Times a wastin... The more I see in life, the more I am willing believe. I have heard it said that with age people get closed-minded and less permissive of new ideas which run contrary to their experience and entrenched beliefs. If that is true then I can't imagine what my generation is going to be like in 20 years, when we make up the middle-aged. I suppose most of my peers have been impervious to the flow of new information since shortly after infancy, under the cover of independence. Independent behavior is a hallmark of children born into abundance, as is complacency. Still some of us are more tethered and try to stay well-informed. Anyone who is tuned in today will be effected by the turbulence of this moment for the rest of their lives. Similarly, anyone who is tuned out will probably be lost for much of theirs.

My wife has been writing blogs since right before she started her MFA in creative writing. She is almost done with her first year. Yesterday one of her ideas got picked up by a show on NPR. She didn't used to follow the news much, but since she left the working world for graduate school a daily dose of the headlines and a decent primer on issues of the moment have become a regular part of her life. I'm proud of her. I think she started paying attention just in the nick of time. The issues that dominate the headlines today force us to challenge the values we hold. Do we really think the truth more important than pride? Is equality more important than tradition? Is justice as important as affluence? Pay attention. These are the values that are at the core of the questions that policy makers face today.

I spent years bad-mouthing the NY Times, but the quality of that paper has improved markedly in the past two years. I have been very impressed. I just hope that more young people will pay closer attention, especially now.

• I.M.F. Puts Bank Losses From Global Financial Crisis at $4.1 Trillion
• Obama Won’t Bar Inquiry, or Penalty, on Interrogations
• European Nations May Investigate Bush Officials Over Prisoner Treatment
• Fingering AIG
• When Did Your County's Jobs Disappear?
• Bank Aid Programs Are Seen as Open to Fraud
• Bush-era Lawyers Are Tough Legal Targets
• Stress test pass rate: 68%

In my lifetime... Lately I've become more of a student of finance. I have for years read the Financial Times and the Economist, ever since working as a media analyst really, and for no other reason than because the world of debt and equities seemed to me like an important thing to know about. In 2002, I first learned that derivatives existed and what they were. In 2003, I learned that CDOs and CMOs existed, though it took another year before I figured out how they worked and the ultimate significance they were likely to have. Now I'm learning about swaps. Money never made the world go 'round for me personally, but in this mutually agreed upon hallucination that we call reality, I have been awake enough to have realized that there are more than enough people driven solely by their own avariciousness to offset my comparative disinterest. Because money is important to so many other people, it is important to me (and you too). 

A peculiar phenomenon that I have observed through spending a great deal of time with a very diverse group of ambitious friends is that many of the people who I know to be both kind-hearted and ambitious, at one point or another, turned away from money. Not all, but many. Its funny how some peoples' lives became dominated by the alchemy of predicting future cash flows, while others decided early on that, insofar as possible, they would try to prevent that logic from ever entering their thought processes. It seems that all you can attempt to do is forestall it though, at least if you want to have even the smallest grasp of why the world is falling down around you. I suppose both are purists of different sorts. 

I understand the structure of motivation beneath each practical philosophy. On the one hand, one should pursue money while one can, because one never knows when it will be entirely beyond one's grasps. Money makes many things possible. Most people tend to respect those with money and everybody wants to be respected. Or, if you'd rather, cash can be an aphrodisiac and everybody needs a little butt from time to time. On the other hand, since monetary pricing provides a metric through which most things can be evaluated, looking at the world through such lenses can make it easy to forget the limits of a lot of things. Someone with enough money can get a great many things if that person can just figure out how much he has to spend to get it. Some of those things ain't exactly wholesome. So, those glasses can make one nauseatingly aware of the fact that certain limits don't exist for everyone and since money can be a catalyst, one might not want to know about all the things that it can catalyze. 

All of this is just to say that, without money a person can't know all the things that are possible, but first-hand knowledge of the power that money can isn't exactly the sort of knowledge we all want to have. Money can erode your ability to assess value by other metrics.  It can erode your appreciation for certain limits. Most importantly, it can skew your sense of value dramatically. People who love money tend to be essentialists. What strikes me as unfortunate is not so much that money makes so many things possible that we might otherwise wish were not possible, but that (1) the lack of it makes so many things seem impossible and (2) money lovers seem to have turned so many other people with very sophisticated appreciation for the complexity of value away from the pursuit of money. I just think that if more of the money were in the hands of the people who didn't love it so much, but instead needed it or wanted it for the good they could do with it, then the world would be a much better place. 

Everybody is blaming Wall Street... because Wall Street is to blame... I was reading the Financial Times today and came across an article about how Obama called it "shameful" that investment banks just handed out the the sixth largest pool of bonuses in history, at the same time that they have had to ask for bailouts from the American taxpayer. The article states that the response from investment bankers was a mix of "anger" and "resignation." One executive is cited is saying, plainly, that because of the political climate it is popular and easy to blame Wall Street [LINK].

Now, Obama handled the whole thing very tactfully. His tone was even and admirable, his focus was on the future and he emphasized that he will need bankers to be responsible, at least until he steers us out of their mess. He basically said, "help me help you." I am not so even-toned about the matter. I suppose it might be silly to be angry at traders for being traitors, because as they see it, the only loyalty a trader should have is to his own personal bottom line. But, as I see it, these people are charged with carrying out tasks upon which our whole economy depends. Their actions have repercussions on many more than themselves. And it is not just politicians who have cited the asymmetrical nature of their compensation structure, i.e. bonuses when profits are high, bonuses when profits are low, and no expectation that they will return their bonuses when the profits which those pay outs were based on prove to be ethereal. Everybody wants that job, but so few have them. If very few are able to get them, then the job should come with a great deal of responsibility. But our culture does not reward responsibility. Our culture rewards greed.

I am thrilled that we finally have a president in the White House who is outraged when outrageous things happen. In 2004, Halliburton was pardoned after it was discovered that the company had overcharged the U.S. military by more than $100 million for petrol from Kuwait delivered to troops in Iraq. We invade an oil country and then overcharge our own military for the oil? No one was outraged and the articles about the scandal rarely made it passed page A20 of the New York Times. The vice president was profiting from the outrage. I examined so many photos of Bush and Cheney on the last day at the White House and it was appallingly to me the way they were standing around as if they owned the place. As if they owned the country. Bush thought he was restoring honor to the White House because he imposed a strict "shirt-and-tie" rule in the Oval Office [LINK]. Honor involves more than a dress code. Honor requires competence.

Things have changed a lot in the past week, but not all that much. I doubt Cheney will go to prison for all the terrible things he did. I doubt that Madoff will go to jail, because it will be awfully difficult to get any charges to stick. I doubt any investment bankers will be forced to give back their bonuses. Meanwhile, any petty thief who lifts more than $1,200 of merchandise from Wal-Mart will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'm heartened that someone with some moral worth–with a sense of moral magnitude, who can tell the difference between symbolism and substance–has finally made it to the White House on the basis of merit. I am inspired that one person of color has finally made it to the highest office in the land. It makes me feel better about America, that so many whites have been and are open to Obama's ability. But let's be honest: race is not behind us.

White thieves will still think it ridiculous that they should be convicted for their thievery. White crimes are not considered tantamount to dark crimes. Obama is an exception and his achievement is our achievement, and it will very likely change the country. Hell, he will probably save the country. But who is he responsible for saving the country from? People have tried to blame the crisis on minorities who are "sub-prime" borrowers. They have tried to blame derivatives. They have tried to blame the Chinese. But its not any of those things. It is largely incompetent investment bankers, most of whom are white, some of whom knew they were digging the country into a hole, but none of whom cared. Yes, some knew what they were doing. In 2004, I was able to figure out that the practice of pooling sub-prime mortgages into AAA rated CDOs was going to cause a credit crisis that would bring the American economy down to it's knees. I was not working for an investment bank. I realized this from reading newspapers, like the Financial Times.

After it happened, it was sovereign wealth funds in Asia and the Middle East that bankers at Citigroup and JPMorgan flocked to for a sudden cash injections, before the TARP came through. They needed those cash injections because they were over leveraged, i.e. the ratio of liability to cash-on-hand was extremely high. In fact, it was Hank Paulson, the former Secretary of the Treasury who, as CEO of Goldman Sachs, joined several other leading banks in asking the SEC to have the regulation governing the leverage ratio relaxed so that these banks could borrow more [LINK]. And they made him Treasury Secretary after that. A white guy asks to materially weaken the leading banks of the nation for speculative gain, openly skirts his fiduciary obligations to his shareholders, and he gets rewarded with a cabinet position. But somehow Tim Geithner is blaming China for manipulating its currency as recently as last week? Geithner, like Paulson, has no business on this playing field.

Everybody is blaming Wall Street, and it might be popular, but it doesn't mean its wrong just because it is popular. For the first time in my life, I have an interest in working on Wall Street. And it is because after the next few re-shuffles and lay-offs, half the morons will be gone. The smartest people in this country are not on Wall Street. Just the greediest. And if they are not to be blamed for willfully permitting this to happen, then they should be blamed for incompetence. We need to overcome the racism in this country, not because it should make us feel warm and fuzzy in our tummy. We need to get over racism, because it ensures that talentless morons can get high paying, important jobs on the basis of shiny shoes, white skin and meaningless pedigree. I have studied at Oxford and in the Ivy League and I'm saying this.

New lows... I mentioned recently the increased stress under which that old unholy alliance between religious fundamentalists and business people in the Republican Party will likely fracture. The Republicans don't know how manage an economy, which didn't seem to bother anyone, so long has Bush kept slashing taxes and promoting abstinence only education. Up until the inevitable collapse of the economy. Now, it's not that abstinence only education and low taxes lead to economic collapse. But incompetence does and the Republicans have got incompetence in spades.

I've never been one to challenge the authenticity of another's experiences or beliefs. But now is the time, if ever there was. If you say you've caught the holy spirit, who am I to challenge that. Maybe you did. But then again, what the fuck does that have to do with being a Christian or a good person? The answer is absolutely nothing. Similarly, just because you own a business, what does that mean about your knowledge of macroeconomics? Jack. Successfully running a business has more to do with access to credit and connections to distribution.

Now whether or not you are Christian or pro-business is irrelevant to me on most matters. But what follows is completely fucked up. I know a great deal about business and morality. I've studied and practiced both. The Bush administration is determined to push through more immoral acts in their final months than most presidents have been able to do catalyze in a full term (maybe with the exception of Nixon). The only way to turn this back is for a few brave souls within the White House to sandbag out of conscience. If they don't, then Obama will need to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court and roll-back these new rules by fiat.

New York Times, November 30, 2008
Bush Aides Rush to Enact a Safety Rule Obama Opposes
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — The Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Barack Obama, that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job.

The rule, which has strong support from business groups, says that in assessing the risk from a particular substance, federal agencies should gather and analyze“industry-by-industry evidence” of employees’ exposure to it during their working lives.

With the economy tumbling and American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush has promised to cooperate with Mr. Obama to make the transition “as smooth as possible.” But that has not stopped his administration from trying, in its final days, to cement in place a diverse array of new regulations.

The Labor Department proposal is one of about 20 highly contentious rules the Bush administration is planning to issue in its final weeks. The rules deal with issues as diverse as abortion, auto safety and the environment. One rule would make it easier to build power plants near national parks and wilderness areas. Another would reduce the role of federal wildlife scientists in deciding whether dams, highways and other projects pose a threat to endangered species.

Mr. Obama and his advisers have already signaled their wariness of last-minute efforts by the Bush administration to embed its policies into the Code of Federal Regulations, a collection of rules having the force of law.

A new president can unilaterally reverse executive orders issued by his predecessors, as Mr. Bush and President Bill Clinton did in selected cases. But it is much more difficult for a new president to revoke or alter final regulations put in place by a predecessor. A new administration must solicit public comment and supply “a reasoned analysis” for such changes, as if it were issuing a new rule, the Supreme Court has said.

As a senator and a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama sharply criticized the regulation of workplace hazards by the Bush administration.

John Podesta was on Bloomberg's Political Capital show talking about how Obama and Bush have different "economic philosophies." I've studied economics and philosophy too. This has absolutely nothing to do with philosophical economic differences. This is about irresponsibility, exploitation and immorality. That's what the Republicans generally and the Bush family specifically are about. If the Obama team wants to be effective, then they are going to need to kick some faces in.

Obama's spirit of reconciliation is fantastic and exactly what we need in our foreign policy. But domestically, the Republicans Party has acted as a cancer within our national body. They have attempted to divide us and their influence within the government has been horrendously corruptive.

Obama's victory was symbolic for a lot of reasons, but nothing has actually been accomplished by it yet. Symbolism can be important, for instance, if Obama made some symbolic prosecutions and made some examples out of some well-placed Republicans. There are plenty of places to start: John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales or Hank Paulson would be perfect early candidates for federal prison. Harvard to the White House to Levenworth make for a nice story arch. Start there, then go for the Yalies.

I know that White House experience is supposed to be a very prestigious thing to have on one's resume. However, a history with the Bush White House mostly means to me that, while you might have good family connections, you must also either have poor judgment or possess a willingness to follow immoral orders despite knowing better. I think these sorts of people should, at minimum, be blackballed for the sake of future generations. It would be best if they could be prosecuted, publicly shamed and imprisoned. But if not, they should at least be unemployed and soon impoverished. Its nice that Alberto Gonzales is broke, but it would be more appropriate if he were homeless. Here's hoping for some justice to be brought to the White House, because
it damn sure isn't coming from there.

Old New: In Searching for New Job, Gonzales Sees No Takers
New News: A Prosecutor Indicts Foes, and Cheney and Gonzales, Cheney and Gonzales indicted on extortion charges, Taxpayers to pay for Gonzales' private attorney

Protect the unborn... Decisions made at this moment in history will have massive consequences to the life prospects of those who will come later. Obligations that have been and are being written today will be binding to all who will inherit the nation's legacy in its laws, culture, and equity markets. Therefore what we do today will effect the lives of people who aren't even born yet. So people need to spend more and go shopping. I'm just saying. It's Black Friday.

I wish we weren't so consumeristically driven, but the fact remains that consumerism drives our economy. It has enabled large swaths of people to improve their stock. The inequality and mindlessness of it all are what kills me. I think it is great that people can buy what they want, but I don't get why we have to define ourselves and others for what they wear and own. A personal sense of moderation, responsibility and modesty need to be employed to counter-balance the over-stimulus all around us. But I don't know how to give that to you. Either way, I hope you won't demonize market forces for all the ills of the world. Its not markets that destroy our humanity, its people who destroy their own humanity.

The current economic woes have stressed the sacred alliance between religious fundamentalists and conservative corporate business people. We saw what effect it could have during the election season and we'll continue to see that effect going forward. What Paul O'Neil, the 43rd president's first treasury secretary, described as an economic team most resembling "kids rolling around on the lawn" is going to have a lasting effect. Business people are so appalled by the abysmal effects of George W. Bush's ideologically driven economic policy that they'll be too scared to cast their votes conservative for some time to come.

This means that Republicans have had to cater increasingly to the people who vote on the symbolic issues of abortion, anti-immigration and nationalistic fervor because these strike their chords in terms of resonating with their conservative social values. Those people have more faith in God's power to move markets than in men's, so the conservatives are going to be more driven to blame lax and lapsed Christians and consumerism for the crisis than to look anything in the laws of economics or finance. So if the Republicans come up with any ideas for getting us out of this rut, they will probably start and end with more prayer. I'm not saying that more prayer is a bad thing. I'm just saying this crisis probably won't be solved with such a quick fix.

The Obama transition team seems to have done everything possible to dissuade business people from their historical voting patterns. He's appointed four teams of economic wunderkinds to coordinate his policy development. David Brooks is worried that all these brilliant people won't listen to each other, but I get the sense that Larry Summers was appointed to the NEC for the purpose of using his dickishness to coordinate policy. Still, I doubt he'll have the balls to state the obvious, which is basically that the using consumer credit facilities as the fuel for economic growth isn't sustainable. Saying so isn't nearly as popular as claiming that Africa is under polluted.

On the week of the election, I campaigned for Obama for three days. Christine Rath, Jay Smooth, Diane Wah and I drove out to Reading, PA in Diane's since departed Town Car. As disappointed as I am with the lack of progressive representation in Obama's economic appointments, this disappointment pales in comparison to how I felt with McCain upon learning about the dirty tricks in play in PA. In Reading, we found out about efforts by Republicans to spread false information about polling locations and opening times to registered Democrats. While we were in PA, as part of the GOTV efforts, we spent hours combating the false rumors about Obama (that he's Muslim, in bed with terrorists and a socialist etc.). Its sad that while Obama spent so much time prior to his election trying to make complex notions from social and political theory plain to regular people, the Republicans turned around and tried to exploit the ignorance of regular people to make them fear a progressive candidate.

Democrats have been afraid to speak up for progressives values for as long as I can remember. As a result, Republicans have been able to make a dirty word out of socialism. I don't care who you are, unless you are against fire departments and public education, then you are not really against socialism. I hope whoever Obama appoints to any office, that he makes clear to them what his values are and that fear of fire departments aren't one of them.

[Congratulations to Christine for being named art editor of the Brooklyn Review and Diane on winning Marie Walsh Sharpe Foundation studio fellowship. And good luck to Jay who is competing against Soulja Boy and Diddy for in the SOHH Awards for Best Hip Hop Video Blog. He's an underdog worth rooting for.]