Posted by
Mike Rulle on Wednesday, April 01, 2009 12:00:00 AM
As a follow-up to my "Anatomy of a Bailout ", this post from Felix Salmon is more than interesting
Tyler Durden
has a scary post up, connecting banks' profitability in January and
February to the fact that those were the months when AIG Financial
Products was unwinding an enormous number of its contracts en masse.
These trades, initiated by AIGFP, were allegedly enormously profitable
for the biggest banks in the CDS market:
The size of these unwinds were enormous, the quotes I have heard
were "we have never done as big or as profitable trades - ever"...
I
can only guess/extrapolate what sort of PnL this put into the major
global banks... I think for the big correlation players this could have
easily been US$1-2bn per bank in this period."
The whole point of having the government take over AIG was that it
wouldn't need to enter into panicked unwinds. If it went ahead and did
that anyway, the levels of competence and oversight at AIG are even
lower than most of us had thought. Which is quite an achievement "
Salmon is onto something but misses the big point--or forgot it for
this article. The whole point was to bail out Goldman Sachs. This is
something. Not only did the Geithner/Paulson brigade create havoc in
the Fall, but they are forcing unwinds in major size---thus giving the
banks even more profits. Again, as I bore even myself, why are we
unwinding these to begin with? Why should the Street get to pick the
bones dry? This rip-off is as old as Wall Street itself. My favorite "I
love Lucy" character, William Lucy of the University of Virginia, has
indirectly shown that these CDS are likely to be significantly
undervalued. You realize who is getting ripped off don't you? Did you
see that person this morning brushing their teeth in the mirror? That's
who.
(posted at 8:45 pm by Mike Rulle)
Hoover Institution Research Fellow, Dave Henderson, follows my
"lead" in comparing the Obama administration to previous Fascist
economies Obama Throws the F-Bomb.In an essay last week, The Banality of Timothy Geithner,
I made the point that when central governments direct strategic
decisions in private enterprises, they mimic the "new way", originally
created by the ex-journalist, "Il Duce" Benito Mussolini. Recalling
Newsweek's Evan Thomas comment last Fall on the Charlie Rose show about
Obama's "deeply manipulative" behavior and his "creepy cult of
personality", one senses there is more to my Fascism meme than merely
economic decision making. Mussolini made the trains run on time, and
Obama makes sure your muffler warranty is still sound.
(posted at 10:00 am by Mike Rulle)
Economist Don Boudreaux of George Mason and Cafe Hayek
discusses the fundamental difference between free market thinkers and
central planning thinkers. In a letter to the NY Times, he references a
quote by Princeton's (and the NY Times) Paul Krugman in a Newsweek
article by Evan Thomas. Krugman is quoted "Social science, he
says, offered the promise of what he dreamed of in science fiction—"the
beauty of pushing a button to solve problems. Sometimes there really
are simple solutions: you really can have a grand idea." Push a button? Boudreaux's hot button was pushed. In his letter he states
"I was attracted to economics for a reason quite the opposite of the
one that appealed to Mr. Krugman, namely, because it helps explain how
incalculably complex and productive social orders emerge from billions
of individual actions, where no one of these actions is meant to
achieve anything more than improvement in the welfare of the individual
actor. This type of economics - associated most famously with Adam
Smith - teaches that it is hubris of the most extreme sort to imagine
that problems can be solved by pushing buttons. Social-engineer
wannabes such as Mr. Krugman might mean well, but they are dangerous;
they suffer from what another Nobel laureate economist, F.A. Hayek,
called "the fatal conceit." I
could not agree more. If you understand this, you understand almost all
there is to know about the nature of economic activity.
(posted at 9:45 am by Mike Rulle)
When reading the Zombie paper, the NY Times, I make Heinlein's
"Stranger in a Strange Land" (a story about a human raised by Martians)
feel like Grandma at Christmas dinner. Here is a line from an
"objective" news story Upstate New York House Race Is Too Close to Call about the virtual tie in the special election to replace Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in the House of Representatives. "{Democrat}
Mr. Murphy, a Missouri native unknown in the district until he began
running television ads in February, faced a huge Republican
registration advantage and an advertising onslaught by outside
conservative groups". The contested seat is in New York State as
Gillibrand replaced Hillary after the bizarro failure by Caroline
Kennedy to waltz into the Senate. Yet, somehow the Times seems agitated
that "an onslaught by outside conservative groups" was involved.
Meanwhile, the Democrat candidate is an "unknown native of Missouri".
Is Missouri a town near Albany? This "unknown native" is president of
the Upstate Venture Association of New York. They excitedly discuss the
Democrat's 65 vote lead despite the Republicans "huge registration
advantage". It is also a referendum on Obama's economic recovery plan.
Get the point? A huge republican district. Still, they need "outside
groups" to even keep the election close, against a guy from St. Louis
no less. It is really about Obama's spending programs. And the Democrat
is leading. Therefore, Obama's initiatives must be very popular. That
really is amazing. Yet, in this "huge" Republican district, somehow the
previous Congressperson, the Democrat Gillibrand, received the most
votes of any New York incumbent in the 2008 election. Isn't the Time's
"lede" backwards?
(posted at 9:14 am by Mike Rulle)
Have you ever known something really well but some newbie amateur
comes along and presumes to tell you that you are wrong? Lets say you
have an expertise is something highly technical and even counter
intuitive. But my straw man "newbie" insists the incorrect "intuitive"
position is correct. Not only do they confidently express this opinion,
but are smug in their moron-ness. One want's to either laugh, or be a
"heartbreaker with your 44". Tom Friedman of the NY Times makes me feel
that way. In Market to Mother Nature
Friedman simultaneously shows ignorance on two fronts. I admit, I could
not get past the opening paragraph so maybe he was only kidding. He
writes if he had his wish, the G20 would adopt “Market to Mother
Nature accounting. Why? Because it’s now obvious that the reason we’re
experiencing a simultaneous meltdown in the financial system and the
climate system is because we have been mispricing risk in both arenas —
producing a huge excess of both toxic assets and toxic air that now
threatens the stability of the whole planet". Where is my 44? He
equates a mismanaged California housing bubble with an imaginary
"climate system meltdown". This is exactly how our Administration
thinks. It is hopeless, and getting worse.
(posted at 8: 32 am by Mike Rulle)
Maureen Dowd in Dowd: Hummer Nation
is experiencing a mental barrage of cognitive dissonance. She seems to
realize something is not quite right about the Obama plan to "out
socialize" the Europeans. She also finds it bizarre that the Department
of Health and Human Services posts advice on its website on how to cope
with the economic crisis, including listing warning signs that one
might be suicidal. One of those "signs" was "looking for ways to kill oneself". She can't help herself as she even mocks Michelle Obama "who
landed in London with a huge Obama entourage, wearing a daffodil yellow
dress and looking like a confident ray of U.S.A. sunshine". But
Maureen must feel guilty about mentioning the obvious nakedness of our
new Emperor. She needs to balance the scale for who knows what reason.
Somehow, she segues into this statement; "The cowboy push by W.
and Dick Cheney to be a hyperpower and an empire left America a
weakened and tapped-out power, straining to defend its runaway
capitalism even as it uneasily adapts to its desperation socialism" Huh? Maureen, stick with your gut. You will find it much more clarifying.
(posted at 8:02 am by Mike Rulle)