Banksters Kaptur'ed While the foreign press headline "Mother of all rip-off's" (which is sadly true, as near I can reckon) there actually is some good news. A few - although very damn few -
members of Congress are standing up to be counted. including Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur. You have to see this video; I think the woman is spot on.
It gets better - if you have bandwidth, look what this heroine of Democracy is showing as of last week:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbD62gNi9WE As to the testimony on Tuesday, I would have to credit Senator Richard Shelby from Alabama for getting it right. As the Wall Street Journal note,
"Alabaman opposed rescue of Chrysler, Tough on Paulson." After watching a bit o f the hearings on television Tuesday, it became apparent, as the L.A. Times headlines, "
Congress balks at Treasury's plan for Wall Street."
---
Knowing, as we think we know about upcoming events around October 7th and October 15th, I would personally not be surprised to see a sequence of events like this:
- Congress, finding it hard to ignore the truckloads of constituent calls and emails will drag its feet for at least two weeks.
- Right on cue, about October 7th, something will happen that will cause the Bush administration to declare an 'emergency' of some sort and that will be used as a way to implement the bailout anyway and Congress' role will be simply usurped. Specifically what this is could take any number of forms and still meet the linguistic parameters set out by the predictive linguistics out of www.halfpasthuman.com, but the possibility of a LIHOP/MIHOP to stampede passage of the Bankster Bonanza or an international consortium of dollar victim countries making a coordinated attack on the dollar would each fit the bill.
As I watched the testimony on Tuesday I kept having this one thought coming up in my head: "These folks are
acting as though someone is holding us hostage - almost there's got to be a $700-billion ransom note paid off
right now or something very very bad is about to happen that no one is talking about."
I think it was the part where the Treasury Secretary was insistent on the amount ($700bn) but couldn't seem to produce a justification for it.
I've been a 'numbers guy' in the corporate world in strategic planning and marketing. I can tell you from experience that boards of directors and senior managements in any successful American company would fire a marketing director on the spot if they can in and insisted "I need
x dollars for a marketing campaign - and I will be making up the details as I go along - but you gotta trust me, this is gonna work." Get me HR on the line, please...
The firing would come so fast as to make your head spin, especially if the marketing director was dodging very simple and straight-forward questions. And his last campaign blew up cost vastly more than he estimated in March.
To their credit, the boyz on the Senate Panel were incredibly polite - and I suppose it would have been improper to get down and direct with the Secretary.
Still, had I been sitting on the panel, I would have several times interrupted Slippery Hank and told him "Would you stop answering the question
you want to answer, and answer
mine??" There were many instances where if you listened to the question and then heard the answer, it was like Paulson wasn't even on the same planet.
What would happen in a very well-run corporate boardroom pitch? Paulson would have walked in with a projector and put up a PowerPoint with some spreadsheets, and he would have made an air-tight case on how the estimate of $700 billion was arrived at. There would have been a list of key players, some probabilities, and a process map.
Instead, what the Senate ended up hearing was a cocktail napkin plan interlaced with many repetitions of "Trust me on this..." Yet wasn't Paulson one of the key insiders until 2006 in building up the
game?
---
Fortunately, besides figuring out how to use the internet as a time machine, my colleague Cliff's also got a technique he picked up called SKED. That's short for "subject knowledge elucidates domain" - and it's a way of taking a paragraph and reducing it to a sentence, and then simplifying the sentence until only a couple of key words remain. It's a surprisingly cool technique, once you learn it, because it allows you to simplify messages and get to the usually quite simple core of a complex subject.
A "SKED" of yesterday's testimony seems to indicate the following:
- The money is not going to be forthcoming quickly.
- Congress is not about to be stampeded.
- In a sense, they are going to "run the clock".
And, as this unfolds, we will arrive at our 'hot date' of October 7th when
something seems bound to occur that will either get Congress' cooperation, or give the administration an excuse to simply sidestep them (again).
---
If the SKED'ing is right, and Capitol Hill is not going to roll over on this, then the two outcomes envisioned likely
will emerge.
In traditional economics, the choices going forward are for an "endogenous" shock or an "exogenous" shock.
An endogenous shock would be one that
emergences from within the markets. Now, just to give you an idea of how endogenous pressures are building in the economy, let me give you two examples.
A buddy of mine in Chicago has a good-sized ad agency. He's been screwed up against the wall because his largest client (a household name, I assure you) is now 60-days out on a sizeable invoice. That, in turn has rippled into his business. Want to invest in
Maalox?
And, along a similar vein, Bank of America has told McDonalds' franchise owners that they won't increase the size of their outstanding loans, and although some reports say the "
Credit concerns at McDonald's are 'overblown'" I don't think so.
In both these examples, what's going on would be considered 'endogenous' - arising from within the market and driven by market forces. Big players are pushing down on smaller players in a sort of 'big fish eats little fish' way.
The other case, where something 'outside' the market happens could be something like an attack on Iran (
not likely until elections are held in Israel, by the way), which might cause OPEC to stop selling oil to the US or the West. This would be considered an 'exogenous' - outside the market - event.
Or, we might be combination of items: An endogenous meltodwn around our October 7th date, an exogenous event around October 15th, and then hitting Iran toward the 25th...which would make things about as messy/bad as we can imagine, but since we're set for 5-months of 'emotional release'
might be as messy as can be imagined,
I wouldn't rule out some super-sized sequence of events like this.
---
Short term market direction will be known later today. The pre-open looks like a positive start, so it seems according to broker Robin Landry up in Shawnee, Oklahoma, that we could rally for a week or so to 11,700 or even 11,800 at the outside before turning down again..
But, and this is a big
but
, on the other hand, says Landry "If we see the Dow break below last Thursday's low of 10,459.44, then
Katy bar the door - we're going down..."
One thing that seems to be taking place is that the dollar is coming down from recent highs, perhaps indicating that the counter-trend rally from the longer term decline of nearly 30% is over and resuming the downward move. Recall that the Dollar and Euro were about at par in 2000, but here we are 8-years later and the dollar is down to 0.6810 Euro when I glanced at it.
As explained yesterday, competitive devaluations are a very, very bad thing in a country like ours where we have to borrow $2-billion a day from the rest of the world to meet our consumption habit (see the balance of trade deficit) - and if there is a bailout, that will mean printing up another $2-billion a day (or more). Someone sure as hell oughta be asking "Who's going to buy all this paper we're going to be printing up?" That's a hard question to answer, and the lower the purchasing power of the dollar goes overseas and the more expensive things will become here. at home.
This is mostly fallout because
your regular monthly mortgage payments were not enough for the Banksters: They took your payments and turned them into a floating craps game - and now that they have mostly all lost, they're expecting to put the craps game costs onto your shoulders. There's a certain desperation in the Paulson/Bernanke plea that isn't yet explained.
Do we acquiesce to their demands? Not
no but
hell no.
http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm