Your Daily Fix Of Gloom And Despair

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 09:14:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I have not had much time to look around and really do not know if someone has found a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to wash away our economic troubles, but I appreciated this part of a Krugman blog post:

To justify the scheme as announced [the Geithner Plan], you have to either assume that the toxic assets are wildly underpriced, or take as a given extreme political and legal constraints preventing you from doing anything close to the right thing.

And about those legal constraints: it’s funny how GM is being treated as a ward of the state, even though it hasn’t formally declared bankruptcy, in a way that AIG — which is 80% government-owned! — is not.

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

The 2 points Krugman makes seem obvious but denied by most folks - (1) the assumption behind the support of the Geithner Plan is that politics prevents even trying to do the right thing now and we must absorb the failure of the Geithner Plan before the right course can be taken (see DeLong and Roubini) and (2) the defense of lack of legal authority is proven to be nonsense by the way the Obama Administration has handled the auto industry. It does not take "legal authority" to tell an industry desperate for a federal handout that they have to do things your way.

Obama/Geithner have not tried to do the right thing with the financial industry and the rationalizations of the defenders of policies they think will fail is simply amazing to me.

Anyway, that's all the gloom and doom from me for today. I am gone until tomorrow.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | G20 Clothes, Day Two >

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.

Your Daily Fix Of Gloom And Despair | 67 comments (67 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If anyone can't stand this situation and wants to (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by iceblinkjm on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 09:19:12 AM EST

do something about it progressive democrats across the nation are organizing a day of protests on April 11, 2009. Join us.

http://www.anewwayforward.org/demonstrations/

: Progressive democrats? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:30:35 AM EST

No comment I guess.

: Hey, I've been to the site (none / 0) (#43)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:11:07 PM EST

I'm beginning to make my April 11th plans.

Maybe it's just (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 09:48:21 AM EST

me but I would think that doing nothing would be preferable to putting forth a plan that's sure to fail. If the Paulson plan didnt' work why is this one going to? This is absolute insanity.

The Paulson plan, (none / 0) (#65)
by Green26 on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 04:09:09 AM EST

with respect to buying toxic assets, was never instituted; it didn't fail. The cited reason for not instituting it was concern over having the government potentially over-bid for the assets. The Gaithner plan is designed to address the bidding/pricing.

Don't most people, or at least those in the know, believe the toxic assets are worth much more than what the few buyers have been willing to pay--due to the lack of a market, illiquidity and irrationality?

The US auto industry and the US banks are very different, and should be treated in different manners. If the US auto industry were to fail, the world economy wouldn't move closer to the Depression. If the US banking system were to fail, the US and World economies were be a disaster.

The US auto industry is in a much worse situation than the US banks. Auto sales for the US companies continue to be down 40-50%, year to year. While I have not seen banking industry stats, banking industry business isn't down anything close to that.


: the assets are only worth (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by cpinva on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 06:31:53 AM EST

Don't most people, or at least those in the know, believe the toxic assets are worth much more than what the few buyers have been willing to pay--due to the lack of a market, illiquidity and irrationality?
what a ready, willing and able buyer will pay for them, regardless of what people "in the know" may think they're worth. it's called capitalism.
i may "know" my watch is worth $10,000 (hey, it's a rolex!), if the pawnbroker will only give me a $1,000 for it, that's what it's actually worth.

It has always bothered me that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by BernieO on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:36:53 AM EST

talked about how he had the ability to lead people to do the right thing and that this was a big reason to vote for him over Clinton. Yet he refused to take the bold stance of advocating a health insurance mandate, even though the insurance companies were supporting it. Too often he caves to potential political pressure instead of advocating for a better policy.
I assume that is why the administration going easier on the banks than on the auto companies. The financial sector has a lot more clout with Congress than the manufacturing sector.

But hey! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:28:16 PM EST

Blagojevich indictment expected later today

That's good news, right? Unless you may be a Chicago politician whom he might take down with him as he goes down?

: Yay! (none / 0) (#53)
by Fabian on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:35:17 PM EST

Move over American Idol, this is MY choice for Reality Television!
Or are we not allowed to consider real reality entertainment? Is it gauche to get my kicks from real life that hasn't been massaged into the proper narrative and packaged for mass consumption?
It's an interesting question.

And since (4.00 / 2) (#3)
by CoralGables on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:06:37 AM EST

someone should always post the good news:

Industrywide auto sales are usually about 20% higher in March than in February, largely because March is a longer month and people begin to buy more cars as the snow melts and spring arrives.
But this year, industry-wide auto sales increased 24.5% from February to March, according to Autodata Corp. of Woodcliff Lake, N.J.
Compared with February, March auto sales increased 30.4% for Ford, 22.8% for GM and 20.2% for Chrysler.

Also in the stock market:

The Dow Jones Total Stock Market index, which reflects nearly all stocks traded in the United States, has gained 20.2 percent since March 9.

And in a Gallup poll released this morning:

Americans have very positive impressions of both President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama with Mrs. Obama receiving a slightly better favorable rating, 72% to 69%.

It's good news that the guy (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:30:56 AM EST

who is participating in the Geithner travesty is still getting a favorable rating? LOL.

If his approval was slipping he might be so inclined to do the RIGHT think rather than the Wall Street thing.


: Right (none / 0) (#10)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:35:44 AM EST

thing, not think.
I really need more coffee.

In addition (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:35:08 AM EST

While auto sales may have risen over the SUPER-pathetic February, Measuring month to month really isn't the proper measure.

The proper way is to compare the sales from a year ago, and if you do, sales are down about 37%. Here's a quote and a link. The really funny part is that they're considering this a bright spot because sales ONLY fell 37%:

U.S. auto sales fell 37 percent in March, a smaller-than-expected drop that encouraged hope that the world's largest car market is nearing a bottom after a freefall that has pulled the industry into a deepening crisis.

Washington Post


You're correct (4.33 / 3) (#15)
by CoralGables on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:48:04 AM EST

unless you are looking for a bottom. And for Ford and a host of foreign automakers their sales in the US look to have bottomed in February and begun a turnaround. Bad times benefit those that are the strongest and the strongest auto makers will survive and flourish. Call it automaker Darwinianism and two American makers have been pretty clueless.

Neither GM or Chrysler appear to be able to turn a profit nor have they bottomed and probably need to lose the bad parts of their respective companies. GM should cut Hummer without a second thought, and yet they continue on with this massive loser to their bottom line. Hummer sales were down 75.9% over March a year ago.


Hummer is still around? That's a really (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by tigercourse on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:53:16 AM EST

stupid move. Gas prices are going to rise again and nobody's going to want to drive around in those tanks.


Unfortunately, (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:29:57 AM EST

some people will still want them.


People still (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by CoralGables on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:55:23 AM EST

probably wanted the Gremlin, the Corvair and the Pinto too, but if it's a money loser...sooner or later someone with half a brain comes along and axes it.

I believe GM has two of the top ten selling vehicles. If they would separate the proverbial chaff from the wheat and quit worrying about market share, and instead look at profitability, they would probably turn the corner.

And yes, a lot of jobs will be lost at GM and Chrysler but likely picked up at Ford, Toyota, and Honda with the transition.


What I was getting at... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:59:57 AM EST

was that I cannot understand why anyone would ever want a Hummer, considering the inefficiency and environmental impact, so I guess some people will continue to want Hummers and Hummer-like things no matter what - carbon footprint, cost, inefficiency, whatever.


I don't know, the asian companies are (none / 0) (#41)
by tigercourse on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:01:17 PM EST

having their own problems as well. They are laying people off left and right. I don't seem them picking up GM, Chrysler, Ford castoffs anytime soon.


: Not yet but (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by CoralGables on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:14:36 PM EST

The US isn't going to mass transit anytime soon. People still love their cars. Sales can't keep falling because all cars have a lifespan. Eventually sales will skyrocket as those that have waited to buy jump back in all at the same time. This is when those with the strong lineups and strong balance sheets thrive and those that couldn't survive the crisis have already drifted off into oblivion.
How long that takes is anyone's guess. Maybe March of next year?

Ugh, our daughter told me (none / 0) (#67)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 07:48:10 AM EST

that son-in-law wants them to get an SUV. I asked her if he understood that once the auto industry catches up with the market, the current wasteful giant SUV's will be the edsel of our time but I guess he doesn't care :(


Actually (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by cal1942 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:44:45 AM EST

GM is looking for a buyer for the Hummer.

If they don't find one soon I believe they should simply close it down.

In spite of what some people think GM does have some potential big winners in its stable.

When the new Chevy Malibu was introduced last year, dealers in our area couldn't keep them in stock.


Yes (none / 0) (#38)
by CoralGables on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:58:16 AM EST

The Malibu and the Silverado are both top ten sellers. Now they need one strong selling high mileage car (the Volt?) and they will be in good shape in the long run if they would just dump the losers.


: I'm confident (none / 0) (#47)
by cal1942 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:24:21 PM EST

they'll dump the losers, they really have no choice.
In the meantime the Buick line was rated the world's most dependable over 3 years of ownership.
Unfortunately far too few people in this country are aware.

Without being a killjoy (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:00:56 AM EST

I think it is clearly way too soon to call a bottom.


Don't leave out that, (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Farmboy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:35:58 AM EST

in opposition to (or despite) the media experts, the majority of folks are in favor of Obama's economic policies.


Well, the majority of folks support (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by tigercourse on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:38:49 AM EST

anything Obama does. Let's hope it works.


: For now n/t (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by cal1942 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:27:53 PM EST

The mjority of Americans haven't (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:59:30 AM EST

a clue what his economic policies are and do not actually have a full understanding of what their effects may or may not be. Polls like that show political faith, not faith in specifics - except maybe what they've heard about how the stimulus will impact their communities or create jobs.

Furthermore, these are polls based on what people hope for - not what they have actually experienced and gotten out of the deal as yet. The proof will be in the pudding and no matter how optimistic and full of trust and faith people may be right now, whether or not these plans work even just a bit to make people's lives better and to create opportunity is what is going to count.

A surprising number of people approved of George Bush's plan to invade Iraq too. Did not mean that it was a good idea or that the people expressing support had a freakin' clue what they were getting themselves into.


I'm not an economist (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Farmboy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:04:57 AM EST

but based on my memory of some long-ago courses I took at our land grant school, if folks think the economy is improving they'll start acting like it is - which can lead to it actually improving. The old self-fulfilling prophecy routine.


: This only works up to a point (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by BernieO on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:26:29 AM EST

if the fundamentals are bad, it won't be sustained. But optimism is a big factor. Even if the fundamentals are sound, if people have lost trust in the system it is not going to turn around.
I agree that the polls on the economy reflect faith, not knowledge. Not only do most people not know even basic economics, the media does a terrible job of explaining things. We need to do a much better job educating people. Many of them, too, are often ignorant and are therefore easily spun by "experts". Some do know better but have an agenda (like not paying higher taxes on their big incomes), while still others just like to treat it as a fun game and are too lazy to get informed.
For this they get special constitutional protection.

: It is a good thing that even as we (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:43:27 AM EST

are hemoraging jobs and the credit cruch continues to tighten people are feeling optimistic about what Obama is doing. But that really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the policies are actually good.
Again, to use the Iraq War as an example, people were very optimistic about getting in, toppling Saddam, establishing a democracy and getting out in six months "tops" and only spending $20 billion. That was all based on lies and foolish thinking and I would argue that the prospect and enormity of invading another country would generally be a much easier concept for people to understand and process than the solutions being propsed to re-start the credit markets and to deal with the derivitives market would be for most Americans.

Depends on the poll (none / 0) (#14)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:44:44 AM EST

it seems. Which one did you find? When I google obama, economy, and approval -- up comes an ARG poll from last week that shows that less than half of Americans approve of his job on the economy.


Washington Post/ABC (none / 0) (#19)
by Farmboy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:01:03 AM EST

2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling [ITEM]? (IF ITEM A) Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?

3/29/09 - Summary Table

Approve Disapprove No opinion
a. The economy 60 38 3
b. The federal budget
deficit 52 43 5

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_033109.html?sid=ST2009033103841


Thanks. Interesting that (none / 0) (#21)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:06:36 AM EST

as the comment below suggests, many do not see the link between the economy and debt, including the federal debt. But then, we know that many do not understand how accumulating interest rates work at the individual consumer level, either.


Here's (none / 0) (#24)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:22:45 AM EST

the message: Right now people are still blaming Bush for the mess we are in. They aren't holding Obama accountable YET but you are going to have to wait until this summer and fall to see what the deal is.

The odd thing is though that Obama doesnt seem to really believe those numbers because if he did he would be using his short term political power to actually do something about the economy that might actually challenge the supply siders that are so prevalent on his economic team.


I'm not holding Obama responsible (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:36:25 AM EST

for anything other than the people he has chosen and the steps his is taking to resolve the mess. As for placing blame on who's responsible for the mess, itself, that gets spread across the Bush administration, the democratic congress, the banking/mortgage industry, Wall Street, the real estate industry, the appraisers, the builders, the investors, and all those who found their greed overwhelmed their logic and wanted to pocket every dime they could before this whole thing exploded.

This is too serious for what part of the presidency the media is spending so much time sharing with the people who desperately need the economy to be his first priority. Polls are a waste of everyone's time. Until they start including the questions and the demographics of the people they spoke with, those numbers are just for media ratings.


: It precedes Bush (none / 0) (#39)
by cal1942 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:58:45 AM EST

Try going back to the 80s and 90s to see the statutory definition of banking being unravelled bit by bit. The Bush administration gave it an additional nudge and just for good measure decided that regulatory vigor was a sin.

I know 9 people who "bought" new cars (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:24:58 AM EST

last month. They traded DOWN to lower their payments and their insurance rates.


Smart People (none / 0) (#35)
by CoralGables on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:44:16 AM EST

And the auto companies don't mind this either. They make a sale, the environment benefits from less gas being used (assuming the new car gets better gas mileage also), and the individuals all benefit from higher savings rates (or more to spend should they so choose).


: Not exactly (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by ricosuave on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:28:11 PM EST

The old car doesn't just disappear. Someone else generally buys it used and keeps driving it. And I don't have a clue what the actual impact on the environment of replacing a car is, but remember that the car had to be manufactured and shipped to the point of sale, all of which requires lots of energy and fuel. If the new buyer of his old car had a car and sold it to someone else, then somewhere down the line a car will be junked (which has environmental impact) or disassembled for parts (which also has environmental impact). If the new buyer had no car, then we are adding a net new car to the road, and the environmental impact is worse.
The friend may be seeing the benefit from better gas mileage, but the environment doesn't see any benefit until the gas mileage of the entire fleet of cars on the road improves and until we reduce consumption overall. Reducing consumption includes less stuff becoming disposable--including cars. But this is exactly counter to the kind of "stimulating" that the economy needs to create jobs.
And I hope this person bought a used car...paying that new car premium is not the way to save money! Even if the new car is only $5K more than an equivalent model from a used car lot, and if it gets 10 mpg better gas mileage than the car it is replacing, then it will take about 30K miles for the gas savings to add up to $5K. But buying a used car doesn't help the auto workers...
This is not to pick on the original poster's friend...just to say that this stuff is a bit more complicated than just the question of how much gas we use on the way to work each day.

Yes, pretty clearly something is going (3.00 / 1) (#5)
by tigercourse on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:20:48 AM EST

right in the economy. We'll see how it holds up. Even if the market hovers at the current price, it will be a bog improvement.


: It may be (none / 0) (#49)
by cal1942 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:27:04 PM EST

just a matter of some people, who are relatively secure, jumping on some perceived bargains.
If that's the case the little upturn won't last.

In today's (none / 0) (#6)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:22:05 AM EST

world grab the few good things that you can I guess.


Housing Price Map (none / 0) (#4)
by ruffian on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:20:31 AM EST

I posted this a little while ago in last night's open thread, but it is more appropriate here. This is a map from CNN Money showing how much home prices have declined over the country. If you mouse over a red dot, it will show you that cities statistics - their ranking, % decline, and when they are expected to hit bottom.

It is gloom and doom for me - we're #2 here in Orlando. Already -25%, and not hitting bottom for a long time.

: I didn't know you were in Orlando (none / 0) (#44)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:11:57 PM EST

Are you going to protest on the 11th?

NYT re "Finian's Rainbow": (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:25:03 AM EST

No pot of gold found

Though pill to swallow (none / 0) (#13)
by SOS on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:44:21 AM EST

It's all one big lie

One Plus For Pittsburgh (none / 0) (#22)
by WillieB on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:15:26 AM EST

Pittsburgh is 99th on the list and prices are actually improving 0.8%. Maybe I can sell the house that has been on the market for almost 2 years.

good luck (none / 0) (#23)
by CST on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:21:04 AM EST

Pittsburgh is 99th on that list because the housing bubble never came to Pittsburgh so the prices never inflated - therefore they weren't overvalued and now deflating.

We'll see if it starts looking good in comparison to more expensive cities. Pittsburgh has a lot of potential to be a great city but it's just not quite there yet. I give it one more generation before they fully make the switch to a more modern economy. It is coming though.


We never had a housing bubble in Charlotte (none / 0) (#27)
by BernieO on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:28:58 AM EST

either. But we did have a big bank bust, so our prices are declining a lot. At least we are not planning to sell any time soon. Before this you could get a nice home for a very reasonable price. Now they are even better bargains.


: yea (none / 0) (#30)
by CST on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:32:40 AM EST

it can be rough out there. I doubt Detroit ever saw much of a boom either but they sure are busting. Pittsburgh's advantage is that they have been investing heavily in science, medicine, and technology. So the balance of their economic base is helping them right now. Although they are still recovering from the day the steel left town.

Doom/Gloom... (none / 0) (#33)
by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:41:08 AM EST

The Dow is over 8,000, we are saved. The "crisis" is finished. Phew, take that Roubini, Krugman and Taleb.

Yes, the Dow is over 8,000 (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:09:57 PM EST

and we have an appointment to completely remove the pittance that we kept in the markets. Nobody will do the "right" thing, why should I just kiss it goodbye forever? We think this a short lull like the one that happened in the 30's before caca utterly hit the fan.


Hmm. Feces and a whirlygig... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by easilydistracted on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:17:26 PM EST

not a good combination Tracy, Eh?


We should compare notes in ten years (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by CoralGables on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:26:56 PM EST

I continue to buy in with heavier than normal dollar cost averaging that I began about last October or November following the Warren Buffet hopefully sage advice of "buy fear, sell exuberance".

If you're right I guess I'll be broke. Luckily running is a nearly free hobby.


I don't think we'll buy back in (none / 0) (#52)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:33:43 PM EST

for at least six months.....probably longer. You did notice that Buffet has since said that our economy went over a cliff though recently didn't you?


yea (none / 0) (#54)
by CST on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:39:05 PM EST

I think the idea is it already fell off a cliff - so there is no where to go but up.

But that's the optimist speaking. I feel like a schizo these days - sometimes I think the sky is falling and some days I feel like we have reached bottom and things will turn around soon.


Even if it goes back down (none / 0) (#55)
by BernieO on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:50:44 PM EST

it will come back up sooner or later. So if you can hold on to what you buy - providing you don't buy stock in a company that goes under - you will still make money eventually. I would think an index fund might be a good choice at this point.

My parents had a friend who bought real estate during the Great Depression and wound up a multi-millionaire by the fifties. You would never have guessed it. He and his wife lived a comfortable life, had a nice, but not extravagant home and when I last visited them, drove a FORD FAIRLANE. For some reason that always made me smile.


: Hey, I'm all for putting my eggs (none / 0) (#63)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:35:40 PM EST

in the basket when we have real standards that serve the people. The system is set up for the vultures to continue picking us clean right now. This is not an FDR moment in time. This is not the time to send the oligarchy our treasure. My Great Grandfather literally set my whole family up for generations due to his huge efforts during the Great Depression, and helped slews of indigent workers to feed and shelter themselves while doing it too. But the key is knowing when the sytem has finally returned to regulation and accountability. Our system is not there yet and everyone in power is fighting it. They are not worthy of my investment at this time.

I don't know your age (none / 0) (#59)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:36:53 PM EST

We are pretty young though and when the rebuilding begins to happen I don't know how we can lose by taking part in it. It is difficult though seeing so much destruction and knowing that the best solutions aren't being sought and used and that that encourages more destruction of the infrastructures that aren't part of the worthless paper sh!tp!le.


young (none / 0) (#61)
by CST on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:48:03 PM EST

and trying to take part in the re-building - literally.

But I have some faith that we will be able to innovate our way out of this - and that the average person, including MBA students, know what they need to be doing in the future. I think there are signs that people will do the right thing even if the government won't. Whatever the government says, there is a stigma now attatched to Wall St and greed is no longer good. I think that stigma is not a bad thing and will funnel the "smart people" into other fields.

That is my hope at least.


: There is always hope (none / 0) (#62)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:25:07 PM EST

Roubini? Has Roubini favored Geithner's plan? (none / 0) (#57)
by jerry on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:20:11 PM EST

BTD, can you explain what you mean by "(see ... Roubini)". Has he come out in favor of Geithner's plan? That would seem surprising since Krugman and Stiglitz oppose it.

Nevermind, I found it in the link.... (none / 0) (#58)
by jerry on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:21:45 PM EST

Roubini is cautiously optimistic.


: The headline is off . . . (none / 0) (#68)
by allys gift on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:11:59 AM EST

the article doesn't seem cautiously optimistic at all as the first poster to the article points out. It's all a sham. Roubini seems to agree with Krugman and Stiglitz that many of the biggest banks are insolvent and need to be nationalized and that Geithner's plan is a humungous waste of taxpayer dollars. I think the introductory paragraphs are just laying out what Geithner thinks will happen, but I think the authors basically disagree by the middle of the article, though in a nice way.

This isn't a black and white thing (none / 0) (#60)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:40:50 PM EST

Look, the plan is better than nothing yet hardly our best choice. Saying that something is better than nothing is not a wholesale yippee skippy this is great. Roubini agrees with Krugman that this will not save some banks, many banks will still end up being nationalized when we come face to face with the reality we are avoiding and we have NO OTHER CHOICE.
