1. The government (i.e. taxpayers) gets an equity stake in every Wall Street financial company proportional to the amount of bad debt that company shoves onto the public. So when and if Wall Street shares rise, taxpayers are rewarded for accepting so much risk.
2. Wall Street executives and directors of Wall Street firms relinquish their current stock options and this year's other forms of compensation, and agree to future compensation linked to a rolling five-year average of firm profitability. Why should taxpayers feather their already amply-feathered nests?
3. All Wall Street executives immediately cease making campaign contributions to any candidate for public office in this election cycle or next, all Wall Street PACs be closed, and Wall Street lobbyists curtail their activities unless specifically asked for information by policymakers. Why should taxpayers finance Wall Street's outsized political power - especially when that power is being exercised to get favorable terms from taxpayers?
4. Wall Street firms agree to comply with new regulations over disclosure, capital requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation. The regulations will emerge in ninety days from a bi-partisan working group, to be convened immediately. After all, inadequate regulation and lack of oversight got us into this mess.
5. Wall Street agrees to give bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, so homeowners have a fighting chance to keep their homes. Why should distressed homeowners lose their homes when Wall Streeters receive taxpayer money that helps them keep their fancy ones?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
No Strings Attached
Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich's condition for the bailout:
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Options for the Bailout
From a Washington Post article:
Within hours of the Treasury announcement Friday, economists had proposed preferable alternatives. Their core insight is that it is better to boost the banking system by increasing its capital than by reducing its loans. Given a fatter capital cushion, banks would have time to dispose of the bad loans in an orderly fashion. Taxpayers would be spared the experience of wandering into a bad-loan bazaar and being ripped off by every merchant.
Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago suggest ways to force the banks to raise capital without tapping the taxpayers. First, the government should tell banks to cancel all dividend payments. Banks don't do that on their own because it would signal weakness; if everyone knows the dividend has been canceled because of a government rule, the signaling issue would be removed. Second, the government should tell all healthy banks to issue new equity. Again, banks resist doing this because they don't want to signal weakness and they don't want to dilute existing shareholders. A government order could cut through these obstacles.
Meanwhile, Charles Calomiris of Columbia University and Douglas Elmendorf of the Brookings Institution have offered versions of another idea. The government should help not by buying banks' bad loans but by buying equity stakes in the banks themselves. Whereas it's horribly complicated to value bad loans, banks have share prices you can look up in seconds, so government could inject capital into banks quickly and at a fair level. The share prices of banks that recovered would rise, compensating taxpayers for losses on their stakes in the banks that eventually went under.
About Those Fat Cats...
Some suggestions on compensation reform from Brad Delong:
I like these because the objective is to align the financial interests of senior management with the long term financial security of the company. Maybe corporate officers would have a different perception risk in making business decisions if they were actually exposed to risk themselves.
- A 100% tax on all personal compensation over $1 million a year that does not take the form of restricted common stock in the entity issuing the compensation, untradeable for ten years.
- A 100% tax on the sale of and income from all securities derived from stock options paid as part of compensation where the underlying was worth less in inflation-adjusted dollars when exercised than when written.
I like these because the objective is to align the financial interests of senior management with the long term financial security of the company. Maybe corporate officers would have a different perception risk in making business decisions if they were actually exposed to risk themselves.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Best Worst Song, Worst Best Song
A science project from the late '90s is making the rounds on the Internet. In it, two researchers named Vitaly Komar and Alex Melamid surveyed 500 people to find out what qualities would be found in their "most wanted" and "most unwanted" songs.
Take a look...
Take a look...
Charge and Rebuttal: GOP lies
The Charge:
This is from an email forward I received...in Canada.
The Rebuttal:
Ridiculous. And I quote...
Further, DailyKos lists all of the bills he sponsored or co-sponsored and all of the amendments he introduced.
This is from an email forward I received...in Canada.
As your doctor starts to perform open heart surgery he tellsyou he has been doing this for 143 days. As your 747 plane pulls away from the terminal the pilot comes on the public address system and announces he has been flying for 143 days. Would you hire a lawyer to defend you 143 days out of law school? Interesting when it's put into perspective, isn't it?
Just think how great a professional of any kind you could be with only 143 days of experience! People want change so badly? . . . . maybe we should lower the experience requirement for doctors, lawyers, airline pilots, etc. This would
cause some change!
Obama's 143 Days of Senate Experience - Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work days? Not much. From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United States Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory Committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.
The one single Senate committee that he headed never even met once. After 143 days of work experience, Obama belie ved he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World. I don't think so.
Our children spend more time in pre-school getting ready for kindergarten.
The Rebuttal:
Ridiculous. And I quote...
Fact check:
Senator Obama was sworn in to his first Senate term on January 2005 and joined the 109th Congress.
The Senate is not always in session and it can be argued that only counting session days as 'work days' is a misrepresentation of service done by any Senator.
During this 109th Congress, the Senate met 109 times during 2005 and 109 times during 2006 for a total of 218 days in session.
Senator Obama announced his intent to form a panel to explore a Presidential bid on January 16, 2007. The Senate had been in session for 7 days.
Total days in session during this time period equals 225 days
So even if the author was only counting days in session for Obama (and, conveniently, not McCain), the numbers do not add up.
It is doubtful this mysterious number was based on roll-call votes.
Sen. McCain only had four Senators miss more votes in the 109th Congress (2005-2006). Sen. McCain missed 58 votes but, to his credit, did cast 587 votes. Sen. Obama? He missed 11 votes and cast 634 votes. That's a lot of votes for someone who, as implied by the article, only worked for 143 days.
Further, DailyKos lists all of the bills he sponsored or co-sponsored and all of the amendments he introduced.
In a nut shell:
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.
Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.
His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Regulation
REGULATING = BAD!!!
Good piece in The American Prospect on the aspects of deregulation, or lack of regulation, of the financial sector that contributed to the current meltdown.
For example, #2 talks about the lack of conflict of interest regulations for securities rating organizations. Most people have never read a regulation and don't understand what they are, what they do or how they are created. Conflict of interest regulations in the securities arena are common, and meant to protect potential share purchasers from bad faith representations. I think if people knew a little more about "regulation" then reactionary anti-regulatory rhetoric that casts all "regulation" as bad wouldn't be so effective.
For example, #2 talks about the lack of conflict of interest regulations for securities rating organizations. Most people have never read a regulation and don't understand what they are, what they do or how they are created. Conflict of interest regulations in the securities arena are common, and meant to protect potential share purchasers from bad faith representations. I think if people knew a little more about "regulation" then reactionary anti-regulatory rhetoric that casts all "regulation" as bad wouldn't be so effective.
Decline and Fall of the U.S. Supreme Court
I'm going to make an effort to start posting again after a long summer off. So lets get things going with a NY Times story on the waning international influence of the US Supreme Court. Especially in human rights decisions. Which makes sense, since the majority on the US court is fundamentally hostile to human rights.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Obama and squealing pigs
Republicans are the worst, so are the media. I'm glad Obams is keeping a cool head about these idiotic attempts to isolate his remarks out of context and present them in attack ads and in mainstream media. It's important to have SOMEONE advocating for the public and the democratic process. The McCain-Bushes of the world hold so little regard and respect for either.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Salvia Balvia
Interesting (if strange) article in NYTimes on salvia.
Regardless of whatever hallucinogenic properties it may have, the seeds are so delicious on salad!
Regardless of whatever hallucinogenic properties it may have, the seeds are so delicious on salad!
Friday, September 5, 2008
Slow Food Nation
It's funny that the personal choice I've made to strictly limit my intake of processed (not very tasty) foods in deference to the delish delights of cooking from scratch can be construed as a political decision.
Sure, part of my reasoning to do the "slow food" thing, as it is called, is tied to the gross environmental and ethical implications of eating big industry food that is grown from gmo seeds that only produce for one season (eff you, Monsantos), that is sprayed with pesticides and herbicides (read: poison), that is harvested and processed by people who likely don't make a proper living wage and who must endure the health consequences of being around poison all day (read: brown people), and that is shipped all over the world because oil is still too cheap (yeah, I said it).
But really my main reason for this "lifestyle choice" is that I just love to eat delicious whole foods. I like the way it tastes, I like the way it looks (so colourful!), I like the way I feel when it digests (processed food makes me gasy and bloated, and the sugars and salts in it cause mood swings), and quite honestly IT'S MUCH MUCH CHEAPER TO COOK AND EAT NON-PROCESSED FOODS.
Plus, there's less packaging so less trees are chopped down, less plastic is produced, less garbage ends up in our waters and the landfills are spared one less person's daily dose.
Easy choice.
Less logging of BC’s old-growth forests makes more economic sense
SFU study highlights dividends for climate, recreation, endangered species
VANCOUVER – A sophisticated new study by researchers at Simon Fraser University shows that in the vast majority of cases it makes more economic sense to conserve forests than it does to cut them down.
The study uses computer modelling to assess three different conservation scenarios in old-growth forests near Vancouver that are home to highly endangered northern spotted owls. The scenarios range from present-day, relatively low levels of forest conservation to two future scenarios, each involving more forest conservation and less logging.
The researchers conclude that when a conventional, narrowly focused valuation of forests is broadened to assess the value of forests as carbon storehouses, recreation sites and sources of products other than timber — wild mushrooms, for example — increased conservation wins out over logging in most cases.
In 72 of the 81 scenarios considered, the researchers find that increased conservation and less logging delivers higher economic returns than current levels of logging and conservation. And in the nine cases where status quo logging appears to have a slight economic edge, this only holds if log prices do not fall and if little value is given to the role that forests play in capturing carbon from the atmosphere.
“We see clear evidence that conserving these forests is economically worthwhile,” says lead author Duncan Knowler, an associate professor at Simon Fraser’s School of Resource and Environmental Management. “What’s more, we have been conservative in our approach. We value carbon at $20 - $150 per tonne, while other studies have pegged the future price of carbon as high as $350 per tonne. As well, we have yet to consider other important roles our forests play, such as purifying water or protecting fish habitat. Once that is done, we believe the case for conserving more forests will be even stronger.”
“As BC begins to price carbon and participate in a market for carbon credits, Dr. Knowler’s work demonstrates the economic role forests may play as carbon sinks,” said Keith Ferguson, Staff Lawyer at Ecojustice, which sponsored the research, with the David Suzuki Foundation and Wilderness Committee.
“The BC government has always said that the economic costs of protecting forests and the critical habitat of endangered species are unacceptably high,” says Gwen Barlee, Policy Director at the Wilderness Committee. “This study shows that the opposite is true: not only do endangered species benefit from increased conservation of our remaining old growth forests, but it makes economic sense as well.”
“We are excited by these findings, and keen to see what further research on the economic value of forest conservation shows when the full spectrum of forest values, such as protecting water supplies is considered,” adds Dr. Faisal Moola, Science Director at the David Suzuki Foundation.
VANCOUVER – A sophisticated new study by researchers at Simon Fraser University shows that in the vast majority of cases it makes more economic sense to conserve forests than it does to cut them down.
The study uses computer modelling to assess three different conservation scenarios in old-growth forests near Vancouver that are home to highly endangered northern spotted owls. The scenarios range from present-day, relatively low levels of forest conservation to two future scenarios, each involving more forest conservation and less logging.
The researchers conclude that when a conventional, narrowly focused valuation of forests is broadened to assess the value of forests as carbon storehouses, recreation sites and sources of products other than timber — wild mushrooms, for example — increased conservation wins out over logging in most cases.
In 72 of the 81 scenarios considered, the researchers find that increased conservation and less logging delivers higher economic returns than current levels of logging and conservation. And in the nine cases where status quo logging appears to have a slight economic edge, this only holds if log prices do not fall and if little value is given to the role that forests play in capturing carbon from the atmosphere.
“We see clear evidence that conserving these forests is economically worthwhile,” says lead author Duncan Knowler, an associate professor at Simon Fraser’s School of Resource and Environmental Management. “What’s more, we have been conservative in our approach. We value carbon at $20 - $150 per tonne, while other studies have pegged the future price of carbon as high as $350 per tonne. As well, we have yet to consider other important roles our forests play, such as purifying water or protecting fish habitat. Once that is done, we believe the case for conserving more forests will be even stronger.”
“As BC begins to price carbon and participate in a market for carbon credits, Dr. Knowler’s work demonstrates the economic role forests may play as carbon sinks,” said Keith Ferguson, Staff Lawyer at Ecojustice, which sponsored the research, with the David Suzuki Foundation and Wilderness Committee.
“The BC government has always said that the economic costs of protecting forests and the critical habitat of endangered species are unacceptably high,” says Gwen Barlee, Policy Director at the Wilderness Committee. “This study shows that the opposite is true: not only do endangered species benefit from increased conservation of our remaining old growth forests, but it makes economic sense as well.”
“We are excited by these findings, and keen to see what further research on the economic value of forest conservation shows when the full spectrum of forest values, such as protecting water supplies is considered,” adds Dr. Faisal Moola, Science Director at the David Suzuki Foundation.
Entire city of Washington, DC Unemployed
A NYTimes piece today discusses the bump in unemployment over the summer and the number of jobs lost from the U.S. economy. 605,000 jobs have been eliminated since January! That more than the entire population of Washington, DC (pop. 558,891)!!!
So where are all the people who used to work those jobs working now? Are they the answer to the deficit of service workers? Is the U.S. heading the way of the Phillipines or Mexico or some other Central American country, and will its next persona be that of top service-industry professionals, shipped all over the world to work in the kitchens of China's and the Saudi's elite restaurants, paid less than a working wage and given no benefits?
No. It turns out they'll be the nurses taking care of our parents as they age and break:
So where are all the people who used to work those jobs working now? Are they the answer to the deficit of service workers? Is the U.S. heading the way of the Phillipines or Mexico or some other Central American country, and will its next persona be that of top service-industry professionals, shipped all over the world to work in the kitchens of China's and the Saudi's elite restaurants, paid less than a working wage and given no benefits?
No. It turns out they'll be the nurses taking care of our parents as they age and break:
Gains came in the education and health care industries, which added a total of 55,000 jobs.
...
The jobs data is considered the most reliable snapshot of the nation’s economy in any given month.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Really, with the dozens of political advisors and media people and image consultants, no one thought to avoid this??
Summer's over. Blogging to resume soon.
Summer's over. Blogging to resume soon.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The Best Food Garden In Vancouver Contest
Here's a piece from the Georgia Straight (appeared September 2000) about the best food gardens in Vancouver. Lots of fodder for a wish list! Arugula! The three sisters! Guava?
It's funny how all the winners are either Italian for have Italian sounding names... does something in the culture manifest as a green thumb?
It's funny how all the winners are either Italian for have Italian sounding names... does something in the culture manifest as a green thumb?
Lawns are yawns. Grass is passé. That's the message coming out of a recent contest masterminded by City Farmer, a nonprofit urban agriculture group that set out this summer to uncover the best food gardens in Vancouver. The contest attracted only 26 entrants, but, organizers say, the idea came late in the season evolving from earlier efforts to organize a food-garden tour. Entries revealed that gardeners are modest folk: many competitors (including all the winners) were nominated by their neighbours. Gardeners are also proud folk: arriving unannounced, with only a street number to guide them, the City Farmer judges soon found themselves being guided through the greenery, says program coordinator Spring Gillard, and in one case they were even fed chicory, harvested on the spot, rushed to the kitchen, cooked, and drizzled with oil and vinegar.
How space was utilized, crop diversity, whether or not there was a composting system, overall health of the vegetation, and visual appeal, plus "an emotional response that's hard to grade", all influenced the marks allotted. Only the narrowest of margins separated the three winners: Rocco Calogero, Manuel Arruda, and Tarcisio Pasetto.
Filled with, at different times, chicory, radicchio, basil, tomatoes, kiwis, figs, grapes, prunes, pears, and corn, Calogero's garden occupies two back yards and much of the front yard. It produces something different every week, says his daughter Lucy: "[My father] has been growing vegetables since he moved from Italy over 30 years ago. My mother makes enough tomato sauce for the family year-round, and sends some to my sister in Victoria."
In second place was Manuel Arruda, whose garden includes an orangery with oranges, lemons, tangerines, and guavas all flourishing; three different pear varieties on one tree (many food gardeners graft); and a thicket of densely planted beans. The Pasetto garden includes, according to Gillard, "what looked like a field of radicchio. He eats salad twice a day, and says, 'Some people watch TV 16 hours a day. I garden.' " An honourable mention went to graduate student, farm activist, and UBC Farm caretaker Derek Masselin for his personal garden on the UBC campus. (Tours of his garden are available weekdays. Call 822-3560. Organizers hope winner's gardens will form a larger tour next year.)
Entrants spanned socioeconomic, ethnic, and geographic boundaries. A new Canadian family on the East Side raises the "three sisters" - beans, squash, and corn - all ripening companionably together. A doctor in Shaughnessy grows salsify, Jerusalem artichokes, and a guerrilla squash that climbs from his compost bin and clambers over the garage roof. A Kitsilano roof garden rewards its owner with cucumbers, chard, arugula, basil, and heirloom tomatoes, all grown in containers.
For many, moving away from the traditional grass lawn is a health issue; for some, it's a way of socializing. "A lot of gardeners use their front yards [for food gardens]," Gillard says. "They're not hidden away at the back." And a front yard bursting with tomatoes is a topic ripe for conversation.
Vancouver's food gardeners also get marks for environmental awareness. All entrants practise composting and organic growing, and many have water-collection systems. Conscious of the ongoing wheel of the seasons, all routinely save their own vegetable seeds for the following year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)