move your money dance

mock turtle Sun, 1/10/2010 - 9:22 am


i did the "move your money" dance this past week

and got into a little pissin match with the jpm-chase branch manager

after i had my cashiers checks in hand for ira rollover, savings , checking, and a CD

i politely informed the bank employee behind the desk that i would gladly share the reasons behind my decision to close my accounts if she was interested

i had previously just said personal reasons as they pressed me for about 10 solid minutes not to close my account and telling me all the services i could obtain at jpm-chase

the employee said yes id like to know

i stated that this was the only way i could peacefully, lawfully and effectively register my objection to the bank bailouts

and

the continuing casino behavior by the countries 'too big to fail" mega banks

the employee claimed that jpm-chase didnt need government backing, had paid back the tarp money back

as i began pointing out that many major mega banks had been recipients of flow thru government money

that came by way of AIG,

and were able to trade to the federal reserve, toxic Mortgage backed securities in exchange for triple A US treasury securities

thus shifting trillions of risk and loss from the banks to the taxpayers

she claimed not to know anything about this...and then the branch manager stepped over and said point blank that i was not telling the truth

we went back and forth for about 5 minutes with the bank people politely calling me a liar

and me quoting what ive learned at calculated risk , naked capitalism, market ticker, big picture and other blog spots

as things started to get ugly

i ended the conversation by saying i did not hold anybody in this branch responsible for the destructive behavior of the mega banks and big financial trading houses, and i wished them, personally, well

but in leaving, i suggested that they be sure to tell the people in the central office why i left

here is the one page doc that explains it all and im going to place it on the branch managers desk monday morning

"Behind The Real Size of the Bailout | Mother Jones"

...

join the movement

Move Your Money

need 300k jobs per month to recover in 6 years

dum luck

you still out there

i got pigged on my response to your request for data to support my position

so here it is

starting with your request

dum luk wrote on Fri, 12/11/2009 - 12:27 pm

Mock,

You keep posting that "we need to create over 300k jobs a month to dig our way out of this hole over a 5 to 7 year period".

Where are you getting that number ??

I believe 175k per month would do it in a 5 year time frame. These are my sources:

http://web-xp2a-pws.ntrs.com:80/content//media/attachment/data/econ_research/0912/document/dd120809.pdf

Economist Mark Zandi: On stimulus, jobs, state finances, inflation and the year ahead

my answer

you asked where i got my figures and supplied a different set of numbers

your first reference says 86k just to hold steady at current employment rate

my sources put the steady state number at 127 k

http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/signs_of_healing_in_the_labor_market_though_unemployment_remains_in_double_/

ok no big deal

what you are leaving out is the job GROWTH needed to re coup the 8 million jobs lost since the recession began

do we agree almost 8 million jobs have been lost????

see this article for one as a reference
US economy has lost almost 7m jobs since recession began, fresh figures show - Telegraph

we were for an ice age before we were against it

longwaver wrote 10:49 pm

" in 75 the gov predicted a (coming) ice age...And (and so)a government forecast for anything is worth what again?"

-----

my response

i dont think the government made that prediction in 75 (ford administration?)

back then there was good reason to think that in the coming centuries (they never said tomorrow) we would enter a new ice age

the natural record indicated grand cycles of 95 thousand years ( orbital eccentricity) 42k yrs orbital obliquity) and 12k yrs ( rotational precession) due to the milankovitch cycle

the newer warning about climate change have noting to do with predicting the milankovitch cycle or other natural events that effect climate

i dont know if 20 billions metric tons of CO2 into the air every year will win thee tug of war with the natural cycle of ice ages

i think (guess) it will

but the forbes article is simplistic and unreasonably vituperous in its argument

this is not your grandfathers de-recession

Adllen C said
"Let's not forget the govi deficits"

yeah the deficits are crushing

and thats why i take issue with our friends who say there are lessons from past recessions or the great depression

where we are at today as a country and society is off the charts

nothing like the past

around the time of the GD or just prior, the usa was the "china" of that time...we exported industrial and agricultural goods like crazy

before WWII we had a far favorable balance of trade and gov deficit situation

i really am concerned that this time we have boxed ourselves into a corner and there is no good way out

and as you know i suspect the puppet masters have rigged it this way by design

which political or corporate leaders want to tell the american people we cant live so high on the hog

look at what the press and what passes for our leadership did to carter when he put on a sweater and turned down the heat

right for the wrong reasons?

mock turtle (profile) wrote (in reply to...) on Sun, 12/6/2009 - 10:21 pm

*

Wisdom Speaker

except for your quote of mine "the two programs are not the same..."

i agree pretty much with everything you said

please note in my original comment and in many others...

i think we are in deep voodoo...seriously effed and the dollar is toast etc

all im saying is that many of us are so blind angry about all this shit..and understandably so

that many of us have transitions into a zone of less analysis and in favor of venting our spleens

wisdom speaker wrote

mock turtle wrote:

"...but the two programs are not the same..."

But they are. Under TARP, Uncle Sam issued a large quantity of Treasuries, and injected the cash thus obtained into the banking sector. Effectively a taxpayer-guaranteed loan to the banking sector, funded by investors' cash. But whence flowed the cash?
Ahh, lookie here! We have the Federal Reserve doubling its "balance sheet" to buy Treasuries and Agencies (which are nearly equivalent to Treasuries, given the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie). Net result is a loan of newly-minted cash from the Federal Reserve to the banks, collateralized by the assets and "earning power" of the banks, with the taxpayers on the hook in case the banks fail to make good.

Now, look at the Fed's other program. Bankers walk up with trash MBS, walk away with Treasuries and sell them for cash. Federal Reserve doubles its balance sheet to "buy more" Treasuries and Agencies. Banks have to back the MBS loaned to the Federal Reserve in the event that they are no longer AAA-rated (or something like that)... Net result is a loan of newly-minted cash from the Federal Reserve to the banks, collateralized by the assets and "earning power" of the banks, with the taxpayers on the hook in case the banks fail to make good.

Read the last sentence of each paragraph and tell me what's different, exactly?

This would be inflationary except that most of the relevant inflation (expansion of money and credit) already occurred. It occurred when the house and stock markets inflated. That was done with shadow bank credit, which the Federal Reserve has now made explicit. They had the choice of ratifying the banks' stealth inflation of "asset values" or allowing the FIRE sector to re-equilibrate with the real economy through asset deflation, and they blinked. (Congress blinked too -- they raised the minimum wage by a large chunk to ratify the inflation as well.) The next problem is that the people's agents in government also failed to rein in the creation of yet more shadow bank credit, so the stage was set for yet another inflationary asset bubble...

Meanwhile, the real economy struggles under tremendous friction from the burden of servicing the huge, and generally non-productive population in the FIRE economy. "Credit intermediation" is "productive friction"...

is this progress...tarp paydown

from the NYT and CR

"From the NY Times: U.S. Forecasts Smaller Loss From Bailout of Banks

CR, "The Treasury Department expects to recover all but $42 billion of the $370 billion it has lent to ailing companies since the financial crisis began last year, with the portion lent to banks actually showing a slight profit, according to a new Treasury report."


after reading all the negative comments around and the NYT article...it seems to me...

according to the NYT article the estimates of tarp loses have gone from 341 billion last summer...to 100 billion and now down to 42 billion

i agree with hollywood hack that given the games the fed has played at "the window" accepting trash MBS and other assorted crap in exchange for us treasuries is a ticking financial time bomb (my words not his)

but the two programs are not the same

in our zeal, to lambaste the miscreants in DC and NYC for banksterism

are we possibly turning a blind eye to any progress at all?

i agree with Rob Dawg that as long as unemployment is sky high and climbing we are effed (again my word not his)

but this story is...what it is.... nothing more

lets see if the number 41 billion comes to pass...like you im skeptical

but willing to wait and see

but nothing i read above contradicts the new york times article CR posted