Revisiting the Squid

Back when we wrote a brief critique of Matt Taibbi's latest populist jeremiad against 'God's workers', a.k.a. Goldman Sachs, we were of course aware that the topic would be controversial. Quite a few people seem to have misread that piece as an apologia for Goldman Sachs (judging from some comments on the Seeking Alpha reproduction of the post and e-mails we received), so perhaps we didn't express our point clearly enough. Yesterday, another writer dared to speak up in Goldman's defense, specifically with regards to the questions surrounding its trades and Taibbi's allegation that GS executives are guilty of perjury. Just as we suspected, the case is not as clear-cut as Taibbi makes it out to be – not by a long shot.

 

We are thus taking the opportunity to briefly revisit the topic today. Our problem with Taibbi's approach is that for one thing he throws out grave allegations that are far from proved as though they should be accepted at face value on his mere say-so. He is of course banking (pardon the pun) on the righteous anger of his readers in the face of economic crisis and the envy the highly-paid 'masters of the universe' inevitably arouse. For another thing, he focuses exclusively on one private sector firm and its trading activities. He is thereby attacking precisely the one activity of GS that strikes us as perfectly legitimate – its trading in the markets. His assertion that 'from tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression – and they're about to do it again' is plainly ridiculous. It suggests implicitly that every movement in the markets that people don't like (no-one was enamored by the collapse of stock prices after 1929 or after the tech stock bubble, just as no consumer is happy when gas prices rise) is somehow illegitimate, while ascribing almost god-like powers to what is in the end just one market participant who has as little control over the markets as anyone else. In Taibbi's portrayal, these investment bankers are described as omnipotent – they're not merely 'doing God's work', they are God, or rather his polar opposite, the devil. He doesn't waste a single sentence on the fact that without a fractionally reserved fiat money system it would be impossible to create any of these damaging bubbles. Goldman Sachs is not the 'bubble machine' – it is merely a cog in the bubble machine.

Taibbi neglects to look too closely on the interaction between financial firms and the State, this amalgamation of interests that is at the core of not only the crisis but also the inexorable slide from what was once free market capitalism toward a collectivist state-capitalistic system.

We certainly don't think Goldman or other members of the banking cartel are not deserving of critique. Alas, to us what is mainly worth criticizing is the fact that Wall Street and the government have melded together into a state-capitalistic combine, whose main raison d'etre is the maintenance of privileges for the banking class and the maintenance of the statist fiat-money based welfare/warfare system for the political class. Not coincidentally, one of the nicknames Goldman was stuck with over time is 'Government Sachs', in reference to the fact that an unusually large number of its executives tends to end up in high government posts, where they are then in a position of enacting policies that are favorable to the firm and its activities. Former treasury secretary Hank Paulson is a case in point. He at one point allegedly even threatened the imposition of martial law if Congress and the Senate were to fail to go along with the bailout of the big banks.

 


 

Vampiroteuthis infernalis

(Photo by R. Flood)

 


 

Meet the man from Government Sachs, Hank Paulson.  If we had not showered the worst stewards of capital with oodles of free money, the world would surely have stopped turning.

(Photo via shortsalemagicorder.com)

 


 

Regulations Favor The Banking Cartel

In this connection it is worth mentioning the 'Frank-Dodd' regulatory monstrosity again. Many people erroneously believe that the banks will somehow be 'punished' for their transgressions during the bubble and 'put on a tight leash' by this telephone-book sized law. In other words, one would suppose that the big bankers really hate it. We tend to think that it is more likely that they actually wrote it. All the 'too big to fail' banking institutions are today even bigger than they were before the crisis. The impenetrable thicket of regulations meanwhile ensures that they have even less to worry about the competition from upstarts than before. Not surprisingly, the smaller banks are the only ones that are vehemently protesting that the new regulations are making life impossible for them. You'll never hear Citigroup or Bank of America seriously complaining about the new laws. They know that in the end, these regulations have only created an even more powerful cartel of big banks. Consumers will over time end up paying through the nose for all of this, as whatever additional administrative costs the new regulations are creating will be passed on to bank customers. One must also keep in mind here that the more highly concentrated a banking system becomes, the less constraints there are on the concerted expansion of circulation credit and fiduciary media. In short, it makes inflation of the money supply that much easier. As it were, the privilege of creating new money from thin air is functionally not different from legally sanctioning the counterfeit money printing press in Tony Soprano's cellar. Obviously, this privilege has remained untouched.

We have yet to hear Taibbi mention this particular aspect of the system, although we must admit he did a fairly good job of getting closer to the central issue when he wrote a critique of the Fed's 'emergency' measures during the crisis ('The real house wives of Wall Street'). This article is valuable because it hits on the above mentioned amalgamation of private and State interests and shines a light on the big fat spider in the center of the web – the Federal Reserve. Alas, even this otherwise worthy piece is deficient. Taibbi mentions that all these bailout deals that evidently favored mainly well-connected insiders were done on the 'tax payer's dime'. Partly this is correct, but he  fails to note where the 'Fed dollars' as he calls the flood of money showered on the clearly undeserving really came from – namely, thin air.

As such it is not only detrimental to tax payers, but to every participant in the economy who is a 'late receiver' of the newly created money. Those who got first dibs on the funds (like apparently the wily wives of Wall Street executives who had the presence of mind to quickly set up 'TARP' related companies on the Cayman Islands before the money began to rain down) certainly profited from the inflation of the money supply. Every other holder of dollars drew the short stick in this exercise.

Yesterday an article in the NYT caught our eye that nicely exemplifies the incestuous relations between government and the big banks. One of the authors of the new banking regulations, the self-anointed 'top cop' of Wall Street, Barney Frank, has just held a fundraiser – on Wall Street!

You would think that the banks must hate the man's guts. In his public utterances he frequently demonizes them. He is selling himself as a 'man of the people', supposedly representing the interests of the common man against the greedy inhabitants of the money temple. It would seem logical if the bankers were financing whoever tries to unseat him in elections. Alas, this is evidently not the case. On the contrary, they shower Frank with significant amounts of money. As the NYT reports:

 

Representative Barney Frank proved Tuesday night that it never hurts to ask, even when you are asking longtime foes to fork over cash.

The Massachusetts Democrat held a Wall Street fund-raiser on Tuesday, less than a year after authoring the Dodd-Frank Act, a sweeping crackdown on the financial industry.

While some bankers saw the event as a striking display of chutzpah, even by Wall Street standards, other industry players were not about to miss the chance to hobnob with one of the nation’s top financial cops. JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley all dispatched officials to the event, hosted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, one of Wall Street’s most vocal advocates on the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law. The attendees were a who’s who of Wall Street’s legal and lobbying community.

 

(our emphasis)

Apparently the NYT really thinks that Frank and the big banks are 'foes' and that the Dodd-Frank Act is a 'sweeping crackdown' on the financial industry. Both assumptions are erroneous. Their public enmity is nothing but political theater for the rubes, while the regulatory monstrosity further cements the domination of the big banks.

 

“But even Mr. Frank, known for his hard-edged political style and sarcastic wit, has shown a penchant for compromise. He has supported efforts to delay new restrictions on debit card fees, the scorn of bankers big and small. And that was not lost on his audience of donors, some of whom praised Mr. Frank’s recent efforts before entering the fund-raiser.

Still, banks complain that the Dodd-Frank law threatens to cost the industry several billion dollars.

And after the fund-raiser on Tuesday, Wall Street’s pockets were sure to be even lighter. “Frank for Congress” was charging $5,000 for a “host,” $2,500 for a “supporter” and $1,000 just to be a “guest.”

The event was hardly the pugnacious lawmaker’s first attempt to draw from the Wall Street well. In his most recent campaign, which raised roughly $4 million, Mr. Frank received $356,316 from the securities and investment industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

He is a natural target for donations from bankers and the like. During the crisis, Mr. Frank was chairman of the influential House Financial Services Committee. Now that Congress is in the hands of the Republicans, Mr. Frank is the ranking Democrat on the panel and still wields significant power.”

 

As noted above, the only banks that really 'complain' about the cost of the law are the small banks for whom the law makes competing in the market place against the big guys all the more onerous. And surely no-one can be as naïve as to think that the bankers are bankrolling Mr. Frank because they are happy that there is a 'tough regulator' who really steps on their toes. Will they really get nothing in return for their generosity? Frank himself does indeed possess a good portion of 'chutzpa', as he is making just this assertion:

 

Mr. Frank says campaign contributions do not influence his policy decisions. The congressman’s spokesman told Marketplace on Tuesday: “If Wall Street is trying to buy influence with him, it has been a dramatic failure.”

 

And we have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.



 

Barney Frank, the 'Wall Street Top Cop' – surely no-one thinks that the bankers get anything in return for showering him with money?

(Photo via mediabistro.com)

 


 

 

Emigrate While You Can... Learn More

 


 

 
 

Dear Readers!

You may have noticed that our so-called “semiannual” funding drive, which started sometime in the summer if memory serves, has seamlessly segued into the winter. In fact, the year is almost over! We assure you this is not merely evidence of our chutzpa; rather, it is indicative of the fact that ad income still needs to be supplemented in order to support upkeep of the site. Naturally, the traditional benefits that can be spontaneously triggered by donations to this site remain operative regardless of the season - ranging from a boost to general well-being/happiness (inter alia featuring improved sleep & appetite), children including you in their songs, up to the likely allotment of privileges in the afterlife, etc., etc., but the Christmas season is probably an especially propitious time to cross our palms with silver. A special thank you to all readers who have already chipped in, your generosity is greatly appreciated. Regardless of that, we are honored by everybody's readership and hope we have managed to add a little value to your life.

   

Bitcoin address: 12vB2LeWQNjWh59tyfWw23ySqJ9kTfJifA

   
 

6 Responses to “State-Capitalism And The Banking Cartel”

  • contulmmiv:

    Hello – and congratulations on your blog. What a tremendous relief it is to find such places on the web (and the people behind them…)…

    In order to sweep away any misunderstandings, I will start by saying that I find myself in complete agreement with your critique of Taibbi and your diagnosis of the collusion between governments and banks.

    There is, however, an important consequence of this relationship which not only that you fail to notice, but you write in contradiction to it.

    Banks are market _participants_ but they are not market _entities_. Any market entity is bound by two factors: the risk factor, and the supply of capital. These factors inherently limit the range of activities of any market participant; they tend to keep market participants rather small, and the market environment highly competitive.

    Banks, as a direct consequence of the quid pro quo with governments, are not bound by these limitations: the “too big too fail” propaganda, and its implementation in the practice of bailouts, eliminate the risk factor; while the direct access of the major banks to near zero interest rate money, in practically limitless quantities, from the central banks, eliminate the limitations on the supply of capital (to complete the picture, and to give substance to the notion of quid pro quo, in exchange, the banks stockpile junk sovereign bonds, this keeping interest rates on increasingly valueless sovereign debt ridiculously low).

    The direct consequence of the violation of these factors is that banks’ participation in the markets profoundly distorts the rationality and the ethics of the markets (their valuation function foremost, which is to say, the price discovery mechanism). This necessarily impacts on all aspects related to trading, (after all, the chart patterns are only expressions of the price discovery mechanism underlying market action, as it is rooted in fundamental parameters of human psychology).

    In contradiction with this consequence, which follows directly from your correct diagnosis of the governments-banks collusion, you write: “[Taibbi] is thereby attacking precisely the one activity of GS that strikes us as perfectly legitimate – its trading in the markets.”

    I believed I recognize here (and this gave the motive of my intervention) the tone of an exquisitely scrupulous market participant, intensely concerned about not being unjust towards “bigness”, only because he is a small actor: and he is doing it to the point of sustaining positions at odds with his reasoned analysis.

    While the said reasoned analysis should have led to the straightforward notion that the participation of banks in trading activities is simply illegitimate under the conditions of a mature fiat system. _Banks are simply destroying whatever has been left of the rationality of the marketplace_. (A perfect case in point for this destruction of rationality is the recent story of Bill Gross: his decisions were splendidly correct from the point of view of _economic_ rationality; but he failed to take into account that the rationality of the bond market is no longer economic, but _political_, in precisely the sense discussed here…).

    On the other hand,by their participation in the markets, banks occasion endless fodder for politicians, scholars and academics eager to bring down the last trace of free enterprise left in the world. Instead of researching and discovering what is precisely that which causes the failure of the rational functions of the market, they are rushing to cheer the death of capitalism (the academic attack on the foundations of free market is probably the most dangerous aspect of the evolutions we are witnessing since the crisis began in 2008 and rests precisely on the denial of market rationality).

    I hope you will find my intervention appropriate and will be able to profit from with.

    Friendly, M.

    • Thank you for the interesting comment. I agree, the activities of privileged actors at the very core of the market system, i.e. the realm of money, represents a market distorting influence. There is no true competition between these actors, which is why I always refer to the banks as a cartel. I’ll have to think about your objection regarding the trading activities of such market participants, but my hunch is that it is valid.
      I completely agree that the academic attack on the market – and the ridiculous blaming of a failure produced by an interventionist and cartelized apparatus on the non-existent ‘free market’ – is a very deplorable and dangerous development. The same happened incidentally during the Great Drepression.

      • contulmmiv:

        Hello PT – and thank you for taking the time to reply, which I did not quite expect considering how busy you must be with writing the blog. Which, by the way, has become the most pleasant and one of the most useful of my daily reads. I like everything about it, including your alias (my personal favorite which I do not get to use much is ‘pelerinx’ ; )) It’s like a friendly encounter in a world for which the world of Walter M. Miller is the future…

        The free market is a selection environment: and one of the things it selects _for_ is rationality and the cerebral virtues. And it is precisely that which makes a world free and civilized. We no longer live in a civilized world, but in a world of unleashed, Bacchanalian political hubris, and the Golems we now call “banks” are essential pillars of it. For the unfree market is also a selection environment, but what it selects for is, as Hayek had it, the worse in man.

        Speaking of trading, when one trades, say, EURUSD or European sovereign bonds (on the short side, of course :)), one trades with the FED->ECB via a murky chain of zombie banks feeding on free money, and the Chinese Communist Party! Now, what kind of trade is that? The same has always been the case for oil since the 1970s or so and, since 2009, pretty much everything else, including lumber and cocoa beans (see the proliferation of commodities ETFs which, if GLD is any indication, are put out also by the banks)!

        The fact is that markets are disconnected from the economy and the real life – and that is why trading can no longer capture economic rationality. Instead of being the lubricant of the economy, the vehicle of voluntary exchanges between free individuals, money (which you rightfully emphasize) has become the instrument of fraudulent wealth transfers and of the mad rush to pile on whatever real resources one can lay his/her hands on (see news about Chinese peasants scavenging for copper…).

        I believe that the only reasonable (which is to say, most rewarding but also wrought with great perils) way of trading today is by trying to capture the logic of this sick hallucination with which the unleashed political hubris has covered the world – and to trade _against_ it. This requires cognitive acumen, and a continuous assessment of the conditions of its failure: which is precisely what I believe your blog does in an exceptionally accurate and exhaustive manner. For fail it must, if people like you and your readers are still to walk this earth.

        Friendly, M.

  • Jay:

    Pater, thanks for this fine piece. I tried reading Taibbi’s Rolling Stone “Bubble Machine” article, and while Taibbi is an entertaining writer, I couldn’t finish it because he was just throwing too much stuff out there with little backup. He argues a point while missing the point: dishonest money is the root cause of the bubbles (and many other evils as well).

    Keep up the good work. I love the pictures too.

  • What a stage show. The entire efforts of the Federal Reserve have been to shift income to the big banks at the expense of the rest of America. The outfits should have gone broke and been resolved in bankruptcy.

    The sad tale is they call this the free market when anyone who studies it over time realizes it is nothing more than a group endowed with an unconstitutional title of nobility that returns back scratchings with the politicals.

    One of the biggest misunderstandings in the general population is that regulation is anti-big business. It is the bigs that can afford to comply, while any competition is buried by the cost of compliance. Of course the big oligarchs write the laws through their massive lobbying and their big money treats to politicians that don’t want to go along.

    Then we have the money cartel itself. When the Fed was established, it relieved all the banks of having their credit dishonored in public. Prior, currency out of a weak bank was increasingly hard to pass. Knowing this, they got the government to set up an outfit that allowed for the over inflation of credit. When that failed, they came up with a system of insurance that made the depositors liable, as the money supply is what is owed by the banks and the money supply can only be guaranteed and paid out of the money supply. I know for some people this is deep and maybe off base, but where else can the FDIC collect what they have to front? The money is all there is to pay the bonds and backing already existing deposits at best places more debt into the system. Thus we have 2 tricks that have allowed bankers to pass off bad paper instituted over the first half of the 20th century.

    There is no bigger scheme than the pretense that those that can’t pay can pay. The 2 games in the prior paragraph have run their course, so now they merely mark their books to fantasy and uncle Ben puts in money so they can keep writing hot checks. There is going to be hell to pay when one bounces.

    • Very well put. Indeed, big business is never really against regulations, for the very reasons you cite. And as you say ‘there is no bigger scheme than the pretense that those that can’t pay can pay’ – indeed, it is on this absurd conceit that the entire Western, or better global, monetary system and web of debt is built upon.

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • How to Get Ahead in Today’s Economy
      “Literally On Fire” This week brought forward more evidence that we are living in a fabricated world. The popular story-line presents a world of pure awesomeness. The common experience, however,  falls grossly short.   There are many degrees of awesomeness, up to total awesomeness – which is where we are these days, in the age of total awesomeness, just a short skip away from the Nirvana era. What is Nirvana, you may wonder? We only know for sure that Nirvana is what...
  • Gold and Gold Stocks – Conundrum Alert
      Moribund Meandering Earlier this week, the USD gold price was pushed rather unceremoniously off its perch above the $1300 level, where it had been comfortably ensconced all year after its usual seasonal rally around the turn of the year. For a while it seemed as though the $1,300 level may actually hold, but persistent US dollar strength nixed that idea. Previously many observers (too many?) expected gold to finally break out from its lengthy consolidation pattern, but evidently the...
  • US Money Supply Growth Jumps in March , Bank Credit Growth Stalls
      A Movie We Have Seen Before – Repatriation Effect? There was a sizable increase in the year-on-year growth rate of the true US money supply TMS-2 between February and March. Note that you would not notice this when looking at the official broad monetary aggregate M2, because the component of TMS-2 responsible for the jump is not included in M2. Let us begin by looking at a chart of the TMS-2 growth rate and its 12-month moving average.   The y/y growth rate of TMS-2...
  • Fear and Longing - Precious Metals Supply and Demand
      Waiting for Permanent Backwardation  The price of gold dropped 9 bucks, while that of silver rose 3 cents. Readers often ask us if permanent backwardation (when gold withdraws its bid on the dollar) is still coming. We say it is certain (unless we can avert it by offering interest on gold at large scale). They ask is it imminent, and we think this is with a mixture of fear and longing for a higher gold price.   Lettuce hope this treasure is not cursed... but it probably is....
  • Scorn and Reverence - Precious Metals Supply and Demand
      Shill Alarm One well-known commentator this week opined about the US health care industry:   “...the system is designed the churn and burn... to push people through the clinics as quickly as possible. The standard of care now is to prescribe some medication (usually antibiotics) and send people on their way without taking the time to conduct a comprehensive examination.”   From the annals of modern health care... [PT]   Nope. That is not the standard...
  • Gold and Gold Stocks – The Gloom Patrol
      Fun with Positioning and Sentiment Last week we discussed the gold sector “conundrum” – the odd fact that there is apparently quite strong demand for gold despite a macroeconomic environment that would normally be considered quite bearish for the metal. Gold recently seems to have lost its last remaining inter-market “ally” if you will, as the dollar has begun to enter an uptrend as well. Positioning data in precious metals futures are nevertheless rather remarkable, given the...
  • Global Turn-of-the-Month Effect – An Update
      In Other Global Markets the “Turn-of-the-Month” Effect Generates Even Bigger Returns than in the US The “turn-of-the-month” effect is one of the most fascinating stock market phenomena. It describes the fact that price gains primarily tend to occur around the turn of the month. By contrast, the rest of the time around the middle of the month is typically far less profitable for investors.   Good vs. bad seasonal timing...   [PT]   The effect has been studied...
  • Tales from “The Master of Disaster”
      Tightening Credit Markets Daylight extends a little further into the evening with each passing day.  Moods ease.  Contentment rises.  These are some of the many delights the northern hemisphere has to offer this time of year. As summer approaches, and dispositions loosen, something less amiable is happening.  Credit markets are tightening.  The yield on the 10-Year Treasury note has exceeded 3.12 percent.   A change in pace: yields are actually going somewhere. There is...
  • Is Political Decentralization the Only Hope for Western Civilization?
      Voting with their Feet A couple of recent articles have once more made the case, at least implicitly, for political decentralization as the only viable path which will begin to solve the seemingly insurmountable political, economic, and social crises which the Western world now faces.   Fracture lines – tax and regulatory competition allows people to “vote with their feet” - and they certainly do. [PT]   In the last few months, over 3,000 millionaires have...
  • Getting Out of Dodge
      Rare Commodity Modern economists are prone to shouting fire in a crowded theater.  The world is full of seeming incongruences. Economists puzzle over things like population growth and arable acres of farmland. They project out a linear scenario of increasing divergence, and see a catastrophe in the making.   Professional scaremonger Thomas Robert Malthus, one in a long line of scarcity prophets who failed to recognize the capacity of human ingenuity and free markets to...
  • “Sell In May And Go Away” - A Reminder: In 9 Out Of 11 Countries It Makes Sense To Do So
      A Truism that is Demonstrably True Most people are probably aware of the adage “sell in May and go away”. This popular seasonal Wall Street truism implies that the market's performance is far worse in the six summer months than in the six winter months. Numerous studies have been undertaken in this context particularly with respect to US stock markets, and they  confirm that the stock market on average exhibits relative weakness in the summer.   Look at the part we...
  • Why the Fundamental Gold Price Rose - Precious Metals Supply and Demand
      Gold Lending and Arbitrage There was no rise in the purchasing power of gold this week. The price of gold fell $22, and that of silver $0.19. One question that comes up is why is the fundamental price so far above the market price? Starting in January, the fundamental price began to move up sharply, and the move sustained through the end of April.   1-month LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate – the rate at which banks lend euro-dollars to each other). LIBOR and GOFO...

Support Acting Man

Item Guides

Top10BestPro
j9TJzzN

The Review Insider

Dog Blow

Austrian Theory and Investment

Archive

350x200

THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

Realtime Charts

 

Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]

 

Mish Talk

 
Buy Silver Now!
 
Buy Gold Now!
 

Oilprice.com

Diary of a Rogue Economist