Best Analysis of Freddie Mac / Fannie Mae bailout I’ve read

I just read this analysis by Michael Hudson, a former Wall Street economist. It’s worth reading.

I love it when America, currently run by Republicans, the ones who keep demanding the rest of the world stop propping up their industries and embrace “free market economics” if they want to become part of the WTO, the same America that equates socialism with pure evil, spends hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money bailing out a publicly-listed company. Will those taxpayers end up shareholders in the respective companies? No. The money is going into a black hole, to pay the exorbitant salaries of the same greedy fat executives (like the CEO of Freddie Mac who got $20 million last year) who ran the companies into the ground in the first place. And the ones who ran the companies while they lied about the balance sheet don’t even go to jail.

When I talk with American friends about the bailout, they say the same thing – “it’s the best thing for the economy”. I always ask the same question – “why?”. And then they go… “ummm…..”. They don’t know the answer. They are just regurgitating what they’ve been told by the elite media.

Of course, if another country, say Venezuela, wanted to prop up one of it’s industries for “the good of the economy”, the US State Dept would declare them evil commies and threaten them with economic or military intervention. But oh, it’s okay when it happens in the US o’ A.

Hudson doesn’t agree that it’s the best thing for the economy. He says it’s the best thing for the big fish:

The looming defaults threaten financial institutions holding mortgages on such properties, moving up the economic pyramid to reach investors and creditors at the top. Somebody must take a loss. But who? Big fish or little fish?

Of course, the elites at the top want protection of their investments. They don’t care if $100 or $200 billion of little fish’s money disappears in the process. The people get screwed again and they smile while it’s happening.

Hudson, in his conclusion, says:

America’s $13 trillion in domestic real estate debt is no more payable than is the government’s $3.5 billion dollar debt to foreign central banks, or the public debt itself for that matter. Adam Smith remarked over two centuries ago that no government ever had repaid its debts. At that time the aristocracy – the heirs of the Viking warlords who conquered Britain and other European countries and turned their common lands into private property – held most of the land free and clear. Today, real estate has been “democratized,” but this has been done on credit. Mortgages are the major debts of most American families. In this role, real estate debt has become the basis for the commercial banking system, and hence the basis for the wealthiest 10 percent of the population who hold the bottom 90 percent in debt. That is what Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and “the market” are all about.

More Melbourne Bars

Cam & Kev (from TPN’s SOUSED podcast) hit a few more Melbourne cocktail bars a couple of weeks ago… it was RESEARCH goddamit!…. to chat with some of the owners and bartenders who have been nominated for the upcoming Melbourne Bar Awards.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bobSCmDszXI&hl=en&fs=1]

The Future Of Journalism

I was on a panel yesterday at the Future Of Journalism conference in Brisbane. As you can perhaps tell from earleyedition’s tweets, my comments were not well received. As usual, I tried my best to explain that the economics of media have fundamentally changed and that means all bets are off. But, as usual, nobody listened and I was accused of being a “shock jock” espousing “revolutionary rhetoric”. Jean Burgess from QUT used the old line about “we’ve had technological shifts before and it didn’t cause the end of the industry”, completely missing the point that this is NOT about a technology shift – it’s about an economic shift.

To wit:

Fifteen years ago, if I wanted to publish something to a wide audience, the financial barriers were extreme. The cost of owning a newspaper or magazine were (and still are) very high. So very few people were able to own one. It was a limited playing field. Consequently, the people who *did* own a newspaper had the market to themselves. There was limited competition for people’s attention. As a result, they could carve their local market up between themselves and fund their business through advertising.

However, today, anyone can publish something online. The economic barriers have been removed. Consequently, there are 75 million active blogs that I can read, not 4 newspapers. And so audience attention is fragmenting and the traditional news companies can’t control it. As they lose audience, their ability to generate advertising revenue diminishes. As revenue declines, they can’t afford to maintain their old cost structures, so they start downsizing. Sound familiar? It’s a negative spiral. And there is NO. WAY. OUT.

Anyway, I’d like to thank Antony Funnell from ABC radio’s “Media Report” for doing a great job moderating our panel. He did a good job getting everyone’s views, including the ones that were extremely unpopular.

Che Guevara Action Figure!

Oh yeah I want this!

Che figure 01

Che figure 02

You can also get the Fidel action figure:

Fidel action figure

If I had both of them I’d stage re-enactments of the Cuban revolution on my living room floor. I wonder if you can get Batista, JFK, Khrushchev and the Granma as well?

Don’t forget it’s my birthday on Oct 10. With shipping times factored in, you need to order TODAY. It’s time for an outpouring of Cam love.

UPDATE:

Actually this Che figure is even better! He looks badass.

Che figure 03