WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2009-02-04 12:46:34 +0000

I'll bet a 1 trillion+ stimulus bill will pass. It would be political suicide for too many congresspeople to be against it, even if they do pontificate against all of the spending. I hate to say it, but what each of these mayors needs (except for the mayor of Shreveport, he needs to be given a pink slip) is a Robert Moses. He pisses me off, but when you're in a recession, and the govt is doling out the dough, you've gotta have projects ready-to-go. Public transportation needs a Robert Moses.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-02-04 13:30:53 +0000

What are the Senate Republican's guns? All I heard was "tax cuts' and even more fiscal expansion. It would be nice if the Senate/WSJ did a similar chart of the jobs that were created with the banking bailout last year, which was probably zero. All I can say is at least this is cold job creation.

Posted by MF DU on 2009-02-04 14:10:34 +0000

After reading The Bronx is Burning and Can't Stop, Won't Stop I agree - Moses was definitely an interesting individual - I keep meaning to find an excellent 'history of NYC' book, but haven't gotten too far in that particular quest. My concern on getting someone like Moses involved is - what if the next big 'shovel ready' project turns out to be another Bridge To Nowhere a'la Alaska? It might be great for 2 or 3 folks on either side of the bridge but how does it help everyone (We The People) in the US? Also: I am becoming more weary than I was in the fall about the Gov't providing bailouts to the financial industry, the auto industry or any industry. How does the idea of gov't buying up troubled assets help investor confidence? To the best of my understanding, there is no consensus from anyone on what these assets are worth anyway, so even if Unc Sam buys them , no one will have faith in investing in them when no one knows what they are worth. Has anyone reported favorable results from the US Gov't after its intervention w/ AIG last fall? I can't imagine the answer to that question being yes. Even more disturbing - if our US GOV't Policymakers gain more control of the financial system, I suspect this won't be control you will ever be able to wrestle back - seems like a good recipe for tyranny to me. How about lowering Capital Gains and Interest taxes giving Americans an incentive to invest, thus shoring up more investor confidence and leave the markets alone as much as possible? I'm probably summoning the rideside Ref, but it's been a while since we've had a good political fight on RSN - bring it!

Posted by virtue on 2009-02-04 14:35:08 +0000

It's hard to have a good fight with someone when you mostly agree with them. While I don't disagree in theory with leaving the markets alone as much as possible, I do think that a true "free market" is highly improbable given the historical context of economic development. Nor do I think that strong regulation and oversight are incompatible with free (free-ish?) markets, per se.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2009-02-04 14:50:34 +0000

The Bronx is Burning is SUCH an excellent book! You don't even have to care about baseball to love that book. For 20th C NYC history, I heartily recommend The Power Broker and Delirious New York. I should have said that we need a Robert Moses who is not a douchebag. Or, rather, a Robert Moses who's a douchebag, but who wants to create useful things (which isn't to say all of what he did was not useful - but a lot of what he did was building bridges for the sake of building bridges [a la the Bridge to Nowhere], at the expense of established communities and public transportation, and with the result of hyperpopularizing the automobile). If there were someone like him who had the middle class in mind, that would be phenomenal.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2009-02-04 16:01:51 +0000

Maybe not - New poll shows only 37% favor the stimulus. I'd prefer to have no stimulus package than a faux stimulus package. The worst that could happen is they pass something that's a total piece o' crap.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-02-04 20:51:19 +0000

"How about lowering Capital Gains and Interest taxes giving Americans an incentive to invest, thus shoring up more investor confidence and leave the markets alone as much as possible?" Um, this is exactly what the country doesn't want, and sounds like olde proven false policy. The capital gains tax is already lower than income tax, so the rich continue to get richer. The idea is not to raise the tax burden on the bottom 95%, especially when they are the ones who spend additional income (Old RS.N topic). I also believe this would hurt investor confidence. We also need MORE regulation. Madoff scandals can't just let slide. We need SEC's investigative powers increased if you want to boost confidence. Look at the markets. Shit is cheap, but no one is buying. Why? Because there isn't enough regulation to play a fair game.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-02-04 20:54:09 +0000

And Madoff, the former NASDAQ chair might go to jail for 20 years. This shit needs supervision by trustworthy people.

Posted by tgl on 2009-02-05 00:15:06 +0000

What was the stimulus bill we had last year that didn't work? The $750 billion financial industries bailout? That wasn't a stimulus package. The tax rebate checks? That was intended as stimulus, and an example of why tax rebates as an indirect stimulus of the economy don't work. Obama/Dems should concede on all the pork highlighted by the GOP, to get this bill passed. Let's build some highways!

Posted by tgl on 2009-02-05 00:18:11 +0000

CC's got it. It's been shown fairly conclusively that tax policy changes are not effective for short term stimulus. Direct government spending is the fastest way to effect GDP. However, here's the debate we should be having: Is having a GDP that grows 3-5% per year, based primarily on consumer & healthcare spending, the right economy to have? Would we be better off with a stagnant GDP and more people living within their means and working for less $/hr?

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-02-05 11:53:29 +0000

I think Rep. Ackerman expresses America's frustration, and the world's lack of confidence in our financial system, fairly well. Wanna create jobs? Howz about we pink slip theses SEC nimwits, and hire twice as many good ones?

Posted by MF DU on 2009-02-05 12:09:30 +0000

Let's hope we find some trustworthy people. I am not optimistic. I'd at least go for some folks who can remember to pay their taxes on time. that would be a start.

Posted by MF DU on 2009-02-05 12:16:36 +0000

So if there is to be no concession by the Dems on tax policy, what is all this about the need for 'Bipartisanship' Obama et. al keep talking about? All the dinner and Superbowl watching invites in the world doesn't change the fact that neither side is budging. I see yr resistance to tax policy changes - can you explain how 300+ Million to be spent on STD research / prevention will stimulate our economy in the short term? Regardless of how you feel about the spending on these social programs, how can it be argued that they will help in the economic present?

Posted by tgl on 2009-02-05 13:41:15 +0000

One can hire lab assistants, conduct research trials, employ ad/marketing types to get out the word.... What would you do with $300 million if you were tasked with ending AIDS? Direct government spending means that we suddenly have $300 million in consumption that we wouldn't have otherwise. -- Obama needs to talk about bipartisanship even if he doesn't really need it to pass this bill. Building up goodwill, getting Dems/GOP to interact socially, all these things are necessary to change the culture of Washington, DC. Ever notice that the morons in the office seem less moronic after going to a social event with them? Or at least, more tolerable? However... seeing the Senate GOP come up with federal mortgage support is pretty crazy. Who would have thunk that? Seems like Obama's bipartisan posturing is paying off.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-02-05 13:47:01 +0000

I'm not aware of people at the SEC or even the GAO not doing this, but it wouldn't surprise me. Is this an old Bush Admin thing?

Posted by MF DU on 2009-02-05 13:52:36 +0000

So creating MORE regulation a.k.a. a more Nationalized bank and economic system will fix some of our ails? I disagree. There were several people like Harry Markopolos that continually fed the SEC info about Madoff's Mythical 'Unicorn' like returns to no avail - I dont believe putting more cooks in the SEC kitchen will make that office more efficient. I know I am mixing apples and oranges between the SEC and the President's cabinet, but where seemingly every other person vetted so far seems to have forgotten that they need to deal with the IRS, I am just not that confident that adding additional layers is going to add security to the financial system.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-02-05 14:05:00 +0000

When you create jobs, more people have incomes, and it is immediate, typically the day they are hired. More incomes -> more spending -> economy grows (by a factor larger than 100% of the job income because the spending then goes to others and their businesses) Fiscal policy change based on taxes has a dramatic time lag. From the changes in percentage taken out of a check, to the filing with the IRS. (Say taxes were changed today, it might take till 15 April 2010! before it affected a lot of people). Plus if you lower taxes to the wealthiest, nothing happens, because it doesn't affect their spending habits. There are lots of good economic books that explain this in macro and micro terms. Most are better and more engaging than all the text books I read in college.

Posted by virtue on 2009-02-05 14:14:32 +0000

Well now I do disagree with you. Regulation and oversight do not equal a more nationalized bank and economic system. Requiring and insuring transparency and fiduciary responsibility are not bad things--if anything, they prevent situations like the current economy.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2009-02-05 14:20:19 +0000

A short history of failed presidential cabinet appointees. It's a good read.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2009-02-05 14:30:55 +0000

According to the SEC's website, each commissioner serves for five years, and the terms are supposed to be staggered, so one commissioner leaves each year. But three commissioners began their tenure in 2008. Anyone know what's up with that? Apparently, they can only be removed due to "malfeasance". This Madoff thing would qualify as one huge malfeasance. I wonder how many of the current commissioners were complicit in this whole crapfest, and if any, why are they still there? Apparently, they can't even find first base at Fenway Park.

Posted by tgl on 2009-02-05 14:33:08 +0000

RE: Online Journal I guess if you're more concerned with $500,000 pork projects rather than our $1,500,000,000,000 economy, than you'll never be happy with a stimulus package (and probably voted for McCain). This is the sausage part of governing. It's big picture time. Again: Why isn't the debate about whether or not the idea of stimulus is a good thing instead of nitpicking every detail. There will be wasteful spending, period. Get over it. Luckily even wasteful spending fits the goal: a cash infusion into the economy.

Posted by MF DU on 2009-02-05 14:34:09 +0000

I'm not saying less transparency and fiduciary responsibility will be an answer to our problems - just worried that the government, even with best intentions, could hurt more than help.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-02-05 14:41:36 +0000

Let's be clear: There does not need to be MORE regulation. Just implement the current law. The Bush Admin didn't do this. No added layers. Just competence. That's all the country has asked for. That's all the we need to show the world our financial markets work. How do you propose we stop Madoff scams? I have no idea what you are talking about in the last paragraph.

Posted by tgl on 2009-02-05 14:41:52 +0000

I agree, more cooks in the SEC kitchen might not be helpful. How about competent ones, though? Heck of a job, Chris.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-02-05 14:43:01 +0000

Why not MORE transparency?

Posted by tgl on 2009-02-05 22:52:00 +0000

A bridge in Alaska consumes steel and materials that don't *magically* appear on site. Raw materials, finished goods, storage and shipping all contribute to the economy.

Posted by tgl on 2009-02-05 22:56:41 +0000

16 Cabinet Members. 2 appointees with tax issues (+ one appointee whose spouse has tax issues). Not quite "every other", but point taken. Maybe paying taxes isn't a good predictor of performance in public office? Ostensibly, Bush's Cabinet members and SEC appointments were all in the clear with the IRS... they've done quite a job in office, wouldn't you say? How many smoke pot?

Posted by MF DU on 2009-02-06 11:16:36 +0000

FWIW - It wasn't like it was an Online Journal exclusive opinion ranting type of piece - it was front page WSJ news. More folks than just hard core right wingers are concerned about where this money is going to go and how it is going to help. I hope you are right, TGL, but call me a skeptic.

Posted by MF DU on 2009-02-06 11:18:18 +0000

Michael Phelps for SEC chairman - just throwing it out there for your consideration...

Posted by tgl on 2009-02-06 11:41:53 +0000

It's just so clearly partisan... Hank Paulson comes groveling for $750 billion for his pals at Goldman Sachs, with absolutely no oversight as to what gets done with the money (granted he only burned through half of it), and the GOP rolls over. Now, they're the "principled opposition". Go figure. I'm glad Obama went on the attack today. The "issues" around this bill are more about controlling the message more than anything else.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-02-06 11:58:14 +0000

I think that's the kicker for me, the hypocrisy from the right. When it's their buddies: 750 billion give away with no oversight. When it's 600 billion in actual public works that create jobs: we can't afford it.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2009-02-06 12:01:08 +0000

Great idea. Puritans be damned!

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2009-02-06 12:02:43 +0000

Yeah, that's the royal suckdom of it.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-02-06 12:04:02 +0000

Again I ask, why not more transparency? It can't hurt.

Posted by tgl on 2009-02-06 12:05:38 +0000

Yes, it's news and factual.. there's a lot of giveaways in this bill. However, I'm not commenting on the quality of WSJ's reporting. I'm commenting on the absurdity of blocking useful legislation after setting bushelfuls of money on fire in Iraq. Not to mention the loss of life. Where's the GOPs principled opposition to wasting lives? It's just wasted dollars that's important, evidently. Of course, they're not really blocking anything. This should pass over GOP opposition... although the spectacle of the GOP filibustering in the Senate might be a good one. I'm glad Obama's going on the offense. OK... end rant. --- I think arguing over $500,000 is wasted energy. Here's what our politicians should be talking about: 1) Do you think that the economy warrants a short-term stimulus? 2) If so, what is the best way to do that? I'll give a crack at it: 1) Me, I'm not sure. I think I'd prefer the free market to work here. Companies that weather this storm will certainly come out of it stronger. I'd like to see a broader safety net for the un-employed... that'd be good for the economy too. 2) So, if we're going to do stimulus, and keeping in mind that tax cuts, rebates, and incentives to invest take a long time to effect GDP, just call me John (M. Keynes), but it seems to me that direct spending is the way to go.

Posted by MF DU on 2009-02-06 12:19:57 +0000

I sincerely hope you are right.

Posted by tgl on 2009-02-06 14:29:14 +0000

I might be part of the problem.

Posted by MF DU on 2009-02-07 11:42:48 +0000

$780 Billion sounds better than any other # thrown around - I'll take it and stop grumbling.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-02-07 13:09:17 +0000

At least it resembles a two party vote. I would have rather seen the bigger bill here, and much less in the give away 3 months ago. -Cut $8 billion to refurbish federal buildings and make them more energy efficient -Cut $1 billion for the early childhood program Head Start The lack of foresight is startling. These are the programs that create jobs AND pay off huge in the future. Looks like those oil/gas/electric bills in DC will still eat away tax $, and our prisons will stay full.

Posted by tgl on 2009-02-09 11:32:29 +0000

I guess I'm more of a bipartisan skeptic, although I can see the political reasons for wanting "cover". And even if people disagree in an organization, it's much healthier if you can disagree in a friendly way. No thanks, Lindsey. See also Matt Y.'s post. It'd be nice if Collins & Nelson had good reasons for cutting these specific programs, other than they had the weakest constituent support. However, if Susan Collins is now the deal-maker in the Senate, I can live with that for two years. ---- An aside: How cool is it that New England has four female Senators?

Posted by MF DU on 2009-02-10 14:55:48 +0000

OUCH. Obama's wrist slaps to naysayers on pm TV last night and Geithner's new 4 point plan don't seem to be garnering much enthusiasm...

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-02-10 15:18:05 +0000

Any time the government confirms it's giving away 350 billion to the already rich without any promises, I would hope the market reacts negatively. Why are we doing this again? How about we scratch this and keep the Head Start, College Loan, and Energy Efficiency programs.

Posted by tgl on 2009-02-10 15:16:39 +0000

Not in this marketplace.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-02-10 15:20:24 +0000

Actually looks like Principal's fourth-quarter net income falling 98%, is the reason for the Dow fall...

Posted by MF DU on 2009-03-02 18:01:52 +0000

Ouch Part 2 DJI Below 7K after the Government's fourth attempt to tinker w/ AIG. Let's keep regulating 'em until we get it right... Unbelievable.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-03-02 20:06:41 +0000

Still trying to link the Dow with 'regulating', eh MF DU? Let it go Indy.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-03-02 20:11:02 +0000

Actually this isn't even regulating; it's a loan to AIG. I have no idea what you were saying then.

Posted by MF DU on 2009-03-02 20:44:29 +0000

You dont have to call it regulating if you dont want to - thats semantics - what I mean here is on four seperate occasions the gov't has intervened to help AIG and the results can be called anything but 'help'. Today's DJIA is a further indication of the lack of confidence investors have in what the govt has done to get AIG on its feet again.

Posted by tgl on 2009-03-02 21:17:43 +0000

What exactly has the government "tinkered" with AIG? Sounds like we've shoveled over a couple hundred billion. Is AIG operating any differently than before it received Federal dollars? Did the government force them to make different business decisions? Maybe the Dow is tanking as investors continue to realize how much shit we're in based on the bad decisions made *before* the federal funds started flowing?

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-03-02 21:48:56 +0000

AIG is still in business because of loans from the USA. Would AIG be in a better spot if they weren't in business? I don't follow. "Today's DJIA is a further indication of the lack of confidence investors have in what the govt has done to get AIG on its feet again." Do you have any evidence of this? From what I've read it's the opposite. Investors have a lack of confidence in AIG. And since when is the difference between regulation and payment semantics?

Posted by MF DU on 2009-03-02 22:29:35 +0000

I guess its not admissable in court, but the evidence I was citing is in the DJIA dropping more than 300 freaking points. Even if I can't attribute that to AIG directly, wouldnt someone other than myself at least agree that there has to be a pretty major specific event occur for the Dow to drop that much in a single day? When the Dow has dropped hundreds of points in the past few months it is typically investor reaction to details (or lack thereof) provided by Geithner et. al in some type of confrence or hearing. The government is involved in a deal with AIG, yes? (Of which we got the news of a 4th revision today, yes?) That is all I was trying to say. I regret leading people to a conclusion that I was saying regulation and payment are the same thing. That was not my point.

Posted by MF DU on 2009-03-02 22:35:26 +0000

(L) Although admitedly, Conor is right: my initial comment "Let's keep regulating 'em until we get it right... Unbelievable." would have been more clear if my initial comment did not use the word 'regulate.'

Posted by MF DU on 2009-03-02 22:37:19 +0000

(L) part 2: I am on a roll today - 299.64 points. Not over 300.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-03-02 23:26:38 +0000

Agreed. 300 points in nearly 4% these days, so yes something major happened. I would guess, and from what I've been reading online, the catalyst was the fact AIG is such a failure. Add to that HSBC PLC, Europe's largest bank said this morning that it needs to raise $17.7 billion, and Buffet gave a grim annual letter Saturday. Take the US government out of the equation, and I think the Dow still loses 300.

Posted by tgl on 2009-03-03 01:01:48 +0000

Agreed. Investors are reacting to the continued need to send tens of billions of dollars to AIG, not the government "tinkering" with AIG's so-called business model. Still looking for the bottom, methinks.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2009-03-03 05:50:56 +0000

Got it. Not a Bush thing. This is a Democrats' who want to be a part of the Obama Admin thing. ƒ-ed up.