Interesting contrast between the political/economic situations in Spain and Greece on Mish's blog today. The "Six reasons" are detailed in the original article - I give just the summary snip for each:

[url=http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/05/spexit-before-grexit-six-reasons-spain.html]Six Reasons Spain Will Leave the Euro First[/url]
[quote]Interest rates on the 10-Year Spanish bond touched 6.7% today after the ECB shot down prime Minister Mariano Rajoy's [url=http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/05/stubborn-stupidity-fantasyland-thinking.html]Ponzi plan to recapitalize banks[/url].

The Spanish banking condition is in such precarious shape that Matthew Lynn of Strategy Economics proposed [url=http://www.cnbc.com/id/47610195]'Spexit' Will Come Before a 'Grexit'[/url].
...
One: Spain is too big to rescue.

Two: Spain has tired of austerity already.

Three: Spain has a real economy.

Four: Spain is politically secure.

Five: Spain has bigger horizons.

Six: The debate has already started.[/quote]

Facebook shares below $27 now.

[QUOTE=only_human;300848]Facebook shares below $27 now.[/QUOTE]

Pitty it can't be shorted; unlike the Euro....

[QUOTE=only_human;300848]Facebook shares below $27 now.[/QUOTE]

Back up over 28 now thanks to an end-of-month window-dressing market ramp. I expect the reprieve will not last long. Euro also dipped below its 52-week low of $1.23 earlier today, now back to unchanged on the day.

-------------

Interesting Reuters piece on out-of0work (or previously retired but nest-egg-hammered by-the financial crisis) baby boomers recycling themselves into the lower tiers of the job market. There are so many of our regular themes in play here that I decided to inline my comments. Sorry if that makes for a bit a jarring read.

[URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/31/us-usa-economy-employment-idUSBRE84U09J20120531?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews"]Older Americans learn new trades in tough jobs market[/URL]: [I](Reuters) - When Joe Burklund of Des Moines, Iowa, lost his job at the depths of recession in 2009 after 30 years in the advertising and marketing industry, he never imagined another career.[/I]
[quote]He was almost 60 and optimistic he would land another job in his field, where he was earning $65,000 a year.

After collecting unemployment checks for a year, Burklund took a part-time job at grocery chain Trader Joe's. As he watched his retirement savings bleed almost dry, he realized his situation would not turn around anytime soon.[/quote]So let me get this straight - one year out of work *with* regular unemployment checks nearly depletes your retirement savings? That must`ve been some nest egg, dude. Sadly, such ill-preparedness for retirement is the rule rather than the exception - and of course the perpetual encouragement to "spend your way to prosperity" by the Keynesian-clown economists who dominate government and academia (and the debt merchants they serve) helped drive the past several decades of innumerate recklessness to unprecedented levels.
[quote]Thousands of Americans aged 55 and older are going back to school and reinventing themselves to get an edge in a difficult labor market, hoping to rebuild retirement nest eggs that were almost destroyed by the recession.[/quote]Let me guess - much of that "retraining" is being financed by government-backstopped student loans? [URL="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/student-debt-bubble-delinquencies-surge"]That will surely end well[/URL].
[quote]"I went into it thinking 'I am not too sure I am cut out for call center work,' and I never really wanted to sell insurance. But I was willing to try anything to gain full employment," said Burklund, who has set aside hopes to retire at 65.

Within two weeks of completing the program, he had three interviews and two job offers. In March, he started working at Marsh Insurance.[/quote]Good for him - but I`m guessing he took a wee bit of a cut in pay & benefits relative to his former position. The article fails to mention his new pay in the above section, but toward the end notes it is half his previous salary - and a second exemplar they mention took a new job at 1/3 his previous pay.
[quote]According to the Federal Reserve, household financial assets, which exclude homes, dropped from a peak of $57 trillion in the third quarter of 2007 to just over $49 trillion in the fourth quarter of last year, the latest period for which data is available.[/quote]I wonder whether "excluding homes" makes the resulting number larger or smaller? Also, notice they only mention "assets", not liabilities. This is reminiscent of the frequent headlines about "US corporations sitting on record cash hoards" which fail to mention that they also issued record amouns of corporate bonds (= debt) in order to take advantage of record-low interest rates, in order to accumulate those "cash hoards". That`s because in Fed`s calculus (more neo-Keynesian thinking at work here) debt = wealth, you see.
[quote]A survey to be released this summer by the Public Policy Institute of AARP, an advocacy group for older Americans, found [U]a quarter of Americans 50 years and older used up all their savings during the 2007-09 recession. About 43 percent of the 5,000 respondents who took part in the survey said their savings had not recovered[/U].[/quote]And remember, many of those folks will be competing with recent college grads for those NEW EXCITING CAREERS IN THE SERVICE SECTOR.
[quote][Paulette Gordon, 59], from Houston, Texas, lost her job as a technical analyst for energy companies two years ago after three decades structuring acquisitions of oil and gas wells.

She brushed up her resume to include administration skills. So far that has not yielded anything and last month she sold her jewelry to pay rent.

"I am surviving by the grace of God," Gordon said.[/quote]No, madam, you are surviving by selling your jewelry to pay for rent and food.

Charlie Rose just had a guy (Larry D. Fink, I thnk) who, among other things,

(a) told tales of how people are failing to think about future retirement finances, and

(b) says that most banks who're sitting on lots of money but not loaning are doing so not because they don't want to lend or are afraid to lend, but because they're being held to higher standards for qualifying borrowers and there just isn't enough demand from qualified borrowers.

"China and Japan to begin direct currency trading"

[URL]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/china-japan-begin-direct-currency-trading-212024953--finance.html[/URL]

[quote]China and Japan will start direct currency trading on Friday as Beijing marks another stage on its journey to internationalise the yuan.

Forex traders will be able to swap Japanese yen for the Chinese unit without having to use the US dollar as an intermediary currency when markets open in Tokyo and Shanghai at 0000 GMT.

The yuan-yen trade -- part of a wider deal reached last year between Beijing and Tokyo to forge closer ties --- will be allowed to move in a wider range than the narrow band at which the dollar and yuan change hands.

China will set a daily rate based on dealer quotes, with trade allowed to move within a 3.0 percent band above or below that rate, compared with a 1.0 percent band fixed to the yuan-dollar.

The trading-band rule applies only in Shanghai while free exchanges are guaranteed in Tokyo.[/quote]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;300868][Facebook] Back up over 28 now thanks to an end-of-month window-dressing market ramp. I expect the reprieve will not last long.[/QUOTE]

It lasted all of "overnight", as it turns out.

The latest desperate rumors out of Europe have Spain asking the US Treasury for a bailout of its banks, [url=http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/06/edge-of-precipice-doublethink.html]no strings attached[/url].

I am very worried that Geithner and Bernanke, addicted as they are to the power/prestige which the ability to print trillions and funnel it to banks all over the world at a moment's notice without any kind of government veto power or oversight whatsoever gives them, may actually be considering such "First we saved the world, now let's save Europe!" insanity. Gold skyrocketing 5% today may be telling us that global markets suspect similarly - it may possibly be mere flight-to-safety desperation, though.


[b]Friday Funnies:[/b]

ZH has a funny post this past Wednesday: [url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/national-acronym-day-europe]National Acronym Day In Europe[/url]

And another risible entry, prompted by Spanish debt yields hitting 6.66% the same day:

[url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/and-back-inferno]And Back To The Inferno[/url]
[quote]You know the something is really, really wrong when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, the Pope is German, Europe's central banker is Italian, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance and Germany doesn't want to go to war.[/quote]

And a little eye candy from [url=http://xkcd.com/1062/]XKCD on the Perils of Deficit Cutting[/url]

"The Retro Silliness of Our Green Trade War With China

[I]A new tariff on Chinese-made wind towers will not aid domestic industry. In fact, it is likely to do the opposite.[/I]"

[URL]http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/the-retro-silliness-of-our-green-trade-war-with-china/257916/[/URL]

[quote]How very 1992.

Yesterday the Commerce Department decided to put a 13 to 26 percent tariff on Chinese made wind towers -- as punishment for "dumping" the towers in the American market at a price that may be less than cost. This follows the recent preliminary recommendation of a 31-to 250 percent tariff on Chinese-made solar cells because the Chinese government subsidizes the industry. Last week, the Chinese government filed a complaint against the U.S. for imposing the tariffs with the WTO, and so we're off to the races on a greentech trade war that feels awfully retro.

The Commerce Department's recent decisions are an attempt to return to a simpler past, rather than building a fairer future. Tariffs are not going reverse time so that the U.S. has the 27 percent share of the global solar manufacturing market that it had in 2001 -- instead of 2010's 5 percent share. Nor will the tariffs create jobs here or hasten the installation of green technologies. In fact, it is likely to do the opposite: Higher prices will dampen the installation of solar and wind here, causing layoffs in the solar and wind installation industry and rolling back the progress these green industries have made. Imposing tariffs will certainly not increase American government subsidies so that they can compete with China's.

Tariffs are an old tool for an old problem when countries subsidized domestic industries to drive exports. Today big companies span multiple countries, as do capital, supply chains, and markets. Borders are no longer the relevant identifier: The lead complainant in the solar case is a German company with a U.S.-based plant, hardly the Andy Griffith character the laws were meant to protect. ...

. . .[/quote]I post this for the same reason I posted something else recently -- because I consider this view useful to think about, not because I'm endorsing the author's views as being superior to anyone else's views. I hope you all can understand that more clearly than three of you did that other time.

It probably isn't necessary for me to add this explanatory footnote when posting an article that doesn't mention any political officeholder or candidate, but I'm practicing for the next time when I do post such an article in this forum.

Perhaps others feel differently, but it seems to me that if one posts an article in a medium such as this, it is important to give at least a hint what one thinks of the content. If a poster does not provide annotation, it is reasonably to assume he or she is in general agreement with the points made in the linked material.

Am I an exception in holding the above views?

----------------------

The US mainstream media seem to finally be catching on - about 3 years late - to the rather interesting biases of the DOJ with respect to prosecution of mortgage-related fraud. Here is Joe Nocera's latest NYT piece:

[url=www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/opinion/nocera-the-mortgage-fraud-fraud.html?_r=1&ref=opinion]The Mortgage Fraud Fraud[/url]: [i]The banks get off scot-free, while the small fry go to prison. That’s how this Justice Department gets tough on mortgage fraud. It’s shameful.[/i]
[quote]I got an e-mail the other day from Richard Engle telling me that his son Charlie would be getting out of prison this month. I was happy to hear it.

Charlie’s ordeal isn’t over yet, of course. When he leaves prison on June 20, Charlie, 49, will move temporarily to a halfway house, after which he will be on probation for another five years. And unless he can get the verdict overturned, he will have to spend the rest of his life with a felony on his record.

Perhaps you remember Charlie Engle. I wrote about him not long after he entered a minimum-security facility in Beaver, W.Va., 16 months ago. He’s the poor guy who went to jail for lying on a liar loan during the housing bubble.

There were two things about Charlie’s prosecution that really bothered me. First, he’d clearly been targeted by an agent of the Internal Revenue Service who seemed offended that Charlie was an ultramarathoner without a steady day job. The I.R.S. conducted “Dumpster dives” into his garbage and put a wire on a female undercover agent hoping to find some dirt on him. Unable to unearth any wrongdoing on his tax returns, the I.R.S. discovered he had taken out several subprime mortgages that didn’t require income verification. His income on one of them was wildly inflated. They don’t call them liar loans for nothing.

Charlie has always insisted that he never filled out the loan document — his mortgage broker did it, and he was actually a victim of mortgage fraud. (The broker later pleaded guilty to another mortgage fraud.) Indeed, according to a recent court filing by Charlie’s lawyer, the government failed to turn over exculpatory evidence that could have helped Charlie prove his innocence. For whatever inexplicable reason, prosecutors really wanted to nail Charlie Engle. And they did.

Second, though, it seemed incredible to me that with all the fraud that took place during the housing bubble, the Justice Department was focusing not on the banks that had issued the fraudulent loans, but rather on those who had taken out the loans, which invariably went sour when housing prices fell.

As I would later learn, Charlie Engle was no aberration. The current meme — argued most recently by Charles Ferguson, in his new book “Predator Nation” — is that not a single top executive at any of the firms that nearly brought down the financial system has spent so much as a day in jail. And that is true enough.

But what is also true, and which is every bit as corrosive to our belief in the rule of law, is that the Justice Department has instead taken after the smallest of small fry — and then trumpeted those prosecutions as proof of how tough it is on mortgage fraud. It is a shameful way for the government to act. [/quote]
Of course the underlying strategy appears to be to serve up an occasional small-potatoes exemplar of "Justice Department's toughness on mortgage fraud" for media consumption, while running out the statute-of-limitations clock on the vast majority of the fraud, e.g. the multi-trillion-dollar securitization fraud committed collectively by the big banks and mortgage mills, with the generous assistance of all those fraudulently AAA ratings bestowed by the major ratings firms on the resulting garbage.

[b]Friday Funnies, Saturday Bonus Edition:[/b]

[[url]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/friday-humor-part-2-tbtrimjob]Accidental[/url] Headline Humor: Not All Jobs Are Created Equal[/url]

[url]www.zerohedge.com/news/presenting-david-rosenbergs-complete-chartbook[/url] - Not the article/chartology, silly - the reader comments. Specifically, #2486587 by user "Debtless"

The cartoon [i]Non Sequitur[/i], on bankers:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;301076]Perhaps others feel differently, but it seems to me that if one posts an article in a medium such as this, it is important to give at least a hint what one thinks of the content.[/quote]I'm with you so far.
[QUOTE=ewmayer;301076]If a poster does not provide annotation, it is reasonably to assume he or she is in general agreement with the points made in the linked material.[/quote]Personally I believe that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If no opinion is expressed I try hard not to draw conclusions either way. IMO, it's up to me to examine the evidence and to make my own evaluation.
[QUOTE=ewmayer;301076]Am I an exception in holding the above views?[/quote]
I don't know.

Am I an exception in holding the above views?

Another rhetorical question: what happened to the advice "Never a borrower nor a lender be"?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;301076]Perhaps others feel differently, but it seems to me that if one posts an article in a medium such as this, it is important to give at least a hint what one thinks of the content. If a poster does not provide annotation, it is reasonably to assume he or she is in general agreement with the points made in the linked material.

Am I an exception in holding the above views?[/QUOTE]

ewmayer...

It is perhaps informative that many in this modern day and age do not (and in the "olden days", did not) go to the Banks.

They went to their friends and families.

Were they stupid?

Or were they really [B][I][U]really[/U][/I][/B] smart?