Learning from Dogs

Transocean Deepwater Horizon Explosion-A Discussion of What Actually Happened?

The trouble with the way that the news is presented and consumed is that major events are delivered in ‘headline’ style and even something as terrible as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is starting to compete with other, more current, news stories.

The other issue with news channels is that it is uncommon to be presented with a real insight into the human scale of massive catastrophes.  Thank goodness for the web!

Drilling Ahead is a website that describes itself as A Social Network of Oil & Gas Professionals. Another website find courtesy of Naked Capitalism.

On Drilling Ahead is a report about the loss of the Deepwater Horizon.  It makes both gripping and chilling reading.  Here’s an extract but it’s much better to read it directly from here:

An Ill-fated Discovery
According to news accounts, at about 10 p.m. CDT last Tuesday, Deepwater Horizon was stable, holding an exact position in calm, dark seas about 45 miles south of the Louisiana coastline. Water depth in the area is 5,000 feet. The vessel manifest listed 126 souls on board.

Deepwater Horizon was finishing work on an exploration well named Macondo, in an area called Mississippi Canyon Block 252. After weeks of drilling, the rig had pushed a bit down over 18,000 feet, into an oil-bearing zone. The Transocean and BP personnel were installing casing in the well. BP was going to seal things up, and then go off and figure out how to produce the oil — another step entirely in the oil biz.

The Macondo Block 252 reservoir may hold as much as 100 million barrels. That’s not as large as other recent oil strikes in the Gulf, but BP management was still pleased. Success is success –
certainly in the risky, deep-water oil environment. The front office of BP Exploration was preparing a press release to announce a “commercial” oil discovery.

This kind of exploration success was par for the course for Deepwater Horizon. A year ago, the vessel set a record at another site in the Gulf, drilling a well just over 35,000 feet and discovering the 3 billion barrel Tiber deposit for BP. SoDeepwater Horizon was a great rig, with a great crew and a superb record. You might even say that is was lucky.

But perhaps some things tempt the Gods. Some actions may invite ill fate. Because suddenly, the wild and wasteful ocean struck with a bolt from the deep.

The Lights Went out;
and Then...

Witnesses state that the lights flickered on the Deepwater Horizon. Then a massive thud shook the vessel, followed by another strong vibration. Transocean employee Jim Ingram, a seasoned
offshore worker, told the U.K. Times that he was preparing for bed after working a 12-hour shift. ”On the second [thud],” said Mr. Ingram, “we knew something was wrong.” Indeed, something was very wrong.

Within a moment, a gigantic blast of gas, oil and drilling mud roared up through three miles of down-hole pipe and subsea risers. The fluids burst through the rig floor and ripped up into the gigantic draw-works. Something sparked. The hydrocarbons ignited. In a fraction of a second, the drilling deck of the Deepwater Horizon exploded into a fireball. The scene was an utter conflagration.

Unimaginable hell!

And here’s another extract:

Read the rest of this Post

What interesting times we live in.

Came across a relatively new Blog with the title The Fourteenth Banker.  Caught my eye because of the similarity to the book written by Simon Johnson and James Kwak of Baseline Scenario fame.  Here’s an extract from the ‘About’ piece of this new Blog.

In response to the comments of folks in the Congress and oversight regimes, I have created this blog as a home for bankers who need to speak out and do not have a central clearinghouse or a safe place to do so.     Big banks now treat their employees like property, bought and owned.     Typically employees must subject themselves to all sorts of potential sanctions, forfeitures of compensation, clawbacks and even lawsuits if they speak in ways we often have thought were protected speech.   I am not talking about revealing confidential customer or proprietary information, I am talking about simply commenting on a company, management philosophy, making general observations or raising concerns.     It makes one appreciate unions even if not historically supportive of unions.   At least management and labor can have a debate.    Not so in today’s large banks.    Gag orders are written in the most intimidating way, included in Codes of Ethics, attached to incentive plans, posted on the company home pages.     We should ask ourselves, what is the big secret?

Do support the Blog by calling by.  Here’s a taste of what they are writing about:

Lying at Leyman

What is a million between friends?

Read this piece from Bloomberg Businessweek How Much Did Lehman CEO Dick Fuld Really Make?

This can only be called what it is. Delusion. Delusion about self, society, morality, values and anything else you can name. These are symptoms of a grave illness which is too common among those in power. In fact, the illness may be the requisite to power.

By Paul Handover

Uncontrolled borders and Washington’s lack of self-control

[This article appeared in the online version of the Wall Street Journal on May 1st. Copyright exists with the WSJ and it is reproduced below without permission. However, it seems to me to be such an insightful commentary on present conditions that the decision was taken to publish it on Learning from Dogs. Ed.]

By Peggy Noonan

Peggy Noonan

We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street’s money with it, and the government can’t really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what’s in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed “dot-gov.”

It is not that no one’s in control. Washington is full of people who insist they’re in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It’s that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: “We control everything” and “You’re on your own.”

All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.

This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned “I don’t trust gummint” attitude of the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s. It’s something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn’t. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn’t seem part of the Obama brigades. “Some of them are at the tea party,” she said.

None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.

Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.

Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal

The US-Mexico border

government won’t, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts. In keeping with recent tradition, they were reading parts of the law aloud on cable the other night, with bright and sincere people completely disagreeing on the meaning of the words they were reading. No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.

Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I’m not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.

But the larger point is that Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years—at least—through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform—i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties.

Both parties resemble Gordon Brown, who is about to lose the prime ministership of Britain. On the campaign trail this week, he was famously questioned by a party voter about his stand on immigration. He gave her the verbal runaround, all boilerplate and shrugs, and later complained to an aide, on an open mic, that he’d been forced into conversation with that “bigoted woman.”

He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.

The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, “How odd that’s where their minds so quickly go, how strange they’re so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?” But let’s not do Freud, he’s too interesting. Maybe they’re just smug and sanctimonious.

The American president has the power to control America’s borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.

But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?

No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it’s at the heart of the alienation—of the age.

In the past four years, I have argued in this space that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the commonsense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. What might that be? How about relax, see where we are, and absorb. Pass a small, clear law—say, one granting citizenship to all who serve two years in the armed forces—and then go have a Coke. Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away.

Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone’s attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address.

Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don’t trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.

If the federal government and our political parties were imaginative, they would understand that it is actually in their interests to restore peace and order to the border. It would be a way of demonstrating that our government is still capable of functioning, that it is still to some degree connected to the people’s will, that it has the broader interests of the country in mind.

The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.

Peggy Noonan is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal whose work appears weekly in the Journal’s Weekend Edition and on OpinionJournal.com.

She is the author of eight books on American politics and culture. The most recent, “Patriotic Grace,” was published in October 2008. Her first book, the bestseller “What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era,” was published in 1990.

She was a special assistant to the president in the White House of Ronald Reagan. Before that she was a producer at CBS News in New York. In 1978 and 1979 she was an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University.

A giant of US television retires from the screen

One of the fascinating aspects of my new American life is seeing how loud the volume of dissent is from the American

Bill Moyers

people about the shenanigans on Wall Street and the Too Big To Fail banks.  There is an intensity and passion that I can’t see happening on the other side of the Pond.  Maybe this is the cultural legacy of a people that just a short time ago, relatively speaking, were opening up this giant country seeking a better way of life than the ‘old countries’.

This intensity and passion is why, in the end, I believe that the solution to the huge crisis that still awaits us will start from this side of the Atlantic.  But it will get a whole lot worse before it gets better, such is the complexity and depth of the fraud that is being visited on decent, ordinary folks in this and many other fine countries.

Bill Moyers of the Bill Moyers Journal on PBS is retiring.  He’s approaching 76 and that’s a grand age to be dealing with the workload and stress of a weekly television presentation.  His last Journal was broadcast on the 23rd April, a week ago today airing two really important topics.  My only regret is that I haven’t been here sufficiently long to view many more of his Journals.

William K Black

In that last broadcast on the 23rd, Bill had two key interviews.  In this Post, I want to bring to your attention his first report, which was an interview with William K Black, now an academic but, just as importantly, a former bank regulator.  William Black really understands what is going on in banking.

The interview is both fascinating and captivating because, well to me anyway, it explains in terms that us laymen can understand, exactly what is going on and why it is so terribly important that legislation and regulations are brought into force to stop this fraud ever happening again.

This interview has not yet made it’s way onto YouTube so I can only post the link to the Bill Moyers website.

But, please, if you care about what is happening to us in whatever country you live in, click on this link and watch the interview.

And if you want to watch the earlier interview that Bill Moyers had with William Black then here it is.

By Paul Handover

A fateful day for the eurozone

…. is how Gavin Hewitt recently headed up a post on his BBC Europe blog.  The headline caught my eye and then when I read the full article it seemed as yet another piece of western civilisation was sliding into chaos.  Maybe it’s my age!

Gavin Hewitt

Gavin Hewitt is the BBC’s Europe Editor and as you can see from his bio, Gavin is a very experienced reporter.  Here’s how this Eurozone article starts:

Friday [April 23rd, Ed] will be remembered as the day the euro needed rescuing. Sure it is Greece that has asked to be bailed out but it was still a day that the architects of the single currency had never envisaged. For when it came to it, there were no plans to save a euro member in trouble.

You see what I mean about grabbing one’s attention!

In fact the article is so powerful that I am going to run the risk of incurring the wrath of the BBC’s legal department by republishing it in full.

Here it is:

Read the rest of this article

A suit was filed last week in the US against Goldman Sachs by the US government’s financial watchdog, the Securities and Exchange Commission.

GS is an example of all that is morally and practically wrong with capitalism. This is an obscenely-rich company whose ludicrously-rewarded executives do not actually do anything that I would describe as “work”. Their activities do not in

Goldman Sachs HQ

my estimation benefit the world in any meaningful way. They are parasites which feed off the backs of real workers (nurses, police, teachers, firemen, bridge-builders, electricians and so on) and – as in the recent shambles – end up practically killing the host.

There is a good case for forcibly putting them out of business and completely reorganising financial services, with the accent on SERVICES. A functioning society needs investment and jobs. Banks should be there to look after money and provide investment to companies, not shuffle around paper to make themselves obscenely-rich.

GS and others apparently have some sort of electronic system that operates automatically and instantaneously to market movements, allowing them to make vast sums by doing no work. NO WONDER bright graduates seek to join such leech-like firms instead of becoming teachers, researchers or otherwise seeking to do something useful for society apart from themselves.

If they are guilty, I hope we see the company broken up and put out of business. The criminal deception is no different from that at Enron, where people pretending (with already vast salaries) to serve the public were conniving to do criminal damage to put up the cost of their product. They were given a severe  penalty, and it should be the same for any white-collar worker if found guilty. I don’t have much hope for the eventual down-to-earth-sizing of GS (they are well-connected and can afford good lawyers …), but I am not the only person angry about all this greed. Get past the cosy confines of Wall Street bars into the real America and there are plenty more who feel the same way.

By Chris Snuggs

This is the concluding part four of a multipart series on the factors that drive U.S. and foreign bond prices and yields.

[Part One is here, Part Two here, Part Three here Ed.]

Bond’s in a weak or faltering economy will generate a lower return to lenders than bonds in a strong economy, absent inflation or any other material changes in the purchasing power of the currency.  Weak demand for goods and services means weak demand for financial capital which means low rates of return on financial capital.

The policies of the government can increase the borrowing costs of private industry.  Fiscal policy that increases taxes reduces the profitability of projects and undermines the ability of companies to pay coupons and repay principal.  Monetary policy that increases the money supply may lead to inflation, which also increases the cost of borrowing and reduces economic activity.

Lastly, and of the greatest concern of late, is the level of borrowing by the U.S. government.   Debt levels are at record highs, with no relief in sight. The AAA rating of U.S. debt is reportedly in jeopardy (Chicago Tribune editorial).

Moody's Corporate Logo

Both existing and new lenders worry about the ability of the U.S. government to repay. Yes, the can simply roll over existing debt by raising taxes or creating money to retire old debt and replace it with new, but the interest rate required by new lenders goes up as the ability of the private economy to sustain tax revenues falls and the risk of inflation rises (Moody’s explains U.S. bond ratings).

Both factors are in play now: an anemic economy with little hope that this administration will undertake policies that support business, and a ballooning money supply and weak dollar that undermine the purchasing power of the returns to lenders.  The returns to U.S. debt may still be healthy relative to those one can earn in other countries, but the spread is shrinking. The private economy remains fundamentally strong, thanks to the work ethic of the American people and the profit motive of the capitalistic system, but the policies of the U.S. government are straining those resources.

By Sherry Jarrell

This is part three of a multipart series on the factors that drive U.S. and foreign bond prices and yields.

[Part One is here, Part Two here, Ed.]

The yield on a bond is made up of several components. Some think of the return on a bond as the sum of the risk-free rate of interest (how impatient we are to get our money back, or how much we need to be compensated to delay consumption) and a risk premium (the additional return we require to compensate us for the risk of default, the risk the bond will be called, the risk of inflation reducing the purchase power of the repaid dollars, and many other sources of risk as outlined in the most recent article in this series).

Another useful way of thinking of the return on a bond is as the sum of the real rate of interest and the expected rate of inflation.  But what is the real rate of interest?  We never actually observe that rate, unless of course the inflation rate is zero and then the real rate is just the nominal rate set in the market.

It is useful, however, to think about what drives the ability of a company to generate a real rate of return to lenders, for this is essence of capitalism and risk-taking and creating economic value and growth.

Bond traders

A firm’s asset cash flows support the real returns to its lenders – all kinds of lenders (debt, equity, hybrid, and derivative security holders). A firm will want to borrow more, and is willing to pay a higher interest rate for those funds, the more profitable are the projects they want to undertake, or the greater the number of profitable projects. Profitability, in turn, is determined by the relationship between demand and supply:  how much does society value a good or service, and how many resources does the business use in producing the good or service.  As the marginal productivity or efficiency of a business goes up, it can afford to profitably fund more projects.  So the core driver of the real return on bonds is the strength of the underlying economic activity of the private economy.

Or, when viewed from the investor’s side, note that an investor will purchase a bond, or lend money to a company, if they expect to earn a return sufficient to compensate them, first, for delaying consumption and, second, for bearing the various sources of risk or uncertainty associated with the bond’s cash flows or return.

By Sherry Jarrell

Well, it is a Chinese saying, “May you live in interesting times”!

A couple of weeks ago on Learning from Dogs, there was an article reminding readers that the web has been around for 20 years and Sir ‘Tim’ Berners-Lee is still hard at it in terms of Internet innovations. And to support this, today accompanying this Post is one on what the BBC is doing to commemorate the event.

The Internet has completely reformed the way that ordinary people get access to information.  Stratfor is a great example.

From their web site:

STRATFOR’s global team of intelligence professionals provides an audience of decision-makers and sophisticated news consumers in the U.S. and around the world with unique insights into political, economic, and military developments. The company uses human intelligence and other sources combined with powerful analysis based on geopolitics to produce penetrating explanations of world events. This independent, non-ideological content enables users not only to better understand international events, but also to reduce risks and identify opportunities in every region of the globe.

One can subscribe to a range of free reports and it came to pass that a Stratfor report on China came into my in-box.

Stratfor generously allow free distribution of this report and because the relationship between China and the USA has so many global implications, the report is published in full, as follows:

Read the Stratfor report

Welcome Elliot Engstrom

Learning from Dogs has been publishing on a daily basis since July 15th, 2009.  That’s over 460 posts and is a great tribute to the commitment of all the authors of this Blog.  We are grateful that our regular readership is also measured in the hundreds and is growing steadily.

Elliot Engstrom

It seemed time to make a small change.  We have decided to include articles from Guest Authors on a regular basis.  Our first guest is Elliot Engstrom.

Elliot Engstrom is a senior French major at Wake Forest University, and aside from his schoolwork blogs for Young Americans for Liberty and writes at his own Web site, Rethinking the State

Elliot first post for Learning from Dogs is about the US Federal Government and Poverty.  This also appeared in The Daily Caller.

————–oooOOOooo—————-

The federal government, which claims to be the greatest supporter of those in need, is anything but a friend of the impoverished.

Often times when conservatives speak of the government treating the rich differently than the poor, the discussion is framed around taxes and welfare, with the argument being made that the government forces the highest earners to pay a massive percentage of all taxes, both punishing success and stifling overall economic productivity and making it all the more difficult for anyone not in the upper echelons to accumulate wealth for themselves. I sincerely hope that I have not constructed a straw man version of this common conservative argument, as I certainly think it has a great deal of credibility. However, I also would like to draw attention to the fact that while government loots the rich through the direct means of taxation, it likewise loots the poor, albeit through a different set of means that is much more difficult to recognize, and thus much more difficult to counteract.

While looting the wealthy can often be construed as some kind of humanitarian effort to aid the poor, looting the impoverished is a much more difficult enterprise to disguise as a moral good. Thus we will find that the government’s means of taking money from the poor are much more difficult to detect, comprehend, and eliminate than the means of direct taxation that is used to extract money from the wealthier members of society.

The dollar in which the majority of Americans receive their wages or salary has no absolute, set value. We see this in the fact that the value of the dollar is constantly fluctuating when compared to gold, silver, or the currencies of other nations (which are all constantly fluctuating in value themselves). “Value” is determined by a wide range of factors, but is based in the fact that human beings are all rational maximizers who are all trying to get what they want while expending the least amount of resources possible to do so. The occurrence of this phenomenon in the mind of every single individual economic actor coordinates the price system in a free market economy.

A given worker making $10.50/hour may see himself as bringing home a constant source of income. However, this is not the case at all due to the constantly shifting value of the dollar. Even in a free and unhindered market, the value of the dollars that this worker takes home each day would fluctuate based on factors like how much liquid currency was actually in existence in the market, how many resources had been invested in banks or stocks, and what amount of resources had been converted into physical capital or products. In the end, the dollar itself has all the value of a flimsy piece of cotton paper – it derives its true value from the productive activities of economic actors who use it as a medium of exchange. In other words, the dollar is a widely accepted “I.O.U.” This would be the case even in the freest of economies. Values of commodities and currencies are always changing based on the effectual demand and effectual supply of the moment.

But, as we all know, we live in anything but a free and unhindered economy. Our supposed “free market” is criss-crossed with a Federal Reserve System that manipulates the value of the dollar at will, a corporate welfare system that socializes the losses of corporations at the expense of the rest of society, and law enforcement policies that weigh the heaviest on those who do not have the time or resources to easily deal with court and lawyer fees, jury duty, and detainments prior to trial, not to mention the fact that the War on Drugs does substantially greater damage to the lower classes of American society than it does good, particularly when speaking of poor African-Americans.

And here’s the scary part – this was all the case before the bailouts and stimulus package that George Bush began and Barack Obama continued and amplified. Not only do these bailouts threaten to massively inflate our currency, spelling disaster for those whose livelihood is based in hourly wages paid in dollars, but it also directly took from all of society, not just the rich or the poor, and gave to a few select corporate entities such as Goldman-Sachs and Wells Fargo. We know this because every new dollar created by the government in the stimulus plan detracted from the value of every dollar already existing in the pre-stimulus economy (or will do so when released into the economy).

Does this sound confusing? It should, because it is, and that’s exactly how the federal government likes it.

While the federal government would tell us that they protect the poor from the exploitation of the rich, economics would tell us that it is in fact the federal government itself that is the greatest exploiter of our nation’s impoverished, and it is this institution that in fact facilitates much of the disparity in wealth between wealthy national corporations and impoverished local communities.

Those of the small government mindset who wish to rally more people to their cause should not go about proclaiming that we should be immediately getting rid of affirmative action and welfare for the poor, but instead should be putting forth a rallying cry against corporate welfare, an inflation-minded Federal Reserve System, and a law enforcement system whose economic penalties weigh heaviest on those with the least money in their savings accounts. It does not have to be out of selfishness that we advocate for a reduction of the federal nanny-state. It can, and should, instead be out of a concern for the poverty and destruction of wealth that is directly generated by this institution’s misguided policies.

By Elliot Engstrom