Weekend Economists' Epiphany: January 7-9, 2011

[Demeter]

Our long-time sister in the study, bread and roses, has suggested Robin Hood as the weekend's theme. This is an excellent selection, IMHO, and not just because I was enamored of Richard Greene from a very young age, nor because I gave the Kid the entire series as a Xmas present this very latest Christmas...




The legend of Robin Hood, in all its manifestations, has not had many imitators, not even in comic book heroes. Perhaps the concept of redistributing wealth downward, or at least making the peasants whole after the overlord's depredations, is just too "socialist" for artists, who must earn the rich man's shilling.

Maybe it's because there's too much resonance with the Christ for the religiously employed, especially with Friar Tuck as a foil.

Perhaps it's because few people can see good and evil in black and white anymore, now that we have gone to color...

But until the Second Coming, let's reminisce about the men of Sherwood Forest and their inimitable leader, and what they might do in today's economic conditions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekwtuE0zyOs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbyYr6L5xQM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwBncHNLX7s&feature=related

[Demeter]

1. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF BANKS DOWN Life returns to Normal?

First Commercial Bank of Florida, Orlando, Florida, was closed today by the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. To protect the depositors, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with First Southern Bank, Boca Raton, Florida, to assume all of the deposits of First Commercial Bank of Florida.

The nine branches of First Commercial Bank of Florida will reopen on Monday as branches of First Southern Bank...As of September 30, 2010, First Commercial Bank of Florida had approximately $598.5 million in total assets and $529.6 million in total deposits. First Southern Bank did not pay the FDIC a premium for the deposits of First Commercial Bank of Florida. In addition to assuming all of the deposits of the failed bank, First Southern Bank agreed to purchase essentially all of the assets.

The FDIC and First Southern Bank entered into a loss-share transaction on $484.3 million of First Commercial Bank of Florida's assets...The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $78.0 million. Compared to other alternatives, First Southern Bank's acquisition was the least costly resolution for the FDIC's DIF. First Commercial Bank of Florida is the first FDIC-insured institution to fail in the nation this year, and the first in Florida. The last FDIC-insured institution closed in the state was The Bank of Miami, Coral Gables, on December 17, 2010.


Legacy Bank, Scottsdale, Arizona, was closed today by the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. To protect the depositors, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Enterprise Bank & Trust, St. Louis, Missouri, to assume all of the deposits of Legacy Bank.

The two branches of Legacy Bank will reopen on Monday as branches of Enterprise Bank & Trust...As of September 30, 2010, Legacy Bank had approximately $150.6 million in total assets and $125.9 million in total deposits. Enterprise Bank & Trust will pay the FDIC a premium of 1.0 percent to assume all of the deposits of Legacy Bank. In addition to assuming all of the deposits of the failed bank, Enterprise Bank & Trust agreed to purchase essentially all of the assets.

The FDIC and Enterprise Bank & Trust entered into a loss-share transaction on $119.8 million of Legacy Bank's assets...The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $27.9 million. Compared to other alternatives, Enterprise Bank & Trust's acquisition was the least costly resolution for the FDIC's DIF. Legacy Bank is the second FDIC-insured institution to fail in the nation this year, and the first in Arizona. The last FDIC-insured institution closed in the state was Copper Star Bank, Scottsdale, on November 12, 2010.

TOTAL LOSSES ESTIMATED AT $105.9M

[bread_and_roses]

41. The banks are the modern Abbeys

Repositories of vast wealth for the oppressors while maintaining a facade of service to the "poor." (I keep putting "poor" in quotes because I am not referring just to those lowest on the economic ladder but to all of us - workers, small craftpersons, small farmers, etc - and "small" being relative to the upper 1 -5%, who live in such isolation from the rest of us that all too many forget that they are, indeed, just serfs, since they are not among the Noble Owners).

Robbing the Abbey IS in one of the earliest stories.

[Demeter]

53. Now that's an epiphany if ever I had one! Thanks!

[KoKo]

70. I loved the Richard Green Robin Hood series. Thanks...and

for giving You Tube links. I didn't realize it was available anywhere. Haven't thought about it in years.

:woohoo: I've got my watching for our coming snowstorm.

[Demeter]

2. The Meanings of Epiphany

Epiphany (feeling)

An epiphany (from the ancient Greek ἐπιφάνεια, epiphaneia, "manifestation, striking appearance") is the sudden realization or comprehension of the (larger) essence or meaning of something. The term is used in either a philosophical or literal sense to signify that the claimant has "found the last piece of the puzzle and now sees the whole picture," or has new information or experience, often insignificant by itself, that illuminates a deeper or numinous foundational frame of reference.

Epiphanies of sudden comprehension have also made possible leaps in technology and the sciences. Famous epiphanies include Archimedes' realization of how to estimate the volume of a given mass, which inspired him to shout "Eureka!" ("I have found it!"). The biographies of many mathematicians and scientists include an epiphanic episode early in the career, the ramifications of which were worked out in detail over the following years. For example, Albert Einstein was struck as a young child by being given a compass, and realizing that some unseen force in space was making it move. An example of a flash of holistic understanding in a prepared mind was Charles Darwin's "hunch" (about natural selection) during The Voyage of the Beagle.

OR, FOR STUDENTS OF ECONOMICS, MOGAMBO GURU'S FAMOUS REVELATION: WE'RE FREAKING DOOMED!

Epiphany (In religion)

In Christianity, the Epiphany refers to the realization that Christ is the son of God. Western churches generally celebrate the Adoration of the Magi as the Incarnation of the infant Christ, and commemorate Feast of the Epiphany on January 6. Traditionally, Eastern churches celebrated Epiphany (or Theophany) in conjunction with Christ's baptism by John the Baptist and celebrated it on January 19; however, many have begun to adopt the Western custom of celebrating it on January 6, the twelfth day of Christmas. Protestant churches often celebrate Epiphany as a season, extending from the last day of Christmas until Ash Wednesday.

In more general terms the phrase religious epiphany is used when a person realizes their faith or when they are convinced that an event or happening was really caused by a deity or being of their faith. In Hinduism, for example, epiphany might refer to the realization of Arjuna that Krishna (a God serving as his charioteer in the "Bhagavad Gita") is indeed representing the universe. Or in Buddhism, the term might refer to the Buddha finally realizing the nature of the universe, and thus attaining nirvana. The Zen term kensho also describes this moment, referring to the feeling attendant on realizing the answer to a koan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphany_%28feeling%29

[Demeter]

3. Goldman to close $1.5bn Facebook share offering

Goldman Sachs will close its $1.5bn offering of privately traded shares in Facebook after receiving several billions of dollars in orders from wealthy individuals, hedge funds and its own executives, people close to the situation said

Read more >>
http://link.ft.com/r/BLH300/ZBSOT8/T10SH/EW88TJ/KE650P/T3/t?a1=2011&a2=1&a3=6

[girl gone mad]

20. Like flies to shit.

Let's see if they manage to find enough suckers to sell to in the ipo... or maybe The Bernanke will get left holding this bag, too.

[bread_and_roses]

44. I love referring to BB as "THE Bernake" - too funny (n/t)

[Po_d Mainiac]

65. Psssst.....It's "the bernank"

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/it%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98bernank%E2%80%99-done-it

[bread_and_roses]

67. TY

My spelling was careless, but the capitalization was deliberate - it's that royal "the" that provides the humor - and rather fits in with our theme, I think: "THE Lord of the Manor," THE Sheriff of Nottingham," etc.

I hadn't actually read that article before - I don't, usually - I rely on you guys for interpretation, being a lazy sort. So in penance I DID read it, but what caught my attention was one of the comment posters defending the idea that food prices were solely the outcome of global supply and demand - ROFL.

[Demeter]

23. Investing in Facebook…Goldman-Style By Addison Wiggin

Gee, we couldn’t possibly have seen this coming: Goldman Sachs says they’ll stop taking orders from its “high net worth” clients for shares of Facebook. And some of those clients have been told they’ll have to settle for far fewer shares than they want, so intense is the demand.

This is according to The Wall Street Journal, citing “people familiar with the situation” – as if Goldman doesn’t really want this information put out there to further gin up demand for the inevitable IPO.

“When you have a chance,” reads the Goldman solicitation to its clients, “I wanted to find a time to discuss a highly confidential and time-sensitive investment opportunity in a private company that is considering a transaction to raise additional capital.

“For confidentiality reasons, I am unable to tell you the name of the company unless you agree not to use such information other than in connection with your evaluation of the investment opportunity and to keep all information that we reveal to you strictly confidential.”

Any resemblance between this and a Nigerian email scam is purely coincidental. At least it wasn’t in all caps.

“It looks to me like that’s typical of what the investment banks have been doing for the past decade, which is trading paper for profits, instead of investing in revenue streams,” we told Tech News World this week.

Unfortunately, in the process of editing the article, our central point got lost: How the whole thing smacks of a Ponzi scheme. Goldman’s clients get the big gains, while the IPO investors will be left holding the bag. Plus, it looks like the deal as it’s structured with Digital Sky Technologies gives Goldman’s clients a built-in out…even before the IPO...


Read more: Investing in Facebook...Goldman-Style http://dailyreckoning.com/investing-in-facebook-goldman-style/#ixzz1AQxFqPmD

[Demeter]

25. How Much is Facebook Really Worth? By Addison Wiggin

Early this morning, we learned Goldman Sachs and a Russian firm called Digital Sky Technologies have pumped $500 million into Facebook. The deal values the “popular social networking site” at $50 billion… more than eBay, Yahoo! or Time Warner.

Ha. Ha. Ha!

This first nugget of fresh news makes our first official forecast of 2011 a slam-dunk: Facebook and Goldman will fleece millions of Americans of their retirement funds… maybe not this year, maybe not next, but before they are done with the whole charade...You have 500 million people playing Farmville and Mafia Wars and telling the world how wasted they got last night… but what makes them worth an average $100 in market value?

Our own social media maven suggests “the real value” of the company is in “leveraging all the user data they’ve collected on their members. The ability to develop tools, apps and targeted advertising will allow you to monetize. As they open up their API, it will allow developers to access this info and use this community to create more and more interaction.”

That’s possible.

But we think the real value is in the story itself, reflected in the company’s shares… which you can’t buy right now.

Barely a month ago, TechCrunch.com reported Accel Partners, an early-round investor in Facebook, sold off a big portion of their stock in the company at a $35 billion valuation — a return of “something like 247 times” on that sale.

Now Goldman intends to set up a special purpose vehicle (SPV) so its high-net-worth clients can skirt IPO laws and get their money in before Facebook goes public.

“While the SEC requires companies with more than 499 investors to disclose their financial results to the public,” says Andrew Ross Sorkin on his site DealB%k, “Goldman’s proposed special purpose vehicle may be able get around such a rule because it would be managed by Goldman and considered just one investor, even though it could conceivably be pooling investments from thousands of clients.”

Whether Facebook is profitable now – we don’t know because the books are still private – or whether they can figure out how to be profitable in the future is largely irrelevant. The big money is going to be made early in the “secondary market” for private shares.

If and when the IPO happens – like any good Ponzi scheme – retail investors, those last in the door, will get stuck holding very expensive paper.


Read more: How Much is Facebook Really Worth? http://dailyreckoning.com/how-much-is-facebook-really-worth/#ixzz1AR0HMZDq

[bread_and_roses]

40. Robbing the "poor" to give to the rich - Robin in reverse

Which is fairly typical of our entire economic structure. In the end, this may be the subconscious awareness that drives Robin's popularity through the ages. Even the uninformed, the uneducated, even the Teabaggers, know they are being robbed. And Robin - whether yeoman or small landowner or minor nobility (the last two probably redundant - did anyone other than nobility, no matter how far down the ladder, own land in those days?) - did NOT rob the poor.

Since the scholars say that the earliest tales do not mention giving to the poor, I think it logical to think that the appending of that tradition to the tales arises from a sort of natural sense of justice - the next step from taking from the rich rather than the poor - restoring the balance.

[bread_and_roses]

45. Farmville - the Greenwood calls to all of us

Has anyone done some sort of scholarly study on the amazing popularity of "Farmville?" It seems that everyone I know is among the millions and millions playing it.

I think it is interesting that it is not "Urbanville" that people spend their time playing.

It reinforces my instinct that all most of us really want is to live in some sort of human-scaled community, have a meaningful, productive role in that community and have contact with the natural world.

The hive-life we've created in our "great" cities is inhuman and serves only our Masters.

[Demeter]

50. I Prefer Evony, Myself

One can farm there, but the depredations of psychopathic predators....I'm there partly to learn how to deal with them.

[bread_and_roses]

66. Alas, I lack the gaming gene

... alas because it is a source of fun denied me. Even though I (reluctantly, guiltily - there's a reason it's called "The Sport of Kings") follow horse racing I do not handicap or wager.

[Demeter]

61. Why Facebook won’t go public

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/04/why-facebook-wont-go-public/

stocks

Miguel Helft explains why Facebook is going to have to go public sooner or later:

Mr. Zuckerberg’s quest to keep Facebook private will not last forever. Federal regulations require companies with 500 or more investors to disclose their financial results, eliminating one of the principal advantages of staying private.

This is a classic non sequitur: Helft’s first sentence simply doesn’t follow from his second. Yes, it’s nice for companies not to have to disclose their financial results. But just because you’re disclosing your financial results doesn’t mean you have to go public. Indeed, there are many privately-held companies which issue bonds and therefore disclose financials, but which have no public shares outstanding.

Follow Helft’s link, and you arrive at Steven Davidoff explaining the conventional wisdom in a bit more detail:

The company can still stay private even if it is forced to begin reporting to the S.E.C. However, in the case of Google, which faced with a similar choice several years ago, it chose to go public. Google decided that if it was going to have to release its nonpublic financial and other information to the S.E.C. and the public, it might as well get its bang for the buck and do it in connection with an I.P.O. Though not required to do so, Facebook would probably come to the same conclusion if the S.E.C. brings this reporting requirement to a head.

The problem is that I’m having a lot of difficulty working out what kind of “bang for the buck” Facebook would get from going public. Indeed, it seems to me that for Mark Zuckerberg, the downside of being public outweighs the upside, whether or not Facebook is reporting its financials to the SEC.

The main thing to remember here is that Zuckerberg is the CEO, he’s always wanted to be the CEO, and he has zero intention of relinquishing that job. He’s not like Larry Page and Sergei Brin, who are happy being founders and letting Eric Schmidt do the less pleasant things associated with being CEO: this is Zuckerberg’s company, and he’s going to run it...

WELL, WE WILL SEE

[Demeter]

4. RBI to decide the shape of Indian banking

Guidelines to be published will indicate whether big corporations can snap up highly desirable new banking licences on offer as India seeks to modernise its financial system

Read more >>
http://link.ft.com/r/BLH300/ZBSOT8/T10SH/EW88TJ/72RBNM/T3/t?a1=2011&a2=1&a3=6

[Demeter]

5. BP likely to face criminal charges over spill

BP is almost certain to face criminal charges over last year’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, US legal experts say, after the National Commission concluded this week that it was caused by “a failure of management”.

Criminal charges could greatly increase the penalties facing BP and threaten staff with jail over the disaster.

Read more >>
http://link.ft.com/r/KC2844/YH9AYE/6ADGM/PR5YC5/18E0WJ/36/t?a1=2011&a2=1&a3=7

[Demeter]

6. Economy adds fewer jobs than expected

Job creation in the US economy advanced at a slower pace than expected last month, even as the unemployment rate fell to 9.4 per cent – the lowest rate since May 2009.

According to data from the labour department, non-farm payrolls increased by 103,000 in December, which was significantly less than the 150,000 or so rise that was forecast by many economists. This could temper some of the recent enthusiasm about an acceleration in the US recovery, in particular expectations of a turn towards much more aggressive hiring by businesses.

Read more >>
http://link.ft.com/r/P75VYY/NSMLXJ/DXJ2Y/ZB9NVB/RN7UPE/6C/t?a1=2011&a2=1&a3=7

[Demeter]

7. Mohamed El-Erian: Jobs data shows America stuck in low gear

The US economy created 103,000 non-farm jobs in December – respectable but below consensus expectations. The unemployment rate fell only to 9.4 per cent as 260,000 Americans exited the labour force. Most disturbingly, the number of “long-term” unemployed remains disturbingly high at 6.4 million. This is a relatively decent employment report. Yet it will also be deemed as somewhat disappointing, and rightly so.

There are good and valid reasons why analysts were looking for a stronger jobs growth. A string of favourable data releases preceded today’s numbers. Measures of business and consumer
sentiment have improved. Growth in emerging economies remains strong. And, unlike Europe, America continues to run expansionary fiscal and monetary policies.

Read more >>
http://link.ft.com/r/EB8122/6VUKWR/DXJ2Y/UUD925/C51XDQ/AZ/t?a1=2011&a2=1&a3=7

HOW MANY MORE YEARS BEFORE THE LEARNED ECONOMISTS ADMIT THAT THE ECONOMY IS ROLLING DOWNHILL, AND BACKWARDS?

[DemReadingDU]

8. Chris Martenson and Dan Ariely Discuss Behavioral Economics

1/7/11 Chris Martenson and Dan Ariely Discuss Behavioral Economics
Looking back at the carnage created by the bursting of the credit bubble, it’s natural to scratch your head and ask “How did we ever let that happen?”. Behavioral economics exists to answer questions like this.

Last week Chris sat down with Dan Ariely, gallivanting behavioral-economics-researcher-extraordinaire, who is breathing new life into this previously obscure field of study. The resulting interview is full of fresh, non-intuitive insights and shines light on how the human brain is often hard-wired for irrational action when it comes to money.

One of the key takeaways for us was how Dan’s research provides an empirical explanation for why inflation will likely win the day: our mental programming leads us to prefer behavior that favors it.

Dan has a fresh and pretty non-traditional way of explaining the more intriguing aspects of human behavior, including:

* The overwhelming influence of emotion in driving our decision-making
* Our vulnerability to present temptations & our overestimation of our future virtuousness
* Our amazing capacity to justify irrational circumstances
* Our blindness to conflicts of interest when they work in our favor
* Why we do a poor job of appreciating future risk

Each of these played a role in the excessive behavior responsible for the credit crisis – and continue to hamper our ability to handle its aftermath rationally today.

Our time with Dan was fun and fascinating. If you’re not acquainted with it already, the perspective offered by behavioral economics is a valuable addition to add to your world view. We’re definitely planning to look through its lens more often going forward.

audio at this link, and commentary
comment #4 is interesting
http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/dan-ariely-decodes-why-humans-are-hard-wired-inflate/50338

direct link to audio, appx 43 minutes
http://media.chrismartenson.com/audio/dan-ariely-behavioral-economics-chrismartenson-com.mp3

[Demeter]

10. How Did This Happen?

Very few people had control sufficient to stop the catastrophe, and those people were benefiting from it, and therefore had no incentive to stop it.

The public was misinformed, uninformed, and unsophisticated. Towards the end, the public was in desperation. Very few of the victims had the ability to realize they were being victimized, although the move to cut off the bankruptcy relief was a burning red flag....

[DemReadingDU]

13. We've been conditioned to feel good immediately,

and delay those things that are negative or might be painful. Ariely gives many behavior examples and Martenson relates them to the financial crisis.

It's an interesting audio, but it does take 45 minutes.

[Demeter]

9. The Adventures of Richard Greene

Richard Marius Joseph Greene (25 August 1918<1> – 1 June 1985) was a noted English movie and television actor. A matinee idol who appeared in more than 40 films, he was perhaps best known for the lead role in the long-running British TV series The Adventures of Robin Hood, which ran for 143 episodes from 1955 to 1960.

Early life

Greene was a Roman Catholic of Irish and Scottish ancestry, and was born in Plymouth, Devon, England. His aunt was the musical theatre actress Evie Greene. His father, Richard Abraham Greene and his mother, Kathleen Gerrard, were both actors with the Plymouth Repertory Theatre.<2> A descendant of four generations of actors, Greene was educated at Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School in Kensington, London, and left at age 18. He started his stage career as the proverbial spear carrier in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar in 1933. A handsome young man, Greene added to his income by modelling shirts and hats.

Career

Greene joined the Jevan Brandon Repertory Company in 1936. He won accolades in the same year for his part in Terence Rattigan's French Without Tears, which brought him to the attention of Alexander Korda and Darryl F. Zanuck. At 20, he joined 20th Century Fox as a rival to MGM's Robert Taylor. His first film for Fox was John Ford's Four Men and a Prayer. Greene was a huge success, especially with female film goers who sent him mountains of fan mail which at its peak rivalled that of Fox star Tyrone Power. One of his most notable roles was Sir Henry Baskerville in the 1939 Sherlock Holmes film The Hound of the Baskervilles. The film marked the first pairing of Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson.

Greene interrupted his acting career to serve in World War II in the 27th Lancers, where he distinguished himself. After three months, he went to Sandhurst and was commissioned. He was promoted to Captain in the 27th Lancers in May 1944. He was relieved from duty in 1942 to appear in the British propaganda films Flying Fortress and Unpublished Story. In 1943, he appeared in The Yellow Canary while on furlough. He later toured in Shaw's Arms and the Man, entertaining the troops. Greene was discharged in December 1944 and appeared in the stage plays Desert Rats and I Capture the Castle.

However, the war effectively ruined Greene's rising career. Though he did well in the popular movie Forever Amber (1947), Greene found himself cast in a series of swashbuckling roles. Having turned away from films in favour of stage and screen and having been through a divorce from Patricia Medina, to whom he was married from 1941 to 1951, Greene was cash-strapped when Yeoman Films of Great Britain approached him for the lead role in The Adventures of Robin Hood.

Greene took the role and was an immediate success. It solved his financial problems and made him a star. He had a long love affair in the 1950s with Nancy Oakes, wealthy daughter of mining tycoon Sir Harry Oakes, who had been murdered in notorious circumstances in the Bahamas in 1943.

Amongst other TV programmes, Greene was in A Man For Loving, The Doctors, The Morecambe and Wise Show, Dixon of Dock Green, Scarf Jack, The Professionals episode Everest Was Also Conquered and the Tales of the Unexpected episode Mrs. Bixby and the Colonel's Coat.

Greene died of cardiac arrest in 1985.

WWW FAN SITES:

http://www.whirligig-tv.co.uk/tv/children/robinhood/robinhood.htm

http://www.robinhood-tv.co.uk/RichardGreene.htm

[Demeter]

11. STUDY: AFTER BANKRUPTCY, AMERICANS NEED 10-20 YEARS TO RECOVER

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/bankruptcy.htm

People who file for bankruptcy eventually recover financially compared to those who never had to file – but it takes a long, long time.

A new study found that on many measures, it takes 10 to 20 years or more for those who file bankruptcy to reach the same financial status as their peers.
Jay Zagorsky

“Bankruptcy is not a lifelong curse, but it doesn’t provide an immediate fresh start either,” said Jay Zagorsky, co-author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University’s Center for Human Resource Research.

Compared to those who have similar social and economic backgrounds, people who declare bankruptcy catch up to non-filers in terms of savings in about 12 years, total income in 14 years, home ownership in 14 years, and net worth in 26 years.

THAT'S ASSUMING THE BANKRUPT PERSON HAS A JOB...

[jtuck004]

94. From the article: This study focused on data from the 2004 survey, when respondents were asked about

possible bankruptcy filings".

So this would have been based on people who filed bankruptcy in 1994 perhaps, or 1984? But this was near the end of a time when we had to stop living on debt and begin to pay for that behavior, as well as deal with the aftermath of the actions of the scumbag investment bankers. Given today's economy I suspect the results will be vastly different if they are interviewed again in a few years.

It also doesn't take into account the loss of income to others along the way, such as the taxes they would have paid and the teachers, fire, police etc workers they would have supported, or the money that would have purchased the myriad of other things people must buy just to get by.

Thank you for this...

[Demeter]

12. America's union-bashing backlash

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/05/andrew-cuomo-labor-unions

Unlike bankers, US labour unions had nothing to do with the economic crisis – yet they're the ones now being scapegoated...

What is perverse about this trend is just how vastly it misunderstands what went wrong with the American economy. No one is denying that this is a time for belt-tightening. Or that some unions have problems. Or that some union contracts look over-generous in austerity America. But the fundamental truth remains: powerful and reckless unions did not cause the Great Recession by rampant speculation. Nor did an out-of-control labour movement cause or burst the housing bubble. It was not union bosses who packaged up complex derivatives to sell in their millions and thus wrecked the economy and put millions out of work. Nor was it union bosses who awarded (and continue to award) themselves salaries worth hundreds of millions of dollars for doing nothing of social value. Neither was it the union movement that was bailed out by the taxpayer and then refused to change its habits.

All that was the work of the finance industry.

Yet, as America continues to search for solutions to its economic problems, it is the labour movement, and not the banking sector, that is getting it in the neck. This is despite the fact that many unions, especially in such cases as the bailout of Detroit's automakers, have proved themselves highly flexible in sacrificing wages and long-held workers' rights in order to preserve jobs. Meanwhile, the finance industry, where true and meaningful reform has failed to happen, still squeals as if President Obama were a raving socialist. Or, in the helpful and moderate words of Blackstone chief executive Stephen Schwarzman, "It's like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939."

No, Mr Schwarzman, it is not like that at all.

In fact, American bankers and big corporations are flush with cash and generous tax breaks and back to most of their old habits (like grotesque bonus payouts, refusing to loan money and offshoring jobs and profits). But in the political world, it is the good union jobs that are suddenly an evil thing, when, in fact, a job that allows someone to afford their house and have good healthcare is a boon to the economy. Certainly, more of a boon than a multimillion dollar bonus to a financier who is already rich. A decent union job is a mini-stimulus package at a time when jobs are scarce and in a country where real wages are all too often stagnant or declining.

Not that the politicians care. Demonising labour has a long and dirty history in America, despite its historical weakness and low rates of union membership. Now, in times of trouble, American politicians have fallen back on the oldest stereotype they know: the evil union. Yet never has demonising the labour movement and the hardworking Americans it represents seemed more out of place.

[Demeter]

14. Pentagon, Military Actively War Gaming 'Large Scale Economic Breakdown' and 'Civil Unrest'

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27212.htm

The Army, through training exercises dubbed "Unified Quest 2011," is actively pursuing strategies to deal with a variety of scenarios including large scale economic breakdown, domestic order amid civil unrest and ways to deal with fragmented global power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DInGq0mIWro&feature=player_embedded

[Demeter]

15. 1.5 million Americans filed for bankruptcy in 2010

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27213.htm

The number of people in the US filing for bankruptcy rose by 9 percent last year to 1.53 million, as more working families fell victim to job losses, plunging home values and unforgiving creditors.

The figure was the highest since 2005 when changes in the bankruptcy laws making it more difficult and costly to file led to a sharp decline in the number of Americans seeking court protection. The recent spike in cases—despite the added costs and legal hurdles—is indicative of just how desperate large segments of the American population are despite the official claims of an economic recovery.

Over the last three years—as the economic recession and 2008 crash took hold—4 million consumers filed for bankruptcy, with last year’s numbers matching the record levels reached before 2005. While most filers earn less than $30,000 and lack a college degree, a growing percentage of families with incomes above $60,000 and college degrees are being forced into bankruptcy...

[Demeter]

16. "Zero-down" loans to "credit challenged" applicants are on the rise By Mike Whitney

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27206.htm

Counterfeiting is an effective way to stimulate the economy, but the costs can be quite high. For example, if trillions of dollars in fake cash was injected into the financial system (undetected), we'd probably see the same type of thing that we see when a credit bubble is inflating; asset prices would rise, unemployment would fall, economic activity would increase, and GDP would soar. But when people figured out what was going on, investors would panic, the markets would crash, and the economy would go into a deflationary nosedive.

So here's the point: Deregulation allows the banks to create as much bogus money as they want in the form of credit. When a bank issues a loan to someone who can't repay the debt, it's counterfeiting, which is the same as stealing. This is what the banks did in the lead-up to the Market Meltdown of '08; they issued trillions of dollars of mortgages to people who had no job, no income, no collateral, and a bad credit history. The banks abandoned all the standard criteria for issuing loans, so they could increase the quantity of loans they produced. Why? Because bankers get paid on the front-end of the transaction, which means that when they make a loan, they mark it as a credit on their books so they can draw a hefty salary and a fat bonus at the end of the year. In other words, there are powerful incentives for bankers to do the wrong thing, which is why they act the way they do.

Now that the economy has begun to stabilize, there are signs that the whole process is starting over again and another bubble is already emerging. Check out this clip from an article in The Tennessean titled "Auto lenders approve more subprime borrowers":

[bread_and_roses]

17. Delighted to know there's another Robin Hood enthusiast among us!

I have loved the Robin Hood stories since I first encountered them as a child, and have never lost the taste. As a grown-up, still enamoured of Robin Hood, I have been interested to see that most of the versions I've seen (I've not seen them all, by any means) focus on the tyranny of taxes as the main instrument of impoverishing the peasantry. The Sherriff collects coins and jewells and gold/silver - items I think were in short supply amongst the medieval serfs. And - if memory serves - the latest incarnation with what's-his-name the Gladiator fellow - focuses even more on the curtailment of Liberty than the depredations of taxation. (Nonetheless, I enjoyed that film - I more or less enjoy all Robin Hood films and stories, although the dreadful Costner version made it difficult). Lurking in the background of these versions is the presumption - it seems to me - that if the Lordly were only fair and just all will be well in Sherwood. A sort of Tara in "Gone with the Wind." It's almost possible to imagine the travesty of the Robin Hood tales being used as Tea-Party fodder in these incarnation.

However, it is not at all certain that the focus described above is not apt: http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/gestint.htm

The audience of the poem has been a matter of dispute in recent years. Earlier commentators did not concern themselves with such mundane issues, assuming either that ballads served some antique organic community now lost in the mists of time, or that the author communicated directly to the present through what Child called, in an unusually vague moment, "the ballad-muse" (III, 42). A more historically attuned approach led to greater specificity: Rodney Hilton in particular argued strongly for a continuity between the Robin Hood ballads including the Gest and the dissident forces typified in the so-called Peasants' Revolt of 1381 (1958). This was supported by Maurice Keen in the first edition of his book on The Outlaws of Medieval Legend (1961). J. C. Holt attacked that generally radical affiliation in an article by asserting, with some reason, that rural and peasant issues are nowhere found within the texts, and proposing that the dissident audience was in fact the lower gentry, their hangers-on and higher servitors (1960). Dobson and Taylor largely accept this, but still claim that Robin Hood is "a yeoman hero for a yeoman audience" (1976, p. 34). Holt returns to the issue in his book, devoting a whole chapter to very full detail intended to prove the essentially conservative character of the audience and the texts, which are held to embody the anxiety of the lesser land-owning gentry and their affiliations (1989, pp. 109-58). This argument seems open to Holt's own techniques of rejection through lack of internal evidence, in that only the knight in the Gest has tenurial problems on his mind and the rest of the characters resist all kinds of service, unless to Robin Hood.

Recent arguments have sophisticated Hilton's original argument about the texts as providing for an audience interested in some form of political resistance. Peter Coss (1985) rests his case on the concept of "cultural diffusion" and Richard Tardif (1983) explored the mediation of contemporary conflict by relating the strains of the texts to urban problems, seeing the greenwood as a place of imagined freedom for displaced craftsmen. That, unlike the peasant or lower gentry argument, certainly meshes with the bookish character of the texts - in manuscript and printed form long before other ballads, and in their earliest occurrences not often obviously connected with tunes.

(my b/u/i added)

This is not the rather simple - and to my mind appealing - Robin of "take from the rich, give to the poor." But still - there is always the rebellion against tyranny, and some notion of the inherent rights of those other than the Lords. That has intrinsic value, to my mind.

More tomorrow - it's late.

[bread_and_roses]

18. Meant to add on movies -

Two I've liked are on TV occasionally - has Uma Thuman, though I can't think of the Robin actor's name. And the one with Sean Connery - just when he began to get handsome as an older actor - and - was it Audrey Hepburn? - as the older versions of Robin and Marion. I'll try maybe to find some links tomorrow. Though I do think Kate Blanchett is quite good as Marion in the latest.

[Tansy_Gold]

19. "It's not Normans I hate. It's injustice."

I believe I've quoted the 1938 Warner Bros. "The Adventures of Robin Hood" accurately. That's the Errol Flynn, Olivia De Havilland, Basil Rathbone, Claude Rains version, directed by Michael Curtiz. I wrote a paper in college comparing that version to the Costner one.

The 1950s television version, as I pointed out a couple years ago in either SMW or WEE, was produced by Sapphire Films, which allegedly got part of its financing from the Communist Party or at least CPA members in Hollywood. Screenwriters blacklisted during the McCarthy era wrote for the series under pseudonyms, with their identities carefully protected.

A great deal of liberal politics was injected into the series.

A few bits of trivia:

British actress Jane Asher appeared in three episodes of the series, along with her brother Peter. Peter, of course, became one half of Peter and Gordon. Jane almost became the better half of Paul McCartney; she and Beatle McCartney were engaged for a number of years in the 1960s.

And from her Wikipedia entry:

She is a shareholder in Private Eye, President of Arthritis Care and a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association. She is also President of the National Autistic Society, in which she takes an active role. She was also a speaker at the launch of the National Autistic Society's "Make School Make Sense" campaign alongside Joshua Muggleton (ASD speaker/writer). She is also President of Parkinson's UK.

In March 2010 Asher agreed to become Vice President to Autistica, the UK charity raising funds for autism research. She said: “I am so very pleased and honoured to have been invited to be a Vice President of Autistica. Autism has been an important part of my life for nearly thirty years now, and I have always believed in the essential role of research: it's wonderful to have an 'official' position in an organisation I have long admired and whose aims I have always strongly supported”.


We should also note that Ayn Rand considered Robin Hood to be the epitome of evil.


And here's another snippet from that 1938 classic film version:

“You’re a strange man,” Marian Fitzwalter (DeHavilland) says.
“Strange?" Flynn's Robin echoes. "Because I can feel for beaten and helpless people?”
“No, because you want to do something about it.”

[Demeter]

21. Ayn Rand Would

An aristo to the end.

[bread_and_roses]

43. That's fascinating, Tansy. And don't get me wrong - I love RH because it IS subversive

to the established order. I didn't know any of that about the series you reference - never saw any of that series or read about it. It called to mind something I read recently that I'd never thought about - I think in an article by Chris Hedges (maybe the one on the death of liberalism) in which he argues that the suppression of the communists under McCarthy killed true progressive thought in the US - not just at the time, but for good.

Perhaps the key sentence in the passage quoted is one I did not highlight:

the rest of the characters resist all kinds of service, unless to Robin Hood.

"Unless to Robin Hood" - their freely chosen "leader" and an outlaw. Robbing from the rich - especially given that in the times the rich Nobles and Clergy were considered to be divinely ordained to deserve their positions of wealth and power, is of course inherently subversive. I am simply struck by what seems to me to be a greater focus on formal "liberties" under law than of the liberty of actual equality (or at the least more fair) of wealth distribution. Because distributing from the rich to the poor IS unbearably subversive to the established order, Robin's "giving to the poor" seems to me to be played in most popular versions as relieving suffering than addressing imbalance and injustice.

Because as we know - it is so well exemplified in our own society - one can have "formal" civil liberties and nominal equality of opportunity while co-existing with huge, gaping structural inequalities of wealth.

Of course the deranged Rand would hate Robin Hood.

[Tansy_Gold]

71. As I said, I wrote a paper on this, and I was furious that I had to limit it

to something like five or eight pages.

I think the Robin Hood legend endures BECAUSE it is subversive, and while Rand and others like her have tried to supress it, they simply can't. We are social creatures, and any society, by its nature and in order to survive, demands justice. Greed is by its nature anti-social and no society can survive if its ideology is based on greed.

Rand's answer to Robin Hood was her "pirate" Ragnar Danneskjold(sp), who robbed from the government and gave back to the rich their income taxes, since she did not believe the wealthy should be taxed. As Demeter said, aristo to the core.

But here's another tidbit: "Outlaw" did not originally mean a breaker of the law, but rather one who lived outside the protection of the law. That kinda fits most of the working classes today, since the law protects the rich, not us.


TG, TT

[Po_d Mainiac]

72. Adds a whole new meaning to the term "inlaw" n/t

[Demeter]

22. How to Skew Bad Economic Data to Inspire Investor Confidence By Eric Fry

Earlier this week, the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) announced that its index of manufacturing activity was 57.0 in December – a slight increase from November’s 56.6 reading, but still well below the 60.4 number from last April.

Seems like an uninspiring report…until you pick up the following day’s issue of The Wall Street Journal. “Factory Activity Surged in December,” the Journal proclaimed. Based on the numbers, the Journal’s account is simply false. But that’s not what counts here. What counts is the Journal’s rose-hued assessment of future factory activity – i.e. the glorious unknown. In other words, factory activity did not actually surge in December, but it is probably going to in January, right?

Here’s another fascinating example of dream-weaving: late last week, Moody’s announced that commercial and industrial (C&I) lending squeaked out a 0.2% increase in the fourth quarter. Armed with this thoroughly uninspiring data point, The Wall Street Journal declared, “Banks Open Loan Spigot.” False.

The only spigot that’s open inside America’s largest banks is that one that pours capital into proprietary trading desks. As the nearby chart illustrates, the volume of “trading assets” at US banks has been soaring. These would be the same “trading assets” that have been producing the perfect and/or near-perfect trading results at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and others.



Is it any wonder, therefore, this portion of bank balance sheets is inflating, while traditional components – like actual loans – are either deflating or doing nothing? If you had access to cheap, subsidized government funding, along with simultaneous access to a quasi-monopolistic cartel on the sale of the government’s own securities, would you bother making a loan?…Nah, we wouldn’t either.

But we digress…

Let’s take a peek at another uninspiring data point. Just this morning, the Labor Department announced that initial claims for unemployment during the past week increased by 18,000 to 409,000 newly unemployed individuals. Bloomberg News responded with the twin headlines, “Unemployment Claims Over Past Month Drop to Lowest Level Since July 2008,” and “Dollar Rallies on Optimism Over Stronger Job Market.”

See how easy this is? If you get a tepid factory utilization report, no problem. Call it, “US Factories Ready to Power Ahead as Economy Gathers Steam.” If you get a lousy retail sales report, don’t worry. Describe the setback as, “Blizzard Impedes Resurgent Consumer Spending.”

Go ahead; try it at home. It’s fun for the whole family.

Read more: How to Skew Bad Economic Data to Inspire Investor Confidence http://dailyreckoning.com/how-to-skew-bad-economic-data-to-inspire-investor-confidence/#ixzz1AQw4mZbW

[Demeter]

24. BLS Unemployment Report Doesn’t Add Up By Dave Gonigam

On the surface, the Bureau of Labor Statistics delivered a head-scratcher of an unemployment report this morning: An anemic 103,000 new jobs in December, but a dramatic fall in the U-3 unemployment rate from 9.8% to 9.4%.

Let’s dive into the particulars:

* Private-sector employers added 113,000 jobs, the bulk of the gains coming in leisure/hospitality and health care

* The federal government added 10,000 jobs, while state and local governments cut 20,000

* The underwhelming November figure of 39,000 new jobs overall was revised to a merely whelming 71,000

* U-3 unemployment is now the lowest since May 2009

* U-6 unemployment, including part-timers who want to work full-time, fell from 17.0% to 16.7%.

So… How does the unemployment rate fall so dramatically when job growth is still subpar?

Here’s your answer – a chart that shows the percentage of working-age population in the labor force. It fell to 64.3% last month – a level last seen when Christopher Lloyd was taking moviegoers Back to the Future:



Herein lies one of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ favorite tricks. If you gave up looking for work more than a year ago, you’re no longer counted as part of the labor force. Thus, employers added only 103,000 jobs in December…but incredibly, we have 556,000 fewer unemployed people!

And there you have it – headline unemployment fell to its lowest in 20 months because more people gave up looking for work. Big problem for Uncle Sam, because that means more people with no income to tax.


Read more: BLS Unemployment Report Doesn't Add Up http://dailyreckoning.com/bls-unemployment-report-doesnt-add-up/#ixzz1AQynqd1c

[Demeter]

26. Fed will back new rules to rein in foreclosure fraud

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/7/933872/-Fed-will-back-new-rules-to-rein-in-foreclosure-fraud?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29

In the wake of many highly-publicized stories about rampant fraud perpetrated by banks in foreclosure proceedings, the Federal Reserve has decided to support stronger regulations under financial reform President Obama signed into law last summer....It doesn't do much to help existing victims of foreclosure fraud, nothing short of sending some bankers to jail would. But this is an important step in creating accountability for banks and protections for borrowers...

YEAH, WELL, WE KNOW HOW GOOD BERNANKE IS ON FOLLOW-THROUGH...HE'LL LET ELIZABETH WARREN TAKE ALL THE HEAT

[Demeter]

27. The GOP Is Spreading a Big Fat Lie About the Economy -- We Need Obama to Put an End to It

Robert Reich is evidently branching out into humor...

http://www.alternet.org/story/149426/the_gop_is_spreading_a_big_fat_lie_about_the_economy_--_we_need_obama_to_put_an_end_to_it

[Demeter]

28. Daley is a reflection, not a cause

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/07/daley/index.html

Few things interest me less at this point than royal court personnel changes. I actually agree with the pro-Obama/Democratic-Party-loyal commentators who insist it doesn't much matter who becomes White House Chief of Staff because it's Obama who drives administration policy. Obama didn't do what he did in the first two years because Rahm Emanuel was his Chief of Staff. That view has the causation reversed: he chose Emanuel for that position because that's who Obama is. Similarly, installing JP Morgan's Midwest Chairman, a Boeing director, and a long-time corporatist -- Bill Daley -- as a powerful underling replacing Emanuel isn't going to substantively change anything Obama does. It's just another reflection of the Obama presidency, its priorities and concerns, and its overarching allegiances.

There's a section of my forthcoming book about the rule of law which examines the direct causal line between the vast number of Wall Street officials in key administration positions and the full-scale exemption from accountability which financial elites enjoy even for the most egregious lawbreaking. When you compile all of those appointments in one place, the absolute stranglehold large-scale corporate interests exert over virtually all realms of government policy is quite striking. But it's nothing more than what the economist Nouriel Roubini meant when he told the makers of the 2010 documentary "Inside Job" that Wall Street has "captured the political system" on "the Democratic and the Republican side" alike, or what Simon Johnson describes as "The Quiet Coup": "The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against" elite business interests.

Shipping in a JP Morgan executive to be White House Chief of Staff isn't a cause of any of this; it's just a nice symbol for what our political culture is, more than ever in the Era of Change. It's the other side of the revolving door that sent Peter Orszag to his multi-million-dollar a year reward at Citigroup for his 18 months in an administration which lavished that bank will all sorts of gifts. Getting exercised about Bill Daley's empowerment is like going to the beach and being angry that it's full of sand: this appointment is the inevitable by-product of the essence of Washington and of the Obama presidency. It's what they do and who they are. As Matt Stoller suggested, the most surprising thing about the Daley pick is that he has no Goldman Sachs experience...

[Demeter]

29. Obama’s New Chief of Staff Sought to Loosen Post-Enron Corporate Reforms by: Michael Hudson

http://www.truth-out.org/obamas-new-chief-staff-sought-loosen-post-enron-corporate-reforms66649

William M. Daley, President Barack Obama's new chief of staff, is a major Wall Street player who sought to loosen corporate reform laws and protect big accounting firms from investor lawsuits and criminal prosecution.

His pro-business credentials are so impeccable the U.S. Chamber of Commerce enthusiastically embraced Daley’s appointment Thursday, calling him “a man of stature and extraordinary experience in government, business, trade negotiations, and global affairs.”

Daley was Secretary of Commerce during the Clinton administration, and since leaving government he’s held posts in the highest reaches of corporate America, serving as president of SBC Communications Inc. and, most recently, as a top executive at one of Wall Street’s most powerful firms, JPMorgan Chase & Co.

At JPMorgan, Daley’s portfolio has included supervising government lobbying for a bank with $2 trillion in assets that has fought efforts to limit the size of megabanks.
In early 2007, Daley played a star role in the business community’s push to roll back regulations imposed after the Enron debacle and other accounting scandals. Daley co-chaired a U.S. Chamber of Commerce commission that urged the federal government to revise the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform law and protect corporate auditors from lawsuits and investigations...

[Demeter]

31. It's the Reverse-Robin Hood Effect

The profound injustice that little people must suffer so that the Obscenely Wealthy can grow moreso.

[DemReadingDU]

37. That's what it is

and that is so wrong

[Demeter]

30. BP Claims May Be Taxed at Highest Rate; Not an Official “Disaster

http://my.firedoglake.com/michaelwhitney/2011/01/03/bp-claims-may-be-taxed-at-highest-rate-not-an-official-disaster/

Just when you thought the people of Louisiana couldn’t possibly take another shot to the face, there’s another one coming. It turns out that people who received claim money from BP could see that money taxed at the highest possible rate because the BP oil disaster wasn’t officially declared a disaster...

[Demeter]

32. In which I eventually dump on Obama for appointing Bill Daley

http://www.correntewire.com/which_i_eventually_dump_obama_appointing_bill_daley

..Today, my wife received an e-newsletter from an attorney in the Sacramento area who specializes in real estate law. It was essentially a notification to people in the business about a new tactic Chase is using to squeeze blood from its erstwhile mortgage customers. Bear with me as I attempt to explain, I'm not a professional and I hope this isn't going too far into the weeds.

Typically, if a homeowner with two mortgages is foreclosed upon, the holder of the first mortgage gets title to the property (i.e., this mortgage is secured) and the holder of the second mortgage (which then becomes unsecured) has the right to sue the borrower for the unpaid amount owed on the second loan. However, under California law, when both loans are owned by the same lender, a "merger" of interest occurs. This means the lender gets the property and forfeits any claim to the amount owed on the second mortgage.

To work around this situation, many lenders will sell the second mortgage to a collection company for less than its full face value after default occurs. The buyer of this debt will then try to recover the full amount of the second mortgage, pocketing the difference between the amount collected and the amount paid. However, the homeowner can raise the defense that the collection company knowingly bought a worthless loan (it was no longer secured by the property) and thus is owed nothing. To date it is unclear how successful this defense will be once these cases work their way through the courts. What is clear is that collection companies aren't stupid. They are factoring this uncertainty into how much they're willing to pay for these second mortgages with the ultimate effect being downward pressure on how much the debt is worth on the open market. These loans typically sell for pennies on the dollar.

This makes lenders, like Chase, very sad. How can its executives afford the upkeep on multiple homes, private jets, warehouses of exotic automobiles, etc. if they are getting returns on investment of pennies on the dollar? The answer, of course, is they can't. So, savvy businessmen that they are, they've come up with a new tactic to maximize their returns. They are beginning to sell the first mortgage and keep the second. Since the first is secured, Chase can get a price that is at or near fair market value of the property. Then since they've held the second at full face value all along, they can sue the borrower for the full amount with a much higher likelihood of prevailing in court...

DO CLICK ON THE LINK TO READ THE AMAZING CONCLUSION OF THIS ARTICLE!

[DemReadingDU]

38. From the same article

a couple snippets...

The whole vocabulary of "liberal versus conservative" is utterly inadequate for describing the current dynamic of how we are ruled.

It doesn't matter which party is in charge. Either way, the powers-that-be will attempt to rob us blind.



The paragraph after those snippets, sums it up.

[Demeter]

33. More Perfidy in US Courts/ The great Lehman derivatives muddle

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/09/28/74391/the-great-lehman-derivatives-muddle/

Every now and then, a bit of news comes around that threatens to turn the world as we know it on its head. The purported decision by a US bankruptcy court to overrule one of the fundamental tenets of the derivatives market – the ISDA Master Agreement – may turn out to be something of a game-changer.

As Finance Asia reported, emphasis ours:

Counterparties to derivatives transactions may think twice about contracting with US-based dealers after an American court handling Lehman’s bankruptcy has found that a provision in the master agreement used in most derivatives transactions is unenforceable.

At issue is the way in which creditors treat their claims against an insolvent counterparty — only a minor concern 18 months ago, but a multi-billion dollar worry today. When Lehman went broke a year ago, counterparties holding 900,000 separate derivatives contracts with the failed bank found themselves in an unusual position.

Some were aggrieved — they were in the money and winning when Lehman went under, which meant they had to terminate their contracts and line up alongside other creditors. They can now expect to get paid a few cents for each dollar they are owed.

But other counterparties were happy — they owed Lehman money on loss-making contracts, which were losing more money by the day, and took Lehman’s bankruptcy as an opportunity to keep their shirts and walk away.

Not so fast, says the US bankruptcy court. It has found that derivatives counterparties have just two options: either keep the agreement in place and keep paying the premiums or terminate the contract and pay any money owed to the insolvent counterparty.

This is not what Lehman agreed when it contracted with its counterparties. The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (Isda) master agreement governing most derivatives transactions says that a counterparty does not need to make payments if the other party suffers an event of default and, needless to say, bankruptcy is classed as such an event.

From the point of view of a bankruptcy court, that logic makes perfect sense – debtors do not cease to be liable just because their counterparty has gone bust. But as far as the derivatives market goes, this is unheard of.

Moreover, as Finance Asia pointed out,

the rules of the game are still the same in markets such as Hong Kong and Singapore, which means that counterparties can avoid the consequences of the US ruling by simply trading with dealers based outside the US — or with dealers that would not be subject to bankruptcy proceedings in the US.

FOLLOWUP: When (derivatives) counterparties collapse

Lehman Brothers — not just the catalyst of the recent financial crisis, but also the reason for a helluvalot of legal wrangling, notably in the heady sphere of derivatives.

In fact, just before FT Alphaville left for Christmas, an interesting case covering a vital piece of derivatives documentation made its way through the English courts. Now that we’ve had time to digest it (and our Christmas cookies) we’d like to share:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/3372.html

Before the Lehman-spurred crisis, most risk management seemed focused on things like hedge funds. Now though, we have a cast of counterparty monsters that include everything from monoline insurers to banks like Lehman and even (gulp) sovereigns.

Focus, for now though on Lehman.

Vanilla swaps are governed by the Isda Master Agreement — which is basically the bible of the derivatives industry. Not only does it enable you to trade with the big boys of Wall Street, but it also governs the way you’re meant to do it.

According to the Isda Master then, when one counterparty to a swap defaults (à la Lehman) the non-defaulting party can opt to close out the swap at fair value. Such close-outs are even allowed under the safe harbour provisions of strict US bankruptcy laws (instead of automatic stay). However, the rights to close out under safe harbour provisions have to be exercised within a “reasonable period of time” — something we learned in the 2009 Lehman vs Metavante Technologies case.

Back over to the English courts for now though and the question of what happens when the non-defaulting party elects not to close out the swap. Section 2(a)(iii) in the Isda Master says that payment obligations are subject to the “condition precedent that no Event of Default or Potential Event of Default with respect to the other party has occurred and is continuing”. That’s legal speak for payment obligations are dependent upon a counterparty not being in default. So can a non-defaulting counterparty not only elect to not close out, but also to suspend making payments? Or, the equivalent of having your (vanilla swap) cake and eating it too?

We want you to meet JFB Firth Rixson Inc, FR Acquisitions Corp (Europe) Ltd, BEIG Midco Ltd and KP Germany Zweite GmbH — four companies that opted to not only not close out their interest rate swaps with Lehman Bros after its bankruptcy, but also stopped making payments. In 2010 the swaps were out-of-the-money for the companies (or, in the money to Lehman) to the tune of about £60m. Unsurprisingly, the Lehman estate challenged their decision in the English courts.

The court decision (in a nutshell) ruled in favour of the companies — non-defaulting counterparties could indeed choose not to close out swaps and suspend making payments after their other counterparty defaults. BUT those counterparties would have to make good on those payments if the default were ever cured.

There’s a whole host of English anti-deprivation law (which basically seeks to protect assets that would otherwise benefit the creditors of an insolvent estate) to go along with the ruling. Essentially though, Lehman lost, and companies won.

What though of the Isda Master Agreement?

According to Clifford Chance (which represented BEIG Midco Ltd) the court ruling was effectively a win for the Isda Master — it meant the document “does what it says on the tin.” It’s worth noting though, that questions over more complex swaps are still hovering in the background. For instance, we can expect another dose of anti-deprivation debate when the UK Supreme Court considers flip clauses this March. The Lehman estate also still has the option to appeal against some of the court’s decisions in this swap ruling (including those on anti-deprivation).

Not to mention what’s going on across the Atlantic. We name-checked Metavante earlier for a reason. A US bankruptcy court ruled in September 2009 that the company fell outside of safe harbour provisions because they didn’t close out their swaps within a “reasonable period of time;” Metavante was still obligated to pay. Meanwhile Section 2(a)(iii) became far less relevant for swaps with US-based dealers.

So for the moment, we have a bizarre situation where counterparty risk is still (attempting to be?) dealt with by what’s meant to be coordinated regulation (viz the Isda Master doc) but there remain major splits between the two sides of the Atlantic in the way the regulations/provisions/sections etc. are legally enforced.

[Po_d Mainiac]

69. Friday night poker

Mssr's Lehman, Morgue, Squid, Shiti, Doche, and Moneyhands are holding four Kings, three 6's, a full house (dueces over), 2 pairs (aces over 9's), a flush, and the dead man's hand; respectively.

After multiple rounds of betting and raises...The only remaining players holding their paper are Lehman and Squid.

Mssr Lehman calls, Squid shows his full house (of cards)....The other players gasp....so does Lehman. But it's Lehman's last gasp, brought on by a myocardial infarction. (fergedabout the drops the Squid secreted into Lehman's beverage) Lehman collapses face down on the table still clutching the cards which also fall to the table face down.

Who gets the pot?

[Demeter]

73. I have no idea how the poker would fall out

but it looks like GS and JPMorgan are scooping the pot, real time.

Po, do I have to learn poker, too?

[Demeter]

34. Gene Sperling 101

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/gene-sperling-101/?ref=business

Here’s a quick biography and reading list for those who want to get up to speed on Mr. Sperling:

A native of Ann Arbor, Mich., he went to college at the University of Minnesota and law school at Yale. He worked for Mario Cuomo, then the governor of New York, in the early 1990s, before joining Mr. Clinton’s presidential campaign. Mr. Sperling worked for the Clinton administration from start to finish — 1993 to 2001. He’s particularly proud of the work he and colleagues did to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has become a big part of federal anti-poverty policy.

On the ideological spectrum, Mr. Sperling falls between centrist and liberal Democrat. It’s probably fair to say he’s to the right of Robert Reich (the prolific writer who was Mr. Clinton’s labor secretary) and to the left of Timothy Geithner (the current Treasury secretary).

Starting in 2001, Mr. Sperling took on a variety of jobs, mostly part time, including a position at the Brookings Institution, as a columnist for Bloomberg News and as an adviser to Goldman Sachs. For much of this period, he worked for the Council on Foreign Relations, where girls’ education around the world was one of his main interests.

In 2006, Mr. Sperling was among a small group of people who gave Barack Obama, then a senator from Illinois, advice on early drafts “The Audacity of Hope.” Mr. Sperling ultimately chose to join Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign as its top economic official. After Mrs. Clinton conceded, Mr. Sperling joined Mr. Obama’s campaign.

After the 2008 general election, Mr. Sperling became a senior adviser to Mr. Geithner at the Treasury Department, where they seem to have developed a strong relationship. Mr. Sperling’s main role was to help Mr. Geithner in some areas where he lacked experience, like tax and budget issues...President Obama...named Gene Sperling the director of the National Economic Council. Mr. Sperling, 52, who held the same job under President Bill Clinton, will succeed Lawrence Summers.

[DemReadingDU]

39. Makes one wonder

Paulson -> Geithner -> Sperling???

[Demeter]

47. Like a Chain of Paper Dolls

all of them identical, holding hands, singing Kumbaya.

[DemReadingDU]

51. Kumbaya

For anyone who has not heard of this song...

"Kumbayah" (Gullah, "Come By Here" — "Kum ba yah") — is an African-American spiritual song from the 1930s. It enjoyed newfound popularity during the folk revival of the 1960s and became a standard campfire song in Scouting and other nature-oriented organizations. The song was originally associated with human and spiritual unity, closeness and compassion, and it still is in many places around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbaya

sung by The Seekers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG2wA

[Demeter]

35. Massachusetts Ruling on Foreclosures Is a Warning to Banks

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/business/08mortgage.html?_r=1&hp

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

The highest court in Massachusetts ruled Friday that U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo erred when they seized two troubled borrowers’ properties in 2007, putting the nation’s banks on notice that foreclosures cannot be based on improper or incomplete paperwork.

Concluding that neither institution had proved it had the right to evict the borrowers, the Supreme Judicial Court voided the foreclosures, returning ownership of the properties to the borrowers and opening the door to other foreclosure do-overs in the state...Legal experts said that while this ruling did not set a precedent for other states, the outcome will be closely watched across the country because it is the first such ruling from a state’s highest court. Investors viewed the ruling as negative for banks; an index of financial company shares fell almost 1 percent on the day.

..........

The banks’ problems began in the fall of 2008, when Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp sought judgments from the Massachusetts Land Court that would have given them clear title to the properties. In 2009, the court rejected the banks’ arguments, ruling that the banks had not been assigned the mortgages before they foreclosed, as is required. Instead, the banks had acquired the mortgages after they had begun foreclosure proceedings.

The ruling on Friday upheld that decision.

Foreclosures are supposed to occur only when lenders can prove they own the note underlying the property.

..........................

A special education teacher in Brookline, Mr. Ibanez and his wife moved out of the house and are now living in a rental condominium, his lawyer said. U.S. Bancorp, as trustee, will either have to pay Mr. Ibanez to buy a deed from him, Mr. Collier said, or walk away from the property, leaving it to Mr. Ibanez.

The loss on the property will be taken by investors in the trust that had claimed ownership of the mortgage.

The other borrowers whose foreclosure was overturned — Mark and Tammy LaRace — are still living in the home. They could not be reached.

The banks involved in the matter had asked the Massachusetts court to make its ruling prospective, meaning that it would affect only new foreclosures. The court declined to do so, allowing foreclosure cases that have been completed to be reopened and brought under scrutiny....

[Demeter]

36. Bernanke Rejects Bailouts Fed Chief Says State and Local Governments Shouldn't Expect Federal Loans

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704739504576067602380461160.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Friday ruled out a central bank bailout of state and local governments strapped with big municipal debt burdens, saying the Fed had limited legal authority to help and little will to use that authority.

"We have no expectation or intention to get involved in state and local finance," Mr. Bernanke said in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee. The states, he said later, "should not expect loans from the Fed."

The $2.9 trillion municipal-bond market has been stung recently by worries that some cash-strapped cities or states won't be able to pay off or roll over debt. Costs have risen broadly for municipal borrowers. The market also faces challenges from the expiration of the Build America Bonds program, which helped cities and states borrow $165 billion at interest rates held down by federal subsidies...The Fed only has legal authority to buy muni debt with maturities of six months or less that is directly backed by tax or other assured revenue, which makes up less than 2% of the overall market. The Dodd-Frank financial-regulation law enacted last year further tied the Fed's hands, Mr. Bernanke noted, by barring the central bank from lending to insolvent borrowers or pursuing bailouts of individual borrowers.

Mr. Bernanke played down the risk of a major municipal-bond crisis, noting that muni markets have been functioning normally, with healthy trading volumes and lots of issuance. But he said that if municipal defaults did become a problem, it would be in Congress's hands, not his...

[bread_and_roses]

46. Of course - no matter that State and Local taxes put an intolerable burden on poor/ "middle-class"

earners. And it is THEY who will have their taxes raised and their services cut to support the upper 1%. I've referenced this before, but someone - EPI? - did a study not too many years ago that showed that the combined tax rate in NY was around 12% for the lowest 20% and around 6% for the top tier earners/wealthy.

So maybe the focus of the popular media versions of Robin Hood is not so far off after all...hhmmmnnnnnn.

Of course, the citizenry knows that they are being screwed, but since the Dems are too corrupt and in thrall and bondage to their wealthy campaign donors to tell the real story, they've let the Teabaggers capture the anger at "taxes" and turn it to the benefit of our Oligarch Overlords - the Nobility. When the reality is that it is the perfect populist vehicle.

Where's Robin Hood when we need him? Not in the White House, that's for sure.

[DemReadingDU]

42. Pelosi hands over the Gavel to Boehner

1/7/11
Pelosi hands over the Gavel to Boehner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuen30lQ2T0


Apparently, this short clip is from Wednesday night's Jay Leno Show.

[Demeter]

48. Money market freezes and central banks

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/5990

During the global crisis central banks have undertaken unconventional measures that some commentators claim go beyond their mandate. This column focuses on central banks intervening in the money markets as a middle man. It argues that such actions can be welfare improving, but are unlikely to be fiscally neutral, thus raising questions about whether they should be left to a central bank.

During the peak of the crisis in autumn 2008, spreads in money markets rose sharply and volumes contracted, forcing many banks into difficulties with their standard liquidity management and refinancing strategies. Central banks reacted by taking deposits from some banks (via deposit facilities and excess reserve accounts) and lending directly to other banks (via various lending facilities) at much larger scale than in normal times. What some observers and policymakers thought to be a short-term measure has since become an important structural element of public policy during this long crisis. The lending facilities of the ECB, for instance, are still heavily used by many banks, including most troubled Irish banks and several Spanish savings banks.1 Arguably, this lending offers a crucial source of funds for financial institutions which, due to perceptions about their credit risk, would find it difficult to cover their refinancing needs in the market.Is this type of replacement of the money market trade just an unconventional tool of monetary policy? Is it large-scale long-horizon version of standard lending of last resort? Is it consistent with a strict price stability mandate? Does it have fiscal dimensions that would recommend counting with the explicit backing of governments and parliaments? In his analysis of the US experience, Goodfriend (2011) defends that several instances of unconventional monetary policy should be more properly called “credit policy” so as to explicitly acknowledge their potentially significant fiscal implications...

[Demeter]

49. Vegas home prices: On the skid until 2032

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/07/real_estate/home_prices_depressed_for_decades/index.htm

Move over, Cleveland. Make room, Detroit. Beat it, Buffalo. There are some competitors for the title of America's most depressed real estate market.

These are not old Rust Belt post-industrial cities, where the manufacturing economy vanished years ago; these cities were flourishing as recently as 2005. But they got crushed by the housing bubble, and most won't recover from the damage until at least 2030...

I'M AMBIVALENT ABOUT THIS,

I WOULDN'T TAKE NEVADA REAL ESTATE IF IT WERE GIVEN TO ME FOR FREE. NO WATER, NO TREES, NO REASON TO BE THERE (ALLERGIES ISN'T SUFFICIENT). MINING URANIUM, OR SOLAR PV FARMS, PERHAPS. UNLESS THE CLIMATE CHANGES SO DRASTICALLY THAT NEVADA BECOMES A FORESTED STATE, I DON'T SEE WHY IT SHOULD EVER RECOVER.

ANNED, WHAT DO THE TRIBAL NATIONS THINK OF NEVADA?

AND DETROIT HAS BEEN DEPRESSED SINCE 1967--THAT'S 43 YEARS, AND COUNTING. BUT THE SUBURBS AROUND DETROIT DID WELL FOR MANY YEARS, UNTIL W CURSED THE NATION. THERE ARE REASONS TO BE IN MICHIGAN, INCLUDING THE FEELING OF HOME FOR MANY GENERATIONS. EVEN SO, THERE HAVE LATELY BEEN EFFORTS TO COALESCE A CORE FOR THE CITY AND BRING IT INTO A STATE OF LIFE AGAIN. BECAUSE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS ARE NO LONGER MEDDLING, IT MIGHT ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

[Demeter]

52. THE Classic Robin Hood Film, Starring Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland

Aside from the sterling cast of characters, the faithfulness to the bones of the original legends, the swordplay, and the Technicolor, what is there to say?

Oh yes, Erich Korngold did the score!

"The Adventures of Robin Hood is a 1938 American swashbuckler film directed by Michael Curtiz and William Keighley. Filmed in Technicolor, the picture stars Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Basil Rathbone, and Claude Rains.

Plot

When Richard the Lionheart, the King of England, is taken captive by Leopold of Austria while returning from the Crusades, his brother John (Claude Rains) takes power and proceeds to oppress the Saxon commoners. Prince John raises their taxes, supposedly to raise Richard's ransom, but in reality to secure his own position on the throne.

One man stands in his way, the Saxon Robin, Earl of Locksley (Errol Flynn). He acquires a loyal follower when he saves Much (Herbert Mundin) from being arrested by Sir Guy of Gisbourne (Basil Rathbone) for poaching one of the king's deer. Robin goes alone to see Prince John at Gisbourne's castle and announces to John's assembled supporters and a contemptuous Maid Marian (Olivia de Havilland) that he will do all in his power to oppose John and restore Richard to his rightful place. He then escapes, in spite of the efforts of John's men.

His lands and title now forfeit, Robin takes refuge in Sherwood Forest with his friend Will Scarlet (Patric Knowles). There they meet Little John (Alan Hale, Sr.), whom Robin recruits after a bruising quarterstaff bout. Other men join their growing band. Later, Robin provokes Friar Tuck (Eugene Pallette) into a sword fight, but then persuades the friar into joining him to provide spiritual guidance to the outlaws. Soon, Prince John and his Norman cronies find themselves harassed beyond all bearing with many of their troops receiving instant deadly retribution for their abuses courtesy of the Merry Men's arrows.

One day, Robin and his men capture a large party of Normans transporting taxes through Sherwood. Among Robin's "guests" are Gisbourne, the cowardly Sheriff of Nottingham (Melville Cooper), and Maid Marian. Robin and his men "liberate" the tax money, swearing to a man to contribute it towards King Richard's ransom. At first, Marian is disdainful of Robin and his "band of cut-throats", but becomes convinced of his good intentions. Eventually Robin lets the humiliated Gisbourne and sheriff go, telling them that they have Marian to thank for their lives.

The Sheriff then comes up with a cunning scheme to capture Robin. He suggests to Prince John that he announce an archery tournament, with the grand prize a golden arrow to be presented by Maid Marian, knowing that Robin will be unable to resist the challenge. All goes as planned; Robin identifies himself by winning the competition and is taken prisoner. Gisbourne sentences him to be hanged. However, Marian warns Robin's men, and they manage to rescue him on his way to the gallows. Later, in the dark of night, Robin sneaks into the castle to thank her. Marian and Robin declare their love for each other.

Meanwhile, King Richard (Ian Hunter) returns to England disguised as a monk, but is recognized at an inn by the Bishop of the Black Canons (Montagu Love) after he overhears one of Richard's men call him "sire". The traitorous bishop hurries to inform Prince John. Upon receiving the news, John and Gisbourne plot to dispose of Richard quietly before he can raise an army. Dickon Malbete (Harry Cording), a disgraced former knight, is sent to assassinate him in return for the restoration of his rank and Robin's estate. Marian overhears them and writes a note warning Robin, but Gisbourne finds it and has her arrested and condemned to death for treason. Marian's nurse Bess (Una O'Connor) informs her boyfriend Much, who intercepts and kills Dickon after a desperate struggle.

Richard and his escort travel to Sherwood Forest to find Robin. When Richard is certain of Robin's loyalty, he reveals his identity. Then they learn that John intends to have himself crowned king by the Bishop of the Black Canons in Nottingham the next day.

Knowing that the castle is too strong to take by force, Robin decides to use guile, visiting the bishop and "persuading" him to include Robin and his men, in disguise, in his entourage. Through this ruse, they gain entry to the castle and interrupt John's coronation. A melee breaks out, during which Robin and Gisbourne engage in a prolonged swordfight. Gisbourne is finally slain, and Robin rescues Marian from her cell.

Richard is restored to the throne; he exiles his brother, pardons the outlaws, returns Robin's earldom and orders him to marry Lady Marian. Robin exclaims, "May I obey all your commands with equal pleasure, sire!"

(I think the part I liked least about it was the California location. There's no way the semi-arid scrub outside LA (actually Chico) looks like England.)

Legacy
Errol Flynn as Robin Hood.

Due to the movie's popularity, Errol Flynn's name and image became inextricably linked with that of Robin Hood in the public eye, even more so than Douglas Fairbanks, who had played the role previously in 1922.<4>

This was the third film to pair Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland (after Captain Blood and The Charge of the Light Brigade). They would ultimately star together in eight films.

Scenes and costumes worn by the characters have been imitated and spoofed endlessly. For instance, in the Bugs Bunny animated short film, Rabbit Hood, Bugs is continually told by a dim-witted Little John that "Robin Hood will soon be here." When Bugs finally meets Robin at the end of the film, he is stunned to find that it is Errol Flynn, in a spliced-in clip from this film. Other parodies were Daffy Duck and Porky Pig in Robin Hood Daffy and Goofy and Black Pete in Goof Troop's Goofin' Hood & His Melancholy Men.

Trigger (then named Golden Cloud) was the horse ridden by Olivia de Havilland in the film. Roy Rogers admired the horse so much that he bought Trigger to use in his own films. This eventually made Trigger one of the most famous animals in show business."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Robin_Hood_%28film%29

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evof-iVDOwQ

Errol Flynn was still young enough and pure enough to pull off the role. In some of his later films he could have been just phoning it in--he's distracted, morose, shut down from his cast members...I'm thinking especially of his time as Custer.

[Demeter]

54. The Robin Hood Project: Robbins Library At the University of Rochester

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/rh/rhfilms.htm

Robin Hood Films Compiled by John Chandler

Feature Films

Adventures of Robin Hood. Dir. Michael Curtiz and William Keighley. With Errol Flynn, Basil Rathbone, Claude Rains, Olivia De Havilland and Alan Hale. Warner Brothers, 1938.

L'Arciere di fuoco. Dir. Girgio Ferroni. With Mario Adorf, Lars Bloch, Mark Damon and Silvia Dionisio. Oceanic Produzione, 1971. (Italy)

The Bandit of Sherwood Forest. Dir. George Sherman and Henry Levin. With Cornel Wilde and Anita Louise. Columbia, 1946.

A Challenge for Robin Hood. Dir. C. M. Pennington Richards. With Barrie Ingham, Gay Hamilton and James Hayter. Seven Arts-Hammer Films, 1967. (Alternate Titles: Robin Hood's Chase; The Legend of Robin Hood)

Drei für Robin Hood. Dir. Erik Haffner and Thommy Krappweis. With Christoph Maria Herbst and Sissi Perlinger. KIKA, 2003. (German)

In the Days of Robin Hood. Dir. F. Martin Thornton. With Harry Agar Lyons. Natural Colour Kinematograph, 1913. (Silent)

Ivanhoe. Dir. Herbert Brenon. With Walter Thomas. Independent Moving Pictures, 1913. (Silent)

Ivanhoe. Dir. Richard Thorpe. With Robert Taylor, Elizabeth Taylor and Harold Warrender. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1952.

Ivanhoe. Dir. Douglas Camfield. With James Mason, Sam Neill and David Robb. Columbia Pictures TV, 1982.

Il Magnifico Robin Hood. Dir. Roberto Bianchi Montero. With George Martin and Sheyla Rosin. Marco Claudio Cinematografica, 1970. (Italy)

The Men of Sherwood Forest. Dir. Val Guest. With Don Taylor and Eileen Moore. Hammer Films, 1954.

The Merry Men of Sherwood. Dir. Widgey R. Newman. With John Thompson, Eric Adeney and Aileen Marston. Delta Pictures, 1932.

El Pequeño Robin Hood. Dir. René Cardona. With René Cardona III and Patricia Aspíllaga. 1973. (Mexico)

The Prince of Thieves. Dir. Howard Bretherton. With Jon Hall and Patricia Morison. Columbia, 1948.

Princess of Thieves. Dir. Peter Hewitt. With Stewart Wilson and Keira Knightly. Walt Disney Productions, 2001.

Ribald Tales of Robin Hood. Dir. Richard Kanater and Erwin C. Dietrich. With Lawrence Adams and Danielle Carver. Mondo Films, 1969.

Il Ritorno di Robin Hood. Dir. Peter Seabourne. With Richard Greene. 1991. (Italy) (edited from the Greene TV series)

Robin Hood and His Merry Men. Dir. Percy Stow. Clarendon Films, 1909. (Silent) (Alternate Title: Robin and His Merry Men)

Robin and Marian. Dir. Richard Lester. With Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn. Columbia, 1976.

Robin, Frecce, Fagioli e Karate. Dir. Tonino Ricci. With Sergio Ciani and Victoria Abril. Scale Film-Panorama Arco Film, 1977. (Italy/Spain)

Robin Hood. Dir. Étienne Arnaud and Herbert Blaché. With Alex B. Francis and Robert Frazer. American Éclair, 1912. (Silent)

Robin Hood. Dir. Theodore Marston. With William Russell, Gerda Holmes, James Cruze and William Garwood. Thanhouser, 1913. (Silent) (Alternate Title: Robin Hood and Maid Marian)

Robin Hood. Dir. Allan Dwan. With Douglas Fairbanks, Enid Bennett, Wallace Beery and Alan Hale. United Artists, 1922. (Silent)

Robin Hood. Dir. John Irvin. With Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman. 20th Century-Fox, 1991.

Robin Hood. Dir. Mike A. Martinez. With David Wood. Scythe Productions, 1998.

Robin Hood and the Sorcerer. Dir. Ian Sharp. With Robert Addie, Clive Mantle and Judi Trott. Goldcrest Films and Television Productions, 1984.

Robin Hood and the Pirates. Dir. Giorgio Simonelli. With Lex Barker, Jackie Lane and Rossana Rory. F. Ci-T, 1960. (Italy) (Alternate Title: Robin Hood e i pirati)

Robin Hood, el arquero invencible. Dir. José Luis Merino. With Luis Barboo. Cinematografica Lombarda, 1970. (Spain/Italy)

Robin Hood en zijn schelmen. Dir. Henk van der Linden. With Cor van der Linden. 1962. (Netherlands)

Robin Hood Jr. Dir. Clarence Bricker. With Frankie Lee and Peggy Cartwright. East Coast Productions, 1923. (Silent)

Robin Hood Jr. Dir. Matt McCarthy and John Black. With Keith Chegwin and Mandy Tulloch. Brocket, 1975.

Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Dir. Mel Brooks. With Cary Elwes, Richard Lewis and Patrick Stewart. 20th Century-Fox, 1993.

Robin Hood: The Movie. Dir. Daniel Birt and Terence Fisher. With Richard Greene. Associated Images, 1991. (edited from the Greene TV series)

Robin Hood no yume. Dir. Bansho Kanamori. With Fujio Harumoto. Toa Kinema, 1924. (Silent) (Japan)

Robin Hood nunca muere. Dir. Francisco Bellmunt. With Charly Bravo and Emma Cohen. Profilmes, 1975. (Spain)

Robin Hood, O Trapalhão da Floresta. Dir. Paul DiStefano. With Bill Melathopolous and Mario Cardoso. Atlântida Cinematográfica, 1974. (Brazil)

Robin Hood Outlawed. Dir. Charles Raymond. With A. Brian Plant. British and Colonial Films, 1912. (Silent)

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Dir. Kevin Reynolds. With Kevin Costner, Morgan Freeman and Mary-Elizabeth Mastrantonio. Morgan Creek Productions, 1991.

Robin Hood: Thief of Wives. Dir. Joe D'Amato. With Mark Davis and Stefania Sartori. 1996. (Italy) (Alternate Title: Robin Hood: The Sex Legend)

Robin of Locksley. Dir. Michael Kennedy. With Devon Sawa and Sarah Chalke. Sugar Entertainment, 1996.

Rogues of Sherwood Forest. Dir. Gordon Douglas. With John Derek, Alan Hale and Diana Lynn. Columbia, 1950.

Son of Robin Hood. Dir. George Sherman. With David Hedison and June Laverick. Argo Film Productions, 1958.

The Story of Robin Hood. Dir. Ken Annakin. With Richard Todd and Joan Rice. RKO-Disney, 1952. (Alternate Title: The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men)

Striely Robin Guda. Dir. Sergei Tarasov. With Int Buran, Yuri Kamory, Boris Khmelnitsky, Algis Masyulis and Ragina Razuma. Riga Film Studio, 1977. (USSR) (Alternate Titles: Arrows of Robin Hood; Robin Hood's Arrows)

Sword of Sherwood Forest. Dir. Terence Fisher. With Richard Greene and Peter Cushing. Hammer Films, 1960.

Tales of Robin Hood. Dir. James Tinling. With Robert Clarke and Mary Hatcher. Lippert Pictures, 1951.

Time Bandits. Dir. Terry Gilliam. With John Cleese, Shelley Duvall, Sean Connery and Michael Palin. Handmade Films, 1981.

Il Trionfo di Robin Hood. Dir. Umberto Lenzi. With Don Burnett and Gia Scala. Italiana Film Buonavista, 1962. (Italy)

Up the Chastity Belt. Dir. Bob Kellett. With Frankie Howerd, Hugh Paddick and Rita Webb. Associated London Films, 1971.

Virgins of Sherwood Forest. Dir. Cybil Richards. With Brian Heidik and Gabriella Hall. Surrender Cinema, 2000.

Wolfshead: The Legend of Robin Hood. Dir. John Hough. With David Warbeck and Ciaran Madden. London Weekend Productions, 1969.

The Zany Adventures of Robin Hood. Dir. Ray Austin. With George Segal, Morgan Fairchild and Roddy McDowall. Charles Fries Productions, 1984.

Animation

"An Arrow Escape." Dir. Mannie Davis and George Gordon. Terrytoons, 1936.

"Mr. Magoo in Sherwood Forest." Dir. Abe Levitow. With Jim Backus. Paramount, 1964.

"Koko Meets Robin Hood." With Norma MacMillan and Larry Storch. Seven Arts Associated, 1962.

The Legend of Robin Hood. With Tim Elliot and Helen Morse. CBS, 1971. (Australia)

"Rabbit Hood." Dir. Chuck Jones. With Mel Blanc and Errol Flynn. Warner Brothers, 1949.

"Robin Hood." Dir. Paul Terry and Frank Moser. Terrytoons, 1933.

Robin Hood. Dir. Wolfgang Reitherman. With Brian Bedford, Monica Evans, Peter Ustinov and Roger Miller. Walt Disney Productions, 1973.

"Robin Hood Daffy." Dir. Chuck Jones. With Mel Blanc. Warner Brothers, 1956.

"Robin Hood, Jr." Dir. Ub Iwerks. With Eleanor Stewart. Celebrity Productions, Inc./MGM, 1934.

"Robin Hood Makes Good." Dir. Chuck Jones. With Mel Blanc. Warner Brothers, 1939.

"Robin Hood Rides Again." Van Beuren Studios, 1934.

"Robin Hood-Winked." Dir. Seymour Kneitel. With Jack Mercer and Jackson Beck. Famous Studios/Paramount Pictures, 1948.

Rocket Robin Hood. Dir. Ralph Bakshi and Grant Simmons. With Len Carlson and Ed McNamara. Famous Studios, 1966-69. (Canada. 52 episodes.)

Shrek. Dir. Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson. With Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy and Vincent Cassel. Dreamworks, 2001.

Young Robin Hood. With Thor Bishopric. Hanna-Barbera, 1992. (26 episodes)

Television Series

The Adventures of Robin Hood. Dir. Bernard Knowles, Lindsay Anderson, Terence Fisher, and Ralph Smart. With Richard Greene, Bernadette O'Farrell and Patricia Driscoll. Sapphire Films, 1955-1958. (165 episodes)

The Adventures of Young Robin Hood. With Peter Demin. BBC, 1983.

Back to Sherwood. With Aimee Castle and Christopher B. MacCabe. CBC, 1999.

Blackadder Back and Forth. Dir. Paul Weiland.With Rowan Atkinson, Tony Robertson and Miranda Richardson. BBC, 1999. (One episode features Rik Mayall as Robin and Kate Moss as Marion.)

Ivanhoe. Dir. Stuart Orme. With Ronald Pickup and Aden Gillett. BBC-A&E, 1997. (6 episode miniseries)

The Legend of Robin Hood. Dir. Eric Davidson. With Martin Potter and Diane Keen. BBC, 1975. (6 episode miniseries)

The Legend of Robin Hood. Dir. Alan Handley. With David Watson, Douglas Faribanks, Jr., and Roddy McDowall. NBC, 1968.

Maid Marian and her Merry Men. Dir. David Bell. With Kate Lonergan and Wayne Morris. BBC, 1988-1989. (25 episodes)

The New Adventures of Robin Hood. Various directors. With Matthew Porretta, John Bradley, Anna Galvin and Barbara Griffin. Baltic Ventures International, 1997-1999.

Robin Hood. Dir. Joy Harington. With Patrick Troughton and Josée Richard. BBC, 1953. (6 episodes)

Robin Hood. Dir. Trevor Evans. With Rich Little. CBC, 1982.

Robin Hood no daibôken. Dir. Kôichi Mashimo. With Yumi Tôma. 1991. (Japan. 52 episodes) (Alternate Title: Robin Hood's Big Adventure)

Robin of Sherwood. Dir. Ian Sharp. With Michael Praed, Robert Addie and Nikolas Grace. HTV 1984-86. (26 episodes) (Alternate title: Robin Hood)

When Things Were Rotten. Dir. Jerry Paris and Marty Feldman. With Richard Gautier and Misty Rowe. ABC, 1975. (13 episodes. Written and produced by Mel Brooks.)


MUCH MORE AT THE WEBSITE!

[Demeter]

55. Preface: Was Robin Hood Real?

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/rh/RH%20Exhibit/pref.htm


Robin Hood is a part of our popular culture, and has been for over 600 years. This outlaw of medieval England has seemingly appeared everywhere. Medieval chroniclers like Andrew of Wyntoun (c. 1420) and Walter Bower (c. 1440) happily accepted Robin’s existence, and his wide appeal led to brief mentions in various texts. Scholars have long searched for the origin of Robin Hood, for an identifiable, historical outlaw in the Sherwood or Barnsdale area. The opening quote from Langland’s Piers Plowman (c. 1377) is Robin’s first appearance in a text, be it literary or historical, and it is not a shining reference. Sloth suggests songs of Robin Hood are widely known in taverns, implying he is a popular figure without a literary pedigree. Clearly, Robin Hood is of no importance to the aristocracy, but he holds some currency in popular circles. Sloth’s familiarity with drinking songs about Robin Hood, but utter lack of knowledge of things spiritual, also reflects the concern of the Church for the souls of people who likely attended mass grudgingly, but could readily recite popular songs. Later texts similarly present Robin as a popular figure, and few strictly medieval documents featuring Robin survive.

Robin and his fellows were a popular subject in early printed texts, with their low price and wide appeal, and it is in the early days of printing that he finally comes into his own as a literary figure. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, antiquarians were especially invested in finding the sources of their national culture and heroes, and Robin proved to be of special interest to the English. They not only reviewed these early plays and poems for clues to the historical identity of the figure, but also scoured historical and legal records to find any information that may have led to a proof for his identity. Despite the efforts of authors like P. Valentine Harris (see case 5), no verifiable Robin Hood emerged from the historical record. Today, most scholars accept Robin as a literary invention, based in part on other figures like Gamelyn and Fouke fitz Waryn, as well as real-life outlaws. Any search for the ideal Robin Hood, a dispossessed noble who robs from the rich to give to the poor, is doomed to failure. That Robin is a modern figure whose individual characteristics were added in different stages, which are roughly represented in this exhibit...

[Demeter]

56. The Legend of Robin Hood The tale of Robin Hood and Sherwood Forest - how much is true?

http://www.britainexpress.com/Myths/robin-hood.htm


The story of Robin Hood is so well known that it scarcely needs to be reviewed, but don't worry, I'll do it anyway. The "facts ", at least one romantic version of them, are these. In the time of Richard the Lionheart a minor noble of Nottinghamshire, one Robin of Loxley, was outlawed for poaching deer. Now at that time the deer in a a royal forest belonged to the king, and killing one of the king's deer was therefore treason, and punishable by death.

So Robin took to the greenwood of Sherwood Forest, making a living by stealing from rich travellers and distributing the loot among the poor of the area. In the process he gained a band of followers and a spouse, Maid Marian. Despite the best efforts of the evil Sherrif of Nottingham he avoided capture until the return of King Richard from the Crusades brought about a full pardon and the restoration of Robin's lands. In other versions he dies at the hands of a kinswoman, the abbess of Kirklees Priory. That, in a very small nutshell, is the legend, but is there truth behind it?

Well, possibly. Someone, or maybe several someones, named Robin Hood existed at different times. Court records of the York Assizes refer to a "Robert Hod", who was a fugitive in 1226. In the following year the assizes referred to the same man as "Robinhud". By 1300 at least 8 people were called Robinhood, and at least 5 of those were fugitives from the law. In 1266 the Sherrif of Nottingham, William de Grey, was in active conflict with outlaws in Sherwood Forest. It seems most likely that a number of different outlaws built upon the reputation of a fugitive in the forest, and over time, the legend grew.

One thing to note about the early legends is that Robin Hood was not an aristocrat, as he was later portrayed, but a simple yeoman driven to a life of crime by the harsh rule of the law of the rich. As such, it is easy to see how his story soon became a favourite folk tale among the poor.

There is, in the grounds of Kirklees Priory, a old grave stone, marking the final resting place of one "Robard Hude". Proof that part of the tale may be true? It would be nice to think so.

Resources
For a thorough examination of the Robin Hood legend, spend some time at these fascinating web sites:

Robin Hood Ltd
Robin Hood -- Bold Outlaw of Barnsdale and Sherwood
The Robin Hood Project

[Demeter]

57. Attorney General Tom Miller Reneges on Promise to Prosecute Mortgage Fraud (Updated)

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/01/attorney-general-tom-miller-renegs-promise-to-prosecute-mortgage-fraud.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

I’m not exactly surprised at the bait and switch by Iowa’s Attorney General Tom Miller, who is leading the 50 state investigation by state attorney generals into mortgage abuses. Less than a month ago promised that he would “put people in jail” Now he’s apparently decided to adopt a “move along, nothing to see here” posture. Per Bloomberg (hat tip reader Duncan B, who also sent a copy of a stinging e-mail to his state AG):

The five largest loan servicers, including Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., may be the first to settle with the 50 state attorneys general probing foreclosure practices, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said…..The group isn’t pursuing a criminal investigation, Miller said. “Our focus is to reform the servicing process and that’s inherently civil, not criminal,” he said.

That’s funny, reader and former bankruptcy litigator Fractal thinks it would not take a lot of effort to come up with criminal charges. His message was directed at the activities of the foreclosure mills, but since they were operating as the arms and legs of servicers, many of these theories would presumably apply to them as well, since the communication between those law firms and their clients was frequent and ongoing. And he also points out why civil actions (or the threat of mere civil actions, since the AGs are on their way to sweeping these abuses under the rug) are inadequate:

MUCH MORE, IF YOU CAN BEAR IT

[Demeter]

58. Is a Tainter-Style Collapse in Our Future?

I'D HAZARD IT'S ALREADY HERE...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/01/is-a-tainter-style-collapse-in-our-future.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

[Demeter]

59. A Lawsuit That Dirty Debt Collectors Should Be Worried About By ABIGAIL FIELD

http://4closurefraud.org/2011/01/04/kaboom-a-lawsuit-that-dirty-debt-collectors-should-be-worried-about/

Federal Circuit Court Judge Denny Chin just issued an opinion in a consumer class action case that should send chills down the spines of debt collectors, perhaps including foreclosure-mill law firms and their process servers, nationwide.

Judge Chin decided that plaintiffs alleged enough information about the debt collectors in this case — a law firm, a process-serving company and a debt-buying company — to sue them for being a criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) law. Judge Chin also allowed claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Why should other companies in and related to the debt-collection business be so nervous?

Well, Monique Sykes and the other plaintiffs claim that the defendants’ business model is as follows:

* Buy debt with little documentation that the debt is accurate.
* File lawsuits claiming personal knowledge of the debt but using robo-signed affidavits instead.
* Deliberately fail to tell the “debtor” that the lawsuit is pending (a practice called “sewer service“).
* Get a “default” judgment against the debtor when she fails to show up in court to defend herself.
* Enforce the judgment, including by freezing the debtor’s bank account.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/fIZLXj

[Demeter]

60. Waters: Taxpayers lose with Bank of America deal

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/waters-taxpayers-lose-with-bank-of-america-deal-2011-01-04

A senior Democrat on Tuesday argued that the $2.8 billion settlement between mortgage giants Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and Bank of America may be a 'backdoor' bailout that props the bank at the expense of taxpayers.

"Given the strong repurchase rights built into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's contracts with banks, and the recent court setback for Bank of America in similar litigation with a private insurer, I'm fearful that this settlement may have been both premature and a giveaway," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.).

"The fact that Bank of America's stock surged after this deal was announced only serves to fuel my suspicion that this settlement was merely a slap on the wrist that sets a bad example for other negotiations in the future." Bank of America on Monday agreed to settle a legal spat with Fannie and Freddie over losses on hundreds of billions of dollars in home loans that the lender sold to the government-owned mortgage giants.

[Demeter]

62. Yet Another Sign Of How China Is Twisting Itself In Knots To Beat Inflation

http://www.businessinsider.com/yet-another-sign-of-how-china-is-twisting-itself-in-knots-to-beat-inflation-2011-1?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+clusterstock+%28ClusterStock%29

At some point the Chinese economy will go bust, but before that happens something else will happen: Beijing will go further and further down the rabbit hole of trying to stamp out inflation, and adjust tiny imbalances, in a failing effort to continue the success of a planned economy with an artificially cheap currency.

We just got another sign of that.

According to WSJ, the country is implementing all kinds of new anti-monopoly, anti-collusion, and price-setting regulations in the vain hope that it can beat inflation by fiat.

Under the new rules, competitors will be banned from reaching agreements to fix prices, while business partners will be barred from agreeing to minimum resale prices, the NDRC said.

Companies that have a so-called dominant market share will be barred from charging "unfairly high prices" for their goods, and from paying "unfairly low prices" for inputs. Various anticompetitive pricing strategies adopted by companies with a dominant market share will also be prohibited, including pricing goods below their production cost, using special rebates to force out competitors and discriminatory pricing between similar customers.

It won't work, of course. As long as China keeps growing via its undervalued currency, the economy is going to suffer from inflation, and until that core issue is rectified, the government will introduce more and more measures such as these.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/yet-another-sign-of-how-china-is-twisting-itself-in-knots-to-beat-inflation-2011-1?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+clusterstock+%28ClusterStock%29#ixzz1ASiavdzf

[Demeter]

63. ...we pause now for reality interruption...

carry on, marketeers!

[DemReadingDU]

64. U.S.O.F.C.: If the Fraud Stops, the Financial System Collapses

1/8/11 U.S.O.F.C.: If the Fraud Stops, the Financial System Collapses
Charles Hugh Smith

U.S.O.F.C.: the United States of Organized Financial Crime. The Status Quo is dependent on a Financial Mafia for its wealth, and it is loathe to surrender it.

What happens if fraud and misrepresentation of risk is expunged from the U.S. financial system? In President Bush's memorable phrase: This sucker's going down.

There is a fascinating disconnect between the "law and order" society ceaselessly depicted on TV and the realities of the American financial system, which is now totally dependent on lies, fraud, embezzlement and misrepresentation of risk.

Remove those and the system implodes.


Americans love to see street criminals and petty gangsters brough to "justice," but we turn a blind eye to organized financial crime. Why is this so? Is it just that systemic financial fraud is not very dramatic? Is it that financial forensics are so boring compared to a decomposing corpse?

I think the truth is much more self-serving.

The Power Elites of the status quo, both political and financial, are well aware of the system's total dependence on legerdemaine, misrepresentation of risk, manipulation, lies, fraud and well-oiled machines of embezzlement (for instance, the entire mortgage and mortgage-backed securities markets).

Bringing "law and order" to Wall Street and the banking/mortgage sectors would mean indicting your pals and contributors, and bringing down the entire house of cards which has enriched and empowered you. No wonder indictments have been piecemeal and modest in scope: a few probes into insider trading, a few fines here and there--not what anyone would characterize as "cleaning house."

more...
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjan11/financial-crime01-11.html

[Demeter]

74. Who COULD Stop the Fraud, Anyway?

All 3 branches of government have been bought. If necessary, they could also buy up the 50 states.

Maybe China? Or maybe it just collapses from lack of blood left in the turnip?

[bread_and_roses]

68. Off theme, but too wonderful not to note: "thousands of Muslims...as “human shields”"

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/08/thousands-muslims-human-shields

Too wonderful.

[Demeter]

75. HUMOR: “Administration Considering Additional Subsidies and Tax Breaks”

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/12/administration-considering-additional-subsidies-and-tax-breaks.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29


By Augustus Melmotte, who lives and works in Hedgistan.

The administration is examining strategies for encouraging the ownership of fluffy kittens. “I think we can all agree,” the president said, “that in troubled times stroking a fluffy kitten can really help a struggling family to stay on course.” The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has calculated that a tax break of approximately $750 for first-time kitten ownership would cost the government less than $400 per kitten in administrative overhead, for a total cost per kitten (CPK) of $1150. Larry Summers, who (according to some eminent economists who used to run large universities in Massachusetts) should have been named Treasury Secretary instead of that pasty-faced sycophant Geithner, because god damn it Summers has paid his dues and got tenure when he was really, really young, said, “Beneficiaries of this stimulus measure would include not only America’s hard-working families but also veterinarians, pet-food companies, cat-nip farmers, and makers of heart-shaped kitty beds, catnip-scented mouse and gopher-shaped rubber chew toys, scratch pads, scent-free non-comedogenic coat-conditioning kitty shampoos, and teaser rods with dangling lures. And while some of these important products are made overseas, the services of America’s hard-working veterinarians simply cannot be outsourced.”

The administration is also considering a tax break to encourage trichotillomania. Trichotillomania, a mental disorder characterized by an uncontrollable impulse to pull out one’s hair, may affect as many as eleven million Americans, 91% of them women, according to a survey conducted by the Mayo Clinic. Trichophagia, a related disorder, involves the habit of eating hair. “These conditions, as painful and inconvenient as they might seem, play a vital role in maintaining a healthy economy,” said the administration’s new undersecretary of Health and Human Services for grooming and personal hygiene. “Trichotillomanes purchase scarves, ascots, fedoras, cloches, derbies, Neosporin, berets, beanies, false eyelashes, and paste-on eyebrows at a significantly higher rate than the general population. A decline in trichotillomania could have a devastating effect on many important industries.” The administration is considering incentives to encourage trichotillomanes to pluck faster and more thoroughly. Nobel Prize-winning Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman favors a stimulus package for trichotillomanes. “I am disappointed,” said Krugman in his blog, “that the administration has not acted in a swifter and more decisive manner. In fact, I recommend that the administration mail every citizen a pair of tweezers and a DVD of Oprah’s trichotillomania episode.” “I think there is bipartisan agreement that a trichotillomania subsidy is an urgent national priority,” said former senator and presidential candidate Phil Gramm, who now heads the K Street-based National Association of Manufacturers of False Eyelashes, Clown Noses, and Squeeze Toy Stress Relievers.

In related news, in a sudden and uncharacteristic burst of courage, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd has proposed a federal subsidy for vampire hunting. “Nothing brings a community together like a vampire hunt,” commented Senator Dodd. “Moreover, a vampire hunt requires serious tools. You don’t want to break into that crypt with a cheap stake that might snap or a hammer with a fragile plastic handle. Before you go after that inhumanly powerful undead creature with glowing red eyes, you are going to head down to the Home Depot or your neighborhood hardware store and load up on heavy-duty, top-of-the-line equipment.”

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, though, has doubts about Dodd’s proposal. “One problem is that it can be difficult to determine which blood-sucking supernatural parasites are in fact vampires and which are duly authorized and well-regulated components of the financial system, such as investment banks. If we allow uninformed middle-class citizens to go after Angelo Mozilo or Phil Gramm, next thing you know someone will be trying to put a stake through the heart of a selfless public servant like Hank Paulson. Also, giving the public visibility into the interiors of systemically important crypts would interfere with our ability to do our job and regulate the flow of blood. Letting the public see which crypts contain vampires could destroy confidence in institutions that play a vital role in the extraction and distribution of taxpayer blood and organs.” When asked for comment, Goldman Sachs CFO Daniel Viniar said that Goldman Sachs had extracted twelve billion pints of blood in accordance with a legally binding contract; the Transylvanian International Group had agreed to deliver the blood in the event of a zombie bank contagion, and the Treasury Department graciously chose to take over the obligation. “Moreover, we would have gotten that blood one way or another,” said Viniar. “We had a contingency plan in place.”

Congressman Barney Frank also indignantly dismissed Senator Dodd’s proposal. “Any attempt to restrain vampires would be disastrous for hard-working American families and their hard-working kittens,” Frank sputtered. “To keep the undead economy growing, we have to encourage vampirism, just as we have to encourage Citibank to shamble down the street looking for more taxpayer brains to eat.”

FROM DECEMBER 2009

[Demeter]

76. Moab man embraces simple life living in cave

MOAB — Daniel Suelo gets the same question, all the time.

"Why?"

The 48-year-old kneels in front of the desert cave he calls home, sips cedar tea from a chipped mug and explains, again, why he has intentionally lived the past nine years without using money.

It's instinctual to live without money; it's the way we were born, he says. It's political. The addiction to money fuels corruption, he says, and he refuses to support a corrupt system. There's also a spiritual basis for his life, a philosophical framework.

"The understanding that, really, we all possess nothing is the cornerstone of all spiritual endeavors and religions," he says.

And there are health reasons. Suelo, who was born with the last name Shellabarger, is unfettered with worries about a mortgage or bills or income. Tanned, with a mop of gray locks framing his Buddy Holly glasses, he is a picture of contentment, his lithe frame stretched in the fall sun amid prickly pear cactus and red rock. Daniel Suelo wears clothes that he found in the trash, including a wide-brimmed hat, dress shoes and slacks.

"I think taking things as they come naturally is the key to good health," he says.

A decade ago, Suelo was dizzy with depression. His University of Colorado degree in anthropology wasn't fulfilling. He had just returned from two years as a Peace Corps volunteer in Ecuador. He was disillusioned with his job working at homeless shelters and enclaves for battered women in Denver and Boulder.

Eventually, he concluded his growing despair was tied to fretting over his financial ability to maintain his stuff. Stuff, he realized, he didn't need. So, he gave it all away...

HE DOES HAVE A BLOG, THOUGH, AND HE'S AVAILABLE, GIRLS

Read more: Moab man embraces simple life living in cave - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13843274#ixzz1AUo9B08L

[Demeter]

77. The Dollar, the Deficit, and Accounting Identities

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=03&year=2010&base_name=the_dollar_the_deficit_and_acc

It would be great if people who reported on the budget deficit for major news outlets could be required to know the basic accounting identities that get taught in every introductory economics class. The key one that almost none of them seem to know is that the trade deficit (X-M) is equal to the sum of public and private savings (T-G)+(S-I). This identity means that if the United States is running a trade deficit, then the sum of public and private savings must also be negative. That has to be true -- it is an identity. It's just like 2 + 2 = 4. It is always true...



Okay, so the deficit hawks want the U.S. to run a large trade deficit. Then the next question is what the rest of the equation should look like. Since they want a balanced or near balanced budget, the deficit hawks must want very low private savings. Again, we can hope to get the identity met by having high levels of private investment, but neither they, nor anyone else, has anything in their bag of tricks that will appreciably raise the level of private investment.

This means that Peter Peterson, David Walker and the rest of the deficit hawk crew want workers to have very low private savings, so that they will have nothing to live on in retirement when we cut their Social Security and Medicare. They may not say this, and it's possible that they don't even understand it themselves, but that is the logical conclusion of their position.

That may make Peter Peterson look bad, but accounting identities are even more powerful than rich Wall Street investment bankers with a billion dollars to buy newspapers, reporters, and economists.

--Dean Baker

Posted by Dean Baker on March 12, 2010

[Demeter]

78. thanks to the weather, I have reduced the email backload to 165!

It appears that much of what was posted in the past 12 months or so is still current, and we are up to date. In other words, the world made no progress on the economic front. All the problems we had are still with us. On the other hand, massive surprises have NOT been sprung lately. Which is good for our nerves...

The main progress I see is that past speculations are now today's certainties. There have been a number of cats finally clawing their way out of various bags. In that respect, we know more with more authority and hard data to back it up.

In other words, epiphany! Becoming one with the Economic Collapse.

The quest for email reduction continues tomorrow...

[Demeter]

79. Other Film Versions of Robin Hood

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

a 1991 American adventure film directed by Kevin Reynolds. The film was marketed with the tagline "For the good of all men, and the love of one woman, he fought to uphold justice by breaking the law."

Kevin Costner heads the cast list as Robin Hood. The film also stars Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as Maid Marian of Dubois, Morgan Freeman as Azeem, Christian Slater as Will Scarlet and Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham.

In my opinion, the only reason to watch this is to see Alan Rickman in a beard. He was busting a gut, trying to make this turkey fly, chewing the scenery, which didn't do much for the film or himself, but I can understand the frustration he felt...

And poor Morgan Freeman, being dragged in so as to be the politically correct token, thereby offending Muslims, Africans and African-Americans by the totally anachronistic subplot.

Roger Ebert praised Morgan Freeman's performance as well as Alan Rickman's, but ultimately decried the film as a whole, giving it two stars and stating "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is a murky, unfocused, violent, and depressing version of the classic story...The most depressing thing about the movie is that children will attend it expecting to have a good time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood:_Prince_of_Thieves


Robin Hood is a 2010 American/British adventure film based on the Robin Hood legend, directed by Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe. It was released in the United Kingdom on May 12, 2010, after premiering at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival, and was released in the United States on May 14.

Plot

It is 1199 and Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is a common archer in Richard the Lionheart's (Danny Huston) army. A veteran of the Third Crusade and Richard's war against Philip II of France (Jonathan Zaccaï), he now takes part in the siege against Chalus Castle. Disillusioned and war-tired he believes the King when he invites Robin to give him an honest view of the war and the King's conduct. After giving a frank but unflattering appraisal Richard immediately breaks his promise of no repercussions for speaking honestly and has Robin and comrades taken prisoner to be judged after ending the siege. The betrayed men decide to free themselves and desert. Following the death of Richard the Lionheart, Robin and two other common archers, Alan A'Dale (Alan Doyle), Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes), as well as soldier Little John (Kevin Durand), attempt to secretly return to their homeland, having spent ten years fighting abroad. Along the way they come across an ambush of the Royal guard by Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong), an English knight with French allegiance. Philip of France had ordered Sir Godfrey to assassinate Richard. Having discovered the King is already slain, Sir Godfrey is chased off by the arrival of Robin and his companions. Aiming to return to England safely and richer in pocket than when they left it, Robin and his men steal the armour of the slain knights and head for the English ships on the coast under the guise of noblemen. Before leaving the scene of slaughter Robin promises a dying knight, Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge), to return a sword to the knight's father in Nottingham.

Upon arriving in England, Robin (who has assumed the identity of Loxley) is brought to London and chosen to inform the Royal family of the King's death and witnesses the coronation of King John (Oscar Isaac), who is the younger brother of the recently-deceased Richard. The arrogant King John shows no remorse to his poor Kingdom and demands harsh taxes to be collected, sending Sir Godfrey off to the North with the task of raising revenue. Unbeknownst to King John, Sir Godfrey is an agent of the French King and uses this Royal Decree to stir up enough unrest, using French Troops, to cause Civil War in England.

Robin and his companions head to Nottingham, where Loxley's old and blind father Sir Walter (Max von Sydow) asks him to continue impersonating his son, in order to prevent the family lands being taken by the crown. Loxley's widow, Lady Marian (Cate Blanchett), is initially distrustful of Robin, but soon warms to him when he recovers taxed grain for the townsfolk to plant.

Meanwhile, Godfrey's actions have stirred up the northern Barons, who march to meet King John, and demand the signing of a charter of rights. Having realized Godfrey's deception, and knowing he must reunite his people in order to meet an imminent French invasion, the King agrees. A battle follows shortly where Godfrey's men are interrupted while ransacking Nottingham, and chased off by Robin and the northern Barons. In the midst of the battle, Sir Walter is slain by Godfrey.

The film climaxes with an invasion on England's south coast by the French, who are met as they land by the English army. The English are victorious in the ensuing battle. Godfrey attempts to flee on horseback, but Robin puts an arrow through his throat from long distance, presumably killing him; however, King John perceives the French surrendering to Robin, rather than to himself, as a major threat to his power. In the final scenes, King John reneges on his word to sign the Charter of the Forest, burns it, and declares Robin to be an outlaw. In response to this, Robin moves to Sherwood Forest with Lady Marian and his friends to form what will become the Merry Men of Sherwood Forest...

Critical reaction

Reception for the film has been mixed. Review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes reports that 43% of critics have given the film a positive review based on 215 reviews with an average rating of 5.4/10.<39> Among Rotten Tomatoes' "Top Critics", which consists of popular and notable critics from the top newspapers, websites, television and radio programs, the film holds an average approval rating of 44%, based on a sample of 32 reviews.<40> Another review aggregator, Metacritic, gave the film 53% based on a normalized rating of 40 reviews.<41>

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film 2 stars out of 4, writing that "little by little, title by title, innocence and joy is being drained out of the movies."<42> Joe Neumaier of the New York Daily News gave the film three out of five stars, writing that "the problem with Russell Crowe's new take on the legend is that it has one muddy boot in history and the other in fantasy. The middling result is far from a bull's-eye."<43>

David Roark of Relevant Magazine accused Scott of replacing depth with detail and manipulative themes, like vengeance and unjust war, and stated that Scott had sucked the life out of a cherished fable, writing that "Scott has turned a myth, a concept essentially, into a history which emerges as dry, insensible clutter."<44>

Russell Crowe received criticism from the British media for his variable accent during the film. Empire said his accent was occasionally Scottish,<45> while Total Film thought there were also times when it sounded Irish.<46> Mark Lawson, while interviewing Crowe on BBC Radio 4, suggested there were hints of Irish in his accent, which angered Crowe who described this as "bollocks".<47><48><49>

Some reviewers mentioned historical liberties taken in the film. In the film, King Philip Augustus of France is shown as keen to invade England, and actually attempts it. Historically, Philip had been trying to regain English-held territory in France in a series of conflicts with Richard the Lionheart, and by 1198 Philip was on the defensive and the two kings had agreed to mediation. After Richard's death, Philip recaptured Normandy and other English territory in France, with John launching an invasion of France (under pressure from the English barons) instead of vice versa. It was only after the English defeat at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, that the future Louis VIII of France landed on England with an army in 1216, entered London, and was proclaimed king at the cathedral, during the First Barons' War. The film shows John negotiating a "bill of rights" immediately after becoming king, but refusing to sign it. However, the Magna Carta was in fact signed 16 years after John became king, following the civil war and significant loss of face over his reign (see Magna Carta). The less well-known supplement to the Magna Carta, the Charter of the Forest, was signed two years later, by John's son Henry III of England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_%282010_film%29

This one I haven't seen, and based on the plot summary, I probably won't, purist that I am. Making a hash of both history and legend is not acceptable. No wonder Americans are ignorant people!

[Demeter]

80. I've Found The Perfect Response! Thank You, Scott Adams!

[Demeter]

81. Dave’s Top 10 Reasons to Fade the Recovery (It’s Not a Business Cycle!)

OLD, BUT NOT OUTDATED

February 23rd, 2010
By David Goldman

This is NOT a business cycle: this is a one-time reversal of twenty years of inflation of the household balance sheet. An aging population needs a 10% savings rate (at least) to meet minimum funding requirements for the biggest retirement wave in US history (comparable to Japan’s retirement wave during the “lost decade” of the 1990s). With 17% effective unemployment, many Americans are dis-saving, after a $6 trillion shock to home equity.

10) There is no recovery at all in Europe. European growth ground to a halt during the fourth quarter 2009 and German business confidence unexpectedly fell in February.

9) China won’t collapse, but government efforts to stop overheating by raising reserve requirements make clear that the world’s second-largest economy can’t be the locomotive for world growth.

8. Greece and its prospective rescuers in the European Community are at loggerheads over conditions for EC help. “Greece faces several important challenges in the coming days, including an expected bond auction, a planned general strike on Wednesday, and a visit from European Union officials that began Monday, aimed at pushing the country to take tougher steps to rein in its budget deficit,” WSJ reported today...


SEE THE REST AT LINK

[Demeter]

82. Violent Backlash Starting?

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/02/violent-backlash-starting.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

It does not take much in the way of powers of observation to see that anger against what we called “the Establishment” in the 1960s is rising. A good deal is correctly focused on how banks have looted the taxpayer; a lot of it is more inchoate but if anything even more virulent: anger about downward mobility, about the rising gap between the rich and everyone else.

Machiavelli warned that killing a man’s father was a safer course of action than taking his patrimony. The American dream has two core precepts: first, that if you work hard, you can do well, and attain at least a middle class standard of living, second that your children can attain a better standard of living than you had. Those are being turned on their head.

I met with a pollster yesterday, and he said he had never seen such a gap in attitudes in beliefs among those in the political elite versus those of the public at large, and he expected bad outcomes...

GIVEN YESTERDAY'S ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT AGAINST GABRIELLA GIFFORDS, IT WOULDN'T HURT TO REVIEW THIS POST FROM LAST YEAR...

[Demeter]

83. Guest Post: “Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of Governed Those Lowest Income, Most Skeptic

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/02/guest-post-just-21-of-voters-nationwide-believe-that-the-federal-government-enjoys-the-consent-of-the-governed.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

A new Rasmussen poll finds:

The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

***

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.That helps explain why 75% of voters are angry at the policies of the federal government, and 63% say it would be better for the country if most members of Congress are defeated this November…

In his new book, In Search of Self-Governance, Scott Rasmussen observes that the American people are “united in the belief that our political system is broken, that politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers.” He adds that “the gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and the politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century.”

***

Sixty percent (60%) of voters think that neither Republican political leaders nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today. Thirty-five percent (35%) say Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that an entirely new political party is needed to represent the American people.

Nearly half of all voters believe that people randomly selected from the phone book could do as good a job as the current Congress.

It is not surprising – given the following – that this is largely viewed as a class issue:

* The poor have disproportionally suffered from unemployment

* PhD economist Dean Baker said that the true purpose of the bank rescues is “a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives”

* Two leading IMF officials, the former Vice President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, and the the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City have all said that the United States is controlled by an oligarchy

* Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and many others have called our current system “socialism for the rich”

* PhD economist Michael Hudson says that the financial “parasites” are “sucking as much money out” as they can before “jumping ship”

* Warren Buffet said a couple of years ago: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

As Rasmussen notes:

Those who earn more than $100,000 a year are more narrowly divided on the question, but those with lower incomes overwhelming reject the notion that today’s government has the consent from which to derive its just authority. Those with the lowest incomes are the most skeptical.

[Demeter]

84. Robin Hood Time--and That was from Feb. 2010!

[Demeter]

85. World's top firms cause $2.2tn of environmental damage, report estimates

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/18/worlds-top-firms-environmental-damage

Report for the UN into the activities of the world's 3,000 biggest companies estimates one-third of profits would be lost if firms were forced to pay for use, loss and damage of environment...

[Demeter]

86. How a New Jobless Era Will Transform America

THIS CAME OUT IN MARCH OF LAST YEAR--BUT I DON'T THINK THE NATION WAS READY TO HEAR IT...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/how-a-new-jobless-era-will-transform-america/7919/

The Great Recession may be over, but this era of high joblessness is probably just beginning. Before it ends, it will likely change the life course and character of a generation of young adults. It will leave an indelible imprint on many blue-collar men. It could cripple marriage as an institution in many communities. It may already be plunging many inner cities into a despair not seen for decades. Ultimately, it is likely to warp our politics, our culture, and the character of our society for years to come...

[Demeter]

87. Can we handle the truth?

http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/548.html

Both globally and within most nations, the patterns of consumption required to sustain existing social arrangements are inconsistent with the distribution of the fruits of production. Social and economic stability, therefore, depend upon redistribution for which there is no overt legal framework or political consensus. To square this circle, the financial and government sectors have evolved means of hiding redistribution in complex, continually improvised arrangements. Unsurprisingly, massive wealth distributions arranged in this way leave much to be desired, in terms of straight corruption (the financial and government sectors redistribute a lot of wealth to themselves), justice (e.g. wealth is redistributed to those who happen to speculate early in bubbles), and sustainability (the illusion of value behind the claims of those from whom wealth is taken may prove fragile, but “loss realizations” are socially disruptive if they are not carefully paced and allocated).

Neither financial nor political reform can succeed unless we overcome the social and economic contradictions we have relied upon the financial sector to literally paper over. Off-balance-sheet liabilities that hide the impairment of savers’ claims, whether in subprime mortgage-backed securities or sovereign entitlement programs are not aberrations. They are essential tools in the arsenal of social stability, the economic equivalent of military “black-ops”, things that must be done but must always be denied in order to protect the American (and European, and Chinese) way of life. Unless we define overt arrangements that overcome the contradictions between the organization of production and socially desirable patterns of consumption, each scandal and reform will necessarily be followed by some new technique or trick that delivers, however unjustly or corruptly, the wealth transfers upon which our societies depend. Our choices are to overtly align the fruits of production with patterns of consumption, to continue to employ accounting fictions and magic to pretend away the contradictions, or to undergo some form of collapse.

[Demeter]

88. Duke Energy in advanced deal talks with Progress

Duke Energy is in advanced talks to buy its peer Progress Energy, in a deal worth more than $13bn, which would mark another significant step in the long-awaited consolidation of the US power sector and create the country’s largest utility.

Read more >>
http://link.ft.com/r/H60H77/D48SZY/DXJ2Y/NS7D8H/26QCDG/LE/t?a1=2011&a2=1&a3=8

JUST WHAT WE NEED, ANOTHER TOO BIG TO FAIL

[Demeter]

89. There Are 3 More Fairly Recent Robin Hood Flicks to Mention

Robin Hood: Men in Tights

a 1993 comedy of the story of Robin Hood. Produced and directed by Mel Brooks, the film stars Cary Elwes, Richard Lewis, and Dave Chappelle. The film includes frequent comedic references to previous Robin Hood films (most particularly Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, upon which the plot is loosely structured, Disney's Robin Hood, and The Adventures of Robin Hood) and real-life subjects.

Plot

Robin Hood, or Robin of Loxley (Cary Elwes), is captured during the Crusades and is imprisoned at Khalil Prison in Jerusalem. With the help of fellow inmate Asneeze, (Isaac Hayes), who is in for jaywalking, he escapes from the prison, and frees all the other inmates. He is asked by Asneeze to find his son, Ahchoo (Dave Chappelle, in his first major professional role).

When he arrives home in England, he finds Ahchoo and discovers that Prince John (Richard Lewis) has assumed control over England while King Richard is away fighting in the Crusades. Unbeknownst to Richard, John is abusing his power. Robin's family home, Loxley Hall, has also been literally taken away by John's men. Robin Hood meets up with his family's blind servant, Blinkin (Mark Blankfield), the large and ignorant Little John (Eric Allan Kramer), and his friend Will Scarlet O'Hara (Matthew Porretta), whom he recruits to help him regain his father's land and oust Prince John from the throne. On his quest, Robin also attracts the attention of the lovely Maid Marian (Amy Yasbeck), who wants to find the man who has the key to her heart and chastity belt.

While Robin is training an army, the spoonerism Sheriff of Rottingham, Mervyn (Roger Rees), hires the Mafioso Don Giovanni (Dom DeLuise) to assassinate Robin at the Spring Festival (with Archery Tournament). Maid Marian hears of the evil plot, and sneaks out of her castle to warn Robin, accompanied by her grumbly German Lady in Waiting Broomhilde (Megan Cavanagh). Robin goes to the archery tournament and makes it to the final round, where he unmasks himself. He then makes his shot but loses to his opponent. When Robin notes that the situation is absurd and pulls out a copy of the script to discover that he gets another shot, the Sheriff and Prince John then pull out their own copies and confirm this (much to their annoyance). After winning the tournament, he is arrested, and Marian agrees to marry the Sheriff in exchange for Robin's life. The ceremony also reveals the Sheriff's unimposing first name. Before she can say "I Do", the castle is attacked by the Men in Tights, led by Little John, Ahchoo, Blinkin, and Will. While a battle ensues, Marian is carried off to the tower by the Sheriff, who wants to "deflower" her.

Robin enters the chamber, and the two have an intense swordfight in which the evil sheriff is defeated because Robin, missing his sheath, ran him through. Then the witch Latrine (Tracey Ullman), Prince John's full-time cook and part-time adviser, saves him by giving him a magical lifesaver in exchange for agreeing to marry her. Robin and Marian are preparing to celebrate the victory when Broomhilde arrives, insisting they get married first. Before the ceremony can be completed, they are interrupted by King Richard (Patrick Stewart), who has returned from the Crusades. He orders John to be taken away to the Tower of London and made part of the tour. He also announces that, due to the foul stench the prince has left over the kingdom, all the toilets are to be called Johns. All being as it should be, Robin and Marian are married and Ahchoo is made the new sheriff of Rottingham. Everyone then exclaims "A black sheriff?" Ahchoo then retorts, "And why not? It worked in Blazing Saddles!" When the night comes, Maid Marian's chastity belt will not open with his key and Robin calls the locksmith.

Comedic style

Many anachronisms are incorporated into the film for comedic effect, such as the England Sign upon Robin Hood's arrival in England, a rental horse, Ye Olde Port-o-Privy, tinned fruit being seen during the jousting practice, an "EXIT" sign appearing when Robin Hood escaped from the castle, an impression of Winston Churchill's "We shall fight on the beaches" speech (immediately followed by an impression of Malcolm X's "You've Been Had" speech), a pneumatic jackhammer, a handheld semi-automatic crossbow, a remote-control portcullis, a man looking and sounding like Lou Costello yelling "Hey, Abbot!" in greeting the abbot, a Life Savers candy used to save the life of the Sheriff of Rottingham, Ahchoo taking a "time out" while being attacked to pump his sneakers, Prince John saying that Robin in his disguise "looks like Mark Twain!", a Twelfth Century Fox, etc. There are also many references to Mel Brooks' previous films, especially Blazing Saddles (including a direct mention of the title), History of the World, Part I, and Young Frankenstein; Brooks himself appears as Rabbi Tuckman, a Jewish parody of the Friar Tuck character, who blesses people with Sacramental Wine.

The anachronisms could be a reference to the fact that there are many anachronisms in American historical movies, like Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves or others.

Several plot and character references point to a previous film, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Robin Hood's line "Unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent!", is a reference to the fact that Kevin Costner as Robin in the earlier film used his own (American) accent. References to Errol Flynn's actions in the 1938 film The Adventures of Robin Hood are included as well, such as when Robin Hood enters with a boar on his shoulders and during the film's shadow fight, which was a gimmick Flynn used in several of his films.


I HAVE VAGUE AND PAINFUL MEMORIES OF THIS FILM...WHEN MEL BROOKS LAYS AN EGG, IT'S A LARGE AND PETRIFIED ROC EGG...

Reception

Robin Hood: Men in Tights was not one of Brooks' best grossing films.<4> Critics were generally displeased with the film, noting Brooks lacked as many humorous scenes as his earlier works.<5> <6> <7> <8>

Rotten Tomatoes rated the film as "Rotten", giving it an overall 43% rating. Despite this, the movie has since developed something of a cult following. Voters at the Internet Movie Database rated the film at a 6.2 out of 10. In an Entertainment Tonight review of the movie before its release, test audiences did overall feel the film was a good spoof, but only about ¼ of those surveyed felt the film was strong enough to launch a sequel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood:_Men_in_Tights


Robin Hood is a 1991 film starring Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman. In the US, the film appeared as a TV movie on the Fox network, the first made for television movie by the network. It was released in cinemas in several countries in Europe and elsewhere, including Australia, New Zealand and Japan<3>.

Another film using the well-known Robin Hood story was released theatrically the same year. The film, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, was a Hollywood blockbuster with a much bigger budget and high-profile stars such as Kevin Costner.

Plot

The film shares some of its underlying plot with the famous 1938 swashbuckler, The Adventures of Robin Hood, concentrating on the struggle between Normans and Saxons. Details of the storyline and the identities of the characters differ widely, however, between the two versions.

The 1991 version begins when a miller, who is poaching deer on lands belonging to the King of England, is detected by a hunting party led by the evil knight Sir Miles Folcanet (Jürgen Prochnow). The miller flees the hunting party until he runs into a Saxon earl, Robert Hode (Patrick Bergin), and his friend, Will. The miller pleads for help as the Normans arrive and threaten to poke the miller's eyes out. Before they can carry out the punishment, Hode (urged by Will) stops them. Folcanet is enraged and demands that Hode be punished by the local Baron, Roger Daguerre (Jeroen Krabbé).

Daguerre is Robert's friend and initially orders a light punishment, but Hode feels betrayed, insults Daguerre, and is outlawed as a result. He flees into Sherwood Forest, meets John Little and the usual cast of Merry Men, and under the name "Robin Hood" takes up arms and fights against the Norman nobility. Robin also falls for Daguerre's niece, Mariane (Uma Thurman), who is promised to Folcanet, and the climax of the film is an attack on Nottingham Castle to stop the wedding. Unlike many modern versions of the story, King Richard does not appear at the end, and instead Daguerre is reconciled with Hode and promises a future where Saxons and Normans are treated equally.

Characterisation

Although the familiar characters Little John, Friar Tuck, Will Scarlet and Much the Miller's Son appear in this version, the traditional Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisbourne have been replaced by original antagonists. The Baron Daguerre takes the Sheriff's place as the scheming, greedy tax collector (though in this version, he is originally Robin's friend), and Folcanet stands in for Guy as the violent, vindictive knight after Robin's head (and Mariane's maidenhead).<5>
Historical realism

While still a medieval fantasy, the filmmakers clearly intended this version of Robin Hood's tale to be a more gritty, realistic and historically accurate retelling of the famous legend than is found in the typically glossy and romanticized Hollywood treatment of 'Olde England'. The medieval world shown here is dark, dirty and dangerous.

It was filmed on location at Peckforton Castle in Cheshire, a medieval-style Victorian-era edifice built between 1842 and 1851. Some filming was also done in Frodsham in Cheshire, on hill and woodland locations.

THIS ONE I HAVEN'T SEEN--BUT WILL MAKE THE EFFORT, NOW.


Robin and Marian is a 1976 British/American co-produced romantic adventure period film filmed in Pamplona, Spain starring Sean Connery as Robin Hood, Audrey Hepburn as Lady Marian, Nicol Williamson as Little John, Robert Shaw as the Sheriff of Nottingham and Richard Harris as King Richard. It also features comedian Ronnie Barker in a rare film role as Friar Tuck. The film marked Hepburn's return to the screen after an eight year absence.

Director Richard Lester made Robin and Marian amid a series of period pieces, including The Three Musketeers. The screenplay was written by James Goldman. The original music score was composed by John Barry. The film was to have originally been titled The Death of Robin Hood but was changed by Columbia Pictures to be more marketable and perhaps give equal billing to Audrey Hepburn.

Plot

An aging Robin Hood (Connery) is a trusted captain fighting for Richard the Lion-Heart (Harris) in France, the Crusades long over. Richard orders him to take a castle that is rumoured to hold a gold statue. Discovering that it is defended by a solitary, one-eyed old man (Esmond Knight) who is sheltering harmless women and children, and convinced that there is no statue, Robin and his right-hand man, Little John (Williamson), refuse to attack. King Richard, angry at their insubordination, orders the pair's execution, but before his orders can be carried out, he is mortally wounded by an arrow thrown by the old man. Richard has the helpless residents massacred, with the exception the old man, because Richard likes his eye. The King asks Robin to pray for mercy for him. When Robin refuses, Richard draws his sword, but lacks the strength to strike him and falls to the floor. Robin helps him, and moved by his loyalty, with his last words, Richard frees Robin and Little John.

After Richard's death, Robin and Little John return to England and are reunited with old friends Will Scarlet (Denholm Elliott) and Friar Tuck (Ronnie Barker) in Sherwood Forest. When Robin casually inquires about Maid Marian (Hepburn), they tell him she has become an abbess. When he goes to see her, she finds him as impossible as ever.

He learns that his old nemesis, the Sheriff of Nottingham (Shaw), has ordered her arrest in response to the King's order to expel senior leaders of the Roman Catholic Church from England. Marian wants no trouble, but Robin rescues her against her will, injuring Sir Ranulf (Kenneth Haigh), the Sheriff's arrogant guest, in the process. Ignoring the Sheriff's warnings, Sir Ranulf pursues Robin into the forest. His men are ambushed and decimated by arrows; Sir Ranulf is left unharmed only because Robin orders him spared. When the news of Robin's return spreads, old comrades and new recruits rally once more to him. Sir Ranulf asks King John for 200 soldiers to deal with Robin.

The Sheriff waits in the open fields beyond the Forest, knowing Robin will attack. When Robin does, he proposes that he and the Sheriff duel to settle the issue, despite the protests of Sir Ranulf. After a long fight, the Sheriff has the wounded Robin at his mercy and demands his surrender. Refusing, Robin manages to kill the Sheriff with the last of his strength. Led by Sir Ranulf, the soldiers attack and scatter Robin's ragtag band. Little John swiftly kills Sir Ranulf. Then he and Marian take Robin to her abbey where she tells Robin she keeps her medicine.

Robin believes he will recover to win future battles. Little John stands guard outside while Marian tends to Robin's wounds. Marian prepares a draft and takes a drink of it herself before giving it to Robin. He drinks the medicine and notes that the pain has gone away and his legs have gone numb. Then, realising that she has poisoned them both, he cries out for Little John. However, he comes to understand that Marian has acted out of love because he would never be the same man again. She tells him:

I love you. More than all you know. I love you more than children. More than fields I've planted with my hands. I love you more than morning prayers or peace or food to eat. I love you more than sunlight, more than flesh or joy, or one more day. I love you...more than God.

Little John crashes through the door and weeps at Robin's bedside. Robin shoots an arrow from his deathbed through the open window and tells Little John to bury them both where it lands, but, the camera follows the arrow's flight upward with no indication of it ever falling.

Reception

The film was generally given a positive review by critics. Roger Ebert was positive towards Connery and Hepburn as Robin and Marian although he was uncertain about "history repeating itself" in regards to the plot. According to Ebert, "What prevents the movie from really losing its way, though, are the performances of Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn in the title roles. No matter what the director and the writer may think, Connery and Hepburn seem to have arrived at a tacit understanding between themselves about their characters. They glow. They really do seem in love. And they project as marvelously complex, fond, tender people; the passage of 20 years has given them grace and wisdom."<3> He also approved of the cinematography of the film in comparison to early films of the genre noting that, "Lester photographs them with more restraint than he might have used 10 years ago. His active camera is replaced here by a visual tempo more suited to bittersweet nostalgia. He photographs Sherwood Forest and its characters with a nice off-hand realism that's better than the pretentious solemnity we sometimes get in historical pictures."

I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS ONE, EITHER. DON'T THINK I CAN TAKE THE TRAUMA, JUST NOW, BUT PERHAPS LATER...

[Demeter]

90. It was amazingly cold this AM

so I am calling it quits for this Weekend. Tune in next week for more tears, laughter, disgust, and chat. I'm going to grab some shuteye in the sunny window, next to the cats...

[bread_and_roses]

91. I like both the '91 and the Connery/Hepburn versions

both have something other than huge, big budget swashbuckling - though don't get me wrong, I absolutely love huge, big budget swashbuckling - I'm convinced my film-going self is about 12, actually.

[Demeter]

92. Thank you for the topic. I think it went well.

[bread_and_roses]

93. Another version - with some likes and an economic dislike

BBC ran a several years TV show in the recent past - I watched the first two seasons but lost track after and never saw the third year. It was fun, and clever, and kept the theme of Robin's taking from the rich to give to the poor - and if I remember aright, hunger among the poor was a main theme.

However, like in the dreadful Costner version, the Sheriff is played as a cartoonish villian - not as deranged as the Costner one, but definately with a Snidley Whiplash flavor.

My problem with this is the vague unease with popular culture presentations of the legend that I was trying to put a finger to in an earlier post - by making the oppressors crazed, the aberration in the equasion, the "what is wrong with this picture" is likely to become the craziness, rather than the inequality. So that the fault lies with one or more individuals, not with a system of institutionalized inequality.