Ian Welsh:

Last year myself and Stirling both noted that what would be done by banks if they were bailed out is to horde their money, not lend it out cheap, and save it to buy up competitors, make leveraged plays and so on. That is EXACTLY what has happened. Exactly.

During a downturn, if you have money, you don’t want to lend it out for low gains when you can buy up competitors, cheap. You don’t want to lend it out cheap, when you can make leveraged plays off the bottom of a stock and commodity market which is bound to go up because trillions are being poured into it by central banks. You want to take that money, and buy things while they are cheap, not lend it out for 4 or 5% returns, when you can make many many times that.

Why, exactly, governments expect banks who have better ways to make money to act like retail banks who don’t have any other way to make money but lend out at prime +3 or 4 percent is beyond me. They think they’ll do it out of gratitude for being bailed out, or some sort of sense of civic duty? Most politicians may be stupid, venal and corrupt—but it’s that very greed and venality which means they should understand that banks will do no such thing.

Banks will do it only if they are forced to do it. Remove retail banking from investment banking, insurance and brokerage services, and disallow any risky games on the markets for retail banks. Remove all special facilities from non retail banks because Goldman Sachs should not be doing highly leveraged plays with free money from the Federal Reserve. And reinstitute serious leverage limits, not just for retail banks but for everyone.

As for retail banks, if they don’t lend to the public at rates approved of by the Federal Reserve and Congress, they too should lose their access to special facilities. Banks are given the valuable right to borrow money for almost nothing, and to, in effect, print money by lending out money they don’t have. Those are privileges which are given to them in the expectation that they will use them to benefit the economy. If they refuse to do so, they should lose the privileges.

None of this is rocket science. Those of us who predicted both the crisis and what the bungling of the crisis would cause, however, are precisely the people who are not listened to by those in power. Obama is having his jobs summit, and forget nobodies like me, he isn’t even inviting somebodies like Stiglitz and Krugman.

That's because predicting a crisis correctly disqualifies you for Serious work in Versailles. But, seriously, why would it be any different?

Via email, Mobilize for Health Care:

Dear Friend,
CALL PELOSI NOW! (415) 556-4862 and (202) 225-0100
There are 8 people sitting in RIGHT NOW in Nancy Pelosi's Office in San Francisco!

They are not leaving until they get an answer to their demands! Their demands are that the Kucinich amendment MUST be in the health care bill that the House votes on, and that the House MUST vote on the Weiner amendment.

Pelosi PROMISED the American people that she would ensure BOTH of the above would happen, and she has betrayed us by renigging on those promises!

Our access bloggers are positioning him as a populist in their most recent fund-raising letter, but despite being on the financial services committee, the best his advocates can seem to come up with is the "Cash for Clunkers" program. Did Grayson do anything to nobble this abomination from Barney Frank, which crippled the Consumer Financial Protection Agency? Granted, Grayson's signed on to Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed -- along with 307 others. Does anyone know if Grayson's done anything more than throw rhetorical red meat to "progressives"?

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.

Via Yves:

JAMES GALBRAITH: That’s the point about the crisis, is that it could have been prevented. The people in authority two, three, five years ago, knew how to prevent it. They chose not to act, because they were getting a political and an economic benefit out of the speculative explosion that was occurring.

BILL MOYERS: You mean, the people who could have prevented the dam from breaking were too busy fishing above it, and reaping big rewards to want to fix the crack in it?

JAMES GALBRAITH: Sure. The Federal Reserve, in particular, knew that the dam was cracking. Alan Greenspan, I think, almost surely knew this, and chose to wait until it had washed away.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

JAMES GALBRAITH: They let all of this run, because they were getting a superficially stronger economy out of it. The ownership society, all that was a scam, basically, designed to lure people who could never afford these mortgages into accepting them. And yes, I think they, any rational person, certainly people in the industry, knew that this was not going to last. There was a little industry code, I’ve learned, IBGYBG. “I’ll be gone. You’ll be gone.”

BILL MOYERS: Really?

JAMES GALBRAITH: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: The industry being the securities industry?

JAMES GALBRAITH: Well, and the mortgage originators and the bankers, generally.

BILL MOYERS: But that’s criminal fraud.

Ding ding ding ding ding!

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.

Felix Salmon:

The length of time the average unemployed person has been without a job has been hitting new record highs for a while; it’s now managed to pass the 6-month mark. That’s much higher than any previous peak in this data series. And I fear that the only way it’s likely to come down any time soon is as these people become so demoralized that they take themselves out of the labor force altogether.

The overwhelming majority of the working population will never be able to prepare themselves for a period of unemployment lasting more than six months. As financial-market types worry about possible inflation in a few years’ time, tens of millions of Americans are finding themselves in a very real personal financial crisis to which there is no visible solution. Given the Fed’s dual mandate, it makes sense to keep interest rates low for the foreseeable future. Inflation is possible; unemployment is catastrophically real.

But isn't it great that we didn't lose our houses because of HOLC? Oh, wait... But isn't it great that we have jobs from a 21st century WPA? Oh, wait... But isn't it great that we don't lose health care even when we lose our jobs? Oh, wait... And isn't it great that we've reined in the banksters so they don't do the same thing all over again? Oh, wait...

[pounds head on desk]:

Obama: Time for big banks to help small businesses
"[OBAMA] These are the very taxpayers who stood by America's banks in a crisis, and now it's time for our banks to stand by creditworthy small businesses and make the loans they need to open their doors, grow their operations and create new jobs," Obama said.

Never mind that whatever actual program or policy, if any, that Obama has in mind will be, if results of his mortgage refinancing program are any guide, pathetically weak and unhelpful to those in need. Let's focus on the question of fact:

Jr Deputy Accountant:

[I]f you think they haven't tossed the bodies in the water by now you're out of your damn mind. The Fed knows as long as it can buy enough time it will weasel its way out of this one way or another and if not, at least they have enough goons to work overtime dissolving bones in vats of acid or whatever it is they've got to do.

Silly rabbit, audits are for kids. If we're going to dismantle the Fed, we're A) going to have to come at them with something scarier than an audit (doesn't Citigroup pass its audits every year? That's what I thought.) and B) next time surprise attack their asses. Seriously? They've had months to bury bodies. Lehman was over a year ago. What's the delay? We're acting as though we're not dealing with a diabolical cabal over here, WTF?

The Fed doesn't need an audit, it needs a good sadistic proctologist and a nice hard spanking. For starters.

Well, er.

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:

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.*

Wendell Potter sounds the alarm on the Baucus "Healthy Forests" -- whoops, "America’s Healthy Future Act". RL is still calling, so I don't have time to look at the other bills, so I'll just laying down the marker here:

AHFA designates the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) to write key regulations. This is of great concern to me because this proposal delegates to the NAIC, a private organization, with rule-making authority that is generally reserved for an agency of the federal government.

Damn. There's a name for merging corporations and the government. It's right on the tip of my tongue... But back to the detail:

That would be the Fed. Go read.

During the primaries, many lamented how self-identified "progressives" were willing to use false charges of racism, misogyny, and every tool that the right developed in the 1990s to smear both Clintons (along with some new and special smears of their own), to elect a candidate they deemed "progressive," much like themselves. But that's all blood under the bridge, right? I've gotten over it. And personally, I never liked the "progressive" label much anyhow, because I didn't see that the word had an answer to the question "Progress in what direction?"* Now, of course, we're getting better answers.

It never occurred to me that there might be a problem with "progressivism" in itself. But now Robert Johnson of New Deal 2.0 raises the issue. Now that we're in the midst of The Big Fail, is progressivism a FAIL, too? Johnson takes off from Taibbi's article, and puts it in context:

In Matt Taibbi’s vivid and provocative new article in Rolling Stone, “The Great American Bubble Machine,” the man absolutely screams.

Taibbi’s rage is filling an emotional void. It is a reaction to what is missing after this profound speculative episode that the IMF suggests will cost over $4 trillion in losses on balance sheets and untold trillions in lost output. It is fury over a crisis that is, by any measure, the most profoundly damaging episode since the 1930s (and the Bank for International Settlements Annual Report released this week strongly suggests that the burden on stockholders is far from over)....

There is an age-old tension that emerges in situations like this. You can feel it yourself. We know things are not right but do not exactly know why. Finance is complex. Since the progressive era, trust in “experts” has often been suggested as the best way for society to handle such complex phenomena. We are encouraged to delegate to the likes of leading academics, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Secretary, and financiers themselves to keep an eye on the public interest. Public officials are explicitly employed to undertake this task on behalf of society. Those in the private sector often appeal to experts, encouraging public. deference to their superior knowledge. Experts are thought to be the custodians of the nation’s health. ...

The problem now is that the experts and leaders from finance [and not only finance] have failed us miserably. They have let us down and we know it. We do not trust in the system. [That is the problem, not confidence.] No one thinks the Federal Reserve did a bang-up job in the years preceding this crisis. The failure is much more profound in the private sector, yet for the most part that failure goes unacknowledged. Even with losses and bailouts, we have to fight over bonus payments to those who feel entitled, despite the cost they have imposed on their stockholders and, more importantly, society.