Showing posts with label financial crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financial crisis. Show all posts

Friday, October 10, 2008

What Can You Believe?


"There's somethin' happenin' here.
What it is ain't exactly clear.
There's a man with a gun over there
A-tellin' me I've got to beware.

I think it's time we stop.
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin' down."


Buffalo Springfield
"For What It's Worth"


New and more unpleasant dimensions of the financial crisis seem to be revealed with each passing day.

As the average Americans try to absorb it all, they are left having to accept that:
  • Our leaders — who are supposed to possess the economic wisdom that most of us ordinary working stiffs do not — have let us down. Big time.

    (Lately, I've been remembering a skit from an early "Saturday Night Live" that lampooned Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in their 1976 debates. The questioner, Jane Curtin, was shown asking an increasingly complex economic question. When Ford, played by Chevy Chase, was given the chance to answer, he replied, "It was my understanding that there would be no math ..."

    (Well, it may have been George W. Bush's understanding that there would "be no math" with which to deal in the final months of his administration. Nevertheless, he speaks about it daily, in his televised morning pep talks before the stock market registers another triple-digit drop.

    (And it may have been John McCain's understanding that he could run for president and win on the issues of security and terrorism — and get away with not knowing much about economic policy — but fate has conspired to make the economy the focal point of the general election.

    (The only way that attention could be diverted to national security at this point in the campaign would be if the terrorists choose to launch another attack on American soil in the next three weeks.)

  • The wrong people have been in charge of everything.
But the average Americans bear at least part of the responsibility.

The history books and the people of my parents' generation tell me there was a time when Americans and their leaders faced the nation's problems — from economic hardship to foreign aggression — with clear eyes and determination.

They told each other that the road might be long and it might be filled with potholes and we might have to go uphill and against the wind at times — and some of us would fall along the way, but most of us would make it because we were going to pull together.

That "pull together" attitude seems to have pulled apart in the last half century.

As long as I can remember, when Americans have been given a choice between confronting a harsh reality and believing a comforting fantasy, they choose the latter.

Whoever spins the prettiest sales pitch about getting the most while investing the least has been virtually assured of victory in an election:
  • In 1968, when America was mired in an increasingly dismal war in Vietnam, Richard Nixon told the country he had a "secret plan" to end the war.

    The country believed the fantasy, conveniently overlooking how the Nixon campaign played on racial fear with its "Southern strategy" and truly pioneered the concept of the "wedge" issue.

    And, while the children of the nation's rich and powerful took advantage of the loopholes that kept them in this hemisphere, American draftees (many of whom were black and/or poor) continued to die in Vietnam for seven more years.

  • In the 1970s, the first warning shots about the limitations of fossil fuels were fired as the Middle Eastern nations that were discovering the riches buried beneath them started to flex their newfound economic muscles.

    But Americans were too angry with Nixon over his domestic crimes to notice — even though the price of a gallon of gas went up nearly 50% between the time he was re-elected in 1972 and the time he resigned in 1974, thanks in part to the first Arab oil embargo.

    When Americans elected Jimmy Carter in 1976, gas prices had gone up another 13% since Nixon resigned, indicating a clear pattern in oil prices was being established — but Americans didn't notice until the second oil embargo in the late 1970s doubled the price of a gallon of gas by Election Day 1980.

    That year, the economy was staggering with high inflation and unemployment, and the country was humiliated on a daily basis by the Iranians who held 52 Americans hostage for more than a year.

    Voters chose to believe the stories they were told about deficit spending and trickle-down prosperity and how all their problems could be solved with little or no sacrifice.

    They chose not to think about the need to develop alternative energy sources — because that could mean pain and hardship, interruption of the comfortable lives that many Americans had built for themselves.

    And they chose to ignore the racial implications of Ronald Reagan starting his general election campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered 16 years earlier, by declaring his support for "state's rights."

  • By 2000, the Clinton administration, after coming into office eight years earlier with a mandate to fix a broken economy, turned over a budget surplus to George W. Bush. In spite of some concerns that were expressed at the time, much of the surplus was given away before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

    Thus, that money was never available to help satisfy the desire to retaliate for those attacks or to pay for much-needed security improvements. Nor was any of it available for domestic crises — like when New Orleans needed assistance after Hurricane Katrina.

    A majority of Americans bought into the idea that a war could be fought and won in Iraq on the cheap — while we virtually ignored Osama bin Laden and left him alone to plot more evil deeds in Afghanistan.

    A majority of them believed Dick Cheney when he insisted the war would be paid for by the profits from the oil reserves in Iraq — and that controlling those oil reserves would help keep prices down in the United States.

    Invading Iraq in 2003 was often compared favorably to the Gulf War of the early 1990s — in which the United Nations' international coalition quickly and efficiently overwhelmed the Iraqis and drove them from Kuwait.
In hindsight, it all seems like a fantasy, doesn't it?

Until you pick up the morning paper or switch on the evening news. Then it seems frighteningly real.

Americans are paying more than $1 billion a month to support the troops in Iraq, more than five years after the invasion. At home, everything that people believed they could depend on — their 401ks, their investments, their homes, their jobs — are being taken from them, through no fault of their own.

What can you believe?
  • Investor's Business Daily says, "[W]e might be in for a brief, yet brutal, recession. But talk of a depression and other apocalyptic possibilities are way overdone. ... [T]his crisis won't last."

  • The New York Times says it was "welcome news on Friday night that the United States was working with other nations to stem the financial crisis and also moving ahead with plans to take equity stakes in struggling banks instead of just buying up their bad assets."

    The Times acknowledges there are many things that need to be done, but, at this point, "the task is to stop the panic that is unraveling the world’s financial system. This weekend is the time to do it" for the U.S. and the other nations of the world.

    Is that the kind of thing that can be done in a single weekend?

  • The Daily Telegraph doesn't say.

    What it does say is this:

    "Time is running out for the politicians to put the brakes on what could become a runaway crisis as in 1929 when events moved beyond the ability of governments to control them. The most important lessons from that calamity are that early, effective and, above all, co-ordinated action is required. We have already missed out on the early; and the effectiveness of what has been done so far is yet to become clear. Beyond an agreed cut in interest rates, however, it is a co-ordinated international response that has been absent. It is now desperately needed."

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

The Daily Decline

It seems to be a daily occurrence now — the triple-digit drop in the stock market.

Last week, the news was about the 777.68-point drop in the stock market — the largest single-day decline in history (exceeding the previous record of 684.81 points on the first day of business following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks).

Yesterday, "[t]he Dow Jones Industrial Average fell as much as 800 points to trade below the 10,000 mark," reports Nick Godt of MarketWatch, "as nervousness over the credit crisis spread."

Eventually, as Godt reports, "hopes of a coordinated intervention to stop the bleeding in global markets helped the Dow recoup half of its losses, to close down 369 points, or 3.6%, to 9,955."

And he reports hopeful speculation that the markets could experience a "bounce" today — if there is a "coordinated rate cut by the three main central banks."

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that — although I guess it exists in the "anything is possible" realm.

It's one of life's ironies that it was only a year ago (on Oct. 9, 2007) that the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at the record level of 14,164.53 points.

And now, around one-third of that volume has disappeared. It seems to have vanished into thin air.

John McCain and Barack Obama are scheduled to hold their second presidential debate tonight. It will be done in the "town hall" format — first used in the 1992 presidential debates — in which members of the audience ask the questions in a freewheeling debate with no topic restrictions.

You might remember that 1992 debate. A man with a ponytail chastised Bill Clinton, Ross Perot and George H.W. Bush for their negative campaigns and tried to get them to promise to stop it and focus on the issues. His effort didn't succeed — but it was memorable.

I wouldn't be surprised if several questions tonight deal with the stock market and the financial crisis. That is what most affects Americans today.

The American people are entitled to know what the men who want to be the next president will do about the problem.

"Voters should demand that Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain level with them," writes the Dallas Morning News.

It seems to me that the truth is up for grabs.
"Did you hear about the U.S. senator who dared to utter an inconvenient truth about the poor quality of U.S. leadership and followership in taking on the looming entitlements disaster?
  "'In what I regret to call a conspiracy of silence among all of the presidential candidates and most members of Congress, few of us are willing to talk about the real problem,' he said. 'Why? Because of the fear that if you address the issues honestly, you will lose votes — and possibly the election.'
  "That brave senator had one colleague who rose to agree with him, saying of the Congress, 'Deep down in our hearts we know that we have bankrupted America and that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded the country to get ourselves elected.'
   "Good, right?
  "Actually, it's depressing. Why? Because Sen. Warren Rudman, R-N.H., and Sen. Jack Danforth, R-Mo., made those statements, respectively, in 1992.
  "Both left the Senate at the end of their terms. Nothing has changed — except that we're 16 years closer to the day of fiscal reckoning that will make this bleak and anxious autumn seem like a season in the sun."


   Dallas Morning News

Monday, September 29, 2008

Spinning McCain's Gamble

John McCain has the soul of a riverboat gambler.

Before the start of the Republican convention, McCain was believed to have a problem with true-believer conservatives, and the perception of political observers was that Barack Obama's campaign had not adequately appealed to disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters, even after both Bill and Hillary Clinton were given prominent roles to play at the Democratic convention.

McCain, conventional wisdom held, needed a running mate who would reassure social conservatives, and it wouldn't hurt if his running mate could help the Republicans attract some of the disappointed female activists who had more in common with Obama philosophically but remained wary of him, nevertheless.

To address both needs, McCain rolled the dice and named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

For awhile, the Palin gambit appeared to pay off, but now it seems to be wearing off.

Time to roll the dice again.

Last week, as the dimensions of the financial crisis were becoming painfully clear, McCain was all over the place, suggesting that the presidential candidates suspend their campaign until the situation was resolved and saying that he would remain in Washington to work on the bailout plan instead of joining Obama for the first presidential debate.

McCain went ahead with the debate, and it does not appear that he has suspended his campaign indefinitely.

But the real gamble was on the bailout plan itself. That was a gamble McCain lost. The bailout plan was rejected by the House, 228-205, today.

It's not hard to imagine the outcome McCain was hoping for — the bailout package passes and the market rallies. McCain is the hero and the recipient of tons of positive press coverage, all without spending a dime of his own campaign funds.

But that's the fantasy. The reality is something different.

McCain can point out that only about four House Republicans supported the measure when he returned to Washington last week to make his bid to be the hero — and it's true that about one-third of the Republicans in the House ended up voting for it, which means that McCain at least helped persuade about 60 of his fellow Republicans to support it.

That speaks well for McCain's ability to persuade, and that's the spin McCain needs to use. But I'm doubtful that it will work.

Politics is a bottom-line game. And the bottom line in this matter — thus far — is that no bailout plan has been approved.

McCain gambled that he could demonstrate leadership qualities to the American public on the most critical issue facing the voters. He invested his time and his effort and was not successful.

If the bailout plan had been approved — and if the stock market hadn't plunged nearly 800 points today — it would have been the kind of longshot payoff that a gambler like McCain needs to level the playing field.

But the gamble didn't pay off. And, as a result, McCain may find himself having to make up even more ground in less time — and in increasingly hostile territory.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Proceed With the Debate

John McCain may have the most noble of intentions by suggesting that his Friday night debate with Barack Obama be postponed.

The cynical side of my nature whispers to me that it's a political ploy, most likely desperation from a man who fears he may say or do something in the debate that leads to his defeat — and believes he has only a narrow margin for error.

President Bush is right when he says the bailout is vital to the economy. That much, it seems to me, is beyond debate. But the amount of the bailout could be debated endlessly.

It took decades of mismanagement by both parties to get us to this point. It's not going to be solved in the 40 days we have left until the election.

And I'm glad Bush agreed to meet with McCain and Obama, since one of those two men will be taking the torch in January. Until one has been elected, though, they both need to be in the loop.

But what else can McCain or Obama do? What can they achieve by postponing their debate, as McCain has suggested?

Nothing.

Neither man has been elected president. They have different views on economic policy, and no doubt each would take the country in a different direction. All they can contribute to the crisis is more finger pointing and divisive talk.

In the true spirit of partisanship, both sides seem anxious to paint the other as being culpable in the financial crisis.

McCain's proposal to suspend the campaign until a solution is found is "presidential," according to William Kristol in the Weekly Standard. Harold Meyerson calls it a "ploy" in the Washington Post. The truth is, both parties bear equal responsibility for the mess in which we find ourselves.

So if the candidates are going to debate each other anyway, why not go ahead and do it in the formalized setting upon which both sides agreed months ago?

Sure, the topic is different. Friday's debate is supposed to be about foreign affairs. And, while there are certainly voters who believe national security is the #1 issue in this campaign (my brother is one of them), the vast majority of voters are concerned about the economy.

The debate won't answer the questions the voters are asking right now. But it's better than the posturing the candidates would do after postponing the debate.

Proceed with the debate. Let the voters hear what the candidates have to say about foreign policy. Then, when the domestic debate is held, let's hear their views on gas prices and food prices and bad loans and the financial system.

Let's hear all we can about what they want to do after they take office.