Contributors

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Uncertainty

There's been a lot to talk lately about how President Obama's economic policies are causing uncertainty. This is the reason conservatives are pointing to when defining our sluggish economy. Stirring up phantom fear is nothing new for them so it's not surprising to me whatsoever. And I still can't figure out how less regulation is going to help our economy to take off after less regulation nearly destroyed it. The facts are there. Some people don't want to listen.

But if you want to talk about the unknown, here is an article for you that I save from late last year. It also explains how less regulation was (and still is) a large part of our problem.

The banks in this group, which is affiliated with a new derivatives clearinghouse, have fought to block other banks from entering the market, and they are also trying to thwart efforts to make full information on prices and fees freely available.

Really? I wonder why?

Banks’ influence over this market, and over clearinghouses like the one this select group advises, has costly implications for businesses large and small, like Dan Singer’s home heating-oil company in Westchester County, north of New York City.

This fall, many of Mr. Singer’s customers purchased fixed-rate plans to lock in winter heating oil at around $3 a gallon. While that price was above the prevailing $2.80 a gallon then, the contracts will protect homeowners if bitterly cold weather pushes the price higher.

But Mr. Singer wonders if his company, Robison Oil, should be getting a better deal. He uses derivatives like swaps and options to create his fixed plans. But he has no idea how much lower his prices — and his customers’ prices — could be, he says, because banks don’t disclose fees associated with the derivatives.

“At the end of the day, I don’t know if I got a fair price, or what they’re charging me,” Mr. Singer said.


But wait...I thought that the free market took care of every one.

The marketplace as it functions now “adds up to higher costs to all Americans,” said Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates most derivatives. More oversight of the banks in this market is needed, he said.

Wait...huh? More regulation? That can't be possible!!! I'm afraid I don't understand.

I thought that in the free market we had a choice about all this stuff and this article not only says that we don't but members of these private banks set the rules and make the choices for us.

Well, at least I can rest comfortably knowing that Dodd Frank is in place and the GOP, ever the supporters of the middle class working man, will make sure that fairness rules the day.

Mr. Gensler wants to lessen banks’ control over these new institutions. But Republican lawmakers, many of whom received large campaign contributions from bankers who want to influence how the derivatives rules are written, say they plan to push back against much of the coming reform.

Or not.

The simple fact that no one knows how far and deep the derivatives market goes is an uncertainty that should be scaring more people. But since there's a lot of money involved and everyone's rich, there's no way it could be their fault if anything goes wrong again.

No fucking way.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Reposting something you've already brought up?

Desperately moving your corporate cock sucking friend Rev. Jim off the front page...

juris imprudent said...

I thought that in the free market we had a choice

No one said the guy had to hedge his deal on oil prices. He freely chooses to buy those hedge instruments. If he doesn't like the service he is getting from one bank, he should look for another - or forego hedging entirely.

What more freedom do you need? The freedom to not do something stupid? How exactly does that work? Suck enough political cock to get bailed out no matter what decision you made?

Haplo9 said...

>Stirring up phantom fear is nothing new for them so it's not surprising to me whatsoever.

I think we should get a few things straight here. First - in these very comment section, a guy named Investor explained to you his exact reasoning for being extremely cautious about hiring more people. Was he lying? Wrong? You, of course, didn't respond to a thing he said. Second - he (or maybe juris) pointed you to comments from Home Depot's founder, stating a lot of the same things. I don't have the link handy, but, of course, you didn't respond to anything in the link. Was he lying? Wrong? Third, and this is the obvious part. Mark, you don't have the slightest clue about what it takes to run a successful business, and everyone knows it, and you ought to be honest about it. I don't think you even care, actually - you're too busy cheering for team blue to actually do something useful, like ask business people why they might be conservative with their investments, if you think that the examples given to you aren't convincing.

As to the rest of your nonsense bank example, we once again see your inability to understand straightforward concepts. Hint - a "free" market is not the same thing as "fair" market. "Fair" is a very subjective term, and if Mr. Singer doesn't like the prices he gets for his hedging strategy, he can .. stop hedging. Or look for someone else to sell him derivatives. Btw- you posted that article before, and got ripped up in the comments for the very same reasons.

And finally, Mark, dear god. You speak as if "more regulation" and "less regulation" are binary choices that are either good or bad. Don't you think the content of regulation kind of has a lot to do with how "good" or "bad" it is? I know this is cliche, but do you think you could grow up a bit?

Santa said...

I think it's a good idea that he brought it up again because the whole uncertainty argument is BS. It's as if all the people that run small businesses are conservative. Not everyone who is in business is a Republican, Haplo9. Their reasoning for not hiring more people is that they are making money without doing so. Mark has told you that many times and for some reason you insist upon blaming Obama and the Phantom Menace of Uncertainty. Isn't there any part of the article that bothers you, H9? Banks are making decisions about how we live our lives without any oversight by the government. Still, you blame the government. You're like a jilted girlfriend who just can't get over her loser boyfriend with the shiny motorcycle.

Serial Thrilla said...

The only problem is, Santa, that Haplo 9 doesn't see himself as jilted. Let's have a pity party for the poor innocent banks and lay right into Mark personally (again!) because I have no fucking clue what the hell I am talking about.

Abbot Elvis Costello said...

You two (if you really are two) are the best part of this blog. I honestly can't tell if you are making fun of Mark in the most sarcastic (and admirable) way possible, or if you really believe what you are saying.

Miley said...

I don't understand why there has to be a discussion about something so simple: they are greedy hoarders and want to keep their money. Trying to dress it up as something else is nothing short of lying. I'm a business owner and it's not the government that is the problem. It's the banks.

rld said...

Santa and serial rarely comment on the subject being discussed, they comment about the commenters.

juris imprudent said...

they are greedy hoarders and want to keep their money.

Another believer in the Scrooge McDuck theory of wealth.

Last in line said...

Obama had a good lunch yesterday. He went to Ross's in Bettendorf, IA and had a magic mountain and a volcano. A magic mountain is 2 pieces of texas toast, french fries, ground beef and melted cheese all in 1 great big pile. A volcano is the same thing only add chili on top of that. We spent many nights eating those at 3 am after bar close in my time growing up across the river in IL.

Anonymous said...

"they are greedy hoarders and want to keep their money"

They want to keep their money.

That is your argument?

Do you want to keep your money?

I don't expect your business to be sucessful if you don't want to keep your money.

Without money, do you still pay someone a salary? Do your employees get mad when their paychecks bounce?

How do you pay for food to eat before you go to work? Soup kitchen? If you were uncertain that the soup kitchen would be open, it might be smart to keep a couple bucks for yourself.

6Kings said...

Their reasoning for not hiring more people is that they are making money without doing so.

Duh, captain obvious. If I don't need to hire and make enough money, why would I hire?! Are you really making as asinine statement as this?

Are you suggesting that I have to be 'mandated' to hire?

Anonymous said...

You've solved the economy 6! The government just needs to pass a law that says every business has to add 5 employees!

So simple it can't fail!

Larry said...

Ah, I found Mark's malady. The Dunning-Kruger effect explains much. Perhaps not all, but much.

And it's from a left-wing British newspaper, so it's not serving up too much conservative dogma in-between sessions of sucking on corporate cock, so it must be true.

Anonymous said...

Laws may be good or bad. Enforcement of such laws may be either good or bad. But you see, under normal conditions people can generally assume that the laws that are in place right now, and the level and manner of enforcement that's in place right now, are what they have to deal with when planning for the immediate future.

This is what's they're calling "certainty". It may not be nice, it may not be just, but at least you can plan for it.

Now, look at Obama's record.

GM, BP, immigration, energy policy, foreign policy, labor laws, healthcare...

In every major area of policy that Obama has addressed, whether you like the result or not the fact remains that he doesn't play by the same rules as everyone else, he doesn't consider himself bound by US law.

If bankruptcy law, or environmental law, or immigration law doesn't work the way you want it to, make up your own rules and go with that. Congress, public opinion, the courts? Fuck 'em.

If energy policy or labor laws don't give you the results you want, pack the courts and government oversight boards with those who will decide things your way, regardless of both precedent and written law.

If you disagree with the foreign policy of your predecessor, go back and criminalize the actions of those who carried it out, years after some of the best lawyers in the world told them what they were doing was legal, or even years after a Democrat controlled Congress Obama was a member of gave them permission to do it.

It may or may not be nice, it may or be not be just.... but you can't plan around it.

And you're surprised that investors consider such an environment a chancy one?

WTF did you think the word "uncertainty" meant, anyway?

Mark Ward said...

GM, BP, immigration, energy policy, foreign policy, labor laws, healthcare...

GM- I think his reasons for bailing out GM were unique given the situation. Or do you also think that TARP was illegal?

BP- wait, the oil spill is Obama's fault? What am I missing?

Immigration- he hasn't done anything on this but he is trying to change the law. So changing the law is now breaking it? I guess that means ending slavery is now breaking the law. And Ronald Reagan really broke the law when he signed his amnesty bill.

Mark Ward said...

Energy policy? What energy policy?

Foreign policy...that's a little vague. Explain...

Labor laws... well, unions are on the decline. So what exactly are you complaining about?

Health care...it's illegal for a democratically elected Congrss to pass a law?

Anonymous said...

GM - It doesn't matter what bankruptcy law says, he had to do it his own way to save the pensions of the UAW workers. But of course the pensions of non-union workers like those at Delphi... fuck em.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/business/23pension.html

BP - Did I say BP was his fault? Did anyone? No, I said that the way he dealt with it was not according to existing law, which was why it was called a "shakedown".

Foreign policy - The OLC decided the CIA's interrogation methods were legal. Whether you agree with that or not, to go back years after the fact and criminalize it... you don't think that creates "uncertainty"?

Labor laws - It doesn't matter what labor laws actually say, Boeing must not be allowed to expand into a right-to-work state.

Immigration law - The DREAM Act didn't pass. But that's okay, Obama can just enact the DREAM Act by Executive fiat. If they meet the guidelines for the DREAM Act, just tell everyone at ICE not to prosecute them.

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf

Health care - Okay, so they passed a law... but if you're one of over a thousand big money Obama donors or cronies, you don't have to abide by it, you can get a waiver.

Uncertainty. In other words, there aren't any rules you can count on him abiding by. You think businesses should invest, but you're okay with the fact that they have no reason whatsoever to think that the rules they use to plan for the future will be the rules the President plays by, and every reason to think that they won't be. After all, he doesn't give a rat's ass about any other rules, he's proved it several times.

Using the "Madman Strategy" carries a price.

Anonymous said...

Or if you prefer...

Foreign policy - He sided with Venezuela and Cuba against our ally, Honduras. Apparently the Hondurans doing things in accordance with Honduran law didn't get the results he wanted. So his response was to tell the Hondurans they should shitcan their laws.

Anonymous said...

Honestly Mark, just because you are of a liberal bent doesn't make you the bad guy. Much of what you say can't be definitively proven wrong, other than with a historical perspective our grandchildren will have.

All of these instances above, pointed out by anon, may someday turn out to be the 'right' thing to do.

But this is supposed to be a nation where EVERY PERSON is subject to the same laws.

That includes (perhaps even more so) our elected masters.

The idea that every single person is subject to every single law. A mind blower of a new government form.

Certainly the law can be changed. There's even a simple process to change it. But to just 'decide' that the laws don't apply to certain people, or that certain people don't have to abide by the laws, is not a Progressive step in the right direction.

It was wrong if Bush did it (with liberal howling), and it is wrong if Obama does it (with conservative howling).

===============================

The incredible scientific method of google searching "President Clinton uncertainty" and comparing them to '' Obama '' uncertainty, was launched and the results were very different.

Clinton (who I voted for [twice!]), led an economic rally as the president.

Let's not tangent to which previous president actually derserves credit...

Anyway, Clinton's uncertainty was that he got a blowjob and lied about it. To his wife even!

Obama has zero executive experience, and his first job is the leader of the free world? Of course he's uncertain. Mark, you are intelligent, you are well-informed. Do you think you could sit in the executive office of a failing company and fix it? Starting from scratch?

You've got four years...go!

My point to this lengthy screed is:

Uncertainty is anathema to investment. Uncertainty Exists.

What God Wants God Gets said...

And I'd vote for a HILARY/BILL ticket in 2012.

Let's get it started here.

Roger Waters

Mark Ward said...

But they aren't our masters...we are their masters. They serve at our pleasure and, as Nikto pointed out recently, we can change that. The othe comment I would make about your post is their are multiple interpretations of the law. That's why we have the various courts in this country. Your interpretation may not be the right one. Neither is mine. So when you say that Obama is ignoring the law, that's an opinion, not a fact. 

Regarding uncertainty, yes, it exists but it always does and it has nothing to do with the president. I tire of the repeated attempts to paint Obama as the problem. It's his inexperience...his policies are causing uncertainty...he's a socialist...etc etc...he is not the problem. Thankfully, the American people see that. 

The problem is the private sector. They caused it to begin with and they continue to be the root cause. But you can't really blame them if they are making money without hiring, right?

Anonymous said...

"They serve at our pleasure."

Then why is the incumbent re-election rate approximately 99.999%? Because everyone thinks they are doing such a good job? Which one of the many 'czars' is elected? And wasn't it Reagan that started the whole czar thing?

"...multiple interpretations of the law..."

But there can't be. That's why we have one court at the end of the interpretation branch of government. Just one. Planned it that way. We may not agree with those nine judges, but that is the way it was setup.

OK. No point in arguing about how great Obama is... Fine, nothing he has done makes anyone uncertain.

"But you can't really blame them if they are making money without hiring, right?"

No. I can't. Businesses do not exist to create jobs. They exist to make money.

By saying that the 'private sector' is the root of all problems, you lead me to believe you want less of a private sector.

Anonymous said...

So when you say that Obama is ignoring the law, that's an opinion, not a fact.

Once or twice is an opinion. When you can spot it in every major area of policy, it's not just an opinion, it's a pattern of behavior.

But I'm not talking about the legality of it, the subject is "uncertainty", remember? Opinion or not, if it's so consistent that the perception is "he makes up his own rules as he goes along", that will have consequences. And if you deliberately cultivate that perception by ignoring the results of panels you empowered, ignoring the opinion of Congress after you demanded a decision from them, ignoring your own lawyers' results on a question you specifically tasked them with answering... well you have no one but yourself to blame for the consequences of that perception.

As I said, the "Madman Strategy" has a price.