Rolling US Economy Into The Shitbin Thread

something needs to be done to keep the credit markets from completely imploding

RR: bad idea - http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-of-all-bailouts-is-bad-idea.html

but i don't know if i fully buy his alternative. how does it work so neatly, that "creditors would be paid off" ?

A better idea would be for the Fed and Treasury to organize a giant workout of Wall Street -- essentially, a reorganization under bankruptcy, for whatever firms wanted to join in. Equity would be eliminated, along with most preferred stock, creditors would be paid off to the extent possible. And then the participants would start over with clean balance sheets that reflected new, agreed-upon rules for full disclosure, along with minimum capitalization. Everyone would know where they stood. Bad debts would be eliminated. Taxpayers wouldn't get left holding the bag. And there would be no "moral hazard" incentive for future financial wizards to take giant risks with other taxpayers' money.

i propose all debt in the entire world be forgiven and we start over

Live 8.2

And this really is the most objectionable part of the whole goddamned thing, as every blog mentions:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Okay, so that's, what, unimpeachable monarchial powers in the hands of an official who will remain unanswerable to any court of law. Who will decide which financial institutions will live or die. On the basis of the taxable wealth of the electorate...wait which century are we in again? Oh yes, the 21st, as the secretary will have unbounded immunity from examination as secretively as every other Bush II governmental official.

Why is it necessary to word it like that when the Treasury will be changing hands so soon - or will it ...oh my. Now that you're on the cover of Newsweek and called "king"

Exactly, the Treasury proposal would basically give Paulson $700B to play God with. He would be granted sweeping powers to use vast amounts of taxpayer money to decide who lives and who dies in the financial world, and protected from any oversight or second-guessing of his decisions. This is clearly untenable.

Why is that even necessary? I really don't understand the logic behind it. (xpost)

dont forget that said king was v recently in the employ of the industry in question!

dude should be fired for even proposing such a thing

And there would be no "moral hazard" incentive for future financial wizards to take giant risks with other taxpayers' money.

water rolling downhill, etc. See also: Congressional wizards taking giant risks with other taxpayers' money. But hey, at least they're elected officials, right?

>Exactly, the Treasury proposal would basically give Paulson $700B to play God with.

Well no - from Smith's blog that you yourself posted: And mind you, $700 billion is not the maximum that the Treasury may spend, it's the ceiling on the outstandings at any one time. It's a balance sheet number, not an expenditure limit.

Also, by making GS (where Paulson once was, right?) & MS holding banks - this is more than just repealing Glass-Steagal then...is this indefinitely killing the i-bank for good?

Counterproposal - I'd like to see conservative/Repukes argue against its logic re: the Treasury

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080922/ts_nm/financial_bailout_congress_dc

Senate Democrats propose conditions for bailout
31 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats on Monday issued a counterproposal to the Treasury Department's financial bailout plan that would give the government shares in firms unloading assets and limit executive compensation.

According to a legislative proposal obtained by Reuters, the majority Democrats also want to set up an oversight board that would include the chairmen of the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp and Securities and Exchange Commission to limit the Treasury's otherwise largely unfettered powers.

In addition, the Democratic plan would ensure that decisions taken by the Treasury secretary as part of the proposed $700 billion bailout would be reviewable under certain circumstances. The Treasury had asked that decisions not be reviewable by any administrative body or court.

The more I think about this plan, the less I like it. Even if oversight is added, the idea of buying up the troubled assets seems like it's basically got the problem backwards. Under this plan, the banks that invested the most in the worst kinds of mortgage-related assets would be helped the most. If the object is to make credit available, why not try to make it available through the banks that bought the least of the troubled assets? There were some banks that wisely dealt with the problem early on, and escaped the worst effects of the crisis. Why not pass measures to help them to extend more credit, if the object is to free up credit, rather than throwing taxpayer dollars at the worst offenders, without exacting anything from them in return?

I think the first thing that we need is full disclosure. Which banks are holding the most of these troubled assets? Which ones are most in danger? We don't need a behind-closed-doors solution to these problems.

the whole focus on the repeal of glass-steagal as a cause of this mess is pretty o_O when you consider the only institutions not hurting right now are the diversified mega-banks

> this is more than just repealing Glass-Steagal then

To clarify: I know that happened 9 years ago; I guess I'm still grasping what the current incarnations of GS & MG are, now. Morgan Stanley is bought 20% by Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080922/ts_nm/financial_bailout_dc;_ylt=AiuUbsUA9DmqfmPi17Mkpv1g.3QA

Meanwhile, the fate of Wamu is still inconclusive

While I understand and sympathize (and to some degree agree with) the desire for full disclosure, what practical effect is that going to have on public reaction to whatever plan ends up going forward? It seems that Congress is gung-ho with going forward with some form of it regardless of what the public has to say, plus how much of the economic detail is the public going to successfully understand in order to formulate an informed, intelligent response?

its more accountability than disclosure - of course you need the one to have the other

I'm not sure what effect it would have on public reaction. I think that the public at large is going to be very suspicious of any plan that commits so much taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street. So far the message from Paulson and company has been "Trust us, we know what we're doing" and "You don't have time to think it through - just approve it". I don't think it would be that hard to get public opinion on the side of a bit of thoughtful restraint, despite the atmosphere of fear. Disclosure would help to replace these vague fears of total systemic collapse with some specifics. Last week you had Congressional leaders of both parties putting out a statement that after AIG there were not more big shoes left to drop (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/17/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4454445.shtml) So why is it suddenly so imperative that we hand over $700B with no questions asked?

xp

I want to know if the Democrats in Congress are really going to challenge the admin. on this w/ their counterproposal with a fight - which would be the v first time - or just cave in 3-4 days at the risk of getting politically attacked when (as one sees today) the market keeps sliding and Reps start blaming them for "stalling" ? I predict the latter, but it seems like something else is going to go on behind closed doors to buy their acquiescence, again

I'm too cynical to have any positive expectations with this entire mess

But it seems like this is just as unpopular on the right as on the left -- the only people pushing it are Bush and Paulsen. What Repub support am I missing?

The Republicans who are steadfastly against this are against any further bail outs, and not likely to partner with Democrats who just want to revise Paulson's Plan to adjust the provisions and vote to reject this. I mean, I'd be surprised if they do.

Meanwhile: (CNN) - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/campaign.wrap/index.html Sen. John McCain on Monday told voters he was "greatly concerned" about the government's proposed rescue plan because it gives Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson too much power.

Sen. John McCain said Monday that he has concerns about the treasury secretary having too much power.
1 of 2

"Never before in the history of our nation has so much power and money been concentrated in the hands of one person," McCain said at a town hall meeting in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

isnt this basically what happens in episode III

"radiant flowering crab" = my favorite ilx name of the week

Oh I don't know.. Jefferson ordering the purchase of like a fifth of the North American landmass was pretty big

I just wonder if, when the effects of this are felt in 6 months to a year's time, if anyone remembers any of this or if the 10% unemployment and negative growth all gets blamed on President Obama

McCain has been saying some reasonable things. Obama should promise to appoint Krugman as Treasury Secretary if elected.

xp

o. nate otm all over

McCain has been saying some reasonable things.

On which day of the week?

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 09/22/08 at 16:29 GMT (EST+5) is
305,225,441

700,000,000,000/$305,225,441=$2293

I say we let the banks fail and give everyone in the country a check for $2293.

Who would cash the checks?

Or checks to all homeowners (esp. if paid just on principal), since if we could paid off our mortgages, this crisis would be better. Or is that too much moral hazard for ordinary folks to handle?

xp, coastguard?

On which day of the week?

I was referring to his criticisms of the Paulson plan. I think Paulson has become way too powerful. It's kind of the Cheney phenomenon all over again. You have an assertive, experienced cabinet member and a hands-off, low-information President - it's a bad combination. Cheney and Rumsfeld gave us the Iraq boondoggle and now Paulson is trying to get one of his own - at a similar price tag - before the curtain finally falls on the Bush tragicomedy

Personally I was pulling for the govt. to sell off AIG's various subsidiaries and retool its staff to administer.... the national health insurance system

But then I remembered the USA can't even introduce dollar coins successfully

What I'd like to hear from Congressional Democrats and Obama in the next few weeks is that this mess, along with the Iraq war and Katrina, is evidence that the choices voters make actually have consequences. That the debates over economic philosophy, the role of the government, and foreign affairs aren't just academic discussions. The Republicans are bad news for America not because of some tribal dislike or blood feud, but because their ideas demonstrably lead to disaster.

dollar coins do suk tho

dollar coins rule
they are especially ideal in a society where tipping happens

genuine out loud lolz

It looks like Paulson is set to pull the same trick with this bailout plan as he did with the Fannie-Freddie takeover. Just by floating the idea of that plan, he pretty much guaranteed it would have to happen. With Fannie-Freddie, he asked for the now notorious "bazooka" - the option to take over the struggling companies - with assurances that he probably wouldn't need to use it. But the mere possibility that the government would step in and take over those firms caused the private markets to freeze them out - no one wanted to inject capital in an institution that might imminently be taken over, thereby wiping them out. So his so-called option made its own implementation inevitable.

A similar effect could be happening now. By talking up the prospect of the government buying up these distressed mortgage assets, Paulson is effectively freezing the private market in these assets. There were private buyers for these assets and transactions were being done, at prices deemed fair by the market. But who would sell now, with the imminent prospect of government stepping in as an eager, cash-happy buyer? So the natural market process once again is being frozen by the icy hand of interventionist government, causing further destabilization and requiring more government intervention, and we only have Paulson to thank.

I say we let the banks fail and give everyone in the country a check for $2293.

― Adam Bruneau, Monday, September 22, 2008 12:32 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark

That's based on a 2008 census number. The number of actual taxpayers in 2007, according to the IRS, was less than half that. So make those checks out for $4500...

So people can pay for four months worth of health insurance.. awesome

In the early 20th century, New York City had a plan to build a superhighway through the heart of downtown, cutting right through the Cast-Iron District, now known as Soho. It kept getting postponed, but it always seemed on the verge of being resurrected. So property owners kept putting off their plans. So what happened in most of the rest of New York - that historic buildings got demolished to make way for new - didn't happen in Soho, because landlords didn't want to make gigantic investments just to see their property taken by imimenent domain. Perhaps one day the investment banking system will be like Soho: beautiful, old structures that house short-lived graphic design firms.

lol

over the weekend the general view of the bailout amongst journalists economists politicians and regular folks alike seems to have shifted from OMG WE MUST DO SOMETHING to HEY WAHT U TRYIN A DO

so i think theres a good shot at changing this thing - remains to be seen whether thatll be meaningful or cosmetic

From an anonymous Democratic member of Congress:

I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family.

I can totally get behind petty shit like this.

Just by floating the idea of that plan, he pretty much guaranteed it would have to happen.

eh, I think he was getting a lot of panicked phone calls from people who know what the stakes are on our economy and our various creditors around the world.

Something was going to happen, there was and will have to be a government intervention or the economic shock wave will be global and massive. Nobody wants that kind of instability.

The only question is what the government will do, not will it do anything.

I think it might be a decent argument to make that a problem of this level probably isn't going to ever get momentum or get solved by committee. Somebody was going to have to take a bold first step. It's just a little, well, unfortunate that it's a Goldman guy salvaging Goldman.

Something was going to happen, there was and will have to be a government intervention or the economic shock wave will be global and massive. Nobody wants that kind of instability.

There has been tons of government intervention already, and there have been huge economic shock waves. There remains lots of instability. The question is, is the idea of giving Paulson a $700B+ check to use as he sees fit a good idea?

is it a good idea to give *anybody* that sort of rolling credit limit and say "use it as you see fit; we won't ask any questions"?