http://www.ft.com/…

The Federal Reserve has been hobbled by at least two major shortcomings that were primarily responsible for the current and several previous credit crises. Its failure to spot the importance of changing financial markets and its commitment to laisser faire economics were big mistakes and justify a fundamental overhaul of the Fed.

Bill Bonner puts it well over at FleetStreetInvest.co.uk:

How about that? America’s largest car company is going to be state-owned… nationalized… presided over by the federal bureaucrats.

It’s just a part of the shift away from the free market and towards an un-free market. Free market capitalism has failed, say the pundits. Let’s give the feds a chance.

Even Henry Kaufman, writing in today’s Financial Times, says that the Fed’s “libertarian dogma” prevented it from controlling the banks properly.

But the Fed is hardly a libertarian organization. It’s a banking cartel. As a cartel, it looks out for its member banks – and doesn’t hesitate to use state power to do so. There is nothing libertarian about it… and no dogma associated with it – except as Greenspan’s eyewash – that is even vaguely libertarian.

The Fed colluded with member banks to fix interest rates. In so doing, it helped create the biggest bubble in credit the world had ever seen. It was a terrible thing for the average fellow – who was lured deep into debt by rising house prices and cheap credit. But it was a great thing for the members of the Federal Reserve cartel. Profits in the financial sector – notably, the big Wall Street investment banks – soared.

But bankers are vulnerable to too much of a good thing – just like everyone else. Soon, they made the classic Wall Street mistake – they came to believe their own hype. Not only did they gin up trillions of dollars’ worth of preposterous financial instruments… they actually bought these debt bombs from each other.

This posed a grave danger to the nation’s economy… and to the banking system. Henry Kaufman claims the regulators dropped the ball because they put too much faith in the free market. But the regulators were little more than front men for the banks themselves. After Alan Greenspan came Henry Paulson as head of the Fed. He was probably still replying to messages at his old address when the crisis began. And the head of the New York Fed – now, US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner – was elected to his post by the very institutions he was supposed to be overseeing.

Neither of them was about to stop the party; they and their friends were having too much fun.

I agree it was inconsistency which helped lead to this. You can’t supercharge an industry and remove the governors (regulations) and not expect shit to hit the fan eventually.

Let’s be consistent. Remove the supercharger. Remove the governors. Stop tweaking with a system you can’t possibly control and leave it be. Get rid of the Federal Reserve and it’s monoply on interest rates and money and credit creation. Remove it’s monopoly on legal tender. Treat fractional reserve banking as the fraud it is (in its current form anyway). Allow the bubble created “too big to fail” failures to fail and go into bankruptcy. Oh and stop handing out our grandchildren’s future tax dollars on failed institutions.

Speaking of which… yesterday Obama said that the government should spend as much on R&D as on the military. On Slashdot someone asked why when we are already in debt would we be spending money on something that would help us but costs would be placed on our children. A response was that it would more likely help them because the advancements would come out later.

My question is… what moral authority does this guy have spending future generations money (which will be forcefully taken from them) regardless of who it will directly effect? Is that not taxation without representation? They have had no say in the matter. Why not let the bureaucrat tyrants of their own time decide how best to steal from them?

http://www.reuters.com/…

Under fire for regulatory missteps, top U.S. securities regulator Christopher Cox defended his agency’s record but acknowledged some regrets over how he handled the worst financial crisis in decades.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has been lambasted by lawmakers and others for not doing enough to prevent the 2008 collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, interfering with markets and failing to detect the alleged $50 billion fraud at Wall Street financier Bernard Madoff’s firm.

Cox, a Republican and former California congressman, said the SEC’s focus has been customer protection and broker dealer regulation and that the agency “performed that traditional role superbly.”

However, Cox said he had some regrets over a drastic action the agency took as markets were hurtling downward in September. For a few weeks, the SEC stopped investors from making bearish bets on financial stocks like Morgan Stanley and Citigroup.

The SEC’s office of economic analysis is still evaluating data from the temporary ban on short-selling. Preliminary findings point to several unintended market consequences and side effects caused by the ban, he said.

“While the actual effects of this temporary action will not be fully understood for many more months, if not years, knowing what we know now, I believe on balance the commission would not do it again,” Cox told Reuters in a telephone interview from the SEC’s Los Angeles office late on Tuesday. “The costs appear to outweigh the benefits.”

The SEC imposed the temporary ban under intense pressure from the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department which insisted it was crucial to the short-term survival of these institutions, Cox said.

A few weeks after the temporary ban was lifted, global markets were again dropping precipitously, U.S. banks were begging the SEC to reinstate its short-sale ban and there was talk of shutting the markets down.

Cox said the chief executive of one major U.S. investment bank even urged suspension of normal trading rules across the entire U.S. market, likening the situation to how Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and Franklin Roosevelt sent Japanese-Americans to internment camps during World War Two.

The chief executive said, “that is how America made it through such crises, and we couldn’t be too focused on maintaining the rule of law,” Cox said. “That was advice we rejected.”

Wonderful. Comparing his their actions to that of outright tyrants. In one respect I agree. What was done was but a difference of degrees and not kind. But the level of degrees is so great it’s a bit of an insult to those who suffered as a result of Lincoln’s and FDR’s actions.

This was completely predicted by anyone with half an economic brain. The ban was obviously pushed for by John Mack of Morgan Stanley, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs along with other major bank players. No net good can occur due to government interference. Only relative to the bad they caused prior.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

Writes Bob Higgs:

My source is Bloomberg.Requiring the Fed to disclose loan recipients might set off panic, said David Tobin, principal of New York-based loan-sale consultants and investment bank Mission Capital Advisors LLC.

“If you mark to market today, the banking system is bankrupt,” Tobin said. “So what do you do? You try to keep it going as best you can.”

I believe he said “the banking system is bankrupt.” That seems like an honest statement. And then he said “you try to keep it going.” Pretty cool, eh. Zombie banking system. Keep it going.

Some of the bailout assistance could come from tax breaks in the future. The Treasury Department changed the tax code on Sept. 30 to allow banks to expand the deductions on the losses banks they were buying, according to Robert Willens, a former Lehman Brothers tax and accounting analyst who teaches at Columbia University Business School in New York.

Wells Fargo & Co., which is buying Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia Corp., will be able to deduct $22 billion, Willens said. Adding in other banks, the code change will cost $29 billion, he said.

“The rule is now popularly known among tax lawyers as the ‘Wells Fargo Notice,’” Willens said.

The regulation was changed to make it easier for healthy banks to buy troubled ones, said Treasury Department spokesman Andrew DeSouza.

Note: the Treasury changed the law. The pretense that Congress makes the laws, with the president’s assent, has apparently been abandoned as unnecessary in a crisis. Besides, under the present emergency regime, the Treasury is the government, with assistance from the Fed and the FDIC. All the rest is mere window dressing.

http://www.courant.com/…

The former chief risk officer at investment bank Bear Stearns Cos., which nearly collapsed in March, is now a senior official of the Federal Reserve division that supervises U.S. banks.

Michael Alix, who worked at Bear Stearns for 12 years and was its senior risk manager since 2006, was named a senior vice president in the bank supervision group of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, according to a Fed announcement.

The appointment is apt to raise questions because of the key role Alix played at Bear Stearns and given the Federal Reserve’s role in Bear Stearns’ sale to JPMorgan Chase & Co. after its breathtaking slide. In his new job at the central bank, Alix will help oversee the financial safety and soundness of banks, which are inspected by Federal Reserve examiners.

The inmates are running the asylum. But we already knew that.

The story is a few days old but it’s worth repeating.

Within minutes of the FED announcing the rescue of the crumbling insurer, I had the luck of being able to chat with an AIG employee about the Government’s repsonse and AIG’s current financial situation:

AIG employee looks like the Fed will be bailing us out. take THAT, taxpayers!

xyz ugh. this is really sickening.

AIG employee bwahahahaha!!

xyz you do realize that youre part of that “tax payer” category, right?

AIG employee yeah but the money this will bring me personally is probably more than Ipaid in taxes in the past year or so. finally the government does something right for a change. yay Fed!

xyz i disagree

AIG employee No, if AIG bit the dust then I just would’ve been canned with everyone else. Now we’ll be offered buyouts. That’s a lot of money for me.

xyz you should have been canned, just like lehman brothers. AIG was bankrupt and deserved to fail

AIG employee No, AIG is solvent and I did not deserve to be canned. There is a liquidity due to the Financial Services arm of the company. liquidity *issue*. Anyway, the insurance part of the company (where I work) is healthy and we have $1 trn in assets worldwide.

xyz an $85 billion rescue plan is solvent?

AIG employee You’re talking about something you don’t know anything about. it’s a bridge loan. AIG has more than enough assets to cover its credit default swaps, but not enough to to capitalize them. enough *time* to capitalize them

Read More…

So they gots to go.  Such is the case in East Harlem.  From Shagya blog:

From London’s Grosvenor Square you can’t see East Harlem, but you can buy it. For £250 million, 47 buildings, and 1,137 homes at a time. That, at least, was supposed to be the deal for UK-based investment bank Dawnay Day Group when it reached across the ocean last March and snatched up entire blocks of this historic neighborhood of low-income immigrants ­ one of the last such communities left in Dawnay Day Group’s plan follows the typical logic of displacement for “development,” a logic well known both to real estate profiteers and to the poor people they displace.

Here is the full blog post.  It’s nice to see people fighting back.  Here’s a radical thought, if a family is making use of a scarce resource such as an apartment and the landlord is not and cannot use the apartment for its primary purpose then the family possesses the apartment.  It sickens me to see things under-utilized because people with capital choose to sit on them.  Let the property rights fracas ensue.