美国引爆的金融海啸，蔓延到世界各地，（奇怪，好像只有大马不受影响，首相、第一、第二财长先后放话，要国人放心，大马经济还强，可以经得起海啸）。
对于人来说，我们还是一再追问，到底是什么问题造成美国金融海啸？Please read this good article。
The Crisis's Silver Lining by Fareed Zakaria
Amid the financial chaos and economic uncertainty that has rocked worldmarkets, I can see one silver lining. This crisis has forced the UnitedStates to confront the bad habits it developed over the past few decades.If we can kick those habits, today's pain will translate into gains in thelong run.
Since the 1980s, Americans have consumed more than they produced and havemade up the difference by borrowing. Two decades of easy money andinnovative financial products meant that virtually anyone could borrow anyamount for any purpose. Household debt ballooned from $680 billion in 1974to $14 trillion today. The average household has 13 credit cards, and 40percent of these carry a balance, up from 6 percent in 1970.
But the average American's behavior was virtuous compared with governmentbehavior. Every city, county and state has wanted to preserve itsproliferating operations yet not raise taxes. How to square this circle? Byborrowing, using ever more elaborate financial instruments.
Local pols weren't the only problem. Under Alan Greenspan, the FederalReserve refused to inflict pain. Russian default? Cut interest rates. Theeconomic slowdown after Sept. 11? Cut rates. Whatever the problem, thesolution was to keep money flowing and goose the economy.
In 1990, the national debt was $3 trillion. It is now $10.2 trillion.
If there is a lesson to be taken from this crisis, it's an old rule:There is no free lunch. Now, debt is not a bad thing. Used responsibly, itis at the heart of modern capitalism. But hiding mountains of debt incomplex instruments is an invitation to irresponsible behavior.
In the short term, governments must take on more debts and obligations toresolve the crisis. But that doesn't mean we should stimulate the economywith more tax cuts, as some economists advocate. That would only keep theparty going artificially. A far better stimulus would be to expedite majorinfrastructure and energy projects, which are investments, not consumption,and have a different effect on fiscal fortunes.
In the longer term, we have to get back to basics. Government should putincentives in place that make saving more likely. The U.S. governmentoffers enormous incentives to consume (the mortgage interest tax deductionbeing the best example), and it works. We have the world's biggest housesand the most cars. If we were to tax consumption and encourage savings,that would also work. Regulations on credit card debt should be revised toensure that people understand their risks.
Paul Volcker has long argued that the recent financial innovation simplyshuffled around existing resources while contributing few real benefits tothe economy. Such activity will now be reduced significantly. Boykin Curry,a New York fund manager, points out that "30 percent of S&P 500 profitslast year were earned by financial firms, and U.S. consumers were spending$800 billion more than they earned every year. As a result, most of our topmath PhDs were being pulled into nonproductive financial engineeringinstead of biotech research and fuel technology. Capital expenditures wentinto retail construction instead of critical infrastructure." The crisiswill stop the misallocation of human and financial resources and redirectthem in more productive ways. If some of the smart people on Wall Streetend up building better models of energy usage and efficiency, that would bea net gain for the economy.
The U.S. economy remains extremely dynamic. Even now, the most surprisingdata continue to be how resilient the economy has been through the recentshocks. That will not last if the panic persists, but the economy'sunderlying virtues would help it recover quickly from a recession. The risein emerging-market economies, which have been powering global growth, willnot vanish overnight, either.
In the short run, there has been a flight to safety -- toward dollars andTreasury bills -- but in the long run, countries are likely to seek greaterindependence from an unstable superpower. The United States will have towork to attract capital and must organize its fiscal affairs. We will haveto make strategic choices. We cannot deploy missile interceptors alongRussia's borders, draw Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, and still expectRussian cooperation on Iran's nuclear program. We cannot denounce Chineseand Arab investments here and the next day hope that they will keep buyingT-bills. We cannot keep preaching about democracy and capitalism with ourown house so wildly out of order. Instilling discipline will be painful fora country used to having it all. But it will make us much stronger in thelong run.
The writer is editor of Newsweek International and co-host of PostGlobal,an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address iscomments@fareedzakaria.com.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
轻重 缓急
九月份在内部安全法令下被捉的三个人中，只剩下RAJAPETRA一人还被扣留，其他两位都被释放了。
我们时常听到说马华在这件事件上争取释放记者，对其他两位似乎是抱着“不关心”的态度。我想在事件一开始时的几个小时里面，全部的注意力的确是集中在争取释放记者。
显然大家都对政府引用有关恶法觉得很可耻，也觉得是太无辜了，而在三位被扣留者当中，不可否认的是记者是当中“最、最、最”无辜的，也是最引起公愤的。
以当时的情形，相信大家都会同意要争取第一时间同时释放三个人是“不可能的任务”，更重要的是如果把他们三个人“绑在一起处理”，可能会弄巧成拙。
因此，当大家指责马华时，请要了解，在处理这棘手事件上，要分“轻重、缓急”，要争取第一时间把“最、最、最”无辜者释放。至少，这个目标已经达到了。
其实，在整个事件上，更有两件可耻事情：-
1）AHMAD ISMAIL 看来是逍遥法外了；
2）前反对党领袖对马华无理的指控，至今死不认错，又要怎么说呢？
我们时常听到说马华在这件事件上争取释放记者，对其他两位似乎是抱着“不关心”的态度。我想在事件一开始时的几个小时里面，全部的注意力的确是集中在争取释放记者。
显然大家都对政府引用有关恶法觉得很可耻，也觉得是太无辜了，而在三位被扣留者当中，不可否认的是记者是当中“最、最、最”无辜的，也是最引起公愤的。
以当时的情形，相信大家都会同意要争取第一时间同时释放三个人是“不可能的任务”，更重要的是如果把他们三个人“绑在一起处理”，可能会弄巧成拙。
因此，当大家指责马华时，请要了解，在处理这棘手事件上，要分“轻重、缓急”，要争取第一时间把“最、最、最”无辜者释放。至少，这个目标已经达到了。
其实，在整个事件上，更有两件可耻事情：-
1）AHMAD ISMAIL 看来是逍遥法外了；
2）前反对党领袖对马华无理的指控，至今死不认错，又要怎么说呢？
Saturday, October 11, 2008
民政党的虚伪-2
就将在明年三月退下的国阵主席在民政党大会上建议开放国阵的党员籍，好让国阵招收个人会员。
这项建议马上获得子根、袖强等人的认同，说什么“与民政殊途同归”。这些好像执到宝，深以为这样下来，国阵就会重获人们的支持。
严格的来说，就是因为成员党领袖的唯唯诺诺，才造成了今天巫统的独大、巫统的霸权！大马今天沦落到这个地步，就是因为巫统。君不见在308大选过后，马华、民政的大小领袖不是争先恐后的发表谈话，说是被巫统害了吗？不是有人要和巫统划清界限吗？
说的严重一点，巫统的霸权、霸道是历史的共业，马华、民政有份参与、促成这个共业，换言之是“共犯”！
既然大家都有这样的了解，知道问题的关键所在，那么，开放国阵并非可以解决问题。一听到首相说要开放，就一蜂窝的唱好、叫好，等于是“掩耳盗铃”，不敢面对现实！
今天看到一位马来评论员，THE EDGE的执行编辑在13/10/2008-FORUM版写的评论，更是使我对这些“一蜂窝”的领导人感到可悲。
WHAT AILS UMNO ？ Azam Aris
..... What ails UMNO in its present form is that it is seen as a party that is arrogant and corrupt and which no longer has the interest of the rakyat - the majority of whom are not umno's members - at heart.
The Umno that fought for the independence and fulfilled the nation's dream , a selfless party that worked and sacrified for the rakyat no longer exists. It has beocme insular and devoid of any feeling of wrongdoing. Umno neither wants to be criticised nor listen to criticism.....
Its political cry for ketuanan Melayu is loathed by the majority of non-malays, including those in the BN.They havo no problem accepting Malay leadership but not malay supremacy ...
Malays who are not umno members are beginning to feel that the party is not interested in promoting their cause but only that of umno. To them ketuanan melayu has become ketuanan umno..
问题在哪里，大家心知肚明，偏偏就是有这么一些领导人在"顾左右而言他"，当然他们心里还在盘算着这样就可以“左右逢源”，继续当官/求官！
我很担心，历史的共业会在“顾左右而言他”的情形下长存，而共犯也一代传一代！
天佑大马！
这项建议马上获得子根、袖强等人的认同，说什么“与民政殊途同归”。这些好像执到宝，深以为这样下来，国阵就会重获人们的支持。
严格的来说，就是因为成员党领袖的唯唯诺诺，才造成了今天巫统的独大、巫统的霸权！大马今天沦落到这个地步，就是因为巫统。君不见在308大选过后，马华、民政的大小领袖不是争先恐后的发表谈话，说是被巫统害了吗？不是有人要和巫统划清界限吗？
说的严重一点，巫统的霸权、霸道是历史的共业，马华、民政有份参与、促成这个共业，换言之是“共犯”！
既然大家都有这样的了解，知道问题的关键所在，那么，开放国阵并非可以解决问题。一听到首相说要开放，就一蜂窝的唱好、叫好，等于是“掩耳盗铃”，不敢面对现实！
今天看到一位马来评论员，THE EDGE的执行编辑在13/10/2008-FORUM版写的评论，更是使我对这些“一蜂窝”的领导人感到可悲。
WHAT AILS UMNO ？ Azam Aris
..... What ails UMNO in its present form is that it is seen as a party that is arrogant and corrupt and which no longer has the interest of the rakyat - the majority of whom are not umno's members - at heart.
The Umno that fought for the independence and fulfilled the nation's dream , a selfless party that worked and sacrified for the rakyat no longer exists. It has beocme insular and devoid of any feeling of wrongdoing. Umno neither wants to be criticised nor listen to criticism.....
Its political cry for ketuanan Melayu is loathed by the majority of non-malays, including those in the BN.They havo no problem accepting Malay leadership but not malay supremacy ...
Malays who are not umno members are beginning to feel that the party is not interested in promoting their cause but only that of umno. To them ketuanan melayu has become ketuanan umno..
问题在哪里，大家心知肚明，偏偏就是有这么一些领导人在"顾左右而言他"，当然他们心里还在盘算着这样就可以“左右逢源”，继续当官/求官！
我很担心，历史的共业会在“顾左右而言他”的情形下长存，而共犯也一代传一代！
天佑大马！
民政党最虚伪
民政党代表大会\党选过了。
我始终觉得民政党很虚伪，自我标榜为多元种族，也曾经一阵子因为多元种族没太大市场而改为非种族，但是改来改去，该党的路是越走越窄，人也越来越少。
到了这次党选，丁福南明明是理想人选，却硬硬被压下来，说什么要排出一个多元种族阵容，但是代表不接受这一套，选出了一个来自槟州的“阿HUAN”，这回就看子根这么处理这个菜单外的人选了！
如果说是多元种族阵容，君不见在全国大选时，民政党的候选人又怎么会是清一色华人呢？
还有，你明知道马华、民政惨败，不是国阵开放不开放党员问题，也不是十多个成员党解散后一起加入国阵成为单一政党就可以解决的。
问题大家都知道是在哪里，套用槟城人的一句口头蝉：不必问阿贵也知道！
还有拿为“阿花”大姐，一下子说要退出国阵，最近又说要留在国阵“纠正国阵”，拜托，民政党就是因为“打进国阵，纠正国阵”而成为千古笑柄啊！
我始终觉得民政党很虚伪，自我标榜为多元种族，也曾经一阵子因为多元种族没太大市场而改为非种族，但是改来改去，该党的路是越走越窄，人也越来越少。
到了这次党选，丁福南明明是理想人选，却硬硬被压下来，说什么要排出一个多元种族阵容，但是代表不接受这一套，选出了一个来自槟州的“阿HUAN”，这回就看子根这么处理这个菜单外的人选了！
如果说是多元种族阵容，君不见在全国大选时，民政党的候选人又怎么会是清一色华人呢？
还有，你明知道马华、民政惨败，不是国阵开放不开放党员问题，也不是十多个成员党解散后一起加入国阵成为单一政党就可以解决的。
问题大家都知道是在哪里，套用槟城人的一句口头蝉：不必问阿贵也知道！
还有拿为“阿花”大姐，一下子说要退出国阵，最近又说要留在国阵“纠正国阵”，拜托，民政党就是因为“打进国阵，纠正国阵”而成为千古笑柄啊！
Thursday, October 9, 2008
GOP这回害死人
以前商人一直在提倡"小政府"，认为政府的管制越少越好，就让那只看不到的手去操作。
结果，整个制度给弄坏了，造成今天这么凄凉的处境。
从经济泡沫到政治泡沫 ——共和党“永久多数”的破灭
（2008-10-09）
于时语
近年来，美国出现一连串的经济泡沫，先是世纪之交的高科技泡沫，紧接着是房地产泡沫，再到最新的华尔街金融泡沫，从出现、暴涨到破灭的周期之快，令人目不暇接。
但是在政治领域，美国还有一个演变速度更惊人的泡沫，这便是喧嚣一时的共和党“永久多数”。最新的征象，是在华尔街金融泡沫破灭之际，却有三分之二的共和党众议员一开始投票反对布什政府的7000亿美元救市法案。
在共和党草根“造反”的老生常谈之外，《华尔街日报》精明地指出：反对救市法案的，多是11月大选中席位风雨飘摇的两党议员，而其中共和党人占绝对多数，反映了该党面临的恶劣选情。
“永久多数”有其基础
自从在1994年中期选举中，40年来首次夺得美国众议院多数席位，共和党在国会选战中几乎是无往不胜。共和党在2004年的大选中达到高峰，如日中天，“永久多数”之说因之甚嚣尘上。
2004年，不仅布什总统以多数选民票获得连任，共和党显著扩大了在参众两院的绝对多数。更有甚者，共和党还全面动员，将民主党在全美政界的最高人物、身为参议院少数党领袖的南达科他州的达斯勒（Tom Daschle）给拉下马，创造了半个多世纪未见的政治奇迹。
“保守主义革命”大潮势不可挡，弹冠相庆的保守派人士纷纷认为共和党的“永久多数”将会维持一代人以上。著名右翼论客巴恩斯（Fred Barnes）更预言未来数十年眼看都是“共和党霸权”（Republican hegemony）的天下。
可是短短两年之后，民主党便在2006年中期选举中以微弱多数夺回参、众两院的控制。今年大选前景，前引《华尔街日报》的前瞻性分析已经说得十分明白。更重要的是美国政治生态和经济状况的沧桑演变，使得共和党“永久多数”成为美国近代史上周期最短的政治泡沫。
在“意识形态”上，共和党“永久多数”的基础可以归纳为：第一，减少政府的社会功能和对经济的干预（“小政府”主义）。最好的例子是里根总统的就职演说：“政府不是我们问题的解答；问题本身正是政府。”
第二，保守的社会“价值”。第三，基于武力的强硬外交政策。
共和党意识形态的破产
在政治操作上，共和党“永久多数”依靠的是严密有效的基层组织，以及企业捐款与国会立法之间的“良性互动”。前者得益于基督教右翼，而后者在于成功控制华盛顿K街上的游说公关公司，一时令民主党徒呼荷荷。
成也萧何，败也萧何。正如多数论客将共和党“永久多数”归功于“价值”因素，这一泡沫破灭的主因，也在于意识形态的破产。曾几何时，里根总统大力推动的减少政府管制（deregulation），今天被普遍看成是房地产泡沫和金融泡沫的孽因。
这种经济思想20年来的英雄功臣、前美国联储局主席格林斯潘，近日居然被意大利右翼政府财长指责为“对美国伤害仅次于宾拉登的罪魁”。
被里根总统看成是经济和社会问题根源的政府，如今却成为华尔街“肥猫”们的救星。一直主张紧缩社会福利开支的共和党领袖，却公开实施“救富社会主义”。这样赤裸裸的政策逆转，不能不导致共和党中下层社会基础的政治幻灭，触发共和党籍众议员无奈的“造反”。
其次，“反恐”战争在伊拉克和阿富汗的泥沼，严重打击了美国公众对强硬外交政策的信念，成为共和党在意识形态上破产的另一重要原因。相对而言，尽管有包括副总统候选人佩林未成年女儿未婚怀孕的多项道德丑闻，保守社会价值几乎是共和党剩下的唯一意识形态“稻草”。
选民取决于自身的利益
在政治操作层面，共和党在掌握国会两院多数后的财务腐败，不仅逆转了共和党“K街计划”的许多成果，更造成公众对利益集团政治献金的反感。另外政治嗅觉灵敏的不少企业界看到“永久多数”的末日，开始重抱民主党的大腿，急剧减少了共和党的政治捐款优势。
在民主社会中，选民意向终究取决于自身利益，在房地产泡沫和金融泡沫相继破灭之后，对大部分民众而言，经济利益不能不压倒“价值”考虑。尤其是与高科技泡沫不同，银行金融股票原是美国中产阶级投资或退休基金中“蓝筹中的蓝筹”，房产金融泡沫的破灭，严重伤到了大部分中产阶级的财产筋骨。共和党基层组织再有效率，也无法抗衡这一经济现实。
在普遍看成是大萧条以来最严重经济危机之下，奥巴马如果不是身为黑人，11月大选几乎是探囊取物。在国会，共和党四年前“永久多数”泡沫的彻底覆灭，更是可以翘足而待。
结果，整个制度给弄坏了，造成今天这么凄凉的处境。
从经济泡沫到政治泡沫 ——共和党“永久多数”的破灭
（2008-10-09）
于时语
近年来，美国出现一连串的经济泡沫，先是世纪之交的高科技泡沫，紧接着是房地产泡沫，再到最新的华尔街金融泡沫，从出现、暴涨到破灭的周期之快，令人目不暇接。
但是在政治领域，美国还有一个演变速度更惊人的泡沫，这便是喧嚣一时的共和党“永久多数”。最新的征象，是在华尔街金融泡沫破灭之际，却有三分之二的共和党众议员一开始投票反对布什政府的7000亿美元救市法案。
在共和党草根“造反”的老生常谈之外，《华尔街日报》精明地指出：反对救市法案的，多是11月大选中席位风雨飘摇的两党议员，而其中共和党人占绝对多数，反映了该党面临的恶劣选情。
“永久多数”有其基础
自从在1994年中期选举中，40年来首次夺得美国众议院多数席位，共和党在国会选战中几乎是无往不胜。共和党在2004年的大选中达到高峰，如日中天，“永久多数”之说因之甚嚣尘上。
2004年，不仅布什总统以多数选民票获得连任，共和党显著扩大了在参众两院的绝对多数。更有甚者，共和党还全面动员，将民主党在全美政界的最高人物、身为参议院少数党领袖的南达科他州的达斯勒（Tom Daschle）给拉下马，创造了半个多世纪未见的政治奇迹。
“保守主义革命”大潮势不可挡，弹冠相庆的保守派人士纷纷认为共和党的“永久多数”将会维持一代人以上。著名右翼论客巴恩斯（Fred Barnes）更预言未来数十年眼看都是“共和党霸权”（Republican hegemony）的天下。
可是短短两年之后，民主党便在2006年中期选举中以微弱多数夺回参、众两院的控制。今年大选前景，前引《华尔街日报》的前瞻性分析已经说得十分明白。更重要的是美国政治生态和经济状况的沧桑演变，使得共和党“永久多数”成为美国近代史上周期最短的政治泡沫。
在“意识形态”上，共和党“永久多数”的基础可以归纳为：第一，减少政府的社会功能和对经济的干预（“小政府”主义）。最好的例子是里根总统的就职演说：“政府不是我们问题的解答；问题本身正是政府。”
第二，保守的社会“价值”。第三，基于武力的强硬外交政策。
共和党意识形态的破产
在政治操作上，共和党“永久多数”依靠的是严密有效的基层组织，以及企业捐款与国会立法之间的“良性互动”。前者得益于基督教右翼，而后者在于成功控制华盛顿K街上的游说公关公司，一时令民主党徒呼荷荷。
成也萧何，败也萧何。正如多数论客将共和党“永久多数”归功于“价值”因素，这一泡沫破灭的主因，也在于意识形态的破产。曾几何时，里根总统大力推动的减少政府管制（deregulation），今天被普遍看成是房地产泡沫和金融泡沫的孽因。
这种经济思想20年来的英雄功臣、前美国联储局主席格林斯潘，近日居然被意大利右翼政府财长指责为“对美国伤害仅次于宾拉登的罪魁”。
被里根总统看成是经济和社会问题根源的政府，如今却成为华尔街“肥猫”们的救星。一直主张紧缩社会福利开支的共和党领袖，却公开实施“救富社会主义”。这样赤裸裸的政策逆转，不能不导致共和党中下层社会基础的政治幻灭，触发共和党籍众议员无奈的“造反”。
其次，“反恐”战争在伊拉克和阿富汗的泥沼，严重打击了美国公众对强硬外交政策的信念，成为共和党在意识形态上破产的另一重要原因。相对而言，尽管有包括副总统候选人佩林未成年女儿未婚怀孕的多项道德丑闻，保守社会价值几乎是共和党剩下的唯一意识形态“稻草”。
选民取决于自身的利益
在政治操作层面，共和党在掌握国会两院多数后的财务腐败，不仅逆转了共和党“K街计划”的许多成果，更造成公众对利益集团政治献金的反感。另外政治嗅觉灵敏的不少企业界看到“永久多数”的末日，开始重抱民主党的大腿，急剧减少了共和党的政治捐款优势。
在民主社会中，选民意向终究取决于自身利益，在房地产泡沫和金融泡沫相继破灭之后，对大部分民众而言，经济利益不能不压倒“价值”考虑。尤其是与高科技泡沫不同，银行金融股票原是美国中产阶级投资或退休基金中“蓝筹中的蓝筹”，房产金融泡沫的破灭，严重伤到了大部分中产阶级的财产筋骨。共和党基层组织再有效率，也无法抗衡这一经济现实。
在普遍看成是大萧条以来最严重经济危机之下，奥巴马如果不是身为黑人，11月大选几乎是探囊取物。在国会，共和党四年前“永久多数”泡沫的彻底覆灭，更是可以翘足而待。
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Toxic loans v 有毒奶粉
中国有毒奶粉的新闻看了令人痛心，的确在中国，人命是无价，不值钱的。
但是，不要忘记，美国的金融风暴，也是有毒的，接下来会害死很多人。
次贷有毒，请看以下文章：-
Calling Out the Culprits Who Caused the Crisis
By Eric D. HovdeSunday, September 21, 2008; B01
Looking for someone to blame for the shambles in U.S. financial markets? As someone who owns both an investment bank and commercial banks, and also runs a hedge fund, I have sat front and center and watched as this mess unfolded. And in my view, there's no need to look beyond Wall Street -- and the halls of power in Washington. The former has created the nightmare by chasing obscene profits, and the latter have allowed it to spread by not practicing the oversight that is the federal government's responsibility.
I find it hard to stomach the fact that investment banks that caused this financial crisis immediately ran to the government asking for assistance, which Bear Stearns received and Lehman Brothers, thankfully, did not. This is one of many eerie parallels that the current meltdown bears to the Great Depression, when Washington and the taxpayers had to step up and take unprecedented action to stabilize the financial markets and the economy.
Unfortunately, the government today has already put enormous taxpayer resources at risk -- bailing out investment firm Bear Stearns, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and insurer AIG, and proposing to buy risky assets from the banking system -- to stop the economy from plummeting into another depression. But these events only underscore the toxic relationship between Washington and Wall Street that has brought us to this point.
To understand the role of that relationship in our current troubles, let's go back to 1999. That was when the hype about the Internet reached its pinnacle. Technology spending by the government and corporations was booming as both sought to address economic and security fears surrounding the so-called Y2K problem, a potential massive computer shutdown at the start of the year 2000.
In the run-up to the millennium, the Federal Reserve, led by then-Chairman Alan Greenspan, began to pump money into the capital markets to deal with any financial problems that might arise from a Y2K meltdown. In the end, 2000 arrived to nothing but a wonderful celebration. But the monetary stimulus, coupled with the aforementioned hype, created an unfortunate bubble in Internet, technology and telecommunications stocks.
At the center of this bubble were the large Wall Street investment banks, which understood the profit potential in promoting the technology boom to overeager clients looking for the investment of a lifetime. From mid-1999 to mid-2000, Wall Street firms took approximately 500 companies public, raising a total of nearly $77 billion for these companies through initial public offerings, or IPOs. For every IPO, the investment banks themselves earned an underwriting fee of 6 percent, returning them an enormous profit.
But apparently that was not enough for Wall Street. As the middlemen between the insatiable investor demand for anything technology-related and young tech entrepreneurs needing to raise capital, the investment banks demanded the opportunity to invest in these companies before the public offerings, when the companies's stocks were valued at a fraction of what they would bring post-IPO. It wasn't uncommon for Wall Street firms to invest tens of millions of dollars in "anything.com" before taking it public, charge a multimillion-dollar fee for the public offering and then watch their investment multiply within a matter of months.
Main Street investors, meanwhile, did not realize that the investment banks had essentially thrown away their underwriting guidelines, which had been in place since the Depression, to take companies public. Among these guidelines were rules requiring that a company be in business for more than five years, be profitable for two or three consecutive years and have certain levels of revenue and profitability. The business models of many of the companies that went public simply weren't viable. Once the Internet bubble burst and the dust settled, America's corporate landscape was littered with bankruptcies and mass layoffs, and investor losses have been estimated at more than $1 trillion.
In an effort to offset the economic strain from these losses, the Fed once again rapidly increased the money supply and slashed short-term interest rates to 1 percent -- a level that hadn't been seen in more than 45 years. This enormous monetary stimulus (along with significant federal spending) energized the overall economy, but it also led to the greatest housing boom -- and possible bust -- this country has ever encountered. From 2002 to 2006, housing values appreciated at an astounding rate of 16 percent per year. It became impossible for the typical American family to buy an average-priced house using a conventional 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Wall Street found another perfect opportunity to propel and take advantage of another forming bubble.
The result was the explosion of toxic new mortgage products that enticed homebuyers into supporting escalating housing prices while eliminating the need for the traditional 20 percent down payment. Whether it was interest-only loans, low- or no-doc "liar loans," or piggyback home-equity loans, the mortgage and banking industries found a way to place almost anyone with -- or even without -- a credit score into a home. Wall Street played its part by packaging those mortgages into complex financial products and selling them to other investors, many of whom had no idea of what they were buying or the associated risks.
Once again, the investment banks raked in billions of dollars in fees, giving them incentive to keep lowering underwriting standards, allowing mortgage companies to originate and sell even the most unscrupulous home loans, which Wall Street then dumped onto the investment community. Wall Street never once questioned the ethics of these activities; it too was focused on the enormous rewards that allowed its firms to pay out an unfathomable $62 billion in bonuses in 2006 alone. Without Wall Street, the housing bubble would have ended shortly after the Fed started to raise interest rates in 2004, because no lenders would have originated these toxic mortgages if they had to keep the loans on their own balance sheets.
The price of all this greed? Sadly, because of the actions of the investment banks, the mortgage industry and the rating agencies, the investment community has now incurred an estimated $1 trillion and more in losses. Even more troubling, housing prices have dropped 20 percent from their July 2006 highs, with the very real likelihood that housing could contract another 15 to 20 percent -- essentially wiping out more than $4 trillion in housing values. This would be the biggest hit since the Depression to Americans' most important asset.
What is even more remarkable is that at the same time, firms such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman not only made billions of dollars packaging and selling these toxic loans, they also wagered with their own capital that the values of these investments would decline, further raising their profits. If any other industries engaged in such knowingly unscrupulous activities, there would be an immediate federal investigation.
Why is Washington so complicit in this intricate and lucrative affair? First, the Fed laid the groundwork for both these asset bubbles by lowering interest rates to historic lows. In an attempt to protect his legacy after the Internet-bubble collapse, Greenspan provided unprecedented stimulus to re-inflate the economy and maintain his popularity with Wall Street. (Remember the "Greenspan put"?) But in doing so, he spawned the largest debt and asset bubble in U.S. history.
At the same time, federal regulatory agencies such as the SEC stood idly by as Wall Street took advantage of the investment public during both the Internet and the housing bubbles. The SEC took almost no action against Wall Street after the dot-com implosion. And in the midst of the housing bubble, in 2006, only the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency pushed for any level of regulation to address subprime lending.
One has to wonder why Treasury secretaries under Presidents Clinton and Bush -- Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson, respectively -- took no action to curb these abuses. It certainly was not because they did not understand Wall Street's practices -- both are former chief executives of Goldman Sachs. And why has Congress been so silent? The Wall Street investment banking firms, their executives, their families and their political action committees contribute more to U.S. Senate and House campaigns than any other industry in America. By sprinkling some of its massive gains into the pockets of our elected officials, Wall Street bought itself protection from any tough government enforcement.
This is no doubt the same reason why so many members of Congress were consistently blocking attempts to reform and downsize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are essentially giant, undercapitalized hedge funds. These two entities have been huge money machines for Democrats in both the House and the Senate, many of whom recently had the gall to ask why these companies hadn't been reformed in the past. Nor should several Republican congressmen and Senators who likewise contributed to watering down legislation aimed at reforming these institutions be let off the hook.
Wall Street's actions are now profoundly hurting American families, communities and the entire U.S. financial system. People are being thrown out of their homes. Once seemingly indestructible financial entities are succumbing to the crisis they have created and have jeopardized the stability of the global financial system. Isn't it ironic that the same firms that preached free-market capitalism are now the ones begging for a taxpayer bailout? Many investment professionals operating in my world believe, as do I, that we are facing the greatest financial crisis since 1929.
Fortunately, today we have safety nets, such as federal deposit insurance, that were non-existent during the Great Depression. Yet there has not been a time since the 1920s when Wall Street has enjoyed as much influence over Washington as it has for the last 12 years. Let's hope that this influence fades rapidly -- and that this financial crisis doesn't end the same way as the one of nearly 80 years ago.
Eric D. Hovde is chief executive of Washington-based Hovde Capital and Hovde Acquisitions.
但是，不要忘记，美国的金融风暴，也是有毒的，接下来会害死很多人。
次贷有毒，请看以下文章：-
Calling Out the Culprits Who Caused the Crisis
By Eric D. HovdeSunday, September 21, 2008; B01
Looking for someone to blame for the shambles in U.S. financial markets? As someone who owns both an investment bank and commercial banks, and also runs a hedge fund, I have sat front and center and watched as this mess unfolded. And in my view, there's no need to look beyond Wall Street -- and the halls of power in Washington. The former has created the nightmare by chasing obscene profits, and the latter have allowed it to spread by not practicing the oversight that is the federal government's responsibility.
I find it hard to stomach the fact that investment banks that caused this financial crisis immediately ran to the government asking for assistance, which Bear Stearns received and Lehman Brothers, thankfully, did not. This is one of many eerie parallels that the current meltdown bears to the Great Depression, when Washington and the taxpayers had to step up and take unprecedented action to stabilize the financial markets and the economy.
Unfortunately, the government today has already put enormous taxpayer resources at risk -- bailing out investment firm Bear Stearns, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and insurer AIG, and proposing to buy risky assets from the banking system -- to stop the economy from plummeting into another depression. But these events only underscore the toxic relationship between Washington and Wall Street that has brought us to this point.
To understand the role of that relationship in our current troubles, let's go back to 1999. That was when the hype about the Internet reached its pinnacle. Technology spending by the government and corporations was booming as both sought to address economic and security fears surrounding the so-called Y2K problem, a potential massive computer shutdown at the start of the year 2000.
In the run-up to the millennium, the Federal Reserve, led by then-Chairman Alan Greenspan, began to pump money into the capital markets to deal with any financial problems that might arise from a Y2K meltdown. In the end, 2000 arrived to nothing but a wonderful celebration. But the monetary stimulus, coupled with the aforementioned hype, created an unfortunate bubble in Internet, technology and telecommunications stocks.
At the center of this bubble were the large Wall Street investment banks, which understood the profit potential in promoting the technology boom to overeager clients looking for the investment of a lifetime. From mid-1999 to mid-2000, Wall Street firms took approximately 500 companies public, raising a total of nearly $77 billion for these companies through initial public offerings, or IPOs. For every IPO, the investment banks themselves earned an underwriting fee of 6 percent, returning them an enormous profit.
But apparently that was not enough for Wall Street. As the middlemen between the insatiable investor demand for anything technology-related and young tech entrepreneurs needing to raise capital, the investment banks demanded the opportunity to invest in these companies before the public offerings, when the companies's stocks were valued at a fraction of what they would bring post-IPO. It wasn't uncommon for Wall Street firms to invest tens of millions of dollars in "anything.com" before taking it public, charge a multimillion-dollar fee for the public offering and then watch their investment multiply within a matter of months.
Main Street investors, meanwhile, did not realize that the investment banks had essentially thrown away their underwriting guidelines, which had been in place since the Depression, to take companies public. Among these guidelines were rules requiring that a company be in business for more than five years, be profitable for two or three consecutive years and have certain levels of revenue and profitability. The business models of many of the companies that went public simply weren't viable. Once the Internet bubble burst and the dust settled, America's corporate landscape was littered with bankruptcies and mass layoffs, and investor losses have been estimated at more than $1 trillion.
In an effort to offset the economic strain from these losses, the Fed once again rapidly increased the money supply and slashed short-term interest rates to 1 percent -- a level that hadn't been seen in more than 45 years. This enormous monetary stimulus (along with significant federal spending) energized the overall economy, but it also led to the greatest housing boom -- and possible bust -- this country has ever encountered. From 2002 to 2006, housing values appreciated at an astounding rate of 16 percent per year. It became impossible for the typical American family to buy an average-priced house using a conventional 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Wall Street found another perfect opportunity to propel and take advantage of another forming bubble.
The result was the explosion of toxic new mortgage products that enticed homebuyers into supporting escalating housing prices while eliminating the need for the traditional 20 percent down payment. Whether it was interest-only loans, low- or no-doc "liar loans," or piggyback home-equity loans, the mortgage and banking industries found a way to place almost anyone with -- or even without -- a credit score into a home. Wall Street played its part by packaging those mortgages into complex financial products and selling them to other investors, many of whom had no idea of what they were buying or the associated risks.
Once again, the investment banks raked in billions of dollars in fees, giving them incentive to keep lowering underwriting standards, allowing mortgage companies to originate and sell even the most unscrupulous home loans, which Wall Street then dumped onto the investment community. Wall Street never once questioned the ethics of these activities; it too was focused on the enormous rewards that allowed its firms to pay out an unfathomable $62 billion in bonuses in 2006 alone. Without Wall Street, the housing bubble would have ended shortly after the Fed started to raise interest rates in 2004, because no lenders would have originated these toxic mortgages if they had to keep the loans on their own balance sheets.
The price of all this greed? Sadly, because of the actions of the investment banks, the mortgage industry and the rating agencies, the investment community has now incurred an estimated $1 trillion and more in losses. Even more troubling, housing prices have dropped 20 percent from their July 2006 highs, with the very real likelihood that housing could contract another 15 to 20 percent -- essentially wiping out more than $4 trillion in housing values. This would be the biggest hit since the Depression to Americans' most important asset.
What is even more remarkable is that at the same time, firms such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman not only made billions of dollars packaging and selling these toxic loans, they also wagered with their own capital that the values of these investments would decline, further raising their profits. If any other industries engaged in such knowingly unscrupulous activities, there would be an immediate federal investigation.
Why is Washington so complicit in this intricate and lucrative affair? First, the Fed laid the groundwork for both these asset bubbles by lowering interest rates to historic lows. In an attempt to protect his legacy after the Internet-bubble collapse, Greenspan provided unprecedented stimulus to re-inflate the economy and maintain his popularity with Wall Street. (Remember the "Greenspan put"?) But in doing so, he spawned the largest debt and asset bubble in U.S. history.
At the same time, federal regulatory agencies such as the SEC stood idly by as Wall Street took advantage of the investment public during both the Internet and the housing bubbles. The SEC took almost no action against Wall Street after the dot-com implosion. And in the midst of the housing bubble, in 2006, only the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency pushed for any level of regulation to address subprime lending.
One has to wonder why Treasury secretaries under Presidents Clinton and Bush -- Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson, respectively -- took no action to curb these abuses. It certainly was not because they did not understand Wall Street's practices -- both are former chief executives of Goldman Sachs. And why has Congress been so silent? The Wall Street investment banking firms, their executives, their families and their political action committees contribute more to U.S. Senate and House campaigns than any other industry in America. By sprinkling some of its massive gains into the pockets of our elected officials, Wall Street bought itself protection from any tough government enforcement.
This is no doubt the same reason why so many members of Congress were consistently blocking attempts to reform and downsize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are essentially giant, undercapitalized hedge funds. These two entities have been huge money machines for Democrats in both the House and the Senate, many of whom recently had the gall to ask why these companies hadn't been reformed in the past. Nor should several Republican congressmen and Senators who likewise contributed to watering down legislation aimed at reforming these institutions be let off the hook.
Wall Street's actions are now profoundly hurting American families, communities and the entire U.S. financial system. People are being thrown out of their homes. Once seemingly indestructible financial entities are succumbing to the crisis they have created and have jeopardized the stability of the global financial system. Isn't it ironic that the same firms that preached free-market capitalism are now the ones begging for a taxpayer bailout? Many investment professionals operating in my world believe, as do I, that we are facing the greatest financial crisis since 1929.
Fortunately, today we have safety nets, such as federal deposit insurance, that were non-existent during the Great Depression. Yet there has not been a time since the 1920s when Wall Street has enjoyed as much influence over Washington as it has for the last 12 years. Let's hope that this influence fades rapidly -- and that this financial crisis doesn't end the same way as the one of nearly 80 years ago.
Eric D. Hovde is chief executive of Washington-based Hovde Capital and Hovde Acquisitions.
美国总统大选也是选法官
美国总统的选举除了是选总统之外，其实也在选最高法院的法官。
美国的最高法院法官是由总统提名，再由国会通过。民主党和共和党对一些关键性课题持有不同的看法，好象堕胎合法化就是一个尖锐的课题，在民间引起两极的看法。
纽约时报的社论就特别提醒美国的公民：
September 21, 2008
Editorial
The Candidates and the Court
Among the many issues voters need to consider in this campaign is this vital fact: The next president is likely to appoint several Supreme Court justices. Those choices will determine the future of the law, and of some of Americans’ most cherished rights.
John McCain and Barack Obama have made it clear that they would pick very different kinds of justices. The results could be particularly dramatic under Mr. McCain, who is likely to complete President Bush’s campaign to make the court an aggressive right-wing force.
Mr. Obama seems likely to pick moderate justices, who would probably not take the court back onto a distinctly liberal path, but also would be unlikely to create an unbreakable conservative bloc.
Mr. McCain has promised the right wing of the Republican Party that he would put only archconservatives on the Supreme Court. Even moderate conservatives like Anthony Kennedy, the court’s current swing justice, would not have a chance.
Mr. McCain, whose Web site proclaims his dedication to overturning Roe v. Wade, would appoint justices who could be expected to lead the charge to eliminate the right to abortion. The kinds of justices for whom Mr. McCain has expressed a strong preference would also be likely to undermine the right of habeas corpus, allowing the government to detain people indefinitely without access to lawyers or family members.
Mr. McCain’s justices are likely to join the conservative crusade against the power of Congress. They could be expected to strike down, or sharply limit, federal power to protect clean air and water; ensure food and drug safety; safeguard workers; and prohibit discrimination against women and minorities. They would also likely further erode the separation between church and state.
Mr. McCain has voted to confirm federal judges chosen by Mr. Bush who are radicals, not conservatives. One, Janice Rogers Brown, now on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has attacked Supreme Court decisions upholding New Deal laws as “the triumph of our own socialist revolution.”
Mr. Obama, a former professor of constitutional law, has clashed with Mr. McCain in the Senate over legal issues. Mr. McCain backed the odious Military Commissions Act of 2006, which the Supreme Court held to violate the right of habeas corpus; Mr. Obama opposed it. Mr. McCain was a rubber stamp for Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees; Mr. Obama voted against the worst.
Mr. Obama has said he wants justices who have “the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom” — as well as to be gay, poor or black. He has promised to make “preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president.”
At the same time, Mr. Obama has put distance between himself and legal liberals on issues like the death penalty for child rapists and the constitutionality of gun control. As president, Mr. Obama would probably be more inclined to appoint centrist liberals, like Justice Stephen Breyer, than all-out liberals, like William Brennan or Thurgood Marshall.
Predicting vacancies on the court is difficult. But odds are that members of the liberal bloc, like 88-year-old John Paul Stevens, will leave first. That means that if Mr. Obama is elected, he might merely keep the court on its current moderately conservative course. Under Mr. McCain, if a liberal justice or two or three steps down, we may see a very different America.
美国的最高法院法官是由总统提名，再由国会通过。民主党和共和党对一些关键性课题持有不同的看法，好象堕胎合法化就是一个尖锐的课题，在民间引起两极的看法。
纽约时报的社论就特别提醒美国的公民：
September 21, 2008
Editorial
The Candidates and the Court
Among the many issues voters need to consider in this campaign is this vital fact: The next president is likely to appoint several Supreme Court justices. Those choices will determine the future of the law, and of some of Americans’ most cherished rights.
John McCain and Barack Obama have made it clear that they would pick very different kinds of justices. The results could be particularly dramatic under Mr. McCain, who is likely to complete President Bush’s campaign to make the court an aggressive right-wing force.
Mr. Obama seems likely to pick moderate justices, who would probably not take the court back onto a distinctly liberal path, but also would be unlikely to create an unbreakable conservative bloc.
Mr. McCain has promised the right wing of the Republican Party that he would put only archconservatives on the Supreme Court. Even moderate conservatives like Anthony Kennedy, the court’s current swing justice, would not have a chance.
Mr. McCain, whose Web site proclaims his dedication to overturning Roe v. Wade, would appoint justices who could be expected to lead the charge to eliminate the right to abortion. The kinds of justices for whom Mr. McCain has expressed a strong preference would also be likely to undermine the right of habeas corpus, allowing the government to detain people indefinitely without access to lawyers or family members.
Mr. McCain’s justices are likely to join the conservative crusade against the power of Congress. They could be expected to strike down, or sharply limit, federal power to protect clean air and water; ensure food and drug safety; safeguard workers; and prohibit discrimination against women and minorities. They would also likely further erode the separation between church and state.
Mr. McCain has voted to confirm federal judges chosen by Mr. Bush who are radicals, not conservatives. One, Janice Rogers Brown, now on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has attacked Supreme Court decisions upholding New Deal laws as “the triumph of our own socialist revolution.”
Mr. Obama, a former professor of constitutional law, has clashed with Mr. McCain in the Senate over legal issues. Mr. McCain backed the odious Military Commissions Act of 2006, which the Supreme Court held to violate the right of habeas corpus; Mr. Obama opposed it. Mr. McCain was a rubber stamp for Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees; Mr. Obama voted against the worst.
Mr. Obama has said he wants justices who have “the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom” — as well as to be gay, poor or black. He has promised to make “preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president.”
At the same time, Mr. Obama has put distance between himself and legal liberals on issues like the death penalty for child rapists and the constitutionality of gun control. As president, Mr. Obama would probably be more inclined to appoint centrist liberals, like Justice Stephen Breyer, than all-out liberals, like William Brennan or Thurgood Marshall.
Predicting vacancies on the court is difficult. But odds are that members of the liberal bloc, like 88-year-old John Paul Stevens, will leave first. That means that if Mr. Obama is elected, he might merely keep the court on its current moderately conservative course. Under Mr. McCain, if a liberal justice or two or three steps down, we may see a very different America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
