The Political Value Of "Temporary Takeovers"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:06:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Writing about the political difficulty of "nationalization," Matt Yglesias glosses over the fact that the Obama/Geithner plan of free bailouts is a complete nonstarter politically. Matt writes:

Nationalizing banks would mean nationalizing the banks’ losses. That would cost a ton of money. Money that congress would need to authorize. If I were a member of congress, I would gladly vote to appropriate the funds. But would the actual members of congress? You can see where doubts might creep in.

Temporary takeovers are supported by the American People by 2-1 over more free bailouts. TARP was it. There will be no more. In fact, temporary takeovers are fast becoming the only viable solution politically. More. . .

At this point, temporary takeovers have been spoken of favorably from serious people (Krugman, Roubini, Stiglitz, etc.) and "Serious People" that run the gamut - from Greenspan to Jim Baker to Lindsey Graham to John McCain to Richard Shelby and we have not even gotten to the "progressives" yet.

It seems to me that too many like Yglesias seem to be caught in a field of Obama respect on this issue - they assume Obama knows best on this now politically and that he is acting as he is because of "political constraints." It is now time to consider whether Obama is simply getting bad advice on policy (from Geithner and Summers) or bad political advice (from Axelrod, etc.)

No one seems to be dealing with this political reality - if Obama fails on the financial crisis - everything else will fail politically as well. This "smallball" political analysis really misses the stakes on this one - both for the economy and for the Democratic Party. This crisis Obama and the Dems are gonna own politically. They should do what makes sense politically - push for the absolute best policy they can muster. They are not doing that now. It is a huge mistake.

Speaking for me only

< Is "Obama The Indecisive" A GOP Meme? | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Political Value Of "Temporary Takeovers" | 85 comments (85 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

When we all invest we do so taking on risk (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:17:33 PM EST

When did that not become FACT? Nationalize the banks, the toxic assets are toxic and we DO NOT NEED TO PAY 100 cents on any dollar. We only need to pay what is needed to keep those afloat that are strong enough to stay afloat. Clear the toxicity off the books, investors take the hit that you get to take when you are an investor and your investment FAILS. After that people can begin to invest again with regs in place again and confidence can return. Banks can afford loan again after that and we can recover. Take your time doing this and the number of people who get to suffer grows larger and larger. Take this hard task on now and pave the way to the stability of the future. Yes, it will be hard to do but at this point all of this is going to be hard to go through for everyone whether someone steps up to the plate of responsiblity or continues to skirt responsibility.

While I appreciate that investors are at risk and (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by steviez314 on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:41:28 PM EST

should take the hit, I want to focus on the bank bondholders. Common and preferred equity holders can have no argument with being wiped out (and looking at market prices for bank shares, they're almost there anyway.)

The bondholders may present difficulties. Bank long term debt represents 25% of all corporate debt. Many investors are insurance companies. What do we do if by forcing them to take pennies now, they are unable to pay out life insurance claims or guaranteed annuities?

Other bank debt holders are foreign countries. What if China says if we pay them pennies, they'll start selling their Treasuries?

These are just some difficult questions to grapple with, and show the kind of crap box we've put ourselves into from years of overleveraging.

Remember, in the Swedish mode, the gov't guaranteed all the bank debt; we might have to do that too.


: Since the whole world is in this boat with (none / 0) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:56:22 PM EST

us China can go ahead and start selling their Treasuries. I don't see how Bondholders cannot take a hit as well. I don't know that the gov't can guarantee all the debt with the credit default swap scandals, some of the speculated figures for that hidden toxicity are positively staggering.

Too bad Obama admin. disses (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by oculus on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:18:39 PM EST

bloggers.

One of Axelrod's strategies (5.00 / 6) (#4)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:20:26 PM EST

is to minimize people when he doesn't want to engage their ideas. So, Donnie McClurkin was a "just a singer" and Paul Krugman is a blogger.


A Nobel Prize Winning Blogger :) (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:22:33 PM EST

Prize? (none / 0) (#9)
by bocajeff on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:31:53 PM EST

In an obscure international trade field. Doesn't mean anything other than that. I'm not belittling the prize, just being honest.


Um ok? (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:33:27 PM EST

Sheesh.


In fairness (none / 0) (#21)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:59:00 PM EST

The Economic Nobel is distinct from the other Nobels and with the exception the peace prize (which necessarily is awarded to those who caused death at times because generally they are the leaders of countries at War- see: Kissinger, Arafat, NVA leaders, Rabin to an extent, Sadat, etc.) has the most glaring misses- I mean Milton Friedman was also a Nobel winning economist.


: Friedman and Hayek (none / 0) (#64)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:22:01 PM EST

were deserving winners.
You do know Einstein got a lot wrong on physics don't you?

It's a valid point. (none / 0) (#52)
by Samuel on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 04:22:09 PM EST

The 1974 prize in economics was given to a man who's interest rate theories contradict those of Keynes and Socialism(Krugman is a Keynesian or a Socialist). The prize was awarded to Hayek specifically for this interest rate theory.

If Krugman contradicts Hayek's nobel award winning theory but is not awarded anything for these claims - but rather for a mathematical trade model - it does not logically follow that Krugman's unrewarded theories are more valid than those of someone who won specifically for his interest rate theory (well that is if you care who won the nobel prize in economics) Winning certainly signifies something - but not that that individual is always right about every aspect of human interaction or "the market".

If one regards the prize as in any way significant - WHAT someone wins for should be significant as well.


Hayek didn't win for a theory (none / 0) (#63)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:21:08 PM EST

Just as Friedman did not.

your information is faulty.


Then what did he win for? (none / 0) (#94)
by Samuel on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:27:20 AM EST

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/

Finish the thought...not a theory but a... What did he do to get the award?

Stop bringing Friedman into everything. You senselessly and repeatedly attempt to conflate the two economists.


Thanks for the link, they won for (none / 0) (#95)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:27:50 PM EST

"for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena"


I can't understand your tone through type. (none / 0) (#96)
by Samuel on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:36:19 PM EST

You said:
"Hayek didn't win for a theory...your information is faulty."

Awarders of the Nobel Prize said:
"for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations"(which many refer to as 'interest rate theory')

So do you agree, referencing Paul Krugman's nobel prize in economics as an accolade pertinent to his analysis of interest rates / currency valuations is logically inconsistent since it ignores the fact that Federick Hayek won for analyzing and theorizing over these specific phenomena (interest, money, banking) while Krugman's win was a different field (international trade - namely distribution of production)?


: They didn't invent the theory (none / 0) (#97)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 06:57:31 AM EST

they did "pioneering work" in it.
By the way, Einstein didn't win for the Theory of Relativity either.
Now fact have "tone?"

And so have (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:56:47 PM EST

Stiglitz, Roubini, Greenspan, and on and on.

Please, at this point, you are close to having to throw out the entire economics profession.


Too bad the NYT didn't send (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by oculus on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:59:53 PM EST

Krugman along on Air Force One to interview President Obama.


Nationalization = Stabilization (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:10:59 PM EST

You act like there is still some wealth left in the existing game......there isn't anything left for anyone unless we create stability, restore confidence through regulation, and the toxicity is nuked.


Sounds good (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:30:28 PM EST

How is he going to MAKE THEM do anything though? What is anyone going to do about the CDS timebomb? Who is going to invest with that out there? I'm not! Nobody who understands what is happening out there is. People can get a loan though if they can prove they can pay it back. Did you check on the unemployment figures? Do you understand that on the current road we are on those are going to continue to grow too? Growing out of this crisis is what is going to take years and years and years it is going to be very damaging to all of us.


Nationalization would reveal the time bomb (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:04:48 PM EST

though in all of its nonglory and then we could begin to do something about it. Right now it stays hidden and it utterly destroys confidence.


We don't have a dollar amount (none / 0) (#68)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:55:52 PM EST

We don't know who is involved and how much they are involved. How do you expect anyone to gain any confidence in any of the markets without who, where, when, and how much being disclosed. Forget it, if I want to work on a retirement of any kind in the next twenty years I'm just going to join Kdog at the track. At the racetrack I have much better background of where I'm putting my money.


: To put a finer point on the REAL situation (none / 0) (#75)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 06:35:05 PM EST

we pulled our money out of the market two years plus ago. Last week my husband came home talking about how there are some stocks out there that are bargain priced, and then again maybe not because we have no idea who is flooded with toxicity and nobody is going to shed any daylight on it. Are we buying anything right now? Nope, nadda, the market has not even hit bottom yet and some of these great deals probably aren't even going to be in business next year. AIG was supposed to have been the most solid company out there and then we discover that they created twice the dollar amount of credit default swaps at one point than the whole entire company was worth.

: OMG, rise quickly huh? (none / 0) (#77)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 06:42:15 PM EST

Your method......try we begin to look like we could rise in 10 years. I can't converse with you anymore. Anyone who thinks that lying and cheating the American people will lead us to prosperity is just someone who I can't have an intelligent conversation with. My countrymen are not idiot working peons, America has never done a very good job of birthing such people. People may be confused by all that is happening right now, but when they start to get it you had better look out telling them that the time bomb imbedded in their economy is none of their business.

only misunderstood assetts (5.00 / 4) (#43)
by souvarine on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:31:15 PM EST

The problem with your proposal is that it just postpones the inevitable, it artificially props up insolvent banks, or zombie banks. The most recent example of a country attempting to do that on the scale we are discussing is Japan in the '90s, where that practice just prolonged the stagnation and delayed recovery.

These large banks are under too much pressure from their bond holders and insolvent balance sheets to efficiently allocate capital, no matter how much money we lend them or what conditions we put on those loans. The only way to remove that pressure is for the government to take control of insolvent banks and restructure them. The banks cannot afford to bite the bullet and recognize their losses, only the government can.

The result of prolonging the existence of insolvent banks is spreading contagion, which we can see in the results of the TARP program. Weak banks used government money to buy weaker banks, in the process turning more of their solvent portfolios into insolvent portfolios.


Who's "we?" (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:19:12 PM EST

My gawd, that comment is a world record in straw.


Here, I think, is the straw (none / 0) (#71)
by Spamlet on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 06:11:37 PM EST

BTD referred to:

the US government who we decry for inefficiency

: I didn't say anything (none / 0) (#87)
by Spamlet on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 08:43:58 PM EST

about the government's efficiency. I was pointing to what BTD seems to have been referring to.

I wish I had such background knowledge (none / 0) (#45)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:39:59 PM EST

on what happened in Japan. Thank you for this post. It makes perfect sense to me that we are on the WRONG road right now.


: not really knowledge (none / 0) (#47)
by souvarine on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 03:10:22 PM EST

Thanks,
I wish I did too, but I'm just repeating what I've read from people whose expertise has "nothing to do with understanding what we face today." My knowledge of economics is barely enough to distinguish between good and bad arguments, and hopefully to repeat them faithfully.

restructuring is not propping up (none / 0) (#81)
by souvarine on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 07:16:08 PM EST

To restructure is to take something apart and put it back together in a new configuration, to prop up is to preserve the original configuration.

Lending money to a bank on the verge of bankruptcy is propping it up. Taking the bank over and putting it into bankruptcy is not propping it up. Propping worthless banks up is a bad thing because it is an inefficient use of capital, it prolongs the inefficient allocation of capital, and will prolong the credit crisis. We cannot fix the financial system until we recognize the loss those banks have experienced, which will reveal some large banks as insolvent.

Yes, restructuring in this case means following the standard FDIC map. Sell off the good assets, use those to cover the depositors and then what creditors you can, and negotiate down or wipe out the remaining claims on the bank. The FDIC generally gets a good deal on these transactions, which means a better deal for the taxpayers.

Yes, people with capital can find good deals as the FDIC disposes of assets, but that is part of the point. The FDIC's process gets those assets out of the hands of a paralysed bank and into the hands of people with the capital to employ them productively.

Lastly, of course there are many areas where the government is more efficient than the alternative. Natural monopolies, for one. Us Democrats argue that health care is another. Failures in the financial system, where the government is on the hook regardless, are a third, because of the moral hazard problems.

The potter barn rule is meaningless here, because we are on the hook regardless of who broke it. What you are really disputing is whether any of these banks are, in fact, insolvent. But their insolvency is not in dispute, instead the administration and the banks are saying that they cannot value the bank's bad assets at market value because to do so would show some banks to be insolvent.


I swear to Jeebus, I don't know why (none / 0) (#33)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:46:37 PM EST

I care as much about this as I do. My husband qualified for military retirement in December. I'm set, on the dole of the last lifetime pension that will ever go away on planet earth while my nation faces soon brief hyperinflation likely followed by some staggering deflation. In two years I will have cleaned my last toilet EVER, but I'm fighting to keep that job.


Become a Republican. Then you're (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by steviez314 on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:50:57 PM EST

not allowed to care about anyone else. It's against the rules :)


: My father always says (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:55:54 PM EST

"If I win a lottery I'm a Republican three seconds later :)"

Again (none / 0) (#61)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:18:21 PM EST

When did Obama tell you that?


When did Obama call you? (none / 0) (#59)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:17:59 PM EST

We were told that increasing of lending (none / 0) (#69)
by DFLer on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:58:10 PM EST

by the banks was the purpose of the first bailout under Paulson. The big banks used much of that money for other purposes, because there were no specific strings attached, right?

So how do you lend the banks more money with the express purpose of it being lent out.

How do you get the banks lending?
without having some kind of control over their actions?


: Yes agreed (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by DFLer on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 07:22:55 PM EST

But I'm wondering, gtinla, if the banks would agree to those or any stipulations. Already some have pulled out because of various stipulations. So I wonder if anything short of ownership (nationalization or whatever) would supply sufficient authority to push the lending agenda.

I, of course call BS (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:57:13 PM EST

Here is a list of 250 economists, including three Nobel winners that would disagree.


Not a letter about (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:16:54 PM EST

the financial crisis, but on the stimulus bill.


Well, come loaded for bear why don't ya? (none / 0) (#38)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:03:33 PM EST

I strongly disagree with all these not Keynesian people. So, you think it's okay if I throw away the toilet brush and just let it play out huh?


: Do what you want, (3.00 / 2) (#41)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:25:08 PM EST

free will and all. Individualism allowed here for now. I don't think I will change your mind, you will follow the masses on this.

I haven't read Rand... (none / 0) (#53)
by Samuel on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 04:28:04 PM EST

but from what I know - cutting interest rates wasn't part of the message.

Greenspan at one time was a follower of her philosophy. Then his actions at the Fed contradicted the philosophy but did not redefine it.

Bank of England's been around for 350 years - he's one of those guys, not a free market man.


Stiglitz? Roubini?? Baker??? (none / 0) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:17:24 PM EST

Please.


Can someone tell me what TARP did? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:24:31 PM EST

I confuse to ignorance. Where did the TARP money go and how did it help?

Anyone have any ideas what to do now with money? I sure won't put it in a bank or in the market. Is gold a good investment? I have a friend who got over $100,000 from his accounts, back in November, and he has all that cash in various safes and safe deposit boxes. I thought he was nuts at the time, but now I am thinking that was pretty smart. We have so little left, it probably doesn't matter anyway.

We don't know where the TARP money went... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by lambert on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:43:24 PM EST

... and we don't know who it helped. See Elizabeth Warren's reports, among others.

Ditto the Fed's loans, which are also completely lacking in accountability and transparency, and are far larger than TARP.

As for financial advice, I can't help you there.


Back in the real world (none / 0) (#50)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 03:54:35 PM EST

Yes, TARP I did what it was intended to do, it unfroze the utterly paralyzed commercial credit markets. That's all it was ever intended to do, and that's all it did. Go read up on what happened in mid-September, largely out of sight of the public. It was absolutely terrifying.

One good resource to start at is the PBS Frontline program "Inside the Meltdown" which aired a few weeks ago. You can watch the program on line at their Web site and/or read the show transcript and/or full-length interviews with some of the talking heads -- reporters, executives, government people, economists -- which are also posted on the Web site.

As for what to do with your money-- have you ever heard of the FDIC? Of course it's perfectly safe to put your money in the bank. Don't be silly.

Investing, though, you're on your own. You gamble and invest now, you could make a boatload of money when the economy recovers. On the other hand, you could lose every last dime if you choose wrong.


Of course! (none / 0) (#88)
by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 09:02:55 PM EST

No one in their right mind would put any money into a business or the stock market now. As Warren Buffet said today, we aren't yet near the bottom.

I was not referring to putting $10,000 in my checking account, I was asking if there was anything worth investing in. My best friend inherited some money, more than $100,000, and has no idea where to put it. The banks won't work for that, they won't cover over $100,000. It would be foolish to invest it in the market, any business, or a house. So where to put it? That's what I was trying to ask.

I am very sorry that my posts are so poorly written. It sucks to be old and dumb and poor. Five years ago, I wasn't any of those things. Or at least I didn't I think that I was. Losing our retirement, and our house being unsellable, has sure aged us. I am sorry. I'll try my best to think more clearly and to write more clearly, but it's so hard when we're so worried about our retirement and worried about our kids and grandkids. Forgive me.

I am wondering just what businesses/commercial establishments were bailed out by the TARP money. Unemployment has gone up so much, no businesses seem to be thriving. So if they were given money, what did they do with it? Again, forgive me for being so ignorant, but it would make me feel better if I had some idea what the government was doing with so much of our money.

Thank all of you for your tolerance and understanding.


: BrassTacks (none / 0) (#89)
by caseyOR on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:57:04 PM EST

Your friend can put his/her money in an FDIC insured bank. The FDIC insures up to $250,000 per account holder. Your friend could put it all in one bank, split it between a bank and a credit union, split it between any number of banks. Your friend could put the money in certificates of deposit. Check various banks for the best interest rate and tell your friend to ladder the CDs part (in a 6 month CD, part in a 12 month). I'd probably stick to 6 and 12 month CDs. Maybe interest rates will be up in a year, maybe not, but probably best not to be locked-in long term.
Anyway, that $100,000 will be safe as long as it is in an FDIC insured account. Make sure each account and CD is FDIC insured.
Your friend won't make a lot of interest, but savings accounts and CDs are better than safe deposit boxes and mattresses. A little earned interest is better than nothing.
I'm sorry to hear that things are going badly for you. Don't be so hard on yourself. I don't perceive your comments as being poorly written, nor do I perceive you as being dumb. Nobody knows what the he!! is going on with the economy, and anyone who claims they do know is either a liar or delusional.

: Sorry, Brass! (none / 0) (#90)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:25:17 AM EST

Didn't mean to be as harsh as I guess it came out.
CaseyOR has given you the straight dope on what to do with that chunk 'o cash that's likely the safest, so I won't add to that.
I know ENTIRELY how you feel. I feel much, much older than I did a few years ago for many of the same reasons. Only difference for me is my house isn't quite so unsellable, and I have no interest in selling it anyway. The area I live in has quite modest real estate values to begin with and hasn't been hit much by the downturn because of it. I can also grow a lot of my own food-- chickens coming in a few weeks, hurray!-- and heat my house with wood, which saves me a lot of money. I don't know what's happened to my old age money. I haven't had the courage to look, since I can't do a damn thing about it anyway.
As for the TARP money-- it went to banks and financial institutions, the biggest 10 or 20 of them, to get them to open up their short-term commercial lending (referred to as "commercial paper") operations again, which had shut down very nearly completely. That's a simplification, but it's the bottom line. It's a part of the financial system us average folks are almost totally unaware of, but it's what keeps the wheels of commerce spinning.
Please do go read some of the stuff on the PBS Frontline site and you'll get a basic grounding in what that was all about.
I would also caution against taking what Warren Buffett or any other individual says, however famous and successful, as the complete gospel. Warren Buffet's a smart guy, but his Berkshire Hathaway lost a huge amount of money, like everybody else, so of course he sees the Apocalypse, and the news people trumpet his scary quote for their own purposes. He may be right, or he may not be. Nobody knows, not even Warren Buffett.

The larger point is that... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by bocajeff on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:28:18 PM EST

You either let most banks fail and then pick up the pieces or you take over the banks and then pick up the pieces. It really doesn't matter as long as someone picks up the pieces.

And in case anyone is wondering, the little pieces that need to be picked up are the average working people...

: I'm going to do my part (none / 0) (#55)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:00:24 PM EST

in helping them fail. I will be closing my Bank of America accounts this week and putting my money in a community bank that isn't part of this mess. I'll be helping my parents do the same with their money, too.

Maybe Sec. Clinton is Giving Bad... (none / 0) (#3)
by santarita on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:20:08 PM EST

advice too. Who knows what she might be counselling with regard to the international implications.

Possibly (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:26:03 PM EST

I doubt very much that Secretary Clinton is involved in this at all personally, but I doubt her instincts would be any better than President Obama's.

I do not know who you thought you might be upsetting with that one, but it is no sweat for me - "not a dime's worth of difference . . " google it.


Not Trying to Upset Anyone... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by santarita on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:31:26 PM EST

maybe just act like the gadfly for the purpose of reminding all of us that we can sometimes focus too narrowly on what is going on in our little corner of the world while forgetting that, like or lump it, what the Obama Administration and Congress do with the banks and the economy has serious global repercussions.

I am looking towards the April meeting of the Group of 20 to provide more clarity and purpose. That's my "Geithner Unit".


It seems to me (5.00 / 6) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:36:40 PM EST

your comment reminded us of the opposite - the silly idea that we should root for pols, instead of fight for issues and tell our opinions as best we can.

I wrote what I wrote above because I believe it. But the reality is it is IRRELEVANT what Clinton would have done or what McCain would have done.

Obama is the President. I write about what he and HIS TEAM are doing. Not what somebody else would have done.


: Not really my intent... (none / 0) (#15)
by santarita on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:51:21 PM EST

I share your view of political leaders as politicians rather than as subjects of hero worship. (At least I think that's your view.)

I actually read his post as being concerned with (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by steviez314 on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:47:43 PM EST

what message HRC might have gotten from the Chinese regarding this big mess. They own quite a bit of bank debt, not to mention Treasuries, so I assume they might have used her recent visit there to pass along their views.


More than likely... (none / 0) (#17)
by santarita on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:54:54 PM EST

in fact, I seem to recall a radio clip of the Secretary in China saying something along the lines of promoting Chimerica (although she did not use that term).

BTW Which post are you referring to? If it is to my post, I'm a she and not a he.


: whoops...sorry. filed in memory bank (none / 0) (#20)
by steviez314 on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:58:39 PM EST

: I seem to recall reading and hearing (none / 0) (#49)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 03:42:41 PM EST

that the soverign funds and other key financiers from around the world played a big part in getting the Bush Administration to start responding to the economic crisis - that was around the time that Bear Sterns and Lehman's collapsed.
I remember CNBC reporting it without even the slightest hint of irony. It seemed ironic to me given the fact that it took "ferriners" to get them to finally sit up straight and pay attention after all these years of posturing about how we didn't take "no orders from nobody" in America.

So then what is the point? (1.25 / 4) (#7)
by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:30:52 PM EST

You said:

So then what is the point of all this if Hillary wouldn't be different? Surely you aren't writing these posts for nothing? I mean you obviously think that you are going to be proven right should Obama fail. Isn't that the point here?

Maybe I have this all wrong.


Are you kidding? (5.00 / 8) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:32:48 PM EST

Could you possibly reveal yourself more?

The POINT of all this is to argue for ding the RIGHT THING, not to cheer for your favorite pol.

Have you not understood I meant what I said about "pols are pols" forever?


Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#30)
by lambert on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:41:21 PM EST

"""
The POINT of all this is to argue for ding the RIGHT THING, not to cheer for your favorite pol.
"""
It's tiring to have to keep explaining this.


What Dem would have nationalized that ran (none / 0) (#24)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:06:21 PM EST

I can think of three and all three would have been slaughtered (one because of his affair-something ridiculously hypocritical given McCain's own transgressions, another because of his questionable sanity, and the third because of his lack of physical presence and the shift of the Overton Window framing him as a relative radical) in the general election- Edwards, Gravel and Kucinich.

Admittedly, with a fair press Edwards may have had a chance (see: Clinton in 1992 recovering from scandals then add in: McCain leaving his crippled wife for a rich young blonde) but other than that the field would have recoiled from the very idea of nationalization- Clinton,Dodd and Biden were from the three states which house the weakened financial institutions; Richardson was crazy competent at foriegn stuff but showed nothing that would stake him to the left.


Irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:32:58 PM EST

It is as if you diod not read my comment.

But thanks for this chuckle - "Richardson was crazy competent at foriegn stuff . . ." Bwahahahahahaha.


: Actually it isn't irrelevant (1.00 / 3) (#67)
by cotton candy on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:54:47 PM EST

Your argument is that pols are pols which I think one can assume that they will act in their POLITICAL interests even if it isn't in the best interest of the public.
So if pols are pols and Obama is a pol and by your definition just being a pol, I again ask what is the point then of your posts if it isn't just to set up an "I told you so!"

As you mentioned (3.66 / 3) (#51)
by Spamlet on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 04:18:56 PM EST

in an earlier thread today, the primaries are over, so please give it a rest. Thank you.


Will Obama and Geithner ever act? (none / 0) (#28)
by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:28:18 PM EST

I heard Chris Van Hollin say this weekend that Obama and Geithner are still studying the economic problems and have not done anything yet because they want to be to sure that they do the right thing. When might they do something? Hasn't Obama been looking at this problem for the last 4 months, since he was elected?

Today Obama's talking about stem cell research. I know that's very important, but how about focusing on the economy? How about telling us what he might do and when he might do it?

We hope (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by jbindc on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 01:42:51 PM EST

Hasn't Obama been looking at this problem for the last 4 months, since he was elected?

We hope he has been looking at it for the last few years, or at least, since he got the nomination in August and Lehman started the ball rolling.

(although it doesn't seem like it)

Remember - it wasn't important enough for him to want to cancel a presidential debate to come back to DC to work on this with his colleagues. He just worked the phones at the last minute.


I assume you voted for McCain.. (3.50 / 2) (#40)
by TheRealFrank on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 02:13:03 PM EST

After all, he suspended his campaign, with great success!


You shouldn't assume (3.66 / 3) (#48)
by jbindc on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 03:13:47 PM EST

But I thought McCain did the right thing, even if it was a political stunt. Obama showed that running for president was more important than doing his job as Senator and trying to help the country. He's only lucky the whole crisis came on and McCain made his stupid comment about "the fundamentals of the economy are strong". Obama sent a clear message that he was much interested in running than governing with that non-action.


Thanin, jbindc is not a troll - I uprated your '1' (5.00 / 0) (#56)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 05:08:09 PM EST

with a '5' to erase that image. Please save your '1' ratings for real trolls.


Never said he was a troll... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Thanin on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 06:07:08 PM EST

I was rating the comment. Theres a difference.


Rating (5.00 / 2) (#72)
by CST on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 06:20:29 PM EST

1 ratings are supposed to be reserved for offensive/site-violation comments. Anything else gets a 2-5.

It's somewhere on the site (not sure where), but Jeralyn has mentioned it before.

So when in doubt, you probably wanna go with a 2.


I cannot for (none / 0) (#83)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 08:00:41 PM EST

the life of me figure out the rating system. Not that it matters for me.


: Or anyone (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 08:25:11 PM EST

And for the record (none / 0) (#92)
by jbindc on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 07:39:19 AM EST

I am a "she"


: Gender identity is so 90s. (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by Thanin on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:10:59 AM EST

Both links are broken (none / 0) (#54)
by cal1942 on Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 04:55:52 PM EST

I Hear A Lot of Talk (none / 0) (#91)
by bob h on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 05:03:40 AM EST

that all the big banks need to be "nationalized". But you have Bank of America telling us that they have loaned out $150 billion in the first quarter and that they intend to repay TARP. JP Morgan has loaned $41 billion for Merck-Schering anyway, is forecasting to be profitable, and also intends to repay TARP. So, assuming what they are saying is true, let's not preclude the possibility that most of the big banks are in fact viable.

I'm inclined to let Geithner have a little more time to see what he can come up with.

Wait a second (none / 0) (#99)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 09:09:27 AM EST

Are you saying Hayek has opined on the financial crisis? Neat trick. Give him a Nobel in metaphysics.

Look (none / 0) (#101)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 11:19:24 AM EST

I've ignored for some time your defiance of my directive to not post in my threads.

I let it go.

I suggest you not give directives to me or I will have to no longer ignore what you are doing.

As for reading Hayek, I understand the monetarist view and I think we have described ad nauseum the limits to this theory in depression economics and a zero lower bound environment.

I would argue that Hayek's theoried are actually irrelevant now. Hell, I have argued it.

So, you have two options now. Behave in ways I describe above or leave my threads. I will be monitoring your comments to see if I need to ask for your banning.

You are incapable of reading (none / 0) (#103)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 02:06:29 PM EST

I am mulling whether you should be banned or not.

Keep that in mind when you comment.

Banned it is (none / 0) (#105)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 02:31:02 PM EST