Blogs and Stories

Jeffrey Leeds

The End Is Near!

Did you think that bill was adequate?

I don't know. Everyone says it was not. They probably reached the limits of political capital. Frankly, I believe they can come back and do more. A bill that is 6 percent of GNP seems to me to be a very good start. There are some people who are saying we needed 8 percent of GNP, 4 percent for two years. This is four short. They're right. But I would give them good marks on that. What really astounded me was that Hoover economics—that “do nothing, balance the budget"—still has a following. It's mind-boggling that people say what we really need to do is balance the budget or let this whole system revive itself, if the government doesn't get in the way.

I have another question about Larry Summers. He seems uncharacteristically quiet when a strong voice might be useful to restore confidence.

I suspect that they got a little worried because he had too high a profile. They sort of pulled him back. It seemed kind of odd that the Treasury secretary, at that point when he had tax trouble, was absent and Larry was doing all the talking. I think they tried to turn the pendulum the other direction so at least Geithner got some profile. He didn't do a very good job. I'm probably the wrong person to figure that out. I don't know if about how the White House works and how it works with Treasury.

Structurally, does Geithner have the right job and Summers the right job?

No. If Larry didn't have the baggage that he had, he would have been Treasury secretary. From what I can gather, Obama was enormously impressed with him when he came on board and advised after Obama won the nomination. There would be these frequent meetings where Larry would summarize what was happening in the economy and he did a phenomenal job.

Going back to your regulatory capture idea, is Treasury too full of Wall Street people?

Oh yeah. In part, this sort of absurd dancing around nationalization is a reflection of that.

What do you mean by that?

They have done almost everything they can to avoid a situation where the government assumes control of one of the big banks. But I just don't see how you can get the government and the taxpayer to put that much money into the banking system—and it’s the only source of money—and not have it assume ownership control. I think they're not giving the taxpayers a good deal. I've been asking myself why? And I can only assume that the country is just hung up that it is going to be attacked for nationalizing banks. But even Lindsey Graham says that is fine with him.

You're suggesting there is some kind of regulatory capture issue, that the people from finance in Treasury are less interested in representing the taxpayer than they are temperamentally disposed to being sympathetic with the private sector.

Exactly right. Again, like Roosevelt, he kept a lot of the Hoover people on in Treasury to help him because they knew what they were doing. This team has done the same thing. You asked the question about whether Geithner was the right guy. Maybe that is a problem. That you needed someone who could look at things with more of a fresh eye.

Back to Top
March 5, 2009 | 6:08am
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Digg
|
|
Emails
|
print
Comments ()

magicman

This article doesn't propose a single Reform or Idea, structural or otherwise, which frames either the reasons for the demise of our Banks or what might be done to cure whatever problems may be inherent in the design of Banks that causes them to fail periodically; except to say Bear Markets happen, and that they are good, and they last only so many months, on average. Can you bury your head any deeper in the sand? This is the argument for the great 'uncaused cause', which as we know, simply doesn't exist. Either things are caused, or the Legal System is completely wrong in assuming that causes do in fact exist.

Here's something to smoke in that Pipe you are wafting upon. ALL of our Banks are 'frontrunning' their Customers. Hence, no new customers, in fact the reverse, fewer customers. Existing customers are leaving. Why? Because the Banks are stealing from them, that's why.

Here's the scam. The Purpose and Motive is to obtain Bank Fees. Here's how they are doing it. Your deposits do not count. Only your debits count. It is 'make pretend' accounting. By 'pretending' your depositis do not count UNTIL AFTER all of your debits are deducted from your Bank Balance, ALL of the U.S. Banks are taking Insufficient Fund Fees, usually $25 dollars, right out of your Bank Account.

By 'frontrunning' debits BEFORE credits, by ignoring the 'real time' nature of transactions, Banks ensure themselves a greater number of Bank Fees, in the aggregate, for ALL the Banks. This is Predatory Banking Practice. It is in fact Illegal, and NOTHING is being done to correct the Problem. Instead, customers are harrassed by a bureaucracy that is trained to understand only that your Bank Balances are whatever 'they wish to declare them to be' at any given moment. This is pure, unadulterated FRAUD and is widespread throughout the Banking System.

If the Obama Administration is serious about encouraging Bank's to Lend money to stimulate the economy, they must first wean the Banks off of their Thumb Sucking Bank Fee Addicition BEFORE any meaningful rapport will ever be established with even a single customer. It is illegal, I suppose, for an individual to walk into a candy store and take $25 dollars from the till, declaring that 'they say' a debt is owed. This would only be common sense. But if a Bank were to do the same thing in calculating your Bank Balance, then the whole thing is just one big misunderstanding. Or is it a deliberate misunderstanding? It is Fraud plain and simple.

Now, I do understand the Government's need NOT to enforce Law, in any instance, or in any case; and I do understand the Bank's demand to steal our money. I also understand the Bank's opinion that we all OWE THEM A LIVING. I do hope that I am being at least polite in pointing out to you that you are full of sh*t, in return.

Please do not steal money from Bank Depositors, and do not expect a Bear Market to end of itself. It is Reform itself which rights the ship. Nothing happens uncaused. Your arguments are not only anti-intellect, they are complete nonsense and an affront to any reasonable man. But this is what causes mistrust, the Foundation of all Bear Markets. I do wish you luck in resurrecting a Financial System on the premise that the Bank has a right to steal from it's customers. I doubt that it will work at all, but you are welcome to try and be proven wrong again.

The Reforms necessary are the reimposition of Glass-Steagall, the elimination of Leverage in securitizing Bank Products, and the elimination of 'phony bank balances' for the imposition of Fees. Otherwise, we will remain forever in the Dark Ages of Theft and Greed created by our Banks in the first instance.

|
|
Reply
11:10 am, Mar 5, 2009

joymars

Do you know what money is? Chances are if you're a normal human being you've never even asked the question.

A great 40 minute animated film on the subject, "Money as Debt" -- a must see:

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/moneyasdebt.html

|
|
Reply
1:09 pm, Mar 5, 2009

Mbuna1

"The central theme of my book is that a group of people had ideological blinkers" This was enough for me to read, I didn't need to read the rest of this interview (even though I did) once I read that sentence because the whole blinkers theme is a minor detail to what actually happened. In fact I think it would be more accurate to say that the ideological blinkers caused a collective decision to be made to not regulate the financial markets. So political power was actually ceded (maybe even gifted is a better word) to the corporate financial sector who have taken the ball and run with it ever since. The current result of this fiasco is in plain sight with Wall St using its political power to extort trillions of dollars from the taxpayers. Wall St. has successfully infiltrated not only the last administration but the current one as well and the end result of this will be anything but good. Greed is still in charge and the only ending I can see from the current trend is a bankrupt country. Wall St only knows unfettered greed and one only has to look at the editorials from the financial newspapers to see this in spades.
Most of the ideological political and financial ideas that you see in print are utter BS. Ideology is just a means to achieve and end. Just take a look at the "conservative" politicians in power these last 8 years. They are a perfect example. They just wanted power, had no interest in actual governing and abandoned their ideology as soon as it was inconvenient. Just so, all those "free market capitalists" are nothing more than free market hypocrites who have abandoned their ideology as soon as it becomes inconvenient or something more lucrative comes along. So while all this talk of ideology can be interesting, it is completely beside the point. Money and power is the name of the game.

|
|
Reply
1:56 pm, Mar 5, 2009
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments

The End Is Near!

by Jeffrey Leeds

Info
RSS
Jeffrey Leeds
Emails
|
print
Single Page
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |