CBS:

In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.

The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us (One of the biggest independent news sites) Web site "not to disclose the existence of this request" unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

Have we declared victory on health insurance reform yet? I confess I don't keep up with the access bloggers as much as I should, so maybe I didn't get the memo. Anyhow, the Versailles consensus that declaring victory is distinctly preferable to achieving it works for finance, too. James Kwok:

Gillian Tett has an article criticizing the idea that CoCos — contingent convertible bonds — will solve the “too big to fail” problem. ...

Contingent convertible bonds, a.k.a. contingent capital, are the latest fad to hit the optimistic technocracy in Washington and London. A contingent convertible bond is a bond that a bank sells during ordinary times, but that converts into equity when things turn bad, with “bad” defined by some trigger conditions, such as capital falling below a predetermined level. In theory, this means that banks can have the best of both worlds. They can go out and borrow more money today, increasing leverage and profits (which is what they want). But when the crisis hits, the debt will convert into equity; that will dilute existing shareholders, but more importantly it means the debt does not have to be paid back, providing an instant boost to the bank’s capital cushion. In other words, banks can have the additional safety margin as if they had raised more equity today, but without having to raise the equity.

Sounds ideal! Where do I sign up?

Violet today reiterates the warning signs that led us to a day where House Democrats voted through a health insurance reform bill that effectively bans abortion, and reminds us what we need to do:

Word to the wise, girls: if a guy calls you a filthy cunt or a whiny bitch, if he says Hillary Clinton is a hag from hell, if he calls her supporters the dry pussy brigade, if he talks about punish-raping the rebels, this guy is not a feminist. Which means that he doesn’t really give a shit about women’s rights. Which means that his commitment to your reproductive freedom is about as firm as a tomato seed. Which means he will sell you out. In a god. damn. heartbeat....

As a testiment to Delaware's secrecy, I barely knew it existed.

Reuters:

Move over Switzerland. The tiny state of Delaware beats the Alpine country in a contest for the most secretive financial jurisdiction, a tax justice rights group said on Saturday.

The United States, led by the eastern seaboard state, took in $2.6 trillion in deposits from non-resident corporations and individuals in 2007, according to a survey of financial jurisdictions analyzed by the Tax Justice Network.

Mel Watt, from NC's 12th district, is leading the charge this time. Coincidentally, I'm sure, Bank of America headquarters is also in his district.

If you disagree with this, I suggest you let Mr. Watt, and anyone who has not cosponsored this bill know.

Bloomberg:

Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who has called for an end to the Federal Reserve, said legislation he introduced to audit monetary policy has been “gutted” while moving toward a possible vote in the Democratic-controlled House.

Daily Mail:

A secret court is seizing the assets of thousands of elderly and mentally impaired people and turning control of their lives over to the State - against the wishes of their relatives.

The draconian measures are being imposed by the little-known Court of Protection, set up two years ago to act in the interests of people suffering from Alzheimer's or other mental incapacity.

The court hears about 23,000 cases a year - always in private - involving people deemed unable to take their own decisions. Using far-reaching powers, the court has so far taken control of more than £3.2billion of assets.

Reuters:

On the auction block in Detroit: almost 9,000 homes and lots in various states of abandonment and decay from the tidy owner-occupied to the burned-out shell claimed by squatters.

Taken together, the properties seized by tax collectors for arrears and put up for sale last week represented an area the size of New York’s Central Park. Total vacant land in Detroit now occupies an area almost the size of Boston, according to a Detroit Free Press estimate.

Interfluidity. The wind up:

I have my own normative view of "the great moderation" [see here] and it is not positive.... First, in exchange for apparent stability, the central-bank-backstopped "great moderation" has rendered asset prices unreliable as guides to real investment. I think the United States has made terrible aggregate investment decisions over the last 30 years, and will continue to do so as long as a "ride the bubble then hide in banks" strategy pays off. ... Second, by relying on credit rather than wages to fund middle-class consumption, the moderation dynamic causes great harm in the form of stress from unwanted financial risk, loss of freedom to pursue nonremunerative activities, and unnecessary catastrophes for isolated families. Finally, maintaining the dynamic requires active use of policy instruments to sustain an inequitable distribution of wealth and income in a manner that I view as unjust.

And, in two sentences, the pitch:

In "good times", central bankers actively suppress the median wage (while applauding increases in the mean wages driven by the upper tail). During the reset phase, policymakers bail out creditors.

Sure feels like that to me, looking back at the last 30 years.

And now, the follow through.

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

Issues of financial reform and regulation can be intimidating to laymen (this layman anyway) because of its insanely complex nature. It is easy to imagine the system as a big Jenga tower, and moving one piece might cause the whole thing to come crashing down. No one wants to be seen as inadvertently - but earnestly! - advocating for a ruinous policy. Of course, that means the opposite extreme is then in play: Turning into Hamlet and endlessly agonizing over what to do at the expense of actually doing something. Not to mention the fact that, not to put too fine a point on it, wide swaths of our leadership has for years now been deliberately advocating ruinous policies both at home and abroad. That should certainly make those of us in the unwashed masses comfortable with forcefully advocating what seems reasonable based on available data. It's not as though we could screw it up any worse.

Still, it would be nice to have a rule of thumb, compass point or guiding principle to go by. Having been a reasonably close observer of the meltdown and its aftermath, here is one I have come up with: It is necessary (but not sufficient) that any proposal be strenuously opposed by Goldman Sachs (GS). In a largely protected industry Goldman appears to be the closest thing to untouchable as we have. It is in Matt Taibbi's already-legendary description "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." It has installed a revolving door between the highest levels of the government and its board room, enjoys privileged lines of communication with the Treasury secretary exceeding even that of our closest allies, was happily positioned as a key competitor died, then days later benefited as a key debtor was drenched in cash (Yves Smith called it a "massive backdoor subsidy to the likes of Goldman"), and as it happens was the second largest contributor to the president in the 2008 election cycle. More so than any other player in financial services, GS always seems to be nearby when bad things happen.

Elliott Spitzer:

The first structural issue that Phil Angelides and his colleagues should investigate is what corporate boards knew about the state of corporations they governed and why they did so little to protect them. ... Tracing the information flow will also permit us to understand whether the risk analysis was wrong from its inception, ignored by those up the chain, or filtered as it went up the chain.

Pam Martens has an excellent article in Counterpunch that explains the whole process:

Three plain talking judges, in state courts in Massachusetts and Kansas, and a Federal Court in Ohio, have drilled down to the “straw man” aspect of securitization. The judges’ decisions have raised serious questions as to the legality of hundreds of thousands of foreclosures that have transpired as well as the legal standing of the subsequent purchasers of those homes, who are more and more frequently the Wall Street banks themselves. ....

Simon Johnson:

Competition between banks is good – on this ["immaculate regulation" advocate Charles] Calomiris and I agree. We differ with regard to whether allowing large quasi-monopoly banks to dominate the landscape (e.g., Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase today) is helpful to competition in any sense.

We should also throw into the mix three additional considerations.

Simon Johnson (and some sane central banksters*) diagnose the first; Yves diagnoses the second.

For my money -- BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! -- Yves has the right of it:

Matt Taibbi:

No one mentions here that [Dow-10000 coverage] is a carrot-and-stick story — the stick being that ordinary people have been robbed of the interest they should be getting in CDs and ordinary bank savings accounts by the various bailout programs and lending guarantees, which have brought the cost of capital down to nothing for the big banks, and punished those people who have been doing the right thing all along by saving. The Fed lends its money to Goldman Sachs and BOFA for free, why does anyone have to pay Grandma a high rate for her CD or her bank savings?

And now that those good, savings-oriented people are getting gouged, they’re being encouraged to get back into the stock market, where the returns are better at the moment. They’re being called people on the “sidelines” who have to be encouraged to “get back in.”

What’s so tiresome about all of this is that no one reports this stuff as a political story. This is politics at its most basic. The Dow is going up, sure, but what does that mean, if the rest of the economy still sucks?

I know what it means!

[I'm leaving this sticky because a synonym for "economic rent" would be really nice to have and propagate. -- lambert]

Go read Numerian for a lucid explation of how GS is making its money. I'll wait.

Now, I want to pull out two paragraphs:

We’ve seen this year the scandal over High Frequency Trading, where Goldman and other firms have computers positioned at the New York Stock Exchange getting information on trades a millisecond before they are posted publicly. Goldman sees where the market is going second by second, positions itself for very short term profits, and in effect extracts a tax on trading by individual investors and mutual funds.

This tax is, exactly, a "rent," a concept which -- lambert blushes modestly -- we were hammering on rather early on, and which our tribunes of the people on the A list still haven't latched on to.

The second paragraph:

Just wanted to give a little link love to my grrl Southern Beale, who has been turning out some increasingly stellar material lately. She also suffers the internet's most annoying trolls, so if you're inclined to stop by and show her some support she'd appreciate it. I really enjoyed this rant:

Congress is asking how we can reform the business of healthcare to better serve people. That’s the wrong question. I’d rather ask how we can keep people healthy and get affordable healthcare to everyone at those inevitable times when we are not. Business may play a role in that but it shouldn’t be the overriding focus.

The business of healthcare should serve people. That it doesn’t is a failing of the modern capitalist religion, in which people are viewed as “consumers” first, human beings second (if at all). We’ve had this drilled into our psyche so thoroughly that we blithely accept such terms as “American consumers,” not recognizing the pejorative it so clearly is. Because when humans are reduced to mere “consumers,” their value is in their purchasing power. They are nothing more than wallets, checkbooks, bank accounts. Even, ominously, “credit scores.”

This leaves a whole bunch of people out of the equation (namely, the poor), and creates a social inequity in which the wealthy are deemed of greater value to society than the rest. Just look at the rhetoric from conservatives, who routinely disparage the poor as drains on society (Nashville’s own Phil Valentine recently referred to the poor as ”greedy grumblers” who are “sucking up the tax dollars of hard-working Americans by the trillions.”)

It’s dehumanizing, yes, but also entirely inevitable under a system that sees only wallets, not people.

AP actually does some reporting; turns out it's not really banksters who own Timmy; it's just a few banksters, among them our favorite, Goldman Sachs:

The calendars, obtained by the AP under the Freedom of Information Act, offer a behind-the-scenes glimpse at the continued influence of three companies -- Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. -- whose executives can reach the nation's most powerful economic official on the phone, sometimes several times a day.

What the calendars show, however, is that only a select few can call the treasury secretary.

Via KnoxViews ("Ideas so crazy they might work"):

So there's this guy in Florida running for the Democratic nomination for governor. He has a plan to eliminate property taxes, create a million new jobs, provide free health insurance and free college for all residents, and lots more.
His plan hinges around a proposal to create the Bank of the State of Florida, which will pay 6% for CDs and make mortgage loans at 2% and other loans including small business loans at 3% and make billions for the state. How is this possible, you ask? Using "fractional reserve banking" just like every other bank, except using the profits for the public good.

Grayson's from Florida, right? Somebody should ask him what he thinks about this.

That's why money is flowing into bank stocks. There's no place else to go.

Of course, you can't separate finance from the real economy so eventually the bank stocks will reflect reality - that they are still in for heavy loan losses in addition to the bad assets they kept on their books when the USG bailed them out.

Although, all things considered, perhaps a dying economy isn't our biggest problem since we also have a dying planet.

Happy Tuesday!

This is interesting from Bloomberg:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N), legendary for its clout in Washington, has inexplicably halted its political fund-raising machine.

The strange twist comes at a time when Wall Street's biggest and most powerful investment bank, nicknamed Government Sachs by critics, seems in other respects to be just as politically involved as ever.

By all accounts, its senior executives are in close contact with Washington regulators, the lobbyists on its payroll include some of the best connected, and it continues to spend heavily to influence government.

I meant to post on this awhile back, but RL intervened, and so but I want to lay down a marker, because this is an important story to watch.

It seems Our Betters are in the process of deciding that more of us will never have jobs, like, ever again. Fortunately, few of us will lose our homes, because of HOLC... Well, fortunately, none of us will die sick and poor because we have single payer, so health care is a right... Oh, wait.*

It's a bust out, quite literally, supported by your bailout dollars:*

"Executives at Schwing said its primary lender, Wells Fargo & Co., began tightening terms a year ago, after its three-year loan agreement with the company expired. At the bank's urging, Schwing paid down its line of credit with the bank to $21 million from about $45 million. Then, about two months ago, Wells Fargo began "sweeping" Schwing's operating account of cash in an effort to reduce its revolving line of credit with the company. Schwing had a 20 year relationship with Wells Fargo.

AP has the following calming health care reform article: When Medicare is the piggy bank. Rob Peter to pay Blue Cross.

Or, to ask the question in a more sophisticated way, who are the "strategic defaulters"? The LA Times asked that question:

Who is more likely to walk away from a house and a mortgage -- a person with super-prime credit scores or someone with lower scores?

The answer may surprise you -- especially if this was your narrative:

[OBAMA] In the past, if you found yourself in a situation like this, you could have sold your home and bought a smaller one with more affordable payments. Or you could have refinanced your home at a lower rate. But today, home values have fallen so sharply that even if you made a large down payment, the current value of your mortgage may still be higher than the current value of your house. So no bank will return your calls, and no sale will return your investment.

"You can't afford to leave and you can't afford to stay. So you cut back on luxuries. Then you cut back on necessities. You spend down your savings to keep up with your payments. Then you open the retirement fund. Then you use the credit cards. And when you've gone through everything you have, and done everything you can, you have no choice but to default on your loan. And so your home joins the nearly six million others in foreclosure or at risk of foreclosure across the country, including roughly 150,000 right here in Arizona.

Except that's not what is happening. At all.