no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

In Communist America, Goldman Sachs Forks You

August 6th, 2009

Yesterday morning, Chris Martenson told us that we’re being robbed by Goldman Sachs. Which prompted me to do some of my own research, whereupon I discovered that the real victims of Goldman Sachs all meet the following criteria:

  1. Not a current or former Goldman Sachs employee

I know: you already knew that Goldman Sachs is the Devil incarnate, because you read The Great American Bubble Machine (loved it!) and then you saw some tin-foil-hat-wearing kook’s videos on YouTube, right? But Martenson’s account is not full of colorful metaphors or wild-eyed conspiracy theories (not that there’s anything wrong with either), instead, he paints the picture by numbers:

Trading losses [for Goldman Sachs] occurred on two days during the months of April, May and June [2009].

Goldman Sachs took in a whopping $100M+ in daily revenue on forty-six separate days during 2Q 2009.  An entire financial quarter, and a tumultuous one at that, during which GS brought in something like $5 billion and only lost money on two occasions.  This is statistically inconceivable, and lest you have any delusions about where that money is coming from, Martenson is quick to remind you:

the most probable source of these funds, the ultimate loser, is the taxpayer.

Shortly after the meltdown began, GS became a “bank holding company” which normally requires a greater capital reserve (less risk) and quickly received $63.6 billion worth of federal subsidies. The decision to become a holding company is particularly noteworthy because the Bloomberg article that Martenson cites justifies Goldman’s profits on account of their willingness to take risk that others wouldn’t.  But their positions as a “bank holding company” should be less risky, what with the higher reserve requirements, right?

Wrong.

Goldman asked to be exempted from these rules, which the Fed granted without question. So in a time when they should be shoring up their reserves, and playing conservatively, they continue to pile risk on top of risk with our hard-earned money.  And unless you know something I don’t, you’re not getting a dividend check in the mail.

To be fair, a number of other institutions (e.g., American Express) filed to become “holding companies” in order to reap a slice of the Bailout Pie.  For what in God’s creation they are using these funds, is ultimately anybody’s guess. The only certainty is that whatever money they get, regardless of whether or when they pay it back, is corporate fucking welfare, paid for by you and me.

Indeed, the taxpayers are big losers in this game, a game that Goldman Sachs has completely rigged.  We are underwriting their profits and absorbing their losses.

As I’ve said before, “the primary purpose of modern financial markets is to concentrate real economic power for the State and its beneficiaries.” None of the paper wealth which was miscast as “growth” in the past decade ever really existed. Every last bit of it, every hour of labor, every ounce of resources that we foolishly consumed/destroyed while perpetrating the growth charade was economically destructive. The rest of us understand this — and if we don’t, our bank accounts do.

What’s good for Goldman Sachs is good for Goldman Sachs, end of story. Everyone else gets boned.

An Open Letter to Mark Brewer

July 29th, 2009

[Note: revised addressee to read “Mark Brewer” instead of “John Brewer”. I’m not sure how that one slipped by me. Cheers!]

Mr. Brewer,

There are a lot of things I love about Michigan, like the vast wilderness in our midst (or, within a few hours’ drive). Last week, I went to the Upper Peninsula. I hiked around the Tahquamenon State Park and, save for the mosquitoes, I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

But there are a lot of things I hate about Michigan, primarily the politics, and the nonsense that comprises the politics. While I was on vacation last week, you and your party proposed, among other measures, a 35% increase in the state’s minimum wage — raising it $10 an hour. This is insanity, for a number of reasons.

In the real world, businesses are going under faster than anyone can count, and workers are losing their jobs at an equally alarming pace. Raising the price of the single largest cost for many businesses can’t possibly solve either problem. By what math (or mysticism) do you figure that increasing the cost of head-count will save businesses (which employ workers), or keep businesses from laying off even more workers?

I will assume for the sake of argument that the otherwise immutable laws of economics simply don’t apply here in Michigan, and that the objection I outlined in the preceding paragraph without merit. Fine. If the laws of economics don’t apply (and in order to propose a mandatory 35% wage increase, you must believe that said laws don’t apply) why don’t you instead propose that we raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour — anyone working full-time would instantly be on pace to earn $200k per year!

You know as well as I do, that in the real world, it simply doesn’t work that way. Raising the minimum wage simply redistributes jobs from one area to another, or redistributes the amount of capital investment (as businesses make tradeoffs between capital and labor). Go to any large chain grocery store, and you can witness the effects of the last minimum wage hike: U-Scan machines are replacing checkout clerks at the grocery stores.

When the wages due to labor are held artificially high, a few lucky employees are able to reap the benefits, but the rest of them are out of luck.

Mr. Brewer, you claim to be “on the side of people who are suffering,” but a proposal like this one (and the other talking points I’ve seen) can only, ultimately cause even more people to suffer.

Sincerely,

David Z

Refinancing Your Mortgage: Three Important Lessons

April 23rd, 2009

When mortgage rates are low, or lower than you’re currently paying, refinancing can be the right thing to do. But you’ve got to be wary of the come-ons. And you’ve got to understand the numbers — people don’t.

In my previous work in the real estate industry, I witnessed people who, after “owning” for 30+ years, sold their homes and walked out of the closing room without a penny to show for three decades worth of home mortgage payments. Over that time, they had at apparently every opportunity, cashed out equity. What they spent it on, I haven’t the foggiest — perhaps they did something smart with it. But probably, they bought boats and cars and vacations to Mexico, because that’s what most people do.

Lesson 1: Only take out your equity if you have a damn good use for it. A damn good use would be, ideally, something that generates positive cash-flow for you. Except for the direst of emergencies, you shouldn’t be spending that equity money on anything that is immediately consumed, or that depreciates in value.

We bought our house in February of 2008, and are now looking at the prospects for refinancing. We can now easily obtain a rate 1% better than our existing rate. Now, we’re not going to get rich off of the reduction (about $75) in monthly payments.

I asked what it would cost to knock another 1/2% off the rate, and was told that it would be about 2 points. Here’s where it gets even better: the mortgage guy told me that, “We think rates are going to be even lower towards the end of the year, and I don’t think it’s a great idea to pay for the rate now, if you can get it for free in November.” Slick, eh? Why would you want to pay for something that you can get for free?

Lesson 2: Refinancing now means that you have 360 more mortgage payments to make. Which I suppose is OK, until you do it again next year, and the year after, and again in 2015, etc. I don’t want to make mortgage payments forever, in fact, I don’t want to make a mortgage payment after I’m 45.  And you shouldn’t, either. I understand that the easiest way to be able to retire comfortably is to make sure you’re not locked into massive mortgage payments and other debt-servicing through your golden years.

If you want to make mortgage payments forever, you’re better off renting/leasing.  Falling for the “you can get it for free later” (which, I might add is anything but certain in this market) is the first step towards effectively renting your house from the bank. Pretty soon, you’ve lived in the house for 33 years and don’t have a dime of equity. By minimizing your monthly payments, you’re actually maximizing your indebtedness.  Unless you’re drastically axing your interest rate, you’re not going to get rich off the difference in monthly payments. So stop focusing on the monthly payments.

Lesson 3: If you put Lessons 1 and 2 together, math happens!

As long as you’re not taking cash out of equity, each time you refinance, the mortgage amount should be smaller than it previously was. If you’re getting a lower rate, and a lower balance, consider a note of shorter duration. If you can stomach an increase in your monthly payment, a 15-year mortgage would be worth considering,although you can probably get a 20- or 25-year note (and pay down your debt/build equity faster) for about the same as your currently paying on a higher-interest 30-year note.

If you had $15,000 lying around and I could guarantee you 18% over the next 6 years (compounded annually would give you $40,000) would you take it? So you don’t have $15,000 lying around, OK, you’re not alone. But you probably have $300 and if you budget your expenses, you’ll have another $300 next month, and so on.

A 15-year mortgage will going to cost you more each month, even if the rate is lower, but significantly more of your payment goes to principal, which means you build equity much faster. I ran the amortization schedule for a $150,000 mortgage for 30 years and 15 years at 4.5%. (I like the amortization calculator at Bretwhissel.net) Over a relatively short period of time (7 years) you’d pay off about 4 times as much principal on the note of shorter duration. For the examples, it would make the difference between about $19k worth of equity vs. $58k worth of equity. That $39,000 difference would cost about $15,000, and that comes from the extra $300/month that you paid.

You now owe $40,000 less to the bank than you otherwise would!

This means more proceeds if you sell, more equity in case of a dire emergency, and a greater ability to weather a stagnant or declining economy.  If home values rise over that time, you’ll just have that much more money when you eventually sell.  In either case, bad or good, you’re going to be better off in the long-run by making some small sacrifices in the short-run.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics