Tag Archives: regulatory affairs

The Great Bubble Era Was Caused by Financial Deregulation, Not Easy Money

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Paul Krugman has an interesting post up today asking why we’ve had so many bubbles over the past few decades:

The answer you hear from a lot of people is that it’s all caused by excessively easy money. But let’s think about the longer-term history for a bit. Here’s long-term U.S. interest rates since the early 1950s.

What follows is a chart showing that 10-year treasury maturities went up from 1950-80 and then went down from 1980-2013. But it was pretty symmetrical: rates didn’t fall below their 50s/60s level until the mid-aughts. Historically speaking, the two eras were about the same, so easy money doesn’t seem like much of an explanation.

But isn’t it actually even more striking than that? Shouldn’t we look at real interest rates?1 Here’s a rough look at real 10-year maturities since 1950:

Real long-term interest rates during the past 30 years have been consistently higher than in the 50s and 60s. It wasn’t until 2008 that they fell noticeably below their 1950-1970 average. And yet, as Krugman says:

The whole era since around 1985 has been one of successive bubbles. There was a huge commercial real estate bubble (pdf) in the 80s, closely tied up with the S&L crisis; a bubble in capital flows to Asia in the mid 90s; the dotcom bubble; the housing bubble; and now, it seems, the BRIC bubble. There was nothing comparable in the 50s and 60s.

And don’t forget the Nordic property bubble of the early 90s. That’s a lot of bubbles. So if it wasn’t easy money, what was it? Krugman again:

So what was different? The answer seems obvious: financial deregulation, including capital account liberalization. Banks were set free — and went wild, again and again.

I’ll buy that up to a point. It’s not as if financial regulation can prevent bubbles entirely, but it can tame them. For the past 30 years, they’ve been running wild because we haven’t done anything to stop them. Maybe we should start.

1This is a real question. I’m actually not sure. I’m posting this partly in the hopes that if I’m wrong, someone will explain why.

See the article here:

The Great Bubble Era Was Caused by Financial Deregulation, Not Easy Money

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Great Bubble Era Was Caused by Financial Deregulation, Not Easy Money

Dems Defy Obama on Mortgage Protections

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last week, President Barack Obama laid out his new housing plan, emphasizing the importance of safe, simple, affordable mortgages. But lawmakers in his own party are working against him, trying to gut historic new safeguards on home loans.

A new mortgage rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that takes effect January 1 limits fees on new home loans to three percent. The regulation is “one of the most direct and important responses to the mortgage crisis,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) argued in a recent editorial in American Banker. But 12 House Democrats and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) have joined with Republicans to cosponsor bills that would eviscerate the new cap and clear the way for lenders to steer Americans into riskier, higher-cost loans.

Continue Reading »

Read the article:  

Dems Defy Obama on Mortgage Protections

Posted in Anker, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dems Defy Obama on Mortgage Protections

What’s in Crude Oil and How Do We Use It?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story and video first appeared on the Atlantic website and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Crude oil is far from being one homogenous substance. Its physical characteristics differ depending on where in the world it’s pulled out of the ground, and those variations determine its usage and price.


A Brief Backgrounder on US Energy


Video: How We Use Energy


Video: How Much Energy We Use


A Very Short History of How Americans Use Energy at Home


Who’s to Blame for Climate Change?


The Complexities of Climate Change


What’s in Crude Oil and How Do We Use It?

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) puts it succinctly: “not all crude is created equal.” Some has a lot of sulphur, and it’s called sour. Oil with less sulphur is called sweet. Crudes also vary in how dense they are. Sweet, light crude is the most valuable type of oil. Sour, heavy oil fetches the lowest prices. Here’s why:

This is partly because gasoline and diesel fuel, which typically sell at a significant premium to residual fuel oil and other ‘bottom of the barrel’ products, can usually be more easily and cheaply produced using light, sweet crude oil. The light sweet grades are desirable because they can be processed with far less sophisticated and energy-intensive processes/refineries.” (EIA)

Depending on these characteristics, crude ends up at different refineries:

Refining capacity in the Gulf Coast has large secondary conversion capacity including hydrocrackers, cokers, and desulfurization units. These units enable the processing of heavy, high sulfur (sour) crude oils like Mexican Maya that typically sell at a discount to light, low sulfur (sweet) crudes like Brent and Louisiana Light Sweet. Many East Coast refineries have less secondary conversion capacity, and in general they process crude oil with lower sulfur content and a lighter density. (EIA)*

The refining process itself—fractional distillation, followed by further reprocessing and blending—is how we extract from crude to create the different petro-products that we use:

Crude oil is made up of a mixture of hydrocarbons, and the distillation process aims to separate this crude oil into broad categories of its component hydrocarbons, or ‘fractions.’ Crude oil is first heated and then put into a distillation column, also known as a still, where different products boil off and are recovered at different temperatures. Lighter products, such as butane and other liquid petroleum gases (LPG), gasoline blending components, and naphtha, are recovered at the lowest temperatures. Mid-range products include jet fuel, kerosene, and distillates (such as home heating oil and diesel fuel). The heaviest products such as residual fuel oil are recovered at temperatures sometimes over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. (EIA)*

That’s the rough overview of how crude gets from the ground to the gas station. In recent years, new extraction methods have made more crude available.

Due to controversial techniques pioneered in the natural gas industry and high oil prices providing incentives for oil companies, more oil is being extracted from previously unviable fields. Estimates of US proven reserves have risen as a result:

In 2011, oil and gas exploration and production companies operating in the United States added almost 3.8 billion barrels of crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves, an increase of 15 percent.” (EIA)

This has also led to a turn-around in US oil production, which, according to a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), may even exceed Saudi Arabia within five years. Kevin Bullis at the MIT Technology Review summarizes some of the key figures:

US production had fallen from 10 million barrels a day in the 1980s to 6.9 million barrels per day in 2008, even as consumption increased from 15.7 million barrels per day in 1985 to 19.5 million barrels per day in 2008. The IEA estimates that production could reach 11.1 million barrels per day by 2020, almost entirely because of increases in the production of shale oil, which is extracted using the same horizontal drilling and fracking techniques that have flooded the US with cheap natural gas.

Energy researcher Vaclav Smil suggests in The American that these developments should mean the end of “peak oil” anxieties:

Obviously, there will come a time when global oil extraction will reach its peak, but even that point may be of little practical interest as it could be followed by a prolonged, gentle decline or by an extended output plateau at a somewhat lower level than peak production.

But others like journalist Chris Nelder argue that we’ve increased spending on oil production by tremendous amounts only to see global oil production edge up a bit. Older, cheaper oil fields are declining, and their oil is being replaced by crude from far more expensive sources. Nelder made his numerical case to the Washington Post like this:

In 2005, we reached 73 million barrels per day. Then, to increase production beyond that, the world had to double spending on oil production. In 2012, we’re now spending $600 billion. The price of oil has tripled. And yet, for all that additional expenditure, we’ve only raised production 3 percent to 75 million barrels per day since 2005.

And Bryan Walsh at Time notes that, while expanded oil production will be good for the economy and the trade balance, it doesn’t mean the US will be insulated from global crude prices:

The one thing politicians most want is the one thing the US still won’t be: energy independent. That’s because no matter how much additional oil the US is able to pump in the years to come, the global oil market is just that—global. Oil is the ultimate fungible commodity, able to be shipped and piped around the world.

* For more in-depth explainers on the individual refining and secondary processes, the EIA article on the distillation technique contains more links.

Original source: 

What’s in Crude Oil and How Do We Use It?

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What’s in Crude Oil and How Do We Use It?

Lobbyist Secretly Wrote House Dems’ Letter Urging Weaker Investor Protections

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A letter that a group of progressive Democrats sent to federal regulators opposing new protections for millions of Americans’ retirement accounts was drafted by a financial industry lobbyist, according to documents obtained by Mother Jones.

The Department of Labor (DoL), which oversees the federal law setting minimum standards for many retirement plans, would like to require retirement investment advisers to act in the best interest of their customers, as opposed to their own best interest.

But 28 out of the 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus—a group of African-American members of Congress that advocates for the interests of low-income people and minorities—signed onto a June 14 letter opposing the rule. So did Democratic lawmakers Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, Ed Pastor of Arizona, and Jim Costa of California.

The letter’s metadata indicates it was drafted by Robert Lewis, a lobbyist who works for the Financial Services Institute (FSI), an investment industry trade group:

Together, the liberal lawmakers who signed the letter have received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign money from the securities and investment industry in recent years.

In the letter, the lawmakers caution the DoL against proposing new regulations, warning that a strict new rule on retirement advisers may cause many of them to leave the market, and thus “could severely limit access to low-cost investment advice” for “the minority communities we represent.”

Continue Reading »

From:  

Lobbyist Secretly Wrote House Dems’ Letter Urging Weaker Investor Protections

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Lobbyist Secretly Wrote House Dems’ Letter Urging Weaker Investor Protections

How the Paint Industry Escapes Responsibility for Lead Poisoning

Mother Jones

The main focus of my story in January about the link between lead and crime was on leaded gasoline. That was mainly because the rise and fall of leaded gasoline following World War II tracks the rise and fall of crime between the 60s and 90s. However, lead is lead, and the lead in leaded paint has all the same ill effects when small children are exposed to it: it reduces IQ, increases learning disabilities, and affects parts of the brain linked to impulse control. Despite that, activist groups haven’t had much luck holding the paint industry accountable. Lilly Fowler reports for us today on what happened:

Apart from one settlement, the industry has successfully fended off roughly 50 lawsuits by states, cities, counties, and school districts over the past quarter century. Now, in a trial under way in San Jose, California, industry lawyers are seeking a final victory in a case brought by 10 agencies, including the cities of San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego, and the counties of Los Angeles and Santa Clara. The agencies want the industry to cover the cost of eliminating lead paint from all the homes in their jurisdictions; the price tag could exceed $1 billion.

….Defense lawyers have argued in a brief that the companies weren’t aware when they promoted lead paint that it would someday cause harm. “Scientific knowledge concerning lead exposure evolved over the decades,” it reads. What’s more, they claim there is no longer any widespread danger from lead. Today’s blood lead levels, according to their court filings, do not present “a current public health crisis” but rather “a public health success story.”

What’s more, they argue, California already has a well-funded lead poisoning prevention program that collects annual fees primarily from the gasoline industry, but also from makers of paint and other lead-containing products.

Unfortunately, the research linking lead to crime has probably come too late to have an impact in this case. Read the whole thing to learn how the paint industry has managed for decades to avoid responsibility for the catastrophic effects of their products.

Read more:

How the Paint Industry Escapes Responsibility for Lead Poisoning

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Paint Industry Escapes Responsibility for Lead Poisoning

Has Larry Summers Changed His Regulatory Spots?

Mother Jones

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that my main objection to Larry Summers as chairman of the Fed was his record on financial regulation. Today, Cass Sunstein uses his Bloomberg column to tell me I have nothing to worry about:

I worked with Summers in the Obama administration, and I can report that in internal discussions, he was one of the most uncompromising advocates for financial regulation. Of course, he supports the free-market system and wants to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens. But time and again, he insisted that the events of 2008 required everyone, including him, to re-evaluate their views about regulating the financial industry. He contended that banks can’t police themselves any more than polluters can be trusted to protect the environment or pharmaceutical companies can be trusted to ensure that drugs are safe.

Building on these analogies, Summers vigorously argued on behalf of a consumer financial protection agency, and he supported strong safeguards designed to reduce the risk of another economic meltdown. Intensely focused on the problem of “too big to fail,” he was one of the earliest and most forceful advocates of promoting financial stability by requiring banks to have enough capital to withstand an economic downturn.

All of this might be true. Perhaps Summers really has changed his tune after living through the 2008 financial crisis. I’m not a White House insider, so there’s no way for me to know.

But I will say this: over the past decade I’ve become far, far more skeptical of reports based on private knowledge. It seems like there are always plenty of people around to tell us what the great and the good are “really” thinking based on conversations at Davos or Jackson Hole or the West Wing of the White House. Sometimes they’re right. But more often, if you want to know what someone really thinks, the best guide by far is their past actions and statements. There’s seldom any good reason to make things more complicated than that.

Now, it so happens that Janet Yellen, the other main candidate for the position, doesn’t have much of a track record on financial regulation. So it’s not as if this is a black-and-white competition. Nonetheless, I’d be very cautious about thinking that someone with long experience and well-considered views is likely to become a born-again regulator. With the immediate crisis out of the way, Summers’ regulatory temperament is probably about the same as it’s always been.

That said, and despite the remarkable amount of heat this appointment has generated, I can’t say that I have super strong feelings about the whole thing. I think Yellen has more relevant experience and a better track record of being right on the big questions, while Summers has well-known social problems and a dubious track record on financial regulation. That makes Yellen a better choice. But honestly, they aren’t very far apart on the big issues, and it’s unlikely that either one is head and shoulders above the other. If Obama nominates Summers, it would be just another case of him choosing someone I thought was second best. A minor disappointment, but that’s about it.

More – 

Has Larry Summers Changed His Regulatory Spots?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Has Larry Summers Changed His Regulatory Spots?

"Uncertainty" Is Gone, But the Sluggish Recovery Is Still With Us

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Why has the economy recovered so sluggishly since the 2008-09 recession? Reasonable people can point to lots of reasons: debt overhang, the zero lower bound on interest rates, loss of housing wealth, and too little fiscal stimulus, among others. But if none of those actual reasons suit your political agenda, you can always just make something up. Republicans, for example, found it convenient to blame “uncertainty.” The business community was just so stonkered by the blizzard of new rules and regulations from the Obama administration that it was unwilling to invest in the future.

Never mind that business investment has actually recovered fairly nicely. Never mind that outside the financial sector (which is doing just fine, thankyouverymuch), Obama hasn’t introduced any more regulations than other recent presidents. Never mind that lack of consumer demand was more than enough to explain whatever reluctance businesses might have had to build new factories.

Never mind all that. Republicans wanted to blame the sluggish recovery on mountains of red tape from the business-hating Obama administration, and the press played along. This means that “uncertainty” got a lot of media attention, which in turn means that if you have an “uncertainty index” based partly on media mentions, it would have shown persistent elevation during 2010-12, the heyday of the uncertainty campaign. Sure enough, that’s exactly what it showed:

Amazingly enough, the index suggests that economic uncertainty was higher in mid-2012 than it was during mid-2008, when the entire global financial system was collapsing around our ears. And just as amazingly, it’s plummeted ever since. Today it’s only barely higher than its 2000-07 average.

On a substantive basis, the fact that uncertainty spiked during the debt ceiling crisis (labeled with an N on the chart) makes sense. The rest of the high level of uncertainty between 2010 and 2012 really doesn’t. However, if instead you read the last few years on this chart as basically measuring the strength of the Republican campaign to pretend that Obama was strangling business growth with his tsunami of rules and regulations, then it makes perfect sense. Republicans had plenty of incentive to promote that theme during campaign season, and now that it’s over they don’t. So the index goes down.

This comes via Jim Tankersley, who points out that if uncertainty really was driving the sluggish recovery, we’d expect to be seeing a hiring boom now that it’s declined. But there’s really been no sign of this. As we knew all along—and as the media should have known all along—”uncertainty” was just an invented partisan talking point. It no longer serves any purpose, so now it’s gone. But the sluggish recovery is still with us.

Source:  

"Uncertainty" Is Gone, But the Sluggish Recovery Is Still With Us

Posted in alo, Anker, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "Uncertainty" Is Gone, But the Sluggish Recovery Is Still With Us

Obama Issues Orders to Prevent the Next West, Texas-style Explosion

Mother Jones

On Thursday, President Obama issued an executive order on chemical facility safety, three and a half months after the deadly ammonium nitrate explosion in a West, Texas fertilizer plant. The order outlines a number of new initiatives intended to modernize oversight of plants and strengthen the coordination of the various agencies responsible for safety at these facilities.

There aren’t new rules in this order. It’s more a list of things that agencies should work on.

Here’s how the White House fact sheet describes it:

improve operational coordination with state and local partners;
enhance Federal agency coordination and information sharing;
modernize policies, regulations, and standards; and
work with stakeholders to identify best practices.

To take up those mandates, the order establishes a new Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group, which will include the top officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Homeland Security. It also directs federal, state, local, and tribal groups to figure out how to work together better on this issue.

The West, Texas disaster came after a number of safety lapses. For one, its emergency plan relied on the assumption there was “no” risk of an explosion like the one that happened. Texas regulators hadn’t inspected the plant in five years, and federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors hadn’t been there since 1985. The company had failed to follow federal law on disclosing hazardous chemicals kept on site. The list of failures at the plant is fairly long.

The directive calls for a specific evaluation of how to improve the handling of ammonium nitrate. But what it doesn’t call for is an evaluation of whether we even need to use it at all. As my colleague Tim Murphy has reported, a number of other countries have banned ammonium nitrate because it’s too explosive. There are non-exploding alternatives, but the US chemical industry has fought efforts to change the rules in the US.

Source article – 

Obama Issues Orders to Prevent the Next West, Texas-style Explosion

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Issues Orders to Prevent the Next West, Texas-style Explosion

North Carolina Legislators Also Did a Lot of Environmental Damage This Year

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The news might have flown under the national radar, what with all the motorcycle safety laws that actually deal with abortion and horrible voter ID bill action that’s been happening in the North Carolina this summer, but the state’s environmental laws were another casualty of this legislative session.

First, the legislature passed a law tossing out all the members of the state’s Environmental Management Commission and nearly all of the members of the Coastal Resources Commission (which was better than the original law, which would have fired a bunch of other people as well). And before wrapping up last week, the legislature also approved a one-year moratorium on localities passing their own environmental rules. That bill is now sitting on Republican Gov. Pat McCrory’s desk awaiting approval.

The Charlotte Observer has a wrap up of all the environmental malfeasance that went down in this legislative session. Among other things, one bill that’s still awaiting McCrory’s signature “prohibits local governments, for a year, from passing environmental rules that state or federal governments also address.” That could be a big problem, the Observer reports:

But Robin Smith, a former assistant N.C. secretary of the environment who writes an environmental law blog, said restricting local rules could backfire. State rules often require that local ordinances be adopted, she said, and local conditions sometimes demand local rules.
“It is difficult to predict how big a problem the moratorium would be given the very different circumstances in cities and counties across the state, but it seems an unnecessary gamble,” she wrote last week.

Dan Crawford, director of governmental relations for the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, tells Mother Jones that they’re now lobbying hard to get McCrory to veto the bill. “Federal guidelines are meant to be a floor, not a ceiling,” he said.

Crawford said this was the worst he’s seen in 15 years of lobbying on environmental issues. “I can’t think of a time where it’s been any worse,” he said. “We were in the bull’s eye.”

From – 

North Carolina Legislators Also Did a Lot of Environmental Damage This Year

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on North Carolina Legislators Also Did a Lot of Environmental Damage This Year

The Peculiar Anti-PC Case for Larry Summers as Fed Chairman

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Who do you support to replace Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Fed? Janet Yellen or Larry Summers? Ezra Klein reports today that Yellen supporters are blanketing the airwaves with endorsements, but Summers supporters are oddly reticent to speak publicly. Nonetheless, he figures it’s worthwhile to pass along the (anonymous) pro-Summers case that’s making the rounds of the White House.

The argument comes in five parts, and for what it’s worth, I consider #1 ridiculous, #2 doubtful, and #3 and #4 perfectly reasonable. You can read them and decide for yourself. But I was pretty taken aback by #5:

Backlash to the gender issue. This isn’t part of the case for Summers, exactly, but it’s part of the psychology of his supporters right now. People involved in the White House’s Fed search really, really don’t like the implication that they’re sexists. They see the allegation that gender is playing a role here as absurd and offensive and an effort to back them into making a choice based on political correctness rather than the merits. It’s a bit hard to gauge this, but my sense is the intense anger over the allegations is hardening people’s positions, as they don’t want to submit to a pressure campaign they consider deeply unfair.

I don’t get this. What I’ve seen are lots of gender-coded complaints coming from conservatives about how Yellen would be little more than a PC diversity choice. This is ridiculous and has gotten lots of pushback. I’ve also seen lots of liberals saying that it would be great to break one of the last glass ceilings in Washington and have a woman in the top spot at the Fed.

But what I haven’t seen are arguments that Team Obama would be outing themselves as sexists if they chose Summers. Have I just missed them? Maybe. But if Ezra is right about this, it sure seems as if the Obama folks are being a little hypersensitive.

Visit site: 

The Peculiar Anti-PC Case for Larry Summers as Fed Chairman

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Peculiar Anti-PC Case for Larry Summers as Fed Chairman