Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

[cjppjc]

Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

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.

Bart is the least nutty one here.

No offense meant Bart.

[bart]

Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

Originally Posted by cjppjc
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.

I just looked it up and validated it - the seniors checks did go out. I've added the $15 billion to the total, which moved it from roughly $4.7 trillion to roughly $4.715 trillion.

For those who still may be concerned about the QE2 current column being zero, look at the columns labeled "Fed Treasury purchase", "Fed Agency MBS purchase" and "Treasury MBS" - QE1 and QE2 totals are in them. I forgot that I had changed the column descriptions away from POMO and SOMA.

[bart]

Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

Bart is the least nutty one here.

No offense meant Bart.

No worries, no offense taken at all... although I do take some pride in my tinfoil hat moments over the years.

I probably should have spent lots more time on that detailed list, and also on explaining some of the individual items so there's some mea culpa there.

I also expect that kind of poor data from heavily political & spin enabled economists like Krugman, but not from folk like Hudson.

[c1ue]

Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

I also expect that kind of poor data from heavily political & spin enabled economists like Krugman, but not from folk like Hudson.

I think your view is more than a bit harsh; while the present value of subsidies to banksters is less than $13 trillion, at the same time the maximum nominal value was certainly at least $13 trillion.

However, given Hudson seeks to educate - there is no point in trying to speak about numbers which only a few have any idea of. The $13 trillion number which Hudson speaks of lies in the expansion of the Fed balance sheet, something he refers to in his comments years ago - his error here is in attributing the $13 trillion to the federal government.

Said $13 trillion is also the number which is most commonly used and accepted in the MSM - or at least that part of the MSM closest to iTulip.

So while I understand and agree with the point you are making, at the same time it is far from clear to me what number Hudson should actually be using in order to be accurate.

$4.7 trillion isn't; it doesn't encompass the market value of all the subsidies the banksters were given, nor does it adequately even cover the maximum extent of the guarantees and subsidies provided.

[bart]

Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

I think your view is more than a bit harsh; while the present value of subsidies to banksters is less than $13 trillion, at the same time the maximum nominal value was certainly at least $13 trillion.

My total number at the maximum is $14.6 trillion, for what its worth. In other words, agreed.

However, given Hudson seeks to educate - there is no point in trying to speak about numbers which only a few have any idea of. The $13 trillion number which Hudson speaks of lies in the expansion of the Fed balance sheet, something he refers to in his comments years ago - his error here is in attributing the $13 trillion to the federal government.

My comments certainly can appear harsh and I do understand someone who feels that way, but I still submit that the real and honest and full picture is what he should have posted (same with his incorrect view about Clinton's budget). If he truly wanted to educate, at the very least he should have noted that the number is lower now - without going into details.

Its also precisely my point that because others have agreed with that $13 trillion number does not make it correct, and that false and quite potentially dangerous conclusions will be drawn from both of the incorrect numbers.

Additionally, the Fed balance sheet at least as published is currently about 2.8 trillion and that's a highest ever. In other words, we agree that he did goof - intentionally or not,

Said $13 trillion is also the number which is most commonly used and accepted in the MSM - or at least that part of the MSM closest to iTulip.

I submit that "commonly used and accepted" does not make it correct or true.

So while I understand and agree with the point you are making, at the same time it is far from clear to me what number Hudson should actually be using in order to be accurate.

At a minimum, I would suggest as noted above that he should have at least noted that the total is lower now.

I would also implore him to correct the bit about Clinton having had a balanced budget. He has a duty as a world renowned economist to tell the full story - he's not a Krugman.

$4.7 trillion isn't; it doesn't encompass the market value of all the subsidies the banksters were given, nor does it adequately even cover the maximum extent of the guarantees and subsidies provided.

Those guarantees and subsidies are for the most part gone - they expired or were paid back or whatever - as my cut & paste out of Excel shows.

That's the current reality... and its also the reality in my opinion that those banks and others are very much still insolvent.


Maybe you want to add some kind of "sentiment effect" and that's fine with me, but it doesn't change the raw dollar totals... and if you do add a "sentiment effect" it should also apply to the total nominal maximum. That would likely keep the overall ratio the same though - if you added $2 trillion to the current numbers, I'd think roughly $3-4 trillion should be added to the maximum number.




Lastly, I note that the $16 trillion number being bandied about as a result of the one time Fed audit as being mis-represented as $16 trillion total is just plain incorrect too, my point being that the actual facts are being ignored or even intentionally promoted for whatever vested interest.
As that spreadsheet I linked showed, the maximum effect during that period was around $200 billion per day and virtually all of it has been paid back.

[don]

Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

The 700 billion bailout under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) combined with the proposed Obama $750 billion aid to financial services industry is but the tip of the iceberg. A panoply of bailout allocations in addition to the 700 billion have been decided upon.






A massive amount of liquidity has been injected into the financial system, from the bailouts but also from pension funds, individual savings, etc.

The stated objective of the bank bailout programs is to alleviate the banks' burden of bad debts and non-performing loans. In actuality what is happening is that these massive amounts of money are being used by a handful of institutions to consolidate their position in global banking.

The exposure of the banks, largely the result of derivative trade, is estimated in the tens of trillions of dollars, to the extent that the amounts and guarantees granted by the Treasury and the Fed will not resolve the crisis. Nor are they intended to resolve the crisis.

The mainstream media suggests that the banks are being nationalized as a result of TARP, In fact, it is exactly the opposite.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12517

[bart]

Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

Thanks Don, and to hopefully lighten up this thread a bit:






edit/add - another satire:

[c1ue]

Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

Those guarantees and subsidies are for the most part gone - they expired or were paid back or whatever - as my cut & paste out of Excel shows.

That's the current reality... and its also the reality in my opinion that those banks and others are very much still insolvent.

Maybe you want to add some kind of "sentiment effect" and that's fine with me, but it doesn't change the raw dollar totals... and if you do add a "sentiment effect" it should also apply to the total nominal maximum. That would likely keep the overall ratio the same though - if you added $2 trillion to the current numbers, I'd think roughly $3-4 trillion should be added to the maximum number.

Fair enough. I will just conclude that Dr. Hudson focusing on the day to day repaid status wouldn't benefit his point in any way: that point being a massive amount of support was tendered to the TBTF banks.

If anything, introduction of said detail would only confuse most MSM readers.

I completely agree on the Clinton portion.

Lastly, I note that the $16 trillion number being bandied about as a result of the one time Fed audit as being mis-represented as $16 trillion total is just plain incorrect too, my point being that the actual facts are being ignored or even intentionally promoted for whatever vested interest.
As that spreadsheet I linked showed, the maximum effect during that period was around $200 billion per day and virtually all of it has been paid back.

Certainly no disagreement from me. I merely note - as does Dr. Hudson - that the amount of support tendered then is far, far greater for the TBTF/banksters as opposed to literally everyone else.

[bart]

Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

Fair enough. I will just conclude that Dr. Hudson focusing on the day to day repaid status wouldn't benefit his point in any way: that point being a massive amount of support was tendered to the TBTF banks.

If anything, introduction of said detail would only confuse most MSM readers.

I don't think that adding that it has dropped since the peak would harm his quite valid points at all, but as you say - fair enough.

I completely agree on the Clinton portion.

Cool

Certainly no disagreement from me. I merely note - as does Dr. Hudson - that the amount of support tendered then is far, far greater for the TBTF/banksters as opposed to literally everyone else.

Very true... and I'll add that it will recoil on them very very severely in the future.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

Does this help?

Bloomberg.com: The Fed’s Secret Liquidity Lifelines
Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion From Fed

By Bradley Keoun and Phil Kuntz - Aug 22, 2011 8:19 AM ET

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s unprecedented effort to keep the economy from plunging into depression included lending banks and other companies as much as $1.2 trillion of public money, about the same amount U.S. homeowners currently owe on 6.5 million delinquent and foreclosed mortgages. The largest borrower, Morgan Stanley, got as much as $107.3 billion, while Citigroup took $99.5 billion and Bank of America $91.4 billion, according to a Bloomberg News compilation of data obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, months of litigation and an act of Congress.

[..]

It wasn’t just American finance. Almost half of the Fed’s top 30 borrowers, measured by peak balances, were European firms. They included Edinburgh-based Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, which took $84.5 billion, the most of any non-U.S. lender, and Zurich-based UBS AG, which got $77.2 billion. Germany’s Hypo Real Estate Holding AG borrowed $28.7 billion, an average of $21 million for each of its 1,366 employees.

[..]

The $1.2 trillion peak on Dec. 5, 2008 -- the combined outstanding balance under the seven programs tallied by Bloomberg -- was almost three times the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit that year and more than the total earnings of all federally insured banks in the U.S. for the decade through 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

[..]

The Fed has said it had “no credit losses” on any of the emergency programs, and a report by Federal Reserve Bank of New York staffers in February said the central bank netted $13 billion in interest and fee income from the programs from August 2007 through December 2009.

much more at the links

[bart]

Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

Truth, and as an aside, many European based banks are also Primary Dealers of the Fed.


edit/add:

BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
Barclays Capital Inc.
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
Jefferies & Company, Inc.
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
MF Global Inc.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
Mizuho Securities USA Inc.
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
Nomura Securities International, Inc.
RBC Capital Markets, LLC
RBS Securities Inc.
SG Americas Securities, LLC
UBS Securities LLC.


http://www.ny.frb.org/markets/pridealers_current.html

[Chris Coles]

Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

Substitute an old 1920's era movie with the crime bosses sitting around a table dividing up the spoils and what is different about the above list?

The United States founded the FBI to conquer organized crime, and if you add their stated intent to crack down on such; then it is surely pertinent to ask; when will the penny drop?

[c1ue]

Re: Michael Hudson: Obama's & the Misdirection Play

Another view on how much was spent to save the TBTF: $29 trillion

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/12...llion-dollars/

There is a fascinating new study coming out of the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. Its titled “$29,000,000,000,000: A Detailed Look at the Fed’s Bail-out by Funding Facility and Recipient” by James Felkerson. The study looks at the lending, guarantees, facilities and spending of the Federal Reserve.
The researchers took all of the individual transactions across all facilities created to deal with the crisis, to figure out how much the Fed committed as a response to the crisis. This includes direct lending, asset purchases and all other assistance. (It does not include indirect costs such as rising price of goods due to inflation, weak dollar, etc.)
The net total? As of November 10, 2011, it was $29,616.4 billion dollars — (or 29 and a half trillion, if you prefer that nomenclature). Three facilities—CBLS, PDCF, and TAF— are responsible for the lion’s share — 71.1% of all Federal Reserve assistance ($22,826.8 billion).
One comment about some of the folks pushing back against this massive total: Yes, there is a big difference between a $100 lent for 3 days, and a $100 lent overnight rolled over 2 more times. And there is an enormous difference when temporary overnight lending lasts for three years.
Overnight lending, by its definition, is temporary, short term, lower risk, modest impact. It exists to allow slightly over-extended banks to meet their reserve requirements. But rolling overnight lending repeatedly for 3 years is none of those things. And it makes a mockery of these same reserve requirements, and the protective purposes they are supposed to serve.
The amount of overnight lending reflects how broken our financial system really is. A well capitalized, moderately leverage system does not require this massive liquidity from a central bank — interbank lending should be sufficient. What the data reveals is that the financial sector remains dangerously under-capitalized and overleveraged.
To pretend these were merely minor overnight loans, rolled over once or twice, is foolish, dangerous nonsense.
~~~
Cumulative facility totals, in billions
Source: Federal Reserve

Facility	Total	Percent of total
Term Auction Facility	$3,818.41	12.89%
Central Bank Liquidity Swaps	10,057.4(1.96)	33.96
Single Tranche Open Market Operation	855	2.89
Terms Securities Lending Facility and Term Options Program	2,005.7	6.77
Bear Stearns Bridge Loan	12.9	0.04
Maiden Lane I	28.82(12.98)	0.10
Primary Dealer Credit Facility	8,950.99	30.22
Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility	217.45	0.73
Commercial Paper Funding Facility	737.07	2.49
Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility	71.09(.794)	0.24
Agency Mortgage-Backed Security Purchase Program	1,850.14(849.26)	6.25
AIG Revolving Credit Facility	140.316	0.47
AIG Securities Borrowing Facility	802.316	2.71
Maiden Lane II	19.5(9.33)	0.07
Maiden Lane III	24.3(18.15)	0.08
AIA/ ALICO	25	0.08
Totals	$29,616.4	100.0%

>
Source:
BERNANKE’S OBFUSCATION CONTINUES: THE FED’S $29 TRILLION BAIL-OUT OF WALL STREET
L. Randall Wray
Economonitor, December 9th, 2011
http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2...f-wall-street/