Thursday, December 8, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, December 8, 2011


They're on, baby!

Four
225/45-18 Bridgestone Blizzaks... $164 per tire... $45 for shipping... no tax... no tire disposal fee... arrived in two days!

Mounted, balanced, and swapped onto Sammie for $49 by my good friends at Walmart!

Seriously, folks... if you live where it snows and you don't swap your "all-season" tires for snows for the winter... you're a moron!

11 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/12/06/a_fools_market_rally_authored_by_a_very_foolish_fed_99402.html

Global stock markets rallied last week on news that central banks - led by our own hapless Bernanke Fed - would provide cheap, emergency dollar "loans" to banks in Europe and elsewhere short on cash.

(*SMIRK*)

Much as markets were buoyed in 2008 following central bank action - only to suffer a much worse hangover later - the same is occurring three years hence.

(*SIGH*)

[I]nterventions like the one from last week only serve to create much bigger problems down the line. If this is doubted, readers need only ask why central banks are intervening to begin with.

(*NOD*)

They are "intervening" because banks have committed egregious errors, and with banks clients of the central banks wrongly charged with protecting them, they would only need help like that offered last week if they'd erred so grandly that private sources of capital deemed them unfit to transact with.

(*NOD*)

[B]anks that put themselves in the position to be supplicants of central banks should be allowed to fail if their balance sheets don't allow them to conduct normal, profitable banking operations.

* HEAR! HEAR!

If so, the banking sector in total would be strengthened for bad practices being cleansed from the system in concert with new owners stepping in with an eagerness to manage poorly run banks better.

(*VIGOROUS NOD*)

Instead, central banks will prop up errors made, thus perpetuating faulty banking practices. Put simply, if banks are so important to the global economy, central banks should underscore their importance by letting them fail with an eye on strengthening the sector altogether.

* YES! EXACTLY!

Secondly, what the central banks fear is that in their desperation to attain liquidity, their client banks will sell the limping government debt on their books at a discount, and in doing so weaken the system even more for the value of government debt falling to more realistic levels. This too would have a cleansing effect on the banking system, but even better, would be grand for the global economy for falling prices of government securities signaling to investors that they should avoid supporting more government destruction of capital. But since the central banks won't allow market forces to discipline banks or discredit investment in profligate governments, the global economy will suffer for central banks subsidizing the failed practices that led governments and banks into trouble to begin with.

* YEP! A VICIOUS FRIGG'N CIRCLE!

* OH... AND BTW... GOVERNMENT AND CENTRAL BANK OFFICIALS KEEP THEIR SALARIES, PERKS, AND GOLDEN RETIREMENT PARACHUTES... SAME WITH CLIENT BANK OFFICIALS... OH, AND IF GOLDMAN AND THE REST OF THE WALL STREET CROWD ARE INVOLVED THEY REAP HUGE COMMISSIONS FROM UNDERWRITINGS!

* ANYWAY... READ THE FULL COLUMN, FOLKS.

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204903804577082631863392956.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

At the end of the recently released film "Margin Call," the chairman of the fictional investment bank that triggered the mortgage-backed securities meltdown sits in his executive dining room, looking down on the Hudson River sunset while enjoying a steak and an expensive bottle of Bordeaux.

Why not?

He has just saved billions for his shareholders by dumping the firm's entire "toxic loan" portfolio in one hectic trading day.

Just before giving a bonus to the brilliant analyst who foresaw the meltdown only hours in advance, the chairman predicts, "There's going to be a lot of money made coming out of this mess."

Whenever Washington disrupts a market by dumping subsidies into it, Wall Street will find a way to pocket a majority of the money while the intended subsidy beneficiaries are harmed by the resulting market turmoil.

The recent crash in mortgage-backed securities was a near-repeat of the savings-and-loan crash of the 1980s, in which Washington insured the S&L industry but failed to set limits on high-risk loans. When the bubble burst, Washington paid Wall Street the insurance money while homeowners lost huge sums in real-estate hell.

Consider the current 30% federal solar energy subsidy. A home solar system with 60 solar panels produces about 15,000 watts of power, enough to completely offset the $6,000 annual electricity bill of a typical upscale California home. The system costs about $90,000 prior to the 30% federal income-tax credit, which reduces its cost to $63,000. After a simple payback period of about 10 years, the homeowner literally enjoys free electricity for the remainder of the guaranteed 20-year system life, a very profitable 10 years.

But what if that $27,000 tax credit, the accelerated-depreciation tax savings, and most of the hefty post-payback profits went to Wall Street firms with a "tax appetite," not the homeowner?

That's just what happens with the majority of new home solar-system installations today.

* I FEEL A MIGRAINE HEADACHE COMING ON...

(*SIGH*)

* FOLKS... THIS GETS COMPLICATED... PLEASE READ ON!

* To be continued...

William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Today's most successful pitch for home solar financing goes like this: "Why pay a lot of money when you can get your solar system installed free and immediately reduce your utility bill?"

Most homeowners find that proposition compelling. They ignore the fine print: "You must give your tax credit and depreciation to us and sign a long-term contract to buy power from us at prices just below market."

Today, most new home solar systems are purchased by special Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs) that are specifically created by Wall Street firms to purchase home solar systems and to sell power to the homeowner on a cell-phone-like contract. The homeowner does not mind giving up the tax benefits as long as the "free" system reduces utility bills.

However, when the system is paid off and the monthly LLC profit jumps to 100% of the electricity bill, the LLC solar electricity price to the homeowner is maintained just below market - and the profit really begins to roll into the LLC.

(*SNORT*)

Since the risks to the LLC grow as the solar systems age, many banks offload their risk by selling the LLCs before their 20-year lifetime is up, locking in much of the long-term profit. There is now a growing market for what might be called "solar-backed securities."

* OH... MY... FRIGG'N... GOD...

(*STOMACH FALLING*)

One of the largest solar-system installers in the U.S., SolarCity Corp., uses the LLC strategy and currently buys a majority of its solar panels from the low-cost Chinese supplier, Yingli.

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

Thus when President Obama said that we must subsidize our solar industry to remain competitive with the Chinese, it would have been more accurate to say that we subsidize Wall Street to create employee-less corporations that buy and install Chinese solar panels in the U.S.

(*SMIRK*)

Just last week, the U.S. International Trade Commission found the Chinese solar industry guilty of "dumping" solar panels in the U.S.

Tariffs are likely to be levied against Yingli and others.

Here then, is a practical guide to the Obama administration's nonsensical solar policy: Washington gives tax breaks to Wall Street to fund LLCs that buy solar panels from the Chinese to "help" the American solar industry, while the ITC threatens to levy a tariff on those solar panels, which would raise the price of solar energy to U.S. homeowners.

In short, Wall Street pockets the money and consumers get higher solar-energy prices.

We should stop reflexively indicting Wall Street "greed" and focus instead on Washington as the disruptive force in one market meltdown after another.

Solyndra, the poster child of the Law of Misguided Subsidies, borders on irrelevancy compared to the full impact of bad economic policy.

William R. Barker said...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45596286

New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits dropped to a nine-month low last week, a government report showed on Thursday, suggesting the labor market recovery was gaining momentum.

* OR... REFLECTING NOTHING MORE THAN "STABLIZATION" AT THE BOTTOM. (THINK A PERSON WHO IS SHOT OR STABBED OR IN SOME SORT OF ACCIDENT "BLEEDING OUT.")

* ALSO... LET'S SEE HOW THESE NUMBERS ARE "RE-ADJUSTED" NEXT MONTH.

(*SHRUG*)

* REMEMBER, FOLKS... THESE NUMBERS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EXISTING UNEMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS WHO REMAIN UNEMPLOYED. JUST SAYIN'...!

The report, coming on the heels of data last week showing a rise in hiring and a sharp drop in the unemployment rate to 8.6% in November, pointed to some healing in a sector that has been the Achilles heel of the economy's recovery.

* NOT REALLY! WE DEALT WITH THE SO-CALLED "DROP" IN UNEMPLOYMENT AND THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN HOW THE STATS ARE MANUFACTURED VS. WHAT THEY ACTUALLY REFLECT. WHAT THE "FALL" ACTUALLY REFLECTED WAS THE REALITY THAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE EMPLOYED IN THE U.S. AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION ACTUALLY DECLINED! (THINK ABOUT THAT... DOES THAT SOUND "GOOD" TO YOU...???)

(*SMIRK*)

The number of people still receiving benefits under "regular" state programs after an initial week of aid dropped..

* AS THEIR STATUS WAS TRANSFERRED TO "RECEIVING EXTENDED BENEFITS."

(*SMIRK*)

The number of Americans on emergency unemployment benefits declined...

* AS THEY RAN OUT OF "EMERGENCY" BENEFITS!

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

* FOLKS... IT'S NOT REALLY FUNNY... BUT YOU'VE JUST GOTTA LAUGH AT THE WAY THEY MANIPULATE THE MESSAGE FROM THE DATA!

William R. Barker said...

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2ea8dbd4-2188-11e1-a1d8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1fyXi4h1Z

The European Central Bank on Thursday announced a host of new non-standard measures aimed at supporting the region’s ailing banks.

* UH-HUH... "NON-STANDARD."

The central bank’s range of acceptable collateral, or the securities it takes in exchange for providing loans to banks was also widened...

* "WIDENED." GOT IT!

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

...with ratings thresholds reduced and loans to small- and medium-sized enterprises made acceptable for the first time.

* FOLKS... IN ENGLISH... THEY'RE LOWERING LENDING STANDARDS SO AS TO MAKE MORE UNDER-COLLATERALIZED LOANS ON TOP OF THE BAD LOANS THEY'VE ALREADY MADE BUT WON'T WRITE OFF!

William R. Barker said...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70116.html

They called it a “December to Remember”: a mission to spend the final month of the legislative session partying under the patronage of Rep. Rick Larsen.

Eight days into it, and a series of ill-advised tweets later, three staffers for the Washington Democrat...

* WOW! POLITICO ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED THE CONGRESSMAN AS A DEMOCRAT - IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH! GOLD STAR...!!!

...were fired Thursday after a local website detailed a pattern of wildly unprofessional behavior - including drinking on the job and insulting the congressman - POLITICO has confirmed.

* IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, FOLKS, CONGRESSIONAL STAFFS SHOULD BE CUT TO THE BONE.

William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/8/gop-questions-two-month-gap-kagans-health-care-inv/

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee said Thursday that the Obama administration is fueling speculation about Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s impartiality because it won’t turn over documents detailing her role in crafting the legal strategy to defend the health care law while she was serving in the administration.

Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee chairman, told Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that emails show Justice Kagan took an interest in the case in January 2010, when she was solicitor general, and he demanded to know what role she played between then and March 2010, when Mr. Obama tapped her to sit on the high court.

* REASONABLE QUESTION.

“The issue is, how involved was she in health care discussions between Jan. 8 and March 5? Just as President Nixon had an 18½-minute gap, does Ms. Kagan have a two-month gap?” Mr. Smith, Texas Republican, said.

(*CHUCKLE*)

* AGAIN... ON A SERIOUS NOTE - ALL KIDDING ASIDE - WHY NOT SIMPLY PROVIDE CONGRESS WITH THE MATERIAL?

Attorney General Holder told the committee that department officials tried to wall off Justice Kagan from conversations once they knew she was under consideration for the Supreme Court. “My memory is whenever we had conversations about the health care bill, then-Solicitor General Kagan was not present,” he said.

* WELL... AS WE ALL KNOW FROM HOLDER'S FAST AND FURIOUS TESTIMONIES... HOLDER'S MEMORY AIN'T ALL IT'S CRACKED UP TO BE.

(*SMIRK*)

Mr. Holder also again declined to cite a specific legal privilege that would allow him to withhold documents or prevent committee investigators from interviewing department employees about Justice Kagan’s involvement. Instead, the attorney general said he has “separation of powers” concerns.

* FOLKS... COM'ON... THIS FRIGG'N SON OF A BITCH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. IT'S THAT FRIGG'N SIMPLE!

Asked by The Washington Times whether Mr. Obama would support turning over documents covering the two-month period in question, presidential spokesman Jay Carney said Congress already has fully vetted Justice Kagan’s views.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

William R. Barker said...

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/holder-nobody-doj-has-lied/244706

Attorney General Eric Holder denied that anybody at the Department of Justice lied about the Fast and Furious program that allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug lords, even though he admitted that the DOJ sent inaccurate information to Congress.

* AND YET... (READ ON...)

Last week, the DOJ took the rare step of formally withdrawing a letter it sent to Congress in February that falsely claimed the program being executed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives did not allow guns to "walk" into Mexico.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

When Sensenbrenner pressed Holder on the distinction between lying and misleading Congress, Holder said it was a matter of a person's "state of mind."

* UH-HUH...

Holder said that when DOJ officials provided inaccurate information to Congress, they didn't know at the time that it was inaccurate.

* UH-HUH...

* TO BE MORE SPECIFIC (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lying-holder-says-has-do-your-state-mind_611731.html)

Rep. James Sensenbrenner asked Holder: “Tell me what's the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?”

Holder's response is a bit Clintonian. “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie," Holder said. "The information that was provided by the February 4th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information.”

William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/iran-shows-alleged-downed-us-drone/2011/12/08/gIQAKciXfO_blog.html

On Monday, U.S. officials said an unmanned surveillance plane had been lost in Iran and was being used for secret missions by the CIA.

[Today] Iranian state television aired footage of what newscasters said was a U.S. drone brought down in Iran last week.

The Associated Press reports that a former U.S. official confirmed to the news agency that the drone seen in the video was the U.S. drone lost over Iran and reported missing by American military in Afghanistan.

The drone is said to be an RQ-170, one of the more sensitive surveillance platforms in the CIA’s fleet.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, President Obama...was not asked specifically about the downing of the U.S. drone.

(*SNORT*)

* HERE'S MY QUESTION: WHY DON'T OUR MOST SENSITIVE SURVEILLANCE PLATFORMS HAVE SELF-DESTRUCT MECHANISMS?

* THE MOMENT THE DRONE WENT DOWN WE SHOULD HAVE BLOWN IT TO HELL - EITHER VIA SELF-DESTRUCT OR VIA MISSILE ATTACK. NOW THE CHINESE AND PERHAPS THE RUSSIANS ARE GOING TO GET ACCESS TO OUR MOST SENSITIVE DRONE TECHNOLOGY!

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

* JEEZUS CHRIST... (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street.

Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

* INCOMPETENT, IRRESPONSIBLE, POLITICAL BASTARDS!

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3" that would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns."

* NICE... FIRST THEY ENABLE CRIMINALS TO BUY GUNS - PRESSURING LEGITIMATE GUN DEALERS TO PLAY FAST AND LOOSE WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS - AND THEN WHEN THE CRIMINALS USE THEIR NEWLY PURCHASED GUNS TO COMMIT CRIMES THE AFT USES THAT AS AN EXCUSE TO DEMAND FURTHER GUN CONTROL! FRIGG'N UNBELIEVABLE!

* To be continued...

William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.

In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "We were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."

ATF's group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there's nothing to worry about. "We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail."

Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated. "I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands...I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents' safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents' safety [as they] protect our country."

* UNFRIGG'NBELIEVABLE!

"It's like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back," says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. "It's a circular way of thinking."

The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment.

ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.

(*SMIRK*)

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement.

On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response.

(*SNORT*)

CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.

* FOLKS... THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND PARTICULARLY OBAMA'S ATTACK DOG HOLDER ARE OUT OF CONTROL.