Krugman, Taibbi, Johnston and Morgan nail Goldman; Commmenter nails Summers

Paul Krugman may not yet be awake to civic media as the only democratic remedy for America's economic (and soon to be political) crisis, but in today's column he does pillory Goldman Sachs as the driver of the financial oligarchy that has usurped control of American government and its elite universities as well. Comment after comment on Krugman's column is sharp; enough so perhaps to put some pressure on President Obama to recast his economic bailout program and change its leadership. References by commenters to GS critics like Matt Taibi, David Cay Johnston (audio clip from CBC Canada) and Mike Morgan are must reading. Morgan himself writes that

Sadly, what people don’t realize . . . is this time Goldman Sachs and other Banksters have raided our future, as they have control over many of our pensions, endowments and other fiduciary assets. Over the next few years, as people start to realize their pensions are gone, that is when the masses may finally rise up and crush Goldman Sachs and other greedy bastards that have destroyed so much. Unfortunately, it will be too late.

At Harvard in the 1960's, my professors would have dismissed language like this as "generating more heat than light." What would their counterparts at Harvard say about it today?

One comment to the Krugman column, #5 from Ruskin of Buffalo, NY, was recommended by more readers than any other - about 500 so far. It calls on President Obama to replace Larry Summers:

There are clearly MANY people in the Obama administration who have had a hand in the extraordinary betrayal of ordinary Americans represented by the policies formulated by Treasury Secretary Geithner, but the one person I would beg the President to get rid of is the second-in-command, Lawrence Henry Summers, head of the National Economic Council. I can think of nothing the President could do that would more clearly signal to the American people that he understands how angry tens of millions of us are, over the policies which have lavishly rewarded the banks at the expense of the taxpayers, than terminating Larry Summers's tenure in the Obama White House.

Why single out Summers? Because he is so obviously the big enchilada in the economic team; because his insensitivity to common sense behavior for someone in his position led to his "earning" millions and millions of dollars by giving talks [my link] to bankers and consulting for other players in financial services; because he was singularly unsuccessful in the most important job he ever took on (the presidency of Harvard) where his tin ear and lack of empathy left him isolated and rejected by the central faculty of the university. For God's Sake, Mr President, this MAN HAS HAD HIS TURN in the corridors of power - replace him with someone who has a heart as well as a brain, someone who has not lived his whole life surrounded by moneyed people, someone who CARES about the "little people" of this country (to reference Leona Helmsley.)

As a Harvard Alum, I can say that Ruskin says what I've been thinking for months. Summers really should go, and Ruskin's case for the man's quick departure is just plain eloquent. And David Olive at the Toronto Star says it's time for Summers to go, with Laura Tyson a a competent and ready-made "plug and play" replacement.

The Danger of Incentives for Bankers to Take Risks with Taxpayer Dollers: Martin Wolf Gets It, Larry Summers Doesn't.

Martin Wolf of the Financial Times said flat out yesterday that the inadequate reforms of the U. S. financial system coming from Summers & Co are certain to lead to a second financial crisis. His main concern? Incentives: the incentives that Summer & Co. have given America's "too-big-to-fail" bankers to take risks with taxpayer dollars. Links to three recent Martin Wolf columns are here, here and here. The first is the most outspoken and urgent. It opens with a warning.

With one bound the banks are free, or so it seems. Already, the panic of the autumn of 2008 is fading. The period within which lessons can be learnt and changes made is closing. Yet without radical changes, another crisis is certain. It may not even be that long delayed.

You call this civic media? Yeah, I do . . . sort of.

In a one-man-talking-to-himself sort of way. So far at least. Where a true civic media is dialogic, this site, so far, is pretty monologic. Too bad. I talk, but people aren't talking back - not yet. And where civic media sites are non-partisan and non-ideological, this one, maintained by a political independent who is relieved and often glad that Obama is our president, is marked by a deepening concern that his financial team of Bernanke, Summers and Geithner are so beholden to Wall Street that Obama is being shielded from the information he needs in order to help the U.S. and the world emerge from the global financial crisis. In the April 29 Press Conference held to mark his first 100 days in office, the President unblushingly conceded his ignorance of the coming crisis:

You know, when I first started this race [in December, 2007], Iraq was a central issue. But the economy appeared on the surface to still be relatively strong. There were underlying problems that I was seeing with health care for families and our education system and college affordability and so forth, but obviously, I didn't anticipate the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

I find this admission galling. It's hard to accept from an editor of the Harvard Law Review and a U.S Senator, surrounded by brilliant people, who reads a lot and can actually think straight. It's as if the Ivy League, Wall Street and the D.C. beltway suddenly sealed themselves off what by December 2007 was obvious to a lot of people. In late 2007 I myself knew fellow Realtors and loan officers here in Glenview, north of Chicago - who knew something terrible was bound to hapen - we just couldn't tell when it would hit. We saw it coming in our business and in alarm signals that were being sounded loud and clear in the financial media: Yves Smith, Felix Salmon, goldbugs like Jim Willie and Martin Wolf and John Authers of the Financial Times, for Pete's sake!How on earth could Obama and advisors like Austin Goolsbie have missed what was staring us in the face?

Yves Smith is one of many finance bloggers who could have saved America and the world endless grief had the Obama team read her posts in 2007. So are Obama's people reading her today? They sure should - her website has 25,000 hits a day. Here she dissects the flaws of Obama's finance team in a painstaking analysis of the New York Times' surprisingly harsh April 26 story about Tim Geithner. Her analysis prompted one commenter to say

I cried when Obama made these appointments. Summers, Geithner and keeping Bernanke. I knew all was lost. And now I watch as the whole thing falls apart.

Larry Summers, the ringleader of the Obama economic team, strikes me as a brilliant careerist in the mold of Henry Kissinger: a first rate self-promoter and a second-rate "realpolitik" thinker. To me, he's in denial about what first-rate thinkers like Steve Waldman are saying about the need for economic models grounded in a new understanding of sustainable wealth and wealth creation - a topic I discuss here. Summers and Co. are all the kings men trying to put Humpty Dumpty (American hegemony) back together again. It just won't work. (The Times article suggests that Summers, a big man at the White House, may be lobbying to replace the unpopular Geithner with a loyal fresh face. In other words, nothing will change.)

In his recent "100 days" press conference, President Obama named the economists he follows (scroll to "Where the economists are coming from"). The central debate in his mind, he said, is between Wall Streeter Robert Rubin and realative main streeter Robert Reich, with attention to corporate globalism critic Joseph Stiglitz and inflation-breaking Paul Volcker. And he sums up his philosophy nicely: "The truth is," Obama says, "that what I’ve been constantly searching for is a ruthless pragmatism when it comes to economic policy." And: "The touchstone for economic policy is, does it allow the average American to find good employment and see their incomes rise." Sounds OK, but can Obama's "ruthless pragmatism" put America's financial system on a sound and durable footing? Pragmatists lack vision. Their ideas work short term, not long. The President needs pragmatisim and vision. Is he listening to people like these:

• Charles R. Morris, author of The Trillion Dollar Meltdown, argues in a brief but prescient column that "Merrill Makes the Case for Nationalization" (1/29).
  
• Henry Kaufman, for decades a leading Wall Street insider, argues here that "We should, therefore, fundamentally re-examine the role of the Fed and the supervision of our financial institutions." He discusses the rise of a "social milieu [of policy makers that] encouraged financial decision makers to cherry-pick the theories that supported excessive risk taking. It discouraged whistle-blowing, not just by risk-management officers in large financial institutions, but also by the economists whose scholarship provided intellectual justification for the financial institutions’ decisions. The consequence was that scholarship that warned of potential disaster was ignored. And the result was global economic calamity on a scale not seen for four generations. (Financial Times 4/28)
• Steve Waldman: "If you believe, as I do, that we need a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system, which must necessarily involve the dismemberment and intrusive restraint of deeply entrenched institutions . . ." (4/27)
• Barry Eichengren of the U.C. Berkeley Dept. of Economics argues that "The Great Credit Crisis has cast into doubt much of what we thought we knew about economics". (National Interest 4/30)
• Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway says banks will use their “enormous political power” to prevent changes to the industry that would benefit society. (Bloomberg, 5/2)Univ. of Chicago Economist Anna Schwartz, a Friedman/Volcker pure monetarist, says the Bernanke Fed has misjudged the financial crisis (City Journal, Spring '09)
• Martin Wolf of the Financial Times says "The world economy cannot go back to where it was before the crisis, because that was demonstrably unsustainable. It is at the early stages of a long and painful deleveraging and restructuring. Fortunately, policymakers have eliminated the worst possible outcomes. But there is much more yet to be done before fragile shoots become healthy plants (4/21)
• Martin Wolf says that "Those who hope for a swift return to what they thought normal two years ago are deluded" (FT 4/28).
• Joseph Stiglitz (whom Obama follows) here calls for something Wall Street does NOT want: a new global reserve currency (3/26). The findings of the UN panel that Stiglitz chaired are described here (3/26). In this article in the South China Morning Post James Dorn (Cato Institute) challenges Stiglitz. Here the Wall Street Journal is defensively on China's call for a new global reserve currency. (American financial media largely overlooked or suppressed the Stiglitz story and are covering this issue poorly if at all. Shame on us.)
• Matthew Richardson and Nouriel Roubini punch holes in the Obama administration's case for progress towards restoring banks to solvency (WSJ 5/5).
• In her post on "The Banks and Orwell," finance blogger Yves Smith isolates some of the doublespeak that Wall Street chieftains are using to resist real regulation. She says that "M. Rodgin Cohen [managing partner of Sullivan & Cromwell] is already leading the fightback [against hostile public opinion]. Yesterday, he even had the gall to say that the system as currently constituted was fundamentally sound. Yes, for him and a handful of Goldman partners, I'm sure that's true, but on planet earth, it's a bit of a different picture." (5/9)
  

Larry Summers: Maximizing Wealth with "One of the "Greatest Minds of the Past 500 Years"

Of the past 500 years? Really? Maximizing wealth? Whose? We'll get to all that. But first, will someone kindly send me something about Larry Summers that shows him in a better light than this godawful tedious CNBC clip of him fielding soft grounders about the economy before the Economic Club (of New York, I think) on 4/9. It SO reminds me of my undergrad days at Harvard in the 1960's and the smoke and mirrors political discussions that routinely marginalized outsider views as "generating more heat than light". (Anyone else remember this phrase?) This cozy CNBC clip suggests that the old boys' network is still in fine working order today, its nexus having merely migrated northwards to Cambridge from New Haven, from whence an unbroken string of Yale graduates (Bush/Clinton/Bush) had occupied the White House for an unprecedented 20 years. (My take on the historic "Yale succession" of U.S. Presidents is here, here, here and here.)

Well, I'm getting carried away. But seriously: are video clips like this one the best that CNBC - and Summers himself - can give the American people at this critical juncture in our history?

Well I gotta rant a bit more. Just listen to the long-winded introduction (suckup?) that consumes the first two minutes of this nine-minute clip, including the moderator's paean to Summer's astounding skills as a tennis player - "his greatest talent," says the host, confessing his own need for professional training in order to beat Summers - "barely" - on a doubles court. Please. This idle talk only assures Summers that he is among friends and will not be asked any hard questions (say, about bank solvency or bank spending of government bailout money). And the warm audience response to his not-so-witty dismissal of any claim to certainty in the making of economic forecasts confirms that none are expected. I decided to scout the web a bit on this man, focusing on his ties to Wall Street. It didn't take to find a couple interesting items:

• At Econospeak (via Naked Capitalism) I found this glowing account of Summers' "stadium rock concert" and "performance art" presentation last year to Goldman Sachs. Smoke and Mirrors? For sure, it was patently a magic show. Genius? One of the greatest minds of the past 500 years? That was the take of one Monique, a Goldman employee who says “It was his entertainment that opened me up and made me receptive, but the economic vision was irreplaceable. I thought I was maximizing wealth before I heard Larry, but I didn’t know the half of it.” Maximizing wealth, huh? Whose? (4/4)


• Well, consider this. The New York Times reports that "Lawrence H. Summers, the top economic adviser to President Obama, earned more than $5 million last year from the hedge fund D. E. Shaw and collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street companies that received government bailout money, the White House disclosed Friday in releasing financial information about top officials." OK, so Summers, as Treasury Secretary, isn't pulling in the big bucks from Wall Street. But whose wealth he is maximizing? And who is benefitting from his great wisdom? So far, it's still going to Wall Street while the Americian people, on CNBS, get jargon. (4/3)

OK already, enough ranting. Here's a challenge, stemming from the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the New York Times' brief bio of Larry Summers, which celebrates his "deep understanding of global economic issues, at a time when the American mortgage crisis has leaped borders to become a worldwide contagion." Whoah, hold it. Can anyone show that Summers had any prior understanding of this crisis before it hit full force in 2008? What was one the greatest minds of the past 500 years saying about it in 2006 and 2007?

Is Massive, truly MASSIVE, Bank Fraud going Unpunished and Unregulated?

Is America ignoring bank fraud on an unprecedented scale in its haste to bail out its apparently insolvent banks? This 20 minute Bill Moyers Journal video makes a strong case for the affirmative. Moyers interviews William K. Black, a senior regulator during the Savings and Loan Crisis of the 1990's. Black's take on the decay of American finance over the past 20 years reminds me of David Cay Johnston's take on the decay of the IRS since 1980. Two straight shooters. Black is hard on Geithner and Summers and on President Obama too. A key passage:

The FBI publicly warned, in September 2004 that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud, that if it was allowed to continue it would produce a crisis at least as large as the Savings and Loan debacle. And that they were going to make sure that they didn't let that happen. So what goes wrong? After 9/11, the attacks, the Justice Department transfers 500 white-collar specialists in the FBI to national terrorism. Well, we can all understand that. But then, the Bush administration refused to replace the missing 500 agents. So even today, again, as you say, this crisis is 1000 times worse, perhaps, certainly 100 times worse, than the Savings and Loan crisis. There are one-fifth as many FBI agents as worked the Savings and Loan crisis.

So what needs to be done? Here's Black's 9/08 Nation article co-authored with economist James K. Galbraith. Here are some related links:

• Tim Geithner outlines his regulatory plan before the House Committee on Financial Regulation (3/??)
• President Obama backs up Geithner's plan (3/24)
  
• The Economist says "The rich are an easy target. But when you try to bash them, you usually end up punching yourself in the nose." Seems to me this caution against political retribution skirts the hard issues of legal accountability and regulatory reform. (4/2)
• Meredith Whitney says that the country's biggest banks, still undercapitalized despite government efforts to refloat them, are reducing credit card lines and thereby "sucking liquidity out of consumer wallets." How much? "In the fourth quarter alone," she says, "half a trillion dollars of lines were cut from the consumer--half a trillion." (4/6)
• Mike Mayo's "Seven Deadly Sins of Banking" is out today - David Faber and others at CNBC blame today's down market (Dow -114 several hours before the close) in part on Mayo's report.
• William D Cohan on how Goldman Sachs emerged as the king of financial institutions (NYT op ed. Not fraud, but sleight of hand ( 4/15)
• 
  

HEAD FAKE?

The Dow rallies. The Obama administration juices the rally. Jon Stewart thrashes Jim Cramer, as discussed below. Is anyone orchestrating these events? Blog comments I've seen charge that Stewart, a big time Obama supporter, went after Cramer on March 12 only because Cramer had assailed the Obama recovery program on March 9 and March 11.

Hmmm. Let's see. First, some background. The Dow has rallied sharply from its March 9 multi-year low of 6,547 to its March 13 close of 7,223. On March 2, with a sinking Dow closing at 6,726, President Obama made some cautiously bullish comments about investing. These struck one veteran observer as a risky case of presidential market timing. Indeed, they were widely seen as a buy sign. Still, the market continued to fall for a few days until hitting its multiyear low on March 9 and then beginning its "Spring rally", as CNBC fondly calls it.

Yesterday, on March 13, the Dow closed at 7,223 thanks in part to a rosy assessment of the economy from Obama adviser Lawrence H. Summers. It seems clear that the Obama administration, after months of saying "things will get worse before they get better," felt the need to change its tune and put a cap on fear itself. It's now playing a risky game of emotions focused on the stock market. (Summers, in his so-called "excess of fear" speech at the Brookings Institute, called for strong federal action in the Keynesian mold to break "the excess of fear" which he said follows market bubbles fueled by an "excess of greed [and] an absence of fear".)

So how might the Stewart/Cramer tussle fit in with all of this? Could it be that the seemingly defenseless Cramer simply threw the fight, a media-hyped event witnessed by 2.3 million viewers? Did Stewart notice that on the very next day, March 13, Cramer was back in the saddle doing precisely what Stewart charged him with doing: pumping up individuals to "Buy buy buy!" On Friday Cramer predicted that the Dow may hit Dow 8,000 - much as the Obama administration would love for him to do - but we're already half way there at 7,200 so even by Cramer's account this rally doesn't have that far to go. On Friday, Cramer also pretended, almost poetically - by alluding to his favorite fairy tales and TV sitcoms - that the dreaded evil short-selling hedge funds are motivated not by insights into financial realities but by sheer ill will alone. He even charged the shorts with being "anti-Ecclesiastes" (at 7:44 ) in wanting only a "time to kill" and never "a time to heal".

To bullish investors, Cramer's ebullience and the Dow's rally may feel good. But how will America feel if the Dow hits Cramer's target of 8,000? If the Dow can hold at this level, we'll all be happy. But if it collapses, as happens so often in bear markets, then Jim Cramer, wittingly or otherwise, and the Obama administration as well, will have used emotions to deliver hopeful investors and the market itself into the hands of Cramer's declared mortal enemies: the hedge fund shorts.

Stewart's mistake, in taking down Jim Cramer, was to zero in only on the man's past excesses. He never once sought Cramer's view on markets today - or his present bullishness.

Head fake? For my money, that's not the issue. Bottom line, it's a red herring, the wrong question to ask. So what's the right question? If the above thoughts make sense, they suggest that CNBC - America - could use better prime-time finance TV shows. Why don't we have them when we need them most? How ironic, some are complaining, that we have to look to Comedy Central for hard-hitting economic commentary. These folks are right. It's time for America to have financial programming that puts taxpayers, investors, financiers and politicians on the same page in resolving the financial crisis.

I'm working on that. In the next post, I'll identify issues that all Americans should be talking about. Can't wait? Browse the links on the left and you'll find plenty of them.