The Meltdown (Part I)
Global capital markets have seized up. Confidence is evaporating. Put simply, no lender trusts any borrower to repay, fearing that that borrower won't be able to rely on anyone else to honor obligations. Even banks are hoarding cash, unwilling to lend to other banks. Everyone with any savings is heading for the hills -- for gold, for under the mattress, for wherever savings can be watched. We're witnessing a huge international bank run. We have not seen a global financial crisis on this scale since the 1930s.
What's happened? Put simply, the Bailout of All Bailouts has been a dud, at least so far. Most obviously, it hasn't done what it was intended to do -- reassure financial markets that the Treasury and the Fed would have enough money to handle any financial crisis.
So it's everyone and every institution -- and every country -- for itself. Several nations (Ireland, Greece, Germany) have basically guaranteed all deposits. As a result, global capital is moving their way. They're also thereby creating a new form of socialized capitalism. At the rate they're going, these nations will soon own and run their financial markets, and maybe a big chunk of the world's.
I fault Hank Paulson, first and foremost. He never succeeded in explaining to anyone what exactly he'll do with the bailout money -- how, for example, an auction to acquire mortgage-backed bad debt would work, and whether and to what extent he's planning to recapitalize the banking system. Even now, the American public has no idea what he's up to. Nor, for that matter, do many insiders.
Leadership isn't just about passing a big piece of legislation. It's about explaining and thereby gaining trust and confidence from a public -- including a global public -- that's otherwise afraid and confused. A credible and powerful explanation is necessary right now -- about where we've been, how we got into this mess, and how a particular plan (in this case, the bailout), will get us out of it. Yet Paulson has proven himself uniquely unable to explain anything to anyone. George W. Bush, for his part, is hopeless and hapless. Worse than a lame duck, he's a seriously disabled parakeet, with no remaining store of public trust. Ben Bernanke seems like an able fellow but his capacity to communicate is almost as bad as his predecessor's. Congressional leaders are too busy pointing fingers of blame to be capable of explaining much of anything and summoning confidence. And fewer than three weeks before a national election, both candidates are inevitably caught up in partisan wrangling. Obama does understand what's happening, and could calm global capital markets if he were already president. But he is not president as yet, nor even president-elect.
The leadership vacuum could not happen at a worse time. If credit markets remain frozen, we'll soon witness a huge round of business bankruptcies. We're in completely uncharted terrain.
What's happened? Put simply, the Bailout of All Bailouts has been a dud, at least so far. Most obviously, it hasn't done what it was intended to do -- reassure financial markets that the Treasury and the Fed would have enough money to handle any financial crisis.
So it's everyone and every institution -- and every country -- for itself. Several nations (Ireland, Greece, Germany) have basically guaranteed all deposits. As a result, global capital is moving their way. They're also thereby creating a new form of socialized capitalism. At the rate they're going, these nations will soon own and run their financial markets, and maybe a big chunk of the world's.
I fault Hank Paulson, first and foremost. He never succeeded in explaining to anyone what exactly he'll do with the bailout money -- how, for example, an auction to acquire mortgage-backed bad debt would work, and whether and to what extent he's planning to recapitalize the banking system. Even now, the American public has no idea what he's up to. Nor, for that matter, do many insiders.
Leadership isn't just about passing a big piece of legislation. It's about explaining and thereby gaining trust and confidence from a public -- including a global public -- that's otherwise afraid and confused. A credible and powerful explanation is necessary right now -- about where we've been, how we got into this mess, and how a particular plan (in this case, the bailout), will get us out of it. Yet Paulson has proven himself uniquely unable to explain anything to anyone. George W. Bush, for his part, is hopeless and hapless. Worse than a lame duck, he's a seriously disabled parakeet, with no remaining store of public trust. Ben Bernanke seems like an able fellow but his capacity to communicate is almost as bad as his predecessor's. Congressional leaders are too busy pointing fingers of blame to be capable of explaining much of anything and summoning confidence. And fewer than three weeks before a national election, both candidates are inevitably caught up in partisan wrangling. Obama does understand what's happening, and could calm global capital markets if he were already president. But he is not president as yet, nor even president-elect.
The leadership vacuum could not happen at a worse time. If credit markets remain frozen, we'll soon witness a huge round of business bankruptcies. We're in completely uncharted terrain.

78 Comments:
thank you, Dr. Reich. I want to know why the government isn't giving people jobs to build infrastructure in a WPA type jobs program. New Orleans, La. needs to build flood protection for the Gulf Coast region, it is deplorable that it has not yet been accomplished. This is part of the Federal Army Corps of Engineers responsibility and also California is at high risk in the Sacramento area. When will this begin????? It is a priority. What is your recommendation.
The Swedish, Icelandic, Dutch, And British Plan
The Swedish Plan, via the NY Times:
"That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well.
“If I go into a bank,” said Bo Lundgren, who was Sweden’s deputy minister of finance at the time, “I’d rather get equity so that there is some upside for the taxpayer.”
The Iclelandic Plan, via Paul Krugman:
"Iceland has just bailed out Glitnir Bank, with the government putting in 600 million euros — $859 million — in return for a 75% stake.
Iceland has only a bit more than 300,000 people, about 1/1000th the population of the United States. So this was, per capita, the equivalent of an $850 billion bailout here.
Notice, by the way, that it was an equity injection rather than a purchase of bad debt; I approve."
The Dutch Plan, via Calculated Risk:
"The Dutch government on Friday re-negotiated last weekend’s bail-out of Fortis in order to buy all of Fortis’s Dutch operations for €16.8bn, including its Dutch insurance operations and the Dutch operations of ABN Amro..."
The Dutch government will privatise the Fortis and ABN Amro operations after calm returns to the markets, it said. Nationalize. Then privatize. That is a proven approach. It will be interesting to see if the Dutch approach works better or worse than the Paulson plan. "
The British Plan, via Calculated Risk:
"Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, could give the banks billions of pounds in return for shares in an emergency bailout plan to be enacted if the financial crisis worsens, The Daily Telegraph has learnt..."
This is more like the Swedish solution, or the RFC in the U.S. during the Depression, as opposed to the TARP. "
It will be interesting to compare these results with TARP. Don the libertarian Democrat
What? But they promised us that the sky wouldn't fall if we gave them the money! Is this the same as when I was held at gunpoint and told to give my wallet and then got shot anyway?
So what do you propose an individual with about $5,000 in liquid savings right now, do with that money? Put it in a mattress? Leave it in the bank? What? Tell me! I'm in a panic.
Dear Dr. Reich,
I saw a report on Credit Default Swap last night on 60 minutes. It was very well done and explained the problems. What is your beliefs about these risky instruments. It appears to me that having Trillions, maybe 40 to 50 Trillion, of these insurance contracts floating around global financial markets are the real crux of the issue. Unless I know that a bank doesn't own these on the wrong side I would not want my money in that bank. Also, I have heard some suggest that an "exchange" be created for these CDS's then they could be traded or allowed to "die"/devalue. And finally I'd like to hear more from Obama about what he would do if elected. We need reassurance now, especially since the "jerk" is off on his ranting tanget.
If I might tweak your blog just one bit: you say that "people around the world are afraid". In all honesty, I think its financiers and economists who are afraid...the general public is concerned, but doesn't get that there are some very dangerous scenarios for how this thing could play out, and those darker scenarios are becoming just slightly more likely with each passing day.
I think part of this is because much of the subject matter is so obtuse. I am highly educated-perhaps overeducated(!)-but I find it difficult at times to translate all of the industry lingo and charts. I look around and I realize the average person who is paying attention is getting their news from CNBC.
Another reason why may be because, well, we've been very fortunate in America for a very long time, and we have little concept of where this might be heading, and what that actually means. Certainly no one alive today does...
...hopefully the situation rights itself before too much more damage is done. However, the timing of this crisis couldn't be worse: America is between administrations, and European institutions are neutered in their ability to cope. The political sphere is not in a position to cope with this crisis at this time, and I am concerned that a situation that could have been turned around (and could still be turned around) will instead keep on wreaking damage, month after month, until the political sphere is able to address it fully in March.
So, to circle back to your comment about people being afraid, no, I don't think that is true yet...
...but when the general public does become afraid, we will all certainly know it.
Mr. Reich,
I cannot call the Obama campaign and get through, maybe you can. If there was ever a time Americans needed to hear an Obama speech, it is now. Like you say, the Paulson and Bush show is worthless. I would not trust anything they say anyway. I trust Obama, and would like to hear his plan for the near future. Thanks, A mom who keeps the family books in SF, CA.
I find it extraordinary that any thinking person believes McCain or Obama will have any answers to this ongoing nightmare. Why? And this thing is far worse than 1929.
The fundamentals are screwed:
NO ETHICS ANYWHERE!
HIGH ENERGY COSTS FROM NOW ON!
PARTISAN POLITICS!
NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
CONSUMER BASED ECONOMY!
BALANCE OF TRADE!
FOREIGN DEBT!
BUSTED PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM!
USELESS COLLEGE DEGREES!
GLUT OF GRADS WITH NO JOBS!
HEALTH CARE COSTS OUT OF CONTROL!
ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS!
PERPETUAL WAR!
Add to this as you will. And a politician is going to solve all of this?
NUTS!
"Bush hopeless and hapless" That is exactly what Americans need to see--the starkest possible contrast between the Right Wing Noise Machine--Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, matt drudge, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth--and what's really important to American middle class lives.
If it takes financial catastrophe, but at the end the Right Wing Noise Machine is thoroughly, 100% discredited, so be it.
I want them working to distance the Republican Party from George W. Bush, and working with everything they can muster, until Nov 4. If the voting machines are rigged, I want the unethical swine working on exactly that. Then we will see Nov 5th with clearer eyes. If it takes a financial meltdown, then people who couldn't figure anything out 8 years ago will figure it out in the coming year.
There's enough time for the list of CEOs. and the upper 1% for whom Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire. At a minimum, the funds will probably be needed for food stamps.
$5,000? Will it pay off any debts? Maybe it should just be saved to make mortgage payments in case of a layoff?
As to the idea that no one has a clue where this is going. Maybe some people do, and most people don't know how to seperate the wheat from the chaff?
This all is following prognostications based on natural laws and Peak Oil, very well. This is the twilight of our civilization unless we find an incredible but unknown new energy source and use a time machine to take back far enough in time, to avert this crisis. We're past out of time as a new exotic energy source would like not be of use for decades.
Our financial industry is too big to be supported by our physical industries. Our leadership say that this overbloated and parasitical system must grow! And GROW!
Crash is inevitable.
Perestroika with no real recovery, is coming.
Actually, my dad remembers this kind of scenario and more than eight months ago removed all of his cash from the bank and sold all of his stock. Converted everything he had to gold (now everything is just about 50K, but it is his life's savings) We thought he was crazy. Nope, just experienced. My dad was born in 1920.
Well this is pleasant bedtime reading. Hello Robert; What discussions are occurring now? Are there any other actors besides the ones you mentioned? What is the next step? Given the tone of your post - what is the next step for you?
Regards, Will.
Will someone nominate ME for Treasury Secretary?
I said in a recent post this damn bailout wouldn't work. The IMF report said the Paulson plan had no history of working, especially at this scale.
And finally this. People, I keep coming back to it.
No one, I mean no one, is going to do business with people who cheated them out of money. Massive amounts of wire fraud was committed by people from Main St. to Wall St. Worthless stuff was sold to people all over the world.
Until we start charging, convicting and sending to jail large numbers of playas, no one is going to have confidence in our markets. No one.
That's just the way it is. That's the way it has always worked. Trust will return when the rule of law is restored.
Dr. Reich, "Don't they still teach that at Cal?" The rule of law?
Maybe I'm a naive, so take this with the grain of salt intended.
We now own Fannie and Freddie, with widespread infrastructure, and staff with experience, even the forms to make loans to the public. Can't they be recapitalized?
Why not prime the pump there?
I heard one frantic stock market investor bemoaning , that even farmers were denied credit to plant the next crop, and global starvation will ensue...
Don't we still have the farm agencies in our government? Can't the government extend loans and grants during this emergency period to keep the economy functioning to some extent? I'm sure if you get the word out, farmers will respond.
Is it asking too much of bankers to impose qualification standards, which were once used...in those economically stable, primitive days of the 50's?
I'm sure once these hoarder banks, see socialized lending, they will spring to their feet, object loudly, and resent the competition.
After all our entire economy isn't suddenly worthless or useless. Why let their blackmail and fear destroy yet more?
Democrats need to form a plan quickly, perhaps one that Obama can take under his wing. And start selling it to the public.
Because I can see Bush Inc. coming back for more cash to pour into the top of the pyramid.
They seem to like to hold on to it up there, for some unknown reason?
Dr. Reich-
I am not pandering, but truly hoping that you are asked to help in the Obama administration.
Dear Robert,
My name is Inessa. I looked through your site and it attracted my attention by the varieties of the wholesome information. I have some credit cards web-sites where you can find useful information about finance and money. My sites are with high Alexa and Page Rank 3-5.
I'm interested in advertising on your blog. I'm looking for banners, text ads, paid reviews.
Please let me know if you are interested and how much you charge via email iumabrook@gmail.com
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Inessa.
I'm just waiting for the "Heck of a job, Paulie" scene with W and Paulson. Is it November 4th yet?
this may take another year yet to unravel completely. it's likely to worsen severely as opposed to get better, that's for sure. if we can't unlock lending by the end of the week, we're in for some big trouble. the ripples will spread far and deep.
i can't see how there would be any quick or even fairly quick repairs to this problem. both the bottom and top of our economy have been severed. it may take a New Deal-like approach to get us moving but that was still a long and expensive process.
all it takes now is for the psychology of the market to take another turn for the worse and create a panic leading to bank runs. then we're really in trouble. very scary times indeed.
Dr. Reich
I just found your blog site today. I have always found your insite and wisdom on economic policy right on the mark. I also look forward to reading this blog regularly to get your take on the econimic crisis we face today.
I've added this blog site to my favorites. I also think it would be great to see you back in Washington as a member of the next Obama administration!!
There are basically two approaches to the bail-out - the one Paulson took and the Swedish model. Here's a metaphor of the Paulson plan, I give you $1000. to clean all the crap out of your basement. I come in, load up and remove all the crap and now I own it. You get the $1000. to spend as you wish. Here's a metaphor of the Swedish plan. I give you $1000. to spend as you wish in return for a percent ownership of your house. You keep all the crap in your basement and I get to move into your house.
Most economists favor the Swedish plan and not the Paulson plan. Whoops! Did Congress act too hastily?
Thoreau said simplify, simplify. The US financial system (and possibly the global) has gotten too complex. We don't need this over-financialization to carry out the basic tasks of an economy. I hope Obama will start with the basics: people need to eat, people need a place to sleep, people need transportation. An economy that supports these basic needs is an economy worth supporting. An economy built on credit default swaps, naked shorts, derivatives and other exotic financial instruments is a house of cards, a house of cards that is so complex that hardly anyone understands it or its implications.
The simple way is the best way.
More on Will Blog For Food
Robert,
Are you still advocating the payroll tax holiday? I have read some very intellegent economist (that understand our floating rate currency) are suggesting the same. You have not visited that subject in some time. The 2nd qtr of 2008 has been the only bright spot in the economy over the last year. It is no coincidence that the stimulus checks went out that qtr. I would conclude that a payroll tax holiday would provide continuous stimulation and keep the real economy afloat until the financial economy is resolved.
Most foreigners don't trust the US government and now they don’t trust our financial markets. They also read about our politics and witness the candidate selections facing Americans in November. Most foreign surveys indicate that they mostly trust Obama.
I think that if Obama wins the election, it would bring some calm to the world in general. They witness his calmness and his intelligence.
They can see that McBush is a hothead and Palin just a cheerleader. McBush will not release his war records or medical records because of his post traumatic stress disorder and his stage 3 melanoma surgery that removed 33 lymph nodes. He is unfit and unstable. McBush is a HAWK & HOTHEAD and he scares most foreigners.
good morning all~
i've taken a few days off from reading here. and was hoping for some kind of clarification when i returned. like many of you the greatest anxiety i feel is i simply dont know how to interpret what is happening with the economy.
there is most definitely a leadership vacuum.
someone else had mentioned their dad was born in 1920 and saw the signs of what is happening now, sometime back.
yes, my dad too. he was born in 1917. he sits comfortably at the moment. and let me know in no uncertain terms this country is indeed in trouble. big trouble.
i simply wish i knew what to do about it!!!
although sometime ago i cashed in our single stocks, closed our wamu account and went to a credit union.
we live simply enough and plan to retire in our early to mid 70's if at all. as in we love what we do for work so it doesnt matter much how long we work. we're in our early 50's now.
part of what needs to be examined is the whole paradigm that 65 is the magic number for retirement. it's arbitrary. and the current crisis is showing how made-up it is.
target retirement dates will change and must change.
many paragdigm shifts. an opportunity for deep examination of the template of how we have lived their lives.
as worn out an comment as it is:
crisis is also opportunity. we have to look inwardly for guidance as well as out.
John Lawrence:
I'll see your naked shorts and raise you standard short selling.
I marvel that the experts tell us that short selling is good because it leads to "price discovery". First of all, are they telling me that "price discovery" won't be achieved without short selling? Secondly, does short selling lead to "price discovery" or does it manipulate "price discovery"?
To me it is simply one more leverage tool which is also used to take advantage of well meaning investors seeking long term gains whose combined interests in a particular investment vehicle might create rising prices in the short term. I fail to see where it accomplishes anything other than another source of income for professionals who watch the market minute by minute, day by day.
To your point, investment markets were established to provide capital for promising industries which provided goods and services and jobs. There were likely always speculators who entered the fray simply looking for the quick buck but it appears they are more the rule than the exception in today's world.
Many with access to enormous sums of money can trade on slim margins and still make vast profits. Eliminating short selling coupled with a small transactions tax would aid in returning the financial world to one of supporting and furthering an economic growth based on providing basic needs for all in our society rather than skimming valuable resources of the top.
Somehow, and I don't know that's it's possible, we need to get back to valuing labor as the source of wealth creation rather than financial wizardry. Why do we feel it necessary to incentivize CEOs and executives to do a good job? Just like the rest of us, give them a decent, commensurate pay, some reasonable multiple of average wages in their companies, and then demand of them their best efforts in achieving profits and growth. The guy working on the manufacturing floor or in an accounting office or in the lab is expected to give his best efforts for the paycheck he receives. No one offers him/her millions in bonuses if they do their best. It is assumed in the contract that they will give their best for the agreed upon salary when they were hired.
Computers and technology have obviated many labor opportunities. That's progress and arguably we are stuck with the results. The focus of our economic efforts should be in creating new opportunities for labor, with a decent livable wage, and this should be the focus of both government and the private sector. Excessive profits that fund executive bonuses and stock repurchases do nothing for the bulk of our working population. They inure to only a handful of recipients while our society and economy suffers. Strong economic growth is good only when it benefits all of our working class. When we have a growing GDP but unemployment and working wages remain stagnant we have gained little.
An aside, though you could argue I have already asided, I get so angry at the, mostly McCain, advisors/supporters who suggest that cutting taxes will create jobs. Ignoring that it is more "trickle down", I have never met or worked for a CEO or business owner who said that he would love to hire more people but because taxes are so high he can't afford to. In the first place businesses do not hire more workers if they don't need them and if they do need them they are going to hire them. Employing and paying more workers is, in and of itself, a tax reduction because it adds to costs and lowers profits thus reducing taxes. Admittedly, most employers hire more workers to increase profits but, again, I have never heard anyone say I don't want more profits because it means more taxes.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
I Can't Keep Up With The Bailing
Floyd Norris, from his post called "Keep Bailing":
"The next big move may be from Washington. Having so far failed to get the bank lending system functioning, the government may well choose to go into the direct corporate lending business. Ideologically, that would have been repugnant to both Republicans and Democrats only a few weeks ago. But there is great fear that the recession could get much deeper and last much longer if business and consumer credit dries up completely, and that worry evidently trumps old beliefs."
Via Calculated Risk:
"From Bloomberg: Libor for Overnight Dollar Loans Jumps as Credit Freeze Deepens
The London interbank offered rate, or Libor, that banks charge each other for such loans rose 157 basis points to 3.94 percent today, the British Bankers' Association said. The corresponding rate for euros climbed 22 basis points to 4.27 percent, the highest in four days. The Tokyo interbank rate stayed at the highest level this year and the Libor-OIS spread, a gauge of cash scarcity among banks, widened to a record.
And, from the Washington Post:
"Yesterday, the rate at which banks lend to one another -- the London interbank offered rate, or Libor -- was 4.3 percent for a three-month loan. In normal times, it would be not much higher than the 2 percent bank lending rate set by the Fed. The premium is a measurement of the mistrust among banks and translates into higher rates for businesses and consumers, if they can get loans at all. "
And so:
"While Europe struggled to stop new bank failures, in the United States, alarm has increasingly focused on the commercial paper market, where all sorts of businesses and local and state governments turn for money for day-to-day operations. For the past week, that market has been nearly paralyzed, and yesterday, the cost of such borrowing soared.
"The big gorilla is really liquidity," said Edward Liebert, treasurer of Rohm & Haas and chairman of the National Association of Corporate Treasurers, 100 of whose members discussed the crisis in a conference call Thursday."
Which resulted in:
"Last night, the Fed was drawing up plans to set up the special fund to buy short-term commercial paper. The purchases would benefit banks as well as non-financial companies.
The fund will be financed by a loan from the Fed, and any losses would probably be covered by the Treasury using its new $700 billion bailout package. Fed and Treasury lawyers were hammering out details last night.
Purchasing commercial paper through the new special entity would increase risks for the Treasury, and ultimately taxpayers, while potentially relieving companies of the downside risk of bad behavior, financial experts said. One senior U.S. bank executive said it was "like taking the fire sensors out of the building."
One benefit of such an action is that it would free up money for lending and lower the interest rates banks pay to borrow money to conduct business...
To which Tyler Cowen asks:
Is there a positive spin to this?
Because before he had said:
"How to tell if things are going very badly
If the Fed ends up guaranteeing commercial paper and/or interbank loans."
Or:
"Another step the Fed could take to try to jolt the financial system out of its current torpor would be to cut its target for short-term interest rates. The federal funds rate is currently 2 percent, and many financiers on Wall Street argue that an emergency rate cut, as early as today, would help the situation."
Hopefully, via Calculated Risk:
"By eliminating much of the risk that eligible issuers will not be able to repay investors by rolling over their maturing commercial paper obligations, this facility should encourage investors to once again engage in term lending in the commercial paper market. Added investor demand should lower commercial paper rates from their current elevated levels and foster issuance of longer-term commercial paper. An improved commercial paper market will enhance the ability of financial intermediaries to accommodate the credit needs of businesses and households."
As for the second option, William Gross says:
"They must also take another bold step: outright purchases of commercial paper. They should also cut interest rates to 1%, because we are experiencing asset deflation, and the threat of headline inflation is long past."
Got that. I can't keep up with the bailing. Thank God for the excellent news sources we have nowadays to try and keep up with this mess.
Don the libertarian Democrat
John Lawrence,
I couldn't agree more with you about the need for simplicity in our financial markets. With simplicity comes a more easily regulated transparency and, thus, more effective unmasking of the Wall Street thieves and their financial chicanery. Back to traditional bank lending practices based on client deposits.
As to the ownership position, I do favor the Dutch approach with, for example, its nationalization of the ABN-AMRO purchase from Fortis. This cost Dutch Taxpayers €16.8 billion (+-$24 billion) or 30% less than Fortis paid for ABN-AMRO last year.
In next 3-4 years, when the Dutch take public ABN-AMRO and some Fortis business activities in Holland, we shall see whether the Dutch Taxpayers have done better than their American counterparts. I'm optimistic about the Dutch ownership approach as ABN-AMRO Holland is profitable and sound in every way. Of course, Europe does not have a European Treasury so they naturally lean on Taxpayers more in such severe crisises.
There is some language in the Rescue Plan about making Taxpayers WHOLE later someday ... but no mention of an upside reward for the unusual risks Taxpayers are being exposed to.
This is US Capitalism at its inequitable, greedy worst. Thank God the Treasury didn't come to the rescue of Lehman Brothers, a firm whose President took home over $300 million dollars over last 9 years or $35 million annually! He didn´t beat Paulson, though, who made over $500 million shorting his own firm´s exotic, unfathomable, financial products sold to client investors. Talk about pragmatism over principles!
Freddie and Fannie executives also lined their pockets with many obscene millions in compensation, but we are rescuing them due to dangerous scale of their mortgage operations.
Moral hazard is still in play with US Rescue and Bailout Plans ... in contrast with Europe.
Anonymous,
I recommend putting that liquid $5000 into a storage shed with solar panels on top to run the freezer in the hot weather, and the rest on whatever local foodstuffs are being harvested right now.
Dr. Reich,
Excuses for being off theme.
I guess McCain-Palin's desperate resort to the old politics of smears and lies comes down to their strategy that it's better "To elect the Incompetent you know than the Competent you don't know.
Of course, propaganda we don't know Obama as well as we know the Maverick is pure political guile. We just had eight years of a Maverick. We don't need another type of unpredictable Republican Maverick for 26 years who suddenly proclaims to be a Coverted Father Teresa for Mainstreet. He and Palin are doing a good job dividing Americans with their ugly tones and fear mongering. Sad to see so many Americans eat this crap up.
Well I'm going for a Known Known ... that Obama represents an opportunity for a balanced measure of Real Change; a return to economic calm; and renewal of our lost global respect.
I seem to have lots of company in Europe, as a recent European-wide survey found that 90%, yes 90%, favor Obama! It was 80% a 2 or 3 months ago!
I have a question
How would this situation have been different if we had allowed the "bailout" to fail
Very simplistically if you do not have the money or make a bad investment you lose. Why should I who did not take a subprime morgage bail out those that did and why are the people who gave people money who could not pay it back not being prosecuted? I have a social responsibility but it is not to carry the financial irresponsibility of big banks on my shoulders. I have lost a great deal of money and I can honesty say no one is compensating me. I will just be required to cover for the misteps.
What is the real solution?
Will the bail out work?
I do not think anyone has announced a workable solution. I might have one but I do not know whom I should express it to. I thought this might be the place and I am not sure.
Am I an expert? No. I am a thinking man. I think a lot and I think i might just have a solution.
Anyone interested?
Johans Watkins:
That is what people do on this site and few of us are experts.
Go for it! Don't be sensitive though because you might get some angry responses but you'll live through them. The rest of us have.
I feel like the American people are victims of financial rape. We have been raped by Wall Street and now we are being forced to marry the rapists and pay for the rape kit. How could a simple home loan be turned into such a travesty of greed? What happened to the one page mortgage note? Why are people betting on whether or not I will pay my mortgage? The bailout money is going to be like the money lost in the wind of war. Why would I want to bet on my neighbor's ability to pay on his mortgage? A lot of things happen in 30 years. These guys just sit around and figure out creative financing ways to screw everyone on their mortgage or credit card. How long can the IRS come back on an inviducal for back taxes? American people deserve to take back salaries and bonuses that enriched the criminals. I don't trust Henry Paulson. How much money is he saving by bailing out his previous company? And did I mention the oil speculators? They have also brought down this country while the SEC was asleep at the switch. FALL STREET can kiss my @$$.
Agh! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!
I predict we will start using human-drawn carts with wooden wheels, laden with rotting vegetables soon.
Frank:
It's part of the convoluted American psyche. We should not benefit from the misfortunes of others. Even if those others were greedy, incompetent fools. We often struggle with the deserving issue.
Of course it is a fuzzy psyche, if we happen to buy a home cheap because the previous owner defaulted, that's not benefitting from someone's misfortunes that's exercising financial acumen.
Here is a nice summary:
How to Ruin the U.S. Economy
by Ben Stein
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife/112984
Pension funds have already lost $2 trillion
I hope most of these pension losses were by Bush supporters... I suspect they want a 3rd term and willing be voting for McBush.
One way to solve wealth disparity in this country is to destroy all wealth and start over.
I have been arranging for a survival situation...
good luck
So what would happen if interest rates were allowed to rise to market clearing levels? Positive real net interest rates are better than no credit at all. A rate high enough to cover inflation and normal default rates might increase the supply of credit enough to meet demand.
Frank:
No, I won't say it.
It is a US political axiom that when reason fails, as if McCain ever exhibited reason, then pull out all the stops and attack your opponent personally. It is the American way.
Now McCain and Palin have promised us that they know how to create new jobs. They know how to turn our economy around. They can't seem to explain to us how they'll do it but "trust" them they know how.
Could it be more tax cuts for business and the wealthy? That seems to be the message but didn't we try that a couple of times before? Of course Obama wants to raise taxes and that is a deathknell in a recessionary economy. What? Didn't Reagan raise taxes during a recession in 1982? Didn't Bush 41 raise taxes during a recession in 1990? For the life of me I don't understand why the pundits don't raise those examples. See my previous post to John Lawrence about lowering taxes to create jobs.
Is also interesting that we should remand the abortion question to the states but we shouldn't let the states interfere with health insurance regulations. State regulation is only a good thing if we think it will benefit our side. Forget the original premise of our Constitution.
Palin thinks she's still running for the Miss Alaska Crown and McCain is still fighting Vietnam. His foreign relations mindset is rooted firmly in mid-20th century America.
We seem to accept as truth that any former military officer is automatically a "leader". Often in the military rank implies "leadership" when talent and ability does not. Like all other institutions, other factors can get you a "leadership" position in the military when you don't really qualify for one.
To my mind, McCain has never been a "leader" in the Senate. He's been a rabblerouser. A troublemaker who scares people and gets his say because the rules of the Senate allow it and his compatriots are afraid to deny him. My take has alwasy been that he works across the aisle because he can't get support from his own party.
Faced with an election where he couldn't get sufficient support from his party he chooses, true to his maverick, misfit personna, a total incompetent for VP simply to gain support from his base. That she might bring along a few Independent or Democratic women was merely a plus. We are told that she talks like one of the common folk, that she is just average American homemaker. Now I love the American people, the bright ones, the dumb ones, the successful ones and the homeless and all those in between. But we are often hapless and I look for more in a leader than average.
We are told Sarah is bright but where do we see it? We are told she is an energy expert but where do we see that? We are told she is a forceful debater. Oh yea? Maybe if you change the definition of debate from reasoned dialogue to substantiate premises to rambling campaign slogans couched in colloquialisms then she is at least competitive. Forceful, not so much. Ironically in debating Joe Biden, if word count is the test for winning she beats loquacious Joe.
I find it amusing that she won her hard fought, grandiose Governor of Alaska victory with a grand total of 114,697 votes (48.3%). We have cities/counties in the US where to win as Dogcatcher requires more votes.
More irony, tonight we have a debate in a town hall format, McCain's preference, and he has just launched his hate campaign. A town hall venue does not lend itself to a hate campaign. Standing behind a lectern, taking questions from a moderator, is far better for launching missiles.
Heard today that food stamp distribution is at or above the Hurricane Katrina levels.
the leadership vacuum is generational. clinton is part of it. this is simply the awakening of its systemicity. yes, the boomers will go down in history as creatins bent on destroying the world for their own greedy avarice.
Dr. Reich,
Going as far back as January, I have tried to make the case for serious reduction in our Defense budget ... as our being the world's protector is bankrupting us. We simply can't afford it at the scale of spending we are at and the massive Debt situation we are in. I think we have to get it down to 3%-3.5% of GDP over next 6-8 years. This requires large cuts and not just relying on inflation to cover the economies needed.
Here's my latest summary of Defense expenditures as a % of GDP, and, more interestingly, as a % of the annual 2009 Federal budget ... EXCLUDING Social Security and Medicare as these have their own separate tax inflows and payment outflows.
___________________________________TABLE 25: Defense Expenditures as a % of GDP and as a % of Annual 2009 Fiscal Year Federal Budget Excluding Soc.Security/Medicare
___________________________________PERCENT OF 2009 GDP ($14.4 Tril.)
...........................2009
I. Normal Defense.........$607 Bil.
Expenditures Including
Veterans Benefits..........$80 Bil.
II.Iraq/Afghanistan.......$100 Bil.
III. Interest on..........$143 Bil.
Fed Debt Incurred on
Deficits Caused by Past
Defense Outlays
Sub-Total Defense.........$930 Bil.
Sub-Total Defense.........$787 Bil.
Excl.Interest on Fed Debt
% of GDP...................6.4%
($14.4 Trillion GDP)
% of GDP Excl.Interest.....5.5%
on Fed Debt
-----------------------------------
PERCENT OF FEDERAL 2009 BUDGET
I. Normal Budget..........$607 Bil.
Expenditures
Veterans Benefits..........$80 Bil.
II. Iraq/Afghansitan......$100 Bil.
III. Interest on..........$143 Bil.
Fed Debt Incurred on
Past Defense Outlays
Sub-Total Defense.........$930 Bil.
% of Total Federal.........46%/39%
Outlays EXCLUDING
Soc.Security/Medicare
($2,040 Trillion)
% of Total Federal.........30%/26%
Outlays INCLUDING
Soc.Security/Medicare
($3,070 Trillion)
NOTE:
IV. Social Security......$646 Bil.
Medicare.................$384 Bil.
Total..................$1,030 Tril.
V. All Other Budget....$1,110 Tril.
Outlays
GRAND TOTAL............$3,070 Tril.
2009 Federal Budget Outlays
___________________________________
Source: White House Office of Management & Budget (Interest Cost is Based on Independent Studies and is Conservatively Stated) With Miner Adjustments Noted In Comments
___________________________________
COMMENTS:
This data reveals some startling things.
First next fiscal years Defense expenditures are very HIGH whether look at them as a % of 2009 GDP or as a % of the 2009 Federal Budget.
When including the Interest on our National Debt caused by Deficits that in turn were caused by past high Defense expenditures, Defense Outlays are expected in 2009 to reach an astounding 6.4% of GDP, or a still astounding 5.5% of GDP, excluding Interest on the National Debt.
There's little doubt during Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr.s' terms that many of recurring annual Deficits have been the result of aggressive Defense spending ... Deficits that had to be funded by floating Treasury bonds abroad.
Note that I exclude Soc. Security and Medicare when calculating what percentage of the Fed annual budget goes to Defense ... as this is mixing oranges and apples. It's very distortive as it makes the Defense expenditures appear artifically SMALLER as a part of the total budget and the Human Needs part LARGER.
When one excludes Soc. Security/Medicare, annual Defense expenditure levels are more sharply dramatized at a HIGH 46% of budgeted expenditures vs. 30% excluding these items (declining to 39% and 26%, respectively, if the Interest cost is excluded as part of the Defense budget ... which I happen to think it shouldn't be).
When excluding Soc. Security/Medicare and Defense spending from the 2009 budget, the remaining budget amount is less than $1.2 trillion. I have no idea what cost efficiencies can be made here, but I would guess a realistic possibility may be in 5-6% range, or $60-70 billion. This is an important savings amount but hardly the BIG POT of wasted money McCain constantly harps on. A part of this sum is Earmarks ... at least 30-40% of which includes good job generating projects.
In contrast, there are probably at least $150 billion in annual costs savings achievable in Defense WITHOUT compromisng our national security.
Cost saving ideas include removing troops from Germany, Japan, and possibly South Korea and retire them with exception of using some personnel to expand the Marine Corps ... an Obama idea I'm not knowledgeable as to why it's urgent. Savings are possible in reducing 700 bases around the world and all duplication in military equipment purchases by different services, especially for planes. Another ripe area for huge cost savings is improved control of competitive bidding on Defense contracts. Military purchasing has a long history of enormous cost overruns often under "cost plus" type contracts. Potential savings here are conceivably much, much GREATER than in Earmarks. Other significant savings could definitely come from signing a contract with Iraq that reimburses US for any future backup troop support/training and for US funds invested in Iraq infrastructure that was not damaged or destroyed by American forces.
James Carroll said it well for me today in the International Herald Tribune:
"The annual American Defense budget is at least 10 times that of Russia and China (almost 50% of world military expenditures are made by the US). America has gutted the real worth of its economy by fueling massive over-investment in the military. One needn't be an economist to know that spending money on war planes, missiles, and exotic weapons systems, not to mention combat operations, creates far less social capital (and jobs) than spending on education, bridges, mass transit, new forms of energy ... even the arts."
Mr. Carroll went on to quote President Dwight Eisenhower:
"The cost of one modern heavy bomber," he said in 1953, "is this: A modern brick school in more than 30 cities."
Upon leaving office Eisenhower also said something prophetic to our current financial crisis,
"We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."
Is that not what's happening to us?
In reply to a commenter Frank Thomas. The Defense budget is certainly padded. However, the Defense Department provides millions of jobs. They may not be productive in the sense of an item coming off a line and going into the economy with some value added--hopefully, but Defense accomplishes a lot for many local communities.
Further, the military training and education system is the best in the world. It takes young people from a broken public school system and trains them, many of them, in a skill set to include learning how to work with others, getting to work on time, taking directions and for many, learning success. The military has led the way in equal opportunity where even the most liberal civilian institutions have failed and continue to do so.
So, there is value to the Defense budget to the society and economy as a whole.
I do agree that many of our overseas bases should be reviewed for closing. We should do that before closing bases here in the Homeland. But Congress has never pushed for such a thing. Part of the problem is treaty obligations which supersede the US Constitution in obligation under law. We need to renegotiate treaties.
I do not know how much of our defense industry accounts for our industrial/manufacturing economy, but I suspect it is significant. We do not send those jobs abroad for good reason. We have not hesitated to send civilian related industries overseas.
It might just be that the Defense Budget is the last bastion for Americans to have jobs that pay decently and carry any long term rewards with them.
Gosh darnit! You are so reality-based, and that's why you Dems keep ruining my market high. Y'all are a drag.
Keep the faith in free markets, dude. Good times are a'coming. All we need is McCain and a capital gains tax cut.
Art,
Thanks for your remarks. Wish I could respond more but am a little burned out. On one small point you mentioned, I indeed have mentioned Bush Sr.'s and Clinton tax increases but wasn't aware that Reagan raised taxes. He cancelled his second planned tax cut because Deficits were going through the roof as he also skyrocketed Defense spending. Bush Sr. had to raise taxes because of inherited Reagan Deficits and his own lavish spending. However, the Bush cuts hardly made a dent in the Deficit levels of his term ... they would have been much worse without the cuts, though. This was also a main reason why Clinton had to raise taxes. The national debt at the start of Clinton's Presidency was $4.0 trillion of which $3.1 trillion was created by Reagan and Bush Sr. (see my Table 14).
And then we have had Bush Jr. creating massive Deficits leaving no choice for the next President ... but to increase taxes on the wealthy and close all tax loopholes.
The circle goes around on our Deficit and Debt mania which the Republicans have been masters at ...and the big price is now being paid.
The previous post makes a good point and also leaves something out. The US military is extremely dependent on petroleum. Its ability to play the world's policeman will decline - slowly at first but increasing over the next few years.
As for the crisis ... it's gonna get a lot worse.
- The Big Bailout is a waste of time. The money isn't wasted - yet. Shift it to an investment/jobs program.
- The Fed getting into the short term money market is another step toward national bankruptcy. The Fed cannot stabilize the unstabilizable. Get all the bankers in a room, lock the doors and have them open their books!
- The Fed should use its bank examiners to determine which banks to support and which to let fail. Triage is essential, now.
- The Government HAS to get the Justice Department involved. Crimes were committed and the criminals must pay!
- The Fed should restrict any intermediation to 'plain vanilla' transactions. The 'strategy' (Can I use 'strategy' and 'Fed' in the same paragraph?) is to REDUCE overall lending and REDUCE dependence on short term financing. Is this possible? Of course! Let's get to it! One way is to push up short term rates!
- The Fed and Treasury needs to coordinate with counterparts overseas.
- The Fed and Treasury needs to meet with creditors. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi have the money! Good Grief! Lets get to work! We have a lot to offer the world besides cheap dollars and consumption. Let's start working on the 'big debt overhang' and take the pressure off.
- Shut down the CDS market, yesterday.
- Set up an agency that has the power of eminent domain ... to demolish and return to use abandoned real estate. Use means farms and watershed easement.
- Eliminate the carry trades and currency swaps by taxing all dollar denominated transactions.
- Institute a small nominal tax on all financial- instrument transactions.
- 90% tax on all gambling 'winnings' ... including financial speculations.
- No taxes on any income for people who choose not to participate in Social Security/Medicare.
- Create an ALL CASH - NO INSURANCE ACCEPTED health care plan. Run it out of storefronts. Computerize all records. Hammer the costs down. Get someone from Wal Mart to run it. Put the gatekeepers out of business, including Medicare.
- Raise the SSE retirement age to 76.
- Get Congress to balance the goddamned budget. Use the military to keep Congress in session until this is achieved!
- Declare a state of emergency and start building a new energy/transportation infrastructure. The $700 billion will be the seed money.
- Instruct the illegals to go home or pay up! Send the remittances to Washingon, DC ... C/O the Treasury.
- I can go on and on. Gimme six weeks and I can fix this.
>>>>>>
Well said Steve From Virginia. But while hell freezes over, I am stocking up food, ammunition, water and buying barbed wire and barrier material for my house. Hiding the cash. Getting another bicycle or 2. I may start a rickshaw business though I am on the older side of 50. Ok, 60.
My children, I apologize that you have been robbed of your futures.
Oliversnit,
I'm aware of the military's great educational help to high school underperformers over the decades. My generation witnessed the marvelous benefits of the GI Bill and the ROTC.
Would keep this going at a smaller scale as I see much value in the strategy of having a relatively small, unified troop force with a very high-tech, fast-in-and-fast-out military capability in this new globally connected world.
The gradual transition of parts of the military production industry to the new 21st century American industrial markets like alternate fuels, mass transit, anti-pollution equipment/systems, modernization of sewer systems/bridges, water supply and barrier protections from violent storms (like Katrina) are local job markets not threatened by outsourcing ... similar to some of the military equipment production jobs.
Problem is that many of the vast investments in military equipment simply do not have the same money Multiplier effect as production/service jobs in the new industries mentioned above. We could argue forever what the Multipier difference is, but I believe it's an important factor. To be specific, I've in the past read study results showing that 1$ invested in a tank or missile multiplies 2 times, whereas $1 invested in a nuclear power plant or a state-of-the-art waste disposal plant multiplies at least 3 times. Same applies to road/highway infrastructure and mass transit works.
When I see how the Dutch, as the 3rd most populated country in the world, in record time build magnificent road infratructure and tunnels as well as massive protections against nature's destructive behavior in the form of horrendous Water floods, you realize just how much work there is to be had for those high school underperformers.
But we must get our internal societal Investment priorities right, including improving high school educational quality, and particularly practical, in-depth certified knowledge acquired in excellent trade schools. The fact we seem so reliant on the Army to train people, says much about a failure in our civil society.
The Dutch government is about to approve a 15 year $140 billion investment in making there country even safer from rising ocean water levels over the next 100 years. This will create thousands of jobs.
We've simply got to spur the beginnings of a renewed industrial revolution in America. Failure to do so, will mean even those schooled in the military services will still be in danger of being relegated to Wall Mart jobs.
No other mature nation in the world is investing anywhere near 5-6% of GDP in Defense. Most are in the 1-2% range. This releases vast sums for local investments of long-term value of the type I mentioned above and James Carroll in his recent article.
Of course, the high technology military industries would go forward but on a smaller scale.
I believe we have a 10-12 year Window of Opportunity to focus scarce resources on our own house financed in part by Defense cost savings. My assumption that neither China (particularly) nor India (and to a lesser extent Russia) wants to get in a military spending competition over the next 10-12 years. They simply are overwhelmed with controlling their own industrial revolution, skills education, wealth gaps and environmental POLLUTION.
Focusing on our innovative skills on pollution control knowhow and equipment, for example, could be another one of those major new US industries and China our biggest customer.
We are in a desperate fight now to pay for all these Bailouts while finding ways to stimulate our economy in new directions. This requires costs savings, new taxes and a lot of good all American ingenuity... and to do it in a way we don't go further destructively in Debt... rather Constructively in Debt.
From the last post, red is a jerk and will get his/hers one day. Think of me then, red. I'll be LMAO.
Yep, BushCo has managed to take down the whole world. And we let it happen.
Never again!
I hope.
tt
You will get no argument from me on the poor return to the economy for a military dollar. The problem is breaking the tradition of militarism endemic to our culture now.
You have to admit that the Dutch have a bit more keen interest in their national projects given their relationship to the level of the ocean. It is still hard for most Americans to care about New Orleans on the scale you might want them to.
Interesting times.
i'm just elated that this is happening now, while still mister bush is in the office. he can't blame anybody now...
What you write makes me wonder. When Obama steps into his role as President Elect on November 5th, the world will be looking to him for leadership, since it is so sorely lacking. He will have enormous power, perhaps even have sway within the Bush administration, even though his presidency has not yet begun.
For the last post:
"Retirement Savings Lose $2 Trillion in 15 Months"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703358.html?hpid=topnews
Old folks will never live long enough to make up the loss.
For this post:
"6 Die Family murder-suicide Los Angeles"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZciOn5yt28
This is only the beginning. Here comes the 1930's again thanks to the deregulating McBush and BushCo.
tt
We need a "get out of jail free"
card now because of the psychology
of this train-wreck.
And here it is:
(1) Highest tax bracket up to 41%
(2) $100 per week tax cut for the
rest of us.
Wouldn't that be re-assuring?
Now that deals with the root-cause
of all this.
And it wouldn't add to the deficit
either.
If I were the dems. . . .
(1)I would pass that bill in the
House.
(2)Run commercials against EVERY
Repub who voted against it.
(3)Try to pass it in the Senate.
(4)And run commercials against
EVERY repub who voted against
stopping the filibuster.
Who then wears the goat-horns?
Art,
No doubt you saw my typing mistakes in last post to you about tax increases. Sorry.
I should have said Bush Sr. tax increases a couple of times rather than Bush Sr. tax cuts... am writing too quickly as if to keep pace with the financial meltdown. It's a losing proposition.
Dr. Reich,
Job loss, threat of foreclosure, the squeeze of debt, rising cost of living, pension insecurity ... are awakening us to fact that while concern with prudent use of money is critical, perhaps ultimately it's not just money that safeguards us against dangerous events on this earth.
Human inventiveness grounded in an awareness of our vulnerabilities and excesses, not money, is what truly protects us and fosters mutual trust.
Innovation based on a systemic equitable accumulation of wealth is the Express Train the new Administration has to get our nation traveling on ... to bring us to a more up-to-date, stable economic model and industrial order over the next decade.
It's a tragic shame we have to have an extreme economic crisis to discover what matters most in our struggles to co-exist and progress together on this finite planet.
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
P.S. Recommend reading yesterday's NY Times articles by David Brooks and Paul Kennedy who touch more deeply and in their own ways on the theme I mention above.
To Jonathan Best,
I agree that those who made bad loans should be investigated and the guilty prosecuted.
It is not reasonable to believe that such a large number of homeowners made such bad decisions without having received universally unethical advice.
The massive numbers of loan defaults in my neighborhood have all been young families, who were sold an unsustainable dream.
Both the builder's agent and my own Realtor tried to strong arm me into a lot more house than I could afford, paid for by an interest only balloon mortgage. I knew better.
The reason I'm willing to support homeowners who made a bad decision is that every house that goes on the market at foreclosure prices, cheapens my own. I've lost 33% of my equity, at least on paper.
I don't believe we should buy homeowners out and let them move on, I believe their lenders should be made to behave responsibly and refinance their mortgages over longer terms.
Not one of my neighbors wanted to go through foreclosure. One young man told me how hard he'd tried to renegotiate, and was told by his bank they didn't care that he now had the money to catch up his four back payments, they wanted another $8,000 in "legal fees", for having sent him four form letters.
I want both the lenders and homeowners held accountable for the deal they made. Just like you and me.
Giving homeowners no option other than to walk away from the debt does nothing to solve the problem.
tiptoe:
Old folks will never live long enough to make up the loss.
That could be considered the good news.
I'm big on cause and effect. Conventional wisdom would have it that McCain's slide began with the unfolding economic crisis.
If we look closely could it not be better aligned with the demise of Carly Fiorina as a spokesperson?
Frank:
Errors not a problem.
We are all aware that brilliant minds often race faster than typing fingers.
Amusement park operators would do well to watch the stock market today when designing their next roller coaster.
Republicans like to blame this global financial crisis on average American home owners and not all of the business layers that put these homeowners in a bad position. They forget about:
• predatory practices (no down payment, interest only, adjustables, etc.)
• conflicts of interest (appraisers and lenders hyping values)
• lack of regulation (banking and mortgage industry)
• fiscal policy of historically low lending rates (Fed, Freddy & Fanny, et al.)
• leverage of 30+ times assets across investment banking industry (dumb investment bankers)
• the Ponzi scheme that relied on increasing asset values (dumb investment bankers)
• corporate management greed that skimmed billions from investment bank balance sheets (dumb investment bankers)
• lack of an energy policy to control gas and food prices (forcing families to further struggle with inflation)
• an unjustified war that diverted billions away from a better America, fighting the wrong enemies
• a bipartisan congress controlled by lobbyist that can’t define a health care system or control health care costs in this country
• failed tax codes that force companies to go offshore resulting in fewer job opportunities
• failed immigration policy that has millions on our social support systems and many working under the table not paying taxes
Yea, it was that young family with both parents working that wanted to move into a nice neighborhood for their children to have a nice school as they work for the American dream of having a decent living and family life.
Blame it on the middle class and the poor.
Dr Reich....You and Newt Gingrich were fantastic last night at the Oakland Speaker Series. I came away incredibly impressed and hopeful that this same intellectual and civil discussion may actually happen in Washington some day. Bravo!
Dear Dr. Reich, The emission of Credit default swaps( CDS')is being blamed for the financial crisis that stems from the sub-prime mortgage defaults, but I haven't seen absolute numbers re the total amount of outstanding US sub-primes and how much is estimated still to default.
Second: what amount of irreceivable credits do US institutions still hold?
Third: What amount of these instruments do Pension Funds hold?
Four: What is the estimated loss to US GNP going to be?
Thank you, SergeL.
how much waqs sold to foreigners?
Michael Bacher:
I did not attend the Oakland Speaker Series last night, distance is always such a delimiter.
I would have no doubt that Dr. Reich did well. What I do marvel at is Newt. When he discards his maniacal conservative's hat he can be bright, resourceful and full of reasoned solutions. When not, he becomes worse than Rush Limbaugh.
Will someone posit any sort of reason why we will not see total collapse? If not now, then later? How do we wind up with 11 Trillion in outlying debt with only a 14 Trillion GDP (declining) and not collapse. And I mean collapse. Systems cease to function. The guy at the water purification plant stops going to work because he isn't getting paid or his money is worthless or the chemicals are not there to put into the water etc.
I don't want to hear this McCain mantra about Americans being hard working types. I want to hear a good reason why we should not expect a collapse of basic systems.
oliversnit,
To be honest, when you do the math it's hard to picture us not having an economic collapse.
Consumer debt is at a record high, wages have not been increasing over the years, savings are negative for the first time in history. On top of this bad picture, the only investment many of Americans have, their homes, have lost up to 50% in value in some states and jobs are being lost at a fast pace.
Even if this rescue plan works to restore confidence, what happens to the other part of this equation? There is a gaping hole in our economy that the Fed nor Treasury can fill. A collapse is eminent.
Q1. Why isn't the financial crisis on Wall Street palpable on Main Street? Although financiers, journalists and politicians have been warning of a major financial crisis, as big as the Great Depression, since August 2007 (some economists have been warning for several years now), normal economic activity seems unaffected, or at least the common man does not seems to feel any impending doom. Why is this so?
A. To a large extent, the current financial crisis does not involve the working capital of the American economy. The funds available with the commercial banks, community credit unions and credit card companies have been sufficient to keep business investments, payrolls and consumer spending going on in the near-term. Sure enough, the persistent gloomy predictions on the economy seen in the newspapers and television channels, throughout the year 2008, would have had a negative effect on the confidence of the consumers and the business entrepreneurs. This would have led to cutbacks in production plans, tightening of credit, mark-down of inventories and penny-pinching of family budgets. But, on the whole, the real economy has shown unexpected and prolonged resilience. No doubt the action of the US Federal Reserve Bank to pump over one trillion dollars into the economy for over-night and short-term lending has also eased the flow of money. But, the main reason for the disconnect between Main Street and Wall Street is that the financial crisis is concerned with the accumulated capital (as opposed to working capital) of the American economy.
The term accumulated capital refers to the capital held by (i) pension funds which hold the life-time savings of Americans, (ii) reserve funds which hold the accumulated profits of large corporations and private companies, (iii) mutual funds and money-market funds, which hold savings of individuals that are in excess of mandatory life-time savings like social security, and are more freely invested in the markets expecting a better return than from treasury bonds, (iv) endowment funds, held by private trusts, which are collected through charities and donations, (v) hedge funds and private equity, (vi) any other entity that holds capital that has accrued through the savings of individuals, or the profits of private organizations, or the surplus of state, local and federal governments, and is not needed as immediate investment for the day-to-day functioning of the economy.
To provide a perspective on accumulated capital, one may note that the financial wealth in the American economy is estimated to be $40 trillion (ref: Wall Street Journal Oct 1, 2008 article by Professor Edmund Phelps). Wikipedia states that the world-wide value of all pension funds are in excess of $20 trillion; mutual funds total more than $26 trillion. Please note that it is possible that some of the pension funds are invested in mutual funds. Also, I am not aware of what is the exact total sizes of pension funds, mutual funds and other constituents of accumulated capital within America per se, but I would assume that they add up at least to $10 trillion (which, I suppose, is included in the $40 trillion quoted above). In additions, hedge funds have about $1.5 trillion under their management totally, all of which is investments from individuals of high net worth.
Q2. Aren't saving for retirement, insurance and pension systems old phenomena? Why did they bring down Wall Street this time?
A. Yes, pension and insurance systems were already well-developed in the industrial economies of 19th century Europe. There are two major differences this time around. Demographically, the senior citizens of 19th century Europe retained close ties to the younger generations because of genetic, ethnic and racial homogeneity. As a result, the pension amounts received by the retired people were substantially supplemented by contributions from inter-generational and intra-family transfers of wealth. If we go back a hundred or more years, old people lived with their families and helped to bring up their grandchildren. Moreover, hereditary transfer of wealth was still as important as creation of new wealth in the industrial economies of the 19th century. These factors served as economic incentives for the working adult population to provide old-age care for their parents, which supplemented the parents' income from pension. The second difference is that the dichotomy between an empire and a democracy was far more prominent among the nations of 19th century Europe. People felt assured that the social infrastructure provided by an empire would safeguard their standard of living through their old age. Examples of the social infrastructure of an empire during 19th century Europe are the establishment of universal heath care, the administration of the pension and life insurance systems, and subsidized public transport and postal systems. As an aside, it may also be mentioned here that the development of the modern university was pioneered in Germany during the 19th century.
Thus the fundamental reason for the current financial crisis is the time value of money. To maintain the standard of living that people who are close to retirement or have already retired would expect, the income from their pensions have to be substantially larger, in view of the reasons discussed above, than what a senior citizen in 19th century Europe would have received, even after adjusting for inflation and GDP growth. This enhanced pension income would have to come from interest on investments, because the senior citizens who receive them could not possibly compensate for this income with active work. Thus the managers of pension funds found it imperative to look for high returns on their investments. At the same time, since these funds were so huge and so critical to the lives of many millions of people, their investment strategy had to exercise the utmost caution. Diversification served as the compromise in this situation. The managers of these huge funds would invest the major part of their portfolio safely, for example, in treasury securities. A smaller part would be put under the stewardship of the Wall Street firms for more risky investments in the expectation of high returns. Over a period of two or three decades, such unreasonable expectations on Wall Street to keep generating high returns on capital took its toll.
Q3. How exactly did unreasonable expectations bring down Wall Street?
A. When one refers to Wall Street, it is important to keep two types of people in mind. The first type is the senior executives who have gained their credentials through many years of involvement in the traditional roles of investment banking, beginning in the 1950s or later. The conventional wisdom among these people places a lot of importance on trust-worthiness, reputation, people-skills and management techniques as the path to career-success. Advising industrial firms in mergers & acquisitions, underwriting the issuance of company stocks and bonds to the public, helping the government finance a deficit through the purchase of treasury securities for their clients, and trading in securities on behalf of their clients were the main activities of Wall Street firms before the 90s. We note that all these activities required trust-worthiness primarily, and moreover they didn't require much of the firms' own capital. The second type is the smart, innovative PhDs who have arrived on Wall Street starting from the 1980s. These people have helped build the massive computational infrastructure on Wall Street along with the development of financial innovation. Their most valued skills are quantitative and they are quite tech-savvy. On the downside, many of the senior executives making up the first type have come to exercise a lot of political influence which could be illegitimate sometimes. For their part, the tech-savvy 'quants' of the second type have grown-up with post-modern, anti-heroic sensibilities that has no use for honor or reputation, as defined conventionally. However, in spite of their differing attitudes towards reputation and the 'word on the street', when it comes to compensation, both the types would like to cash in on their professional worth right away with large bonuses.
The advent of computers transformed the industrial economy into an information-based economy. This meant that smart people who could devise intelligent strategies to take quick advantage of the flow of information could expect to make large profits, especially from financial investments. Thus, starting in the early 80s, Wall Street investment banks began to make huge profits, aided by their large investments in computers and their new army of smart PhDs. Over the course of the 80s and 90s, the capital in the 'bulge-bracket' investment banks grew from a few tens of millions to one or two dozen billions dollars. The capital in the smaller investment banks and hedge funds on Wall Street produced similar returns. Thus Wall Street turned into a sleek and mean money-making machine. It was for its massive returns on capital that the managers of pension funds and other sources of accumulated capital had been turning steadily to Wall Street. The boom in the technology stocks during the 90s turned the trickle of capital to Wall Street from these fund-managers into a flood. Now, as history would have it, the technology sector went bust in 2000 with the NASDAQ composite index losing more than 60% of its value between 2000 and 2003. This drastic loss of wealth exposed an inability of modern finance theory to figure out how to determine the proper economic value of technological progress. There was a big question about how Wall Street could continue to churn out its massive profits. It was in this scenario, that the smart PhDs on Wall Street stumbled on the great innovation to direct the huge sources of accumulated capital in America and the rest of the world towards solving the long-term demographic incongruities in America. This was how Wall Street came to trade in mortgage-backed securities. In the process, they found a way to keep the money-machine that is Wall Street hum along smoothly for another 8 years.
Now, the smart PhDs that form the second type came up with a lot of innovations to carefully control the risk involved in turning a housing mortgage loan into a hierarchy of claims on payments, called tranches. For their part, the senior executives that form the first type, who had built up a reputation for trust-worthiness over several decades, could borrow money from the pension funds and other sources at leverage ratios of 25 to 30 -- far in excess of the reserve ratios expected from the commercial banks under the regulations of the Glass-Steagal act. This unlikely marriage of old wise-heads and smart innovators on Wall Street was sanctified by the Federal Reserve which kept interest rates low to avoid a slowdown in economic activity, given the tragedy of 9/11. However, from 2007 onwards, cracks in the marriage began to appear one by one, and it became apparent that the party had gone on too long. The smart PhDs had not take into account that the process of securitization separates the property rights on mortgaged homes from the investments on mortgage securities. The home-owner lives under the threat of foreclosure. So, his/her property rights are compromised. The security-owner bears liquidity risk and credit risk. So, his/her income is uncertain. It is plausible that left to themselves the smart PhDs would have, in due course of time, overcome their error by devising a market-based solution that would mutually alleviate the grievances of the home-owner and the security-owner. However, the Wall Street money-machine was on high-gear by then, and it was not designed to slowdown for any eventuality. The senior executives, who were more comfortable with people-to-people communications rather than arcane finance theory, ran to their long-established connections in the political establishment and the media. Moreover, these senior executives decided to play smart. They used the very same unreasonable expectations that society had placed on Wall Street as a bargaining chip to hold society to ransom. Their constant chants were "Bail-out Wall Street, for otherwise there is the 'systemic risk' of a financial meltdown". "It's going to be armageddon, so raise FDIC insurance to $ one million" (CNBC's Jim Cramer). "We're going to see a repeat of the Great Depression's bank runs". Unfortunately, the long sage of bail-outs starting with Bear Stearns in March 2008, then Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG in September 2008 and finally the $700 billion bill passed now have not stemmed the financial crisis, and the reputation of Wall Street is in tatters. Thus Wall Street was brought down by unreasonable expectations.
Q4. So what about the billions of losses due to mark-to-market accounting rule? Could these losses lead to financial meltdown? Also, why is de-leveraging cited as a reason for the huge losses? Why is re-capitalization of the banks necessary?
A. In view of the explanations above, it is far simpler to think of the situation as follows. The 'bulge-bracket' Wall Street investment banks (that have now been converted into bank-holding companies or have gone bankrupt) had about $20 to $30 billion of capital each. Wall Street was so used to annual returns of 20% or more on capital before the collapse of the technology sector in 2000. To maintain this high rate of return after 2000, the investment banks resorted to leverage ratios of 25 to 30 in their investments on mortgage securities. This means that each of them borrowed about $750 to $900 billion from the pension funds and other sources. The reader might ask what is the collateral for this borrowing? The investment banks would purchase mortgage securities with this borrowing and submit these same mortgage securities as collateral to the pension funds. The payments received from the home-owners on these mortgage securities would be used to first pay the interest on the borrowings from the pension funds, and the rest would be the profits of the investment bank. In view of the leverage ratio of 25 to 30, a net difference of only about 0.8% in the interest rate received from the home-owner and the interest rate paid to the pension funds would ensure a rate of return of 20% or more for the investment bank. However, the problem with this scheme is that the pension funds only had the trust-worthiness of the investment bankers and the mortgage securities as assurance against the money they lent out. Of course, they also had the enticement that only the Wall Street money-machine could provide them the rate of return adequate to keep up with their large pension payments to senior citizens.
With a fall in the house prices, there would be a corresponding fall in the mortgage securities due to the risk of foreclosures. Moreover, these mortgage securities were structured in such a way that foreclosures of mortgaged homes would be reflected in increasing degrees as one went lower down the tranches. Thus the lowest tranches would lose value very quickly in the event of a fall in house prices. So, the pension funds and mutual funds would need to assess the value of the mortgage securities in their accounting books periodically, say once every quarter, to safeguard their interests. For this, they would need refer to the market value of these securities (mark-to-market), and to request the investment bank to replenish the collateral, if there is a drop in the market value of the mortgage securities. Unfortunately, since the leverage was so high, an average drop of 3% in the market value of the mortgage securities could mean that after the pension fund's collateral was replenished, the whole amount of the capital of the investment bank ($20 to $30 billion) would have to be replaced. This was what led to the bankruptcy of some of the large investment banks. The story with smaller investment banks and the hedge funds is similar. Now, if the pension funds simply didn't insist on mark-to-market accounting, then the investment banks would receive regular payments on the mortgage securities from the home-owners. Over time, the pension funds would recover the full amount of their investment along with the rate of interest that the they had expected, with the only risk being that of foreclosures. There would be no risk that the prices of the mortgage securities would fall due to illiquidity in the markets. Thus financial meltdown would be avoided, with or without the existence of the Wall Street firms.
However, this argument turned out to be the Achilles' heel of the investment banks. Working in their old trust-based mentality, they thought they could ride through this financial crisis if they simply convinced their creditors to rescind the mark-to-market rule and give them more time. They didn't find it necessary to sell off the risky mortgage securities and cut their losses, nor were they seriously looking to raise new capital. And they were caught by surprise when the end came. For the same reasons cited above, the investment banks and hedge funds that survived found that their capital had been seriously eroded by this need to replenish their creditors' collateral. Hence the banks need to be re-capitalized. However, it is not clear that the government should do this re-capitalization through its $700 billion bill. Moreover, the surviving investment banks and hedge funds have realized that such high leverage ratios are not sustainable. So they would like to sell off the mortgage security and pay off some of their borrowings to the pension funds. But since they are all looking to sell off in the short-term, the prices of the mortgage securities are lower, which again requires further de-leveraging. This phenomenon is called the 'paradox of de-leveraging'. However, the real economy on Main Street need not wait for Wall Street to de-leverage. As I mentioned above, the financial meltdown would be avoided with or without the existence of the Wall Street firms. De-leveraging is solely Wall Street's problem, and it is highly unprofessional for Wall Street executives to keep sending out predictions of impending doom in the media.
Q5. Why have the markets for mortgage securities continued to remain illiquid?
A. The main reason that the markets for mortgage securities have been illiquid for a prolonged period of time is that the home-owner who is the only party with a credible and serious interest as a buyer of the mortgage securities has been shut out of the market. Instead of directly involving the home-owner, Wall Street has been peddling bizarre theories of risk management that has resulted in this huge mis-allocation of this $700 billion recently. By providing the information for a direct match-up of the home-owners on Main Street and the security-owners on Wall Street, the government could implement a low-cost eBay-type bidding system that would enable the home-owners to bid for the various tranches in the mortgage securities issued on their homes -- those tranches that the banks want to get rid of. This way the home-owners stand to benefit from a reduction in their debt obligations. The security-owners gets a floor on the prices of the mortgage securities and because of the decent prices, their capital gets replenished. Moreover, the home-owners' debt reduction can be structured in a way that encourages good behavior, and timely re-payment of the rest of the mortgage loan. This process would cost less than $1 billion for the government and achieves the objectives of liquidity and re-capitalization stated in the $700 billion bill. In addition, this direct match-up plan reduces foreclosures by reducing the home-owner's debt. Professor Martin Feldstein has also proposed a plan to reduce foreclosures. In his plan the government re-negotiates the home-owners' loans to provide debt reduction through low-interest loans, in return for enhanced claims on the home-owner. In my plan, the government's role is solely to provide reliable information.
Q6. What exactly is this great innovation of directing accumulated capital towards solving demographic problems that Wall Street has achieved?
A. Throughout history poor people have lived in subsistence conditions. Due to shorter life expectations than exist today, a poor man would have had to work for a living all his life. As mentioned above, the industrial economies of the 19th century Europe enabled the rise of a broad middle class with the means of hereditary wealth transfer and of supporting retired lifestyles. Contemporary times have raised the possibility that this access to wealth of a middle class standard could be further broadened to the whole of the population. Over the course of the 20th century, home-ownership had come to be a fundamental middle class aspiration throughout the world. In his "Lectures on Economic Growth", Professor Robert Lucas cites the travails of the characters in Sir V. S. Naipaul's "A House for Mr. Biswas" as the model for growth and development. Of course, I should also mention that Professor Lucas is more directly concerned with developing human capital rather than with home-ownership in his lectures quoted above.
Historically, massive accumulations of capital that are unrequited, have always been problematic. In addition, accumulation of capital has also resulted in the military-industrial complex. Professor Jeffry Frieden's "Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century" is an excellent narration of how promises of global capitalism at the beginning of the 20th century quickly unraveled into the two World Wars. Thus matching the culturally and racially homogeneous retirement age population with the more diverse and younger home-owner population finds a gainful investment for the accumulated capital.
Q7. If Wall Street has been achieving all these great feats, where did it go wrong?
A. When concerns about the mortgage securities surfaced last year, many Wall Street investment firms claimed to be safe because they had not invested in sub-prime mortgages. This created a fear psychosis whence people began to consider these sub-prime mortgages as 'toxic'. The prime mortgage is one which meets the eligibility criterion for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This includes a 20% down payment and good credit score. Those mortgages that don't meet this criterion were called sub-prime. Gradually, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also began to deal with these sub-prime mortgages. So, it didn't make sense to be denigrating sub-prime mortgages. Wall Street wasted a lot of time in late 2007 and early 2008 trying to discredit the sub-prime mortgages. In the modern economy, every single participant is beset with economic insecurity. So, the distinction between the prime and the sub-prime borrower, while it exists, is not really that great. Moreover, it is the sub-prime borrower who stands to gain the most by way of the development of human capital that Professor Lucas discusses in his "Lectures on Economic Growth". So, the sub-prime borrower would be the most willing, in the long-term, to highly value the inter-generational trade of wealth to support the senior citizens. Thus to discredit the sub-prime borrower has been the single major mistake that led to the financial crisis on Wall Street.
I'm sorry. It makes little difference who shot Jack or Jill, they are just as dead. This is like 9/11 at the WTC. Most of us are in the first level; we only know something really bad has happened up top somewhere. The big guys know (what does Bernanke's personal financial plan look like?) more but either are not saying or maybe they really do not get it. But here we are on the first floor. I am betting we are going to see the same results as the WTC. The question is, where to run to.
Dear Robert,
You sound very negative and I agree that there are lots of reasons for it.
I agree that we cannot expect much from the current government, partly because they got us into this mess (both parties) and partly because they are on their way out. I am sure there are lots of people with good ideas on how to best solve the mortgage crisis. What we need to do is to pool those ideas (using blogs like this), combine the best parts and get a few universities to run a series of economic models on a series of factor permutations to find out what the effects are or various responses. That takes only days to weeks for a few good people.
Of course we always have limited data and have to make assumptions. Too bad, as long as those assumptions are reasonable and they are clearly stated / communicated it is still the best option. This would allow us to at least weed out clearly worse options.
We cannot expect that from politicians, they have no clue, or their appointed staff, like Paulson, who are only busy with “firefighting”.
It has to come from the rest of us to sort out the best ideas and “sell” them to the politicians, by mass targeting them using the internet.
If we don’t do it, guess what, the mass targeting of politician will still take place, but only with untested / modeled (and statistically likely) bad ideas floating up.
I like Martin Feldstein’s plan, albeit with some important modifications (see my fresh blog: http://mortgagecrisisandpolitics.blogspot.com/ ), but there must be more ideas. Are there websites where brainstorming ideas are combined?
If so, let me know.
Regards,
Vincent Dert
oliversnit:
Suffice it to ask, what is the benefit of hearing that the sky is falling? There are many of us who love to be able to say, I told you so.
If it is there is no place to hide then all your savings will do is afford you the opportunity to test whether you can take it with you.
Times are tough and they may get tougher but it does little good to dwell on it. The current credit crunch is due to that kind of worrying. Banks cannot continue to hold back on lending because they have no other way of creating earnings. At some point, likely sooner rather than later, they have to begin to take risks again and loosen credit to jump start the economy.
Perhaps the biggest lesson to be learned in all this is that monetary policy has limits. Apparently at panic points more money and more liquidity, alone, does not stem the bleeding.
European countries are already commencing nationalization as a means of countering the mood. In the US we have dumb ideological hurdles to following these examples. Maybe the solutions are not Valhallic in the long term but no one intends for them to last in the long term.
Governments are not like families or businesses no matter how hard conservative BS wants to portray them as such. In reality government borrowing is unsecured. There are no legal claims to tangible property available to lenders. There are no receivership options available to creditors. Default would not be without peril but in that worst of cases Wen Jiabao will not end up owning your home.
If your scenario begins to take shape the government will have to take over businesses beyond banks. This may not be flat screen TV manufacturers, at first, but will certainly start with water purification plants. You will also find that many citizens in all parts of the world working in critical professions, providing water, power, police protection, trash services, etc. will continue working even without paychecks. What else do they have to do? They can go hunting for food on the weekends.
Should complete collapse appear inevitable it is highly likely that some of the Middle Eastern wealth may be freed up to help. Collective global efforts, already commencing, will be brought to bear. When we were pretty much a standalone economy the rest of the world might have sat back and enjoyed watching us falter. Today if we fail most of the whole world fails. The entire global economy goes up in flames.
We have faced Armageddons before and through optimism, innovation and brilliant leaders we have overcome. That is why this election becomes even more important. The beauty of wise leadership, and we as the rest of the world have an ample supply, is that leaders don't throw in the towel. Their attempted solutions may fail but they will keep coming back with more until one works or we just wear down the evils of the market.
During the Great Depression my father made a decent living selling gas appliances. For him to make that living someone had to be buying them and those someones had to have earnings to spend.
Pandering to pessimistic despair will only intensify the problem. America's greatest virtue has always been optimism. This does not mean irresponsible behavior but just a belief that if we stay calm and optimistic and pull together we can overcome all odds.
I am often struck by the pundits favorite question to McCain and Obama; what of your programs will you have to forego given the current state of the economy? Politically, the answer is none. Realistically, the answer is similar. I know our debt is astronomical but fiscal policy will be critical to assisting in turning this around. Putting people back to work, even if in WPA programs, will be paramount to maintain optimism and keep incomes flowing. Seldom mentioned is the fact that Obama's health care reform provides businesses the opportunity to ease the burden of health care with little or no pain to those businesses. On the front end it may cost the government an investment but in the long term both business and consumers will benefit. Spending deficit money on infrastructure and alternative fuels will increase debt but should result in positive payback to our economy.
As is often the case, and some have mentioned here, in the midst of the darkest night a light is much easier to see.
When you see people disappearing leaving only a pile of clothes then you can start worrying.
What have you got against parakeets? The ones I had were incredibly smarter than George Bush?
The Fiat Money system that we run on is an illusion that makes us all losers -- except the ultra-elite rulers of the world. We are deluded to think that things will get better. They will for sure continue -- since this sort of 'reality' is built into the debt system of money.
徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,
Post a Comment
<< Home