Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/85c8d80...#axzz1TiL9hYoJ

    ...S&P wants to see $4,000bn in cuts, far more than any of the proposals being discussed. But it is understood that the agency is unlikely to rush out with any statements if a deal is reached that delivers a deficit reduction well below this figure.

    ...asset managers maintain that a downgrade will not produce a wave of forced selling.

    A survey of 29 investors by UBS found very few potential sellers of Treasuries. In the event of a downgrade, hedge funds were the only respondents who would sell and they were outnumbered by peers who would be buyers. Central banks and sovereign wealth funds would do nothing, the survey found.

    “The Treasury market remains the primary beneficiary of global reserves amid a lack of alternatives,” said Ira Jersey, strategist at Credit Suisse. “A downgrade will convey no new fundamental information,” he added.

    George Goncalves, head of interest rate strategy at Nomura Securities does not expect long-term investors will sell their holdings of US Treasuries.

    ...Last week, Fitch Ratings said: “In a moderate downgrade scenario, Treasuries are expected to remain the benchmark security that anchors global fixed income markets for the foreseeable future. Their status as the global benchmark security is bolstered by the underlying strength of the US economy, Treasuries’ deep liquidity and fundamental role in the global financial architecture, and the lack of comparable, marketable alternatives.”'

    Moody’s, which last month initiated a review of the US sovereign rating said late on Friday that its “review for downgrade will more likely than not conclude with a confirmation of the Aaa rating, albeit with a shift to a negative outlook.”

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

      Originally posted by BuckarooBanzai View Post
      You are exactly correct about Clinton-- he racked up huge deficits and never balanced the budget (although he did come close one year).

      For those interested, read The Myth of the Clinton Surplus. Chock full of facts and truth.

      http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
      And I think it's worth pointing out that large amounts of revenue collected during the Clinton years came from taxes on capital gains on stocks during the dot com bubble.

      Clinton was lucky that the tax code allowed the Federal government a piece of speculators' winnings.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

        Bart, in your opinion, could you state the full truth for us?

        Originally posted by bart View Post

        In my opinion, whenever someone has to mis-state the full truth as much as Hudson did, strange and/or dirty politics is afoot or a P.R. operation is in progress - more likely both.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

          Originally posted by KGW View Post
          Bart, in your opinion, could you state the full truth for us?
          I thought I covered it (in broad) in post #4 on this thread specifically for Hudson, but in general -- if *anyone* knowingly and substantially spins the facts or doesn't note the full data and facts about what they're citing, then I believe that whatever conclusions they're drawing are suspect at best. I frequently just stop reading or listening when it's substantial.

          Krugman does it frequently, a recent one being using the chart of debt that I accidentally linked to (and then corrected, thanks to an alert and educated poster) that only shows about 60% of real total Federal debt.
          Mish does it too.

          I even went so far as to put a page together a couple years ago listing many of the "tricks", including a list of logical fallacies and cognitive dissonance items, etc.
          http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html
          http://www.NowAndTheFuture.com

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

            Originally posted by bart View Post
            First and to be 100% clear - my comment ("Either the raw truth is enough, or one had better re-examine one's assumptions or approach.") was directed at Hudson, not at anyone on this thread or on iTulip.

            And yikes on the raw data post. Due to how its stored, related complexities including its massive size, time required and even a proprietary nature of some of it, I won't post it all - but here's a recap of most of it. I have not included a few things like the audit results.
            I have little desire to debate any of it, there's no question that there's much room for honest difference of opinion especially since some of the items are estimated... but I maintain that it's a fair overall picture and far from perfect. A trillion here, a trillion there...


            Program
            Max. Current
            Hope for homeowners (3-4 million mod target - <250k as of 8/09) 100 0
            HAMP - Home Affordable Modification Program
            75 15
            HAFA (Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives)
            0 0
            TARP (extended into Sept 2010 as of 12/2009)
            862 314
            Obama stimulus & omnibus (MANUAL!), was 1197
            787 170
            Obama Jobs stimulus
            15 15
            Obama stimulus II
            135 10
            Bank bailout placeholder (was 750, dropped for budgetary reasons 8/21/2009) 0 0
            Public-Private Investment Program (100, part of TARP?)
            1000 0
            Treasury MBS
            220 220
            FNM/FRE guarantee , FHFA conservator backed by Treasury
            800 145
            Stimulus - Bush
            168 158
            Seniors, $250 Obama check, est.
            15 0
            ESF
            50 0
            Bank tax breaks
            29 29
            FDIC money fund guarantee (aka TLG, temp liquidity guarantee - aka TAG, Transaction account guarantee)($3200, see comment…) 0 0
            FDIC guarantee, $250k (individual unlimited as of 10/2010) & unlimited corporate expires 12/31/2011 2477 356
            GE guarantee
            139 14
            CPFF - Comm'l paper thru 10/30/2009 1200 0
            TAF thru 10/30/2009 900 0
            State bailout 8/1/2010 26 26
            GMAC
            19 17
            QE2 Ends June 2011 600 0
            MMIFF thru 10/30/2009 0 0
            TSLF thru 10/30/2009 250 0
            Other credit, seclend off and discount window
            123 0
            PDCF thru 10/30/2009 300 0
            TALF (15, part of TARP)(see TALF tab - ended with 423 B) thru 3/30/2010 & 6/30/2010 200 12
            TGLP - temp liquidity guarantee program
            500 313
            Fed Treasury purchase
            300 1142
            Fed agency MBS purchase 12/08, etc - end 3/31/2010
            1425 1020
            PBGC
            34 34
            Home $8k tax credit
            15 15
            Home $7k tax cred, 2
            45 7
            BofA guarantee (7.5, part of TARP)
            163 0
            AIG
            182 102
            Citi guarantee (5 is part of TARP)
            306 10
            Auto Supplier Support Program (81, part of TARP)
            0 0
            Discount window
            125 0





            Sum 13584 4143
            You claimed that Hudson was lying when he used the $13 trillion dollar number, just looking at your chart for 20 seconds tells me it is not even close to being accurate at all.

            According to your chart QE2 doesn't even exist, and neither does the Commercial Paper Funding Facility. Also it looks like the $250 Obama checks to senior citizens never went out either.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

              I always felt that this whole charade was an austerity play spun in such a way as to get the American people to ask for austerity without them even realizing it (or using the word austerity).

              If you get the people to ask for it, then they will not riot against it (like Greece).

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

                Originally posted by nathanhulick
                According to your chart QE2 doesn't even exist, and neither does the Commercial Paper Funding Facility.
                Both items are in the list: QE2 by name and Commercial Paper as "CPFF - Comm'l paper"

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

                  Originally posted by nathanhulick View Post
                  You claimed that Hudson was lying when he used the $13 trillion dollar number, just looking at your chart for 20 seconds tells me it is not even close to being accurate at all.

                  According to your chart QE2 doesn't even exist, and neither does the Commercial Paper Funding Facility. Also it looks like the $250 Obama checks to senior citizens never went out either.

                  OMG, yet another who apparently can't even read and apparently has little to no clue on what POMOs or SOMA is.

                  I said "here's a recap of most of it" - yes, CPPF may be missing and so are a bunch of other things.
                  CPFF peaked at around $350 billion and is currently zero.
                  QE2 is represented in both the POMO and SOMA data, as well as specifically.
                  You also made the same mistake as someone else - read the current column and you'll see that the $250 seniors check value is zero. Yes - it never went out.




                  Why don't you actually do one yourself for the last 5 years - it'll only take a few hundred hours.




                  Hudson was wrong - period and end of story - deal with it or not, not my problem... and what a great example of "political views" and the under or uneducated, etc.

                  Last edited by bart; August 02, 2011, 11:37 AM.
                  http://www.NowAndTheFuture.com

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

                    Originally posted by bart View Post
                    OMG, yet another who apparently can't even read and apparently has little to no clue on what POMOs or SOMA is.

                    I said "here's a recap of most of it" - yes, CPPF may be missing and so are a bunch of other things.
                    CPFF peaked at around $350 billion and is currently zero.
                    QE2 is represented in both the POMO and SOMA data, as well as specifically.
                    You also made the same mistake as someone else - read the current column and you'll see that the $250 seniors check value is zero. Yes - it never went out.




                    Why don't you actually do one yourself for the last 5 years - it'll only take a few hundred hours.




                    Hudson was wrong - period and end of story - deal with it or not, not my problem... and what a great example of "political views" and the under or uneducated, etc.

                    You are wrong - period and end of story - deal with it or not, not my problem... and what a great example of "political views" and the under or uneducated, etc.

                    Of course, you take take Hudson's $13 trillion number out of context and pretend that the government didn't spend much to bail out the bankers, but you are only fooling yourself.

                    I'm not sure why you seem to be flying off the handle so quickly, but the fact is that your chart isn't very good if some programs are in other columns, and inside knowledge of your methodology is required in order for your chart to actually make sense. Oh yeah, it also only includes "most of it". The $250 checks to seniors were actually sent out, but I guess you are going to pretend they were not. Or maybe they are just in another column and we are all idiots for not knowing that, right?

                    You have seem to mastered a few of the "spew tools" you like to reference though.

                    Sorry if your feelings are hurt. You certainly seem to have done a good job of preventing a rational discussion of the points that Hudson brought up in his column, though. Obviously that was your main priority here, to go off on a wild tangent and harp about whether or not the specific amount he talked about in one sentence was exactly correct, according to your own ideas about what should be counted where.

                    The fact is that, regardless if the number is $13 trillion, $14 trillion, or $4 trillion, the main thesis of Hudson's essay is correct.

                    One last point, which you seem to be conveniently ignoring in your continual rants, is that the financial crisis is still in the very early stages. Many of the federal guarantees are still assumed by many to be free. This will change when the next real crisis occurs and the US government and the Fed are called upon to actually cover the guarantees that they have made in the last few years.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

                      Originally posted by nathanhulick View Post

                      Of course, you take take Hudson's $13 trillion number out of context and pretend that the government didn't spend much to bail out the bankers, but you are only fooling yourself.

                      Originally posted by bart

                      Yep - good example of ignoring what I actually said and posted.

                      Quote what Hudson said exactly and you'll possibly see what I was responding to.

                      In other words, much ado about nothing.
                      ... the fact is that your chart isn't very good if some programs are in other columns, and inside knowledge of your methodology is required in order for your chart to actually make sense. Oh yeah, it also only includes "most of it". The $250 checks to seniors were actually sent out, but I guess you are going to pretend they were not. Or maybe they are just in another column and we are all idiots for not knowing that, right?

                      Originally posted by bart

                      You could always have simply asked, instead of attacking.

                      You could have taken the numbers and built a more easily understandable chart yourself, instead of attacking.

                      You also could have spent more time reading it and my posts about using the current column, instead of attacking.
                      You might have found an actual error I made if you would have (the numbers don't add up since I forgot to hit recalc before doing a cut & paste from Excel).

                      As I said before twice, and you apparently missed again (not only in my response to you but in a response to another) that you must look at the current column - the seniors $250 check current column is actually zero, and always has been. That you didn't even look between your two posts speaks volumes.

                      In other words, much ado about nothing - again.
                      You certainly seem to have done a good job of preventing a rational discussion of the points that Hudson brought up in his column, though.

                      Originally posted by bart

                      Your opinion only -- and not at all supported by the facts.

                      All I did is note (and prove) that Hudson was wrong on two significant points, and also noted that ANYONE who uses partial or incorrect data is very suspect - especially if they use things like logical fallacies or similar.

                      I most especially and intentionally said nothing about Hudson's other points, politically based or not. Others who have been here and read many of my posts over the years know my general opinions about Hudson's other points - and I didn't and don't feel like a political discussion, especially with those who don't even know or have a clue about those opinions.

                      In other words, much ado about nothing - again.


                      One last point, which you seem to be conveniently ignoring in your continual rants, is that the financial crisis is still in the very early stages. Many of the federal guarantees are still assumed by many to be free. This will change when the next real crisis occurs and the US government and the Fed are called upon to actually cover the guarantees that they have made in the last few years.

                      Your very own comments above betrays that you likely know that you are incorrect about the two points I made, and they also show quite the lack of having read many of my posts over the years.

                      I'm done with you now. Apologies as needed to the rest of iTulip for getting ticked off.



                      If anyone else wants to b*tch out the actual facts on that chart, have at it - but please do your homework beforehand and actually read what the chart says - in both the max and current columns.








                      If we ever have a hope of seeing the pendulum swing the other way and to a better world, having the actual and correct facts is essential in having a truthful base.


                      "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the [public] is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."
                      -- Edward Bernays (1891-1995) "Father" of modern public relations (PR) and director of the U.S. Committee on Public Information during World War I, on government propaganda. Source: writing in "Propaganda" from "Food & Water Journal'' (1928)
                      Last edited by bart; August 02, 2011, 05:16 PM.
                      http://www.NowAndTheFuture.com

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

                        Bart are you sure the $250.00 checks didn't go out. I could swear my mother got it. Also why does QE2 say 0?

                        It's always great to read and see your work.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

                          Originally posted by cjppjc View Post
                          Bart are you sure the $250.00 checks didn't go out. I could swear my mother got it. Also why does QE2 say 0?

                          It's always great to read and see your work.

                          If they did go out, I missed it. Maybe you're thinking about the Bush refund? Anyone have a link one way or the other?

                          I do make mistakes in daily/weekly/monthly tracking of well over 2,500 items worldwide- and would that I didn't.

                          QE2 says zero since the program is complete. The actual $600 billion shows up in SOMA and POMO etc. changes as I recall.
                          http://www.NowAndTheFuture.com

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

                            Bart: If a TBTF is loaned, practically speaking free money, lots of it, which is used to consolidate its position in the financial oligarchy, and is then repaid in full, is that the same as a bear shitting in the woods?

                            No harm, no fault?

                            (despite the wiseacre framing (2nd scotch), it is a serious question to a respected source)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

                              Originally posted by don View Post
                              Bart: If a TBTF is loaned, practically speaking free money, lots of it, which is used to consolidate its position in the financial oligarchy, and is then repaid in full, is that the same as a bear shitting in the woods?

                              Originally posted by bart

                              I give it two rimshots... and more seriously, of course they're not the same.
                              No harm, no fault?

                              (despite the wiseacre framing (2nd scotch), it is a serious question to a respected source)


                              A bank is the same (all else held stable) right before someone borrows and right after they fully pay the loan back - another valid analogy.

                              If someone wants to say the total amount borrowed and guaranteed was $13 trillion *at the peak* of the crisis, I won't argue or even comment. But Hudson also blew it badly about Clinton and the budget numbers too, so I saw a pattern of avoiding the actual full facts.

                              That $13 trillion (or other much higher numbers) I've seen thrown around are only a partial truth - its highly dependent on what time period is being viewed.
                              Some might consider my numbers a nuance... but if one had a choice to be in debt for $13,000 or $4,700 -- I know which one I'd choose.







                              http://www.NowAndTheFuture.com

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

                                Originally posted by bart View Post

                                A bank is the same (all else held stable) right before someone borrows and right after they fully pay the loan back - another valid analogy.

                                If someone wants to say the total amount borrowed and guaranteed was $13 trillion *at the peak* of the crisis, I won't argue or even comment. But Hudson also blew it badly about Clinton and the budget numbers too, so I saw a pattern of avoiding the actual full facts.

                                That $13 trillion (or other much higher numbers) I've seen thrown around are only a partial truth - its highly dependent on what time period is being viewed.
                                Some might consider my numbers a nuance... but if one had a choice to be in debt for $13,000 or $4,700 -- I know which one I'd choose.


                                Your "chart" is more misleading than you claim Hudson's numbers are. I think I'll stick to getting my data from Barofsky, thanks. You could have just stated right in the beginning that you were excluding money spent but not paid back from your figures. Instead you claimed that Hudson was simply lying and his claim was nonsense. I would think that you would want to avoid using those "spew tools" you so carefully compiled on your webpage.

                                Also, as other people have pointed out to you numerous times in this thread, the Obama checks to seniors did go out, but apparently you missed it. For someone so quick to criticize others for reading comprehension and accuracy with numbers, you seem a bit suspect in those regards.

                                I seem to attract the nutters on this website like moths to a flame.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X