Romney May Well Tax Interest Earned On Life Insurance And Municipal Bonds

So says The Wall Street Journal, here, which approves as a way of helping pay for Romney's proposed across the board 20 percent tax cuts.

Without saying, of course, that this will shift costs from the rich who buy most of these bonds onto the broad base of taxpayers, in the form of higher taxes raised through property taxation. Property taxes will necessarily have to be increased because municipalities will have to pay more to borrow for spending on infrastructure, schools and the like without a ready pool of incentivized investors, i.e. the wealthy.

Municipal bonds are tax exempt for a reason: it makes borrowing cheaper and therefore taxes lower on the people who directly benefit from the spending. So what if the wealthy also benefit thereby? They should, and they do. For every bit of tax-free income the wealthy enjoy, someone somewhere has decent roads, schools and fire protection. It's not like the voters don't get to say No to such local spending. Property tax referenda are the meat and potatoes of local politics. 

This kind of cost-shifting was pretty much Romney's m/o in Massachusetts, where he made it almost an art form, increasing fees on businesses under the rubric of equalization, and on property tax payers of all kinds. Americans can probably expect the same from a President Romney, except on a much larger scale. It won't be spreading the wealth around to make people equal, it'll be spreading the taxation around, eliminating "loopholes".

Taxing interest gains from life insurance plans is a case in point. It will hurt any beneficiary of such plans, not just the rich. Think of a wife left with young children to raise, who will have just a little less left from her dead husband because she had to pay her fair share. And imagine having to pay tax on that life insurance when the buyer was counting on it to pay the taxes due on his estate so that his heirs wouldn't have to sell assets to do so. Talk about throwing a monkey wrench into the estate plans of countless millions.

Push here, and it comes out there.

Are Americans really going to vote for someone who is already getting bogged down in the weeds of tax loss expenditures? All Obama has to do in response to this is say Republicans are going to take away your tax deductions. This is not the way to sell the Republican brand.

As tax loss expenditures go, the two together add up to $90 billion annually in lost government revenue and benefit mostly the wealthy, according to an AEI source quoted in the editorial. Nevermind the $3.8 trillion we're already spending in this fiscal year is itself "lost government revenue".

Republicans ought to be saying every dollar spent by government is lost.

Don't hold your breath. 

David Stockman Misses An Opportunity: The Warfare State IS The Welfare State

The New York Times is only happy enough to run an op-ed from David Stockman, here, attacking the phony conservatism of the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan, in which he rather relishes pointing out, among other things, that when push came to shove Rep. Paul Ryan "folded like a lawn chair" and voted for TARP:

Thirty years of Republican apostasy — a once grand party’s embrace of the welfare state, the warfare state and the Wall Street-coddling bailout state — have crippled the engines of capitalism and buried us in debt. Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to “job creators” (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse.

Mr. Ryan professes to be a defense hawk, though the true conservatives of modern times — Calvin Coolidge, Herbert C. Hoover, Robert A. Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, even Gerald R. Ford — would have had no use for the neoconconservative imperialism that the G.O.P. cobbled from policy salons run by Irving Kristol’s ex-Trotskyites three decades ago. These doctrines now saddle our bankrupt nation with a roughly $775 billion “defense” budget in a world where we have no advanced industrial state enemies and have been fired (appropriately) as the global policeman.

Mr. Stockman never once calls this Republicanism what it is. I suppose if he had the Times wouldn't have printed it. And I don't know how he really could since his family is allied with liberal social positions anyway. Paul Ryan isn't the only phony conservative liberal around.

But the truth is (someone's got to say it) the warfare state since Reagan is another consequence of liberalism, expressed as a failure of nerve with respect to conscription. Good wars are wars for which Americans more or less readily submit to the draft, fight successfully and end relatively quickly. They have the consent of the governed and are representative wars, conducted as they are by a cross-section of the population. Bad wars don't have the consent of the governed. And so these must emphasize among other things protecting warriors and civilians, not destroying the enemy's ability to make war, and are all too often fought to draws after protracted efforts. These cannot be conducted except with compliant volunteers, who come from more or less distinct sectors of American society: the South, and poor minorities. And these volunteers require enducements in addition to a commitment from government to their safety, such as citizenship, a college education, or a pension. As in the private sector, the military's single biggest cost is personnel, which explains perhaps more than anything the drive to mechanized war in a new form, the vanguard of which is drone technology. Can The Terminator be far behind?

The war in Afghanistan would be long over if we had destroyed its infrastructure, annihilated its people, and salted its poppy fields. But we couldn't do that. That would have been a war crime. And besides, where we would get our drugs then?

Liberalism, you see.


"Yet Reason frowns on war's unequal game,
Where wasted nations raise a single name,
And mortgaged states their grandsires' wreaths regret,
From age to age in everlasting debt;
Wreaths which at last the dear-bought right convey
To rust on medals, or on stones decay."

-- Samuel Johnson

Monetarist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Eats Keynes For Dinner, Austrians For Dessert

Frustratingly inconclusive and full of explanatory power at the same time, here:

Monetarists blame the ECB and the Fed for keeping money too tight in early to mid 2008, pushing a fragile credit system over the edge. They blame “pro-cyclical” regulators for aborting recovery ever since by forcing banks to raise asset ratios too fast. They are right on both counts.

Yet the `Austrian School’ is surely right as well to argue that a rise in debt ratios across the rich world from 167pc of GDP to 314pc in just thirty years was bound to end badly. There comes a point when extra debt draws down prosperity from the future. The future arrived in 2008.

How Would You Like A Monthly Mortgage Payment Of $72 Billion?

That's what it would take to pay off the total public debt of $16 trillion, financed at 3.5 percent, in 30 years: $25.920 trillion in total payments ($16 trillion principal/$9.92 trillion interest).

Got any collateral?

Notice The Subtle Anti-Reaganism Of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)

TARP Republican

Sen. Tom Coburn comes to bury Caesar, not to praise him, here:

"The last time Congress reformed the tax code was 26 years ago, which preceded the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history."

What's wrong with that? you say.

Well, that statement dates the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history from after 1986, ignoring that it actually began much earlier as a result of Reagan's stimulative tax cuts in the early 1980s. Now why would a Republican ignore that? Maybe because he's a Bush Republican who hates voodoo economics, the ungrateful louts who never defended the Gipper against the left's attacks then and still won't.

What's worse is that Sen. Coburn goes on to pretend that Reagan viewed tax credits with scorn like Martin Feldstein does:

Reagan’s key economic advisers such as Martin Feldstein persuasively argue that tax extenders are spending by another name. If tax carve-outs for green industry, rum makers, Eskimo whaling captains, and more, were on the other side of the ledger – such as in President Obama’s stimulus bill – they would be derided as spending, and rightly so.

Actually, Reagan defended spending through the tax code, for example, through the Earned Income Credit which he expanded considerably in the very 1986 tax reform Coburn praises, to get people off of welfare and into work.

Martin Feldstein may have been Reagan's economic advisor, but he was a deficit hawk who often collided with Reagan over spending, and left the service of the president after only two years, in 1984.

To rewrite the history of Ronald Reagan as Coburn does is completely dishonest.

Obama's Enthusiasm For Bailouts Becomes National Socialism in Colorado Remarks

Obama views the GM auto bailout as an example of a successful government investment in the private sector, never mentioning, of course, that the success is at the expense of the former private investors in GM, its non-union elements, and of the tax-paying public. Without those, GM is still a failure, and should be again.

That Obama now says in Colorado that he wants to similarly rescue more companies, however, indicates that the bailout model was more to him than a one-off which he fortuitously inherited from the Republican establishment, an intellectually lazy cohort of Baby Boomers which long ago had betrayed free market principles. Obama's commitment to a model of government superintendence of private industry marks a new public face for an old familiar mixture of State and industry, the inspiration for which Herbert Hoover noted in his memoirs FDR had derived from Mussolini and the other strong men of Europe.

We all know what is the result of this type of thinking because we've already experienced it, not just in FDR's long failure, and not just in the recent auto company bailouts, but also in the rescue of the financial industry:

• more moral hazard which has allowed so-called private banking players like the five or ten biggest banks to take even more unwarranted risks and grow ever larger and more too big to fail than ever, knowing the public purse is backing them up;
• taxpayer-funded bailouts whose pain is never really felt by the taxpayers because, like most public spending, the bailouts are simply financed by more borrowing, which in their turn have only worsened the fiscal health of the nation and contributed to the loss of its once vaunted AAA rating;
• corruption of elected public officials and bureaucrats whose crimes destroy the public's consent to be governed, as witnessed by the rise of protest movements like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, and by the capital strike by individual investors;
• picking winners like multinational GE and Wall Street firms who reaped huge rewards in the form of tax breaks and bonuses because of their close relationship with government, and therefore by definition also picking losers on Main Street like small banks and entrepreneurs who can't beat the system because it is rigged against them, crushing confidence in "capitalism";
• a complete repudiation of free market principles in which failure and bankruptcy become as unacceptable as saying "No" to the kids or as marking an "F" on a report card, unless for unrelated political reasons your industry happens to become a target for elimination, you know, like Chick-Fil-A, or the Roman Catholic Church in America.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Obama's remarks in Colorado is the way he is now touting his commitment to this model in explicitly nationalistic terms, emphasizing his as a patriotic concern for the American people to bring their jobs home, and Romney's as an unpatriotic intent to export those jobs.

Obama's socialism has been deemed a distraction by establishment Republicans, who find all the purported links between Obama and the communist left made by conservatives just a little too disturbing for polite conversation. It reminds them too much of the McCarthy era. But now explicitly linked to nationalism, Obama's remarks become an opportunity to refocus the conversation on the coincidence of these elements in fascism, which the left has hitherto succeeded in attacking and marginalizing as a phenomenon of the right, of conservatism.

Locating Obama in fascism actually makes better sense of his presidency to date. It explains the disillusionment of the left with him as a sell-out who has had the temerity to spend so much of his time enjoying himself instead of pushing their agenda, crafting policy to maximize campaign contributions from favored industries, and throwing his weight around as Commander In Chief. After one year progressives were already ridiculing his administration as a squandered presidency. And fascism also coheres with the interpretation of his experience in Chicago where he allied himself with financial, insurance and real estate interests and the Democrat Party to take over the property of the South Loop,  enrich themselves, and further their political careers. The president's friendship with Jeffrey Immelt is not a bug. It's a feature. 

The historical reality is that the fight between the communists and the fascists was always a fight on the common ground of socialism, rather like the fight between Democrats and Republicans has been a fight on the common ground of liberalism. The radicalization which occurred in the arguments between socialists culminating in the Second World War occurred because the conservatism of a prior monarchical age had completely lost its tempering force in society. The civilization of Europe was completely overcome from within by a capitulation to eschaton-immanentizing ideologies before it destroyed itself from without in war. In that process, liberalism was the vanguard softening up the enemy for the totalitarianism to come. Conservatism was beside the point then, but not here, not now.

In the arguments between Democrats and Republicans in our time, matters have not yet degenerated into such violence because the unique contributions of conservatism from the American Founding still inform much of the body politic. And the most important of those contributions, derived from human and religious experience both, has been the self-limiting conviction that human nature is not perfectible and always remains a mixture of good and evil which no rearrangement of human affairs can alter.  In the person of Barack Obama, however, we have met with someone who explicitly asserts otherwise, as an ideologue, that the union is perfectible. He deliberately goes out of his way to attack those individuals and institutions who know, believe and say otherwise. And armed with the imperial accoutrements gathered by his predecessors in the presidency, one might say that the people actually face for the first time a real and foreign threat in charge of the executive, a foreigner in his heart, mind, and affections who keeps his past sealed precisely because the revelation that he once presented himself as a foreigner for his own advantage even though he was born in Hawaii would offend more than actually being a foreigner.

Liberalism is defenseless against this because it drinks from the same cup of idealism. This is why it keeps quiet and doesn't look too deeply into President Obama. It is afraid it might see its own reflection. And this is also why a liberal like Mitt Romney can't bring himself to entertain Obama's socialism, let alone his national socialism. If it worked, he'd actually agree with it.

ABC News has the most recent formulations of Obama's national socialist vision here:

"When the American auto industry was on the brink of collapse, more than 1 million jobs at stake, Gov. Romney said, let’s ‘let Detroit go bankrupt.’ I said I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back and GM is number one again. So now, I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry. I don’t want those jobs taking root in places like China. I want them taking root in places like Pueblo.  Gov. Romney brags about his private sector experience, but it was mostly investing in companies, some of which were called “pioneers” of outsourcing.  I don’t want to be a pioneer of outsourcing.  I want to in-source.  I want to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas.” ...

"When the American auto industry was on the brink of collapse, 1 million jobs at stake, Mr. Romney said, ‘Let Detroit go bankrupt.’  I said, let’s bet on America’s workers.  And we got management and workers to come together, making better cars than ever. And now, GM is number one again and the American auto industry has come roaring back.   So now, I want to say what we did with the auto industry, we can do it in manufacturing across America.  Let’s make sure advanced, high-tech manufacturing jobs take root here, not in China.  Let’s have them here in Colorado.  And that means supporting investment here.”

Projected Unemployment Rate For August 12, 2014 Is 8.9 Percent

As calculated here:

Conservatives Outnumber Liberals 2 To 1: If Only They Knew What That Meant

and sigmas aren't what they used to be at Cambridge

So Gallup, in January, here:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.

In America you can be whatever you want to be, even if you're not what you say you are.

You know, like the Baptist preacher down the street who fancies himself a Greek scholar but misspells the English on his road sign.

Ryan Is No Conservative: He Voted For The Biggest Entitlement Program Since The 1960s

Rep. Paul Ryan, Republican from Wisconsin, Gov. Romney's VP nominee, is a huge friend of the welfare state and is no conservative.

Not only did he vote to bail out the banks and everyone else in 2008, in 2003 he voted for the largest expansion of government entitlement since the 1960s when he said "Yes" to Drugs For Seniors.

If he has any principles, they don't animate his votes when it's time to roll back liberalism. Instead, he rolls with liberalism when push comes to shove. Which is why Romney picked him. A man after his own heart he is.

Conservatives don't say "Yes" to Mitt Romney. Conservatives say what they said in South Carolina:

WE DESPISE MITT ROMNEY TO THE VERY CORE OF OUR BEING.

Scott Rasmussen Says Most Americans Think Both Parties Are Fascists

They just don't say it that way. Instead they call the two parties crony capitalists.

Here is Rasmussen for the Boston Herald:

[S]even out of 10 Americans believe government and big business work together against the rest of us.

In other words, Americans believe crony capitalism is a reality regardless of which party is in the White House. This is the root cause of much of the frustration sweeping the nation today. ...

[T]hey want the government to stop picking winners and losers in the business world.

Looking The Part

Don't Vote For The Fascists. It Only Encourages Them.

Three Tax Collectors For The Welfare State (And One Nincompoop)

US Public Debt Under Obama Has Soared Exactly 50 Percent In 43 Months

(Source: little Timmy Geithner's Treasury Department)

Romney Doesn't Oppose Obama's Financier Fascism, He's Part Of It

"[D]espite taking office in the midst of a massive financial meltdown, Obama’s administration has not prosecuted a single heavy-hitter among those responsible for the financial crisis. To the contrary, he’s staffed his team with big bankers and their allies. Under the Bush-Obama bailouts the big financial institutions have feasted like pigs at the trough, with the six largest banks borrowing almost a half trillion dollars from uncle Ben Bernanke’s printing press. In 2013 the top four banks controlled more than 40 percent of the credit markets in the top 10 states—up by 10 percentage points from 2009 and roughly twice their share in 2000. Meantime, small banks, usually the ones serving Main Street businesses, have taken the hit along with the rest of us with more than 300 folding since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the industry-approved bill to “reform” the industry. ...

"In a sane world, one would expect Republicans to run against this consolidation of power, that has taxpayers propping up banks that invest vast amounts in backing the campaigns of the lawmakers who levy those taxes. The party would appeal to grassroots capitalists, investors, small banks and their customers who feel excluded from the Washington-sanctioned insiders' game. The popular appeal is there. The Tea Party, of course, began as a response against TARP. ...

"Romney himself is so clueless as to be touting his strong fund-raising with big finance. His top contributors list reads something like a rogue’s gallery from the 2008 crash: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Citicorp, and Barclays."

Read the whole thing from Joel Kotkin, here.

Obama's Gangster Auto Tsar Admires China, The Largest Expression of Crony Capitalism In History

As pointed out by Joel Kotkin for The Daily Beast, here, who refrains from using the still radioactive term "fascist" in lieu of which the euphemism "crony capitalism" will still have to do:

Obama’s financial tsar on the GM bailout, Steven Rattner, took to The New York Times to stress that Obamians see nothing systemically wrong with the banking system we have now, blaming the 2008 market meltdown on “old-fashioned poor management.” ... 

Rattner ... paid $6.2 million and accepted a two-year ban on associating with any investment adviser or broker-dealer to settle with the SEC over the agency’s claims that he had played a role in a pay-to-play scheme involving a $50,000 contribution to the now-jailed politician who controlled New York State’s $125 billion pension fund. He’s also expressed unlimited admiration for the Chinese economic system, the largest expression of crony capitalism in history. Expect Rattner to be on hand in September, when Democrats gather in Charlotte, the nation’s second-largest banking city, inside the Bank of America Stadium to formally nominate Obama for a second term.

Relative to Gold, Oil is Still ON SALE

The gold to oil ratio stands at 17.44, meaning oil is "on sale" relative to the price of gold.

Low Tech Auto Security System

The Upper Limits Of Middle And Upper-Middle Individual Incomes 1990-2010

SocialSecurity.gov here provides comprehensive net compensation statistics going back to 1990, from which one can chart the nominal growth of individual incomes over the period.

Below I have charted both the nominal and CPI-adjusted growth in the upper income limits for middle incomes (60th percentile) and for upper middle incomes (80th percentile) between 1990 and 2010, choosing years where the income tranches ($5000 each) hit within less than 1 point of 60, or 80, percent of total earners. For the 80th percentile chart this meant stopping with the year 2007 because years after 2007 do not yet provide a clear demarcation of the 80th percentile for an income tranche within 1 point of 80 percent. For proper comparison purposes real growth in green for both is expressed in 2010 dollars.

What the charts show is that the income ceiling defining the upper limit of the middle rose over nineteen years in real terms 9.4 percent, and the ceiling for the upper middle rose over seventeen years in real terms 15.6 percent, a difference in the real rate of change of nearly 66 percent.

This is cause for much hand-wringing in some circles, where, it seems, it is rarely considered how the costs associated with acquiring the skills and credentials necessary to earn upper middle incomes have skyrocketed. Those costs have increased nearly 72 percent over the period, in real terms, consuming 70 percent of the upper-middle upper-limit salary of $50,000 in 1990 for the typical 4-year public university degree, and 104 percent of the comparable salary in 2007.

Map of the World's Major Fascist Regimes (In Yellow)!

Rosie Agrees: The Market Cheers Bad News, Because That Means More Stimulus Is Coming

Here's Rosie:

It's gotten to the point, he said, where the market actually cheers bad news . . ..

"We're back to the situation where for the stock market bad news is good news, because the good news is that we're going to get more gobs of stimulus to push asset prices higher at least over the near term," he said. "That's a driving factor behind this recovery that we've seen in the stock markets globally in the past month or so."

Top Ten Tax Loss Expenditures 2011 From The Joint Committee On Taxation

10. Exclusion of benefits under cafeteria plans ................................................................$31 billion

10. Exclusion of untaxed Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits ....................$31 billion

  9. Exclusion of capital gains at death .............................................................................$38 billion

  8. Deduction of state and local government income taxes, sales and property taxes ......$42.4 billion

  7. Pension plan contributions .........................................................................................$42.7 billion

  6. 401 K plan contributions ............................................................................................$48.4 billion

  5. Tax credit for children under 17 .................................................................................$56.4 billion

  4. Earned income tax credit ............................................................................................$59.5 billion

  3. Mortgage interest deduction ........................................................................................$77.6 billion

  2. Reduced rates of tax on dividends and long term capital gains ...................................$90.5 billion

  1. Exclusion of employer contributions for health care, health/long term care insurance.$109.3 billion

Welfare Practised Through The Tax Code Is Liberalism, Not Conservatism

This is why those who call Ronald Reagan a conservative are wrong, because the intent of his tax policies has been all along to practise welfare through the tax code and thereby create a whole class of people at the bottom half in the country who are dependent on the federal government on April 15th, have no stake in policy and thus in politics because they do not pay for it, and are as a result ungrateful, unmotivated to climb higher, and are increasingly a nation apart from the Americans who do pay for it:

"Reagan and succeeding Republicans abolished federal income taxes on the working poor and on what the Left calls the working class, and they almost abolished them on the middle class.

"It began with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which grew out of then-Governor Ronald Reagan's famous testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1972. Reagan proposed exempting the working poor from all Social Security and income taxes as an alternative to welfare, with the credit serving as a way to offset payroll taxes for low-income workers. ...

"[B]y 2007, after 25 years of Reaganomics and before President Obama was even elected, the bottom 40 percent of earners, on net and as a group, paid less than 0 percent of federal income taxes, according to official IRS data, as reported recently by the Congressional Budget Office. Instead of paying at least some income taxes to help support the federal government, the federal government paid them cash through the income tax code. That same year, the middle 20 percent, the true middle class, paid less than 5 percent of all federal income taxes."

So Peter Ferrara now, here, defending Romney's tax plan as more of the same.

These policies, now accepted by both Democrats and Republicans alike, have turned Social Security into pure welfare because a large majority of the people eventually receiving it will have effectively received refunds of everything they've put into it long before they start drawing it. Temporary reductions of contributions to Social Security during the recent financial crisis, advocated by Democrats in complete control of the government, have only underscored the point.

If nothing else it is another flip for Romney, who famously characterized himself as an independent and not in the mold of Reagan-Bush during his race for Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts in 1994.

"Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

Who knows, maybe the flipper will flop after he's elected. Stranger things have happened. After all, many of us on the right feared Obama in 2008 because we thought he was a commie. Little did we know he was a fascist.

Stephen Prothero Of Boston University Is Biased Against Whites And Christians

The overwhelming majority of bias crimes in the US are racially motivated, and only 20 percent are specifically religious. And of those, fully 65 percent are anti-Semitic in motivation. Just over 13 percent are anti-Islamic, and just under 8 percent specifically anti-Christian.

So says Kate Shellnutt here for The Houston Chronicle.

When it comes to crimes of religious bigotry in America, most of us have to take a number behind the Jews.

CNN blogger Stephen Prothero of Boston University, unfortunately, unhelpfully conflates the racial and religious motivations for bias crimes, and just decides out of thin air and without evidence that Christians and whites are to blame for all of it, here:

When murderers target and kill religious minorities simply because they are nonwhite or non-Christian, something of each of these traditions dies. So we need to redouble our efforts to keep both vibrant.

... [H]ateful invective is a weapon too, and it can be heard not only among white supremacist extremists but also on our mainstream radio and television talk shows.

Last time I checked, Jews are classified as whites. Do they endure the overwhelming number of cases of violence "because they are nonwhite"? Do Muslims attack Jews because Jews are non-Christian? And why do so many acts of violence against Christians come from disaffected Christians? And prejudice from denizens of the American academy?

Stephen Prothero hasn't committed an act of violence, but his bias against Christians and whites is a crime nonetheless, against intelligence.

What Does Elizabeth Talking Bull Warren Have To Hide In Her Taxes?

Plenty, apparently.

Story here.

You Have Been Warned

"[T]oday’s low interest-rate dynamic is not an entirely stable one. It could unwind remarkably quickly."

-- Kenneth Rogoff, here

North American Death Squad

The Burning Question On The Day After The Michigan Primary Election

Were any of the corporations which voted yesterday in the Michigan primary election actually registered to vote in Michigan?

Single Investor Buys 650 Macomb County Michigan Tax Foreclosures For $4.8 Million

It was a package deal in which every tax delinquent property was sold to the investor, not just the nice ones.

Story with links here.

The buyer wasn't a Wall Street vulture, but now that he's got them he can certainly resell them.

I wonder if there's a fracking angle?

Privatizing The US Postal Service Is A Bad Idea On Mail Fraud And Privacy Grounds

Michael Hiltzik for The LA Times does a pretty good job of presenting the reasons why we shouldn't privatize the US Postal Service, but unfortunately misses an important one: mail fraud statutes come in real handy for felony convictions and long prison sentences for some of society's worst actors.

He draws this comparison on privacy:

Law enforcement can't open your mail without a judge's say-so, and any private individual who tries could face a long sojourn as an involuntary guest of the feds.

But laws governing the sanctity of your email are in their infancy. Actually, that's a gross overstatement: They're positively fetal. Government agencies may not need any warrant at all to read some of your emails. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and anyone else whose system carries your email can read your messages at whim, with no consequences.

Read his full argument here.

One More Reason Not To Read National Review

Sarah Palin Still Can't Dress Herself

Who would pick such shoes?! They are disgusting! Lose 'em and try simple black pumps. Or for a little daring, Superman blue pumps to match the shirt. Or red or yellow pumps to match the logo. Or better yet, all three colors in the pumps, like little red Ss on the toes on a yellow field. Something to knit the picture together. And the belt has to go. It cuts her in half. Totally the wrong color which confuses the picture. I dunno, maybe untuck the shirt? Or still OK tucked in w/o a belt? But the shoes! What a train wreck. She looks like a refugee from Chinese foot binding.

Were 20,000 Non-Union Pensions At Delphi Victims Of Geithner At Treasury?

Administration officials have testified otherwise under oath.

The Daily Caller claims to have the goods on Geithner's Treasury Department, here. You know Geithner, the guy who forgot to pay taxes on his IMF salary, but is still the Secretary of the US Treasury Department anyway.

Obama's Financial Fascism At Work At DOJ: Not A Single Prosecution Since 2008

'Between 2002 and 2008, for instance, [the] GAI [Government Accountability Institute] points out how a Bush administration task force “obtained over 1,300 corporate fraud convictions, including those of over 130 corporate vice presidents and over 200 CEOs and corporate presidents.”

'“Clinton’s DOJ prosecuted over 1,800 S&L [savings and loans] executives, senior officials, and directors, and over 1,000 of them were sent to jail,” GAI adds.

'But, despite having “promised more of the same,” especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration’s DOJ has not brought criminal charges against a single major Wall Street executive.'

Read the whole sordid tale here at The Daily Caller, implicating Attorney General Eric

'Holder, Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, Associate Attorney General Tony West, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, Deputy Attorney General James Cole and Deputy Associate Attorney General Karol Mason — who “all came to the DOJ from prestigious white-collar defense firms where they represented the very financial institutions the DOJ is supposed to investigate.”'

The Market Was Already Overvalued In October 2011, And It Still Is

So says Robert P. Seawright, here, and here:

[T]he market remains overvalued and, if anything, somewhat more overvalued than it was last October. As I have been saying for a long time ... – we are (since 2000) in the throes of a secular bear market, subject to strong cyclical swings in either direction. I continue to encourage investors to be skeptical, cautious, and defensive yet opportunistic. I suggest that they look to take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves while carefully managing and mitigating risk, which should remain their top priority.

Seawright presents the case for overvaluation using a variety of metrics, not the least important of which is the Shiller p/e. Long term investors remain skeptical of the present rally based on these metrics.

Nevertheless, the SP500 shot up over 100 points from 1099 between October 3-20, 2011, and is again above 1400 today, a nominal gain of over 27 percent in less than a year. That's a pretty long sucker rally.

Neil Barofsky Calls Geithner And Obama Two-Faced Housing Bailout Liars

'[I]n 2009, $50 billion in TARP funds had been committed to help homeowners through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a program that the president announced was intended to help up to 4 million struggling families stay in their homes through sustainable mortgage modifications. Hundreds of billions more were still available and could have been used by the White House and the Treasury Department to help support a massive reduction in mortgage debt. But Geithner avoided this path to a housing recovery, explaining that he believed it would be “dramatically more expensive for the American taxpayer, harder to justify, [and] create much greater risk of unfairness.” Treasury amplified that argument in 2010, after it reluctantly instituted a weak principal reduction program in response to overwhelming congressional pressure. ...

'[T]hree years later, with a tightening presidential election and a Democratic base disillusioned by the government’s abandonment of its promise to help homeowners (less than 8 percent of the funds originally allocated in TARP for foreclosure relief has actually been spent), Geithner and the administration would like to present themselves as having undergone a conversion.'

Read the entire entry here.

The announcement of HAMP is what really got Rick Santelli's goat on CNBC one day in early 2009 and set off a fire storm which coalesced in the outrage of the Tea Party movement. The conservative instincts of the Tea Party movement were and remain opposed to bailouts of homeowners, bankers, car manufacturers, insurers, multinationals like GE, and on and on. Barofsky is probably right that this is nothing more than a cynical political ploy to shore up support among Democrats. But if he's not buying it, who will? 

Bob Brinker Of "Money Talk" Is Wrong: GDP Isn't Growing At An Average Of 1.75 Percent

On his radio program "Money Talk" yesterday Bob Brinker sought to defend recent economic performance as better than the Q2 report of 1.5 percent makes it appear. He accomplished this feat by averaging that number 1.5 with the 2.0 percent reported in Q1, coming up with a little better number, 1.75 percent.

This is wrong and I stated so in a post I have since removed.

I thought Bob Brinker said this for political reasons in the context of the remarks, and in a fit of pique I posted that Bob Brinker is a shill for the Obama regime in doing this, remembering as I am wont that Bob Brinker has stated on the program, among other things that hint of leaning to the Democrats despite calling himself an independent, that Obama's man in the US Senate, Dirty Harry Reid, is "a good man, a good man." Harry Reid is manifestly not a good man, recently using the well of the Senate to innoculate himself for potentially libelous remarks he has made from there against Mitt Romney, a fellow Mormon to Reid no less. Harry Reid has also been the chief instrument of gridlock on Capitol Hill, both now and when Pelosi was Speaker of the House. Just ask her how many bills she sent to him which never received action.

I've removed that post because I think it's possible Bob Brinker made the comments entirely out of ignorance, not from political bias. The reason is that I've realized that I've made the exact same mistake about GDP myself on this very blog, and my bias against Obama didn't keep me from making it. I actually forgot about those errors long after I had improved my understanding of GDP. So even if Bob Brinker did make the statements in order to put Obama's performance in the best possible light, it's also possible Bob Brinker just isn't as smart about GDP as he thinks he is. After all, it is a complicated subject about which very few people really are expert, and if I can make an honest mistake about it, so can he.

So the politics aside, it is impermissible to take the sum of quarterly headline GDP and divide by 2 or 3 or 4 to get an average rate. Each quarterly statement of GDP is already stating the annual rate, that is, the annual rate prevailing during the quarter. That's what the meaning of annualized is. As the quarters roll and the data become more full and complete, the numbers are routinely refined, even many years after we learn of the third and final estimate of quarterly GDP for month x, y or z. GDP is always a work in progress, and even somewhat controversial among the truly expert.

So in the second quarter, the annualized rate of GDP growth is 1.5 percent, not 2 percent, and not 1.75 percent. And that is terrible for everyone, Democrat, Republican and independent alike, because we are all in this together.

At least that is what we would like to think.

Yuval Levin Opens A Window On Obama's American Fascism

Yuval Levin opens a window on Obama's American fascism, noting its assault on the middle ground which separates the individual from The State:

Its approach to the private economy has involved pursuing consolidation in key industries — privileging a few major players that are to be treated essentially as public utilities, while locking out competition from smaller or newer firms. This both ensures the cooperation of the large players and makes the economy more manageable and orderly. And it leaves no one pursuing ends that are not the government’s ends. This has been the essence of the administration’s policies toward automakers, health insurers, banks, hospitals, and many others. ...

The [contraception] rule implicitly asserted that our nation will not tolerate an institution that is unwilling to actively ratify the views of those in power — that we will not let it be and find other ways to put those views into effect (even though many other ways exist), but will compel it to participate in the enactment of the ends chosen by our elected officials. This is an extraordinarily radical assertion of government power, and a failure of even basic toleration. It is, again, an attempt to turn private mediating institutions into public utilities contracted to execute government ends.

Read it all, here.

The Detroit News Attacks Obama's Imperial Presidency, Congress' Servility

"The imperial presidency Obama is building should worry Democrats as much as it does Republicans. This has never been an "end justifies the means" nation. Even if you agree with the outcomes the president is seeking, his running roughshod over the rule of law should be objectionable, because the powers he is claiming will not be forfeited by the next Republican president."

Read it all, here.

Conservatives' Answer To Change

Spengler On Elections: Revolution Exalted Into A Constitutional Process

"[R]evolution, in the form of periodic mass elections fought by all available means of money, brains, and even - after the Gracchan method - physical violence, is exalted into a constitutional process."

-- Oswald Spengler

WaPo Repeats The Big Lie: "There Are Just Not Enough Tax Breaks To Close For The Rich"

Here:

"[T]here are just not enough tax breaks to close for the rich, and the big money is in those for middle-income taxpayers."

The leftist drumbeat to raise taxes on the middle class just never ends.

But it's not just their agenda, it's the agenda of Republicans and libertarians, and it flies under the radar of "tax reform" and "broadening the base". Its most passionate advocates in the Republican Party are people like Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan, and certain members of the Gang of Six and the Gang of Twelve, you know, like Sen. Tom Coburn and Sen. Saxby Chambliss. The Stupid Party is stupid because the rank and file of America end up voting for this liberalism all the time. But those elected officials aren't stupid. They know exactly what they are doing and how it works.

You promise lower marginal tax rates across the board in exchange for giving up some tax deductions. Then as time passes the Democrats get the government in their hands again and raise taxes. But those lost deductions? They remain lost, and overall the tax burden on the middle class increases. It's what happened in 1986 with the loss of deductibility of interest on revolving credit in exchange for tax reform which lowered rates. But along came Bill Clinton in 1992 and up went the taxes. To help pay for things during the recession which Clinton's higher taxes made worse, middle class Americans tapped home equity like crazy, which was the rope Republicans furnished to hang us with. And now look at us, tapped out like never before with owners' equity in real estate down to 41 percent, facing a bunch of traitors on our side who want more money to misspend.

Tax collectors for the welfare state is who they are, to borrow a phrase from a recent Republican candidate for president who really let us down by not using it during the primary season.

As usual, conservatism's worst enemies are in their own party.

I'm getting just a little sick of it, too, primarily because there is a HUGE pool of tax revenue forfeited by the government which amounts to a gift to the top third of income earners in America. In 2012 everything earned above $110,100 escapes Social Security taxation. That's roughly $2 trillion which flies under the tax radar. At 15.3 percent, that's the biggest tax loss expenditure out there by far: $306 billion of lost revenue to the federal government because high-income earners don't pay it. The mortgage interest deduction, by contrast, is less than a third of that.

Conservatives want the misspending stopped. Until it is, tax increases are off the table.

Total Value Of Household Real Estate, Owners' Equity and Percentage of Total Value

The following charts reproduce real estate data compiled from the Federal Reserve's z.1 Flow of Funds releases going back to 12-11-97 showing the most up-to-date values for the total value of household real estate, the value of owners' equity, and the percentage of owners' equity relative to total value.

Home-Owners' Equity Hollowed Out After 1986 Tax Reform

Did the 1986 tax reform unintentionally contribute to the hollowing-out of home-owners' equity?

It sure looks like it from the graph I've created below, which is compiled from the Fed's z.1 Flow of Funds releases which I've systematically reviewed from the latest release on June 7 all the way back to December 11, 1997.

In exchange for the elimination of a tax loss expenditure important to American consumers, Americans were treated in the '86 reform to lower top marginal income tax rates which fell as low as 28 percent for a brief time under President George Herbert Walker Bush between 1988 and 1992. Unfortunately for them, however, Bill Clinton came along and did away with those low marginal rates, and raised taxes. But Americans never got back the tax loss expenditure to which I refer.

What was it?

Deductibility of interest from revolving credit. You know, credit card interest and the like.

As a compromise, however, the law was structured in such a way as to expand the scope of HELOCs, home equity lines of credit, so that Americans could deduct larger amounts of interest on their taxes from those vehicles, treated pretty much the same as the mortgage interest deduction, the home improvement loan interest deduction or the second mortgage interest deduction. It was a financial innovation which shifted revolving spending on credit cards to these expanded equity lines so that it became fairly routine to buy even cars with home equity when interest rates were low, and all kinds of other stuff. You know, college tuition, that memorable vacation to Acapulco . . . and that condo you bought as an investment property. And some people actually used their HELOCs to improve the primary dwellings they were drawn on. But most of it was pretty imprudent, even though the intention was right in shifting spending from unsecured credit to secured credit.

We call it now "amortizing spending". It's really dumb to finance spending this way because you have nothing to show for it at the end of the term, unless the spending is on an asset which retains value. (If only we could get government to do this, but that's another horror story altogether. Government doesn't just finance spending and have nothing to show for it, it never pays it off. So in addition to blowing dough, it pays for it without a termination date, which means it pays forever.)

When the bottom fell out of real estate starting in 2007, for the first time since 1986 the total value of the real estate of households declined, from the all-time high of $22.731 trillion in 2006 to $20.861 trillion in 2007. That's an 8 percent decline in one year. By 2011 the metric had fallen all the way to $16.05 trillion, almost 30 percent down, with owners' equity bottoming out at $6.231 trillion, a level last reached sometime in the year 2000.

The data show that there have been two periods of the hollowing-out, one from which we recovered and one in which we still find ourselves. In the first, the dollar value of the equity recovered even though the percentage of equity relative to total value did not. In the second, both the dollar value of the equity and the percentage of equity relative to total value have failed to recover.  

In 1990 owners' equity started to fall from $4.274 trillion the year before to $4.097 trillion in 1991, a decline of just 4 percent. But it took all the way until 1996 for owners' equity to exceed that level which it had achieved in 1989. It's pretty clear that Americans financed themselves through the recession of these years under Bush 41 and Clinton in part by using home equity. Even though home values continued to increase, owners' share of equity declined from 66 percent in 1989 to 56 percent in 1994, at which level it stabilized.

Owners' equity continued to climb in dollar terms from 1996 all the way through 2005 when it reached its zenith at $13.158 trillion, but as a percentage of total value owners' equity remained fairly stable in a range between 56 percent and 59 percent. The dollar decline from the zenith in 2005, however, to $6.231 trillion last year represents a whopper of a decline in owners' equity, nearly 53 percent, much larger than the 30 percent decline in the over-all values themselves.

I'll leave it to others to figure out just how much of this nearly $7 trillion has been simply lost from the balance sheet and how much was extracted to help people get themselves through this Bush/Obama depression, but you get the idea. America's forced savings in the form of home equity was coaxed out by financial innovation brought to you by politicians intent on reforming the tax code. And, of course, they did this with the help of private sector actors who profited from the operation. 

Americans might want to think harder about it the next time politicians come promising lower tax rates in exchange for a similar thrilling game of tax reform Russian Roulette. Think the mortgage interest deduction itself, which many Republicans and libertarians today want to end. I think it's easy to imagine from recent history how we might be persuaded to give up the mortgage interest deduction today in exchange for lower tax rates which some future government will only end up raising just like Clinton did, at which time we'll be out both the lower rates and the deductions which offered us some protections from the greedy spending bastards who populate both political parties.

The great achievement of the debacle of the 1930s was amortizing mortgages over 30 years, forcing Americans to save in the form of owners' equity. The debacle of the late 20th century was letting politicians convince us it was time to spend it.      

Create a graph

The Anti-Abortion Line Of The Day From Albert Schweitzer

"Ethics is in its unqualified form extended responsibility to everything that has life."

-- Albert Schweitzer

"The spirit of the age is filled with disdain for thinking."

Jobs? There Is No Driver For Jobs.

Gridlock Is Ordinarily The Most Moral Form Of Government

So David Harsanyi, here.

Russians Care More About Liberty Than Americans!

The Trumpet That Gives An Uncertain Sound

Avoid the "O" symbolism, will ya buddy?

Here's A Conservative Tax Idea For Mitt Romney And The Republicans

Current dollar GDP is $15.596 trillion.

All you get, for everything, is $1.56 trillion.

Capice?

The Left's True Objective Is Higher Taxes On Middle Class: Citizen Cohn Admits It

Say whatever you want about Romney's tax numbers not adding up, the objective of the left in America is to raise taxes on the middle class, precisely because government spending as projected going forward cannot be paid for without it.

So Jonathan Cohn, here:

To reiterate something I've said before, I happen to support higher taxes for the middle class, at least over the long term, assuming they are part of a balanced deficit reduction approach that preserves Medicare, Social Security, and other critical programs. In an ideal world, Obama would make a case for precisely that sort of agenda, because without those higher taxes (above and beyond taxing the rich, as Obama has proposed) government won't have enough money to fund future spending obligations. But it's hard to fault Obama for not presenting the full facts about fiscal tradeoffs when the other side has shown repeatedly that it doesn't care about facts at all.

Conservatives need to make the point that government spending even at Rep. Paul Ryan levels is unaffordable without tax hikes on the middle class.

All the talk in the Republican Party about broadening the tax base is really about eliminating tax loss expenditures in order to raise revenues. In other words, taking away the deductibility of mortgage interest expenses, state and local income tax expenses, and the like. If it walks like a tax increase and talks like a tax increase, it's a tax increase, whether it's brought to you by the Gang of Six, the Gang of Twelve, or Mitt Romney.

The Stupid Party is about to vote for this again and the left knows it, which is why they are so happy. People like Jonathan Cohn know a Romney presidency will help achieve their goal, so it really doesn't matter if Obama loses. Unless conservatives take over the Republican National Convention and give the nomination to someone who will actually protect the middle class, taxes on the 66 percent of America which earns less than $100K per year are going up, up, up.

Conservatives need to remember what happened last time we fell for this gimmickry. Ronald Reagan agreed to eliminate deductibility of consumer interest in the 1986 tax reform in exchange for lower rates. We lost that deductibility and got the lower rates, but when Democrat Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993, we didn't get back the deductibility. The same thing will happen again. We'll sacrifice deductibility of something else in exchange for lower tax rates, which liberals later will succeed in raising the next time they have power, putting the middle class even farther behind than it is now.

We didn't get back the deductibility lost in 1986 under George Bush in 2001, and we won't in future if we answer the siren call of broadening the tax base again.

Unemployment Rate Rises To 8.3 Percent: All 42 Months Under Obama Over 8

For the report from the BLS, see here.

For the interactive graphic of unemployment from The Wall Street Journal, see here.

Full-time employment DROPPED from 114.6 million to 114.3 million. In April 2006 the level stood 5 million higher at 119.3 million. 

As recently as April 2006, just six years ago, people working part-time for economic reasons had dipped to 3.9 million. Today the number still stands elevated at 8.246 million, an INCREASE from last month's 8.21 million and more than double the level of six years ago.

Total part-time INCREASED from 27.894 million last month to 27.925 million now. In April 2006 the level stood at 19.1 million. Total part-time employment today is nearly 9 million higher than it was six years ago.

Total self-employment INCREASED from 9.572 million last month to 9.616 million now. The number stood at 10.5 million in April 2006. The number of entrepreneurial Americans has declined by nearly a million in six years.

Holders of multiple jobs INCREASED from 6.769 million last month to 6.845 million now. The number stood at 7.4 million in April 2006. The number of people holding extra jobs has declined by over half a million in six years.

Change you can believe in.

Both Romney And Obama Will Destroy The Economy By Destroying Housing

In November 2011 Romney told Hugh Hewitt, here, that it was not a good time to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction in view of the problems in the housing sector:

My own view is that the idea of limiting deductions in the way the Bowles-Simpson panel recommended makes a good deal of sense. I’d like to see us have lower tax rates, and have a broader base. And it sounds like their idea is looking for a way of doing that. I must admit, I don’t think that this is a great time to be eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction. We obviously have a lot of trouble in the housing sector right now, but I haven’t seen their proposal. It may work just fine, but I just haven’t seen it, so I wouldn’t want to comment on that. But the home mortgage interest deduction right now is something that I think we need to keep in place.

But by February 2012 it had become a good time to eliminate the deduction, at least for the rich, a position identical to Obama's, as noted here:

“In order to limit any impact on the deficit, because I do not want to add to the deficit, and also to make sure we continue to have progressivity in our tax code, I’m going to limit the deductions and exemptions, particularly for high-income folks,” Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, said.

Reiterated in April at a private fund-raiser as reported here, the idea suddenly had become toxic again, enough to merit walkbacks from his advisers, reported here:

Senior advisers to Mitt Romney said Monday that Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, was merely tossing around ideas, not making policy announcements, when his chat with donors about some significant changes to the tax code was overheard by reporters at a fund-raiser this weekend.

When it comes to Mitt Romney, we all know that there's no there there on any number of issues. But it is especially disturbing that neither Romney nor Obama seem to grasp the scope of the damage their shared idea of eliminating the mortgage interest deduction for the wealthy would cause to the American economy.

Wayne Allyn Root explains, here:

If you think the housing market is in trouble now, wait until the home mortgage interest deduction is eliminated for upper income homeowners.

From Manhattan, Great Neck, and Scarsdale, to Boca Raton, Scottsdale, and Brentwood, home prices in upper class neighborhoods from coast to coast will drop by about 35% overnight. That 35% number is not a guess, it’s automatic.

Today, if you’re in the top bracket, you deduct 35% of your mortgage interest off your tax bill. If tomorrow you can’t, your home is worth about one third less.

That's how economics works.

Unless Obama manages to also raise the top income tax rate to 40%. Then, when you lose your mortgage deduction your home will drop by about 40% overnight. Can you imagine the carnage to the housing market if this happens?

Obama's economic theories just don't compute. He believes that if you take away more of rich people's income through tax increases, and take away their deductions so that the value of their net worth collapses, that will be good for the economy.

He thinks if you take away rich people's money, consumer spending will somehow increase. Even though the facts are that the top 2% of income earners produce over 30% of U.S. consumer spending, while the top 5% produce 40% of consumer spending.

Just as a rising tide lifts all boats, a tsunami wiping out values at the top end of the housing market can only swamp values at the low end.

Six years after the collapse in housing began, we still have no leadership on the most significant economic problem facing Americans at all income levels.

Obama's War On Coal Is A War On The Heartland Of America

From a worthwhile discussion of the issues, here:

America produces 40 percent of its electricity from coal. Eight states, including Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, and West Virginia, use coal to generate more than 80 percent of their electricity. But over 100 coal-fired generating plants have closed since January 2010, mostly due to Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

EPA's Mercury and Air Toxic Standards for Power Plants rule, issued last December, will make electricity generation more complex and expensive, especially in the eastern half of the United States. It will lead to the closure of many coal- and oil-fired power plants that would be too expensive to bring into compliance. Ultimately, power users will bear these costs.

"Retirement Is The Darkness At The End Of The Tunnel"

The End Of The Tunnel

So says Rosie, here:

“The median age of the boomer is 55 going on 56 and retirement is the darkness at the end of the tunnel,” Rosenberg said. “The trend towards second jobs, do-it-yourself, private labels, dollar stores, maintaining your existing vehicle, downsizing property needs, cocooning and frugality will continue unabated.”

Can We Call It A Depression Yet?

2008 GDP in 2005 dollars didn't recover until 2011, and only just barely so. 

Per the latest revisions from the Bureau of Economic Analysis here, real GDP in 2005 chained dollars:

2008 $13.162 trillion

2009   12.758

2010   13.063

2011   13.299

2012   13.558.

I've written that I think we had a depression starting in 2008 when GDP declined from the previous year 2007, and that the depression ended based on reports of real GDP, but perhaps looked at from the point of view of chained 2005 dollars the depression ended just last year and not in 2010 as I've maintained previously.

Al Lewis for MarketWatch here disagrees:

The Great Depression that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke claims to have averted has been part of the background radiation of our economy since at least 2008.

It’s just that like radiation — it’s invisible.

We’ve called it the recovery, the jobless recovery, the slogging recovery and more recently the fading recovery. We’ve measured modest growth in our nation’s gross domestic product to record that our so-called Great Recession ended in June 2009. And now we are saying that if this disappointing growth suddenly disappears, as currently feared, we will be in a new recession.

There is nothing more depressing than hearing about a new recession when you haven’t fully recovered from the last one. I take heart in suspecting that in a still-distant future, historians will look back with clarity and call this whole rotten period a depression.


Lewis' remarks at least show that calling what we've been through a "depression" is now possible in polite company.

I'd call that . . . progress!

Congratulations, Rush, For 24 Years Of Success With Irritable Mental Gestures

Euro Area Gold Holdings Declined Almost 14 Percent Up To Crisis, Then Held Steady

So says Axel Merk in a very interesting analysis, here, which concludes that central banks have been scared into holding gold since the financial crisis:

From what we see, central banks have been scared into holding gold since the onset of the financial crisis. Beyond that, we don’t see an active strategy at the ECB to keep its gold reserves at 15% of total assets. Instead, the ECB’s comparatively measured approach has simply lead to a reasonably stable percentage of gold reserves. Of course that was before ECB President Draghi said on July 26, 2012, that he shall do “whatever it takes to preserve the euro.” (an interpretation of that may be that more money printing is on the way). For now, the cultural differences in responding to the financial crisis (Europe: think austerity; US: think growth) suggest that the euro should outperform the U.S. dollar over the long term, assuming the not-so-negligible scenario of a more severe fallout from the Eurozone debt crisis won’t materialize.

His chart shows Italy has sold absolutely no gold since 1999, and Germany very little, while the Euro area as a whole has sold just under 14 percent of gold holdings since December 1999. France was the big seller from 1999, arresting its gold holdings during the crisis at a level which nearly matches Italy's. America's gold reserve has remained constant for years according to official reports, although it is said that Rep. Ron Paul would like to audit Fort Knox and The Federal Reserve Bank Of New York just to make sure.

(image source)