Reading Through The Pile

I realized with some surprise that I have been scattering books and magazines all over the house, this morning (the realization, not the scattering), mostly as I've been looking instead frequently - and I mean frequently -- at online news about the election. So, this morning, I piled (most) of them on the dining room table and read through them with what passed for brunch (not much of one, as my wife slept in; the effect of being up at 4AM to handle a system upgrade). All things considered, it's probably good that I wasn't very hungry.

The financial news was the biggest topic, as might be expected. Steven Pearlstein weighed in with an article about greed, and what we perceive as greed. He didn't have an answer, though he pointed out that some people, mostly on Wall Street, will always be regarded as greedy, but gosh darn it (as Sarah would say), they end up losing their jobs, their fortunes (well, a portion of them), and their income -- isn't that enough recompense for their bad judgement and misdeeds? I know what most people on other streets than Wall would say. I read one article which that that if you weren't completely aware of which stocks and funds your mutual fund were invested in, you were uninformed, and just asking for trouble. Gee, and here I thought thats what I was paying those guys to watch. Some said that a bear market is an excellent time to buy; others said just the opposite - terrible time, put your money under the mattress. And, of course: "Economists Predict More Turbulence Ahead".

I have no idea whether the bailout, in whole or part, was necessary. Some, I guess. I think that the impression of someone infallible was in charge was more needed -- and that, we didn't get. I do think its interesting to read the revisionist history which now says that all of this started from the housing bubble (I can believe that) which started from housing being so easily acquired (ditto), partially from cheap money, and partially from lenders loosening their standards, which both trace their roots to a combination of deregulation (John McCain, is that you?) and looser money supply (Alan? Alan Greenspan?). I also think its funny that now, when Alan speaks, its relatively coherent, whereas when he was at the Fed, it was all allegories and interminable sentences into which you could read pretty much anything you wanted. But Alan said, just the other day...

I also liked the headline "In Light Of Crisis, Common Trading Practice Looks Risky", from the Washington Post. "Regulators and Wall Street's scarred survivors increasingly are zeroing in on a massive risk to the stability of the financial system posed by rampant, unregulated trading in credit-default swaps." I admit, if you'd told me what the credit-default swap was (essentially, according to the article, insurance against an investment losing value because the issuing company's died'), I'd have thought 'Sounds good, what could be wrong with that?' But that kind of insight is what regulators are supposed to have -- or would, if they were there. Hi, John!

I think thats enough for right now.