D Stockman on Pimco

[oddlots]

I thought this was a great piece of angry analysis by David Stockman - yes, that David Stockman - on Pimco's role in the "market." (Care of Jesse's site.)

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/print.php?a=29700

His turnaround is interesting and creates a lot of comic dissonance (he lionizes Taibbi and Taibbi trashes him on his historical role.)

In any case I think the piece hones the edge of outrage at the upside down world we live in and I appreciate a sharp argument. Might provide some ammunition for our own thinking, to mix metaphors.

[don]

Re: D Stockman on Pimco

His career over, David Stockman fesses up

Sir Alan is running a toned down version of this before he departs.

[GRG55]

Re: D Stockman on Pimco

His career over, David Stockman fesses up

Sir Alan is running a toned down version of this before he departs.

I liked it better when being "born again" was restricted to evangelical Christians...

[dummass]

Re: D Stockman on Pimco

From the article

Sadly, there isn't a shred of evidence that all of this largese serves any legitimate public purpose whatsoever, and plenty of evidence that the HIDC boom has been deeply destructive.

By "largese" the author is referring to tax benefits to encourage homeownership. Having been a homeowner (strapped with debt) myself, for many years, I have observed that the threat of losing ones home and largest capital investment will often motivate a person to work harder and longer then they would otherwise. By nature, not many of of are as responsible as modern society requires us to be. Many of us are coxed into being responsible by the threat of loss, which would include family obligations and the preservation of capital.

Homeownership has played a large role in making "the people" responsible citizens, squeezing every last once of productivity from the masses. A reversal in this trend is a game changer.

[don]

Re: D Stockman on Pimco

From the article



By "largese" the author is referring to tax benefits to encourage homeownership. Having been a homeowner (strapped with debt) myself, for many years, I have observed that the threat of losing ones home and largest capital investment will often motivate a person to work harder and longer then they would otherwise. By nature, not many of of are as responsible as modern society requires us to be. Many of us are coxed into being responsible by the threat of loss, which would include family obligations and the preservation of capital.

Homeownership has played a large role in making "the people" responsible citizens, squeezing every last once of productivity from the masses. A reversal in this trend is a game changer.

A not unimportant corollary to your observations is the reluctance of workers to push back for higher wages/salaries- strikes, walkouts, etc.- actions that might threaten "ownership" of their home. That element has been cited as relevant in Sir Alan's thinking in the past. We see the mutated version today with the unemployed workers' bankster mortgage payment plan.

Hearth and Home, a basic human need...you can bank on it.

[Chomsky]

Re: D Stockman on Pimco

From the article



By "largese" the author is referring to tax benefits to encourage homeownership. Having been a homeowner (strapped with debt) myself, for many years, I have observed that the threat of losing ones home and largest capital investment will often motivate a person to work harder and longer then they would otherwise. By nature, not many of of are as responsible as modern society requires us to be. Many of us are coxed into being responsible by the threat of loss, which would include family obligations and the preservation of capital.

Homeownership has played a large role in making "the people" responsible citizens, squeezing every last once of productivity from the masses. A reversal in this trend is a game changer.

Tax benefits for home ownership as they stand (mortgage interest deduction) just drive up housing costs, making housing less affordable for those who do not already own a home. What you say about the social benefit of an "ownership society" has real merit, but the way to achieve that is not through tax deductions for mortgage payments. (I know you didn't necessarily say that we should, but I'm just making a point.) Instead, increase property taxes; this would drive down housing costs and direct homeowners' money not to the rent-seeking FIRE sector but to the local government, i.e., the people, to pay for services, etc.

[dummass]

Re: D Stockman on Pimco

Tax benefits for home ownership as they stand (mortgage interest deduction) just drive up housing costs, making housing less affordable for those who do not already own a home. What you say about the social benefit of an "ownership society" has real merit, but the way to achieve that is not through tax deductions for mortgage payments. (I know you didn't necessarily say that we should, but I'm just making a point.) Instead, increase property taxes; this would drive down housing costs and direct homeowners' money not to the rent-seeking FIRE sector but to the local government, i.e., the people, to pay for services, etc.

Sounds like Michael Hudson. You have been paying attention!

[Chomsky]

Re: D Stockman on Pimco

Sounds like Michael Hudson. You have been paying attention!

Thank you, sensei.