of capitalism.  It happens to companies just like it happens to individuals.  Our problem was in socializing the losses due to this fiction that the whole world would collapse if we didn't.  If there is any conspiracy in all of this it's that somehow the global economy would cease to exist if we didn't bail out the morons that bankrupted their companies.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at November 17, 2010 09:31 AM (+lsX1)

58 I'm beginning to think that the real event horizon is when the bailouts -- where insolvent banks are kept alive by running citizens into debt -- are greater than the amount of cash or unencumbered assets held by ordinary citizens.

To illustrate further -- Iceland was faced with the prospect of indebting every one of its citizens -- including babes in arms -- by $16,000 in order to "make whole" the foreign banks that its government and banks had overborrowed from. Last I checked, they said, "no", and their currency collapsed.....but they may have ended up being better off because they still had their homes, their farms, and their cars even if their currency was worth zilch.

Ireland has 4.44 million people. If they're talking $650B, that's over $100,000 per person. If you were to ask, how many people would forfeit all their cash-on-hand and have everything that collateralizes debt repo'd for $100,000?

Posted by: cthulhu at November 17, 2010 09:34 AM (kaalw)

59

Monty,

Hamtramck has asked for bankruptcy already. 

http://detnews.com/article/20101117/ METRO01/11170365&template=printart

(remove space before METRO)

Once in banko, a municipality has some wiggle room.  City of Vallejo is a great example, but one that undercuts your theory of quick collapse.  They will get 5 years to put things back together.

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_16635113

With California, the state can issue bonds.  Sure the rates are going to have to be astronomical, but on a 20 year bond and some creative repayment schemes, the current set of assholes will be long dead and gone before those come due.

It's going to come down, but in slow motion.  Lights aren't going out yet. 

I agree that the whole thing is systemically unsustainable, and it WILL collapse, but I think you underestimate the durability of momentum and inertia in this context.
 


Posted by: s'moron at November 17, 2010 09:37 AM (UaxA0)

60 So the Euro is boned? How quickly can Germany or France re-monatize?

Posted by: Jean at November 17, 2010 09:37 AM (Ja6pC)

61 Stability!

Posted by: shoey at November 17, 2010 09:41 AM (ehKDD)

62

Ted (one of my favorite nics, too)

This part I agree with.  But the existence of CDS did not cause the collapse of their associated MBS, it was the other way around.  The problem with the institutions that got in trouble wasn't access to CDS, it was incompetent risk management.  This is the difference between Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs or Citi and JP Morgan.  Competence vs. incompetence.

I respectfully disagree.  The problem with MBS and CDS on them was the initial rating of lower-tranche mortgages as AAA.  Moody's and S&P were asleep at the switch, and people made profit off that.  Typically at the expense of sovereign investment funds or union pensions.  Once the horrid mortgages inevitably defaulted, the whole contraption spun apart.  TARP was a massive wealth transfer to foreign entities to avoid the repercussions of such a monumental assfucking by private US firms.  In a way (and only in this way), I support QE2 for that reason.  Make the trillion we gave away to the rest of the world into worthless crap.





Posted by: s'moron at November 17, 2010 09:42 AM (UaxA0)

63 Last I checked, they said, "no", and their currency collapsed.....but they may have ended up being better off because they still had their homes, their farms, and their cars even if their currency was worth zilch. Yep...and I think Ireland and Greece should do the same thing. Ditch the Euro, default, go back to the national currency, devalue, and start climbing out of the hole. It sucks, but the alternative -- eternal indentured servitude to German and French banks -- is even less appetizing. At least in the default scenario, Greece and Ireland remain sovereign over their own lands. In a bailout scenario. they become fiefs of the ECB and the IMF. I don't think that the Irish would allow it. (The Greeks I'm not as confident about.)

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 09:42 AM (4Pleu)

64 A related question is do they re-monatize with a physical currency or just go all the way electronic?

Posted by: Jean at November 17, 2010 09:43 AM (c3oPV)

65

I just  noticed that Harrisburg PA and San Diego CA are making grumbles aboout muni banko, too.

Preference cascade.


Posted by: s'moron at November 17, 2010 09:46 AM (UaxA0)

66 Ireland has 4.44 million people. If they're talking $650B, that's over $100,000 per person. If you were to ask, how many people would forfeit all their cash-on-hand and have everything that collateralizes debt repo'd for $100,000?

That's really not how it works.  Nations have been defaulting on debt since forever.  Hell, Latin America has almost perfected it over the last 200 years.  Paraguay has defaulted seven times since 1827.  Last year, the new President of Ecuador declared obligations owed to foreign lenders "illegal" and defaulted.  This was Ecuador's 7th default since 1832.  I guarantee you that the day after this default there were lenders lined up with checkbook in hand to provide capital to the new government.  Ireland will default, the cost of borrowing will rise, it will be rough for a while, but life will go on.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at November 17, 2010 09:49 AM (+lsX1)

67 I agree that the whole thing is systemically unsustainable, and it WILL collapse, but I think you underestimate the durability of momentum and inertia in this context. The problem at base is one of simple thermodynamics -- the energy is leaking out, and there's not enough coming back in to replenish it. But there is a time when the impedance to the outflow will weaken because the overall energy of the system declines not linearly, but logarithmically. What I'm saying is that collapse can come with terrifying speed. Think of what will happen if California defaults on Muni bonds, or can't sell enough new ones to keep things rolling in big cities like LA or SF. Do you think the SEIU and teachers are meekly going to go home when they are presented with IOUs instead of paychecks? (Never mind the busted pensions later on....) For cities that are already laboring under huge debts like L.A., it won't take much to push them over the edge. If the economy improves dramatically, California might make it for as long as ten years...but I don't think they have that long. Five years, maybe, if the economy stays in the dumper. But whenever it happens, it's going to have to come to an absolute crisis before anyone in Callie does something to fix it. Everyone still thinks the deus ex machina will save them. Until that naive belief is dispelled, nothing substantial will be done.

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 09:49 AM (4Pleu)

68 I guarantee you that the day after this default there were lenders lined up with checkbook in hand to provide capital to the new government.

And why have they been willing to do that? Because nations like the U.S. have been willing to underwrite those loans so that the bank would get their money even if the other country defaulted.

That is what has to stop.

Posted by: Vic at November 17, 2010 09:52 AM (e4sSD)

69


California might make it for as long as ten years...but I don't think they have that long. Five years, maybe, if the economy stays in the dumper.


We're on the same page.  Hell, same stanza.  Probably playing the same bar, too.

Posted by: s'moron at November 17, 2010 09:53 AM (UaxA0)

70


O/T

GO REP DUNCAN!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH-dpkJZiOM

calling out Chertoff as a corrupt profiteer.  Well done, sir!


Posted by: s'moron at November 17, 2010 09:55 AM (UaxA0)

71 The problem with MBS and CDS on them was the initial rating of lower-tranche mortgages as AAA.  Moody's and S&P were asleep at the switch, and people made profit off that.  Typically at the expense of sovereign investment funds or union pensions.  Once the horrid mortgages inevitably defaulted, the whole contraption spun apart.

No question about the ratings agencies, but this is still a risk management failure for the SIV's and pension fund managers that relied on these ratings.  I'll bet you that not a single one of their investment committees agonized over the question of "who pays for the rating?"  Pension funds and large foundations, in my experience, possess less risk management sophistication than a Pinay whore.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at November 17, 2010 10:07 AM (+lsX1)

72 Pension funds and large foundations, in my experience, possess less risk management sophistication than a Pinay whore.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at November 17, 2010 02:07 PM (+lsX1)


Then they deserve whatever happens to them. I say we start letting institutions, banks etc. - right up to states - fail. Cut the gangrenous fingers and toes off before they cost us an arm and a leg.

Posted by: Josef K. doesn't type well at November 17, 2010 10:09 AM (7+pP9)

73 More good news: a 6.2% national sales tax (VAT) might be on the way. (In addition to, not in place of, the current tax regime -- though they are making noises about a 1-year tax "holiday" to ease the burn.)

Posted by: Monty at November 17, 2010 01:30 PM (4Pleu)

Actually, while this is astoundingly distasteful, I would prefer a regular retail sales tax to VAT.  VAT is too easy to hide.  Sales tax is right there on the receipt.  Also, VAT as normally practiced taxes every stage of domestic production, not just consumption by the end user, and requires a lot of work to administer properly. 

A regular, overt sales tax would fill the people with rage, which is what we need.

Posted by: Reactionary at November 17, 2010 10:11 AM (xUM1Q)

74

"had me lying on my humble pallet alternately sweating with fever and then shaking like a scared dog."

Glad to see ya got the bathtub Crank I sent ya. Good shit, heyna?

Posted by: hutch1200 at November 17, 2010 10:31 AM (s/mcJ)

75 That's really not how it works.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at November 17, 2010 01:49 PM (+lsX1)

I know that it doesn't literally work that way, but it very much seems that the concept of "debt slavery" is alive and well and popular-as-all-get-out in banker and public employee circles. And the thought that they'll just pop $100K onto your future tax bills in order to guarantee their success in life is oh-so-attractive to them. But what if people decide they don't want to put their neck in that yoke? What are you going to threaten them with that compares to $100K/person of public debt?

Posted by: cthulhu at November 17, 2010 10:42 AM (kaalw)

76

Hurray, the "California is boned" updates are back.

How boned are we? T-Rex jaw boned!

Posted by: Max Entropy at November 17, 2010 02:03 PM (oia4i)

77 <a href="http://www.onlineusb.net">wholesale usb </a>Let us always meet each other with a smile,for the smile is the beginning of love,<a href="http://www.usb-disk.com">wholesale usb flash drives</a>and once we begin to love each other naturally we want to do something.
<a href="http://www.topusbdrive.com">Branded usb drive </a>

Posted by: oem usb at November 20, 2010 01:25 AM (K6svw)

78 Slot1 flash card R4 ¨¨ una flash card DS porta. porta S1 ha le caratteristiche della scheda flash mainstream: nessuna macchina pennello, built-in funzione di guida, possono portare flash card GBA e la fine del supporto dinamico patch giocando funzione CleanROM ¨¨ facile da usare.
Come un flash card precoce, R4 standard massimo sostegno da 4 GB TF card. Standard non supporta SDHC TF, questo ¨¨ dispiaciuto. Tuttavia, un ampio gruppo di utenti R4, sono le risorse pi¨´ rilevanti. Archivio gioco R4 ¨¨ memorizzato direttamente alla carta di TF, eliminando i passaggi manuali di archivio di backup Arresto. R4 ¨¨ un archivio di. 512k ¨¨ il file Sav.
R4 per homebrew, patch DLDI pu¨° automaticamente giocare, e integrato nel software kernel Moonshell multimediali, al fine di realizzare il film, ascoltare musica e delle funzioni di lettura e-book.
<a href="http://www.scheda-r4.com/">R4i SDHC</a>
<a href="http://www.scheda-r4.com/">ds Nintendo</a>
<a href="http://www.scheda-r4.com/">M3 ds real</a>
<a href="http://www.scheda-r4.com/">micro sd</a>

Posted by: DSTTi at December 23, 2010 06:14 PM (KgoFi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
138kb generated in CPU 0.2637, elapsed 0.6384 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.5966 seconds, 206 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.