LyrArc Article Gist
In an effort to calm unsettled global financial markets ECB president Mario Draghi said in a speech on July 26, 2012: "Within our mandate, the ECB is willing to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro and, believe me, it will be enough." Yields on Spain's government bonds reached 7.5% as investors shunned Spanish bonds fearing the need for a government bailout.

LyrArc Article Gist
One of the first questions by moderators in the Univision debate in Florida focussing on immigration issues related to the anti-immigrant sentiment fostered by Donald Trump. Trumps statements on Hispanics and Muslims came under withering criticism from Clinton and Sanders. Hillary Clinton stated in reference to the Trump campaign slogan "Make America Great Again" that you can't make America great by doing things that do not reflect America's values. She said she would continue to speak up against the anti-immigrant sentiment created by Trump's derogatory statements about immigrants.

LyrArc Article Gist
All sides had to make concessions to reach a new agreement on a restructuring of Greece's debt, and new terms for loans to Ireland and Portugal. The agreement was reached after negotiations between France, Germany, the ECB, and eurozone countries with a declaration issued on July 21, 2011. The powers and financing of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) were expanded to be the main mechanism for channeling EU funding to reduce the burden of Greece's debt. Germany will provide new funding and be open to additional commitments, something German chancellor Angela Merkel had resisted since the beginning of the crisis in 2010. Earlier funding had come with high interest rates and only when the situation had reached a crisis, with Germany insisting on the punitive rates and conditions as a way to discourage countries from taking advantage of cheap borrowing. In exchange for commitment of German funds Ms Merkel had insisted that banks and private creditors share in the losses. Private bondholders resisted but finally agreed to take a loss of 20% of principal on a small portion of the bonds. Their larger concession was to take lower interest rates and extend the maturities to 15 years and 30 years on new bonds which are guaranteed by the EU. The specific terms of the agreement are as follows: The EFSF and the IMF will lend Greece 109 billion euros over 3 years at 3.5%. Private creditors including German and French banks will "voluntarily" turn in their old bonds for new ones that mature over 15-30 year periods. These new bonds include 15 and 30 year Greek bonds with varying coupons. Some of the bonds would have a 20% discount on principal. EU leaders say the private sector contribution amounts to 37 billion euros through 2014 and 106 billion euros through 2019. Another part of the program is for the EFSF to buy back some of the Greek bonds on the secondary markets, which would mean Greece would now owe a smaller amount to the EFSF on these bonds. The EFSF will now have additional financial support from Germany and other EU countries and be authorized to provide aid to countries before a crisis situation arises. It would also have power to buy Greek bonds at prices on secondary markets to reduce the Greek debt burden. Ireland and Portugal are also assisted in the agreement. The interest rate for EU aid to Ireland and Portugal is taken down to 3.5%. Ireland is paying about 6% on the EU portion of its 67.5 billon euros bailout and efforts to reduce the rate were resisted earlier. The main theme behind these concessions and provisions is to give Greece, (and Ireland and Portugal) a chance to grow. High interest rates came under strong criticism because it only increased the size of the debt burden of these countries with a shrinking economy and high unemployment. The failure to come together behind a broad and sensible agreement with all parties making serious concessions, the EU, the ECB and the political leadership in these countries especially Greece, was undermining confidence in the euro and the eurozone itself. By mid-July Italy and Spain were feeling the effects of contagion in the financial markets, U.S. debt ceiling negotiations were unsettling global financial markets, the pressure was intense to come up with the workable agreement achieved on July 21, 2011. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What is happening here appears to be that the whole American system of government as it operates today has some serious weaknesses, which if exposed in a critical situation- and with some life threatening situation for an industry group- can subvert the whole system and the economic life of the country. The serious weaknesses are the lobbying of Congress that is legal, and the financing of Congressmen and Senators election campaigns by industry groups which is legal. The life threatening situation for an industry group are the accounting rules and nuances that require that the banking and financial industry that holds these mortgage home loans, if they change one loan to lower payments in one geographic area, have to then show the lowered value of that loan in their books on all other loans of that type in that geographic area. Without this the banks and financial institutions were already or close to insolvent with losses of over $1 trillion. With that accounting change the industry losses would make large parts of the industry insolvent. This becomes incentive enough to fight loan modifications at all costs for the industry, and explains why Hope for Homeowners has generated only 25 loan modifications when it was advertised to generate 400,000. This creates a once in a lifetime or once in a hundred year chance of the whole system of democratic government working to destroy the economic life of the country. How? By providing a big enough reason for the banking and financial industry to fight loan modifications almost to the death, against even their better judgement when in late 2008 and January 2009 this would mean suicide for the economic life of the country, and the chance that they would both go down into the depths, the industry and the boat that is the American economy. This is what this story tells us, all key Congressmen and Senators were taken into their fold by the lobbying groups with large donations to their election funds, both Republican and Democrat, Shelby, Frank, Dodd, Durbin, and their aides. After Hope for Homeowners program failed, the new Hope Now program was again designed with the connivance of lawmakers in both parties by the banking industry representatives. It was designed so it would largely fail by not doing enough to keep homeowners in their homes. The industry faced with a life threatening situation did the wrong thing. Instead of saying lets get the government to help to change the accounting rule, and advocating that the government join the industry to share the losses and go out aggressively to restructure the loans in a three way loss sharing arrangement with homeowners, government and the industry, the industry instead decided to stick its head in the sand and let nobody do anything period. To do this it had to create the illusion that somehow the problem would fix itself with housing recovering on its own. In addition to the donations many Republicans like Preston, Secretary of HUD with oversight of FHA, and others in the Bush administration, may have had the mistaken notion that somehow the housing industry would recover without much help, that the economy was basically still healthy, that the crisis was not as bad as it appeared, that freemarket principles were still the best guide, and that toxic assets of banks and foreclosures were two entirely different things, with foreclosures for those who had borrowed recklessly not a bad thing....

LyrArc Article Gist
Note that Goldman Sach's analysts who first predicted that oil prices could reach $100 are now predicting that the downward momentum is building up. The prediction from them now is that prices may go up further than the $96 right now but should drop to $80 by April. Its not too difficult to see why. First on the supply side the momentum for downward shift is not so significant but still there are signs. The Iraqi oil flow disruption either from a Turkish invasion of norther Iraq or from internal disruption is shrinking as the Turks see this as a small operation at most, and the Iraqi law and order situation is improving. The Iranian situation may be stabilizing without US intervention possibilities shrinking. On the supply side the oil majors except for Total see their output shrinking somewhat, and OPEC has not increased supplies significantly as oil inventories have not built up as they do before winter. But overall the supply situation is stable. On the demand side is where the significant downward momentum exists. With the US economy slowing down amid the buildup of the housing tumble and the credit crunch which looks to get worse in 2008 before stabilizing in 2009 and a stronger euro and other factors affecting Europe's expansion oil consumption by industry in the industrialized countries is slowing. Much of the pressure on oil prices comes from increases in demand each year from China and India. Here gasoline is subsidized by the government and this reduces incenive for conservation. The policy of letting market prices be reflected at the pump to a limited degree so as not to seriously affect people is now taking hold in these countries. In China prices were raised 10% and there is likely to be further increase in the near future. This along with the increasing awarenes of the dependence on foreign oil and the need for conservation in both China and India should build pressures in both countries to make the best use of resoures and have users share some of the burden of higher prices. The American and European gasoline market is driven by a public that has not been too conscious of conservation especially in America. It appears that high oil prices have not encouraged conservation, witness that with rebates for higher oil prices and zero interest rates financing large pickups are still selling at levels of 2005, and there has not been a significant reduction in consumption at the pump. What may shift this equation now is probably government mandated fuel economy standards. Europe already has new standards and the automakers there are racing to meet it with new technologies, in America its now almost certain that public sentiment and congressional sentiment is likely to lead to similiar standards or at least significantly improved standard. Public sentiment is already pushing the automakers in the USA to introduce new models with higher fuel economy and use this as a n advertising and competitive edge. This reduction in gasoline consumption at the pump through new technologies in the industrialized countries and through price increases being allowed to flow through in the developing countries of China and India in a stable supply environment where the downward political risks are stable may be the pivotal turning point for the price of oil. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In China since 1981 the poorest people making below $1.25 a day fell to 207 million in 2005 from 835 million in 1981. In India the number of people below $1.25 a day increased to 455 million in 2005 from 420 million people in 1981. The share of the people in poverty fell to 42 percent from 60 percent during the same period. Corresponding figures for East Asia including China show a drop from 80% of the people in poverty in 1981 dropping to 18% in 2005. The proportion of people living below the $1.25 a day poverty line worldwide fell over the nerarly 25 year period from 1981 to 2005 from 52% in 1981 to 26% in 2005. In subSaharan Africa, now the poorest region half or 50% of the people live under the poverty line of $1.25 a day in 2005 almost where it was in 1981. In absolute numbers the region had 380 million people living below the poverty line in 2005 compared to 200 million people in 1981. Note that the World Bank this year changed the poverty line from $1 to $1.25 a day, to make allowance for the inflation that is hitting the poorer countries. Is China a rich nation after the Olympics? Some parts of China, the coastal regions and the regions around big cities like Shanghai and Beijing are relatively affluent with pockets of poorer people but in the rest of the country there is poverty as defined perhaps in terms of deep poverty, poverty, poor middle class without health insurance or any kind of savings for emergencies. With 200 million people in 2005 below the poverty line a question could be asked how many people in China below say $2.00 a day which could be seen as being poor at a time when inflation in food and fuel costs has been significant in developing countries. If its somewhere in the range of 300 and 400 million people in China this explains why in relative terms China would identify with India and the rest of the developing countries and it also explains its stand in the WTO trade talks acting as a developing country protecting the rights of agriculture and farmers within China. And it also explains the reasons why China sees a long transition before it ceases to be a poor developing country and why there is real concern that these 300-400 million people as well as others adversely affected by the rapid industrialization and exercize of state authority, corruption and increasing gaps between rich and poor, adverse effects on environment, that these people adversely affected are listened to and accomodated in the interests of stable progress and fairness. Much of recent history has shown that countries open to foreign trade have done better given the right conditions and careful policy measures. China opened up around 1981, and India around 1991. Also progress and gains are more significant in infrastructure building and in poverty reduction in the latter phases of development as the synergies increase, capital pool increases, and the development accelerates, this shows why China's gains look significant compared to India's at this point in time. In ten years or fifteen years a better assessment could be made and then some points may favor China and some India, and the results will be a result of different history, experiences and problems faced and routes taken because of prior developments in each region and varying complexity. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
After the huge crisis the debate about capitalism. What went wrong, and importantly what did not go wrong. Not in the sense of more punditry to place the blame but to ask questions to have a better grasp of the fact and better understanding of the twists and turns of the last decade, the complexities, the frailties, the errors of judgement, and the failings, and the outright falsehoods and ethical breaks. So that the good things are not lost for instance the individual initiative and the bad things are corrected and measures put in place to prevent recurrence and minimize damage. Has the model of anglo-saxon capitalism failed? Actually some specific things failed, deregulation at a time when banks and markets were behaving irresponsibly and without any restraint internal or external, credit ratings agencies failed, financial institutions failed in performing their first line of business which is to finance investment in the economy not in housing and mortgages, and American consumerism failed in that value of saving disappeared and abundance of debt brought American savings to zero, leaving little for investment in the economy and infrastructure except by borrowing from other countries. And living on illusions and not on sound basics the leadership failed thinking that free enterprise and technology and productivity improvements somehow allowed a country or group of countries to live way beyond their means, and a tendency to excess in the popular mood of the country, excesssive consumption, excessive and profligate use of energy which sent trillions of dollars overseas over decades, and excessive expectations of the lower classes for housing and goods beyond their means, all played a part. What did not fail is the freedom to trade, the fall of "barriers to intercourse" between nations, that produced gains on a big scale so that computer and cell phone technology developed in one part of the world quickly spread around the world and the innovations and technology developed in one country spread producing benefits all over the world. It created amood of optimism in developing countries whose incomes rose especially where countries encouraged growth as in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Eastern Europe and pulled hundreds of millons out of poverty. With China, America and Germany in effect shipped technology goods in return for lower value added goods like textiles and shoes, to help China industrialize, and American consumption played a useful part until things reached an extreme and the system was abused by forgetting the basics and allowing excesses and failing to respect ethical responsibilities. Regarding regulation excessive regulation and red tape has proved to be bad as in the license Raj in India which stifled private initiative and new enterprise till it was abandoned in 1990, and no one in India is calling for more regulation. What is bad is to abandon good common sense and to rely on the illusion that no regulation is needed to run a complex financial system like we have today, a laissez fairre libertarian philosophy that was rampant in the Bush administration and in the country's leadership in the Bush years. As a result an underfunded SEC failed to deliver on its basic mission and responsibility, and the lack of a centralized regulatory authority with powers and funding to meet the challenges of modern finance as for instance ineffective derivative regulation under the CFTC, simply aggravated things further. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Attorney General Sessions says the driver of the car who drove into protesters could be prosecuted in a number of ways including for a hate crime. The protest was against a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville. A car driven by 20 year old James Alex Fields drove into protesters injuring 19 and killing one woman. The local charges being made are for hit and run, malicious wounding, and the Justice Department is conducting its own probe. The comments by Sessions contrasted with the statement blaming both sides by president Trump, which led to strong criticism in the media and by the business community.

LyrArc Article Gist
The 11th Annual State of the News Media Report of the Pew Research Center is optimistic about the future of the news media business and news organizations. The optimism centers on the new investments in the business leading to new hiring for Buzz Feed, Washington Post, and other organizations, the access to news media on the tablets and the smartphones, the new ways and tools used to reach a younger demographic, on line video clips on the digital websites which are drawing users away from the news cable networks with viewership of Fox, CNN and MSNBC declining 11%. Six of 10 adults watch video online and half of them watch news videos. Interactive data presentation is popular. Younger people of highschool or college age get news on Facebook and social media networks, another way of consuming news information. Especially useful are results of the Pew Center's research showing 68% of American adults connect to the internet on tablets or smartphones, and 31% of tablet owners telling Pew they were taking out more time for news information. The tablet is particularly well suited for news information, and as lighter, thinner, easier to hold and fit into a pocket tablets are designed at lower prices, this trend is likely to get stronger....

LyrArc Article Gist
April saw a 15% year over decline in housing prices according to the Case-Shiller 20 city home price Index. And the process of foreclosures leading to a cycle of lower prices leading to new wave of foreclosures is picking up speed. Meantime the lenders cannot agree among themselves about who how to share the pain so that his process does not get out of control and end up damaging all lenders and the banks in addition to the homeowners. The primary lender cannot agree with the homeowners equity line of credit or second level lender, who needs to signoff on the restructuring of loans. And the owners of mortgage securities have contractual terms that limit the the number of loans that can be modified to 2%-7% as a way to get favorable tax treatment. And mortgage insurers also can hold up mortgage restructurings that will trigger claims against them. As a result not enough of the details have been worked out to allow the process of loan restructuring to occur inlarge numbers to slow this process of foreclosures. And banks are not prepared to handle a wave of foreclosures leading to large losses on theri balance sheets. So the FDIC division that liquidates failing banks has received authorization for 1 50% increase in employment to 331. FDIC's Blair believes bank failures will go up but not to early 1990's levels, and a lot of the damage will be done by how the housing affects the larger economy and creates banking distress....

LyrArc Article Gist
Ireland went off the cliff by taking enormous unregulated loans. The banks lent money freely and the regulators simply ignored the bubble that was developing through the last decade. The speculators, developers, bankers and regulators all let the bubble reach astounding proportions. One developer got a $6.3 million loan on a personal guarantee without meeting his banker. One 1000 square foot Dublin carraige house went for 3 million euros in an auction. One of the developers, Simon Kelly, says that everything was funded by the Germans through the European Central Bank. The sale of the Jury's hotel in 2005 resulted in the amazing price of 60 to 70 million euros per acre. Ireland's GDP which was $25 billion in the 1980's, reached $267 billion in 2008. The boom that was initially based on export competitiveness and the low corporate tax rate combined with an educated English speaking workforce, was followed by a speculative boom in real estate financed by Irish banks, where regulators simply looked aside and placed no controls on lending. To get an idea how the government looked at anyone who raised a red flag, look at this quote from Bertie Ahern, prime minister of Ireland from 1997 to 2008, who said at a trade union conference: "sitting on the sidelines cribbing and moaning is a lost opportunity. I don't know how people who engage in that don't commit sucide." And this coming from an Irish politician who helped in arranging the Irish peace accords with the help of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The risks of such uncontrolled speculation in real estate was lost on regulators, the government, and politicians. And the bankers stopped paying attention to their loans, with everyone wanting to lend money to 10-15 deveopers who were able to drive the market. The regulator at the central bank simply didn't pay much attention to the reports he received every quarter about the lending. Now the average household in Ireland owes 132,000 to the banks, according to David McWilliams of the Central Bank of Ireland, and unemployment is at 14%. If the Irish had completely lost track of the picture, what about the German and British banks that loaned money to Ireland? Why was money being made so freely available to Ireland. One Irishman says getting a mortgage in those days was like getting cupcakes. With prices haveing reached the stratosphere at 60 million euros an acre, were the European banks also pushing money into Ireland beyond the ability of a small country like Ireland to repay? According to the Bank for International Settlements based in Basel, Switzerland, Ireland owes $139 billion to German banks and $132 billion to British banks. Easy money was also available from US banks for countries such as Argentina which suffered similar crisis in prior decades. Banking crises ocurred in Asian countries in the 1980's. Much of this experience was lost in the manner German, British and other European banks loaned money to countries such as Iceland, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. The Asian banking crises of the 1980's are being followed by European banking crises over two decades later. The ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Andrew Rosenfeld, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, and chief executive of an investment advisory firm, says the Public-Private Investment Program proposed by Secretary Geithner has serious flaws. It risks government money, and expects too little from private investors. The government will essentially finance the private investor's purchase of these toxic assets at an auction, with the private investors putting some money of their own, to buy these assets at prices emerging from the auction. It runs right smack into the problem that Secretary Paulson under President Bush faced when he suggested the auction plan as a way for these toxic assets to be sold off to buyers. It was never clear how shuch an auction would work, and whether it would work at all. Meantime the worsening credit crisis required direct injection of capital into banks. Now Secretary Paulson's abandoned effort has been essentially revived in the Geithner program, with the same problems but with the carrot of government taking up most of the risk with its financing. Rosenfeld argues that under this plan the government assumes all the risk of losses, and if private investors make too much money off of it it will create a public outcry and the risk of an AIG type situation. This might lead to lower bids and the money generated for the banks might end up being too small to make a difference. There is a better way he says, and this is for the government using existing authority to seize banks that look insolvent. Its fairer because the government will own the toxic asets, and the bank, and the proceeds for the sale of the bank, and these would be offsetting the cash that it would inject to recapitalize the bank. The way it would do it is to inject cash in the form of Treasury notes as equity in the bank, and at the same time remove the bank's toxic assets and place them in the basement of the Treasury building, while it waits to see what they turn out to be worth. Bank regulators would swap Treasury securties for the toxic assets "at par," which is at the amount of the original purchase price of assets removed. Within a short time, a month or a few months, the bank could be sold to private investors. This is sounder because it takes away the pricing problem which looks like its never going to be resolved, as banks and investors are never going to agree on toxic asset price. And the new bank could start clean and start lending flowing in the economy. If the bank turns out to be so badly managed and with so many bad bets that it cannnot be sold, its essentially insolvent and irrecoverable, so it should be liquidated. Nobel winner Krugman says some of the same things in his columns in the NYT. He has a sense of despair seeing the return of the failed Paulson solution of auctions with a new twist, even as the economy is flailing in the wind, with job loss numbers over 600,000 and jumping each month....

LyrArc Article Gist
Hillary Clinton is critical of Ted Cruz's comments about patrolling Muslim neighborhoods and Trump's comments on torture. She cites John MacCain and George Shultz in support of her position. Clinton also points to lack of adequate coordination between EU nations and with Turkey on terrorism risks as a serious problem to address following Brussels terrorist attacks in March 2016. Clinton says it is easier for the U.S. to obtain flight manifests from an EU nation than it is for EU nations to do this with each other.