Letís do some housing math.  Last fall there were about one million delinquent mortgages.  Let us presume the current figure is now fifty percent worse ñ i.e. one point five million homes.

Assume that the average delinquent loan has a face value of about $180,000, and that a typical mortgage would have a term of from 15 to 30 years to maturity.  Under normal circumstances the borrower would be required to pay about $10,800 per year in interest and principal to amortize the loan.  Because of the variable rate mortgages this cost would be about $20000 per year per loan.

We are told that the housing crises is the cause of the current financial problems of the banking industry and  that fixing the housing crises is a critical first step in restoring financial stability to the economy. On a worst case basis presume that all delinquent mortgages are in default, which is not true because some of the borrowers could make partial payments or could pay if the terms of the mortgages were renegotiated.

The annual cost of the delinquent payments would be $30 billion.  Are we to believe that for a cost of less than $2.5 billion per month all of the defaults of all of the banks on all of the sub prime mortgages could be resolved?

Why then are we talking about payments to banks and financial institutions of more than a trillion dollars? Is there no one in Washington that does the math? Wait, you say, the problem is more difficult. You are right, other complications must be considered.

If the Federal government, on a temporary basis, guaranteed the monthly payments of the mortgages that are delinquent, the banks would have no reason to presume, as they do, that the outstanding balance of the loan is in default.  When banks make this presumption they deduct the total value of the loan from their reserves.  They declare this amount to be a loss which impacts their capital account. The formal declaration of loan default triggers a secondary default of derivative securities for which the sub prime mortgages are collateral. This in turn activates the credit default swaps obligations.

Housing market foreclosure proceedings and the subsequent sale of assets by public auction creates an environment of pure opportunism in which there is no floor price.  The structure of the market encourages instability and low pricing.  This procedure obviously has a negative affect on the whole real estate market.

With respect to renegotiation of troubled mortgages the method of evaluation of property is important.  In a stable, unemotional market the value of a home would be the replacement cost plus the value of the land.  Both factors can be reasonably determined by skilled evaluation. In some instances the land could, in fact, have only nominal value.  In any normal market the value thus determined should represent the minimum basic price at which a house would be sold and also the value for mortgage purposes.

Let us take a typical sub prime home with a 10 year variable rate loan, now at 11%, in the amount of $200,000 which is now under water by $50,000.  The ownerís monthly cost is $2507 per month.   If the calculated assessed value determined by the procedure proposed above is $170,000, a new 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 6% would cost $1049 per month.  The bank would now have a non toxic asset on its books equal to 85% of the original loan value. It is only the remaining 15% that is toxic.

What would be the cost of settling all 1500000 delinquent mortgages, using the same assumptions?   The total amount owing would be $255 billion which would convert into $217 billion of credit worthy loans and toxic assets of $38.25 billion.  Even in a worst case analysis this is the cost of stopping the housing slump, refinancing the banking system and restoring the credit markets to normality.  In total it represents only a few days of normal Federal Government spending.

A matter of great complexity would be the renegotiation of the terms of outstanding credit obligations so that the principal would be secure but the rates of return would be reduced. It took Canada many months to negotiate an arrangement to prevent the default of collateralized debt obligations.

So, maybe my calculations are a bit off.  Suppose the number of homes to be refinanced is double the amount calculated.  Suppose other uncertainties of equal magnitude exist. Nothing adds up to the trillions of dollars spent and proposed to be spent. The magnitude of these expenditures must inevitably lead to the deterioration of the US dollar as a currency.  And, if a significant portion of leveraged debt can be saved, AIG might not need more bail out money.

At this time, with unemployment of 8%, most wage earners are better off than they were a year ago  Oil and gas prices are down, clothing prices are at sale levels.  Cars are being sold at much reduced prices (5 years at 0% interest), housing prices will never again be as low as they are. It would cost only $100 billion per year to double unemployment benefits for the unemployed. Investors, and particularly retirees, have suffered greatly.  With stock prices at enticing fifteen year lows there is hope of some recovery but perhaps something should be done for them as well.

Would someone please kindly explain to me how my calculations can be so wrong! CNN has suggested that the cost of the recovery program proposed to date will be in excess of $2,4 trillion. Is there no one in Washington that can do simple math or is there some rule that rounds off any calculation to the nearest eleven zero figure.

John E. Conner

John Conner is a former Royal Canadian Air Force pilot, an economist and he’s founded and headed a company or two. He’s now retired and free to pour a shot at the Whiskey Bar now and then.

Math of Subprime Mortgage Default was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

By artificially raising the price of gasoline, the net-zero gas tax uses highly effective market forces to channel usage and investment away from oil and toward alternative sources of energy.  This market-based approach demonstrated its effectiveness in response to the surge in oil prices last year:  gasoline consumption subsided and gasoline prices plummeted.  During the surge, it was the Saudiís pocketing the dough.  Net-zero puts the dough back into U.S. taxpayersí pockets.

The most compelling reason for a net-zero gas tax was neglected by Lugar and Krauthammer, though.  The fact is that, on a household-by-household basis, net-zero is actually ìnet-positiveî, and progressive.  This is because there is a strong positive correlation between household income and household gasoline consumption .  Thus the net-zero tax gives a net positive financial benefit to a significant majority of households, because households with the greatest income tend to be extravagant while households with the least income tend to be frugal.  The result is a financial windfall for a substantial majority of taxpayers, especially those with the greatest need.  This will then also serve as an added economic stimulus, with immediate and continuing benefit to the economy.

There is urgency in implementing this net-positive gas tax idea, however, because of accelerating declines in global oil production .  Oil prices (and political tensions) will escalate in response to the inexorable increases in the global demand for oil, most notably in China and the developing world.  Thus if a net-positive gas tax is to be imposed it must be done now, before natural free-market forces drive the price beyond our ability to bear an additional tax.  This in fact already happened, last year.  Fortunately, the current recession has given us a reprieve, one final window of opportunity it seems.  But we must act immediately to hold down the price of oil, or else prepare to open our wallets to OPEC.

Dr. George Doddington

A Net-Positive Gas Tax was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

“It’s not the lie. It’s the coverup” is the old political adage.

Usually, in politics, it’s much better to admit a mistake and move on. I wish to heaven we could learn that lesson in regard to economic downturns.

Downturns are not inevitable forces of nature. They are created, and usually by bad economic policies. This one is no exception.

Most of you have been Agora Financial readers for many years, so you knew this was coming. There is no question that Fed monetary policies, combined with congressional mandates that made easy mortgage loans a virtual entitlement, caused our current economic affliction. I suspect even the people behind these mistakes know this. There’s darned little confession going on, though.

Instead, we’re watching the financial equivalent of a coverup. The politicians who defended and promoted the practice of handing out and then bundling bad loans are blaming the financial institutions that did their bidding.

I’m not saying, by the way, that financial institutions are without blame. We know that because some resisted the lure of commissions that flowed like water from the affordable housing Ponzi scheme.

I’ve told you several times about Jeff Scott, the Austrian economist whose unwelcomed Jeremiah-like lamentations kept Wells Fargo from diving into the subprime river. W.F., as a result, is the healthiest bank in the country. My guess, by the way, is that Scott, like Jeremiah, will pay the price for having been right. You know the old saying about prophets in their own land.

Regardless, my point is that this recession was caused by meddling in the market. The solution to our current distress, therefore, would be to stop meddling.

Unfortunately, our government is in full coverup mode. Those responsible are not only pointing fingers elsewhere, they’ve increased the magnitude of their meddling. Now they are propping up institutions that made bad investments.

The term for these bad investments, in the jargon of Austrian economics, is “malinvestment.” These mistakes take resources out of the self-perpetuating economy, slowing economic growth. When enough malinvestment is eliminated, our economy will grow again. This is a natural process that Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction.”

Delaying that process will not help. The healthiest thing we could do now is to let institutions that mishandled resources fail. Most would be bought by better firms. Many individuals would need help during an intense period of creative destruction, and we should probably give it. The bankers who did the bidding of Congress, however, could sell their Manhattan townhouses and weather the storm well.

On the stem cell front, at least, there’s really good news. Transformational technologies will always overcome downturns in the long run. Some countercyclicals will even do well during a downturn. Once again, however, the media are getting the stem cell story wrong. This change will have little impact on companies working on SC therapies. As I’ve said many times, the ability to create induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells from adult cells has changed everything. The use of embryonic cells in future therapies is now unnecessary, if not foolish.

This is not to say, though, that lifting the ban on the use of federal funding will not produce winners. The reason is that stem cells have important uses beyond therapies that were stifled by the funding ban.

Theoretically, it was possible to privately fund research on unapproved eSC lines under the Bush ban. To do so, though, researchers would have had to cut themselves off from any other work involving federal grant monies. In most cases, disconnecting from the intricate network of federally funded research was a practical impossibility. You would be hard pressed to find a university or big pharmaceutical company that does not accept government grants in some form. The impact of the ban was, therefore, enormous.

The field of research that suffered most was genetic disease drug discovery. Specifically, it was research aimed at finding cures for the inherited genetic diseases that afflict millions of Americans alone. What scientists have long wanted is access to stem cells that carry the diseases they want to treat. With an unlimited number of disease-carrying cells, potential treatments could be tested and analyzed with far greater efficiency.

It is ironic, by the way, that the availability of these cells will actually lead to fewer abortions. Researchers will use stem cells carrying cystic fibrosis, breast cancer, muscular dystrophy and other diseases to produce effective therapies for those conditions. This means that parents who carry those genes will be less likely to screen and reject embryos that have those DNA markers. Obviously, those therapies are also going to make smart investors fortunes. And they will deserve them.

Now, let’s move to the thorium front…

The Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008 is sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, and is designed in large part to produce an alternative solution to the problem of nuclear wastes. Thorium reactor technologies fit that bill for two reasons. Not only do they produce fewer byproducts, they can be used to burn the wastes produced by other nuclear technologies.

A couple of weeks ago, President Obama dramatically moved the thorium industry forward. He announced that he would kill the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository project. This is despite the $9 billion already spent on the project.

Reid, of course, is bragging about his role in the decision. So where does this leave us? The Yucca Mountain project, located in Reid’s home state of Nevada, was considered critical to the future of nuclear power generation in America. Since Obama, Reid and Pelosi all promote nuclear power, this significantly increases the likelihood that thorium reactor technologies will be fast-tracked.

Sincerely,
Patrick Cox

March 12, 2009

Stem Cells, Obama and the Austrians was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Even so, contained within the dire reportage is also some very good news for you personally.

The Bad News

As fully anticipated, with its first budget plan, the Obama administration has fired a salvo into the side of the productive classes. (For those of you who are not U.S. citizens, feel free to use Team Obama as a proxy for what is likely to occur where you reside.)

Yes, we expected the $1.75 trillion budget deficit, which will, by the time all is said and done, come in a lot closer to the $2.5 trillion number anticipated some months ago by our Chief Economist Bud Conrad.

Yes, we expected the government to begin raising taxes, which they are proposing to do with vigor – starting with an increase of $1.4 trillion on the people who earn in excess of $250,000 a year. “Right on!” shouts the mob, on the way out the door to burn Porsches (which, Bloomberg reports, is now becoming something of a trend in Germany’s capital, Berlin).

For no other purpose than to keep the record straight, it’s worth noting that thanks to the government’s steady dose of inflation, $250,000 today will only buy you 77% of what it would have in 1998… and 56% of what it would have in 1988.

A decade from now, given the inflation rate we expect, the dollar’s purchasing power will erode by another 50%, and probably a lot more than that. In fact, at the current rate of money creation, by the time the dust settles, $250,000 might be the annual wage commanded by burger flippers.

But, hey, look at the bright side, at that point everyone will be rich!

The further details of Obama’s budget plan are a hodgepodge of this and that, some of which we even agree with (like cutting business subsidies). On the whole, however, the overarching mandate appears to be to thrust the hand of government, like some motion picture kung fu villain, deep into the heart of American enterprise.

And government’s expansion is far from over. The news continues to pour in…

• Citigroup to get another $25 billion bailout from the U.S. Treasury.

• Treasury officials work on bailout plan for auto parts manufacturers.

• President Obama exploring automatic workplace pensions and an expansion of unemployment insurance.

• AIG, now a government lap puppy, takes another big loss, and is again looking to its master for another handout.

• Speaking of lap puppies, Fannie Mae, has lost another $25 billion and is looking for $15 billion more from the Treasury. The value of this zombie institution’s net assets is now a negative $105 billion, and eroding. Great investment of your tax dollars, eh?

• Then there’s the new administration’s cap-and-trade green tax… a stunning new initiative that will bring many U.S. businesses to their knees.

There is more, so much more, including a $638 billion reserve fund for healthcare reform in the president’s budget that loudly broadcasts that, “Yes, we’re going there.” There being nationalized health care.

However, there’s also some good news to be found in the way things will be.

The Good News

My fellow citizens of planet Earth, it is now abundantly clear that the trend toward socialism in all its many disguises is about to, once again, shift into high gear.

We’ve been here before, encouraged by the words of Karl Marx, a distinctly unsuccessful individual (to read his life story is to read of almost unending misery, poverty, and discontent) but a decidedly successful phrase-coiner, knocking the world off its axis with his “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

While no one with any real sense of history, not to mention economics, can take any overt joy at the prospect of the dark clouds of collectivism looming high in the sky above us, there is, if you pay close attention, a very big opportunity in all of this.

Namely, we are now presented with a relatively rare chance to see with some clarity into the future.

Imagine if eight years from now you could step into a time machine and zip right back to this very moment. How much money do you think you could make?

Well, just because the chattering masses have the blinders on as they march forward to their collective penury doesn’t mean we need to join them. And, if we are even a little bit careful, we won’t.

So, what is it about the future we can now see? Some broad strokes…

• Currency depreciation.

• More taxes.

• Rising interest rates.

• A price capitulation in real estate, with a collapse in commercial.

• Exchange controls (now that Team Obama is raising your taxes, you don’t really think they’re going to let you pick up your wealth and leave, do you? The window for global diversification will soon be closing.)

• The return of mega-labor unions.

• Trade wars, shooting wars, and other forms of heightened geopolitical tension.

(This is a topic we are discussing at greater length, backed up with specific recommendations, in the March edition of The Casey Report, released on March 3. Among its many highlights, Doug Casey has contributed an article titled “Street Fighting Man” about the prospects for social unrest.)

Provided you keep your personal wealth profile low (there was a reason Sam Walton, founder of Walmart, drove a beat-up pickup truck), your financial powder dry, and, maybe most important of all, retain your sense of humor, the opportunities in the unfolding crisis will be abundant.

Whatever you do, don’t be complacent about what’s coming.

We are long past the point where doing nothing is an option. Review your personal finances, cut out unnecessary expenses, talk to your accountant about tax planning, and, if you’re a U.S. citizen, consider moving at least some of your wealth out of the country while you still can (but please, don’t try to hide it… that’s a fool’s errand). If you own gold, only you and your spouse, if you have one, should be aware of it.

Ask yourself, “If I just dropped in from eight years in the future, what measures would I take?”

Now, take them.

Regards,
David Galland
Managing Editor, The Casey Report

March 11, 2009

Collectivism and Currency Debasement: There’s Always a Silver Lining was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Of course, then you’ve got to live in Detroit. The papers report that life in the city is so grim 1,000 people move out every month.

We’ve never been to Detroit. Out of curiosity, we offered to take Elizabeth for a romantic getaway to Detroit for her birthday. Our offer drew this reply:

“Are you out of your mind?”

Poor Detroit. No one goes to the city for a holiday. Not even students. As near as we can tell people only go there if they have to. And then, they get out as soon as they can.

We can imagine what it is like. We lived in the Baltimore ghetto for nearly 10 years. If you want to know what it is like, there’s a TV show that chronicles life there – The Wire.

Was it disagreeable living in the inner city? No, it would have to undergo major improvements to be disagreeable. It was Hell. Drug dealers on the street corners. Trash in the alleys. Everybody with a pistol in his pants and a chip on his shoulder.

Elizabeth was once on the phone with her brother.

“What’s that noise in the background?” he asked. “It sounds like popcorn popping.”

“Oh, that’s just someone shooting in the alley,” Elizabeth replied. “I think they’re trying to settle an argument.”

We’d been there too long. Elizabeth hadn’t even noticed the gunfire.

But it shows what government can do when it tries to fix a problem. In the case of Detroit and Baltimore, the government provided massive bailouts. Education standards collapsed…so the government provided money to the local education bureaucracy. Jobs disappeared (largely because people couldn’t read or write)…so the government provided massive bailouts in many different bureaucracies – training centers, welfare, food stamps. Pretty soon, the only industry left was the welfare bureaucracy.

We don’t know how it works now, but when we lived in the ghetto a girl’s best career path was promiscuity. She got more money with each child she had…provided, of course, that the father didn’t take responsibility for it. Then, the child grew up…took drugs and stole cars…until he got sent to prison. One problem led to another – but it could all be traced to the government’s giveaways. They had the same effect in Baltimore as they had in Burkina Faso. The political elite took the money and lined their pockets…the masses become more miserable than before. And the worse conditions got, the more money the cities received from federal bailout programs.

Baltimore is still in business. But from what we read, Detroit sounds like it has become a kind of Port-au-Prince with snowdrifts. The whole city sounds like a hellhole without the warm fires.

And now Obama is proposing to make things worse. More bailouts…more giveaways…more programs…more bureaucrats… Already, the ‘rich’ support whole sections of the population. Obama says he will raise taxes on ‘the rich,’ creating even more parasites. Of course, who cares if the rich have less money? They will still live in their leafy suburbs and send their children to private schools. But pity the poor parasites.

Neither Mr. Obama nor none of the candidates for Mayor of Detroit (the last mayor is doing time in a federal penitentiary) has asked for our advice. We will give it anyway. Want to save Detroit? Here’s how:

Abolish all welfare of all sorts…no unemployment insurance…no child tax credits…no welfare…no foods tamps…no nothing, except privately-sponsored charities. Close the public schools. Kick out all the bureaucrats and all federal and state employees. Abolish all rules concerning employment – no minimum wages, no overtime, discriminate all you want. Require all residents to say please and thank you…dress properly…and sneer at people who don’t seem to be gainfully employed or polite. Declare the city an Open City and Free Trade Zone. In exchange for cutting all federal aid programs, eliminate federal and state taxes for people living in the city. Allow unlimited immigration into the city…giving all immigrants a U.S. passport after 5 years of residency. Levy a flat 10% tax to pay for basic services. Eliminate elections…have the city controlled by a town council composed of 10 citizens chosen at random.

Within five years, Detroit would be the most dynamic city in the nation.

Regards,
Bill Bonner

March 6, 2009

Baltimore Redux: Still Thanking the Government for the Ghetto was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

That’s a little more than those who are drowning right now.

One in five U.S. mortgage-payers is underwater.  That’s over 8 million of us.  In times like this I cross myself and thank God I’m a renter.

Home values plunged a collective $2.4 trillion last year.

California, Texas, Nevada, Virginia and Florida form the primary wastelands.

However, according to First American — who tracks mortgages from California’s ground zero — should housing prices drop another 5%, another 2.2 million will get dragged under the swift current of decline.

That takes the tally up to 10.2 million — no surplus to be found in this “new” program. President Barack Obama proposed $275 billion plan makes use of refinancing or restructuring America’s home loans.

All you need: most recent tax return and two pay stubs…oh, and also an “affidavit of financial hardship.”

About $75 billion (good until 2012) would be used to rescue homeowners by paying lenders to alter troubled mortgages – inducing the lender to reduce borrowers interest rates as low as 2 percent.

The catch: you can only modify once.  And if you bought after Jan. 1, 2009, you’re outta luck.  Also, if you were mad enough to try for property worth over $729,750…call your relatives and hand the keys to the bank.  (If you’re lucky, they’ll want to make a reality TV show about your “hardship.” I hear one of the latest TV pilot shows is an ex-Wall Streeter who has to move back home with mom and dad.)

About 5 million folks fall under the aegis of Fannie or Freddie, and they’ve got until 2010 to rework these rotten loans to temporarily sweeter terms.

Now here’s what’s rotten in the state of Washington D.C. – this currently un-legislated and unfunded plan looks pretty similar to its circa 2005-2006 cousin…the brainchild of one Neel Kashkari, interim head of our Office of Financial Stability. (Yes, created by that first “bailout bill” – code name: Break the Glass.)

This fellow from Akron, Ohio, who advanced in life to Hank Paulson minion, took this hallowed fiscal post on Oct. 6, 2008.  Before that, he was a V.P. of Goldman Sachs in San Francisco, where they nicknamed him “the Borg.”  Then, Kashkari approach Mr. Paulson for that solid government job in 2006 – great timing!  He worked shoulder to shoulder with Hank in bailing out Fannie, Freddie and our perennial problem with the gambling addiction AIG.

In the years between making money for Goldman and overseeing money for Goldman-times-Politics-squared, Mr. Kashkari dabbled in the housing market.  Fat surprise that!

To get to any useful information on his 2006-2008 years in service of our government, one has to sift through all sorts of gush, childhood stories, college professor praise, and even “sexiest man alive” references.

Finally, after typing “Kashkari 2006” into my search engine, I found blogger Angry Bear, corroborating my recollection of forays I conducted just after Paulson tapped this “wet-behind-the-ears” pipsqueak for this interim post.

“HOPE NOW”  — The John the Forerunner of “Making Home Affordable”

Kashkari was the genius behind Bush’s HOPE NOW Alliance in 2007. (Again, it was already far too late to do much).  HOPE NOW looks like Obama’s plan of today, only it “encouraged” mortgage lenders to restructure subprime loans voluntarily. Hank announced it in Oct. 2008 – just after the takeover of Fannie and Freddie.

Like a McDonald’s sign, the HOPE NOW slogan is “Over 1 Million Helped” – when in fact, it just seems that they mailed letters about HOPE NOW to 1 million delinquent homeowners.

Ha!  How many subprime borrowers even live at the address?  I hear story after story of mortgage lenders who convinced folks to take funds for homes they couldn’t afford, then arranging a deal where they could buy a second home!

Ultimately, what HOPE NOW boils down to is a trademarked Hotline: 808-995-HOPE.  The number of calls fielded is what goes into the press release – 1.2 million in 2008 – not the number of workouts.

With today’s new plan, we’re stuck with dollar-for-dollar matching to encourage lenders to notch down their lending rates.  Guess that’s how the government can put its money where its mouth is.

We applaud Kashkari’s immense ability to lobby a mere six years’ work in finance to such a high position, and hope the Senate won’t be asked to confirm him anytime soon.

How About Holding Someone Accountable?

Now, a chum of mine, who worked at Fannie circa early 2000, since retired in disgust.  Why?  Because he saw how pervasive the federally-mandated home ownership tyranny had become.  It sickened him.  Physically… seeing the heads of Fannie conduct their pep-talks and flash pocket-of-the-government comments.  (I’ll warn ya, we’re getting him to write you a “chock-full-of-numbers” shot soon!)

Now, I’m all for buying a chunk of good land, planting a garden, and having a home of one’s own.  But I don’t have my own house yet.  Because the kind of house my income affords is in a neighborhood I can’t walk unmolested in.  Facts of life.  I swallowed them.

I use my credit card for what I can pay off at the end of the month.  And I resist the urge to “hope for better times” and shoulder a nice, hearty “American Dream” mortgage.  Now if only about 5 million or so (giving cushion for those surprised by lost jobs, etc.) had been as grown up as me.

I presume the same toxic shenanigans my friend describes at Fannie were happening over at Countrywide…and we know how that one blew!

So let’s play a little round of “Where Are They Now?” before Gary pours our parting shot.

See What Countrywide’s Iago Does Today: PennyMac

Fannie, Freddie, AIG, are just like blokes foisting a tin cup in our faces… And they’ve got just as many sob stories up their sleeves as you find in the savvy street bum – the one you know is faking it.

Here’s how it runs:

“Got here on the bus, see.  And I went to the hospital here (flashes ubiquitous pink or orange plastic bracelet).  I’m trying to get back to the hospital, and I need some money for the bus.

“(We wait another minute to point out that said hospital is only 10 blocks down the street)  Now is when he trots out the wife or child in the background, hanging in the shadows on the street corner.  “Me and insert name, we’ve just come all the way up from West Virginia…”)”

Here’s someone who’s not holding out the cup – because he’s working the system instead – and better than an welfare check recipient we know of. Stanford Kurland.  And he now stands to mint millions from this home mortgage mess.

Don’t know him? Mr. Kurland played Iago to Mr. Mozilo over at Countrywide Financial.  His bag of tricks?

With the more than $200 million he netted from selling his Countrywide stock, and hundreds of millions raised from private equity giants like Blackrock, he’s buying up the delinquent home mortgages that the government was forced to takeover from the likes of Fannie and Freddie – we’re talking for pennies on the dollar here.

So how’s that for private enterprise making lemonade from lemons? I see it as reprocessing lemonade to shape something that looks, tastes, and smells like a lemon – but ain’t.

He’s got this nice, glass-walled boardroom in L.A. for an outfit called PennyMac.

Yes, PennyMac.  The irony of the name makes my stomach lurch.

Can we say nothing about their abusive lending processes that gave some trash-compactor firm like PennyMac a raison d’être in the first place?  And I can’t help but want to stalk Mr. Kurland when I fly out to West next week and ask him about the proliferation of low-rate “teaser” loans at Countrywide starting back in 2003.

But he’ll blame Mozilo, of course, and say it all went to pot in 2006.  Yes, yes, businesses regulate themselves – when those disgusted by bad business practice defect to create new businesses.

How’s that for “growth?”

Of course our government will abet Stanford and friends’ modus operandi.  What choice does it have?

I leave you with this lovely quote from Depression-hardened investor Leon Levy:

“Business people who often sound like libertarians when markets are going up suddenly sound like socialists and beg for bailouts and protection from governments when the economy heads south.”

Regards,
Samantha Buker

March 5, 2009

Making Home Affordable: The Kickoff Begins was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

We’ve lived through eight years of the threat from the Right. It was all about nationalism, militarism, war, torture, state secrets, attacks on privacy, the use of tax funds to subsidize “conservative values,” the outsourcing of government in a fascistic business-government partnership, the banning of products and services that government doesn’t like, the regimentation of educational life, government impositions in the name of security, and so on.

With the end of the Bush years, many of these threats have receded, if only slightly. Consider the problem of nationalism, for example. The neoconservatives who ran the country during the last two Bush terms exploited this dangerous impulse for all it was worth.

If you were not for their wars, you were against America, and hence deserving of jail without trial. The whole ideological apparatus of the Bush years was profoundly anti-intellectual, and while the neocons shouted down anyone who compared their administration to the Third Reich or Mussolini, the ideological comparison was actually quite apt: right-wing government control stems from the same motives of exalting security, discipline, and chauvinism above liberty.

In two short months, however, that ethos has subsided, and it has been replaced by a threat from the Left. It is tragic that Obama should be president at all. If we had a position called “national well-wisher,” “national greeter,” or “national symbol of accomplishment,” he would be perfect for the job. He is elegant, graceful, and articulate, and he inspires people in an unusual way. As chief policymaker, however, he has revealed himself as nothing more than a two-bit socialist.

After all the ghastly statism of the Bush years, you might think that the Left would back off from using power to achieve its aims. Instead, they have learned nothing. The Left has been lying in wait for its chance. As the Obama people entered the White House, it was as if they found a closet labeled “failed ideas of the past.” They opened it and the contents spilled everywhere. They started grabbing things and putting them in the regulatory books and in legislation.

What an amazing pile of junky, worn-out, bogus policy ideas! Equal pay for equal work. Infrastructure spending. More money to the public schools. Socialized medicine. Rock-bottom interest rates. Welfare! Every wish granted by government. Down with business. Down with business failures. Curbs on fat-cat pay. Down with Wall Street. Turn on the money spigots. Expropriate the expropriators. Subsidies for every lifestyle that flies in the face of bourgeois prejudice.

Thus are we again reminded of what a profound threat the Left represents to liberty. It’s been more than a decade now since we’ve seen this at work, and probably longer really. Clinton was a pain, but he was smart enough not to take his reigning ideological framework too seriously. He actually showed some deference to reality from time to time.

The Obamaites are different. They are woefully ignorant of economics. They seem to actually believe all that socialist claptrap that has provided an excuse for innumerable foreign dictators: the idea that government is the source of wealth and can make anything happen with the push of a button.

They see no limits to the possibility that government can make society perfect, righting every perceived social injustice, and bringing prosperity to all via stealing from the haves and giving it to the have-nots. Is there inequality? Mandate equality. Is there deprivation? Provide! Recession? Spend hundreds of billions!

What we have here is not just a profound love of the state; it is a profound confidence in the capacity of the unlimited state to create heaven on earth. How does this square with the idea of human liberty, of social cooperation, and of the rights of all? Herein lies the great mystery of leftism. The Left seems oblivious to the relationship between their chosen means and their ends. It’s not that they hate liberty as such; it is that they believe that it must always take a backseat to other social priorities, like equality. In the end, they have a tendency to build the total state and find themselves taken aback when the whole of society ends up in a cage.

Those Obamaites! So compassionate, loving, universally minded, progressive — except that their ideological cousins managed to starve and destroy whole civilizations. Loyalty to their creed means death, because their ideology is the pathway to the gulag — and for one simple reason: their preferred means of social change is the state. The state is always and everywhere a threat to liberty, and liberty is the basic building block of prosperity and civilization.

Despite the slogans about progress, the upshot of the Obama administration is as deeply reactionary as anything that Bush conjured up. Despite all the hype and hope, what Obama offers is nothing new. It amounts to the robber state and the regimentation of society, a plan that will kill off prosperity and the conditions that allow for it.

The Republicans are right to fight this tendency at every turn, for it represents a radical attack on all things truly American. Worse still, by playing with the printing presses, the policy tendency here is also deeply dangerous. It could destroy the dollar internationally and domestically, igniting a hyperinflation that no one will be able to control once it gets going. One only wishes that the Republicans had been so principled when their president was in charge!

The Obama administration says that we have to give the stimulus time to work. No need. The stimulus will not work. If we manage to pull ourselves out of this slump, it will be despite and not because of this stimulus package.

When putting together my book, I wondered which threat was actually more dangerous for us, the Right or the Left. I’m still not sure, for national socialism and international socialism are in close competition. I ended up focusing on both. It’s a hard truth for Americans to face that neither team in Washington is going to guard what we love the most. That is something we are going to have to face. Liberty is for the citizens to guard themselves.

Regards,
Llewellyn Rockwell
LewRockwell.com

February 18, 2009

The Left in Power was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

The GDP includes, to generalize, everything produced and consumed within a country or exported to other countries. In this “everything in one pot” view, everything counts, regardless of its causes or its effects on society. You contract an illness and buy medical care, you’re in a wreck and pay for car repairs, you buy cigarettes or alcohol based on an addiction, factories are rebuilt after a war, shells and fighter planes are built to destroy those factories, a lumber company cuts down a forest down to the last tree, the government spends billions on a new boondoggle, a corporation charges you monopoly prices, there’s a gas discount and everyone’s filling up. Even though all these things are symptomatic of social problems, they are counted as part of “the economy.” The genocide in Iraq is a boon to “the economy” (although, in the long term, war spending has a persistent negative effect on GDP and employment, either through inflation, higher interest rates, or increased taxes). Mindless consumption is a boon to “the economy.”

“The money in the big pot could be going to cancer treatments or casinos, violent video games or usurious credit-card rates. It could go towards the $9 billion or so that Americans spend on gas they burn while they sit in traffic, or the billion plus that goes to such drugs as Ritalin and Prozac that schools are stuffing into kids to keep them quiet in class. The money could be the $20 billion or so that Americans spend on divorce lawyers each year, or the $41 billion on pets, or the $5 billion on identity theft, or the billions more spent to repair property damage caused by environmental pollution. The money in the pot could betoken social and environmental breakdown- misery and distress of all kinds. It makes no difference. You don’t ask. All you want to know is the total amount, which is the GDP. So long as it is growing then everything is fine.”

– Jonathan Rowe, co-director of West Marin Commons

One might reply that this is a misguided criticism, since the GDP is precisely meant as a “kitchen sink” metric for all production. But the GDP is also often criticized for omitting to count many vast areas of trade, including housekeeping, production for self-consumption, black markets and underground economies (which in some societies are bigger than the white market), crime, and barter. The only logical conclusion is that the subject most conducive to growth is a person who is perpetually just sick enough to need medical care but not enough to stop working, morbidly obese from constant eating, always drives everywhere, hires maids instead of cleaning his own house, and does not interact with anyone but Wal-Mart workers.

Retail sales is another metric that gets trotted out in the mainstream media, especially around Christmas. The assumption here is that the more money people spend during the year, the better off “the economy” is. But this is counter-intuitive, as spending can be motivated by all sorts of reasons, including inflation, short-term biases, and outright fraud. People are tricked into buying goods by marketing campaigns and a panoply of retail tricks and lies. Retail sales do not take into account the quality of products or what they may do to our quality of life, and under that point I could repeat a lot of the things I said above. They also do not include the consequences of depending on big retail corporations for our livelihood, or the consequences of globalization on the third world.

Saving money is actually a very positive thing for the well-being of the individual, and yet increased savings (as we are seeing right now) wreak havoc on “the economy.” Unfortunately, people generally under-save and get in debt too easily for their own good, partially due to human psychology and partially due to the centralized banking system which causes scarcity of credit.

Measuring employment suffers from the same general flaws, as it does not take into account the nature of the jobs in question: not only the quality of the work environment, the wage, or the work structure (especially how hierarchical it is), but also what the work itself entails. It’s easy to see what a CEO, a commodities trader or a monopoly banker contribute to the corporatist system, but very difficult to see their contribution to the well-being of society. Even though they are “employed,” it’s hard to say that a soldier, a policeman or a bureaucrat, on the whole, contribute anything positive to society. Employment statistics, therefore, are at best very incomplete, and at worst completely misleading.

If these three metrics do not measure general well-being, or even how well the economy fulfills our needs, what do they measure? The GDP measures how much is produced and consumed. Retail sales measure how much is consumed, and how much surplus is generated. Employment measures how many people are participating to production. It is not the nature of production or consumption that is examined, but the concept of production and consumption themselves. The only possible conclusion we can arrive at, is that these metrics measure the health of the corporatist system, not well-being or the fulfillment of needs.

The underlying premise behind the use of these metrics is shared by all parties and ideologies on the mainstream political spectrum: growth is inherently good. Not all of these ideologies support the idea that growth should be completely unlimited and unchecked (Greenies, for instance, believe that growth should be tempered with environmental considerations), but they all judge growth as a primary objective. Not only that, but they believe that growth alone can solve socio-economic problems, the good old tried-and-true statist technique of “if we project enough force and throw enough money at a problem, it will eventually disappear.” If “the economy” keeps growing, goes the argument, then we’ll have more money to pump into health care, we’ll have more money to pump into education, we’ll have more money to pump into social programs, and everything will correct itself. A shining example of this insanity, Mosler’s Law, states that “there is no financial crisis so deep that a sufficiently large increase in public spending cannot deal with it.”

This is the same kind of argument that statists use when talking about government and corporatism, of the “we just need to put good people in charge” type. Putting better people or more money in a broken system won’t fix it. Solely producing more goods cannot change the balance of power in a society and cannot correct inefficiencies and immoralities caused by the very fabric of the economy that produces them. On the contrary, one can only expect it to make the problems worse, because it maintains the viability of the current capital-democratic system.

We must therefore question our belief in economic growth as a solution, as a necessity, as an inherent good, as a progressive factor. If it’s only useful to measure the cost of goods that are made and sold, then it has little relation to human life.

The real question is not “how much stuff is traded” but rather “how stuff is traded.” In the corporatist system, labour is traded under a highly hierarchical, authoritarian, central-planning oriented structure. The people at the top of this fictional legal structure reap the surplus, which they steal from their inferiors through the latter’s “voluntary” surrender of their freedom of labour, which concentrates wealth and therefore economic power. These imaginary structures then sell the produced goods, generally to individual customers who have very little economic power. They also generally get their raw materials from dispersed third-world entities, which have far less economic power than they do.

It should be easy, in fact it should be child’s play, for anyone to realize that such a system cannot serve anyone’s interests but those of the people at the top, and that its elite will necessarily try and succeed at subverting people’s desires for their own interests, in the same way that the elite in a democratic system always eventually succeeds at subverting moral values for its own power. Capital and guns have always been, throughout history, mutually dependent and mutually beneficial. Inequality of wealth or power cannot lead to anything but a loss of freedom in the long term, for the same reason that loss of freedom must lead to inequality of wealth or power in the long term.

Once again, I must emphasize that these are systemic features and do not depend on the bad intentions of any number of people. The vast majority of people have good intentions, and very few people (except very aberrated cases like serial killers) believe they are doing evil. We must therefore banish from our heads the image of the maniacal politician or executive rubbing his hands together, or tenting them à la Mr. Burns, saying “my eeee-vil plan is working perfectly.” The fact is that they are simply doing their jobs. That’s all that the system’s survival depends on, or the survival of any system whatsoever.

I already mentioned the concept of surplus. In the corporatist system, accumulating surplus is the goal of the vast majority of economic entities, and drives growth. In an economy where actual human needs, not hierarchies of wealth, direct action, the accumulation of surplus, and therefore growth, would no longer be priorities. We must see economic activity, not as an end in itself, but as the extension of how we see each other and what we consider to be proper ethics. Hierarchies betray a pessimistic, authoritarian and dogmatic view of human existence. Its consequences are to turn moral agents into tools of production and consumption (to spend beyond their means, to become trained consumers, and to produce more consumers). Efforts to counter this immorality must pass through counter-economic activities, personal de-growth based on our values, and a refusal to position our lives as part of a production/consumption framework.

Regards,
Francois Tremblay

February 11, 2009

Unlimited Economic Growth: What Is the Economy? was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

No government has the right to exist.

First, I must specify what I mean by a right. We can define a right in many different ways, but the one thing that all conceptions have in common is that they are, ultimately, a justification for the use of force, or more simply, “I’ll kick your ass if you try to take this away.” If I have, for instance, a right to action or property, this means ultimately that I am ethically justified in using force to oppose you if you try to take my freedom or property away.

So far so good but, as for all other ethical principles, the trouble comes with the implementation. The government, for instance, claims the right to extort taxation money for all sorts of actions and trades, including simply working or owning a piece of land. Does it have such a right?

Groups cannot have rights above and beyond those of their component individuals, as only individuals can use violence and determine its validity. Any group is nothing more than the addition of individuals and the property and principles they produce or acquire for the purposes of the group’s activities. Therefore, if the government has the right to tax, meaning that it is justified in using force to take people’s money for its purposes, it must be the case that the individuals composing the government also have that right as individuals.

But it should be clear that no one has such a right. If any random person came to your door and demanded five thousand dollars so he could use it for his own purposes (say, giving it to poor people), you’d probably consider him to be a lunatic. If he drew a gun and threatened you, you’d consider him a dangerous lunatic thief. The only difference between this person and an IRS agent is that we don’t scream “thief!” when an IRS agent does the exact same thing, because, through indoctrination, takeover of many parts of society and sheer threats of force, government is given more legitimacy than a common thief. One cannot fight against the government or the system as a whole, therefore one must submit and forget about the unpleasant truth that one is being exploited.

Statists use many arguments to try to hide this obvious fact. Generally, they claim that government is necessary and that its purposes are essential. But it’s important to remember that all that a government does is control and corrupt production through tax spending and law, getting all sorts of benefits from this control. Government does not stop criminals: it controls and corrupts the production of policing services. Government does not build roads: it controls and corrupts the production of roads. The issue therefore is not how we can produce things, because individuals already do this, but rather how we want production to be controlled. Whose interests do we wish our institutions to pursue, those of the power elite or those of society as a whole? Republicans and Democrats are in the former camp (although they would generally not admit it), while most people who oppose the system would answer the latter. There is a lot more to say on this topic, obviously, but this is the problem as simply expressed as possible.

Another argument used by statists is that the government is justified by the consent of its subjects. This is a strange argument on the face of it, since no one is asked to consent to government before being its subject. The United States Constitution was not verbally or formally consented to by anyone alive, except government employees. But even if it was, we’d have to conclude that it was done under duress, since failure to accept the rules would deprive one of a living. How would anyone possibly say no?

This, by the way, is the basis of a recent argument, made by Charles Johnson and drawing from work by political theorist Crispin Sartwell, which seeks to demonstrate that there can be no such thing as consent to the State. To simplify, the argument says that, the fact that one has no alternative but to submit to the State means that there can be no such thing as consenting to the State, because consent (as opposed to desire or acceptance, which are purely private) can only exist in the presence of alternatives. The obvious statist reply is to claim that one is free to leave, but, notwithstanding the fact that this is not always true and that it also costs a great deal of money, this does not prove that one is consenting to government, since there are governments everywhere one might want to live.

But it’s important for me to point out that, even if either argument was true, they would not solve the problem of rights. Even if every single person in a given society could consent, and consented, to the existence of a government, it would not make the government any less coercive. Even if government was absolutely necessary for some essential function (something which sociological and historical studies disprove conclusively), it would not make government any less exploitative.

The obvious question arises: what does it matter if government is unjustified? They have the guns and “might makes right.” Certainly there is merit to this line of reasoning, not in the sense that might actually does make right (a position so repulsive that few non-insane people would accept its logical consequences), but in the sense that, as the ability to use force is a prerequisite for the expression of rights, might dictates the degree to which one can use one’s inherent rights. In our current society, you have the right to complain, sure, but that right is useless without the power to actually change anything. All it does is make people feel like they’re achieving something of significance, when all they’re doing is talking to a wall.

Now, as for why it matters: because we are all to a certain extent responsible for what happens in our society. The only manner in which a society can change for the better is by an awakening of all those people who know “something” is wrong, with their lives, with the system they live under, but can’t identify what. It is because they keep obeying this system of exploitation that it continues to flourish. As Anselme Bellegarrigue beautifully put it: “You believed until now that tyrants exist? Well! You were wrong, there are only slaves: where no one obeys, no one can command.”

For this to happen, there needs to be a global realization that the emperor has no clothes, both from a moral and from a practical standpoint. We need to get people off the mindset that we have to “save” our capital-democratic system, that if we can just get the right people or the right approach we can mend a process that was broken from the get-go. If you looked for a new car in the classifieds and found one that is advertised as not working, you just wouldn’t buy it. Buying it and then desperately trying to put it back together when you need to go to work would be a fool’s errand.

The belief that “good people” would make government itself become an apparatus dedicated to the well-being of its subjects is contradictory, because people who are so altruistic and dedicated would not need government to begin with. Even the framers of the Constitution, a document which is held as a paragon of freedom and yet gave birth to one of the most dangerous centralized governments in the world, understood this fact:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the  great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

– James Madison

In the statist mindset, there can be only one sort of relation between people, and that is control. Any other mode of relating to others is excluded as being insecure, “not good enough” to keep society running. And if control is the only way we can run society, therefore the only debate left is how this control is to be implemented, whether it is to be implemented in one or three distinct organizations (which is really all that the so-called “checks and balances” of the Constitution are about), whether it is to be run on liberal or conservative principles, whether the supreme ruler should be named by a popularity contest or by the privilege of birth, and so on.

To this view of society we must contrast that of freedom: that each individual should be free to act in accordance with his own values, without being controlled by any exterior determinism. This view should be distinguished from ethical nihilism, which is in fact nothing but the flip side of statism. When might becomes the primary standard, there can be no fixed principles, only the whims of rulers. Any realistic conception of freedom must entail that our institutions, whether political, economic or social, must be constructed and maintained, not on the basis of might, but on the basis of moral principles.

Regards,
Francois Tremblay

January 30, 2009

The Social Non-Contract: Governments Have No Right was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Yes, dear reader, the most volatile market in recent history could easily point its finger at a trader’s biology.

The conclusion will surprise you. The longer a trader’s ring finger, the more money he’ll make in the City (this study comes from across the pond in London, where top earners took home over $4 million – until just recently).  They measured the men up, and looked at their previous 20 months of P&L (profit and loss statements).  They also saw how long they’d lasted in the City.

Those with the longest fourth digit made over five times the money of their less-well endowed colleagues.  The average salary was $537k.  The long-ring group netted a healthy $828k, while the shorties had to make do with $145k.

OK, OK.  I bet you’re saying: what’s a couple of inches of bone and flesh gonna tell us about hormones?

Don’t know diddly about Darwin?  Think it’s just about DNA?  The real work of evolution starts with hormones. And the reminder of some serious prenatal hormonal action lies in the ring finger.

The Finger of Destiny: High-Stakes Day Trader or Value Investor

Measures are always relative to something. In this case, it’s the second digit: — the index finger.  They call this indicator the 2D:4D. This ratio is set before birth and stays with us throughout life.  Those with the longer fourth digit relative to the second often display rapid-fire execution ability. (See also: aggression, fertility, confidence, and sporting ability).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695142.stm

The accidental in utero testosterone junkie may well be set for high-stakes finance on the trading floor, simply because the developing brain becomes wired with a greater sensitivity to testosterone’s effects.

But before you run to get a ruler, let’s take a further look at what these 44 well-measured men reveal about the evolutionary life of Wall Street.

Testosterone, Cortisol & Your Next Investment

Coates, now Senior Research Fellow in Neuroscience and Finance at Cambridge, got a hunch while running a trading desk on Wall Street during the “dotcom” bubble.  He worked elbow-to-elbow with traders, when he noticed the change in traders’ behavior from pre-bubble methods.

Coates began to suspect a chemical was involved.  Just like Diane Fosse in the Rwandan jungle, Coates observed testosterone-related dynamics…even if the “competition” was between a trader at Goldman Sachs on 85 Broad Street and one working on the same trade, thanks to electronic trading, for Merrill Lynch halfway round the globe in Seoul.

The “winner effect” works like this.  Take two males in competition.  Testosterone rises.  They spar.  The winner comes out with even more testosterone and takes on a new opponent, while the loser skulks off with less testosterone.  Repeat.  And repeat.

Now for the end game (looking a lot like, say, former Lehman Brothers’ alpha wolf, Dick Fuld): the males, seething with testosterone, become overconfident.  Most importantly, they have increased appetite for risk.  They patrol areas that are too large (viz. commercial and residential real estate) and they pick too many fights (anyone starting another mortgage-backed securities pool in 2007).

So Coates remarked in the dotcom bubble and so we stand today.  The fact is, the dotcom bubble didn’t weed out anyone on Wall Street, because Manhattan Island is not a pure “Darwinian” island.  Instead, everyone just got shuffled around from investment bank to investment bank.  Top brass protected their own, sitting on each other’s boards and securing the “alpha wolf” salary and bonus.

And, sure, fast action juiced by higher levels of testosterone, is more likely to turn a profit — an abnormally large one at that.  But there’s one catch: cortisol.

Cortisol, a stress hormone, is seething in global traders everywhere…it comes when there’s the crash.  It’s the “fight-or-flight” friend that raises blood pressure, increases immunity, desensitizes us to pain. How does that translate into finance?  Cortisol renders the trader price-insensitive.  Monetary policy won’t matter.  He’ll see risk everywhere.

That’s because, long-term, exposure to cortisol ravages mind and body.  It affects memory recall — handicapping judgment with the shackle of fear — whether justified or no.  Like a kid who touches a stovetop for the first time, so is the trader who fears jumping back in the game that just burned him.

Is it time to fire all of Goldman’s males and change the name to Goldwoman?  The reason, in fact, Coates zeroed in on the testosterone test, was that the few female colleagues on the floor, he said, did not display the same behavior. Tellingly, the woman’s 2D:4D is almost equal and she has about 1/10 the testosterone of a man.  But she’s still got to contend with cortisol.  So the Wall Street ecosystem will remain chained to biological reflexes whose usefulness we may or may not have outlived.

Next Time You Hire: Measure Your Money Manager’s Index Finger

Here’s one more reciprocal fact.  A reverse advantage falls to those whose 2D is longer than their 4D.  It concerns a long-term market approach.

Taking a look at average finger ratios in university departments showed that the math, science and engineering-focused sport a longer index.  As you might guess it also suggest higher exposure to the opposite of testosterone – estrogen – in utero.  Estrogen helps the right side of the brain develop: good for honing sharp analytical skills.

Perhaps Mr. Madoff’s clients could have checked his pointer finger first, and those of his Florida club-hopping, dupe-hunting reps. But maybe we’d be surprised to find lengthy index fingers there…after all, the scheme was a “long-term” approach.

Most interesting of all, is that Madoff’s own sons and heirs cut short dad’s survival on the Wall Street three-ring menagerie.  He revealed the root of their inheritance, and they turned him in.  This positively Greek development in finance deserves the ushering in of the Furies from the wings.

Regards,
Sam Buker

January 23, 2009

Risk-Taking Traders Born Not Made was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder