artnews’s posterous

Top 10 Mind Hacks for Making Your R...

Top 10 Mind Hacks for Making Your Resolutions Stick [Lifehacker Top 10] http://pop.is/15wq

Filed under  //   news   popurls  

Comments [0]

With pressure off, Gators strut the...

With pressure off, Gators strut their stuff - FOXSports.com http://pop.is/154x

Filed under  //   news   popurls  

Comments [0]

Yemens Chaos Aids the Evolution of ...

Yemens Chaos Aids the Evolution of a Qaeda Cell http://pop.is/154w

Filed under  //   news   popurls  

Comments [0]

The Essential Startup Reader: 10 Le...

The Essential Startup Reader: 10 Lessons In Entrepreneurship GigaOM http://pop.is/15wp

Filed under  //   news   popurls  

Comments [0]

Lucinda Williams and Elvis Costello Are Just NOT Hip Enough These Days

My friend David  writes me about why pandering music magazines don't include albums from great over-40 artists such as Lucinda Williams and Elvis Costello:
"Lucinda Williams and Elvis Costello are just NOT hip enough these days."

... The following 4-to-5 star AMG-rated albums (with the exception of Lucinda's most recent, "Little Honey", which got 3 stars) came out in the "noughties" (2000-2009), yet none of them made any of the three "greatest albums of the decade" lists that I've seen so far (from Paste, Uncut, and Rolling Stone magazines).  Two of these lists (Paste, RS) contained 50 albums, and Uncut's had 150.
             In short, WTF?? ...

  2001 Listen Now! Essence   Lost Highway Records
  2003 Listen Now! World Without Tears   Lost Highway Records

  2005 Listen Now! Live @ the Fillmore   Lost Highway Records
  2007 Listen Now! West   Lost Highway Records
  2008 Listen Now! Little Honey   Lost Highway Records
AMG Track Picks
 

David quotes part of my response, then goes on to make some smart additional comments:

I suspect that this [reason] ("...Pandering babyboomer editors hoping to keep their jobs, and stupid snarky youngsters in their 20s who used their club connections or Ivy league connections to get these jobs ...or if they're women, good looking schmoozers who-knows-what they did to get the jobs...") is very likely true - probably hits the nail right on the head.  Very well put.  In any case, Springsteen, Dylan and Neil Young make these "best of" lists as token designated "godfathers" of what the current "indie" (hardly "indie", really: they all sign with a major conglomerate as soon as they can, just as Kurt Cobain and Nirvana did) rockers are trying, miserably for the most part, to do.  For instance, I just listened to The Hold Steady's "big" album on these lists, Boys and Girls in America -- it's whiny, depressing, "hook"-less, pseudo/sub-Springsteen.  Every single song is about pathetic, drug-addled losers: who could stand to listen to this more than once?  And why even bother to do this style of music, if it's been done before, infinitely better??  I don't get it

 Anyway, Lucinda and Elvis (and other over-40 musicans) don't make these "rock" best-of lists now because they are not among the "designated godfathers" -- and Elvis in particular is omitted because I suspect, as I said before, that he is getting a reputation as a pompous know-it-all, kind of like the older relative who bloviates at family gatherings.

           Anyway, it's all too depressing.  And you're right; I should call this all out publicly, scream from the rooftops that the emperor is not wearing any clothes: no one else seems to be doing it.  As you perceptively point out, even the boomer critics who should know better (Christgau - ugh!) will not do so for fear of being labelled unhip, and possibly even blowing their by-now-lucrative careers.  Or maybe they don't even realize the truth; so deperate to be accepted as hip that they've convinced themselves that all this crap is brilliant.  Damn ...

Comments [0]

Newport jazz festival this weekend on NPR; jazz and folk festival archived at NPR music

Great music on your radio and computer this week.
You can hear the jazz festival live later today and archived sets here
http://www.npr.org/music/newportjazz/index2.html

You can hear 30 concerts of great artists, streaming and for download, of folk and folk-rock artists like gillian welch, pete seeger, Fleet Foxes, Decembrists, etc from last weekend's Folk festival here:
http://www.npr.org/music/newportfolk/index2.html

Take a look at these sample artists:


Comments [0]

Best Iran news, blog, TV and Tweeter sites -- after you read Nico Pitney at HuffPost

Comments [0]

VINCENT GRAY DARES SEN. ENSIGN: RUN FOR DC COUNCIL!

By Art Levine
At a meeting of about 50 progressives Thusrday night at Busboys and Poets, DC Council Chair Vincent Gray lashed out at Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign, a key sponsor of the guns-gone-wild amendment sabogating DC voting rights in the Senate. Clearly beyond caring about ticking off powerful legislators,  the nattily-dressed, somewhat nerdy, but still folksy Council Chairman said of Ensign, "I never heard of him before this -- and then they start coming out of the woodwork."
 
 He then threw down a surprising, if joking, dare to the influential Senator: "Why don't you run for D.C. Council if you want to be all up in our business?  I have no doubt he'd go down to a resounding defeat."
 
       The council chairman, sitting on a stool on the Busboy and Poets backroom stage, was explaining the council's legislative priorities to activists invited by two independent progressive groups,  DC for Democracy and DC Drinking Liberally. He started  talking about the city's deepening budget crisis -- even reading from an in-depth Power Point  handout (sample dull-but-worthy eye-glazer: "Current deficit aproximately $260M, before considering spending pressures that may add another $50-$60M" ) before DC for Democracy's chair Keshini Ladduwahetty politely interrupted him sooner than expected to invite questions from the audience. But his bitterness over the District's ongoing lack of voting rights for its citizens emerged frequently in biting off-the-cuff comments as he discussed several local issues with an aplomb and an in-depth knowledge that impressed the audience, although those soundbites could also serve as fodder for the city's right-wing critics.
       Among the highlights:
        When  asked about the Mayor's proposed budget-saving through abandoning the Emancipation Day celebration,  Gray remarked, "If we have to eliminate a holiday, let's eliminate Independence Day: We've got nothing to celebrate, we're not independent." 
 
    When a questioner prodded him about the need for eco-friendly street-cars Washington  (a cause Gray supports),  the audience member led up to the question by referring to "the capital of the greatest country on Earth" -- and Gray promptly snapped back, "What country is that?"    
 
 At another point, Gray, his frustration at Congress mounting, remarked, "Maybe we should consider civil disobedience." Pausing with expert comic timing, he added, "What are they going to do -- disenfranchise us?"
 
   That was the sore point that always galled him. Near the end, he said, "Our country was founded on 'taxation without representation.' We are the only country in the free world with a capital without represetnation in the national legislative body."
 
       And, Senator Ensign, he's still willing to take you on when you decide to quit the U.S Senate and run for City Council

Comments [0]

Where's the progressive activism to get a sound bank rescue plan?

    The Los Angeles Times reports about the new activism to pass Obama's budget.
 
     But there's no comparable coordinated action yet to improve the banking bailout schemes that many leading economists, notably Paul Kruman, the subject of this week's Newsweek cover, don't think will work. Tom Edsall interviews and quotes from leading progressive and pessimistic  economists who disagree over whether Geithner's highly subsidized toxic assets plan can work. But even those who now, surprisingly, think it has the potential to work believe that insolvent banks should be nationalized:

"On his own blog,[Noriel]  Roubini added a crucial warning: 'the Geithner plan is not an alternative to nationalization: insolvent banks should be nationalized and the Geithner plan should not apply to them. But solvent banks still need to have their toxic assets disposed of; and for these banks the Geithner plan provides a solution that - all in all - is better than the alternative.'"

        A former IMF economist has a grimmer view in the new Atlantic: Our banking institutions and self-serving elites have turned us into a banana republic, with taxpayers being the ultimate losers.
       James K. Galbraith in the new Washington Monthly has a historically well-informed look at why even the New Deal didn't get the banks lending again (it just kept them from collapsing), and why Geithner's new plans won't work,either  -- and millions of Americans, especially senior citizens, are being left vulnerable to Great Depression-like privations as their stock portfolios and housing values plummet.  
 
   He writes about the current economic meltdown:
       "In addition, some of the biggest banks are bust, almost for certain. Having abandoned prudent risk management in a climate of regulatory negligence and complicity under Bush, these banks participated gleefully in a poisonous game of abusive mortgage originations followed by rounds of pass-the-bad-penny-to-the-greater-fool. But they could not pass them all. And when in August 2007 the music stopped, banks discovered that the markets for their toxic-mortgage-backed securities had collapsed, and found themselves insolvent. Only a dogged political refusal to admit this has since kept the banks from being taken into receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation—something the FDIC has the power to do, and has done as recently as last year with IndyMac in California...

  "A brief reflection on this history and present circumstances drives a plain conclusion: the full restoration of private credit will take a long time. It will follow, not precede, the restoration of sound private household finances. There is no way the project of resurrecting the economy by stuffing the banks with cash will work. Effective policy can only work the other way around.

 
T hat being so, what must now be done? The first thing we need, in the wake of the recovery bill, is more recovery bills. The next efforts should be larger, reflecting the true scale of the emergency. There should be open-ended support for state and local governments, public utilities, transit authorities, public hospitals, schools, and universities for the duration, and generous support for public capital investment in the short and long term. To the extent possible, all the resources being released from the private residential and commercial construction industries should be absorbed into public building projects. There should be comprehensive foreclosure relief, through a moratorium followed by restructuring or by conversion-to-rental, except in cases of speculative investment and borrower fraud. The president’s foreclosure-prevention plan is a useful step to relieve mortgage burdens on at-risk households, but it will not stop the downward spiral of home prices and correct the chronic oversupply of housing that is the cause of that.

 " Second, we should offset the violent drop in the wealth of the elderly population as a whole. The squeeze on the elderly has been little noted so far, but it hits in three separate ways: through the fall in the stock market; through the collapse of home values; and through the drop in interest rates, which reduces interest income on accumulated cash. For an increasing number of the elderly, Social Security and Medicare wealth are all they have.

 " That means that the entitlement reformers have it backward: instead of cutting Social Security benefits, we should increase them, especially for those at the bottom of the benefit scale. Indeed, in this crisis, precisely because it is universal and efficient, Social Security is an economic recovery ace in the hole. Increasing benefits is a simple, direct, progressive, and highly efficient way to prevent poverty and sustain purchasing power for this vulnerable population. I would also argue for lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare to (say) fifty-five, to permit workers to retire earlier and to free firms from the burden of managing health plans for older workers.

 " This suggestion is meant, in part, to call attention to the madness of talk about Social Security and Medicare cuts."

And what will the rest of us do about this crisis?

 

Comments [0]

The Atlantic on The Quiet Coup: How Bankers Seized America -- View of Krugman and Rolling Stone, too

This new Atlantic article by a financial insider shows how threatening the current banking/financial crisis is. It echoes points I quoted in my article on Geithner's banking plan -- a bailout well-received by Wall Street and Washington pundits, but not progressive or many centrist economists -- and the dangers and series of banking scams are vividly portrayed by Matt Tabbai's  new Rolling Stone piece. Here's a link to my piece, written before Wall Street, joyous that taxpayers and not hedge funds will take virtually all the risks in buying up toxic assets, greeted the Geithner banking plan with an upswing in stock prices. His proposal later in the week to broaden overisght of the essentially unregulated non-banking institutions is long overdue, but won't be enough to stop the economic crisis. I also have  added an angle about populist rage as boosting union political efforts:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/could-anger-at-aig-and-ge_b_177893.html

These views about the Geithner plan and the dangers of the current Wall Street-favored recovery plan are also echoed by Paul Krugman's commentaries. Krugman followed up late this week with a scathing look at the Obama administration's continuing  faith in the magic of the marketplace:

It has become increasingly clear over the past few days that top officials in the Obama administration are still in the grip of the market mystique. They still believe in the magic of the financial marketplace and in the prowess of the wizards who perform that magic...

The market mystique didn’t always rule financial policy. America emerged from the Great Depression with a tightly regulated banking system, which made finance a staid, even boring business. Banks attracted depositors by providing convenient branch locations and maybe a free toaster or two; they used the money thus attracted to make loans, and that was that...

After 1980, of course, a very different financial system emerged. In the deregulation-minded Reagan era, old-fashioned banking was increasingly replaced by wheeling and dealing on a grand scale. The new system was much bigger than the old regime: On the eve of the current crisis, finance and insurance accounted for 8 percent of G.D.P., more than twice their share in the 1960s. By early last year, the Dow contained five financial companies — giants like A.I.G., Citigroup and Bank of America.

And finance became anything but boring. It attracted many of our sharpest minds and made a select few immensely rich.

Underlying the glamorous new world of finance was the process of securitization. Loans no longer stayed with the lender. Instead, they were sold on to others, who sliced, diced and puréed individual debts to synthesize new assets. Subprime mortgages, credit card debts, car loans — all went into the financial system’s juicer. Out the other end, supposedly, came sweet-tasting AAA investments. And financial wizards were lavishly rewarded for overseeing the process.

But the wizards were frauds, whether they knew it or not, and their magic turned out to be no more than a collection of cheap stage tricks. Above all, the key promise of securitization — that it would make the financial system more robust by spreading risk more widely — turned out to be a lie...

In essence, the administration seems to believe that once investors calm down, securitization — and the business of finance — can resume where it left off a year or two ago.

To be fair, officials are calling for more regulation. Indeed, on Thursday Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, laid out plans for enhanced regulation that would have been considered radical not long ago.

But the underlying vision remains that of a financial system more or less the same as it was two years ago, albeit somewhat tamed by new rules.

As you can guess, I don’t share that vision. I don’t think this is just a financial panic; I believe that it represents the failure of a whole model of banking, of an overgrown financial sector that did more harm than good. I don’t think the Obama administration can bring securitization back to life, and I don’t believe it should try.

 
Let's hope that a Nobel Prize winner and others are wrong. Noriel Roubini, though, "Dr. Doom," thinks it might work.

You can get an overview of previous explanatory journalism of how we got in this mess -- although the Rolling Stone piece is by far the most accessible and entertaining -- in my earlier round-up piece:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/7-trillion-meltdown-101-h_b_147285.html

Here's more information on the Atlantic article:

In the upcoming May issue of The Atlantic, former IMF economist Simon Johnson writes about the way the finance industry has effectively captured the US government.  Johnson argues that the state of affairs is more typical of emerging markets, and that recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform.

 

He summarizes, “The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump ‘cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.’ This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression—because the world is now so much more interconnected and because the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries, a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances. If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.”

 

I invite you to read the full essay, now posted at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice.

 

 

Comments [1]