Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Congress Backs Wall Street, Rejects Big Bank Break-Up
Zach Carter, Campaign for America’s Future
Late last night, the U.S. Senate rejected the single most important element of Wall Street reform by a vote of 33 to 61. The SAFE Banking Act would have forced the break-up of the nation’s six largest banks, and dramatically reduced the political clout of America’s financial elite. The 61 votes against the measure are votes in favor of Wall Street’s stranglehold on our economy. No matter what else is ultimately enacted in the name of Wall Street reform, Congress has decided that it will not confront the single greatest problem in the U.S. economy: Too Big To Fail.
On Wednesday, the Senate also voted down a $50 billion Wall Street tax that would have been used to fund the cost of shutting down a major failing bank. By rejecting both the break-up bill and the bank tax, the Senate has punted on ending too-big-to-fail. For now, it appears that Wall Street has emerged from the Great Financial Crash of 2008 with even greater political might than it wielded during the reign of George W. Bush. In the Citizens United era, both Democrats and Republicans have decided they can only get so tough with Corporate America.
Last night, 27 Democrats joined all but three Republicans to vote against breaking up the banks. President Barack Obama opposed both the tax and the break-up measures, and hosted J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon for dinner at the White House on Monday. J.P. Morgan is the largest U.S. bank, and spent more money on lobbying in 2009 than any other bank. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has aggressively courted Dimon for campaign cash.
There is literally no economic evidence that megabanks do anything to help the economy that cannot be accomplished with smaller institutions. By contrast, centuries of research has shown that giant banks are destructive. Adam Smith was warning against the dangers of megabanking back in the 18th Century. And the current crisis in Europe– which appears to be deepening by the day– should make those dangers apparent to everyone living in today’s economy. There are plenty of good economic reasons to cut our financial behemoths down to size, and no good reasons not to.
The good news is, there are still some smaller-bore reforms in the legislation that are worth voting for, and it appears that some version of reform, however tepid, will ultimately be approved. Congress will be deploying a screwdriver to perform a job fit for a bulldozer, but a few weeks ago, it was not obvious that even the screwdriver would make it through…
(7 May 2010)
Ignoring the Elephant in the Bailout
Gretchen Morgenson, New York Times
IF you blinked, you might have missed the ugly first-quarter report last week from Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giant that, along with its sister Fannie Mae, soldiers on as one of the financial world’s biggest wards of the state.
Freddie — already propped up with $52 billion in taxpayer funds used to rescue the company from its own mistakes — recorded a loss of $6.7 billion and said it would require an additional $10.6 billion from taxpayers to shore up its financial position.
The news caused nary a ripple in the placid Washington scene. Perhaps that’s because many lawmakers, especially those who once assured us that Fannie and Freddie would never cost taxpayers a dime, hope that their constituents don’t notice the burgeoning money pit these mortgage monsters represent. Some $130 billion in federal money had already been larded on both companies before Freddie’s latest request.
But taxpayers should examine Freddie’s first-quarter numbers not only because the losses are our responsibility. Since they also include details on Freddie’s delinquent mortgages, the company’s sales of foreclosed properties and losses on those sales, the results provide a telling snapshot of the current state of the housing market.
That picture isn’t pretty. Serious delinquencies in Freddie’s single-family conventional loan portfolio — those more than 90 days late — came in at 4.13 percent, up from 2.41 percent for the period a year earlier. Delinquencies in the company’s Alt-A book, one step up from subprime loans, totaled 12.84 percent, while delinquencies on interest-only mortgages were 18.5 percent. Delinquencies on its small portfolio of option-adjustable rate loans totaled 19.8 percent.
The company’s inventory of foreclosed properties rose from 29,145 units at the end of March 2009 to almost 54,000 units this year. Perhaps most troubling, Freddie’s nonperforming assets almost doubled, rising to $115 billion from $62 billion…
(7 May 2010)
Europe’s bailout to end all bailouts
Andrew Leonard, Salon
Investors like bailouts. The bigger the better. On Sunday, European leaders announced a $1 trillion plan to stabilize faltering eurozone countries and address the European financial crisis. The Wall Street Journal called the plan “audacious.” One European finance minister described it as a “shock and awe” commitment. And stock markets worldwide exploded in glee.
It’s not every day that you see the Dow Jones Industrial Average jump up 300 points right after the opening bell — and then keep going. 45 minutes later, the Dow was up 411 and other indices were following suit. The market euphoria can be taken not only as a sign of just how ambitious the bailout plan is, but also of how dire the European fiscal situation has become…
(10 May 2010)
The Imperial Eurozone: with all that implies
Stoneleigh, The Automatic Earth
In the light of events in Greece, I want to address the structure and prospects for the eurozone, and specifically how the structure pre-determines the prospects. Talk about long term austerity measures in southern Europe by no means covers a worst-case scenario.
All aggregate human structures at all degrees of scale are essentially predatory. They all convey wealth from a necessarily expanding periphery towards the centre, where wealth is concentrated. The periphery may be either forced or enticed to join the larger structure, but that does not affect the outcome. Such structures are all inherently self-limiting, as the fundamental dependence on the buy-in of new entrants grounds them in Ponzi dynamics.
The Eurozone project is no different. The European periphery was sold an impossible dream – that they could by fiat have the same living standards as northern Europe. Perhaps the architects of the project believed that equalization by fiat would work, but whether their intentions were honourable or not is immaterial to the outcome.
The Ponzi scheme was very effective, because the impossible dream was so appealing. The euro project gave people and companies and governments in the periphery access to far lower interest rates than they had ever seen before, and encouraged them to enter the gingerbread palace. The result was a manic period of credit expansion where people borrowed vastly more than they could ever hope to repay, just like the US subprime borrowers who indulged in the same dynamic. Attempting to borrow yourself into wealth absolutely never works, no matter where you live. The developing debt slavery further enriches the centre in the meantime, though.
As we have discussed at The Automatic Earth many times, credit expansions create outward appearances of great real wealth. They do this by creating multiple and mutually exclusive claims to the same pieces of underlying real wealth pie. Many people feel wealthy, but that is perception, not reality. This wealth is virtual. The structure is Enron-esque. At maximum expansion it appears robust, yet it is destined to implode rapidly.
…To revisit an earlier essay on Adaptive cycles in natural and human systems, the effect of a cycle turning to the downside depends on where it is positioned in relation to both the smaller-scale cycles it is composed of and the larger-scale cycles within which it is embedded. The deepest collapses occur when cycles at many scales move to the downside in a coordinated fashion, so it is not possible to cushion the fall. The erstwhile European Imperium is destined to fail, and it will by no means be alone in this, as it is but one component of a global financial structure of the same nature and at the same position on the brink…
(8 May 2010)
