McDonnell’s Lame Jobs Plan

C

reating jobs in this jobless economic recovery is the priority for every politician of either party. It was President Barack Obama’s major goal during his State of the Union speech as it was for Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell who gave the rebuttal that was televised nationwide.

Neither man seems to have much to offer in ideas, however. Besides stimulus spending, Obama wants tax credits for businesses, especially small ones, that hire new employees.
McDonnell’s ideas are a mish-mash of corporate welfare, the old familiar economic recruiting in the old familiar areas, a couple of strange plans and demands for oil and natural gas drilling offshore of Virginia in areas where there are no known, workable fields and whose efforts in the best conditions wouldn’t yield revenue for at least another decade. (for more, read my

commentary

in Style Weekly)

McDonnell plans on framing a major jobs push around an initiative led Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling with a goal of creating $311 million in new revenue streams over five years and creating more than 29,000 jobs over two years.
To get there, McDonnell plans typical meat and potatoes projects such as boosting the bennies available through the Governor’s Development Opportunity Fund to attract relocating industries, a slew of expanded tax credits, easing up on capital gains taxes, boosting small businesses and increasing the percentage of state contracting in special rural and depressed area business zones. He backs more public-private investments and more biotechnology — everyone’s panacea for economic growth.
Curiously, the governor’s fund would offer goodies to such rich firms as Northrop Grumman which is thinking about relocating from Southern California to the greater Washington area. Not only does this give big firms special benefits, the idea is hardly new. Former Govs. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner reached into the goodie bowl to get defense contractor SAIC, Hilton Hotels, Volkswagen and Rolls Royce.
Other McDonnell ideas are a bit goofier. Miffed that an upcoming Disney movie about Secretariat, the champion racehorse reared in Hanover County, is actually being filmed in Kentucky, McDonnell wants expanded tax credits for any movie companies that spend at least $250,000 for production in Virginia. And he wants some of the tax from the sale of wine used to market Virginia’s growing but small wine industry. Speaking of alcohol, McDonnell’s plan to privatize state-run ABC stores would probably cut more jobs than it would create.
It remains to be seen how helping the tinsel and Chardonnay crowds will really address business sectors where Virginia is hurting most. According to recent Virginia Employment Commission data, the most stressed sectors are construction, manufacturing and information. Other laggards are finance, professional services and transportation.
Of all the state’s metropolitan areas, Richmond was the worst, next to Winchester, according to Employment Commission Senior Economist Ann D. Lang. Among the capital area’s losses are more than 12,000 well-paying jobs following the implosion of three marquee-name companies.
Among the dead are LandAmerica, fatally hurt by the subprime mortgage lending meltdown, computer chip maker Qimonda, which got caught in a global market squeeze, and retailer Circuit City, the victim of bad internal management. It isn’t clear how any of McDonnell’s initiatives would alleviate such damage or prevent it in the future.
Curiously, however, McDonnell is making a major deal about the iffy prospect of drilling for oil and natural gas off the Virginia coast. Taking a chapter from Sarah Palin’s “Drill Here, Drill Now,” campaign playbook, McDonnell made offshore drilling a big part of his campaign.
He hadn’t even been sworn in as governor when he fired off a letter in December to Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar urging that the federal government hold a lease sale in 2011 of a triangular tract of underground ground about 100 miles off the Eastern Shore. Citing a study by Old Dominion University president James Koch in 2005, McDonnell believes that enough oil and gas could be found to create 2,578 jobs, $7.84 billion in capital investment, payrolls of $644 million and $271 million in state and local taxes.
As McDonnell put it in his address: “In Virginia, we have the opportunity to be the first state on the East Coast to explore for and produce oil and natural gas offshore. But this Administration’s policies are delaying offshore production, hindering nuclear energy expansion and seeking to impose job-killing cap and trade energy policies.”
There are a few problems with McDonnell’s statement. Obama is planning on increasing the level of federal loans guarantees for new nuclear reactors. Some form of cap and trade is inevitable whether McDonnell likes it or not. Cutting carbon emissions may kill some jobs, but it will create others in “green” technologies. Curiously, power firms Duke and Dominion back some version of cap and trade.
Most problematic is McDonnell’s lunge for offshore. First, no one really knows how much petroleum is in the area, says Karen Matusic of the American Petroleum Institute. Koch, the past ODU president, says that his data showing the jobs was actually a quickie extrapolation and more review is needed. McDonnell wants state revenue from oil production to help solve transportation issues, but even in the best case, oil wouldn’t flow until nearly 2020. And, a number of other interested parties, including environmentalists, the New Jersey seafood industry and former high-ranking naval officers, have all taken issue with drilling off Virginia.
Even though Obama pushed offshore oil and gas in his State of the Union speech as well, federal officials have postponed the lease sale past 2011, drawing McDonnell’s wrath. And, earlier attempts to explore off the Mid-Atlantic have come to nothing. In the late 1970s, for instance, oil patch construction firm Brown & Root leased large land tracts near Cape Charles to fabricate giant offshore drilling platforms. The land eventually became a luxury golf course after no oil was found and a moratorium on offshore drilling was begun in 1983.
If McDonnell wants to create jobs, he might consider playing to the state’s strengths. The fastest growing job sector, according to the employment commission, has been in federal jobs.
That has its own ironies. A staunch conservative, McDonnell says he wants “limited” government and tough curbs on spending. Yet Virginia’s economic ace in the hole is its proximity to Washington and rich mix of federal defense and security employment. Such jobs mitigated recession damage in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. Richmond’s woes would have been much greater had it not been for expansions at Ft. Lee in Petersburg.
That brings up another McDonnell irony. He loves to advertise his Army service and that of his daughter while lashing into the typical, right-wing bug-a-boo of the evil federal government.
It seems that the new governor has a few things to sort out. For ideas on winning jobs, he’s presenting retreads and goofballs. Nothing appears to go to the heart of Virginia’s unemployment problem.
Peter Galuszka


ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)




Comments


Comments

62 responses to “McDonnell’s Lame Jobs Plan”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    The prediction for the fastest growing sector in the near to intermediate future will be health care jobs.

    These jobs won't be for doctors, PA's, registered nurses and surgeons, but for home health care and other support workers.

    I could put ten people to work here on the farm, if there was any way to pay them. That means the place has to produce a lot more than $100 an acre. Some of it could be classified as environmental services, if we operated the way New Zealand and some other countires do.

    Looking around at other farms, I see I am not alone. I see a lot of underutilized or badly utilized land that needs a lot of maintenance. Just like VDOT the list of things that need to be done and the budget and schedule to do it with, don't match.

    WPA anyone?

    Then of course there are all the things that could be self supporting, but they are prohibited for AG zones.

    RH

  2. McDonnell will do a state version of WPA?

    well there you go.

    you get NoVa to pay for new roads for RoVa…

    it puts those folks to work.. gives health care workers a lot better way to zip around to serve their customers…

    and their economy improves and requires less LCI from NoVa.

    It's a PERFECT SOLUTION!

    Ray – I take back everything I said about you.

  3. "A staunch conservative, McDonnell says he wants "limited" government and tough curbs on spending……

    He loves to advertise his Army service and that of his daughter while lashing into the typical, right-wing bug-a-boo of the evil federal government……"

    Excellent observation.

    The area I live in is full of Neocon's who preach (literally) limited government…..yet their spouse, brother, sister, cousin, etc., earn a living working for the Fed's….it's the most insane thing I have ever seen.

    Jobless recovery??? No such thing….not this time around.

    The scary thing is…..credible sources are saying it could be 2012 or 2013 before we see unemployment numbers drop back to "normal" and many economists think unemployment will still be at 7% or more then….scary stuff.

    RH, what types of things could you do on your farm with a WPA type program?

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    This was a campaign prop. It was a much better campaign prop than many of those used in recent statewide elections. But isn't it a little unfair to act like this was a serious program proposal? We need to be a bit realistic about these things.

    NoVA Scout

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    " and many economists think unemployment will still be at 7% or more then….scary stuff."

    ==================================

    Why is that so scary?

    We have the most productive society the world has ever seen. At what point do we get to kick back and relax a litle? How much stuff do we really need to make, buy, own, dispose of?

    Lets all take 7% more time off, and use it to volunteer with. It isn't that there isn't plenty of work to be done, just not all of it is "profitable".

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    We could clean out the traders by putting a federal tax of 80% on capital gains on assets held less than six months. The states would likely add another 10 to 15%. Then cut the tax on capital gains on assets held five years or more to zero.

    We see investments in businesses and technology instead of arbitrage and the crap that constitutes Wall Street. I know a number of businesses that would be hiring if they could get capital investment, but the money is tied up in the hands of traders.

    TMT

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    Which is it that you oppose more: profits or liberty?

    When the market was crashing last year and everyone was panic selling, who was buying? Evil speculators covering their shorts.
    evil speculators were making money AND paying you more for your shares than had we not been there. How low would the market have gone without speculators? How much more money would you have lost?

    To hate speculators because they profited as others lost is silly. Someone has to buy in order for someone to sell and when they buy or sell is immaterial. You don;t hear any complaints about speculators who buy as the market is going down, only about those who (apparently) control a market on the upside, creating (what some believe to be) artificially high prices for everone

    Those who lost money in the markets did so because they made bad decisions. If you didn't want to lose money then you shouldn't have risked it.

    Speculators also tend to add liquidity, tighten spreads, and lower brokerage commissions, making it cheaper to enter and exit markets for longer term investors.

    And lets not forget the most important reason why not to bash speculators – in a free society people should have the right to bid and offer whatever they want, whenever they want, at any price they want.

    You do not eliminate risk by making a longer term investment, and that is why a short loan is chepaer than a long one.

    "God bless the speculator!", says the cattle farmer who needs to hedge his risk against falling cattle prices buy selling short in the futures market.

    A farmer hedges and a speculator speculates. You cannot have one without the other. Markets are made of different participants with different needs. There motives are underpinned by a variety of risks that the nature of the participant's role is exposed to.

    The cattle market usually consists of a train of cow/calf operation, stocker operations, and market beef operations, and each of these operations births or buys animals, and keep them approximately six months. The cattle are treated as capital investments subject to capital gains. Your proposals, as written, would pretty much wipe out the cattle business.

    Yes, there are some abuses in unsupported derivatives, but there are also derivatives that have along history of utility that is crucial to some other business, like insurors.

    Some reforms and controls may be needed but yoour proposals are extreme.

    RH

  8. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    RH
    is right about speculators. That's just how the market works. Short sellers help set true prices and keep things straight and clean up messes.
    I always find it amusing when so-called free market-types start making devils out of speculators when they are essential to the free market system.

    Peter Galuszka

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    Speculate all you want. But let's tax short-term trading and reward long-term investing. Just hold your bet for six months.

    TMT

  10. Anonymous Avatar

    Just hold your bet for six months.

    Like I pointed out the cattle market is divided into three sectors that are each only six months long: calf to 400-600 lbs, stocker to around 900, and feed cattle from 900 up. The time an investment is held is purely arbitrary, and the people raising the cattle don't necessarily own them: that is done by investors and speculators.

    Now, if you ask me ifthere is a problem with microtraders that hold investmnts for less than a second, then we might find some areas of agrement.

    There is a lot of wierd stuff out there, like weather insurance for weddings. Still,it is avaluabl product that peopl buy and sell – and it is supported by speculators.

    I still fail to understand how you are supposed to get to long term profits – without short term profits.

    I make hay in May and June. If I sell it before October I should pay 80% tax?

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    Speculate all you want. But let's tax short-term trading and reward long-term investing.

    ===============================

    Speculate all you want, just give me a piece of tha action at no risk to me.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    "The state of Washington isn't fully paying for basic public education, a violation of its constitutional duty, a King County judge ruled Thursday in a lawsuit brought by a coalition of school districts, parents and teachers.

    The decision from Superior Court Judge John Erlick came after nearly two months of testimony in the case. School districts, community leaders and others participating in the suit said the state was leaving school districts to rely on local levies, donations and PTA fundraisers to educate students.

    The state doesn't provide enough money to give every child a chance to meet the state's essential learning requirements, the judge said. Instead, the state depends on funding formulas that don't correlate with the actual cost to teach the state's 1 million children, he wrote.

    "The court is left with no doubt that under the State's current financing system the State is failing in its constitutional duty to make ample provision for the education of all children," the judge wrote in his decision. "This court is convinced that basic education is not being funded by a stable and dependable source of funds provided by the state."

    Seattle Times

    What was that about funding formulas?

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    Over their lifetimes, American men have a 52% chance of being arrested.

    Clearly we have too many laws.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    So, here the thing about "speculators":

    "Gasoline prices rose about a dime a gallon in Louisville Wednesday after a surprise drop in the nation’s supply triggered a jump in wholesale prices in New York trading."

    via http://www.courier-journal.com

    If the supply drop was expected the price change would have been realized in advance.

    From Environmental Economics.

    RH

  15. Groveton Avatar

    RH:

    The Washington State Constitution <> The US Constitution <> The Virginia Constitution.

    Best wishes,

    G.

  16. Cruising around Great Falls yesterday – River Bend Park and surround environs.

    I think the phrase highfalutin must have been defined for Great Falls.

    My travel companion and I speculated as to the nature of the folks who own such grandiose diggings….

    Republicans in BLUE Fairfax?

    GS 15s or High Tech executives that inhabit the high rise office towers that surround Great Falls?

    and which of these sumptuous digs had Grovetons name on the mailbox?

    My friend and I both concluded that RoVa should be danged appreciative of the NoVa economic powerhouse but with the proviso that NoVa should not be feeling too big for it's pants as it's clear that the taxes collected from those folks in RoVa and, in fact, across the USA… oozes from the govt teat throughout NoVa.

    I'm quite sure that some of those very fancy homes were the fruits of speculation.

    I'm fine with speculation as long as the bets are not covered by the taxpayers.

    When we say "too big to fail" – we mean literally that the govt has skin in that game – when perhaps it should not have from the get go.

    Fannie/Freddie were central in the housing meltdown as they apparently were just fine with buying "securitized" sub-prime mortgages and the "speculators" were more than just fine with this ponzi scheme because once it collapsed … all the players went home with Uncle Sam dollars in their pockets – courtesy of folks living in RoVa and NoVa.

    In that regard, I make a friendly amendment to TMT's suggestion – don't charge a tax, charge an insurance fee – 80% of the speculated amount.

    and then when it collapses.. pay them off with their own dollars and not Uncle Sam dollars.

  17. One more point about Great Falls.

    NO SERVICES. Totally Pedestrian Hostile… absolutely no way to walk to anything.

    EVERYTHING …REQUIRES an automobile.

    GREAT FALLS is the Poster Child of auto-dependent development.

    it is the mirror opposite of EMR's "functional settlement pattern".

    …but it is one heck of a beautiful area although there are some places that literally scream " I don't give a rip what you think of my taste in homes".

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    You make this sound like a bad thing. I would think attracting the likes of SAIC, VW, Hilton, and RR would be good for the Commonwealth.

    "Curiously, the governor's fund would offer goodies to such rich firms as Northrop Grumman which is thinking about relocating from Southern California to the greater Washington area. Not only does this give big firms special benefits, the idea is hardly new. Former Govs. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner reached into the goodie bowl to get defense contractor SAIC, Hilton Hotels, Volkswagen and Rolls Royce."

  19. question. Do we really care where the jobs come from if we end up with net jobs especially in RoVa?

    better question.

    What kinds of jobs COULD be attracted to RoVa and is it worth the Governors efforts to try to attract them there

    OR.. would it be better to attract the jobs to NoVa and then tax NoVa folks to pay unemployment and school benefits for RoVa?

    no ..don't ya'll all try to answer this question at once now.

  20. and I'm going to anticipate Groveton's 3rd suggestion which would be to encourage/force people who live in RoVa to come to NoVa to get a job.

    Could your standard run-of-the-mill 50-year old RoVa actually get a job at VW or high tech govt contractors?

    I doubt it.

    Second, where would these folks live?

    They'd surely need "affordable" housing right ?

    and we already know that one of the things that NoVA really sucks at – is providing affordable housing.

    so RoVa folks migrating to NoVA would become 100-miles-a-day commuters in all likelihood – no?

  21. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Anonymous,
    Nothing wrong with bringing in corporate headquarters. My point is that all governors have done it. Also, Va., as most states, does it with lots of tax breaks and the like. The anti-welfare crowd seems to like that — corporate welfare (didn't Northrop Grumman just turn an attractive profit? That's all.

    Groveton, please calm down. Take three long breaths. Or have three dry martinis.

    Peter Galuszka

  22. Groveton Avatar

    "Groveton, please calm down. Take three long breaths. Or have three dry martinis.".

    The martinis sound good although they would just make me want to strangle LarryG more.

    I deleted my comment. In a battle of wits LarryG is an unarmed man. Like kicking an annoying dog, pasting LarryG makes you feel temporarily better. However, in the end, you realize it's just a dog (or, in this case, LarryG).

  23. Anonymous Avatar

    Some edits for Gooze View above:

    RH is right about THE CURRENT STATE OF MARKET speculators. That's just how the CURRENT UNINFORMED market GAMBLING VENUE works. Short sellers set PRICES THAT SERVE THEIR NEEDS, NOT THOSE OF A FREE, OPEN MARKET. THEY MASK true VALUES and keep things CONFUSED and CREATE messes.

    I always find it amusing when so-called free market-types start making devils out of speculators BECAUSE THEY REALLY DO NOT WANT A WELL INFORMED free market system.

    PGR

  24. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton:

    Do not know why you are mad at Larry G.

    He did an accurate survey of the Great Falls Zip.

    RMS

  25. well the high rises are not IN Great Falls but they are 4 miles away via the beltway.

    and we know why they are well&septic – the same reason the rich folks in Facquier won't agree to subdividing land.

    You put water/sewer in Great Falls and the next thing you know someone like EMR is going to snooping around trying to turn it into another Reston or Tyson's Corner.

    Right Groveton?

    I don't envy the folks in Great Falls ESPECIALLY those like Groveton who got their by the sweat of their brow… literally.

    Too many of us went for the "safe" job with "benefits" and folks like Groveton really do provide a lion's share of the taxes that pay for others who think the govt owes them something not caring that the "govt" is literally taxpayers.

    I'm on board with the concerns about an entitlement society – absolutely we are going to kill the golden goose if we don't get our act together.

    well.. at least Groveton has not called me a "cur" …..yet.

    I don't know about youse guys but I had NO CLUE what I was going to do when I got out of high school. I had good parents but neither of them had a higher education and even though they thought it was "good" idea.. I, for one, never realized that you needed to be preparing for it in high school.

    I always thought it was something you worried about AFTER high school.

    Nowdays… parents have their kids pointed that way in elementary school.

    I did finally get the "higher" but by that time I was 15 years into a career.. and too used to the relative safety of that life.

  26. Groveton Avatar

    RMS:

    It's hard to know where to start when finding fault with LarryG's logic. I'll pick a few areas but my analysis will be incomplete. After all, I have a job which means that I can't spend a lot of time roaming around parks on weekdays and writing inane commentary about places I don't understand.

    My first point is general. LarryG, and people like him, are net consumers of government funds. When they drive around neighborhoods and criticize net providers of government funds I have to question their actions. LarryG apparently doesn't much like GS15's and high tech executives. Let's forget the fact that best paid government employees are on the Senior Executive Service (SES) pay scale and not the GS scale – that's just another fact that LarryG doesn't understand. But let's indulge him for a minute … how much do those high falutin GS15s make a year? They make between $99K and $129K. And they make that salary only after decades of work and success in organizations where they will never see a stock option of a company funded boondoggle. Meanwhile, people like LarryG wander aimlessly around parks complaining about the people who defend our country, protct our secrets and manage our national finances. The fact that few GS-15s could afford houses that cost $700,000 and up never enters his mind as he rants and raves about his weekday foray into our local parks. Personally, I am just glad that none of my kids were in the park when LarryG and his friend were there. Because, let's be honest, what kind of people wander around parks on ice cold days in February?

    LarryG's inane commentary provides a target rich environment. So many hallucinations, so little time.

    Here's a good bit …

    "I'm quite sure that some of those very fancy homes were the fruits of speculation.

    I'm fine with speculation as long as the bets are not covered by the taxpayers.

    When we say "too big to fail" – we mean literally that the govt has skin in that game – when perhaps it should not have from the get go.

    Fannie/Freddie were central in the housing meltdown as they apparently were just fine with buying "securitized" sub-prime mortgages and the "speculators" were more than just fine with this ponzi scheme because once it collapsed … all the players went home with Uncle Sam dollars in their pockets – courtesy of folks living in RoVa and NoVa.".

    Which of the GS-15s work for agencies that were bailed out by the government? DoD? CIA? Agriculture? Oh right, LarryG is the master of non-sequiter. It must be those high technology executives. You know … the guys at PSINet, Net2000, Teligent, etc. They were all NoVa high technology firms which failed and they were all bailed out by the government. Oh wait, none of them were bailed out by anybody. The investors lost all of their money. Hmmmm…

    "EVERYTHING …REQUIRES an automobile.".

    When you have nothing intelligent to say, use a lot of capitals. Did LarryG see those big furry people walking around in fields on all fours in Great Falls? They are actually horses. What kind of car do the horses drive? There are many trails in Great Falls where people walk, run and ride horses. They are not well marked becuase … well … becacuse we don't want unemployed people who hang around public parks on weekdays in February to know about them. Go figue.

    Gotta run. I have a teleconference. It's snowing but I am at work. Earning a salary so I can pay taxes to pay for the parks where people like LarryG congregate.

  27. Anonymous Avatar

    RH:

    The Washington State Constitution <> The US Constitution <> The Virginia Constitution.

    ==================================

    Granted.

    But these are all fundamental legal documents, and we would expectthme to espouse fundamentally similar principles, no?

    Shoud not one be able to learn from another?

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    In that regard, I make a friendly amendment to TMT's suggestion – don't charge a tax, charge an insurance fee – 80% of the speculated amount.

    and then when it collapses.. pay them off with their own dollars and not Uncle Sam dollars.

    ===================================

    Makes no sense.

    You charge me an 80% fee for speculation as an incnetive not to speculate. But under those rules I can only speculat in ventures that I think will return close to 200%—WHICH WOULD BE THE MOST RISKY VENTURES.

    Your 80% fee is now government money, which you keep if myventure succeeds,but you use to pay me off if it fails. This puts the government enven more in a position of wishing for bad ventures to succeed, and gives even more incentive to find waysw to subsidize them.

    It is pretty much the ame result as if yu tax profits at 80%. Larry seems to think that you can hid reality behind semantics, but stealing is stil sealing and a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

    The way to stop wild speculation is to allow it and don't bail it out. But, if the boat is sinking that is one problem, wheras, if the continent is sinking that's a different one.

    RH

  29. re: " The way to stop wild speculation is to allow it and don't bail it out"

    if you could wall off the places where the govt interfaces with the private sector then that would work.

    But why do we have an FDIC ?

    If you understand why we have an FDIC – and agree.. then it's not that big a step to set up something like FDIC for more risky ventures.

    but we've already done what Ray suggests and what happened?

    what should we do to prevent a repeat?

  30. Anonymous Avatar

    Short sellers set PRICES THAT SERVE THEIR NEEDS, NOT THOSE OF A FREE, OPEN MARKET.

    =================================

    A short seller does not SET a price. He places a bet on a price and if the (real market, whose price he does not control) does not return a price that is atleast as low as the price of his bet, then he loses money, and those people (in the real market) make money at his expense.

    Anyone who was informed about the market would know this. You can goo out there today and plasce a short on Toyota, and there is good chance you will win that bet.

    You go ahead and do that, and then explain to me how you controlled toyotas price to make sure your bet came in.

    I would love to know, and so would FTC.

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar

    FDIC is not set up to punish people who deposit money in their savings and checking accounts, it is set up to insure against fraud and embezzlement by bank insiders, and FDIC provides bank examiners to search for evidence of fraud and for evidence of good banking practices and procedures to prevent fraud. (Even in FDIC banks, the "insurance" winds up coming out of the proceeds to depositors and stockholders.")

    What you are suggesting with regard to speculation is a similar but completely different idea designed to punitively prevent speculation up front.

    Like I said above, in your world semantics and reality are completely divorced.

    Assuming the idea is NOT to punish speculators, how would such an idea work?

    Commercial banking is no secret: you take in deposits at 3% and make loans at 6%. If you have no expenses, no salaries, no friction, no losses and no rent then thou can loan out half of your deposits and break even: you need 50% reserves. In practice it is not anywhere near so rosy, and you need to loan out every deposeit two or three times before you break even, and this sets the sage for a "run on the bank".

    But how would that possibly work in an investment bank? Aventure capitalists throws money at (carefully researched) ideas knowing that only one in five or ten will succeed. He charges his investors a fee for his research and oversight. and he expects avery large cut fromthe ones that do succeed.

    A bank examiner can ensure that only the money frome fees is used for his expenses and the rest is properly invested, but in WHAT???

    The whole idea is to take risk.

    Now you ask, what idiot gives his money to a venture capitalist with a one in ten track record?

    Someone who is going tolose the money anyway. If I know I am facing a tax bill for 100,000 I may as well give it to charity and avoid the bill, or to a venture capitalist and throw the dice (at uncle sam's expense).

    If I win I pay a lot more tax than otherwise, but I've got a lot more to pay it with. If I lose, well, so what?

    When rich people complain about higher taxes it's like Brer Rabbit "Please don't throw me in that briar patch, please."

    rh

    Groveton, if you look in the general direction of F'burg, you willsee plumes of smoke any second now.

  32. there's nothing punitive about it.

    It's for the same reason we have the FDIC.

    if speculation can cause damage beyond the parties engaging in it – then it becomes something that requires regulation intended to protect those who become collateral damage.

    That's the way the FDIC works.

    It does not care HOW something happened until after the fact.

    In the beginning, it's goal is to protect the depositors first then track down the miscreants later.

    The FDIC uses "indicators" much like canaries in a mine.

    Bad banks have a "smell" that can be detected.

    so the standard for govt regulation is – if the activity has the potential to harm those who did not engage in the betting..then it needs to put in place an FDIC-like regulatory authority – without blaming anyone… just protecting people who did nothing wrong.

    If you do not protect these things, many people including institutional investors will stop investing money in the markets – which is what happened during the last depression.

  33. Anonymous Avatar

    but we've already done what Ray suggests and what happened?

    =============================

    Not actually, because we did bail them out. Now we are having buyers remorse.

    We bailed them out for what we thought wer good reasons, and we didn't bail them ALL out.

    We got some of the money back. We may get more. Whether the whole idea was a good one or not, I think it is too soon to tell, we are suffering due to our own predilection for intstnat gratification. We didn't get here suddenly and we won't get out suddenly.

    We only have one economy to experiment with, so we have no direct control experiment to compare with. We do know that China had a bigger stimulus than ours and snapped back faster nad Europe had a smller one and is snapping back slower.

    Now we see Greece, and Spain running out of money for stimulus. Will they be the first so slip ito double dip recession? Looking at the market today, does not look so hot.

    The real hotbed of remorse is that the big guys got breaks and the homeowner speculators didn't.

    And the locus of pain, remains among the unemployed, soon to be Republicans.

    RH

  34. we bailed them out because we HAD TO or risk collapse of our economy.

    is that's not proof enough that regulation is needed, I don't know what is.

    Speculation is capable of effectively destroying the markets.

    People will pull out of the markets if they no longer trust them.

    They'll max out their FDIC-insured accounts and see investments that are super secure.

    and the banks will stop lending.

    sound familiar?

    you guys kill me. 3 years ago, ya'll were saying that our whole economy was based on the housing market – and that – was OKAY…. win-win…

    NOT! look what has happened.

  35. Anonymous Avatar

    That's the way the FDIC works.

    Not at all. FDIC is mainly to prevent outright bank fraud. It also covers when banks find thmeselves in excessive loan to reserves situations. This can happen through no real "fault" of the bank. The town cannery fails and the whole town defaults, type of thing.

    There is nothing punitive about the relatively small fees FDIC charges.

    But what youare talking about is a plan to prevent speculation. it would be as if you prevented bank failures by outlawing mortgages.

    Some kind of new regs are obviously required,but what youand TMT have proposed is extreme. Some people think we shoud re-enact the Glass Steagall (sp?) act, to keep commercial and investment banks "separate".

    Institutional investors ought to be the ones with enough expertise to understand how the market works, and they are among the biggest speculators. Go figure.

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar

    so the standard for govt regulation is – if the activity has the potential to harm those who did not engage in the betting..then it needs to put in place an FDIC-like regulatory authority – without blaming anyone… just protecting people who did nothing wrong.

    ===============================

    I guess I have no problem with that, but it is different from what I heard you say above.

    It ought to be the standard for ALL gov't regulation: make sure no one gets harmed.

    RH

  37. It's what I've said all along but perhaps you did not read it right.

    The govt does regulate on this basis – you just don't agree with the way they do it…

    but then again.. the short traders don't agree with the govt either.

    but it is the basis for the FDIC and the FDIC was created after the first great depression for precisely that reason.

    "Bank runs were common because there wasn't insurance on deposits at banks, and citizens ran the risk of losing the money that they had deposited if their bank failed."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation

    and if we don't do something about our markets – a whole bunch of people are going to not put their money at risk any longer.

  38. Groveton Avatar

    I have to confess to being a liitle confused by the speculation / government bailout link. Let's take a few examples. The government bailed out Fannie Mae, AIG, General Motors (among others). Who were the speculators in FM, AIG, GM? The shareholders? Isn't that you and me with our 401(k) plans, etc? Was it the banks who AIG insured? If so, is it the shareholders of the banks – once again, you and me?

    I'm not sure that owning a share of GM makes me a speculator. It might make me a lousy investor but I can't see "speculator". And didn't the real speculators who sold AIG short end up getting screwed by the government bailout?

    I'd rather see malpractice cases against the executives of public companies. Doctors make honest mistakes and people die or get hurt. Then, the doctor gets sued. The injured parties recover when the malpractice insurance company pays. That doctor either has to pay higher insurance premiums or he/she can't practice medicine anymore.

    Why should MDs have all the fun? I think business executives (at public companies) should be required to carry insurance too. If the company needs a government bailout – the insurer pays. Then, the insurance premiums for the executives involved in the meltdown go up. Maybe the executive has a substantial personal co-pay requirement.

    Oddly, I have respect for the speculators. At least the guys I know. They risk their own money. Sometimes they win big, sometimes they lose big. They add liquidity to the market and set pricing signals that are important to non-speculative investors.

    It's the small percentage of executives at public companies that gamble with other people's money that bother me. Those knuckleheads pretend they have all kinds of risk models and procedural safeguards while they are stuffing money into their own pockets. Then, when the emperor is shown to have no clothes, they slink off into the night with bags and bags of personal wealth. At least they should lose all the money whichthey took while they were mismanaging the company.

  39. GM was going to go down because they could not secure enough financing to stay afloat.

    Ford also had to borrow but they had the foresight or dumb luck to have got their loan before the credit markets froze up.

    They already knew that the country was going to be in deep doo doo and if the jobs from GM and it' suppliers went away – we'd be facing a depression.

    Now ya'll might be so hard nosed as to say that if GM deserved to fail and it's too bad it drove the country into a recession then tough cookies but the guys in charge felt like the cure would be worse than the disease and they were forced with the least stinky of some really rotten choices.

    Ironically, the govt DOES require capitalization levels for conventional banks to require them to meet solvency standards but there were no such requirements on these other financial institutions.

    By the way.. Doctors don't want all that fun.. they have insurance and they're begging for "tort reform".

    But anyone who has read about how this meltdown came to be knows that the bundled "securitized" mortgages.. not the first one would have seen the light of day if Fannie/Freddie would not buy them.

    Fannie/Freddie are exceptionally dangerous institutions because they are half private and half govt and that's got conflict of interest written all over it.

    The credit-default scumbags KNEW that the govt would step in if things came unglued.

    They correctly made that bet.

  40. Anonymous Avatar

    make sure no one gets harmed.

    The government does regulate on this basis.

    ===============================

    Rally?

    There is a big, big difference between no one gets harmed on average, and no one gets harmed.

    The former is not efficient, and the second one is.

    RH

  41. Anonymous Avatar

    "Bank runs were common because there wasn't insurance on deposits at banks, and citizens ran the risk of losing the money that they had deposited if their bank failed."

    yes, but bank insurance was not intended to punish the depositors the way your plan is intended to punish speculators.

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar

    Why should MDs have all the fun? I think business executives (at public companies) should be required to carry insurance too.

    ===============================

    Well. Now you are talking. Recent laws that require Executives to Certify audit results are a step in that direction.

    In theory, shareholders ahve voting rights, but in practice that is mostly a sham.

    We can do a lot better, but not by vapid denigration of "speculators" and "short term profits".

    RH

  43. Anonymous Avatar

    Then, when the emperor is shown to have no clothes, they slink off into the night with bags and bags of personal wealth. At least they should lose all the money whichthey took while they were mismanaging the company.

    Now you ae getting somewhere.

    Ken Lay scored HUGE for his family when he died, because prosecution could not go forward.

    There are times when government uses its longevity extremely badly, as the case with Dorothy English. Then there are tmes whenthe government uses its logevity extremey badly, as the case against Kevin Lay.

    He should have been tried in absentia.

    RH

  44. not your father's economic developer Avatar
    not your father's economic developer

    But do you guys have any opinions on the Governor's plans???? You guys crack me up with these extended self-referential dialogues.

  45. Well, having seen a long list of govs who say they are a "jobs" governor and then proceed to not really focus on it in any significant way such that the performance can be measured….

    then what is there to really comment about?

    McDonnell has started off badly by DIVERTING VDOT maintenance money …sorely needed right now for snow removal – to open up the rest areas….

    So.. he's RAIDING the maintenance money in direct violation of the Va Constitution that says that maintenance comes first.

    but I digress..

    Governors in Georgia, Mississippi, etc, have paid incentives to the likes of Kia and Toyota and other auto companies to put up new jobs-producing plants for their unemployed who used to work at mills now gone.

    In Virginia, we ARGUE about whether we should pay incentives while at the same time arguing about how much NoVa should pay to support the unemployed in RoVa.

    Where is McDonnell on this?

    Kaine deduced that short-term jobs were probably not possible until those folks had access to better training so he focused on getting more Community Colleges and similar programs to those areas – but at the end of the day – no quick fix for jobs.

    What Kaine did could truly be called an investment.. that will not pay off right away.

    so McDonnell has a clean slate.

    and to be honest, if he has significant ideas about how to get RoVa more employed, I have yet to see it.

    Unlike others, I'm not going to condemn this guy in his first months in office for non-performance, but at some point, he'll have to deliver "something" on his promises and I'm all ears to hear whatever ideas and plans that he might have.

  46. one more thing…

    Do we believe that the "govt" can "create" jobs?

    Whether it is Obama or McDonnell do you believe that their leadership can induce the govt to "create" longer-term (not stimulus) jobs?

    If you believe this, then how about citing some examples of how this was actually done – and no I'm not buying tax cuts for the wealthy unless you can provide fairly compelling proof.

  47. Anonymous Avatar

    I like Ray's idea of holding CEO's (how about the board of directors also?) accountable. The downside should be as great as the upside.

    Speculation is not the problem per se. I've probably not used the term as accurately as I should have. The problem is we need long-term investment and we reward short-term trading. I know several people with very good business plans that, if they had access to capital or even loans, could deliver useful products and services to the market; hire more employees; make investments in new technology.

    The financial services sector is too big. It doesn't provide much value to the general economy, and sets up huge risks that taxpayers have been forced to cover. Sort of like the Tysons landowners are trying to do.

    We've divorced commodity prices from supply and demand. Read some of the reports from the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. There's rampant violation of rules. Look at Enron. Speculate all you want on gold, oil and pork bellies. But make the risk bigger – hold your speculative bet for six months or more, or face huge taxes on any gains. Clean up that mess, and you'd find capital actually looking for good business cases in invest in.

    TMT

  48. well.. we don't really regulate what amounts to legalized betting on the future values of not only commodities but performance of companies.

    and the market severely punishes those companies that "over" invest in the future at the expense of shorter term profits.

    I believe that Toyota's current problems are caused in part by the pressure to deliver short term profits and encouraged them to stray from their "quality first" paradigm.

  49. one of the issues with "shorts" back during the depression and now is how much money do you have to provide is order to make a short bet?

    If all shorts required 100% money and not 10%, how many "shorts" would be actually made?

    And as far as I know, losses from shorts are tax deductible – why?

    why not fully tax short bets?

  50. Anonymous Avatar

    And as far as I know, losses from shorts are tax deductible – why?

    Because it is a business loss, same as any other business loss. We treat eeryone equally.

    Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

    The way a short works is that you "borrow" shares and sell them at the current price. Then you hope the price goes down. If the price goes down you go to the market and buy shares at a lower price and use them to return the ons you borrowed.

    Your profit is the difference etween what you sold the borrowed sahres for minus what you had to pay for the replacement shares.

    If the stock zeors out, you can lose 100% of the value of the borrowed shares.

    You usually have to put down between 10 and 30% of the price of the shares. Your contract is "settled" at the close of every business day.

    Say you borrow 100 shares at $10 a share and you put down $100 on a $1000 contract. At the end of the day your share price went UP $5.00 and so now you have borrowed shares worth $1500.

    The person you borrowed from is now at increased risk, and he will demand that you fork over another $50, as a margin call. That settlemnt process happens every day, and it is based on the actual closing price of that stock in the open market. The short seller has no control over that unless he is a huge trader and has "cornered the market", but there are already limits on that sort of thing.

    The contract has an expiration date so that on or before that date the borrower must make good on his deal and return the shares.

    Selling "short" has the opposite effect of what we usually think of as speculation – which is somehow artificially driving the price UP through purchases that are not really supported by the market. Selling short, therefore, keeps prices artificially LOW.

    But whether you are buying short or long there must be a willing seller on the other side of the transaction, and as far as the sale goes it makes no difference whther the person on the other side is a short term "investor" or a long term "speculator".

    What most people don't undersand is that those contracts are "settled" every day at the prevailing MARKET price.

    I sometimes have a buyer show up in a tractor trailer and buy hay from me in bulk. He intends to re-sell that hay at a later date and a higher price. He takes that risk, but if I need the money NOW, I could care less.

    But, he might just as well call up and offer me a contract, in which he will pay me 5% of the cost of the hay to hold it until some future date. If the price goes up more than 5% he takes delivery of the hay and sells it for a profit.

    If it goes up less than 5% he is "under water" an he may cancels the contract. I keep his 5% plus I still sell the hay at a higher price than before.

    But if the price goes down, he may cancel his contract and I am stuck with hay I have to sell at a lower price, but my loss is REDUCED by the 5% I got from him.

    With the first fellow I have no risk, and no gain. In the second case, I start to take on risk by entering the contract.

    —————————

    When the county makes an uncompensated zoning change they are effectively cancelling a contract or agreement previously entered, and reneging on their 5% as well.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar

    Willing buyers and willing sellers. That's not the point. There are willing buyers and willing sellers for cocaine and 14 year olds too. But we don't support those markets.

    If the country believes that we need a greater long-term focus, what is wrong with changing the tax consequences? My wife is a general partner is a small family farm in Ohio. Because she is not a real estate professional, she is not permitted to deduct losses, but must report gains. So let's adopt similarly restricted rules for short-term traders.

    Hold your assets for at least six months and you get ordinary income tax treatment for gains and losses. Flip'em more quickly and you pay a much higher tax (80%) and can only offset losses against gains for the sale of capital assets held six months or less.

    I own a couple of mutual funds that have trading restrictions. There's no reason

    Ditto for increasing the margins on short sales. There's nothing wrong with someone going short, but neither is there for requiring higher up front payments, a reinstatement of the up-tick rule and an obligation to actually borrow the stock before selling short.

    TMT

  52. Anonymous Avatar

    "Willing buyers and willing sellers. That's not the point. There are willing buyers and willing sellers for cocaine and 14 year olds too. But we don't support those markets."

    ================================

    Oh, come on. What kind of argument is that?

    Buying and sellig 14 year olds is nothing like buying or selling VESTAS or Ray's Hay.

    In one case we don't support the PRODUCT because it is illegal. What you are suggesting is that we shouldnot suppor thr PROFITS from an otherwise legal transaction, and ONLY if he profits are made "too quickly".

    Guy buys a truckload of hay from me, dives down to the corner and re-sells it at a higher price.

    Why should I care? He is the one who found the customer, he is entitled to the money whether he gets it today or next week.

    And, by the way, you still owe taxes on profits from the sale of illegal products.

    RH

  53. Anonymous Avatar

    "Because she is not a real estate professional, she is not permitted to deduct losses, but must report gains."

    ——————————–

    Well, is it a farm or real estate speculation she is involved in? If she is a "passive investor" then the money she makes or loses is already accounted for at the operations level.

    A farm or a marina, for example, could lose money on operations for decades and still turn a profit when liquidated.

    She cannot take current oprating losses as deductions against her other unrelated income, nor can she very well take those losses against some future and as yet unknown capital gain.

    If the farm is losing money then it is acumulating debt which must be paid off at liquidation. That is why you hear farmers moaning about burning through their equity.

    If you are 55 or 60 years old and yu don't see any improvement in farm income over the next five to ten years, but only continuing losses then maybe it is time to get out and keep what equity you have left.

    That is exactly the situation faced by many midwest livestock farmers, right now. Expect a lot of them to fold. They will be picked up by bigger operations and meat prices will go up.

    RH

  54. Anonymous Avatar

    "If the country believes that we need a greater long-term focus, what is wrong with changing the tax consequences?"

    ===========================

    By "the country" I assume you mean yourself and anyone who thinks as you do.

    The key words here are "IF" and "Believes"

    If I have a choice of making $100 a month for six months or $500 after six months, then what possible reason could I have to believe that I am better off with the longer term focus?

    What if my cash flow is +$300, -$100, +$300, -$100, +$300, -$100 for six one month intervals vs $600 after one six month interval?

    I make the same money either way, but I'm better off the first way.

    If the country believes it needs more focus on doing things the long slow way, then the country needs its head examined.

    =============================

    Your mutual funds have trading restrictions because there are costs associated with trading. In a mutual fund environment those costs are distributed, so a few rapid turnover traders become free riders, picking the other investors pockets.

    If you are buying and selling single stocks and you pay the fees, that is different.

    RH

  55. why does the govt not let you write off Casino gambling expenses but then let you write off gambling expenses on "shorts"?

  56. Anonymous Avatar

    You can write off gambling losses, but only to the extent of your winnings. The only difference is that in investing you may have other investment expenses that are also deductible.

    Investing, no matter how short term is not gambling, despite how some people characterize it. Any time you buy anything, your home included, you incur risk, but that is not the same as gambling.

    We ususally think of an investment as a transaction in which you are reasonably wll assured that your capital will be returned, along with some profit.

    In speculation we recognize the risk that capital will not be returned and we require high rates of return in order to compensate. It is not inconsistent to be risk adverse and still be a speculator, provided thr price for risk is high enough.

    In the case of gambling a bet is placed purely on an instance of chance, and no ownership of anything is implied. Also in gabling the odds always favor the house, whereas in investing their is always a favorable return over time.

    In investing or speculation your return always depends on other people's buying and selling transactions, the market.

    I suppose you could argue that if you bet on a football game, then your outcome depends on the skill and activities of other people, just as it would in a market. Likewise with parimutual betting: your return depends on how other people bet.

    Supposedly such forms of betting introduce some semblance of skill and knowledge into the game: it helps to know how the odds against you change according to the situation.

    Of course, if you like, you can alwasy invest in Gambling by buying casino stocks. That way the house odds are stacked in your favor.

    RH

  57. Anonymous Avatar

    "In our society, in speculation, someone takes the risk inherent in the capitalistic form of endeavor.

    In gambling you create a risk inherent in the capitalistic form of endeavor.

    In gambling you create a risk that is not inherent in our form of society.

    Risk of ownership of real estate, stocks, bonds, commodities, etc., must be borne by someone. Not so if the Redskins must win by four. You create this."

    Bernard C. Baum, in a letter to the sprots page, New York Times.

    RH

  58. and what do you call what Enron did with regard to it's market activities?

  59. Anonymous Avatar

    and what do you call what Enron did with regard to it's market activities?

    ===================================

    Fraud.

    Enron was a classic case of inventing, and then claiming ownership of, new property rights.

    EDF is pretty much in the same business.

    RH

  60. " Enron traded in energy derivatives specifically exempted from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. At a Senate hearing in January 2002, Vincent Viola, chairman of the New York Mercantile Exchange—the largest forum for energy contract trading and clearing—urged that Enron-like companies, which don't operate in trading "pits" and don't have the same government regulations, be given the same requirements for "compliance, disclosure, and oversight."

  61. Anonymous Avatar

    And that was only part of it.

    RH

    Atismst

Leave a Reply


ADVERTISEMENT