Paul
B. Farrell Archives
| Email
alerts
July 31, 2012
Think
history folks: Remember 2000-2002? The economy suffered a 30-month recession
and a brutal bear market. The Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked at 11,722,
then crashed, losing over 4,000 points dropping below 7,500, down more than
43%, with massive losses of more than $8 trillion in market cap.
But it gets
worse: Shilling’s bluntly warning: “If we aren’t already in a recession, we’re
getting very close.” Yes, he’s more reserved than Nobel economist Paul Krugman, whose latest book goes beyond hinting that the
But
the scariest fact is that America’s warring politicians, CEOs and Super Rich
can’t even see the obvious link between the 2012 social-media bubble and the
2008 Wall Street credit bubble that nearly bankrupt our monetary system and
forced Congress and the Fed into bailing out our too-big-to-manage banks to an
estimated $29.7 trillion in cash, credits, cheap money loans and debt relief.
But,
unfortunately, the banks still haven’t learned the lessons of history. Instead,
they dug in their heels, spending hundreds of million on lobbyists, fighting
all reform efforts, went back to business-as-usual, sabotaging America and
ultimately themselves.
Déjà
vu: here we are four years later. Again mired in another presidential election,
right back where we were in the summer of 2008. In denial, trapped in lies and
mean-spirited theatrics, ignoring warnings, blinded, obsessed
about the smell of election victories no matter the cost, even if it triggers a
recession.
Yes,
déjà vu all over again. Four short years. We forget.
We’re back repeating the same buildup scenario to another meltdown.
Worse,
bankers, politicians and billionaires just don’t seem to care. And you get the
foreboding feeling that it really doesn’t matter who wins the election. This
war will go on till 2016: For one party and their billionaire super PACs will
do anything to hold on to the presidency, and the other, backed by their
billionaire super PACs, will do anything to regain it.
Politics
is now a deadly blood sport that reminds us of the “Hunger Games.”
Yes,
another crash is coming soon because we’re back playing the same speculative
games as we did for years prior to the 2008 crash. Nothing’s changed. And when
we collapse, it will be because
In
a BusinessWeek editorial, Peter Coy and Rouben Farzad described the
latest cycle in this eternal drama of the bubbles:
“It’s
as if 2008 never happened. Once again the worlds
investors are pumping up bubbles that will probably explode in their faces.
After the popping of a real estate bubble led to the first global recession
since the 1930s, world markets are frothing like shaken
Yes,
for the past four years our great free-market system has been blowing many new
bubbles, like the Facebook bubble that we saw coming months ago. It will
soon halt Chairman Bernanke’s nonstop printing press. This bubble will sink
like a mafia stiletto deep into the “heart of the monetary systems” worldwide,
proving something Nassim Taleb
said about Bernanke when Obama reappointed him in 2009: “He doesn’t even know
he doesn’t understand how things work,” that his methods make “homeopath and
alternative healers look empirical and scientific.”
That’s
also what economist Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, predicted
recently when interviewed on Fox Business about his new book, “The Real Crash:
America’s Coming Bankruptcy.”
“We’ve
got a much bigger collapse coming, and not just of the markets, but of the
economy … like what you’re seeing in Europe right now, only worse … when we hit
our real fiscal cliff” and a meltdown more severe than the Crash and Great
Recession of 2007-2010.
Schiff was one-upped during the same NewsmaxWorld report by Robert Wiedemer,
author of the 2006 “
Yes,
it sounds like overkill to drive home the message, but maybe not. Maybe this is
déjà vu 1929. Maybe the Real Crash is dead ahead. And maybe nobody wants to see
it, like 2008.
That
signal comes from no less than former Citigroup president Sandy Weill. Imagine,
the man responsible for building the first too-big-to-manage mega-bank, and
killing the 60-year-old Glass-Steagall separating
commercial and investment banking back in 1999, now saying:
“I
think what we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from
banking. Have banks be deposit takers, make commercial loans and real estate
loans. And have banks do something that’s not going to
risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not going to be too big to fail.” What a
game-changer.
Huffington
Post columnist Mark Gongloff notes that Weill is “not
doing it out of the goodness of his heart.” But the truth is banks haven’t been
doing well since 2008, in spite of controlling politicians and regulators: “The
banks themselves, including the abomination he created, Citigroup, would be
worth a lot more if they were broken into smaller pieces.”
Since
2008 “the market has turned against the big banks,” investors have been “doing
the government’s dirty work for it.”
Weill
must also sense that with all the relentless political fears about the
government’s out-of-control debt, plus the real possibility that the American
economy could in fact go over a Fiscal Cliff in 2013 and into a long recession,
or even a depression, the appetite for another taxpayer bailout will be zero,
forcing a bank breakup anyway.
So
Weill’s brainstorm makes a helluva lot of sense: Take
command. Get ahead of the coming slowdown. Shilling warns the social-media
bubble will keep deflating.
Forget
them, seize this opportunity. Refocus on new bank stocks.
Besides, if insiders control a split-up into a commercial bank and an
investment bank, it’d be on terms more favorable to bank insiders, executives
and shareholders than if
And
you can bet the smart money’s on Weill’s strategy. For example, The Wall Street
Journal quotes Phillip Purcell, former CEO of Morgan Stanley: “From a
shareholder point of view, it’s crystal clear these
enterprises are worth more broken up than together.”
Yes,
deniers are claiming it’ll never happen, especially Jamie Dimon,
who publicly doubled down on loving his too-big-to-manage $2.3 trillion bank.
But Gongloff and the Journal note that Dimon’s reshuffled organizational chart suggests otherwise.
Moreover,
you know bank CEOs like Lloyd Blankfein are motivated
more by their own personal wealth than by firm assets under management.
Ultimately, if they can make more money and get more control of their destiny
by owning two bank stocks, you can bet they’ll plan a de facto Glass-Steagall revival in a New York minute. They can make more …
and so can
Bottom
line: if you are a risk-taker, maybe you can beat the market to the punch,
before The Real Crash overwhelms Wall Street, like it did in 1929 and in 2000
and in 2008. Because next time, even though our too-big-to-manage banks expect
they’ll get bailed out, the reality is that they’ll go begging for bail-out
billions and Congress won’t do it again, without forcing a newer, tougher
Glass-Steagall law on the banks.’