Suddenly, it's the least attractive job in the country.

Bank of America has been searching for a new CEO for months, ever since battered Ken Lewis announced that he was stepping down.  But no one wants the job. 

Why not?

Because they'll have to listen to annoying government bureaucrats vilify them all day, says analyst Dick Bove of Rochdale Securities.  Because they'll be unable to hire top people because of pay constraints.  Because they'll be forced to chop up the company instead of reaping the rewards of scale.  Because they'll be limited to a pay package that would make the average dime-a-dozen Wall Street managing director go bitching to his boss about how he was being underpaid.

All of which means, Bove says, that Bank of America's board once again looks incompetent. ...

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

Peter Schiff's views as an author, investor and free market idealist are no secret: Abolish the Fed, buy gold and avoid the dollar. With that in mind, Sunday night was something of a dream come true for the President of Euro Pacific Capital.

Thanks To Princeton University's Business Today, Schiff went head to head in New York City with St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard and former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder in a panel titled, "Challenges of the Global Slowdown: Redefining Government Regulation."

It might as well have been called "Schiff Blames the Fed for the Financial Crisis."

We caught up with Schiff after the panel to discuss some of the points mentioned in greater detail. (Click here for our one-on-one intereview with Bullard from the confab.)

Schiff on capitalism

The irony here is that Bullard is being characterized as a dove when, in fact, the opposite may be true. This is no small matter since Bullard will become a voting member of the FOMC in 2010.

So let's review:

The dollar weakness Monday morning was attributed, in part, to Bullard's comments that he would like to see the Fed continue its program of buying mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities, rather than let it expire on March 31, as currently planned.

As with last week's brouhaha over his comments about the Fed possibly staying on hold until 2012, the headlines about the asset-buying program miss some of the nuance of Bullard's view.

Bullard recommends continuing the program "at a very low level," Dow Jones reports, adding: "As long as we are at zero [percent], we'd be able to send signals to the markets about what we are thinking about the economy, and how much accommodation the economy needs at various points, by adjusting the asset purchases."

In other words, if the asset-buying program is kept open, it can be another tool for the Fed to communicate with the market by means other than moving the Fed funds rate.

After spending some time with Bullard Sunday evening, it's pretty clear to me that he's no dove. As you'll see in the accompanying video, Bullard is very concerned about the potential for asset bubbles and the Fed's role in creating them...

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

From The Business Insider, Nov. 23, 2009:

The New York Times -- not usually the first publication you'd think of when it comes to calling for fiscal prudence -- sounds the alarm over the government's massive debt load.

The premise is that, although we're fine now, borrowing money cheaply, we've got a huge refi coming up, and there's an excellent chance it will be way more expensive.

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A really astounding fact, noted in the article...

Click "more" to view the full post.

More coverage from The Busines Insider:

• Ben Bernanke's 1938 parallel
• Goldman super bullish on China

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.

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.

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