The Bad Ride in the Markets and Main Street

Since September the federal government has been busy. Very busy. But it has very little to show for all its efforts when it comes to Wall Street's and Main Street's reaction. Back in September, when Congress got together to roll up its sleeves and to heal the economy's woes, Wall Street was worried by the volatility of the market. Back then, the market strongly worried investors as it stood at the brink of going below 10,ooo points. Slightly 4 months later and we are threatened by a market that could (and likely, should) go below 7,000 points. The irony is that the plummeting market was a direct response to the government's "best efforts" to placate Wall Street's concerns. Instead of getting better, it has gotten markedly worse and has now reached 11 year lows.

Main Street has responded in a similar fashion. 2008 began with unemployment at a remarkably low 4.9 percent, which many economists describe as "full employment," when you consider seasonal and other factors that make "zero unemployment" an impossibility. Unemployment hovered around 5 percent through much of the year until about a month before the huge minimum wage increase (yes, there is a connection), in which it solidly went into the 5 to 6 percent area around that time. By September it had broken 6 percent and showed no interest in going back. This rise in unemployment joined the drop in the Market in leading to Washington coming "to the rescue." Main Street has responded to the massive bailouts of September and the "stimulus" of January by laying off even more people -- over 500,000 in the last couple of months alone. Main Street has responded to the Obama agenda by casting a new ballot -- pink slips -- and now unemployment is squarely in the 7 percent area and is moving its way towards double digits.

So why have both Main Street and Wall Street reacted so negatively? It is because both of these sectors are in the arena of enterprise. They fundamentally know that the more government controls things, the less efficient and productive those things become. The Bank of America is now on the brink of having 40 percent of its ownership be in the hands of government. Banks running like typically inefficient government institutions have done little or nothing to bolster consumer, financial, or business confidence. Fundamentally, I believe that at some level Americans know better. Free enterprise, limited government, and private property -- the founding principles of this Republic -- are better values than government control and ownership. There is a very good possibility that the businesses today are suffering from rather serious buyers remorse. I hope the government gets that message.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Jackson is Furious and Limbaugh is Confused by Obama's Choices

Barack Obama is about to announce the make up of his economic team as Wall Street, Main Street, and the media pundits hold their collective breath. His choices appear to be very surprising. This is not because they are very radical, but surprisingly conventional. They are the type of choices that will likely relieve Wall Street and infuriate the radical base that brought him to power. Furthermore, all of those who wished Clinton had gotten elected, don't worry, your favorite members of that team are showing up for an encore. What is most surprising of all is that Obama seems to be drawing on the more pragmatic and technocratic wing of the Democratic Party. Limbaugh and Hannity might go crazy over how boring these choices are.

Don't get me wrong, this team is liberal. But it is not the rampant ideologues that had many on the Right worried. On the other hand, they could also be the ultimate collective Trojan Horse, creating a sense of complacency that may make it possible for Obama to pursue the far reaching agenda he campaigned on.

The following is a breakdown of two of his most prominent team members:

• Timothy Geithner will be nominated as the new Secretary of Treasury. Geithner has worked in government almost his entire adult life with positions that have included Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Monetary and Financial Policy (1995-1996), Senior Deputy Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs (1996-1997), and Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs (1997–1998). In 2003 he was appointed the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He has been a foot soldier of Bush's recovery efforts on Wall Street and was there when the disaster happened, which should raise questions as to why he would be a good Secretary of Treasury. However, I think he is a safe bet, since Democrats will want to make Obama look as strong as possible and Republicans will be pleased by such a "moderate" choice.


• Lawrence Summers, who was Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, will be appointed to head the National Economic Council. Summers is the poster child of technocrats. Under Obama, Summers will actually be the architect of the new administration's economic policies. Considering Summers' faux paux while President of Harvard in which he claimed that women were not as capable as men in performing the hard sciences, I was surprised to see him in politics again so soon. Not only did it leave to his quick departure as Ivy League administrator, I thought it would see him exit the political scene entirely. However, it appears Democrats can say things that are politically incorrect without consequence. Summers will be perceived moderate by the political powers that be and should enjoy confirmation without incidence.

In the end, what we learn, is that Obama is actually was quite impressed by the accomplishments of Bill Clinton, as we see the former President's influence in virtually every area of policy in the new President's appointments. It is safe to assume that the radicals that drove Obama to the White House are going to feel like they are in the out house, if the new President continues to make such safe appointments. They have to be patient for a while, but I am sure Jesse Jackson is already sharpening his verbal sword. Finally, conservative pundits must be at a lost trying to figure out what kind of President Obama will in fact be. I don't have any doubt what Obama would like to do. His radical up bringing and the course he took to power makes that obvious. However, he may be shrewed enough to know that his agenda will have to be pursued with caution and such is reflected in his team.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

What's "Down" with the Stock Market?

Wall Street is facing the biggest post election sell-off in US history. The big question, of course, is "why"? Clearly, there is no simple "cut and dry" answer to this question. It can't be attributed to any one thing, I'm sure. But one contributing factor that I think is being largely ignored by the mainstream media, is the election of Barack Obama.

Of course, we have always recognized the impact of a new President-elect on the market. Is the new President pro-business? Is he in the pocket of special interest? What about his relationship with labor? The positions the candidate had during the campaign, show up in the stock market's reaction shortly after elections.

With Obama, we have a new President that is hostile to wealth creation, saying in his nomination acceptance speech that he supports tax policies that helps work, but not wealth. In this country, the two have always been linked. Wall Street knows that, but it appears that Obama does not. Because the current Democratic controlled Congress did not renew the next year of the Bush tax cuts, Wall Street (and those of us on Main Street that own stock) know that we will currently make 100 percent of our stock sales if we do them by the end of the year, but only make 80 percent when the capital gains tax goes into effect.

Daily, our stock reduces in value because of that looming capital gains tax. Sellers know that reluctance is growing on a daily basis as we get to January 1, 2009 and the tax increase. As that reluctance grows daily, expect the market to grow south with it.

This, of course, is only one area of concern. Hours after Obama was declared President, Iran's radical leader called for the dropping of sanctions against that regime. Wall Street is concerned of how safe the world will be with Obama. Capital gains tax is only the beginning. Obama plans on dramatically raising the taxes of the most affluent. Obama has declared that he is going to try and regulate or tax some businesses into bankruptcy (e.g., coal). This too plays heavily on the minds of Wall Street. The point is, business has plenty to worry about and those jitters are showing up each day in the Dow Jones Industrial Averages.

The test for Obama is simple. Can you have policies that benefit Main Street, but are harmful to Wall Street, yet maintain a healthy economy? I have my doubts.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Sizing Up the Vote Against the Wall Street Bailout

I was trying to have a business lunch while watching the US House of Representatives vote regarding the Wall Street bailout on TV. It wasn't easy. On the one hand, I wanted it to pass. I grew up with two parents who were raised during the Great Depression and the life they lived has had an impression on how I look at things. Generally speaking, I have denounced the philosophy of fear and scarcity that I grew up with, but when they spoke about the problems with banks and the fears of the Stock Market, I had to take notice. On the other hand, passage of this bill would be the abandonment of moral hazard on Wall Street and further promote a financial system growing out of control.

I was a little surprised that the bill didn't make it. I actually expected it to do more than squeak by, let alone crash and burn. It demonstrated how deep the angst of the American voters is and how great the fear is among members of Congress towards those voters. We have an election that is less than six weeks and the more vulnerable a member of Congress, the less likely he or she was going to vote for it. Clearly, many members rightly feel like they are in the cross hair of angry voters.

Most Republicans were making more than a "protest vote." Some felt that $700 billion being voted on in such a short time frame didn't make sense. What could be hidden in a bill that virtually no one had enough time to thoroughly understand it? Most feared there could be plenty and it gave Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson carte blanche authority for bailing out other financial institutions (including some outside of this country). Most Republicans wanted a proposal that didn't have taxpayers bearing the lion's share of the proposal. They wanted a system more like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, where the banks have to pay a premium to protect their accounts. They offered a list of other reforms that would have dramatically reduce the final costs of the multibillion dollar bailout by hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Republican proposals didn't even receive serious consideration because they didn't offer quick or simple solutions, would require more pain on Wall Street (and also Main Street) in order to achieve long term reform, and simply didn't have the "panacea effect" that investors are looking for. The bottom line is that Wall Street and Washington wants average Americans to do the hard work that our politicians and financial institutions should be responsible for.

In the end, I'm glad that the House Republicans put the breaks on this proposal. Certainly, we need some type of bill to get us out of this situation, but it should be done with deliberation and not at the expense of future generations.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Suze Orman Could Use a Lesson in Economics

Suze Orman, middle America's favorite financial Advisor, has become the poster child of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. She was on the Today Show on NBC singing the organization's praises and assuring Americans that the government is coming to the rescue in light of the current financial crisis on Wall Street. And it appears she is on the agency's payroll, since she dominates its' MyFDICInsurance.gov home page.

In light of the chaotic frenzy both Wall Street and Main Street are in, it would be nice to have a calming voice. That is exactly the role she tried to play, although I will say she looked extremely stressed out while trying to make her case.

My biggest concern came when the interviewer asked about the economic impact of people having their accounts insured. Orman pointed out that if you have $100,000 in a FDIC insured account, that money is safe. That statement is largely true. But the interviewer than asked "what if this leads to thousands of people needing to cash in on the insurance?" Orman's answer was something to effect that "Americans have nothing to be concerned about, the US Government has a check book and will pay for every account that is covered by the agency. Taxpayers will never have to pick up the bill." That was quite a mouthful.

First of all, that agency (like all government agencies) exists due to taxpayer funding. All taxpayers have already paid into it.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the high costs behind the "checkbook" she spoke so warmly about it. If the costs of accounts going bad exceeds the amount of money in the agency's budget (a very real possibility in light of our current crisis), the government will likely fund (at least) some of it through the simple printing of money. Essentially printing counterfeit dollars to pay for the program. As government prints new money, without an increase in productivity, the value of all money goes down. This is the definition of inflation, which is the worse tax program of all.

I have actually been a fan of Suze Orman and still believe she has advice that is helpful to many Americans. However, this interview on Today makes me question either the extent of her honesty (because of how outrageous her statements are) or the extent of her knowledge (because she should know better). At the very least it would make sense for her to get a basic refresher course in economics.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Congressional Democrats Show Priorities When It Comes to Working "Over Time"

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Majority Leader of the US Senate, has declared that he and his Democratic colleagues will work "around the clock" to solve our financial crisis. In a very real sense, this shows where his party's values and priorities are.

Of course it is all good and well that the Congress that played a pivotal role in getting us in this Wall Street crisis, would do something about getting us out, but the same Democratic leaders have not been nearly as interested in helping average Americans with a crisis that has been equally challenging to most. That is the raging rise in gas prices that has seen exponential growth, especially since the Democrats have taken over both Houses of Congress.

During the summer recess, many Republican Members occupied the US House and demanded Congressional action on our energy situation. Drill here, now, every where, and there too. Meanwhile the Democrats were dismissive about it and more interested in pursuing reelection rather than the needs of the vast majority of their constituents. They didn't see an energy crisis, but an opportunity to reduce demand on gas which would help conserve the commodity and lower pollution. It was a "good" problem that the "gasoline addicts" in this country needed. Tell that to the average American who was looking for relief and needed a break.

It is interesting that a party that has marketed itself as the "party of the people" will show up in mass to address Wall Street's concerns, but took a vacation when it came to the biggest issue facing average Americans. To me, it is unconscionable and they do it with a very straight face.

Instead of being embarrassed by their elitism -- going to premiers of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" in fleets of SUVs and lecturing the rest of us to take a bus -- they behave as though they simply know best and it would be better if we did what we were told. With the Democrats, average Americans get gouged while Wall Street gets a hand out, and they are for the people? You have to be impressed by their unction.

There is plenty of fault to go around in our nation's current financial crisis. Republicans, Democrats, Congress, White House. However, the Democrats hypocrisy when it comes to their treatment of the issues of Wall Street and the average American, they appear to be for the average person in their public relations, but for the elite in DC and Wall Street when it comes to their policies. I hope we remind them of that in November.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Obama Vs. McCain: Battle of the Regulators

Obama is boasting that he is the true regulator and that John McCain is a "Johnny Come Lately" with a history of being a champion of deregulation. Meanwhile, McCain is arguing that he has a long history of being a responsible regulator and being willing to toughen the laws when it made sense.

The problem on Wall Street has more to do with incentives than regulations. Regulations have, by their very nature, serious limits. Regulations are the tactics of paternal government, often forcing businesses to do what is contrary to common sense, but meets government mandates.

When I think of regulations, I think of what was one of the regulatory capitals of the world, the former Soviet Union. In the old Soviet model, the authorities wanted a certain number of plates of glass to be produced and mandated the businesses to produce a high quantity daily or face heavy consequences. So the factories made thin sheets of glass, most of which broke before they left the factory. Will that didn't work, so the authorities demanded that the factory produce glass that was very heavy and would be awarded according. None of the glass broke in the factory, nor in transportation, but they also didn't fit when it reached its destination.

In the formerly Communist Poland, that country produced the largest number of environmental regulations of any country in the world, yet it had the highest pollution levels. In fact, when I travelled there shortly after the fall of Communism, I found it very difficult to even breath. Aristotle spoke of the "tragedy of the commons," in which things decline if they are not owned. Ownership, and the responsibility associated with such, is a necessary element for anything to get better.

This leads to the current arguments about the crisis in the financial markets today. In my opinion, the situation has more to do with an increase in government intervention, not a lack of it. Any changes in law should increase the burden of responsibility on financial institutions rather than facilitate the corporate welfarism that is rampant today.

Amity Shales of Bloomberg has offered three new rules that the financial markets clearly need:

• "First, no more bailouts." We must take the "moral hazard" of businesses being bailed with virtually no consequence seriously and allow companies to swallow the poison they have brewed for themselves. Allow one of these companies to be dwindled to nothing due to bad decision making and be swallowed by a competitor which will fire those who made such horrible choices. Yes, the market will suffer in the short run, but it will have an "enema effect" that will result in a healthier economy in the long run.


• "Second, clean up the rating system so that numbers speak something closer to the truth." The ratings systems on stocks on Wall Street are driven by people who make a living off their selling. It is not unlike the proverbial foxes watching the hens. Consumer Reports is considered the most credible leader in protecting individuals from shady products because they won't take advertising from the companies they monitor. We need a systematic approach to stock by someone (or thing) who doesn't have a vested interest in their performance.


• "Third, make the U.S. more competitive by lowering corporate taxes and other levies so foreign firms will want to fill our new vacuum." Shales points out that "the worst thing about John McCain's new ``crisis'' advertisement is that it suggests a strong man -- and not a strong country -- is the answer. Here President George W. Bush's response, that he had faith in our economy, was more useful." I couldn't agree more. The US already has the highest corporate tax rates of any modern economy in the world besides Japan. Cutting taxes is the fastest way to get the US back on its feet.

Our economy needs more ownership and responsibility, not paternal regulations. We need more incentives to make good decisions and not obstacle courses to avoid bad ones. I am convinced that if these candidates try to win the regulatory game as the solution to our economic woes, the losers will be Wall Street and Main Street.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Wall Street Hits Main Street at the Football Stadium

We have heard all the stories about how problems on Wall Street is having a negative effect on the neighborhoods we live in. Just today, that story hit a little close to home. There has been a great deal of local excitement about Team Texas of the All American Football League. Recently, I interviewed several of its players and it appeared they had developed a substantive league that could become quite successful.

It was going to have decent (but not outrageous) salaries (up to $100,000 a year). It included players you could be proud of -- you had to be a college graduate to play on a team. In many respects, it was like "graduate school" for college football. You know how successful college football has been.

On March 13th, the league released the following statement:

The All American Football League (AAFL) announced today the postponement of its inaugural season until 2009. The League will continue to build upon the foundation that has been established, and will continue to discuss opportunities with potential investors.

AAFL sponsors have committed to remain on board for the 2009 season. Currently, the League has corporate partnerships with New Balance, Baden Sports and Rogers Athletic. Also still in place for the 2009 season are a national radio partnership with Touchdown Radio & SportsDay Productions, and an Internet broadcast partnership with PlayOn! Sports, a division of Turner Broadcasting.

"We are so very fortunate to have built partnerships with companies who are partners in the truest sense of the word," said Keenan Davis, AAFL VP of League Operations and COO. "We sincerely appreciate their support as we progress toward our new goal of a 2009 inaugural season."

This story came from the Canadian Press:

The league's chief executive officer, Marcus Katz, said economic conditions forced the decision to scrap plans for this year.

"I invested 29 million dollars in cash to roll out the operations of the league," Katz said, adding he was owed "a lot more money" by a student loan company.

"When I told the board I would subsidize the league, that was before the bond market collapsed," Katz said.

Wall Street has not hit our neighborhoods and Main Street, but even our local football stadium.

I liked the concept and hope it is able to make a come back.

Here is a recent interview I had with Mike Pede of the league.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Fox Business and the "Average Joe"

Media Bistro brought it's readers information about an interesting article in the Columbia Journalism Review by Liza Featherstone. The writer's focus was on the impact that the Fox Business Network was having and whether or not it had incorporated "Main Street" as well as "Wall Street."

From the article:

Liza Featherstone writes an in depth feature about Fox Business Network in this month's Columbia Journalism Review. Featherstone writes that, despite the fact that FBN "champions Main Street over Wall Street," the network is missing, "the actual perspective and experience of the average Joe."

Featherstone writes that FBN, "can be fun to watch," and describes examples of the unique way the channel has presented financial news. Still, "If FBN were to be intellectually honest in early 2008, some of that reporting would necessarily be less than upbeat," she writes. "We never even meet FBN's favorite protagonist: the consumer trying to make ends meet. We don't see the neighborhoods in Cleveland that have been devastated by the mortgage mess."

As FBN evolves on TV, its web counterpart has shot to success. Michael Learmonth writes on Silicon Alley Insider about Foxbusiness.com (1.01 million) surpassing CNBC.com (998,000) in unique viewers during January 2008 (CNNMoney.com beat both significantly, with 5.6 million). One caveat — all of Foxnews.com's business news traffic gets redirected to Foxbusiness.com.

The thesis of the article is simple: although Fox Business gives the viewer significantly more content on small and medium size businesses (versus pure Wall Street coverage), it is failing to address the needs of the "average joe." The consumer, home owner, or employee that are affect by businesses of all sizes. Here's the problem with that criticsm -- Fox never promised to reach that audience. It is, after all, a business channel.

What it set out to do is discuss the mega corporations and the average business on the street, and it has certainly made strides in that direction. I think that it has work to do in that front. Historically, small business is "boring", "parochial", or even "local." It doesn't have to be, but that is how it has been treated by the media. In the future, I believe all the networks will focus on small business (which is where the bulk of the job creation is in this country) and I expect Fox Business to be a leader in that drive.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Dave Ramsey on Fox Business

My search for Fox Business is over! I found it on channel 359 on Direct TV (for others who have that service, but don't know where the channel can be found). I found the station to be very fresh, similar to its sister station, Fox News.

One of the things that always concern me about business programming is that such networks often disregard business beyond Wall Street. It is too early to see how Fox will be (unfortunately, I had to work much of the day and didn't get to watch every minute of it), but I was please to see the direction it appears to be going.

In particular, I was delighted to see the Dave Ramsey television show on Fox Business. Dave is an old friend who has been a guest on my own show back when he too was on AM 650 locally. Dave does an excellent job of addressing the "rubber meets the road" issues when it comes to personal finances. Most of our personal dollars are saved and spent on Main Street, rather than Wall Street and he provides great advise in that arena.

I know it is early, but I'm pleased to see the good things going on at the new Fox Business Network.

Note: Order Kevin Price's audio program The Accumulators, which explains the impact that the Internet is having on marketing and consumer behavior. It is available online here for only $10 plus p and h. Receive the Houston Business Review e-zine free each week by clicking here.