Defending the bully-d*ckhead Russell Brand

A clever piece by "Squander Two", apparently going viral, about a confrontation with the poseur and unfocused protorevolutionary Russell Brand (htp: Anna Raccoon). And yet...

I've commented:

Brand is a blast from the past - about 1968 - 72-ish. And doubtless quite easy to rile, just like the American reporter who questioned Lennon in the 1969 bed-in and got a snarly Liverpudlian response.
 
On the other hand, your piece I find has a whiff of the disingenuous; artful stuff, all those references to food. Hungry bankers at Christmas... Skilfully done, some good points, and of course RB is not really much good at argumentation, which is why he uses so many words. Expect you'd beat him in a debate. Maybe that's why the BBC gives him airtime, to strike a faux balance between protest and the Establishment and weaken the former's credibility. That and his priapic reputation.

Shame so few people talk about the way the banking industry, encouraged by politicians, has messed up the economy with excessive debt and resource misallocation since at least the 70s, but that's a subject RB isn't up to analysing in his Michael Moore-ish way.

By the way, I'm given to understand it's noradrenaline, not adrenaline, that powers the fight or flight reaction. Either way, I don't blame you a bit for curdling at his invasion of your personal space.

If only there was a less vain and more penetrating advocate than the slightly addled Brand. The PPI and FX rows are tiny thunderrumbles compared to the gathering Force 5 financial hurricane caused by decades of monetary warming. Or maybe I'm wrong and it'll all turn out for the best in the end. Let's leave it to the experts as the economy "recovers", hey?


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Bringing down the Temple of Dagon

I listend to Radio 4's Any Questions? last Saturday and a question about bankers' bonuses reared its lovely head. And then the pundits fell down, one after another.

I can't answer the conundrum about the sound of one hand clapping, but I sure heard the sound of punches being pulled. Perhaps some of the speakers have banker friends; perhaps some are hoping not to alienate the Masters of the Universe in the weary stagger up to a General Election. But here's what I'd like to have said, and it proceeds from a simple question:

Did the bankers know the likely consequences of their actions?

If they didn't, they are incompetent and instead of dithering about the threat of the RBS' board to resign, the government should sack them and all like them. Doctors who are that bad at their jobs would be sued and/or worse.

If they did, they should be jailed. In my view, Max Keiser is not exaggerating when he calls them terrorists. They have wrought destruction on our economies and though the human cost may be hard to assess accurately, it is and will continue to be terrible.

So, why isn't it happening? A number of reasons occur to me:

1. It is convenient for politicians to have a few people earn (sorry, be given, legally steal) vast sums of money. The lucky recipients of this largesse can be taxed at 40% (or even 50% as under today's draft Budget proposals) and still have more than they can possibly eat, drink, wear or stick up their noses. "Tax doesn't have to be taxing", as that wretched radio advert chirrups.

2. Clapped-out politicians may one day be looking for a well-overpaid sinecure, like T--- B----. Best not to be too hard on your potential future employer.

3. Embarrassingly, the roots of the credit crunch are not (not merely) in socialist profligacy, but date back to the early 1980s. It was a so-called Conservative government, supposedly a convert to monetarism, that opened the floodgates of credit and tsunamied the economic "boom". Not a genuine boom, and now a very real bust. Criticising the present hapless bunch too sharply would beg a loud, sustained argument of "tu quoque" ("thou also didst so").

4. Just as an addict is partly responsible for the sins of the dealer, the consumer is implicated in the phoney house price rises and the spending spree. But I say that the Devil has the lowest place in Hell, because his knowledge was greater.

5. Nevertheless, if push came to shove, the bankers could point out that effectively, they were acting as the agents of a government determined to win re-election.

Very well, then. Let us have our punishment - we shall, anyway, and the next generation after us. But they must have theirs - the bankers, the politicians and the Fourth Estate that got too close and too cosy for too long.

Go for it.

Reborn investment banker asserts legal right to bonus

A simple question

All these bankers and investment houses jumping up and down on the bed until (inevitably it seems, one day) the springs break... where do they invest their own personal money? How do they hope not to share in the debacle, when it comes? Or is the strategy to become so obscenely rich that they can afford to lose 90% and still be rich?

Could the City of London be facing long-term decline?

The UK has an unfortunate reputation for clasping vipers to its bosom, from Karl Marx to modern religious terrorists. But some might say the same goes for its financial sector - the lack of transparency here, of which I've complained more than once, allows problems to develop unchecked, as Brad Setser comments:

Had there been an international “early warning” system that was on the ball – and had the UK been willing to collect the data on flows through the UK in the face of inevitable complaints that such efforts would drive business abroad – it might well have picked up on some of these flows as a sign of brewing trouble in global financial markets.

At one of my old College's Gaudies (class reunion) a few years ago, a City financier complacently and cynically remarked that the UK was always going to have a strong financial community, since it has hundreds of years of experience in "shaving" its customers in subtle ways.

I don't think the Brits have a monopoly of greed, dishonesty and duplicity, and we see now the rotten fruits of their technical expertise. The UK National Defence Association may imagine we can concentrate on financial services and turn the rest of the country into a living museum; I say that just as we need to wean ourselves off coal and oil, so we must reduce our dependence on the old swindlers; no more fossil fuels, no more fossil fools.

Crime and punishment

Congressman Michael E. Capuano does his job today, flaying the banks (htp: Jesse). I tried to email congratulations to him, but I haven't got a Massachusetts zip code.

And Karl Denninger also:

If the law enforcement agencies in this nation do not start prosecuting the fraudsters in our banking and investment industry that caused this economic collapse (and "token prosecutions" like Madoff will not cut it), and our lawmakers (and President) do not stand up darn soon and call for this prosecutorial action in public there is a very real risk that a repeat of those sordid affairs will soon arrive...
This much is clear to me - high-dollar white-collar crimes, certainly those with an impact greater in aggregate than we currently value a single human life (which various estimates put somewhere between $5 and $50 million each) are deserving of punishment equivalent to murder, meaning either (depending on state law) life imprisonment without possibility of parole or a sentence of death.
We need to put this change into the law as a deterrent against such acts in the future.

They're coming round to my point of view, as expressed e.g. here.

Shoot the B******s

A piece by the columnist and Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=1&em

To me, it gives a strong argument for temporary state ownership.

Elliot, Kondratieff, or normal service resumed?

On 26th June I looked at the progress of the FTSE since around 1984 and thought that the next low would be no worse than c. 4,500. Here's what actually happened:



The lows were certainly lower, and we have only recently learned just how close we came to a banking collapse. The question now is, are we where we "should" be - following a trend set by the last 25 years - or are there longer cycles due to make hay of the pattern of the last quarter-century? Elliot wavers and Kondratieff followers say yes.

My guess is that, after the steep stockmarket falls and the horrid crisis apparently averted, there will be a bounce in the next 1-2 years, then a decline in real (inflation-adjusted) terms for maybe another 5 years after that. Your guess?

By the way, I'd also be interested to know your views on why the bankers and brokers have been allowed to Get Away With It. To me, it seems like a big fat moral hazard and unless there is some real squealy punishment for all this bad behaviour, I'd advise any bright, conscienceless youngster to become a banker.

Currently, my preferred fantasy solution is to bust all the overextended banks, leave the shareholders with zilch, sack the senior bank managers and ban them from being company directors for at least 5 years, halve all mortgages, and give the book of business to more prudent operators including well-run building societies. In my view, this was never ever going to happen, because the FSA, the BoE and the government are also implicated. So, not so much "too big to fail", but too well-connected to fail.

But there's a price to pay, anyway: it's now clearly Us and Them. Perhaps, since they are immeasurably more powerful, we should give up trying to rectify the world and merely ape their cynicism and corruption. Moralists will demur; and so this is truly an age when we can say, "Affairs are now soul size".

Vengeance is mine

Following comments on the last post, I see the feeling that scores should be settled is spreading - see Denninger and a threatening post to which he's linked.

UPDATE

And Jim Kunstler, too.

Christmas viewing

Hilarious new animation in which the daring but accident-prone duo attempt to undo the damage caused by an idiot who sold off half of Britain's gold and let the bankers blow up the economy. From the makers of "The Wrong Assets" and the full-length "The Curse Of The Weird Scotsman".

In the news

Conservative leader David Cameron is making noises about prosecuting crooked bankers. Nice to see he's getting with my program.

Also in the Daily Mail, Alex Brummer says Madoff has queered the pitch for hedge funds generally. Damn: I had started to look at how to set one up, using links supplied by Jim from San Marcos. If I'd started a couple of years ago, I'd have got everyone into cash and made a packet for them and myself. 2 and 20, 2 and 20.

Odds on the bankers and hedgies Getting Away With It? Pretty fair, I'd have thought - especially when you bear in mind (as Denninger points out - and Jesse, too) all the others who could be implicated. To quote Oscar Wilde: "The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what fiction means."

Banking crisis part of a deep strategy?

On Financial Sense, F. William Engdahl speculates that asset-backed securities ("toxic waste" mortgage packages) were sold to European banks in order to poison their wells and leave the world banking system dependent on the USA - and an elite group of American bankers.

One startling fact cited in this conspiracy theory, is that the office responsible for overseeing Credit Default Swaps had its staffing reduced from 100 to... ONE person. Giving evidence to Congress, the Chief Accountant of the Securities & Exchange Commission said "... there has been a systematic gutting, or whatever you want to call it, of the agency and its capability through cutting back of staff."

Oh dear, I thought conspiracy theories were for nutcases. Maybe I'm wrong.

My plan: a $15 trillion dollar bailout.

US nonfinancial debt (second quarter 2008) is $32.4 trillion dollars. This pie chart gives a breakdown of the debt by type. US GDP in 2006 (est.) was $13.13 trillion - let's guess it's $14 trillion now. Thus debt as a proportion of GDP is about 230%.

This graph shows that the 50-year mean ratio of such debt to GDP is 120.1%. So to get back to a long-term average, DEBT MUST HALVE. As I said in a reply to a comment today, it's like a game of musical chairs, but taking away half the chairs in one go.

In fact, an almost perfect fit would be to cancel all the mortgage debt in the USA - just to get back to the level of debt averaged over the last 50 years.

And Marc Faber is saying the bailout will need 5 trillion, not $700 billion.

Hmmm....

Why don't we get really bold: $32.4 tn debt x 46% in the form of mortgages = $14.9 trillion. Give everybody their houses free of debt, make future loans on domestic property illegal. Yes, there'll be inflation, but the liberated houseowners will be able to afford it.

Will the banks be ruined? They're ruined now. Will the government have to nationalise them? They're doing it now.

These are revolutionary times. We may not be able to scourge the moneylenders from the temple, but at least we can chase them out of our houses.

Yes, the result's a house price crash, if you can't pump up the price with phoney-baloney money. But no debt, so so what?

The banker has inflated everything so you have to borrow to have anything. He's made himself indispensable, like a pusher of addictive drugs standing outside the school gates, giving away samples to get you hooked. He's your "friend", your "main man", who'll make you "well".

Bankers and their pet traders have become insanely rich by making you poor. Your assets are big on the outside and hollowed-out by debt on the inside; it's why they call it a bubble.

Do you know your enemy?

$700 billion: cui bono?

Hunter in the Daily Kos (HTP: my brother) says that the $700 billion rescue plan has no relation to the (much smaller) likely amount of mortgage defaults; instead, it's designed to prop up the derivatives scam that banks have been running for years.

I've thought recently that the bankers and traders are, in effect, being offered absolution without confession (1), restitution (2), doing penance (3) or a "firm purpose of amendment" (4).

1. Full disclosure of all liabilities and "assets"; admission of each person's part in the debacle. This should be Watergate Plus: there's a lot more than four burglars and the damage to third parties is incalculable.
2. Preferably, repayment of past bonuses awarded at a time when the recipient knew, or ought to have known, that the game was destabilising his own firm and the national economy.
3. Ideally, jail time, for some; at least, loss of office for those responsible.
4. Adoption of regulations designed to maintain the value of the currency and prevent future speculative bubbles.

From time to time we hear the defence that the consumer was at fault, too. Perhaps, if you're thinking about home equity withdrawals; but even the boll weevil is "just looking for a home" as Leadbelly sang, and when banks opened the money sluices house prices doubled. The buyer had no option to purchase a home at 2002 prices in 2007 (and I'm not sure what happened to the cost of rent in that time). The lenders should have known what they were doing; the poorest borrowers were not their equals in expertise. There was a duty of care.

What would houses cost, if it had always been illegal to use them as collateral for debt? What would the US and UK economies look like, if the vast sums sunk into housing had gone into small business enterprises? How much wealthier would we be?

I'll stay on the outside, thanks

Actually, I hope all the top bankers and star traders keep their huge bonuses (one year's worth of which would keep people like us for life), and I hope none of them gets jailed for their corruption/criminal incompetence.

Because otherwise, I might have to believe in Big Brother, and love Him.