Barry Ritholtz of the Big Picture pens a scathing post about Warren Buffet:

Triggered, in part, by the recent attempt by Goldman Sachs and Berkshire Hathaway to purchase tax credits from Fannie Mae.


posted by Quiddity at 11/07/2009 03:50:00 PM

This may explain why reporting the recession is lacking the gloom-and-doom tone of prevous recessions:

NYTimes: (emp add)

One of the more striking aspects of the Great Recession is that most of its impact has fallen on a relatively narrow group of workers. This is evident primarily in two ways.

First, the number of people who have experienced any unemployment is surprisingly low, given the severity of the recession. The pace of layoffs has increased, but the peak layoff rate this year was the same as it was during the 2001 recession, which was a fairly mild downturn. The main reason that the unemployment rate has soared is the hiring rate has plummeted.

So fewer workers than might be expected have lost their jobs. (...)

Second, wages have continued to rise for most people who still have jobs. The average hourly wage for rank-and-file workers, who make up about four-fifths of the work force, actually accelerated in October, according to the new report. (...)

Even though some companies have cut the pay of workers, the average hourly wage has still risen 1.5 to 2.5 percent over the last year (...)

In the other two severe recessions in recent decades, workers with jobs fared considerably worse. At the same point in the mid-1970s downturn, real weekly pay had fallen 7 percent; in the early 1980s recession, it had fallen 4 percent.

It is a strange combination: workers who still have a job are doing better than in other deep recessions, but the unemployment and underemployment have risen to their highest level since the Depression.

posted by Quiddity at 11/07/2009 03:31:00 PM

ABC's This Week has hit rock bottom:

The latest change in the format is to ditch the "Roundtable" and replace it with a "Powerhouse Roundtable" which takes up more of the hour at the expense of interviews with government and policy figures.

And who will be sitting at the Powerhouse Roundtable this Sunday?

• George Will
• Cokie Roberts
• Sam Donaldson
• Donna Brazile
• Frank Luntz

Do you expect anything thoughtful or informative from this group?

Oh yeah, the Powerhouse Roundtable is preceded by interviews with Republican Chairman Michael Steele and Democratic Chairman Tim Kaine. Gee, what do you think they are going to say? Will Steele tout the Republican wins in New Jersey and Virginia? Will Kaine talk about the Dem win in NY-23? Tune in to find out.


posted by Quiddity at 11/07/2009 09:31:00 AM

Getting tired of this stupid "one year" business:

From this weekend's Meet the Press webpage: (emp add)

... one year after President Obama was elected to the White House, what has his administration accomplished and what more needs to be done? We look back and ahead at all the challenges this president has faced over the past year, including Afghanistan, the economy, health care reform and more. Insights and analysis from our political roundtable: David Brooks, E.J. Dionne, Rachel Maddow and Ed Gillespie.

Yeah, let's look at the challenges President Obama faced in December of 2008, shall we?


posted by Quiddity at 11/07/2009 09:26:00 AM

Anybody watch Friday's edition of ABC's World News?

It was 100% about the Fort Hood shooting. Nothing else was covered.

On a day when unemployment hit hew highs and other events had taken place in Congress and throughout the nation.

A comprehensive news program should have covered several stories, not just one. If there is a lot to say about the Fort Hood shooting, that should be part of a special later that night (say in the 20/20 or Nightline slot).


posted by Quiddity at 11/06/2009 08:39:00 PM

Good comment:

Over at TNR's The Plank, in response to a Chait post on Obama (and Ben Nelson), this comment by raylward:

When an entire political party disbelieves Keynes' theory (Nixon, it turns out, was wrong when he said "we are all Keynesians now"), many if not most members of the other political party don't understand the theory, the Democratic leadership let the legislative process regarding the stimulus legislation devolve into an excuse for public funding of the members' favorite pet projects, the public either has never heard of Keynes or believes the General Theory has something to do with evolution, and a tepid president focuses his attention and by extension the attention of the public on give aways to big banks and car companies, is it any wonder there was/is little enthusiasm for more public spending as a way to avoid a high unemployment, low output equilibrium, especially, early in the year, when unemployment wasn't particularly high ...

Repeat after me, "Ben Nelson doesn't believe in Keynes' General Theory".


posted by Quiddity at 11/06/2009 11:35:00 AM

Brad DeLong recants his allegiance to Greenspanism:

Finally!

Well, give the DeLong credit, he owned up to it.

He's on the run now. The next step is for him to recant his allegiance to free trade with low-wage nations.

He has already done an about-face on how recessions impact management-labor power relations.

Re Greenspan: He wasn't wrong on everything, but his tolerance for bubbles was completely irresponsible.


posted by Quiddity at 11/06/2009 10:52:00 AM

Good news everybody!

Remember, unemployment is a lagging indicator.

Also, the increase in unemployment is taking place at a slower rate (so we're assured by NPR).

In any event, this confirms that the Fed will hold rates down for much longer, forcing a steep yield curve, which means big profits for banks. Even non-banks like Goldman Sachs that masquerades as a bank. Big bonuses as far as the eye can see.

Break out the champagne!


posted by Quiddity at 11/06/2009 08:33:00 AM

Bad optics:

To the list of hundreds of schools, hospitals, and community health centers that have received limited allocations of the H1N1 swine flu vaccine, you can now add some of New York’s largest employers. In the past week or so 13 companies, including Citigroup (C) and Goldman Sachs (GS), have begun receiving small quantities of the vaccine, according to city health authorities.

posted by Quiddity at 11/05/2009 07:02:00 PM

This is an actual Bloomberg story headline:

BOE May Expand Bond Plan as Officials ‘Throw Money’ at Economy

posted by Quiddity at 11/05/2009 06:42:00 AM

Shorter David Broder:

In reviewing this week's election results, I shall quote:

• A leader of the moderate-conservative "Blue Dogs" from Tennessee
• Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander
• Democratic pollster Peter Hart
• Former Republican congressman Vin Weber

posted by Quiddity at 11/05/2009 06:26:00 AM

Kingmaker?



No.


posted by Quiddity at 11/04/2009 09:36:00 PM

The Fed hopes that eventually there will be a turn-around:

From today's statement:

The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period.

They kind of sugar-coat it with two of the three reasons for the low rate being inflation ("trends" and "expectations").

It's good for the banks, but there is nothing much the Fed can do in a post-credit-bust environment short of spending money (which it has via Quantitative Easing) but that option is about to run out.

So here we are, basically at zero percent. It's not a position of strength.


posted by Quiddity at 11/04/2009 08:14:00 PM

Vulgarush Limbaugh:

I heard this this morning and was stunned: (emp add)

LIMBAUGH: Scozzafava has screwed every RINO in the coun -- we can say that she's guilty of widespread bestiality. She has screwed every RINO in the country. Everyone can see just see how phony and dangerous they are.

The NFL must surely, by now, regret their exclusion of Limbaugh from team ownership.

UPDATE: You can watch Limbaugh's rant here.

UPDATE 2: Proudly transcribed at Limbaugh's website.


posted by Quiddity at 11/02/2009 01:58:00 PM

They do it for the money:

Over at Politico, there is an article, The pro-Fox Democrats, which is about Democrats that show up on the Fox "News" Channel. Here are some excerpts: (emp add)

Democratic pundit Bob Beckel has been under contract with Fox News for six years. And in the midst of the White House war against the cable network, some of his liberal friends think that’s six years too many.

“It sucks,” says Democratic direct-mail consultant Liz Chadderdon, a regular on the network. “It is very, very tough to be a Democrat on Fox.”   ...   So why does she keep doing it? For pretty much the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks. Fox is where the viewers are ...   [Sutton said "That's where the money is"]

Susan Estrich is perhaps the most identifiable Democratic pundit on the network. She’s been on the payroll for more than a decade ...

Chadderdon is skeptical that her Fox hits do much to advance the progressive cause. But she says they’re good for business.

In the article there are cases where these Democrats have an unpleasant experience while on Fox, yet they keep coming back. While they defend themselves by saying Fox has higher ratings and "therefore" they can get the message out, their real function is to be a punching bag and to make Democrats look like idiots. E.g.

More recently, Chadderdon has been invited to talk business with Fox’s Neil Cavuto — on the main network and on the two-year-old Fox Business Network — even though she readily admits that she has no background in economics.

“Speaking about those issues is not my forte,” said Chadderdon. “And I’m getting the tar kicked out of me.”

Another data point in the Fox "News" isn't a news organization: bringing on someone obviously unqualified to discuss economics. But that's Fox. It's all scripted.

Re Chadderdon: she may be getting the tar kicked out, but she's also receiving checks from Rupert Murdoch, so she'll be okay.


posted by Quiddity at 11/02/2009 07:18:00 AM

I do not see how this guy can be a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University:

Jeffrey A. Miron on health care policy (via MY). Sorry, this is a lazy post so I won't go into details. But the guy posits all sorts of scenarios that are unrealistic. E.g.

• If individuals pay more for health care then they will consume it in an efficient manner. In other words, individuals are able to properly diagnose their condition by themselves.
• It's mostly the patient's fault for getting sick.
• In a totally unregulated situation, nobody would be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, they would simply be able to pay an appropriate higher premium.

It's full bore Libertarianism (which is great if you are rich and healthy). But that's an ideology which ignores economic reality or how health care is needed and accessed. What's he doing at Harvard?


posted by Quiddity at 11/01/2009 05:52:00 PM