How wimpy is the financial-reform legislation?
CNNMoney.com’s Jennifer Liberto writes that Congress is passing the buck to regulators to do their own studies and come up with rules:
Instead of toughening up ethical and marketing standards for financial planners, Congress studies the issue in the financial overhaul bill. Instead of making it easier to sue lawyers, accountants and bankers who help commit securities fraud, Congress studies the issue.
The bill also studies, among other things: short selling, reverse mortgages, improved insurance regulation, private student loans, oversight of carbon markets and the “feasibility of requiring use of standardized algorithmic descriptions for financial derivatives.”
There are sixty-eight studies that will be commissioned if the bill passes. Don’t expect much:
Congress had been considering measures to force brokers to act in the best interests of their clients when giving investment advice.
Different financial industry groups, ranging from investment firms to life insurers, tried to kill it all together. But it ended up as the subject of a six-month study, with a mandatory follow-up to carry out the recommendations.
“That study was a save,” said Ed Mierzwinski, national consumer program director at Public Interest Research Groups. “But, the general theme of studies is to delay or kill — it’s a strategy taught on K Street,” the Washington thoroughfare synonymous with lobbying.
— How bad did BP overplay its ability to corral an oil spill in the Gulf? Very, very badly, reports Kimberly Kindy of the Washington Post:
In the 77 days since oil from the ruptured Deepwater Horizon began to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, BP has skimmed or burned about 60 percent of the amount it promised regulators it could remove in a single day.
The disparity between what BP promised in its March 24 filing with federal regulators and the amount of oil recovered since the April 20 explosion underscores what some officials and environmental groups call a misleading numbers game that has led to widespread confusion about the extent of the spill and the progress of the recovery…
In a March report that was not questioned by federal officials, BP said it had the capacity to skim and remove 491,721 barrels of oil each day in the event of a major spill.
As of Monday, with about 2 million barrels released into the gulf, the skimming operations that were touted as key to preventing environmental disaster have averaged less than 900 barrels a day.
— Mike Konczal points out that the U.S. now invests more capital in mining operations (think: oil and gas) as it does in manufacturing ones.
That’s a dramatic change from just a decade ago:
If you were to take a completely random day, say December 11th, 2000, the day before Bush v. Gore was decided, you would note that we spend something like 5 times as much on manufacturing than mining.
Heck of an economy we’ve got here.

Proven reserves of natural gas in the United States have climbed from 130 trillion cubic feet to over 250 trillion cubic feet in the past 15 years and the vast majority of this has come from shale gas reserves. Shale gas is significantly more expensive to produce than coalbed gas. Nearly all new production of natural gas has come from shale gas reserves. Considering that the last oil and gas production boom took place in the late 70’s and early 80’s, most of these wells are past their peak production lives. So not only did we have to replace a significant amount of out gas and oil (mainly gas) production in the past 15 years, but we had to do so with increasingly costly from of production. This was also exacerbated by skilled labor shortages in the oil and gas industry, spikes in raw material prices and manufactured goods prices and the increase in fixed asset expenditures seems more reasonable.
And what was the alternative for bringing all this new production on line? Cold houses? Rolling blackouts? An even faster deindustrialization due to lack of raw materials and spikes in energy prices? While I do realize that had Gore taken the presidency instead of W our world would be powered by moonbeams and unicorn shit, but did you bother to look any deeper into this information, or did was your superficially simple conclusion based solely on the “Bush-Cheney-BP-Halliburton” song that plays over and over in your head?
Heck of journalism degree you got there.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 9 Jul 2010 at 05:19 PM
The mcclatchy coverage on the skimmer issue has been really good:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/26/96608/no-skimmers-in-sight-as-oil-floods.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/02/96959/why-so-few-skimmers-at-the-oil.html
“By sinking and dispersing the oil, BP can amortize the cost of the cleanup over the next 15 years or so, as tar balls continue to roll up on the beaches, rather than dealing with the issue now by removing the oil from the water with the proper equipment,” McCallister testified earlier this week before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. “As a financial adviser, I understand financial engineering and BP’s desire to stretch out its costs of remediating the oil spill in the Gulf. By managing the cleanup over a period of many years, BP is able to minimize the financial damage as opposed to a huge expenditure in a period of a few years.”
If you look at the data, the government and BP seem to be divorced parents each pushing off the responsibility of picking up their child from school onto the other, without considering the interests of the child who's waiting for the f'in car.
BP in particular is so incompetently screwing up the crisis management that it appears like an intentional strategy to make the government assume control, but the Obama administration is claiming "oh no, we're going to make BP pay" and for some reason the first assumption "make BP pay" leads to the second assumption "leave BP in control", which includes the Coast Guard and local government authorities. These assumptions should not be connected and the fed should not be trying to leave a criminal in charge of its crime scene cleanup.
Who has got the interests of the Gulf of frickken Mexico in mind?
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 10 Jul 2010 at 01:55 AM