Sorry!! The article you are trying to read is not available now.
Thank you very much;
you're only a step away from
downloading your reports.

How Politics Caused Fiscal Disaster

By

And how central banks threaten prosperity by printing money backed by nothing.

PrintPRINT
Last election, 85% of the American people were against the abomination called TARP. But on that central issue, the Republican standard bearer went radio silent while chattering endlessly about appropriations earmarks. But taken together, those 8,000 earmarks add-up to just 15 hours of annual Federal spending. The needless bailout of Wall Street engineered by Bubbles and the Henry "Hammer" Paulson, by contrast, destroyed forever any residual will to control spending that remained on Capitol Hill.

So now there are no fiscal rules. None. Cash for clunkers -- and for pig farmers, homebuilders, real estate speculators, and GE's (GE) green machines, too -- will never stop flowing. Eventually -- perhaps soon -- there will be more Treasury bonds to sell than the world's shrinking base of dollar holders can possibly absorb.

Then the Big Panic will come. In the event, some will look back and wonder why we destroyed our capacity for fiscal governance in order to save the likes of AIG (AIG), Citibank (C), and especially Goldman during the comparatively minor disorder of September '08. Certainly, the so-called "systemic risk" will have been exposed for the cover story it was.

None of AIG's alleged CDS time bomb, for example, really mattered. The European banks who were wrapping dodgy assets with AIG's bogus AAA cover would have gotten bailed out by their own socialist governments, anyway. For Goldman, the loss would have meant six months of bonus accruals. For the big insured US depositories, losses would have meant their Sheila-gram would have come sooner, rather than later.

Then there's the specious claim that the money market funds would have come unglued. Well, they did, and investors in the largest of them, the Reserve Primary Fund, appear to be getting about 98 cents on the dollar -- the Lehman losses and all

The question thus presents itself: Did a few thousand institutional money managers who should have been watching out for their own risk -- especially the kind which accompanied black box enhanced yield -- really need to be spared even two cents of loss?

Here, it's said that it wasn't the two cents of money fund loss but the $2 trillion of commercial paper it funded which was the real systemic risk -- even down to the specter of skipped payrolls, had the paper been unable to roll.
No positions in stocks mentioned.

The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PrintPRINT
 
Featured Videos

WHAT'S POPULAR IN THE VILLE