Leaders of the "Trickle Down" economic policy decided that they could make a bundle in the housing market if we had a housing boom. There were a lot of people who wanted expensive housing but there were limited funds available. They figured that if these people could get credit they would start buying. The first thing to do was to get banks to give sub prime loans. (These are loans that are higher than the collateral backing the loan.) To encourage the banks to make these loans the two "Mac Agencies) would buy the loans from the banks, giving them a commission without any risk. Both good loans and sub prime loans were sold to the Macs. When the the Sub Prime loans overwhelmed the Macs, Goldman Sacks and some lesser firms packaged the loans into huge confused bundles and sold them to AIG, charging a hefty commission of course. When the mortgage payments stopped coming through, The Mac's stopped receiving their share of the payments and AIG stopped receiving their share as well, and when AIG ran out of available funds to pay off on the failed mortgages, the crisis started. Usually when there is a foreclosure on a failed mortgage, the sale of the property reimburses the Insurers (AIG ultimately in this case) and the loosers are the mortgagees who failed on the loan. In the case of the sub prime mortgages the sale of the property was much less than the amount owed, and both mortgagees and Insurance companies suffered the loss.
The government decided that the Insurance Company (AIG in this case) was too big to fail and Goldman Sacks either confirmed this or advised them of their decision. Immediately, the Government Official in The Bush Administration that used to be with the Investment Companies got together an enormous STIMULUS package to bail out the insurance companies (AIG in particular.) Reportedly, AIG was then able to pay the bonuses owed to their officers and also to pay Goldman Sacks for their "services"
When the new administrtion took office, the Stimulus action continued with the new Secretary of the Treasury (who also was a former officer in the Federal Reserve System) promoted the strategy that the financial institutions were too big to fail. As a result, the bail out continued; bonuses have been paid, and Goldman Sacks and some lesser investors have made billions while Main Street continues to be in Crisis.
In all fairness, some other things have been done to ease the pain on Main Street but continued
Stimulus (or pay out) of the financial investment companies who caused the crisis, will not solve the problem. It will mostly just add to our enormous debt.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
BACKBONE OF AMERICA
The government civil servant workers have recently been called the "Backbone of America." The reference is to the Policeman, Firemen, Department of Public Works Workers, Public School Teachers, Social Service Workers and the thousands of workers in the many government agencies that fill the needs of the public from issuing driver's licenses to inspecting the meat we eat to make sure that it is fit for human consumption. These people truly provide the vital services that are needed for the civilized existence we have come to expect. For the most part, they are people who have dedicated their lives to serving the needs of others. They are human beings and of course they have selfish desires and being American they are competitive, but they tend more to be cooperative and socialistic.
The people in the private business sector on the other hand tend to be most competitive and self centered. They are the people who consider themselves independent with their idea of the "American Dream" to gain riches and rise above others. They also are human beings and of course have compassion for others in varying degrees. They produce the fuel that makes America run, but the thrust is more for personal achievement than it is for the general welfare of others, and they tend to be more conservative in a political sense.
Then there is the military. They have great self pride of course, but they are dedicated to their country and its people. They are prepared to make the supreme sacrifice if necessary. They are
outwardly independent and more conservative in a political sense but basically cooperative and
socialistic in nature.
All three groups might lay claim to being the "Backbone of America" and within each group there
are individuals who are indeed the backbone of America. These people are distinguished by their attitude. They strive to be self sufficient yet acknowledge their interdependence on others. They have self pride and struggle to become all they are capable of being, but they can be cooperative and believe in fair play. They are the kind of people that most religions used to try to develop. The label, Backbone of America, is an arbitrary title and is determined by the individual or individuals expressing the label. Our decision is that the title belongs to the Government Civil Service Workers.
The people in the private business sector on the other hand tend to be most competitive and self centered. They are the people who consider themselves independent with their idea of the "American Dream" to gain riches and rise above others. They also are human beings and of course have compassion for others in varying degrees. They produce the fuel that makes America run, but the thrust is more for personal achievement than it is for the general welfare of others, and they tend to be more conservative in a political sense.
Then there is the military. They have great self pride of course, but they are dedicated to their country and its people. They are prepared to make the supreme sacrifice if necessary. They are
outwardly independent and more conservative in a political sense but basically cooperative and
socialistic in nature.
All three groups might lay claim to being the "Backbone of America" and within each group there
are individuals who are indeed the backbone of America. These people are distinguished by their attitude. They strive to be self sufficient yet acknowledge their interdependence on others. They have self pride and struggle to become all they are capable of being, but they can be cooperative and believe in fair play. They are the kind of people that most religions used to try to develop. The label, Backbone of America, is an arbitrary title and is determined by the individual or individuals expressing the label. Our decision is that the title belongs to the Government Civil Service Workers.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
BALANCING THE BUDGET
When government or a government agency spends an amount equal to the amount they take in, they are said to have a balanced budget. When the government or a government agency spends more than they take in, they are said to have a deficit. To resolve a deficit budget,a government or a government agency can 1)increase taxes, 2)borrow by issuing bonds, 3)cut spending or 4) print more money.
If one were to assume that the budget is an honest statement of the amount needed to run the government or a government agency, the pragmatic way to balance the budget would be to raise taxes.
If the majority rejects raising the taxes, a cut in spending may be the answer. The question "What to cut" then becomes the problem.
Step 1 would be to review the new expenditures proposed and eliminate those that are not absolutely necessary for the operation of the government or government agency.
If the budget is still not balanced,
Step 2 would be to review the old expenditures approved in last year's budget. (Old expenditures would be salaries and costs at last year's levels. Raises and increase in costs would be considered along with other new expenditures)
If the budget is still not balanced,
Step 3 would be to to either print new money or borrow more money. To print new money would cause inflation and the people would have to spend more money for their purchases in the coming year. To borrow money would postpone the cost (plus iterest) to the future.
Borrowing would quite likely postpone the costs which would be greater in the future and perhaps unfair to the people in the future.
Inflation would result in the people sharing the extra cost according to the amount of their purchases in the coming year.
Increased taxes would result in the people sharing the extra cost according to the amount of their income in the coming year.
What do you think would be the best way to balance the budget?
If one were to assume that the budget is an honest statement of the amount needed to run the government or a government agency, the pragmatic way to balance the budget would be to raise taxes.
If the majority rejects raising the taxes, a cut in spending may be the answer. The question "What to cut" then becomes the problem.
Step 1 would be to review the new expenditures proposed and eliminate those that are not absolutely necessary for the operation of the government or government agency.
If the budget is still not balanced,
Step 2 would be to review the old expenditures approved in last year's budget. (Old expenditures would be salaries and costs at last year's levels. Raises and increase in costs would be considered along with other new expenditures)
If the budget is still not balanced,
Step 3 would be to to either print new money or borrow more money. To print new money would cause inflation and the people would have to spend more money for their purchases in the coming year. To borrow money would postpone the cost (plus iterest) to the future.
Borrowing would quite likely postpone the costs which would be greater in the future and perhaps unfair to the people in the future.
Inflation would result in the people sharing the extra cost according to the amount of their purchases in the coming year.
Increased taxes would result in the people sharing the extra cost according to the amount of their income in the coming year.
What do you think would be the best way to balance the budget?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
MIND OVER MATTER
IN THE CASE OF MIND OVER MATTER; IF YOU DON'T MIND IT DOESN'T MATTER!
Back in the 1980's, Bankers and Accountants were the most boring but most honest and respected people in the free world. They were the guardians of our money in business and the check on the government. "Full Disclosure" was a sacred trust; cover up was a deceitful crime. Somehow since then, the two, working with global investors, were responsible for the most outrageous plunder since Aegis Khan.
To understand this deceitful fraud, one would have to understand the accounting equation. It is a simple formula - Assets minus liabilities equals net worth. In layman terms this means "What you own minus what you owe equals what you are worth." This is important in finance because nobody can borrow more than they are worth. Accountants prepare statements called Balance Sheets that clearly, and honestly report the Net Worth of a business or government. (Government reports are a little different and basically report how much is received {Income} and how much i paid out.)
For example, if a government had a budget that listed 5B of income and 5B of Appropriations (money to be paid out) it would have a balanced budget. If only 3B were collected in taxes, fees, etc, the accounting report would show a 2B deficit. However, if the government made a "Dervee" with a
bank to receive 2B for the income on Port Shipping Fees for some period of time in the future, and this Dervee was recorded as income; the report would show a balanced budget of 5B income and 5B spent. The responsibility (liability) to pay the Bank on the Dervee could be burried in other official documents. Nothing illegal or unethical here as long as full disclosure and transparancy are not part of your ethics.
Accountants and politicians in government roles sold out to "big business" well before "Dervees" came on to the scene. Accountants deferred some expenses and capitalized others to manipulate the profit figure to allow excessives bonuses to Corporate Officers who hired them. To look at another simplified example, If Company A had 5B in Assets and 1B in Liabilities, one could compute their
net worth at 4B. In 19XX, Company A only made 1M in profits and decided to hire a new CEO who hired a new accountant and signed an agreement to increase profits and that he would receive a bonus of 20% of any profits over 1M. During the year the Company hired an adverising company to run a campaign for 1B greatly increasing sales. Total sales for the year were 2B with operating expenses of 1 1/2 B, and Advertising Cost of 1B, decreasing the total Assets by 1/2 B and an operating loss for the year of 1/2B.
The CEO and Accountant decided to capitalize Advertising Expense as Goodwill (An intangilbe Asset) at 1B which increased Assets by 1B, decreased the operating expenses by 1B and changed the 1/2 B loss to a 1/2 B profit, giving the CEO a bonus of 80M (500M minus 100M X 20%
Financial Statements before "innovative" accounting.
Assets 4B 500M Liabilities 1B O00M Income 2B 000M
Oper Exp 2B 500M
Net Worth 3B 500M LOSS 500M
Financial Statements after "innovative" accounting. Income 2B 000M
Oper Exp 1B 500M
Assets 6B 420M Liabilities 1B 000M Profit 500M
CEO Bonus 80M
Net Worth 5B 420M Net Profit 420M
Back in the 1980's, Bankers and Accountants were the most boring but most honest and respected people in the free world. They were the guardians of our money in business and the check on the government. "Full Disclosure" was a sacred trust; cover up was a deceitful crime. Somehow since then, the two, working with global investors, were responsible for the most outrageous plunder since Aegis Khan.
To understand this deceitful fraud, one would have to understand the accounting equation. It is a simple formula - Assets minus liabilities equals net worth. In layman terms this means "What you own minus what you owe equals what you are worth." This is important in finance because nobody can borrow more than they are worth. Accountants prepare statements called Balance Sheets that clearly, and honestly report the Net Worth of a business or government. (Government reports are a little different and basically report how much is received {Income} and how much i paid out.)
For example, if a government had a budget that listed 5B of income and 5B of Appropriations (money to be paid out) it would have a balanced budget. If only 3B were collected in taxes, fees, etc, the accounting report would show a 2B deficit. However, if the government made a "Dervee" with a
bank to receive 2B for the income on Port Shipping Fees for some period of time in the future, and this Dervee was recorded as income; the report would show a balanced budget of 5B income and 5B spent. The responsibility (liability) to pay the Bank on the Dervee could be burried in other official documents. Nothing illegal or unethical here as long as full disclosure and transparancy are not part of your ethics.
Accountants and politicians in government roles sold out to "big business" well before "Dervees" came on to the scene. Accountants deferred some expenses and capitalized others to manipulate the profit figure to allow excessives bonuses to Corporate Officers who hired them. To look at another simplified example, If Company A had 5B in Assets and 1B in Liabilities, one could compute their
net worth at 4B. In 19XX, Company A only made 1M in profits and decided to hire a new CEO who hired a new accountant and signed an agreement to increase profits and that he would receive a bonus of 20% of any profits over 1M. During the year the Company hired an adverising company to run a campaign for 1B greatly increasing sales. Total sales for the year were 2B with operating expenses of 1 1/2 B, and Advertising Cost of 1B, decreasing the total Assets by 1/2 B and an operating loss for the year of 1/2B.
The CEO and Accountant decided to capitalize Advertising Expense as Goodwill (An intangilbe Asset) at 1B which increased Assets by 1B, decreased the operating expenses by 1B and changed the 1/2 B loss to a 1/2 B profit, giving the CEO a bonus of 80M (500M minus 100M X 20%
Financial Statements before "innovative" accounting.
Assets 4B 500M Liabilities 1B O00M Income 2B 000M
Oper Exp 2B 500M
Net Worth 3B 500M LOSS 500M
Financial Statements after "innovative" accounting. Income 2B 000M
Oper Exp 1B 500M
Assets 6B 420M Liabilities 1B 000M Profit 500M
CEO Bonus 80M
Net Worth 5B 420M Net Profit 420M
Friday, February 12, 2010
OBAMA PROMISES
President Obama promised many things in his electoral campaign, among which was the statement that it wouldn't be easy. This certainly has proven to be true. He also said that he would use a bipartisan approach to make the necessary changes in Washington. Keeping his word on this pledge caused him to break his promise on the second part of this pledge. The attempt to compromise with Republicans as well as some self seeking Democrats has made the first year less successful than it may possibly have been. A key may have been the retainment and appointment of prior administration officials in major positions. The Secretary of Defense seems to be following a sensible path to end the wars, but the Secretary of the Treasury appears to pursue the old path of support for Wall Street rather than the support for Main Street. The later has taken this to the extreme in the bailout of AIG and other "Wall Street" interests. The Sec of Treas and the retained head of the Federal Reserve are steeped in "old ways" and probably would be unable to make the changes that were promised if they actually wanted to. The President can't do it alone, and even some of his fellow Democrats aren't helping him either. But give him credit. He's still trying and there are 3 more years to go.
Friday, January 29, 2010
VIOLATION OF CONSTTUTIONAL RIGHTS
The Supreme Court decision to allow Corporations and Unions the right to unrestricted contributions for poitical funding is in violation of the individual rights of individuals. CEOs and Union Leaders do not have the right to vote or use the rights of the individual stockholders in the Corporation or the individual members of the Unions without their consent and permission. Political Donations are a definite part and partial of the voting process, and in a democracy voting is restricted to one vote per individual. Even in a Republic such as ours that has a Constitution guaranteeing individual voting rights, voting is restricted to one vote per individual. Any person, or thing, or Supreme Court Decision that interferes with an individual's vote is in violation of voting rights granted under the Constitution.
Friday, January 22, 2010
SUPREME COURT DECISION UNJUST AND UNFAIR
The Supreme Court decision to allow Corportions and Unions to make political contributions is unjust and unfair. This allows Corporate CEO's and Union Leaders to make decisions for others without their concent or permission. This distorts the principle of democracy, majority rule. Minority stock holders and members of unions should have the right to their own political decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)