Pages

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Showdown in Cleveland: Unions Refuse Nominal Pay Cuts

In typical fashion, and not understanding how well off they are compared to the private sector, unions have rejected nominal salary concessions in Cleveland.

Please consider Cleveland Unions Have One Week To Accept Concessions Or Face Layoffs.
Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson plans to follow through on layoff notices issued late last month unless unions agree to sacrifices. Ideastream’s Bill Rice reports.

The mayor sent a total of about 160 layoff notices out just before Christmas in order to meet the a two- week notification deadline to cut employees loose after next Monday. At that time, the Cleveland Fraternal Order of Police – which represents supervisors - had rejected the mayors’ proposed concessions. Shortly after that, the Patrolman’s Union followed suit, as did the EMS union. Those votes will mean the city will lay off just under a hundred officers and paramedics, and demote several higher ranking police personnel.

Jackson has asked all union employees to make concessions equaling a 4.17 percent across the board pay cut. He calls the proposed concessions an opportunity to preserve jobs, and says it’s up to the unions to decide whether there will be layoffs.

Jackson: “Realistically I’ve been able to give them a proposal that would avert layoffs, that would not impact their membership. And those who choose to go along with that, then that is what will happen. Those don’t, the effective date of the layoff is in mid-January.”
Jackson Overly Generous

Jackson is too generous. A 4.17% pay cut is just a down payment for what needs to happen. Unless and until public unions give up defined benefit plans along with agreeing to wages that will not bankrupt cities, these meager cuts will not solve anything.

Jackson's starting point should be more along the lines of 20% pay cuts and termination of defined benefit pension plans for new hires.

Eventually it is going to come to something like that, so why not ask for it upfront? The other reasonable alternative is for Cleveland to declare bankruptcy and let the unions see what they can get in bankruptcy court.

"Mark" who sent me the link writes:
Amazingly enough, cities, counties and states are coming to the conclusion that, if you don't have any money, you can't pay anyone to work for you.

How's that for Economics 101?

I wish the federal government would sign up for this "adult refresher course" as well.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Baum Makes Mincemeat of Bernanke's Twisted Logic

In Ivory Tower Doesn’t Have a Mortgage, Bloomberg columnist Caroline Baum makes mincemeat out of Bernanke's twisted defense of Fed policy.
Bernanke takes great pains to rebut criticism that the funds rate was well below where the Taylor Rule, developed by Stanford economist John Taylor, suggested it should be following the 2001 recession.

Substitute forecast inflation for actual inflation, and the personal consumption expenditures price index for the consumer price index, and -- voila! -- monetary policy looks far less accommodating, Bernanke said.

It’s always easier to start with a desired conclusion and retrofit a model or equation to prove it.

What if easy money is a necessary but not sufficient condition to explain the magnitude of housing bubbles across countries?

The real fed funds rate was negative from 2002 to 2005, the longest stretch since the 1970s, a decade notable for high inflation and unemployment. The teaser rates lenders offered on ARMs were pretty close to zero when adjusted for inflation.

When you can borrow for free and invest in an asset whose price can only go up (at least that was the perception about home prices), guess what happens? Credit is misallocated. Lending standards decline. Everyone wants in.

Yes, monetary policy is a blunt instrument, as Bernanke pointed out. Keep rates too low -- create too much money -- and sometimes that money chases goods and services prices, which we designate as inflation. Other times it piles into certain assets, which we call a bubble.

“The best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary,” Bernanke said, avoiding any reference to prevention.

The two aren’t substitutes. Relying on regulation to counteract the impetus of easy money is like using a split-rail fence to stop an auto with the accelerator pressed to the floor. They are different species, operating in different spheres.

All the regulation in the world can’t counteract the power of near-zero interest rates. At the same time, high interest rates won’t prevent financial institutions from engaging in shady practices. To think regulation can prevent the next asset bubble is naive.

Why is the Fed so fixated on inflation expectations and so blase about asset-price expectations? Aren’t they of a piece?
Taylor Rule Nonsense

The highly respected Taylor Rule is fatally flawed because it only looks at the CPI, while ignoring asset bubbles in virtually anything else, including housing.

I have pointed this out many times, most recently in Ben Bernanke Looks In Mirror, Sees Barney Frank.
Bernanke blames inadequate subprime regulation for the housing bubble.

Bernanke also takes refuge in the Taylor Rule although there is considerable disagreement over what it says. My take is the Taylor Rule is fatally flawed because it fails to take into consideration housing prices (asset prices in general).

Watch what happens when the Case-Shiller Housing Index is substituted for Owners' Equivalent Rent (OER) in the CPI.

Case Shiller CPI vs. CPI-U



click on chart for sharper image

The above is from What's the Real CPI?

The Fed could have and should have acted to rein in property bubbles, but Bernanke is so dense he could not even see there was a property bubble.
Substituting home prices for OER the CPI was running a hot 6%+ in mid 2004 with the Fed Funds Rate near .25%.

Who's The Bigger Fool?

1) Taylor in all his hubris for believing his fatally flawed rule is the only policy tool the Fed needs
2) Bernanke for relying on it to the point of insanity

Academic Wonks vs. Practicality

Bernanke is an academic wonk, totally incapable of looking at policy in terms of anything other than formulas and his twisted ideas about the great depression.

Baum on the other hand shows impeccable logic with...

Relying on regulation to counteract the impetus of easy money is like using a split-rail fence to stop an auto with the accelerator pressed to the floor. All the regulation in the world can’t counteract the power of near-zero interest rates.

Indeed.

When the price of money is too low, it is virtually guaranteed to cause speculation in something. In 2000 it was Nasdaq and technology speculation. This go around it was housing, followed by commercial real estate, followed by immense commodity speculation driving the price of oil to $140.

The moral of this story is loose money always finds a home.

It is beyond absurd we have a Fed chairman that does not understand that simple construct or for that matter basic economics in general.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Bankruptcy Filings - As Ye Sow So Shall Ye Reap

Two quick ways to dump debt are to walk away from no recourse mortgage loans and file for chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The debt slave act of 2005, better known as the bankruptcy reform act of 2005 was supposed to prevent the latter but it is no surprise in this corner that it didn't. In fact, the law encouraged banks (and was purposely written to allow banks) to make high-risk loans thinking they could make debt slaves out of people forever.

It is fitting the law backfired. As ye sow so shall ye reap.

And now, with unemployment at 10%, the surge is on. The Wall Street Journal notes Personal Bankruptcy Filings Rising Fast.
The number of Americans filing for personal bankruptcy rose by nearly a third in 2009, a surge largely driven by foreclosures and job losses.

And more people are filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which liquidates assets to pay off some debts and absolves the filers of others. That is significant because a 2005 overhaul of federal bankruptcy laws aimed to encourage Chapter 13 filings, which force consumers to sign onto debt-repayment plans in exchange for keeping certain assets.

Overall, personal bankruptcy filings hit 1.41 million last year, up 32% from 2008, according to the National Bankruptcy Research Center, which compiles and analyzes bankruptcy data. It is the highest level of consumer-bankruptcy filings since 2005. Consumers rushed to file in 2005 before the new bankruptcy laws took effect in October of that year.

Chapter 7 filings were up more than 42% as of November 2009, compared with the same period a year earlier, according to the research center. November is the most recent month with analyzed data available. Chapter 13 filings rose by 12% and made up less than a third of 2009 filings as of November.

"I can't see over the top of the files on my desk," said Cathleen Moran, a bankruptcy attorney at Moran Law Group in Mountain View, Calif., likening it to the rush of clients before the revised law went into effect. In a three-month period before those rules changed in 2005, her firm filed five times as many cases as usual.

Ms. Moran's clients in 2008 typically were people who earned between $40,000 and $80,000. That changed last year when a rash of people who earned $100,000 to $300,000 began filing as well, she said.

"Expenditures that were rational when these people were working at the peak of their salary just are no longer sustainable when they lose jobs or take jobs at a third or a half of what they were making before," Ms. Moran said.
Permanent Lifestyle Changes

Neither housing prices nor wages will return to what they were. So even after people find jobs, lifestyles for all but a lucky few will not return to where they were. Salary cuts are going to necessitate permanent lifestyle changes.

If you are unemployed, struggling, and deep in debt, it may be best to get it over with. If you manage to land a job first, you will struggle with the means test, forced repayments, credit rebuilding, and other issues on top of a reduced lifestyle. So if you are doomed to file anyway, try and do so when it will do you the most good.

I do not recommend credit counseling services as many are fraudulent and most of the rest are sponsored by banks with their best interest in mind, not yours.

But please, if you are considering filing bankruptcy for any reason, do not run up credit card balances before you file or make blatantly unaffordable purchases. That constitutes fraud and it could land you in jail.

As always, please consult an attorney that knows the laws and procedures for your state.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Monday, January 4, 2010

School Bills Due But State Can't Pay: "There is No Money"; Let the War on Public Unions Begin

While the stock market marches on oblivious to the real world, things are rapidly approaching crisis mode in Illinois, and for that matter nearly everywhere you look. Please consider School bills are due, but state won't pay.
Say the words out loud to get a feel for the size of it: Forty-five million, two hundred and six thousand, six hundred and fifty-four dollars, and sixty-one cents. That's how much the state is behind in payments to your local schools.

When the quarterly payments came due at the end of the year, the state again missed its categorical and grant payments to all 871 Illinois school districts.

This money is supposed to fund projects like school buses, special education, reading programs and early childhood development. But the money's not coming, instead getting added bill by bill to an already $4.5 billion IOU the state has for services from schools to homeless shelters.

But the same state that's no longer paying for these programs legally requires them.

Unlike the usual budget bellyaching when political pressure can make money appear, this time is different, said state Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, D-Aurora. There is no money. "This is not a false alarm. This is not someone pulling a fire drill. This is a fire," Chapa LaVia said.

The West Aurora School District plans to lay off teachers for the second year running. Last year, the district planned to lay off 120 teachers, but ended up only giving 55 the ax. The district didn't have a change of heart -- laying off all 120 would have pushed class sizes past the maximum in the teachers union contract.

There's a fee the district can pay if they want to go past that limit by laying off more teachers. They're considering it. "It's cheaper to pay a premium than to pay a teacher," West Aurora Chief Financial Officer Christi Tyler said.

It's not that the state is denying it owes this money. The Illinois State Board of Education, like many state agencies, is dutifully sending its vouchers to the comptroller's office, where ... nothing happens.

What usually is a bureaucratic delay where the comptroller gets the voucher and then cuts the check within a week or two is now an eternal dead-end for bills, a purgatory where state payments linger while Springfield figures out how to fix the state's funding calamity.
Illinois $4.9 Billion Overdue In Paying Bills

Inquiring minds looking for more details on Illinois' missing $billions are reading Splurge. Borrow. Repeat.
You're a deadbeat, an astonishing $4.9 billion overdue in paying your bills. You owe much of that for services that were provided many months ago by people who, day in and day out, care for your ailing, handicapped and often helpless fellow citizens.

You're also -- sorry to be blunt -- inept. You repeatedly spend more than you earn and borrow to fill the gap. This year you'll outspend your income by some $12 billion.

In the process you've embraced debts that could plague your descendants after you're dead and gone. Examples: You've bizarrely promised your workers some $80 billion more in pension payouts than you can afford. What's more, you've promised them additional billions that you don't have for their health care after they retire.

Your money managers are the politicians who run Illinois. Many of them have failed you spectacularly. What will you do now? Your state is in dreadful shape financially -- well on its way to being New Michigan or, worse, New California.

Yet as 2010 dawns, many of your pols have an incredible deal for you: Yes, they've made you insolvent -- that means you can't pay your bills as they come due -- but they promise to make everything spiffy if you re-elect them. They will pay down your debts, which they manufactured in your name. To that end, they want you to hand them even more of your income in . . . taxes.

We have watched those politicians in recent years create ever more obligations for taxpayers -- yet also spent citizens' money in ways that defy common sense. Many public officials are so terrified of bucking public employees unions and other interest groups that they've ducked crucial decisions: to reduce pension benefits for future state hires, to move Medicaid patients to managed care, to demand consolidation of small school districts, to outsource costly internal functions like janitorial and food services . . . The list of money-saving moves private companies long ago would have made goes on and on.

Today's Illinois even borrows from itself: The sometimes acceptable practice of short-term lending repeatedly has been overused and abused. The result is a Ponzi scheme on speed that pays yesterday's costs with money borrowed today and due back, with interest, tomorrow.

On Feb. 2, Illinois voters have a choice. We can raise up our little porridge bowls and ask for more of the same.

Or we can demand that public officials aggressively streamline their governments and how they do business.
Why is Illinois broke?

The answer is easy. Politicians are unwilling to stand up to unions and demand reform. Instead they put off fixing the problem year in and year out selling long-term bonds to finance short-term needs.

Some complete idiot emailed me today telling me the problem was that unions did not make enough money. He made $70,000 and seemed proud of the fact that he spent every penny of it. It is really sad such fools can graduate from high school not understanding money, interest rates, taxes, inflation, credit cards, or anything they need to know to survive in the real world.

Lesson #1.
It does not matter how much you make but how far the money you do make goes
Lesson #2.
The ability to tax is not infinite.
Lesson #3.
Public unions and politicians who refuse to stand up to them are bankrupting cities, states, and municipalities

The system is flat broke and the state of Illinois is bankrupt. Meanwhile unions refuse to even compromise. At this point compromise is not needed. A taxpayer revolt and all out war on unions, graft, pension promises, and corrupt politicians is.

Let the war begin.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Ron Paul "No Longer Fringe"

Mainstream media and the public are both at long last starting to realize Ron Paul's ideas no longer fringe. From the LA Times ...
For three decades, Texas congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul's extreme brand of libertarian economics consigned him to the far fringes even among conservatives. Not a few times, his views put him on the losing end of 434-1 votes on Capitol Hill.

No longer. With the economy still struggling and political divisions deepening, Paul's ideas not only are gaining a wider audience but also are helping to shape a potentially historic battle over economic policy -- a struggle that will affect everything including jobs, growth and the nation's place in the global economy.

His warnings on deficits and inflation are now Republican mantras.

And with this year's congressional election campaign looming, the Texas congressman's deep-seated distrust of activist government has helped fuel protests such as the tea-party movement, harden partisan divisions in Washington and stoke public fears about federal spending and the deficit.

"People are wondering what went wrong. And they're not happy with what the government is offering up," said James Grant, editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, offering an explanation for why seemingly wonkish arguments over interest rate policy and the money supply are spilling over onto ordinary Americans.

And so far, Paul and his fellow conservatives are on the offensive. President Obama and congressional Democrats are repeatedly pledging not to increase the deficit and to begin cutting back soon.

"I think we're going to be in for more revival of fiscal responsibility," said William Niskanen of the Cato Institute, who headed the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan.

Niskanen sees the Texas Republican's increasing influence as stemming from the continued economic weakness. "To this extent, Ron Paul gains voice," he said.

Paul would go a lot further in cutting back the government's role than even free-marketers like Niskanen support. If Paul had it his way, for instance, he would do away with the Fed entirely. In his bestselling book "End the Fed," he lambasted the central bank as an "immoral, unconstitutional . . . tool of tyrannical government."

Such rhetoric might once have been dismissed as extremism. But Paul's anti-Fed message has drawn broad support because of the central bank's failure to restrain the flood of cheap money and excessive risk-taking in the years leading up to the financial crisis.

Paul's ideas are grounded in the work of economic thinkers from an earlier era who focused on problems similar to those besetting the U.S. today.

In particular, Paul is a disciple of Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian theorist born at the end of the 19th century who contended that government intervention in an economy would fail because free markets were better at allocating resources and fueling growth.

Paul contends that Austrian economics explains the most recent financial meltdown: "It says if you inflate too much, if you have no restraint on monetary authorities, you're going to bring on a crisis." Now, Paul says, administration policies are leading the country toward disaster.
One By One

Legislative representatives need to be won over one by one by one. We are at critical mass regarding Audit the Fed. However, bankers and the Fed will continue to fight this tooth and nail.

Fiscal issues will be the same slow arduous process with more defeats than victories.

Please keep the pressure on your legislative representatives and strive to do what you can to get rid of the mindless zombies doing the most damage. These are battles that must be fought if there is any hope for our future.

Here are Phone, Fax, and Email numbers from the Online Directory for the 111th Congress.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Reflections On Market Sentiment

Trader's Narrative has some interesting charts and commentary about market sentiment which suggests a great deal of bullish complacency among the bulls and resignation for the bears.

Here is one of the charts from the article.


click on chart for sharper image

Both of the popular weekly sentiment surveys are in agreement showing an extremely bullish mood, which should make any contrarian stand up and take notice. It now stands two standard deviations below its 1 year average. The AAII weekly sentiment survey of retail investors in the US has only 23% bears and a whopping 49% bulls. The AAII ratio hasn’t been this lopsided since May 2008 when the S&P 500 topped out at 1440.

Similarly, the Investors Intelligence survey of newsletter editors has plumbed new depths from last week and reached a new record. We haven’t seen this few bears in 22 years! The II finished off the year with only 15.6% of editors looking forward to lower stock market prices and 51.1% optimistically looking forward to the continuation of the rally.

The keepers of the Investors Intelligence survey, Mike Burke and John Gray, believe that while “some additional gains may occur in the near term, stocks may peak in the first quarter of next year and correct from there.” Smoothing out the weekly results with a 10 week average of the bulls divided by the bulls and bears shows that the market is overbought by 71% - the last time it was at similar lofty levels was back in late July 2007.
There are three other charts in the article and much more analysis. Inquiring minds may wish to take a look.

My friend "BC" who sent me the link writes "Today's increasingly bullish sentiment is consistent with a B (or 2) wave, which would imply a setup for the most destructive (for financial wealth and confidence) phase of a C-wave decline, lasting 2-3 years. "

What "BC" is describing is similar to the sucker bounce in the early 1930 after the stock market crash of 1929.

I am pleased to inform that "BC" has partially come out of the closet. He is now blogging anonymously at the Economics of Oil Empire and Peak Oil blog.

Here is a link to his post Equity Market Sentiment with more of his thoughts as well as additional charts.

Addendum:

I was informed by a reader that the chart in this post is from the December 18th edition of The Elliott Wave Financial Forecast Short Term Update.

Trader's Narrative used it without proper attribution.
I have permission from Elliott Wave.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Ben Bernanke Looks In Mirror, Sees Barney Frank

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is back at it again, pointing the crisis finger at everyone but himself. To be sure there are plenty of congressional clowns deserving of a Babe Ruth style "big point", but the biggest point belongs straight at himself.

Please consider Bernanke Blames Weak Regulation for Financial Crisis.
Regulatory failure, not lax monetary policy, was responsible for the housing bubble and subsequent financial crisis of the last decade, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, said in a speech on Sunday.

“Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders’ risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates,” Mr. Bernanke, whose nomination for a second term awaits Senate confirmation, said in remarks to the American Economic Association.

Technical models based on historical trends in United States housing prices and monetary policy show that home prices rose much faster than interest rates alone would have predicted, Mr. Bernanke said.

He also argued that trends in other countries demonstrated a “quite weak” connection between housing price appreciation and monetary policy.
Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble

If you want to wade through 36 pages of self-serving claptrap, please consider Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble by Ben Bernanke.
U.S. Monetary Policy, 2002-2006

The aggressive monetary policy response in 2002 and 2003 was motivated by two principal factors. First, although the recession technically ended in late 2001, the recovery remained quite weak and "jobless" into the latter part of 2003. Real gross domestic product (GDP), which normally grows above trend in the early stages of an economic expansion, rose at an average pace just above 2 percent in 2002 and the first half of 2003, a rate insufficient to halt continued increases in the unemployment rate, which peaked above 6 percent in the first half of 2003.

Second, the FOMC's policy response also reflected concerns about a possible unwelcome decline in inflation. Taking note of the painful experience of Japan, policymakers worried that the United States might sink into deflation and that, as one consequence, the FOMC's target interest rate might hit its zero lower bound, limiting the scope for further monetary accommodation. FOMC decisions during this period were informed by a strong consensus among researchers that, when faced with the risk of hitting the zero lower bound, policymakers should lower rates preemptively, thereby reducing the probability of ultimately being constrained by the lower bound on the policy interest rate.

...

All efforts should be made to strengthen our regulatory system to prevent a recurrence of the crisis, and to cushion the effects if another crisis occurs. However, if adequate reforms are not made, or if they are made but prove insufficient to prevent dangerous buildups of financial risks, we must remain open to using monetary policy as a supplementary tool for addressing those risks--proceeding cautiously and always keeping in mind the inherent difficulties of that approach. Clearly, we still have much to learn about how best to make monetary policy and to meet threats to financial stability in this new era. Maintaining flexibility and an open mind will be essential for successful policymaking as we feel our way forward.
You will have to read the full text to see, but amazingly Bernanke is sticking with his Savings Glut theory as the reason for the housing bubble as if massive credit expansion in the US and monetary printing in China somehow constitutes a "savings glut".

Please see Bernanke Blames Saving Glut For Housing Bubble for a rebuttal of Bernanke's thesis. Bear in mind it is absolutely impossible to have too much savings.

Also bear in mind that "Two weeks into the job, Bernanke testified before Congress that it was a positive that the nation's homeownership rate had reached nearly 70 percent, in part because of subprime loans." (See Anatomy of a Meltdown for details).

Now Bernanke blames inadequate subprime regulation for the housing bubble.

Bernanke also takes refuge in the Taylor Rule although there is considerable disagreement over what it says. My take is the Taylor Rule is fatally flawed because it fails to take into consideration housing prices (asset prices in general).

Watch what happens when the Case-Shiller Housing Index is substituted for OER in the CPI.

Case Shiller CPI vs. CPI-U



click on chart for sharper image

The above is from What's the Real CPI?

The Fed could have and should have acted to rein in property bubbles, but Bernanke is so dense he could not even see there was a property bubble.

Instead, Bernanke blames lack of regulation after initially praising the housing boom and subprime lending.

Fed Is The "Great Enabler"

Credit bubbles have their foundation in loose monetary policy that makes borrowing appear attractive. Those bubbles may manifest in the form of stock market bubbles as in the Nasdaq in 1997-2000 or housing in 2004-2007. Indeed the Fed is the "Great Enabler" of bubbles.

Just because bubbles do not form in the same way at the same time everywhere on the planet does not absolve the Fed from guilt.

Bernanke Incapable Of Learning

Bernanke has proven over time to be incapable of learning anything. He sticks with his theories no matter how flawed they are.

Here is a paragraph that proves it:
Is there any role for monetary policy in addressing bubbles? Economists have pointed out the practical problems with using monetary policy to pop asset price bubbles, and many of these were illustrated by the recent episode. Although the house price bubble appears obvious in retrospect--all bubbles appear obvious in retrospect--in its earlier stages, economists differed considerably about whether the increase in house prices was sustainable; or, if it was a bubble, whether the bubble was national or confined to a few local markets. Monetary policy is also a blunt tool, and interest rate increases in 2003 or 2004 sufficient to constrain the bubble could have seriously weakened the economy at just the time when the recovery from the previous recession was becoming established.
Any economist who could not see there was housing bubble brewing is straight up incompetent. That fact alone makes Bernanke incompetent. If the rest of the Fed could not see it, they are incompetent as well.

Moreover, in spite of the enormous crash we just went through, Bernanke is spouting nonsense about what might have happened if the Fed would have acted sooner in 2002 or 2003. How much damage does it take for Bernanke to admit the Fed blew it?

It is galling to read his self-serving platitudes.

Asymmetric Worries

If the Fed is so worried about using "blunt tools" then why is that worry so freaking asymmetric? Where was the concern in 1999 when Greenspan slashed rates over a ridiculous Y2K scare?

Where was the worry in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007?

Note how easily "blunt instrument" worries go out the window when there is a crisis or even perceived crisis. However, there is never a worry over the damage caused by holding rates too low, too long.

Bernanke, like Greenspan likes to blow bubbles. Bernanke, like Greenspan likes to blame others for his mistakes.

Bernanke's Magic Mirror

Without saying so directly, Bernanke just looked straight into the mirror, and pointed his finger not at himself, but rather at a reflection of Barney Frank for Congress' failure to regulate.

To be sure Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made the problem much worse and we can thank Barney Frank in particular and Congress in general for that. We can also thank Barney Frank for countless other affordable housing schemes that made matters worse. Year in, year out, Barney Frank was one of the biggest congressional contributors to the mess.

Barney Frank surely deserves the finger, but not from hypocrites like Bernanke who fail to see their own bigger role in cresting this mess.

And so, with the help of Bernanke's magic mirror, this is the biggest case yet of the pot pointing the finger at the kettle, calling the kettle black.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List