Thursday, January 24, 2008

Nice Work If You Can Get It, Pt. Two



Ill: Wizard of Whimsy
More from the Frontlines of the War to Protect Rich Peoples' Preogatives:
Heretic liberals take untoward advantage of economic woes to taunt proven money makers (well, for themselves. at least). You should be outraged!
Robert Borsage, writing in support of the liberal agenda, dares to criticize the captains of cannibal capitalism whose hard work made this latest recession bearable for CEO's, & unfairly taunts former Citibank CEO Charles Prince. (Who really didn't get paid enough to take this crap!):
As long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance. We’re still dancing.
"These now-immortal words of former Citibank President Charles 'Chuck' Prince were uttered in July, as Citibank was about to lose billions in everything from mortgages to credit cards. Prince departed with a reported $68 million good-bye package. Stanley O’Neal, who led Merrill Lynch to write off a record $9.9 billion in last quarter, departed with a $161 million severance package.
"Now the top five Wall Street banks – three of whom racked up record losses – have announced that they are paying their employees a record $39 billion in year-end bonuses. Hemorrhaging losses, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Bear Sterns had to increase the percentage of revenue they devote to pay to ladle out these bonuses. So much for pay for performance.
"Bank spokesman were not exactly lining up to justify this, but Jeanne Branthover, managing director of a global search firm, helpfully explained: 'It’s essential that pay is still there or you’re going to lose really good people.'
"Well. Is she talking about the really good people whose feckless speculation is now pushing the global economy into recession and will cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their homes? The really good people whose 'dancing' got so risqué that the somnambulant Federal Reserve just issued new regulations requiring bankers to assess whether the borrowers they are lending money to actually have a blue moon chance at repaying the loan? The wizards who, as Allan Sloan points out in The Washington Post, spent the last couple years buying back their stock at the top of the market, only to be forced to sell it off to foreign investors at the bottom in the desperate effort to keep from going belly-up?
Mean, mean Robert Borsage, attacking defenseless free-market capitalists when they're down!
But, in other news today, President Bush's Ronald Reagan Republicans, with neo-con lite Democrat friends like Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid, struck a blow today in the much-vaunted "bipartisan effort" to inject some stimulus into the economy that the captains of commerce, despite their best efforts to buy bigger McMansions, more Beamers, stretch Hummers, small jets & expensive jewelry for their soon-to-be 2nd or 3rd wives, could not, by themselves, fulfull through no fault of their own.
Tax refunds for the working poor, extended unemployment benefits, & more foodstamps are OFF the table in the House of Representative's proposal.
Hooray! After all, who would the captains of industry (or money-churning, as it were) get to work for them as maids, office boys, clerks, secretaries & miscellaneous beancounters at slave wages if we gave the self-evidently UNDESERVING a break? Bush capped it by heroically vetoing for a 2nd time the Children's Health Insurance Plan expansion which would have spread the scourge of socialized medicine to their even more undeserving children.
If you insist in reading about the tawdry mess yourself:



Labels: , ,

Monday, January 21, 2008

Pablum, Nostrum & Ronald Reagan's Magic Beans






Ill: Wizard of Whimsy

Bush's Fantasies About Economic Fixes Lacking in Substance or Details ~ Surprise!
~ Hoisted on the petard of the Ronald Reagan Magic Bean Theory of Economics, America is stunned as things reach a predictable impasse ~
In big kimchee, Bush uncharacteristically reaches out to Democrats in Congress (the only people in America whose approval ratings are lower than his own), Neo-con lite Harry Reid takes the bait.
Ah, the sainted RR, whose name is yet whispered reverently among the true believers (& whom even Obama has taken to praising recently ~ why, your Demon can't for the life of her fathom, but she can guess ~ politix indeed makes strange bedfellows)!
A brief history of economics in America since Reagan
All hail Reagan, he who 1st sold America on an economic program which started a long, debilitating process of eviscerating traditional American bulwarks of the middle class such as unions, ever-deeper tax cuts for the hyper-rich, trickle-down theories which remain just that ~ theories ~ all the way to the present time, along the way forcing the Clintons into a "centrist" strategy & "triangulation"(& "impeaching" Bill for sexual peccadilloes we now know that Gingrich, Guiliani & other luminaries of the neo-con movement, straight & gay, can't seem to resist either. But, hooray, they drove the immoral Clinton out of office, but not before he balanced the budget & left a surplus, all of which is just a memory now.)
Campaigning on tax cuts for the wealthy, an ideology impervious to fact & real life (though incapable of noticing, conveniently enough), Neocons since Reagan managed to get elected in sufficient numbers to carry the day, all of the above resulting in our time in a series of manic, illusory bubbles by which the rich became super-rich, manifesting the Gordon Gekko Creed (greed is good, & greedier is gooder yet) even though there is no industrial base in America anymore, full-time employment with benefits has been replaced by permatemps, & the primary foundation of prosperity is really just the empty activity of churning money markets.
And for icing on the cake, all hail Ronnie again for alerting us to dangers of the duplicitous Cadillac-driving welfare queens buying filet mignon with their foodstamps, a preposterous (& imaginary) bugaboo that even the Clintons bought into to keep the peace. So now, uh-oh, there are no more government social services left, universal healthcare is still just a fantasy, extended unemployment is taking even the skilled middle class by surprise (see WaPo article below), the stock market panic is spreading to Europe & Asia, & George has racked up untold deficit spending on his War on Terra & the Entire Middle East.
Back in 2003, we were warned by voices abroad that the "extreme" Republican fantasies of tax cuts for the rich while starving the social safety net was, in a word, suicidal.
'''The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum.' So wrote the normally staid Financial Times, traditionally the voice of solid British business opinion, when surveying last week's [U.S.]tax bill.
"Indeed, the legislation is doubly absurd: the gimmicks used to make an $800-billion-plus tax cut carry an official price tag of only $320 billion are a joke, yet the cost without the gimmicks is so large that the nation can't possibly afford it while keeping its other promises.
"But then maybe that's the point. The Financial Times suggests that 'more extreme Republicans' actually want a fiscal train wreck: ''Proposing to slash federal spending, particularly on social programs, is a tricky electoral proposition, but a fiscal crisis offers the tantalizing prospect of forcing such cuts through the back door.''
"Good for The Financial Times. It seems that stating the obvious has now, finally, become respectable.
"It's no secret that right-wing ideologues want to abolish programs Americans take for granted. But not long ago, to suggest that the Bush administration's policies might actually be driven by those ideologues -- that the administration was deliberately setting the country up for a fiscal crisis in which popular social programs could be sharply cut -- was to be accused of spouting conspiracy theories.
"Yet by pushing through another huge tax cut in the face of record deficits, the administration clearly demonstrates either that it is completely feckless, or that it actually wants a fiscal crisis. (Or maybe both.)
"Here's one way to look at the situation: Although you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric, federal taxes are already historically low as a share of G.D.P. Once the new round of cuts takes effect, federal taxes will be lower than their average during the Eisenhower administration. How, then, can the government pay for Medicare and Medicaid -- which didn't exist in the 1950's -- and Social Security, which will become far more expensive as the population ages? (Defense spending has fallen compared with the economy, but not that much, and it's on the rise again.)
"The answer is that it can't. The government can borrow to make up the difference as long as investors remain in denial, unable to believe that the world's only superpower is turning into a banana republic. But at some point bond markets will balk -- they won't lend money to a government, even that of the United States, if that government's debt is growing faster than its revenues and there is no plausible story about how the budget will eventually come under control.
"At that point, either taxes will go up again, or programs that have become fundamental to the American way of life will be gutted. We can be sure that the right will do whatever it takes to preserve the Bush tax cuts -- right now the administration is even skimping on homeland security to save a few dollars here and there. But balancing the books without tax increases will require deep cuts where the money is: that is, in Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
"The pain of these benefit cuts will fall on the middle class and the poor, while the tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the rich. For example, the tax cut passed last week will raise the after-tax income of most people by less than 1 percent -- not nearly enough to compensate them for the loss of benefits. But people with incomes over $1 million per year will, on average, see their after-tax income rise 4.4 percent.
"The Financial Times suggests this is deliberate (and I agree): 'For them,'' it says of those extreme Republicans, 'undermining the multilateral international order is not enough; long-held views on income distribution also require radical revision.'
"How can this be happening? Most people, even most liberals, are complacent. They don't realize how dire the fiscal outlook really is, and they don't read what the ideologues write. They imagine that the Bush administration, like the Reagan administration, will modify our system only at the edges, that it won't destroy the social safety net built up over the past 70 years."
What's a boy to do, besides standing by as Americans plead for foreign cash infusions & auction themselves off at fire sale prices to the highest bidder? Make it somebody else's (preferably the Democrats') problem! (See above).
The New York Times reported Friday that, after ignoring the signs for so long (much as he ignored the information that a crazy buncha militant Islamists were planning an attack on American soil), he had hastily pulled out a proposal "for roughly $145 billion in tax relief for individuals and businesses that he said would 'provide a shot in the arm' for the economy, while Congressional Democrats, in a rare show of Washington bipartisanship, pledged to work with him to enact a plan quickly.
"Mr. Bush laid out his ideas for an economic rescue package only in broad strokes, saying the plan must be 'built on broad-based tax relief' and 'big enough to make a difference in an economy as large and dynamic as ours.' He did not use the word recession, but acknowledged that 'there is a risk of a downturn.'

"His comments, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, reflected a heightened sense of urgency within the administration and on Capitol Hill about the need to stimulate spending in an economy shaken by higher gas prices and instability in the housing and credit markets.
"Though the details must still be negotiated, both the White House and Congressional Democrats are leaning heavily toward a combination similar to the one the administration turned to in 2001 as a recession-fighting tool. It would include a one-time tax rebate for individuals and an immediate expansion in the deductions that businesses take for investment in equipment. If Congress acts quickly, checks could be in the hands of American taxpayers as early as spring.

"Still, there will be sticking points. In laying the foundation for a plan rooted in tax policy, Mr. Bush held fast to a central theme of his presidency, that cutting taxes, rather than increasing spending, was the route to prosperity. Democrats, by contrast, supported an extension of unemployment benefits, coupled with tax breaks aimed at the middle class. Some reacted warily, even as they praised Mr. Bush..."
Your Demon Sez: The Neocon Insane Mantra of Tax Cuts/ Rebates Alone Won't Cut It
Here's why, according to Charles Schumer, speaking on Fox. "The White House, for now, envisions providing one-time rebate checks to people who pay federal income taxes. That would leave out millions of the working poor, who do not make enough to pay income taxes but do pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.
"Families of four earning less than $24,900 a year would not get a rebate under the White House approach, said Chad Stone, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group that focuses on how government programs affect the poor and middle class.
"He has estimated that about 22 million households file income tax returns but do not pay that tax because their earnings are so low. An additional 22 million households do not file a return, he said. This group includes many older people on fixed incomes, he said.
"Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has said Bush 'is focused on broad-based tax relief for those who are paying taxes." Paulson said that worked in 2001 and 2003.
"The centerpiece of an economic aid plan should be a tax cut for the middle class, and the overall proposal could include relief for business and spending incentives for the unemployed, Schumer said.
"'I'm not going to draw any lines in the sand,' said Schumer. But he said any plan that does not carefully balance help for people making less than $50,000 with relief for those making $200,000 or more 'doesn't make much sense from either a fairness or economic point of view.'
"President Bush and Democrats in Congress have expressed an interest in working together to pass a plan quickly that could help the struggling economy. Schumer agreed on the need for fast action.
"'Partisan fights and dithering could only make whatever recession we're going to have worse,' Schumer said. 'There's a real spirit of compromise in Washington right now, a spirit of let's get together, put away the bipartisan differences, because the economy is in poor shape.'
"Schumer said that in a balanced plan,'the centerpiece would be a tax cut for the middle class and working families, and the bookends might be some business tax cuts as well as some spending stimuli for, say, people who are unemployed.'"
As Donna Summer once famously put it before the lights of the Disco were shuttered for a long, dark night: "Last chance for romance tonight."
Your Demon leads the way by announcing to the RR Republicans that if you think you're going to fuck us again, you've got another think coming. We want a real display of love & commitment that also says you won't run out when the chips are down (as they are, RIGHT now!) Time to pay for all the fun you've been having at our expense, & no, we don't really care that your foolishness has bankrupted you in the meantime. Don't forget who pays (more than) half the bills in this common enterprise. If you make nice & render a real apology & you're prepared to demonstrate you really mean it, maybe we'll think about it. Here's news for you Gordon Gekko types ~ you can't get as rich as you wanna be without taking care of us.
Republicans, don't make a bad situation worse by continuing to hammer on the Ronald Reagan magic bean theory, which is not improving with age. You've driven the country into bankruptcy & pulled the collective rug from under our feet. This is your LAST CHANCE to prove you're still on board with the broader well -being of the country economically, & sane. After all, what did those barons of commerce do with the hefty tax bonanza disproportionately allotted to them in 2003? If they actually created jobs doing something productive & tangible, they did it overseas. If they actually owed taxes as a result of the expansion, they moved their headquarters overseas to more favorable cardboard shack tax shelters seaside, or to Abu Dubai (Halliburton).
America, in the next Presidential election, choose a grown up, not another puppet of moneyed interests who can spout the rhetoric but can't see beyond it long enough to comprehend the damage he's foisted upon us collectively, nor the fact that we always have been the land of hard work & opportunity, not the land of the money-takes-it-elsewhere-so-we- don't have to pay our fair share.
Further reading:
Stocks Plunge Worldwide on Fear of US Recession: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/business/22stox-web.html?hp
Highly Skilled & Out of Work: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/20/AR2008012002368.html
Very entertaining 1999 report on Bush's personal finances: [After driving his own oil businesses into bankrupcty, he could report] "No debts" & being a "multimillionaire": http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07EEDD133DF930A35754C0A96F958260

Labels: , ,

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Nice Work If You Can Get It


Good News for Latter-Day Robber Barons ~ Social Darwinism Wreaks Havoc on the Economy Again





Wherein your Demon is inspired, Horatio Alger-style, to want to be CEO of Halliburton, KBR, any Oil Company, or a Mortgage Banker. All upside, no down, unless of course you're a working Joe (& who cares about you)

It's the roaring '20's again in Bushworld, kittens, & cause to celebrate ~ that is, if you were shrewd enough to maneuver yourself into a favorable position. (As for the rest of you ~ too bad ~ to the winners go the spoils. There's no public social safety net left, so you'll either be forced to compete with low-wage undocumented aliens forced North in desperation by NAFTA, or beg in the streets, & that's the way we like it. )
Another update: "Judicial Activism we like." Supreme Court decides "the most important business case in decades," ignores Bushco SEC interventions in favor of hampering investor actions against companies fraudulently inflating stock value. (Only government gets to play.) Justice Roberts sells stock in one of the alleged manipulator's parent company so as to be able to weigh in with a clear conscience.
Result: court ignores how manipulation really works & who is really hurt, Enron cases go down the drain ~ so sorry, suckas!
From Scotusblog:
"The Supreme Court, in one of the most important securities law rulings in years, decided Tuesday that fraud claims are not allowed against third parties that did not directly mislead investors but were business partners with those who did. The 5-3 ruling came in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta (06-43).
"Investors, the Court said, may only sue those who issued statements or otherwise took direct action that the investors had relied upon in buying or selling stock — whether that involved public statements, omissions of key facts, manipulative trading, or conduct that was itself deceptive. One impact of the decision is likely to be the scuttling of a massive $40 billion lawsuit against financial institutions growing out of the Enron scandal. The Court has a case on its docket involving that very dispute, and Tuesday’s ruling will be followed up soon, perhaps by next week, with action on that case — California Regents v. Merrill Lynch, et al. (06-1341).
[...]
"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the Stoneridge ruling, said the private right to sue for securities fraud 'does not reach the customer/companies' [who allegedly participated in perpetrating the fraud] because the investors did not rely upon their statements or misrepresentations.”
"The ruling upheld a decision by the Eighth Circuit Court rejecting claims against Scientific Atlanta, Inc., and Motorola, Inc. The investors contended that those two companies helped a giant cable TV firm, Charter Communications, inflate artificially its financial statements in order to bolster its stock’s price. The investors contended that the two companies should be treated as 'primary violators,' even though they had not themselves issued any public statements to advance the alleged manipulation plot.
"The scheme challenged in the case was carried out in the fall of 2000. Investors claimed that the plot was designed to improve the public appearance of an adequate opeating cash flow for Charter by getting its business partners in TV set-top boxes to engage in 'sham' deals under which Charter paid extra for the boxes, but the companies simply turned around and paid that money to Charter in advertising at above-market rates on its cable TV outlets. The result, the lawsuit contended, was to generate some $17 million in phony revenues, so that Charter’s cash position – in reality, a shortfall of $15 to $20 million — did not appear to be below the amount projected by the company and by stock analysts. After losing in the Eighth Circuit, the investors took the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that 'the simplicity of the scheme was trumped only by its brazenness.'
"The plot led to a federal indictment against two of Charter’s officers, and a cease and desist order against that company by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Stoneridge investors’ lawsuit was also aimed at Charter and some of its officers. The appeal to the Supreme Court, however, only involved the dismissal of their claims against the vendors, Scientific Atlanta and Motorola. Also sued in the case was the now-defunct accounting firm, Arthur Andersen (which went under after its role in the Enron scandal), but it, like Charter, was not involved in the case before the Supreme Court.
"The case involved what has been called 'scheme liability'” in which everyone involved in a plot to deceive securities investors would be legally at fault, whether or not each of them had issued any public statements. The Securities and Exchange Commission had previously supported such liability, and wanted to enter the Stoneridge case to say so, but its participation was vetoed by the Bush Administration, with President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson directly involved in the decision to keep the SEC out of the case. The Court took the case apparently to resolve a dispute among federal appeals courts on the issue.
"The private right to sue at issue is one that has been created by court decisions, not by a direct federal statute. Justice Kennedy said that Tuesday’s ruling limiting the range of such a lawsuit was 'consistent with the narrow dimenions we must give to a right of action Congress did not authorize when it first enacted the [Securities Exchange Act of 1934] and did not expand when it revisited the law.'

"In ruling Tuesday that Scientific Atlanta and Motorola could not be sued, Kennedy wrote that the two outside companies 'had no duty to disclose; and their deceptive acts were not communicated to the public. No member of the investing public had knowledge, either actual or presumed, of [the two companies’] deceptive acts during the relevant times. [Stoneridge], as a result, cannot show reliance upon any of [the companies’] actions except in an indirect chain that we find too remote for liability'
"Noting that the investors had argued that Scientific Atlanta and Motorola had done what they did with the aim, and the result, that a false appearance was created about Charter’s revenues, and that what Charter said publicly was 'a natural and expected consequence' of the suppliers’ deception, the Court said this was not a sufficient link in the chain toward liability.
“In effect,” Kennedy wrote, Stoneridge 'contends that in an efficient market investors rely not only upon the public statements relating to a security but also upon the transactions those statements reflect. Were this concept of reliance to be adopted, the implied cause of action would reach the whole marketplace in which the issuing company does business; and there is no authority for this rule'
However, your Demon adds, such a rule would have a salutary effect on the honesty of the market as a whole ~ tort law, after all, presumes that individuals will bear the consequences of their actions, deliberate or negligent. And if those actions have the potential to reverberate throughout the economy, well, is that not something we'd want to prevent, which is what the prospect of hefty damages are thought to accomplish? Where's the "party of personal responsibility" when you need them?
"The Court said that 'secondary actors,' like the two outside companies in this case, are subject to criminal penalties under a specific federal law, and civil enforcement action by the SEC. 'The enforcement power is not toothless,' Kennedy wrote, attempting to direct dispute a suggestion by the dissent.
"The Kennedy opinion was supported by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and by Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. Justice Stephen G. Breyer took no part in the ruling; he reportedly owns stock in Cisco Systems, Inc., the parent company of Scientific Atlanta. The Chief Justice also was out of the case when the Court granted review on March 26, but got back into the case in September, presumably after selling stock — reportedly, he, too, owed stock in Cisco.
"Justice Stevens, in dissent, argued that Charter could not have inflated its revenues to cover up a cash flow shortfall 'absent the knowingly fraudulent actions of Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola.' Investors, he wrote, relied upon Charter’s revenue statements in deciding whether to buy its stock, and 'in doing so relied on [the two companies’] fraud, which was itself a ‘deceptive device’ ” under securities law. 'This is enough,” he concluded, to show a violation of the law against stock fraud.

"Congress passed that law, Stevens argued, 'with the understanding that federal courts respected the principle that every wrong should have a remedy. Today’s decision simply cuts back further on Congress’ intended remedy.”...'I respectfully dissent from the Court’s continuing campaign to render the private cause of action under [the fraud law] toothless.”
"In his dissent in Stroneridge ...Justice Stevens wrote...that the majority opinion's 'hostility' towards implied causes of action is not grounded in 'the first two centuries of this Nation's history...'Courts near in time to the enactment of the securities laws recognized that the principle in Rigsby [ -- the right to recover the damages from the party in default is implied -- ] applied to the securities laws,' and the decision 'simply cuts back further on Congress’ intended remedy.'"
Update: The true sweetness of it all ~ American taxpayers help finance BofA bailout of Countrywide ~ can it get any better for a robber baron? ~
"Guess who's helping Bank of America pay for its $4.1 billion purchase of Countrywide Financial? Answer: The taxpayers of the United States.
"That's because if all goes as planned, Bank of America, which is solidly profitable, will be able to offset part of its own taxable income with the losses Countrywide ran up before being acquired.
"The tax break could total about half a billion dollars over the first five years, according to an estimate by Robert Willens, Lehman Brothers' long-time tax expert who's now in business as Robert Willens LLC. The losses could be worth considerably more to Bank of America starting in the sixth year."
* * *
Money-pushing, the latest New Frontier for self-styled mortgage bankers & would-be Captains of Industry, was a very cushy gig as far as it went.
Witness in today's WaPo, the inspiring story of the enterprising fellow who built Countrywide Mortgage into all it is today, bringing the company to the verge of bankruptcy & extinction, only to bail with a very golden parachute when it is snapped up at bargain-basement rates by Bank of America:
"Angelo R. Mozilo has pocketed $410 million in salary, bonuses and stock-option gains since he became executive chairman of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial in 1999, according to the executive compensation company Equilar.
"Now, the man at the center of the national mortgage crisis stands to collect an additional $112 million in severance when Bank of America buys the company he helped found.
[...] most of Mozilo's compensation since becoming chairman -- $285 million -- has come from stock options. Mozilo has been criticized for selling pieces of his stake in Countrywide, cashing in tens of millions of dollars in options as the housing market dropped.
[...]
"His contract as chairman of Countrywide runs through the end of next year, and he is expected to continue as a non-employee chairman of the board until the end of 2011. During that time, he will receive a director's salary, plus $200,000 a year, office space and the use of the corporate jet for business trips. His country-club dues will also be paid.
"Even if Mozilo is fired as chairman, he would receive $400,000 a year to consult until the end of 2011. "
Countrywide clerks, tabulators, putters-of-labels on files & miscellaneous beancounters stand to lose their jobs in the transition. (I'm wondering whether a mortgage broker I know of will find herself faced with bankruptcy, & if so, whether she'll have to forfeit her perky breast implants & her Lexus SUV in a Chapter 13).
Lesson to all young enterepreneurs out there: slash-& burn capitalism is the American way, & you can expect to profit handsomely thereby, even though some annoying Congresscritters may say things like this for consumption of the gullible American press:
"In a written statement yesterday, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Mozilo, 'who will be profiting from this transaction personally,' should 'donate a substantial portion of the $150 million he has collected over the last several years to nonprofits and other institutions that are helping us deal with the problem he helped to create.'
Even better, he should be investigated & made to do community service ladling goop-soup to poor people in community kitchens. Of course, your Demon is only kidding. There are no enforceable laws in this country by which to convict him of anything. He's already planning a nice retirement in a warm, sunny place far far away from Wall Street, we bet.
And in the meantime, we continue to read news like this in the NYT:
"Citigroup is turning to cash-rich foreign investors for a second time as it confronts mounting losses on mortgage-related investments.
"The financial giant is in talks to sell a large stake to a Chinese bank and several other investors, including foreign governments, in a deal that could raise $10 billion, people briefed on the plan said Friday.

"The China Development Bank, which is controlled by the Chinese government, is expected to invest at least $2 billion, these people said. Citigroup is also in talks with the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and the Kuwait Investment Authority.
"Large investors like Prince Walid bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, who helped rescue Citigroup in the early 1990s, and Capital Research and Management, a money management firm that is the bank’s biggest shareholder, are being offered the chance to invest as well to avoid having their current stakes diluted, but it is unclear if they will choose to do so. Other investors may also be involved.

"While the deals may yet fall through, announcements are expected within days. The talks come as Citigroup is expected to disclose additional huge losses stemming from bad mortgage-related investments. Analysts project the company is likely to announce charges of $12 billion to $18 billion when it reports earnings on Tuesday."
Your Demon continues to predict that John Edwards, with his anti-corporate-money in politix "strident neo-populist stance" will gain a lot more traction despite Bush's headline-grabbing push to expand the War on Terra to Iran & Pakistan. Or at least influence other Democratic candidates to stop cheering themselves & start paying attention to the mess we're in here at home.

Labels: , ,