Yes I Want a Change

[BoKnows]

Actually, these are not unreasonable arguments. It will actually take me a little time to think through them. The best way to win an argument with me is to give me facts and help me learn something :) - if that is your goal.

I think the leverage thing I wrote wasn't as nuanced as yours. I think most people understand that if you allow, say, an internal trading desk at Goldman, Bear, Lehman (!) to borrow money to buy CDOs at 1% down (i.e. 100x leverage), you are making certain assumptions about the risk of those CDOs. And you are right, it works both ways, as from what I understand, it was Goldman that actually popped the housing bubble by going hard short and super leveraged just as the housing was starting to crack - but I could be mistaken.

The real root of the problem, when I really think about it, was rating agencies (Moody's et. al.) slapping the AAA label on CDO debt fraudulently. In an environment where there is little *cough* reality around actual risk assessment, allowing super high leverage (i.e. 10x and higher) is really ******* dangerous. Until we get evidence that Moddys, Fitch, and others are actually paying attention to whats going on and not just lapdogging for investment banks whose securities they grade, I think leverage has to be limited.

I agree that leverage is just a tool - it is borrowing money. The real question is "for what". Leverage to buy a home or start a business where a.) the risks are at least reasonable understood and b.) there is at least some level of skin in the game that is meaningful == good. Leverage of 100x on securities that you can't even price (hence, what they used to call "mark to model"), let alone price on a RAROC basis (risk adjusted return on capital), well, thats bad.

Back to the administration, and by that I mean going all the way from Bush (where the buck stops, remember) - to the SEC and the chain of command in between - should have stopped this years ago. Limitations on capital ratios for leverage, not allowing high leverage on securities you can't even price efficiently - would have stopped this. It didn't, and as a result, we are all paying a tax, through a lower dollar, and worse, through a government bailout of the players involved - which in the end, is simply borrowing from our kids to pay for not allowing the free market to handle these entities that ****ed everything up in the first place.

Ok, now for energy. I personally think government is the last entity that should refresh the grid. But I think some leadership to mandate a lot of things that would help, such as requiring states to allow for net metering (some do, some don't) - and promoting through tax incentives to energy companies reinvestment into the grid to make it possible - would achieve a number of positive things, namely:

a.) Making the grid more robust because power is generated in a distributed fashion
b.) Achieve the upgrades required that will allow us to leverage the wind corridor in the middle of the country

The problem is that, currently, a grid upgrade would essentially cannibalize the profits of Exelon and the other power companies. So it doesn't happen. IT isn't a conspiracy, it just is the fact that a company is not going to invest capital in projects that kill their profits. If I owned Exelon, I probably wouldn't either.

I am no expert, but it seems like splitting ownership of generation and transmission would do a lot of good here. When one shares interest in the other, we don't get a distributed grid. Government would have to enforce the splitting of ownership and making sure that those two conflicting interests don't collude. As we know, given how friendly BushCo is with energy, that nothing like that is going to happen soon.

As for higher taxes pushing up the dollar - hey, it is what they told me in macro econ class :). If you take money out with higher taxes, in theory, you are using it to pay down the debt (outbound to China). Now, thats a special problem, because China still pegs their currency to the dollar to some degree, so you might be robbing peter to pay paul.

No candidate is really talking about what would be really nice, which is to tax estates at like 100% of everything over a few million (no more paris hilton), eliminate corporate taxes (which is the most onerous middle class tax, since corporations are mostly just pass through vehicles for middle class wages), and raise taxes on 250k+, so we have a shot at paying off the debt. Reducing money taxed on the middle class, while adding strong incentives for the middle and lower (lets not forget lower - they usually get the shaft in this debate) savings would be a real powerful way to prop the dollar to a reasonable range. Maybe this isn't buying dollars back, but by moving the needle to more saving, less spending, some balance comes back.

I think the weak dollar policy of Bush has indeed helped keep us out of recession, but at a huge cost. Given that we entered the recession cycle early (hell, we just got out 4 years ago) - as a result of the housing crisis, we basically have two wrongs (housing crisis + weak dollar) trying to compensate for one another, and kinda doing so in some ways, but in the process, creating some really nasty longer term problems.

I want leadership for this country that is right more than its wrong. Obama has to speak to his base on taxes - thats a political reality. But he also, of all the politicians in this cycle, owes the least to anyone that I have seen get this far in a long time. It isn't nothing - every politician deals with lobbyists, just like you can't sail a vessel into the ocean and not pick up some barnicles. But his rapid rise actually helps.

For that matter, if Sarah Palin were at the top of the ticket, and did not have some views that, at least to be, are shockingly retrograde (i.e. teaching creationism in school) - I would get behind her.

A few salient points here with substance which I agree have contributed to the current situation. Though I would not pin the all blame on the current adminstration the way you have. It is always easy to look at failed policy and plans and point the finger directly at..in this case Bush...that finger can easily be pointed at the Dem run congress of the last 2 years if I remember correctly as a country we took on the dot com bust, 9/11 and were prospering from 2000-2006.

I dont think that an estate tax @ 100% and putting the burden of the debt on the most successful of americans is the right strategy to fix the current problem. B.O's plan....First, taxes. Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens. The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to pay for his big increase in spending.)Plain and simple consumer confidence will go further in the tank with this kind of plan.

I am all for alternative energy to help subsidize the crisis. We need to continue spending on research to into wind, solar and other environmentally sound producers/savers of energy. I work very closely with these industries and have seen the incredible savings of saving power while living off the grid and then redistibuting it back to the power companies which inturn benefit the middleman(the everyday working american). We also need to be spending more dollars and building materials that produce better energy savings i.e L.E.E.D certified products. Pushing towards more greenbuild products will spur savings to the end user which will free up capital used for various staples and inturn help spur the economy. This needs to be done in conjunction with ramping up offshore drilling exploring the wastland that is ANWAR.

Rothko...grow a pair your skin seems a little thin. :thumbs:

[FlyersFan]

fish- if you haven't looked at obama's tax and spend plans you really should take the time to do so. he is proposing some 900 new federal programs, putting a 28% tax on capital gains from ALL house sales, hammering americans on the estate taxes(death tax).......dividend tax from 15 to 39%, he voted to give SSecurity to illegals.....list is endless

i think it's really scary when i see an educated person vote for stuff like this. im not really sure how it is good for an economy when you hammer your citizens and take their money to distribute in the form of huge defecit spending and federal programs.

[Fish2006]

One thing I do want to get across is that the debate here is really civil. Especially by internet standards. Predictem on it's worst day has a civility quotient far higher than even the most civil politics forums elsewhere on the internet. Especially for something as personal as politics where we come from a lot of different backgrounds and such.

People will get passionate, and people will toss names around, but that is to be expected. Strong feelings on all sides of this.

[Fish2006]

Say what? That money is not taken out of the economy... it just gets spent right back into it. Even if Obama were to pay down (refinance) the National debt, much of that debt is held by foreign entities.... meaning much of the debt pay-down will get repatriated into local currency, thus devaluing the dollar even more. The only REAL way to improve the value of the US dollar is to a) reduce the trade deficit (becoming independent of foreign oil would help) b) increase interest rates, and c) BUY DOLLARS.

To say Republicans "let the dollar slide" is not a fair argument. I'm sure they are flattered that you think they have so much power, but they really don't. And any criticism of a weak US dollar also needs to be accompanied by the counterbalance to the argument -- the weak dollar has kept this country out of recession (GDP grew by 3.3% in Q2 if you believe the economists -- they've been a bit hit and miss lately). For the first time in a LONG LONG time the trade deficit (Ex oil) is approaching respectable levels... The bottom line is that the US needs to become less of a spender and more of a saver... the alternative looks a lot like Zimbabwe (how would you like to pay $1,000,000 for a coke this time next year?). The current Republican administration is been a big disappointment to me (as a fiscally conservative person), but an Obama administration would be even worse. Perhaps Obama brings change you can believe in, but he also brings policies he won't define other than the cost, which is unaffordable.





I would LOVE to see this country move to solar and wind.... but why won't Obama define his plan? He is now promising to break our dependance on foreign oil within 10 years! That would be wonderful. I would LOVE to be free of foreign oil.... I would love for our oil companies to not only DRILL DRILL DRILL but to SELL SELL SELL our oil to the world and reverse the flow of money. Instead of oil being a "natural resource" it could be a "store of value" which can be passed on to our businesses, consumers, and government tax revenues.

But here is the problem... HOW? Here is an inconvenient truth for you -- It will costs hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars to rebuild our country's electrical infrastructure to support wind and solar power on a substantial level. Why? Because it is hard/impossible to store energy once it is collected, and our current antiquated electrical transport system CAN NOT TRANSPORT the energy from where it is easily collected (the midwest for wind, southwest for solar) to where it is consumed the most (the coastal cities).

So, we need to rebuild our infrastructure... but how? Should the government nationalize our electrical production and pay for it with tax revenues? That would be inefficient and impractical. Besides, the tax increases Obama has proposed have already been promised elsewhere. As we all know by now, the most efficient and effective way to implement such a project of great scale is to rely on the free market and for it to be funded by capital markets. WHOOPS.... problem with that... Obama is going to raise corporate taxes by double digit percentage points.... That puts a serious damper on business' ability (and incentive) to re-build our electrical infrastructure as corporate coffers are emptied into the pockets of Washington.... that being said, if oil prices remain high, there will remain potential margin for businesses to seek out in the forms of alternative energy as a mainstream source of power... but where to get the money? YES, that's right.. they'll do what our great producers often do to raise capital to finance these big expenditures: Tap into the capital markets.... perhaps they'll float share issues on the stock market to raise the necessary capital.... WHOOPS.... problem with that.... Obama is going to raise the capital gains taxes (Effectively reducing the demand for the very paper our businesses need to float to replenish the cash the government just took from them). Quite a conundrum.



You make some good points here.... although your attack on hedge funds is misplaced (perhaps you misspoke.... did you mean to attack prop trading?). Asset bubbles are most certainly created by cheap money. And regulation of our banking system surely could use an overhaul... rather, enforcement.... the rules are already there, they are just easy to get around.

Your understanding of leverage is a little lacking though. Leverage doesn't misplace capital (it transfers it).... Leverage is nothing more than a loan that must be repaid (or defaulted upon) like any other loan. Put in that context, everyone (with a decent credit score) has access to leverage. A mortgage is leverage (making a 5% down payment on a home is the same as having a 5% margin requirement in the financial markets -- you're leveraged 20x). The entire world is built upon leverage, and the absence of leverage (i.e. the credit markets) would create economic armageddon. Speaking of putting leverage in the hands of traders... it's not the hedge funds OR the prop trading that is killing the banks right now, it's the repackaging (CDOs, etc) of shady mortgages that are defaulting. Countrywide didn't go belly-up because of leveraged prop-trading... it went belly-up because of shady business practices with respect to mortgage lending and the misguided and uneducated belief that the asset bubble would never pop (just level off). Hedge funds and prop-traders rarely get caught in this mentality - it has happened, but it is rare.... These traders don't lose sight of reality.... they KNOW bubbles pop and they actively take part in the popping (take note of the inversion of the put/call ratios on the oil markets over the past month). Speaking of VC money... according to the National Venture Capital Association, VC money has increased from $22 Billion in 2002 to $30.5 Billion in 2007. I wouldn't call that drying up. Of course it pales in comparison to 2000, when there was $105 Billion in VC money... then again, we know what happened in 2000. I guess, in that context, one could make the argument that VC money is similar to leverage and creates asset bubble....

Just my two cents, I hope I was not offensive.

Actually, these are not unreasonable arguments. It will actually take me a little time to think through them. The best way to win an argument with me is to give me facts and help me learn something :) - if that is your goal.

I think the leverage thing I wrote wasn't as nuanced as yours. I think most people understand that if you allow, say, an internal trading desk at Goldman, Bear, Lehman (!) to borrow money to buy CDOs at 1% down (i.e. 100x leverage), you are making certain assumptions about the risk of those CDOs. And you are right, it works both ways, as from what I understand, it was Goldman that actually popped the housing bubble by going hard short and super leveraged just as the housing was starting to crack - but I could be mistaken.

The real root of the problem, when I really think about it, was rating agencies (Moody's et. al.) slapping the AAA label on CDO debt fraudulently. In an environment where there is little *cough* reality around actual risk assessment, allowing super high leverage (i.e. 10x and higher) is really ******* dangerous. Until we get evidence that Moddys, Fitch, and others are actually paying attention to whats going on and not just lapdogging for investment banks whose securities they grade, I think leverage has to be limited.

I agree that leverage is just a tool - it is borrowing money. The real question is "for what". Leverage to buy a home or start a business where a.) the risks are at least reasonable understood and b.) there is at least some level of skin in the game that is meaningful == good. Leverage of 100x on securities that you can't even price (hence, what they used to call "mark to model"), let alone price on a RAROC basis (risk adjusted return on capital), well, thats bad.

Back to the administration, and by that I mean going all the way from Bush (where the buck stops, remember) - to the SEC and the chain of command in between - should have stopped this years ago. Limitations on capital ratios for leverage, not allowing high leverage on securities you can't even price efficiently - would have stopped this. It didn't, and as a result, we are all paying a tax, through a lower dollar, and worse, through a government bailout of the players involved - which in the end, is simply borrowing from our kids to pay for not allowing the free market to handle these entities that ****ed everything up in the first place.

Ok, now for energy. I personally think government is the last entity that should refresh the grid. But I think some leadership to mandate a lot of things that would help, such as requiring states to allow for net metering (some do, some don't) - and promoting through tax incentives to energy companies reinvestment into the grid to make it possible - would achieve a number of positive things, namely:

a.) Making the grid more robust because power is generated in a distributed fashion
b.) Achieve the upgrades required that will allow us to leverage the wind corridor in the middle of the country

The problem is that, currently, a grid upgrade would essentially cannibalize the profits of Exelon and the other power companies. So it doesn't happen. IT isn't a conspiracy, it just is the fact that a company is not going to invest capital in projects that kill their profits. If I owned Exelon, I probably wouldn't either.

I am no expert, but it seems like splitting ownership of generation and transmission would do a lot of good here. When one shares interest in the other, we don't get a distributed grid. Government would have to enforce the splitting of ownership and making sure that those two conflicting interests don't collude. As we know, given how friendly BushCo is with energy, that nothing like that is going to happen soon.

As for higher taxes pushing up the dollar - hey, it is what they told me in macro econ class :). If you take money out with higher taxes, in theory, you are using it to pay down the debt (outbound to China). Now, thats a special problem, because China still pegs their currency to the dollar to some degree, so you might be robbing peter to pay paul.

No candidate is really talking about what would be really nice, which is to tax estates at like 100% of everything over a few million (no more paris hilton), eliminate corporate taxes (which is the most onerous middle class tax, since corporations are mostly just pass through vehicles for middle class wages), and raise taxes on 250k+, so we have a shot at paying off the debt. Reducing money taxed on the middle class, while adding strong incentives for the middle and lower (lets not forget lower - they usually get the shaft in this debate) savings would be a real powerful way to prop the dollar to a reasonable range. Maybe this isn't buying dollars back, but by moving the needle to more saving, less spending, some balance comes back.

I think the weak dollar policy of Bush has indeed helped keep us out of recession, but at a huge cost. Given that we entered the recession cycle early (hell, we just got out 4 years ago) - as a result of the housing crisis, we basically have two wrongs (housing crisis + weak dollar) trying to compensate for one another, and kinda doing so in some ways, but in the process, creating some really nasty longer term problems.

I want leadership for this country that is right more than its wrong. Obama has to speak to his base on taxes - thats a political reality. But he also, of all the politicians in this cycle, owes the least to anyone that I have seen get this far in a long time. It isn't nothing - every politician deals with lobbyists, just like you can't sail a vessel into the ocean and not pick up some barnicles. But his rapid rise actually helps.

For that matter, if Sarah Palin were at the top of the ticket, and did not have some views that, at least to be, are shockingly retrograde (i.e. teaching creationism in school) - I would get behind her.

[Skinsfan]

What Barack is doing to help is:

a.) Rally the dollar by taking money out of the economy. Additional taxes on incomes of $250k+ will do that.

Say what? That money is not taken out of the economy... it just gets spent right back into it. Even if Obama were to pay down (refinance) the National debt, much of that debt is held by foreign entities.... meaning much of the debt pay-down will get repatriated into local currency, thus devaluing the dollar even more. The only REAL way to improve the value of the US dollar is to a) reduce the trade deficit (becoming independent of foreign oil would help) b) increase interest rates, and c) BUY DOLLARS.

To say Republicans "let the dollar slide" is not a fair argument. I'm sure they are flattered that you think they have so much power, but they really don't. And any criticism of a weak US dollar also needs to be accompanied by the counterbalance to the argument -- the weak dollar has kept this country out of recession (GDP grew by 3.3% in Q2 if you believe the economists -- they've been a bit hit and miss lately). For the first time in a LONG LONG time the trade deficit (Ex oil) is approaching respectable levels... The bottom line is that the US needs to become less of a spender and more of a saver... the alternative looks a lot like Zimbabwe (how would you like to pay $1,000,000 for a coke this time next year?). The current Republican administration is been a big disappointment to me (as a fiscally conservative person), but an Obama administration would be even worse. Perhaps Obama brings change you can believe in, but he also brings policies he won't define other than the cost, which is unaffordable.

b.) Put real money into windmills, solar, and yes, new drilling. Basically, the Pickens plan. Some of it will probably piss off the far left wing, so he talks about it less, but rest assured, it will probably happen.

I would LOVE to see this country move to solar and wind.... but why won't Obama define his plan? He is now promising to break our dependance on foreign oil within 10 years! That would be wonderful. I would LOVE to be free of foreign oil.... I would love for our oil companies to not only DRILL DRILL DRILL but to SELL SELL SELL our oil to the world and reverse the flow of money. Instead of oil being a "natural resource" it could be a "store of value" which can be passed on to our businesses, consumers, and government tax revenues.

But here is the problem... HOW? Here is an inconvenient truth for you -- It will costs hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars to rebuild our country's electrical infrastructure to support wind and solar power on a substantial level. Why? Because it is hard/impossible to store energy once it is collected, and our current antiquated electrical transport system CAN NOT TRANSPORT the energy from where it is easily collected (the midwest for wind, southwest for solar) to where it is consumed the most (the coastal cities).

So, we need to rebuild our infrastructure... but how? Should the government nationalize our electrical production and pay for it with tax revenues? That would be inefficient and impractical. Besides, the tax increases Obama has proposed have already been promised elsewhere. As we all know by now, the most efficient and effective way to implement such a project of great scale is to rely on the free market and for it to be funded by capital markets. WHOOPS.... problem with that... Obama is going to raise corporate taxes by double digit percentage points.... That puts a serious damper on business' ability (and incentive) to re-build our electrical infrastructure as corporate coffers are emptied into the pockets of Washington.... that being said, if oil prices remain high, there will remain potential margin for businesses to seek out in the forms of alternative energy as a mainstream source of power... but where to get the money? YES, that's right.. they'll do what our great producers often do to raise capital to finance these big expenditures: Tap into the capital markets.... perhaps they'll float share issues on the stock market to raise the necessary capital.... WHOOPS.... problem with that.... Obama is going to raise the capital gains taxes (Effectively reducing the demand for the very paper our businesses need to float to replenish the cash the government just took from them). Quite a conundrum.

c.) Put restrictions on leverage that our banking institutions can take on. This creates less air for financial bubbles, because hedge funds operating in the context of companies like Bear Stearns can't borrow money at 100x of what they have chasing returns. Having that much leverage in the hands of traders, rather than actual businesses, misallocates capital by putting it into whatever herd mentality says is going up, rather than in the hands of entrepeneurs who can actually put it to move productive uses. Notice the lack of VC money in the last 7 years? I have.

You make some good points here.... although your attack on hedge funds is misplaced (perhaps you misspoke.... did you mean to attack prop trading?). Asset bubbles are most certainly created by cheap money. And regulation of our banking system surely could use an overhaul... rather, enforcement.... the rules are already there, they are just easy to get around.

Your understanding of leverage is a little lacking though. Leverage doesn't misplace capital (it transfers it).... Leverage is nothing more than a loan that must be repaid (or defaulted upon) like any other loan. Put in that context, everyone (with a decent credit score) has access to leverage. A mortgage is leverage (making a 5% down payment on a home is the same as having a 5% margin requirement in the financial markets -- you're leveraged 20x). The entire world is built upon leverage, and the absence of leverage (i.e. the credit markets) would create economic armageddon. Speaking of putting leverage in the hands of traders... it's not the hedge funds OR the prop trading that is killing the banks right now, it's the repackaging (CDOs, etc) of shady mortgages that are defaulting. Countrywide didn't go belly-up because of leveraged prop-trading... it went belly-up because of shady business practices with respect to mortgage lending and the misguided and uneducated belief that the asset bubble would never pop (just level off). Hedge funds and prop-traders rarely get caught in this mentality - it has happened, but it is rare.... These traders don't lose sight of reality.... they KNOW bubbles pop and they actively take part in the popping (take note of the inversion of the put/call ratios on the oil markets over the past month). Speaking of VC money... according to the National Venture Capital Association, VC money has increased from $22 Billion in 2002 to $30.5 Billion in 2007. I wouldn't call that drying up. Of course it pales in comparison to 2000, when there was $105 Billion in VC money... then again, we know what happened in 2000. I guess, in that context, one could make the argument that VC money is similar to leverage and creates asset bubble....

Just my two cents, I hope I was not offensive.

[Q-Unit]

You need to read the thread again, Q!!

Bo, I'm sorry bro, but you always come across as an ******* whenever you make your point! I can't understand why you can't state a fact and just be done with it! You behave like the worst of all republicans...insecure and afraid! Why sling insults? Fish made good points from his point of view and you come in with your snide comments and 3rd grade taunts...get over yourself!

Bo, I know you can contribute to a conversation more than this...

I was trying to be diplomatic and ignore the 800 lb elephant in the room (hey that fits on so many levels lol), and throw in some sort of sarcasm.

I failed miserably :bang:

so fck off Rothko you assclown lol

[Rothko]

We havent seen any name calling in here, and THAT alone I respect more than anything.

You need to read the thread again, Q!!

Bo, I'm sorry bro, but you always come across as an ******* whenever you make your point! I can't understand why you can't state a fact and just be done with it! You behave like the worst of all republicans...insecure and afraid! Why sling insults? Fish made good points from his point of view and you come in with your snide comments and 3rd grade taunts...get over yourself!

Bo, I know you can contribute to a conversation more than this...

[homedawg]

I will say this though - McCain picked a VPILF today.

Too bad she is more in the pocket of big oil than even McCain is.

I agree with the VPILF :beer2:

Not sure I understand your pocket comment? Regardless, there is no truth to that statement either way! :thumbs:

[dananderson32]

I will say this though - McCain picked a VPILF today.

Too bad she is more in the pocket of big oil than even McCain is.

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

[Fish2006]

I will say this though - McCain picked a VPILF today.

Too bad she is more in the pocket of big oil than even McCain is.