Growth of the U.S.A.

I've posted a time-lapse historical map of Europe here before, but I've never seen a similar map of the United States. With the Olympics ongoing, now seems like a reasonable time to take a look back at some of our nation's history.

Like with the map of Europe, I think it's both interesting to see the changes as they took place and also somewhat unsettling to see how long we've now gone without a significant change. Not that I'm predicting anything, but I do wonder whether we're overdue for a little shakeup of one sort or another. Time will tell.

If that gif moves a little too quickly for you to take it all in (it's definitely too fast to fully appreciate), you can check out a slowed-down YouTube version of it here.

Eat More Chikin (at Wendy's?)

By now, I'm sure that you're all aware of the latest election-year distraction from our nation's real problems, namely Chick-Fil-A—if not, there's a decent op-ed on the topic here. Personally, I think the whole controversy is a little silly, even if the underlying issue (gay marriage) may not be. The silliness, as I see it, is best summarized by this little gem, passed along to me by my man Grew.

Terrific. Sure, there are some pretty obvious bones to pick here—not all of the 12 OPEC nations execute homosexuals, and we get 50% of our imported oil from nations in the Western Hemisphere anyway (mostly Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela)—but the idea here is nonetheless important.

If we're going to start boycotting companies' products based on their human rights records, we should probably start with Apple... or Chevron... or Hershey's... or hell, just look at this list and be done with it, mkay? But we don't do that, because damn we love our iPhones and SUVs and we just can't bear to imagine our lives without them, consequences be damned. The cost of any of those boycotts would be way too high for us to handle, but a boycott of Chick-Fil-A? Hey, no problem. Commence patting selves on backs.

More and more frequently in the U.S., we're seeming to tend toward symbolic displays of our beliefs, without actually laying anything on the line. This "boycott" of Chick-Fil-A is a perfect example of the low-risk "show of support" that doesn't actually require anybody to sacrifice anything at all. Okay, so you're not going to eat at Chick-Fil-A anymore—from now on, you'll go down the street to Wendy's and order a spicy chicken filet (side note: highly recommended) instead. Some sacrifice.

I happen to be a strong supporter of gay rights, but I'm certainly no activist, and I refuse to pretend that I would magically become one simply by boycotting a second-tier fast food restaurant for a few months. Shunning Chick-Fil-A as a dining destination doesn't (or wouldn't) make me any more of a gay rights activist than putting a "these colors don't run" bumper sticker on my car would make me a decorated war hero.

Sadly, though, these hollow displays of support seem to have become the new American way, and this Chick-Fil-A issue has all the marks of being a classic election year distraction. Don't look at the real issues, America, like bankers flagrantly violating federal laws (who's Jamie Dimon?) or our nation's rapidly deteriorating financial position—just speak loudly, pound the table, and tell the world how passionate you are about the issues. He who shouts loudest, shouts best.

Quite frankly, America is rapidly becoming a nation of wimps and whiners, unable to back up our tough talk with anything resembling bold action. We like to make symbolic statements of our beliefs (we really do talk a great game), but when it comes right down to it the vast majority of us are unwilling to do much of anything to back up those beliefs, not even paying more in taxes or performing public service (like military service) of any kind. In fact, most of us can't even find our way to the ballot box on Election Day to perform our most basic democratic responsibility of voting.

Until that dynamic changes, I don't think any of us can expect meaningful change in this country, except as a campaign slogan. It's about time we all recognize that, and do something about it, before it's too late. See you at Wendy's.

Song of the Week(end)

Alright, time to welcome the 2012 Summer Games with my first of what will presumably be several Olympics-related posts. To honor the host city of London, I'm welcoming the weekend with a song straight out of England. And while I gave some serious consideration to Sheena Easton's "Morning Train" (if only because of this scene in "Eurotrip"), I thought we could do a little better than that.

But I don't really love any of the contemporary British artists, and the Beatles are from Liverpool, not London... so let's just go with the Stones' "Get Off of My Cloud".

L.A. regulatory madness, again

Hey, Southern California, we need to talk. Are you guys going out of your way to antagonize me out there, or are you really just that stupid?

Some Southern California cities fine residents for watering their lawns too much during droughts.

But in Orange, officials are locked in a legal battle with a couple accused of violating city ordinances for removing their lawn in an attempt to save water.

The dispute began two years ago, when Quan and Angelina Ha tore out the grass in their frontyard. In drought-plagued Southern California, the couple said, the lush grass had been soaking up tens of thousands of gallons of water -- and hundreds of dollars -- each year.

They said they were trying to do something good for the environment...

But city officials told the Has they were violating several city laws that require residents to cover significant portions of their frontyards with live ground cover. On Tuesday, the couple is scheduled to appear in Orange County Superior Court to challenge the city's lawsuit against them.

Soon after the city complained about the yard, the Has placed wood chips on top of the dirt, with help from neighbor Dennis Cleek.

"It's their yard, it's not overgrown with weeds, it's not an eyesore," said Cleek, whose own yard boasts fruit trees. "We should be able to have our yards look the way we want them to."

But city officials determined the fix was not acceptable, saying city codes require that 40% of the yard be landscaped predominantly with live plants.

"Compliance, that's all we've ever wanted," said Senior Assistant City Atty. Wayne Winthers.

Yes. Compliance is what we want. We don't care if the rule in question makes absolutely no sense and is completely counter-productive in every way, we demand compliance.

Seriously, what is going on out in California? Look, I understand the purpose and positive effect that zoning laws (and laws like them) can often have—I also sympathize with the counter-argument—but these laws here seem like city-planning run amok. When laws have become counter-productive, and begin to harm the overall well-being of the community they govern, they must be abolished.

Unfortunately, politicians of all types seem to hate repealing laws—they'd rather defend them to the death and let somebody else worry about the unintended consequences (or, alternatively, make another law to deal with that unintended consequence, then another, then another, etc...). What will SoCal think of next?

[LA Times]

Clip of the Week

Let's pump a few posts out here before we head into the weekend (and into the Olympics), starting with your Clip of the Week.

This is an incredibly cool music video that probably took an insane amount of time to put together (warning: boobs). And this is a mind-warping optical illusion that I can't seem to wrap my head around even after it's been explained and shown to me (sort of like this one and this one).

These time-lapse videos from Wimbledon were pretty cool, and this might be the worst idea for a bobblehead ever. Nice work, whoever signed off on that one. I also considered posting Jon Stewart's awesome rant about the LIBOR mess, but I think I've been tough enough on the banks for one week already.

So instead, this week's Clip of the Week goes to (former Red Sox) outfielder Josh Reddick, who climbed the fence in Toronto to make what is probably the catch of the year so far. Be prepared for some Olympics-related Clips of the Week starting next week, because I'm sure there will be plenty to choose from.

"Inside Job" and bank criminality

A little over a year ago, I posted a Quote of the Week (and also this follow-up) from Charles Ferguson, the director of the Oscar-winning documentary "Inside Job". Ferguson was complaining about the lack of prosecutions of fraud committed by financial executives, a topic I've also discussed here more times than I can remember.

However, until this week, I hadn't actually watched the documentary—not until Barry Ritholtz tipped me off to the presence of the entire movie on Vimeo. I'd avoided "Inside Job" in part because I (arrogantly and incorrectly) thought that I had read and learned everything there was to know about the financial crisis already, and figured that the film probably didn't have much new to add to the discussion. How wrong I was.

The greatest compliment I can give to any non-fiction piece is that it's worth reading even if you think you already know everything about the topic in question—that certainly applies here. "Inside Job" provides incredible access to a who's who of characters in the mess that is our financial system, from economists to bankers to politicians and everyone in between. Ferguson pulls few punches, and he is particularly harsh with respect to the (role of the) academic world, including my alma mater.

Like many pieces on the topic, I think "Inside Job" is a little too forgiving of the borrowers who made the real estate bubble possible, but that's certainly nothing new here (and I've discussed that dynamic before as well). All in all, though, if you haven't yet watched the doc, I highly recommend it. It does a great job of showing just how ugly things have been behind closed doors at our banks, and also how this financial crisis is far from over—in fact, it may still be in its early stages.


Inside Job, Narrated by Matt Damon (Full Length HD) from jwrock on Vimeo.

But if you don't have the time to watch the film, and you somehow still doubt my assertions that banks continue to commit crimes that have systematically gone unpunished... just read this little post (also courtesy of Barry Ritholtz) and be done with it. In fact, I'll just go ahead and reproduce the whole thing right here.

Here are some recent improprieties by the big banks:

- Laundering money for drug cartels. See this, this, this and this (indeed, drug dealers kept the banking system afloat during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis)

- Laundering money for terrorists

- Engaging in mafia-style big-rigging fraud against local governments. See this, this and this

- Shaving money off of virtually every pension transaction they handled over the course of decades, stealing collectively billions of dollars from pensions worldwide. Details here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here

- Charging “storage fees” to store gold bullion … without even buying or storing any gold. And raiding allocated gold accounts

- Committing massive and pervasive fraud both when they initiated mortgage loans and when they foreclosed on them (and see this)

- Pledging the same mortgage multiple times to different buyers. See this, this, this, this and this. This would be like selling your car, and collecting money from 10 different buyers for the same car

- Cheating homeowners by gaming laws meant to protect people from unfair foreclosure

- Committing massive fraud in an $800 trillion dollar market which effects everything from mortgages, student loans, small business loans and city financing

- Engaging in insider trading of the most important financial information

- Pushing investments which they knew were terrible, and then betting against the same investments to make money for themselves. See this, this, this, this and this

- Engaging in unlawful “frontrunning” to manipulate markets. See this, this, this, this, this and this

- Engaging in unlawful “Wash Trades” to manipulate asset prices. See this, this and this

- Otherwise manipulating markets. And see this

- Participating in various Ponzi schemes. See this, this and this

- Charging veterans unlawful mortgage fees

- Cooking their books (and see this)

- Bribing and bullying ratings agencies to inflate ratings on their risky investments

The executives of the big banks invariably pretend that the hanky-panky was only committed by a couple of low-level rogue employees. But studies show that most of the fraud is committed by management.

Indeed, one of the world’s top fraud experts – professor of law and economics, and former senior S&L regulator Bill Black – says that most financial fraud is “control fraud”, where the people who own the banks are the ones who implement systemic fraud. See this, this and this.

But it's all okay, because Wall Street is our Main Street, love 'em or hate 'em, right? Bullshit.

That list should just about do it for the "banks never committed any crimes" line of argument, forever. So, watch "Inside Job" if you haven't already—and even if you have, watch it again. It's worth it.

[Barry Ritholtz]
[Max Keiser]

Quote of the Week

It's time for this week's Quote of the Week. I first thought about giving the honor to this article, because the concept of a "duckeasy" is just amazing. But I don't honestly like foie gras that much, so I can't get all that excited about it.

Instead, I'm going to pass along this story about George, a two-year-old basset hound who inadvertently saved his own life by dialing 999 (the British equivalent of 911) after getting entangled in a telephone cord and nearly choking to death. Smart dog... kinda.

This week's QUOTE OF THE WEEK

“He’s not usually very smart. He’s really dopey and just likes to chew socks.”
                                - Lydia Brown, owner of George the basset hound

Good for George. Let's get this guy some tickets to the Olympics.

[The Sun]