Kohtz Family Websites: haas.kohtz.org kids.kohtz.org www.vokohtz.org www.kohtz.org

Kohtz.org

"Leverage Rising on Wall Street at Fastest Pace Since '07 Freeze"

Banks are increasing lending to buyers of high-yield company loans and mortgage bonds at what may be the fastest pace since the credit-market debacle began in 2007.

This is a direct result of the moral hazard of bailouts and "quantitative easing" by the Federal Reserve. It is also indicative of propping up our service economy at the expense of our manufacturing base.

By not letting Wall Street banks fail (the banks that bought and sold loans and mortgage-backed securities which financed sub-prime lending), the government has created a situation where it is actually encouraging them to repeat their mistakes. Give them cheap, easy, and plentiful credit via the Federal Reserve, and you have to ask yourself why wouldn't they do the same thing that made them rich last time? Since the government will bail out any large bank or financial institution that fails, since buying and selling these securities is a proven way to make loads of quick money, and since the majority of loans bought and sold are backed by the government, there is no risk involved. There are no negative consequences for Wall Street anymore, only the tax payer.

Another HUGE problem with this is that all the money banks are lending ends up going to financial institutions which deal in consumer debt. Like I said above, it's the easiest way to make money. Investing in an actual manufacturing plant can take years to see a return on investment. It takes serious planning, capital, hard work, and a substantial amount of actual risk to produce things. Who would want to do that when there is a risk free alternative that brings in twice the money in a fraction of the time?

The government is financing the sector of our economy that brought our country to it's knees. It is making loans for companies that could produce quality jobs, goods, and services difficult or impossible to get. Why can't anyone in Washington, with all their education and experience, see this? Am I the crazy person here?

Craig, August 31, 2009 | 1 Comment

"U.S. Consumer Spending Climbs on 'Cash for Clunkers'"

Consumer spending in the U.S. rose in July as households took advantage of the government's "cash for clunkers" program to buy new cars.

The 0.2 percent gain in purchases was in line with forecasts and followed a 0.6 percent increase in June, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Incomes were unchanged, causing the savings rate to decrease.


Is this really the road to recovery? Spending more money we don't have, encouraging consumers to deplete their savings, and making it possible for more people to default on more loans? A new car is about the worst investment a person can make. The price drops 20% as you drive it off the lot.

Craig, August 28, 2009 | cash for clunkers | 0 Comments

I keep hearing people, the President included, use the post office as a possible model for health care. They say it's a public entity competing effectively with private industry.

I think they're wrong, and I think John Stossel does a good job of explaining why. Read Obama's Post Office Mistake and Post Offices Closing: Good Riddance!.

I think John Stossel hates the post office. :) Actually, looking at John Stossel's blog, I think I've found a new place to visit every day.

Craig, August 27, 2009 | post office, health care, stossel | 0 Comments

I've finally added comments to my own blog. Feel free to tell me what you think, or discuss with others who have made comments. That is all.

Craig, August 27, 2009 | comments | 4 Comments

I just saw the following headline, "July new US home sales up 9.6 percent, New US home sales in July surge 9.6 pct, beating expectations in 4th straight monthly increase."

The news is reporting this as something positive, like all of the sudden people are out of debt and can once again buy new homes. Not true.

The reason why people are buying new homes right now is because of the $8000 new home buyer tax credit, the ability to borrow against that credit for a down payment, relaxed credit standards, and government backed mortgages via the FHA and Ginnie Mae. See my previous post, "The Next Mortgage Disaster."

What is wrong with people having to save 10-20% of the price of a home in order to qualify for a loan? If you don't have that much to put down, it probably means you are living paycheck to paycheck, which also means you're a pretty high credit risk. You're obviously having a problem saving money. By not having any personal investment in the home means that you are much more likely to walk away from a loan if the value of the home drops and you find yourself "under water." This should have been the biggest lesson from our financial collapse.

Apparently, nobody in Washington has learned a thing. We are purposely repeating a very recent history that brought our economy to its knees. The market needs to clear itself of everyone who can't afford their homes. Only then will homes truly be valued appropriately. All we are doing now is encouraging builders to build more homes, which increases supply. When all these new home buyers lose their jobs, find they can't pay their bills, and walk away from their loans, home prices will drop even lower then they would have had we left the market alone. We are making this worse.

This is not good news.

Craig, August 26, 2009 | housing | 0 Comments

'Cash for clunkers' effect on pollution? A blip
Climate experts aren't impressed with program's carbon dioxide policy

Not only did it cost a lot of money we didn't have, it didn't help with the environment - or fuel consumption - much.

As far as polution goes...

"As a carbon dioxide policy, this is a terribly wasteful thing to do," said Henry Jacoby, a professor of management and co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT. "The amount of carbon you are saving per federal expenditure is very, very small."

And as for gas consumption...
Likewise, America will be using nearly 72 million fewer gallons of gasoline a year because of the program, based on the first quarter-million vehicles replaced. U.S. drivers go through that amount of gas every 4 1/2 hours, according to the Department of Energy.

Then of course there is the whole replacing an old car with a new car, and all the pollution associated with creating new cars, as well as the energy that goes into it. My guess is if you add these two factors, it makes the benefits even smaller. In the end, the government helped buy people new cars, and ended up destroying a lot of valuable goods in the process.

Craig, August 24, 2009 | cash for clunkers | 0 Comments

I just saw this article in the New York Times, "Most Failing Banks Are Doing It the Old-School Way".

The severity of the current string of bank failures shows that many of the proposed remedies batted about since the financial crisis erupted would have done nothing to stem this wave of closures. These banks did not get in over their heads with derivatives or hide their bad assets in off-balance sheet vehicles. Nor did their traders make bad bets; they generally had no traders. They did not make loans that they expected to sell quickly, so they had plenty of reason to care that the loans would be repaid.

What they did do is see loans go bad, in some cases with stunning rapidity, in volumes that they never thought possible.


I realize it's hard to find much positive about this, and I realize it's painful for the people involved. Nobody wants to lose their jobs, not even bankers. But at some point, we have to move from a service based economy back to an economy that produces things. For far to long, money has been easy to get through low interest rates and an economy that structured itself to provide and service this debt. Banks closing, although very painful now, is a necessary part of the correction process - even if they were responsible in their lending. Consumers are borrowing far less, making far less, and spending far less. Therefore we need less banks.

I just wish the government wasn't prolonging the agony, trying to keep our service economy propped up. It's prolonging unemployment, increasing personal and government debt, and making the move back to manufacturing that much more difficult.

Craig, August 21, 2009

The only way our Senators and Representatives will do what we want is if we tell them what we want. Therefore, if you have good reasons to either support or oppose a bill in congress, tell them. It works. And if they vote against what you want, help to vote them out of office the next chance you get.

Here is my letter to Senator Nelson regarding public health care.

Dear Senator Nelson,

While I appreciate the need for reform of our health care system, more government is not the answer. Government is the problem.

Whenever the government gives people money who don't work for it, prices go up. The CEO of Kelly Blue Book was recently quoted saying used car prices will increase 5%-10% due to the cash for clunkers program. Medicare/Medicade costs have gone from 1% of GDP from its inception, to 20% of GDP today. Its cost go up an average 2.25% over inflation (3.25%) every year (total of 5.5%).

For true reform, we need people to stop using insurance as free health care. When I get an oil change, I don't expect my car insurance to help cover the costs. I don't expect my car insurance to pay for all but $20 of my new tires. The reason I have car insurance is for catastrophe.

If you want true health care reform, tax health insurance coverage by employers as a benefit and let us save our money in a tax free account for medical emergencies. Do things that will encourage people to pay for their own bills. Why have hospital costs increased so much even though technologies, procedures and drugs have made such huge strides in providing care, while costs for Lasik eye surgery and cosmetic surgery have gone down? The reason is simple. Consumers have to pay for their own eye and cosmetic surgery.

I encourage you (or a staff member) to read the following articles. They explain much better what I am attempting to say in this letter.

How American Health Care Killed My Father
Some doctors want cash payment - and their patients aren't complaining
Nurse's Cash-Only Clinic Improves Access to Care

The U.S. health care system is screwed up. It needs fixed. Simply throwing more tax dollars at is will not fix it.

Sincerely,

Craig Kohtz

Craig, August 21, 2009 | health care

I have to say, there are a lot of people opposed to a public health care option, and some of them are looking like idiots. Obama is not Hitler. A public option for health care, no matter what anyone thinks about it, is not fascism.

Second, when someone says something like Steven Hawkings wouldn't stand a chance in the UK, they sound like an idiot because he lives in the U.K. and is obviously cared for. Fear mongering isn't going to work.

What I don't understand is why the opposition insists on using these tactics. They just make themselves look stupid, and give those for health care "reform" things to point to as examples of their stupidity.

If the opposition would instead educate themselves about what has caused the problems with health care, they might be able to actually convince people to oppose it, or at least make them think about the inevitable consequences of a public option. Instead, because of a few idiots, they can brush off any criticism as coming from right wing nut jobs.

Anyway, I've been kind of avoiding the subject for a while because I wasn't sure what the problems were myself. I had an idea, but hadn't really researched it. However, during a recent discussion with a complete moron on another web site I am a member of, it all came together. During my "discussion" with this apparent second grader, I remembered hearing about an article on NPR that was to be published in the Atlantic Journal. After reading it, it pretty much said everything I felt. So, instead of me trying to explain my thoughts, I'm going to post this link instead.

How American Health Care Killed My Father

It's an intelligent article that leaves out the typical rhetoric and describes in detail what the problems with our system are, and why more government won't fix them. It's six pages long, so takes some reading, but it's worth it. I just wish more Republicans would read it so they could make some intelligent arguments. There are big problems with our health care system, problems that need to be fixed. More government will make them worse, not better.

Craig, August 20, 2009 | health care | 0 Comments
As a way to get a little more exercise, I've decided to ride my bike to work and back every day for the next 30 days, rain or shine. I hope...

Yeah! My letter to the editor was finally posted in the Journal Star. Unfortunately, they posted it along with four others, so I can't link to it directly. It's the last one on the page though. Here it is again:

I keep hearing the recession is coming to an end. Unemployment is down, the stock market is up, and the stimulus is working. But if we actually take a look at the economy, what has changed?

Booms happen when people make mistakes about the economy. Housing is a perfect example. Credit becomes easy to get, people buy houses, house prices go up, people buy houses as investments (sometimes more than one), prices continue to go up - until it all collapses.

But housing is only one sector and just a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is we don't produce goods anymore. For the past 30 to 40 years, we have increased borrowing and decreased saving. We turned into a "service" economy.

As we spent more, it became easier for investors to make money from financing and servicing our debt than manufacturing goods. Banks and credit card companies grew, coffee shops and big box companies grew, and industrial and manufacturing companies shrank or were sent overseas. Last year, as we leveraged the last of our assets (housing), we ran out of money. The service and finance industry collapsed, or tried to. Our economy needs to correct itself by moving away from services and back toward manufacturing.

The problem is that bailouts and stimulus are preventing this correction. The government is spending our tax dollars to prop up the failed service economy. It's actually encouraging more debt through programs such as Cash for Clunkers and the $8,000 new homebuyer tax credit. In short, nothing has changed. Until it does, until our government lets this correction happen, we will continue our downward slide from recession into actual depression.

Well I am really enjoying our first weekend in a very long time that we haven't had ANY plans!! It's a little embarrassing to admit that I...

I saw this story today, "Stocks drop as investors worry about consumers." Apparently investors are worried that "consumers are going to short-circuit the economic recovery" by not spending money they don't have.

First, it's not consumers that are short-circuiting the recovery, it's the government. Consumers are afraid for their jobs, trying to pay off debt, and are doing what they should be doing, which is saving. The service economy doesn't work. We need to move back to a manufacturing based economy. More on this tomorrow or Sunday I hope. It's what my letter to the editor is about. If they don't publish it by Sunday, I'll just publish it here.

What do investors think when we continue to loose 500K+ jobs a month? People are afraid. One month low unemployment numbers is not a recovery. In fact, a month of 250,000 lost jobs is the economy getting worse, not less bad. Also, the fact that people who collect benefits if falling isn't because they're finding jobs, it's because they have used up all their unemployment benefits. That isn't a number we should be happy about.

Craig, August 14, 2009 | 0 Comments

In the news today, we heard that US Foreclosure Filings Hit New Record; Up 32% In July On Year. Also, jobless claims rose. At the same time, the federal reserve says the recession is near an end.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the bailouts and stimulus aren't fixing the economy, they are simply delaying the recovery. They are also going to make it more difficult to get out of this recession. More on this tomorrow hopefully, but for now, an example of more problems to come:

The Next Fannie Mae - Ginnie Mae and FHA are becoming $1 trillion subprime guarantors. I don't want to repeat what the entire article says, so I suggest reading it in full. However, here are a few key points.

1. Ginnie's mission is to bundle, guarantee and then sell mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration, which is Uncle Sam's home mortgage shop. The FHA now insures $560 billion of mortgages-quadruple the amount in 2006.

2. The FHA's standard insurance program today is notoriously lax. It backs low downpayment loans, to buyers who often have below-average to poor credit ratings.

3. FHA's default rate has grown to 7%, which is about double the level considered safe and sound for lenders, and that 13% of these loans are delinquent by more than 30 days.

4. The FHA's reserve fund was found to have fallen in half, to 3% from 6.4% in 2007-meaning it now has a 33 to 1 leverage ratio, which is into Bear Stearns territory.

5. If housing values continue to slide and 10% of FHA loans end up in default, taxpayers will be on the hook for another $50 to $60 billion of mortgage losses.

It goes on and on. In order to keep home prices from collapsing - like they should have - the government has shifted the burden of foreclosures from the private sector onto itself. This doesn't mean the economy is getting better, the effects are simply being hidden from us. We can't sweep the housing mess under the government rug, it's already too full of other crap.

Craig, August 12, 2009 | mortgage, fha | 0 Comments

An article from USA Today, Clunkers program could drive used car prices up. I made this argument to some friends over the weekend as one of six problems I came up with off the top of my head for why this program was bad.

From the article...

the clunker program could cause prices to rise 5% to 10% more, especially for vehicles worth $4,500 or less, says Alec Gutierrez, senior market analyst for Kelley Blue Book. "It's going to drive prices up of some of the most affordable vehicles we have on the road."

[. . .]

Used car dealers agree. They say fewer older cars are at auction.

Too few older cars at reasonable prices could put some dealers out of business, says Tim Swift, general manager of the Corry Auto Dealers Exchange, an auction operation for dealers in Corry, Pa.

"It's was tough finding them before, and now, it's even worse," says Mike Williams, owner of Auto Wise in Shelbyville, Ky. "The $3,000-to-$5,000 car is just gone."

Craig, August 12, 2009 | Cash for Clunkers

And, for good measure, a letter to Senator Nelson as well.


Dear Senator Nelson,

I recently received a letter from you saying that although you are not a co-sponsor of S.604 - Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009, you are supporting a similar bill, S.1457 - Federal Reserve Credit Facility Review Act of 2009.

The bill you are supporting is a little difficult to understand so I don't know how good or bad it is. However, I did notice you are the ONLY co-sponsor. The S.604 bill now has 23 sponsors. Last time I wrote you it had 17. Of those six new co-sponsors, two more are democrats.

To be honest, your support of this other bill kind of feels like your opposition to the DeMint amendment on a point of order. You're "supporting" a bill that will never get passed. The original Ron Paul bill and the Senate version continue to gather more and more support. A recent Rasmussen survey shows that 75% of Americans support an audit of the Federal Reserve. I hope you send the right message to Nebraskans by supporting a bill that will pass.

Sincerely,

Craig Kohtz

Craig, August 6, 2009 | audit the fed

Just sent the following message to Senator Johanns about supporting the Audit the Fed bill in the senate.


Dear Senator Johanns,

I've been paying close attention to S 604 - the Senate bill to authorize an audit of the Federal Reserve. I've noticed for a while that you are not yet a a co-sponsor of this bill. All three House Representatives from Nebraska have signed on as co-sponsors of the House version, and even Senator Nelson supports a watered down version in S. 1457 (although he is the only co-sponsor). The S 604 bill currently has 23 co-sponsors. A recent Rasmussen survey shows that 75% of Americans support an audit of the Federal Reserve. Nebraska has always been fiscally conservative, which is why we have been fairly unaffected by this recession. My guess is at least 75% of Nebraskans would support such an audit, if not more.

Since 1913, the Federal Reserve's mandate is to maintain price stability and full employment. In 1913, a person would have only needed $58 to purchase the same goods that were $100 in 1800. A slight amount of deflation. In 2008, a person would need $2124 to purchase the same good that cost $100 in 1913. Since the federal reserve was created, we have had non-stop inflation and price instability. Looking at today's unemployment numbers speaks for itself as far as their other responsibility. The Federal Reserve is failing at their mandate. We need to know what is happening behind closed doors.

I hope you send myself and all your Nebraska constitutes a message by co-sponsoring S 604.

Thank you.

Craig, August 6, 2009 | audit the fed

Treasury's Debt Plan: More Sales of TIPS
"Auctions last week of two-year and five-year fixed-rate securities were surprisingly weak, a reminder that robust demand for such unprecedented bond issuance is far from guaranteed."

The government is starting to have a very difficult time selling more debt. The dollar is on its way to being the weakest it has ever been. In order to finance more debt, the government is agreeing to essentially adjustable rate securities (sound familiar?). Basically, bond rates tied to the CPI (Consumer Price Index). Essentially, our government is becoming a sub-prime borrower.

Craig, August 5, 2009 | debt

In 1929, facing an unprecedented drop in the stock market and a mounting recession, Herbert Hoover took action. For years, he had been advocating government intervention in markets and industry to stabilize prices and wages. "Government and industry should work together," was his mantra. Now was his chance to prove himself.

In past bust periods, industry would slow production, reduce prices, lay off workers and reduce wages until markets cleared. Some companies were even allowed to go bankrupt, a seemingly foreign concept these days. Once profits started to rise again, industry would hire back workers and increase production. The recession or depression was often painful, especially for marginal workers who had less skills then others, but it happened relatively quickly and the mistakes made by industry were fully corrected.

But Hoover and others, backed by new economic theory, thought they had found a cure for the bust part of the cycle. They called for price and wage stabilization in a recession, expansion by industry (as opposed to contraction), and public works programs to employ the newly unemployed. The theory was that consumption, not the quest for profits, drove the economy. Therefore, if wage rates and prices were sustained, and unemployment contained, consumers would pull the economy through.

Herbert Hoover bought into these ideas. During the beginning years of his presidency and the Great Depression, he dramatically increased government spending on public works programs, pressed industry to voluntarily maintain wages, and created programs intended to sustain prices. Industry agreed to maintain wages and some companies even agreed to expand their businesses. Their ideas and theories however, failed.

One of the most eye opening examples of this failure were the attempts to stabilize ag prices, most notoriously wheat. As wheat prices declined, the government sought to prop up prices by loaning companies money to hold wheat off the market for a time. They also bought wheat and stored it until prices rose. This actually worked in the short term, but not for long. Since wheat prices were high, farmers planted more wheat. The next season, there was an great abundance of wheat which drove prices down once again. On top of this, companies and the government holding wheat off the market had to sell it, driving prices farther down. To correct for over production, the government bought more wheat and asked farmers to voluntarily stop producing as much. Unfortunately, many farmers had to earn a living and continued to planted more. In the end, much food rotted away at a time when Americans found themselves hungry.

Today, we are essentially doing the same thing except to a greater degree. The government is trying to prop up prices, wages and employment and is encouraging us to consume. Like in the 30's, it won't work. Take for instance the "Cash for Clunkers" program. A local car dealer here in Lincoln reported record sales in July due to the Cash for Clunkers program. They even hired two new sales people. But let's look at what this program is actually doing. The government is taking valuable products (used cars) off the market and destroying them. They are encouraging people who owned their cars to buy new cars and go into the very thing that caused our recession - consumer debt! Since they are targeting fuel efficient cars, these prices will rise, making fuel efficient cars more expensive due to higher demand. When the money runs out (unless the government continues to buy us cars of course), sales will decline, less people will be looking for new cars, and the newly hired sales people will have to be laid off.

In October of 1930 (before wheat and other agricultural prices began to slide) with unemployment up to 9% (sound familiar?), Hoover patted himself on the back.

I determined that it was my duty, even without precedent, to call upon the business of the country for coordinated and constructive action to resist the forces of disintegration. The business community, the bankers, labor, and the government have cooperated in wider spread measures of mitigation than have ever been attempted before. Our bankers and the reserve system have carried the country through the credit . . . storm without impairment. Our leading business concerns have sustained wages, have distributed employment, have expedited heavy construction. The Government has expanded public works, assisted in credit to agriculture, and has restricted immigration. These measures have maintained a higher degree of consumption than would otherwise have been the case. They have thus prevented a large measure of unemployment. . . . Our present experience in relief should form the basis of even more amplified plans in the future.
Of course unemployment was not prevented in large measure, in subsequent years unemployment rose to over 25% and the Great Depression dragged on until WWII.

Right now, after an unprecedented amount of government spending, GDP for the previous quarter declined at only at -1%. But nothing has changed. The government is encouraging new debt, is destroying valuable assets in order to increase the sale of new cars, and is not allowing vital corrections in our economy to happen. And the Obama administration is patting itself on the back.

Next up, what corrections need to happen and why they aren't.

Craig, August 4, 2009 | cash for clunkers, hoover, great depression
Craig will probably pass out when he sees that I've actually posted something to our blog. Are you okay, Craiggers? We drove the kids to...
Use my first name at this domain name, should you wish to email me.