No liability for lying

Mitt Rmoney (R-safe harbor from lies) has spent much of his life approving statements that may or may not be true but which excuse themselves from liability if they turn out to be true. Here's an example from current Bain dealings:

These statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in such forward-looking statements.

Here's another:

This release includes forward-looking statements intended to qualify for the safe harbor from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  These forward-looking statements generally can be identified by phrases such as TI or its management "believes," "expects," "anticipates," "foresees," "forecasts," "estimates" or other words or phrases of similar import.  Similarly, statements in this release that describe the Company's business strategy, outlook, objectives, plans, intentions or goals also are forward-looking statements.  All such forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements.[emphasis added]

A third:

Because such forward looking statements contain risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those expressed in or implied by such forward
looking statements.

There are many, many more, of course. Bain's various companies are involved in a lot of deals.

Since Mitt never worked under Sarbanes-Oxley (that we know of), he didn't actually sign these statements, but his cavalier attitude toward making shit up shows in practically every statement he ever makes, for example, this piece of pettifoggery:

According to the candidate's mythology, Romney took leave of his duties at the private equity firm Bain Capital in 1990 and rode in on a white horse to lead a swift restructuring of Bain & Company, preventing the collapse of the consulting firm where his career began. When The Boston Globe reported on the rescue at the time of his Senate run against Ted Kennedy, campaign aides spun Romney as the wizard behind a "long-shot miracle," bragging that he had "saved bank depositors all over the country $30 million when he saved Bain & Company."

In fact, government documents on the bailout obtained by Rolling Stone show that the legend crafted by Romney is basically a lie. The federal records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that Romney's initial rescue attempt at Bain & Company was actually a disaster – leaving the firm so financially strapped that it had "no value as a going concern." Even worse, the federal bailout ultimately engineered by Romney screwed the FDIC – the bank insurance system backed by taxpayers – out of at least $10 million. And in an added insult, Romney rewarded top executives at Bain with hefty bonuses at the very moment that he was demanding his handout from the feds.

Mitt is a gee-whiz liar to the core. He believes his business and his god entitle him to say whatever he needs to say.

Cranks and malcontents

Click image for full Jen Sorensen/C-VILLE Weekly cartoon.

Welfare for the deserving

Click image for full G.B. Trudeau/Doonesbury cartoon.

That ain't Monopoly money

Click image for full Tim Eagan/Press Democrat cartoon.

Shut your liquidity trap

Click image for full Elena Steier cartoon.

Better

Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

"Since when can you get out of huge national debt by creating trillions of dollars of new debt?" [Sarah] Palin asked. "It all really is so backwards and skewed as to sound like absolute nonsense when some of this economic policy is explained."

"We need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population, and fearful lawmakers, being led to believe that big government is the answer, to bail out the private sector, because then government gets to get in there and control it," she said. "And mark my words, this is going to be next, I fear, bail out next debt-ridden states. Then government gets to get in there and control the people."

"Some in Washington would approach our economic woes in ways that absolutely defy Economics 101, and they fly in the face of principles, providing opportunity for industrious Americans to succeed or to fail on their own accord," she said. "Those principles it makes you wonder what the heck some in Washington are trying to accomplish here."

I don't think Palin could pass Economics 101. She's never heard of Keynesian stimulus. She doesn't know the difference between private debt and public debt. She has no idea of the vicious cycle of contraction that's still a very real danger.

And she "explains" it all as a nefarious plot to take over the country. She has all the analytical skills of Pinky combined with the good will toward his fellow mice of the Brain.

Such a deal

How many in the glove compartment?

Click image for full Mike Lester cartoon.

Our Mother of Incomprehensible Securitization

Funeral held, libertarians still in denial stage of grief.

A bonus for this man

Poignant instead of funny, but too well-done to miss.

Click image to see full Dwayne Booth drawing. Do it soon, as the link may expire.

Cut out the middleman

Tim Geithner and all the professionals think that they are indispensable, that what they do is too difficult for those of us who are not "masters of the universe."

[T]he Treasury will hire four or five investment management firms, matching the private money that each of the firms puts up on a dollar-for-dollar basis with government money.

I am so sick of taking haircuts for the people who did this, the ones who were once known as the smart money. Yeah, as if.

We're going to buy a load of fraudulent crap for the purpose of keeping the people who were not smart enough to avoid it in charge of profits from it.

Risk-taking institutional investors, like hedge funds and private equity funds, have refused to pay more than about 30 cents on the dollar for many bundles of mortgages, even if most of the borrowers are still current. But banks holding those mortgages, not wanting to book huge losses on their holdings, have often refused to sell for less than 60 cents on the dollar.

The result has been a paralyzing impasse. Banks, unwilling to sell their loans at fire-sale prices, have had less capital available to make new loans. Mortgage investors, unable to leverage their investments with borrowed money, have been unwilling to pay more than fire-sale prices.

To break that impasse, the government’s crucial subsidy is meant to provide investors with the kind of low-cost financing that has been utterly unavailable in today’s credit markets.

To break that impasse, nationalize the failed banks and lend directly. Let the failures fail without killing the credit markets. No moral hazard. Temporary socialism. Once the markets are healthy again, we can reap any profits for all this risk we're taking on as insurer of last resort.

Larry Summers loses another job

I've had enough of Larry Summers already. (Yes, Tim Geithner, too.) Here's why:

Obama advisor Larry Summers couched his passive-aggressive defense of AIG's thieves in the saccharine argot of jurisprudence. "We are a country of law -- there are contracts (and) the government cannot just abrogate contracts," he said.

...

Last month, the same government that says it "cannot just abrogate" executives' bonus contracts used its leverage to cancel unions' wage contracts. As the Wall Street Journal reported, federal loans to G.M. and Chrysler were made contingent on those manufacturers shredding their existing labor pacts and "extract[ing] financial concessions from workers." In other words, our government asks us to believe that it possesses total authority to adjust contracts at car companies it lends to, and yet has zero power to modify contracts at financial firms it owns. This, even though the latter set of covenants might be easily abolished.

It is vital for liberals like me who advocate spending for the benefit of the commonwealth that we spend our shared resources well. So far, Obama's bailouts have been only marginally better than Duhbya.

Roman Hruska mediocrity caucus

A good friend of mine is fond of referring to Republican (of course) Senator Roman Hruska's infamous plea in favor of Richard Nixon's nomination of Harrold Carswell:

"Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"

The Roman Hruska mediocrity caucus is alive and well - far too well - dying to fling itself headlong into the idiocracy of the past 8 years after only 60 days of Obama. Truth be told, most of these know-nothings who think they know everything were ready to continue with Bushism as if it had been a fabulous success instead of a failure so complete it was almost cartoonish.

Here's a small sampling of today's stupidity in response to a story about ballooning deficits:

Obama stated that "his agenda is still on track". That's where the problem lies. He doesn't care about the consequences of his agenda. Whether it's good or bad for the country, it doesn't matter because it's his agenda.
I wish liberal activists would stick with what they do best, which is just cry, complain, and blame, and leave running the country to experienced competent people.
--dpell632000 March 21, 8:32 AM

Obama didn't "Inherit" the economy....he pursued it. ...
--swordfishhh March 21, 9:30 AM

What's worse than an inept president? A stubborn one.
--feuerbach2 March 21, 9:40 AM
[Incredible! --LL]

Sixty days in, with the disaster of the Bushists in full bloom, it's all Obama's fault. The double standards and memory holes of these people, combined with one-way misanthropy, is simply amazing.

And these are the ones who can actually frame an understandable sentence.

Responding to outrage

Sometimes representative government only responds to outrage. But at least it responds.

Even the Democrats are far too bedded down with moneyed elites, as they were with this. The Republicans, of course, are hopelessly and openly in favor of moneyed elites.

If you look around, the people who have been outraged from the beginning about anything beyond taxes have been liberal bloggers.

The truth is that we Americans need a top-to-bottom rework of power in our country. Tim Geithner could be the first to fall.

Oh, by the way, Barack Obama's economic policies so far have been far to centrist and timid. We're beyond time to talk about bold action. It's time we had it.

One key item of bold action is acknowledgement in behavior that the finance "geniuses" who got us here need to find real jobs that have wages, not sweetheart salaries and bonuses.

Democrats' fault

The AIG "retention" bonus scandal is the Democrats' fault, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. They had the power to prevent it, and they took just such a measure out.

Never mind that the Bushists in the fall were just as bad. I voted for change from that dismal, corrupt bunch, and this doesn't qualify.

Let's see what they do about it.

(One lesson to remember: In America, executive compensation is not about performance. It's about sweetheart deals. The government should be preventing those - they're bad for capitalism.)

Try harder

Democrats are claiming that there's not much they can do about the AIG bonuses, which are tantamount to theft. Bullshit. They need to try harder, and Ch. 7 is an option with the appointment of a trustee.

In every other circumstance, employees are the last people to be taken care of by a bankrupt corporation. Usually, that's unjust. In this case, though, the very same people who are still profiting wildly are the people who made and managed the stupid investments that brough AIG to bankruptcy and bailout. Instead of ruin and a return to the middle class of people who have to work, they're still somehow entitled to $165 million.

By the way, if you were still dense enough to think that executive compensation is about results, these bonuses and all the bonuses that Wall Street is still milking out of illiquid companies prove once and for all that that is bullshit. Executive compensation plans are a huge case of mutual masturbation with no connection to real performance. The mess is all over us, and that pisses me off.

Art of worry

Hu Jintao can say without exaggeration that the fact that he holds a claim check on a big chunk of America is worrisome. I'm worried, too.

Translated from the English translation, Hu is saying:

• China is a player. Don't screw with China.
• The dollar has lost its claim to be the currency of refuge. China nominates the yuan.
  
• In the war of economies, China has won. Or is at least close enough to be a serious threat.
• Don't count on a bailout.
  

No, he's not really giving us the finger. It just seems that way.

Be more like Duhbya

Instead of moving to nationalize failing banks, Obama should follow Duhbya's obviously successful gambit with Lehman Brothers and let some big banks fail. Yep, that's what free market fundies John "Don't know much about economics" McCain and Richard Shelby have to say.

Of course, the problem from the center is that Obama's policy of sucking down endless capital infusions for the benefit of executives whose epic fails caused these problems is foolish, too.

I wasn't very far ahead of the curve, but in the fall, when I heard that the bailed out banks were using their free money for acquisitions instead of loans, I asked the question: If the problem in the economy is that credit is drying up, why not cut out the middle man, nationalize failed banks, and make the responsible loans ourselves?

Some people deserve to go broke. There are ways to make sure they do without screwing all the rest of with a decade-long depression.

How many seats

If we as a nation own more than a third of Citigroup, it should go without saying that we get to appoint the board chair. The question I have is how many other seats do we get on the board? And, no, Robert Rubin doesn't count.

I'm not happy with strictly proportional allocation, which understates the importance of our capital infusions. I'm looking for one less than a majority, thus chair plus six other seats on the board of 15.

Who should be kicked off? Start with the inside directors, Win Bischoff, Vikram Pandit, Richard Parsons, and Bob Rubin. They royally screwed up; this is known in my plebeian circles as accountability. But no:

Under the deal, a majority of Citigroup's independent directors will be replaced. Pandit and Chairman Richard Parsons will retain their positions.

The idiots in charge of the asylum are not in the mood for justice. They and their diluted (deluded, too) investors still feel entitled:

"Will Citigroup be run for the shareholders, or is Citigroup going to be run for public policy goals or some other purpose?" asked Michael Mayo of Deutsche Bank.

Uh, dipshit, we are the shareholders.

The truth is that these guys couldn't find their well-fed asses with both hands. (Don't they have people for that?)

"We do not think [the Citi brand has] been permanently damaged. We still have a very strong brand globally," [Ned Kelly, head of global banking for Citigroup,] said. "Clearly when you're in the spotlight, there's going to be some negative impact. But it's had no economic impact."

They're still dithering about their brand, when anyone with two brain cells to rub together can tell that the bank's survival is what's at stake.

They still think these times are normal, that their membership in the elite will protect them from justice. Self-perpetuating and mutually defending elites are a big part of what's wrong with the economy, the media, the government, and America in general. My proverbial pitchfork says they're wrong.

Investor class

Leaders by right, dammit!

Click image for full Mike Luckovich/Atlanta Journal-Constitution cartoon.

The sins of the Republicans

... are visited upon the Democrats. Because Duhbya and Henry Paulson were completely irresponsible with the bailout money, the GOP will screw Obama.

The ultimate destruction of the Republican Party would benefit America, as long as it was replaced by something better. If you read the comments on any news story that's vaguely political, it's tough to be sure the replacement would be an improvement.

We're in deep shit, America. Obama wants to use a Keynesian stimulus to paddle out of it - with way too much bullshit tax cutting to try to mollify the congenitally irresponsible Republican caucus. The Republicans, of course, reward him by flinging poo at him. They're a bunch of two-year-olds, so what did Obama expect?

Don't be optimistic about a short recession. It doesn't make any sense. Between actively evil Republicans and lily-livered Democrats who aren't nearly tough enough, I see another Great Depression coming. Whether any of these political institutions survive, including the United States itself, will be an open question if a depression happens.

I'm going to learn brewing, wine-making, and distilling. Those are depression-proof industries, and I have a family history of bootlegging. (No, I'm not an arriviste Kennedy. My people were most recently making their own whiskey way before Prohibition.)