On the heels of Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankenfein's apology for his firm's role in the financial crisis, some of Goldman's largest shareholders are unhappy more of Goldman's prosperity isn't being passed along to them, The WSJ reports.

Despite record net income and compensation, analysts forecast Goldman's 2009 earnings per share will be 22% lower than in 2007, and roughly equal to its 2006 earnings, according to Thomson Financial. The drop in EPS is caused by the more than 100 million shares issued in the past year to bolster Goldman's financial position and capital.

While the article doesn't name the "miffed" shareholders, Goldman's five-largest shareholders as of Sept. 30 are mutual funds:

1. AllianceBernstein
2. Barclays PLC unit
3. State Street unit
4. Vanguard Group
5. Wellington Management

As Aaron and Henry discuss in the video, the standard payout ratio of 50% of profits Wall Street has long enjoyed does not make sense in this economy. Wall Streeters could stomach a lot less, especially when most individual Americans are pocketing a 0% payout.

Of course this mounting criticism comes amid Matt Taibbi's "Vampire Squid" takedown of Goldman this summer...

Click "more" to view the full post and embed the video.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner took some heavy fire on Capitol Hill Thursday. Days after Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio called for Geithner's resignation, Texas Republican told the Secretary: "The public has lost all confidence in your ability to do the job."

While these comments were notably terse, it's not unusual for politicians to take shots at a Treasury Secretary or Fed Chairman in order to score points with their constituents. It's a key part of the "dog and pony show."

What is unusual is for a sitting Secretary or Chairman to return the favor, as Geithner did yesterday, telling Brady: "What I can't take responsibility is for the legacy of the crises you've bequeathed this country."

There's obviously a "we inherited a disaster" mentality in the Obama administration and maybe this was just partisan politics and another example of how civility is in ever-decreasing supply in Washington. Or maybe Geithner is getting tired of the criticism and thinking about moving to the private sector sooner vs. later, as Henry Blodget writes.

The other issue here is why Geithner is getting such heat now when the economy is on firmer footing and the crisis seems to have passed. Some possibilities...

Click "more" to view the rest of the post and embed the video.» More

Are we on the verge of total economic collapse?

Don't laugh. The french firm Societe Generale thinks so.

The brokerage firm has put the fear of God in clients recently by predicting that developed economies and markets are going to collapse under a monster debt load and that gold is going to soar to $6,000 an ounce.

Fortunately, not everyone feels that way.

Many on Wall Street, in fact, have suddenly gotten quite bullish after missing a lot of the extraordinary 65% rally we've had since the lows of March. Hopefully, these folks--the "V-shaped recovery" crowd--are right, and the bad news of the last couple of years will soon be a distant memory.

Aaron and I are skeptical, though. The aftermath of debt-fueled financial crises like the one we went through usually lasts for many years, if not decades. Japan has been struggling to right its ship since its own bubble burst in 1990, and the country still isn't growing strongly again. (Japan's stock market, meanwhile, trades at a fifth of its 1989 high).

A fight has broken out among economists about whether what ails the country is too much spending or too much debt.

Debt fear-mongers, such as Niall Ferguson, believe that the country's wild borrowing and spending spree has put us on the road to ruin.

"Stimulists," such as Paul Krugman and our guest, professor James K. Galbraith of the Univ. of Texas, believe that spending aggressively and piling up debt is by far the lesser of two evils and that we need to launch a second stimulus immediately. 

Why do professors Krugman and Galbraith believe this? 

Because, in their opinion, skyrocketing debt is far less of a concern than letting the country's people and productive capacity lie fallow for the decade or more that it will take back to get to full employment.

Earlier:

• "A Govt. Not Run by the Financial Sector": Galbraith's Rx for Financial Reform
• "A Truly Extraordinary Slump": Reports of Recovery Premature, Galbraith Says

Click "more" to embed the video.

The post-op on the great crash of 2008 continued in Washington Thursday as the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) held a hearing on financial reform.

"Unfortunately, the regulatory regime that failed so terribly leading up to the financial crisis is precisely the regulatory regime we have today," Treasury Secretary Geithner declared. "We need comprehensive financial reform."

As a former executive director of the JEC and professor of government/business relations at University of Texas, James Galbraith knows a bit about public policy. As the son of esteemed economist and "The Great Crash" author John Kenneth Galbraith, he also knows something about what it takes to put the pieces back together after a speculative boom and bust.

There is a way to have a financial system with a "reasonable degree of stability" and "serves a public purpose," Galbraith says. "But it does require having a government which is not run by the financial sector."

Galbraith didn't use the term "Government Sachs," but said "we're not going to get where we need to get...if you have this revolving door where all the people from Wall Street go down to Washington and offer their services and basically serve their own worldview and the financial interests of their friends."

While there seems to be no discussion of prohibiting the sort of "public service" practiced by so many alums of Goldman Sachs, or of reinstating Glass-Steagall (something he also supports), Galbraith says there is some progress being made on the reform front...

Click "more" to view the rest of the post and embed the video.» More

Disappointing reports this week on housing starts and foreclosures, as well as the index of leading economic indicators, have cast a bit of a pall on the "robust recovery" story, putting a crimp in the stock market's ascent in the process.

University of Texas professor James Galbraith was never a believer in the V-shaped recovery and says it's going to take a very long time for the U.S. to recover from a "truly extraordinary slump."

What the optimists are missing is the impact the housing bust is having on both American's ability to borrow and banks willingness to lend. The resulting credit contraction will prevent this recovery from following the path of those following prior post-war recessions, he says.

"There's no question the U.S. economy has stabilized but [it] remains very weak and will likely continue to be weak," Galbraith says. "There's very little sign the benefits that are being felt on Wall Street will be felt in the broader country anytime soon."

Galbraith predicts the unemployment rate will continue to rise into 2010 and decline "very slowly" thereafter. The U.S. economy needs "substantially greater policy intervention," he says, focused on the following...

Click "more" to view the rest of the post and embed the video.

As President Obama wrapped up his first trip to China this week, there was plenty of talk about partnerships but few concrete agreements reached on (1) whether or not China will let its currency float freely (2) and China's concerns about U.S. debt.

"Obama, Geithner and Bernanke, they're the three bond salesmen of the U.S. They're going to see our best client and hoping our client is happy," says Peter Boockvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak. "Apparently they're not happy and the question is what do we do to make them happy?," Boockvar tells Aaron.

Of course, Boockvar is talking about the fact that China is the largest foreign lender to the United States. With Obama heading to visit America's largest creditor, it was no coincidence both Bernanke and Geithner publicly expressed support for a strong dollar during the past week, he says.

But Boockvar says anger about a depreciating dollar is aimed at the wrong direction. "Blame the Fed, don't blame the Chinese," he said. "The Fed is the one that's artificially depressing the dollar."

Furthermore, chatter about China allowing the renminbi to float is a "red herring," Boockvar says, noting Americans can't afford a price spike in imports. 

Bottom line: There's growing global competition for capital and the U.S. ultimately will have to play ball. So who will blink first?

From The Business Insider, Nov. 19, 2009:

The White House finds itself in a pickle: How to extend the TARP bank bailout without so enraging voters that incumbent Dems get the heave-ho next year.

And here's one creative solution on the table: Use the rest of the TARP to reduce the national debt!

Doesn't that sound good?

Well, of course it does.  Except that it's ridiculous spin.  The government borrowed money for the TARP.  Using what remains to "reduce the national debt" would simply mean giving our lenders (some of) their money back.

Meanwhile, however, other legislators are desperate NOT to return the TARP money to lenders but to use it for additional stimulus--this time of the allegedly job-creating variety.

David Cho, Michael D. Shear and Lori Montgomery, WaPo: The Obama administration is poised to extend the life of the highly unpopular $700 billion financial bailout and, to display a commitment to fiscal responsibility, is planning to use much of the leftover funds to reduce the national debt, government sources said.

Administration officials are grappling with how best to announce the extension of the Troubled Assets Relief Program at a time when the economy is struggling and the unemployment rate is at its highest point in 26 years. The officials are hoping that by putting roughly $200 billion toward paying down the $12 trillion national debt, they could mitigate the political fallout, the sources said.

No final decision about the fate of the bailout has been made, and officials are keenly aware that their preferred course contains risks.

Keep reading >

More coverage from The Business Insider:

• Obama's approval rating dips below 50%
• Obama ends idiotic war with Fox News, will do interview

"It's dangerous to be short this market," says Peter Boockvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak.

Despite a penchant for bearishness, Boockvar says the rally can continue as long as the Fed keeps rates at zero.

"When you cut rates to nothing you're encouraging people to take risk," Boockvar says. "As long as asset inflation is [the Fed's] goal, the market could go higher but there are obvious consequences," including inflation.

The Fed is trying to create "the illusion of prosperity" by fueling asset price appreciation, Boockvar says, staying true to his reputation as a deficit hawk. Even if the U.S. stock market keeps rallying, "non-dollar assets" like commodities and emerging markets will continue to outperform, he says.

Unlike the U.S., emerging markets are "not weighed down by enormous debt levels" and local consumers are "much better off" than their American counterparts, the strategist says, expressing a strong preference for China.

"If you want exposure to global growth, it's going to be outside of the U.S.," he says, recommending the following...

Click "more" to view the rest of the post and embed the video.» More

The newswires probably made too much of Bullard's comments - and headline writers overlooked his caveats: "The 'too low for too long' argument may weigh heavily on the FOMC this time," he said.

But TIPS spreads did widen sharply Wednesday and the bottom line is "the market is becoming worried about inflation," according to Peter Boockvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak. "Not hyperinflation, not crazy inflation but inflation nonetheless."

So the $64 trillion question remains: When will the Fed act?

"The Fed has rates a zero. That was an emergency rate. The emergency is clearly is over. So why do you still have rates at zero. What are you afraid of?," Boockvar wonders. "Does the biggest economy in the world not function with rates above zero? That's what they're saying about us and I don't have that kind of pessimism."

Rather than speculate about when the Fed will stop talking about exit strategies and actually act, Boockvar believes "the market is going to force their hand,"...

Click "more" to view the rest of the post and embed the video. » More