Robert Reich has some limited praise for the Geithner plan, but also some worries. After pointing out that the Federal Reserve has committed $2.5 trillion, yet nobody knows exactly what the heck they are doing, he observes:
In other words, Geithner and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke continue to do pretty much what Hank Paulson and Bernanke did: They hide much of the true costs and risks to taxpayers of repairing the banking system. Those risks and costs should be put on the people who made risky bets on the banks in the first place – namely bank shareholders and creditors. Shareholders of the most troubled banks should be wiped out entirely. Bank creditors- except depositors – should take major hits. And top executives who were responsible should be canned. But Geithner and Bernanke don’t want to take these steps for fear of spooking the Street. They think it’s safer to put the costs and risks on taxpayers — especially in ways they can’t see.
Oh boy. I cannot even begin to fathom the political reaction in this country if the Fed had to, in effect, be bailed out because of this.
May you live in interesting times.
There appears to be a lot of agreement from all quarters about the problems with the FSP. Also see this piece:
Why Obama’s new Tarp will fail to rescue the banks
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ebe.....07658.html
Jon
Robert Reich has proven to be a ‘non-entity’ in any discussions about anything!! However, having the Fed, a quasi- government entity, purchasing Treasury bonds etc from the Government to fund the Government….I would like someone to explain that process to me….????
“I cannot even begin to fathom the political reaction in this country if the Fed had to, in effect, be bailed out because of this.”
If that happens, the survivalists who socked all their money away in gold will be crowing so loud the cows in Ellensburg will be able to hear them.
You know, I used to have more respect for Robert Reich, but his last two posts on this have told me everything I need to know about why he’s currently on the outside of the Obama Administration looking in.
Reich says:
While not strictly inaccurate, that statement is also rather disingenuous (well, it’s a blog, so Reich’s lack of verbal precision could be chalked up to laziness rather than any concerted effort to deceive, but, well…)
What exactly does Reich mean by “committed”? To a lay person, it’s not obvious. To folks who understand how the Fed works, “committed” in this context is synonymous with “loaned”. In other words, the only way us tax payers get screwed on what the Fed’s doing is if the banks default on those loans.
OK, now take that understanding, couple it with the point I’d made earlier about the fact that we just don’t know what the value of these so-called “toxic” assets is, and then go back and read Reich’s post again.
When I do that, the only conclusion I can reach is that Reich is squawking for the sake of squawking. He’s certainly not providing any new or interesting insights into the problem.
@ 1
The key graphs in the article you linked are:
Got that? Geithner’s announcement on Tuesday was “sketchy,” but we can use that as a basis to conclude that President Obama isn’t doing anything more than “hoping for the best.”
The author of that article, Martin Wolf, is starting from that premise not because he has facts in hand to support it, but because it’s the premise he wants to use as a vehicle for the zinger he wants to deliver in the following paragraphs.
And, even then, he starts with still more weasel words, “The banking programme seems to be yet another child…” [emphasis added]
Wolf has something he wants to get off his chest, and he’s managed to find an excuse that allows him to do just that. But, the premise behind his analysis is flawed.
There are other, relatively minor, problems with his argument, but that’s the major one.
@2
Fed Chair Ben Bernanke said while looking down and to his left side we have paper that is backed up. As I fell off my chair saying in what our kids souls.
I predict Obama will last 2 years either a mental breakdown which he’s showing after one month or impeachment.
Then we have Joe playing as President.
Hey THE LIAR I predict you’ll suck a big black dick tonight and then your wife will kill you and America will be a better place.
Mr Rabbit
Are you feeling real secure with your Obama and Gregoire backed state pension? Instead of a government check you will soon be receiving an IOU.
When a tax cheat with no ideas is running the entire program for Obama what do you expect?
@8: I feel a lot more secure with the people that are running things now than the idiots who kept telling us the economy was sound as they ran us into the worst economy since the great depression, while also causing the largest budget deficit in history.
It takes real incompetent fools to spend that much and create such record deficits AND cause a huge depression AND not even know it.
Where were you when Bush wasted a trillion in Iraq?
Where were you when the no-bid contracts gave away money in Iraq?
Where were you when billions went unaccounted for in Iraq?
Now, when we are going to be building schools and fixing roads here in this country to generate jobs – you have a problem?
Now, when we have the worst economic crisis since the 1930’s you want to cut back? That is exactly what stalled the Roosevelt recovery in the 1930s.
When Reagan spent us into record deficits (on useless star wars and other non-returning military wastes)- the republicans claimed deficits didn’t matter. Now suddenly they do?
Get it straight.
Once again we see the workings of Don Joe world.
Martin Wolf was awarded in December 2006 the DSc (Econ) honorary degree, from the London School of Economics, the University of London. From 1999 until today, he is a forum fellow at the Davos World Economic Forum annual meeting. In 1989 and 1997 Martin Wolf won of the Wincott Foundation senior prize for financial journalism excellence. In 1994 Wolf won the RTZ David Watt memorial prize. He is an honorary fellow of the Oxford Institute for Economic Policy, a special professor at the University of Nottingham and visiting fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford.
Of course his thoughts don’t agree with Don Joe so he’s summarily dismissed. I like reading Martin Wolf.
But Don Joe@4: Your leftist HA buds will tell you Hanging Chads Krugman won the Nobel Economics Prize so he is “always” right.
Also since all spending and bailout bills originate from the Legislative branch, why is the libtard MSM and Democratic holding Nancy and Harry responsible for writing lousy bills?
Dr NotRight:
Why not ask the Shaw Group and Richard C. Blum’s various network of companies through the Perini Group? I need to keep reinforcing this cuz Dr. your memory is lacking… Blum is the husband to Senator Dianne Feinstein Democratic of CA.
@11 Krugman has his own doubts about the latest plan in as far as he’s not entirely clear what to make of it:
“I found myself remembering that joke when trying to make sense of the Geithner financial rescue plan. It’s really not clear what the plan means; there’s an interpretation that makes it not too bad, but it’s not clear if that’s the right interpretation.
“The plan deserves praise for what isn’t in it, at least as far as I can tell. There doesn’t seem to be provision for mass purchases of toxic waste at premium prices; there also doesn’t seem to be a massive “ring-fencing” guarantee against private losses on bad assets. In that sense the plan is better than what the last few weeks of leaks led us to expect.
“So what is the plan? I really don’t know, at least based on what we’ve seen today. But maybe, maybe, it’s a Trojan horse that smuggles the right policy into place.”
Which sort of sounds like hoping for the best.
Time will tell.
See: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
Once again we see the workings of Don Joe world.
————
I’m confident there’s much more to Don Joe than this board reveals. Don, how about finding time for lunch so we can discuss these issues in more depth? You’re on the east side, right? How about it?
This doesn’t compute. Well maybe it does…
Hey bentoversmellinghisfarts:
I see a road or plane trip cummin your way this weekend…
This does compute
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,494,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,658,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,370,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,305,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,190,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,847,000
CNN KING 1,761,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,485,000
CNN COOPER 1,286,000
CNN BLITZER 1,246,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,240,000
Oh look PMSNBC bottom feeders…
February 10, 2009 – Connecticut’s Rell Is Queen Of The Hill At Midterm, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Dodd Has Worst Approval Ever
Halfway through her first elected term as Connecticut Governor and one week after a grim budget message, Jodi Rell has a 75 – 19 percent approval rating and tops any likely Democratic challenger by 21 to 40 points, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
Connecticut voters split 41 – 42 percent on whether they think Sen. Christopher Dodd is honest and trustworthy and disapprove 48 – 41 percent of the job he is doing, his first negative approval rating in a poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.
Even Democrats approve of their Republican Governor 67 – 26 percent, while Republicans approve 85 – 11 percent and independent voters approve 75 – 18 percent.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1259
@17: When a second batshit crazy news network is created to split viewership numbers with Fox, just like with the rational public and CNN/MSNBC, we’ll see what happens.
4 Reich may be referring to the the estimated cost of paying back (with interest) the increase in the national debt from the money that’s already been handed out to the banks. If that’s the case, that’s a very conservative estimate.
17 And more people look at porn than read Feynman’s physics lectures. So what?
FartyArt@21:
True. He once said: “Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that’s not why we do it.” At my college he was held in high regard…
But back to your comment in #21. bentoversmellinghisfarts wouldn’t care. He likes clicking…
#9
Lets see:
The Democrats are going to vote on the so called “stimulus bill” later today. BUT WAIT.
No one has even seen the bill because it hasn’t been put into writing yet. HUH! Only these idiots would vote for a 700 billion dollar spending bill without reading it first. With the bill being 600 or more pages it could take some of our wonderful senators a week to read. BUT WAIT! They are going to vote on it anyway.
@ 10
Once again we see the workings of Don Joe world.
Yes, and it’s obviously a way of thinking that’s completely foreign to you. It’s a shame I have to repeat this for you, but I don’t give a shit how many accolades someone has when his argument sucks.
Of course his thoughts don’t agree with Don Joe so he’s summarily dismissed.
Actually, I pointed out precisely where Wolf’s argument is flawed. That’s most definitely not a summary dismissal. Indeed, the only thing being summarily dismissed here is your dismissal of the generally accepted principles of rhetoric.
This is the same kind of thinking that led you to throw your lot in with Sam Zell and dismiss Noriel Rubini, and I’m for ever amused at your failure to learn that lesson.
@ 14
Don, how about finding time for lunch so we can discuss these issues in more depth? You’re on the east side, right? How about it?
It’s possible. Do you know where “Cedar Court” is?
23 Oh, it’s worse than that. At the same time, the Great Potentates of Finance are sitting in front of Barney Frank lying like motherfuckers while their underlings back at the office are no doubt stoking the shredders and purging the databases. The banks have been yelling “Help!” and Uncle Sam has just thrown money at them with no audits, no documentation, hardly even any curiousity as to whether their vaults are filled with greenbacks, derivatives, old socks or cow manure. The longer this goes on, the more likely it is that nobody’s ever going to know what really happened or whose fault it is.
The government should have seized the banks or let them fail long ago. Now we’re going to continue this bailout/”stimulus” charade until the dollar won’t be worth more than its value as toilet paper, and the banks will eventually fail anyway.
Yes, FartyArt@23, and which party did they jockstrap these past few years. If you been paying attention Puddy placed it here fifteen times.
Hint… It wasn’t conservatives.
Hey Puffybutt – America’s #1 Race-traitor & Oreo
Here’s some numbers you should suck on…
PRESIDENT OBAMA 365 Electoral votes
LOOOOOSER MCSAME 173 Electoral votes
L A N D S L I D E!
Don Joe@24: Maybe your rhetoric principles suck!
You are such a hypocrite. When you blasted Jamie Galbraith on this blog you trumpeted his accolades because his arguments were soothing to your eyes. Such a moron.
You are such a hypocrite. When you blasted Barry Ritholtz on this blog you trumpeted his accolades because his arguments were soothing to your eyes. Such an idiot.
Yep, he has to hold Don Joe’s economic view of the world or else… He surely held Darcy Moonbat! in high esteem.
I agree with #9. Now that we are spending the money here with, and on, Americans, NOW they have a problem with the spending? The conservatives priorities are all messed up.
U.S. bank stocks added to earlier session losses over concerns grew that the government’s planned medicine to heal the banks could sicken the patient further. The KBW Bank ETF KBE which tracks major U.S. bank stocks, fell almost 9%. Analysts at Keefe Bruyette & Woods said Thursday that by their estimate, 11 of the nation’s biggest banks face the need to sell up to $116 billion of new common stock to meet capital requirements under a U.S. plan to stress test the industry. And, Goldman Sachs, in it own research report late Wednesday said that the planned government intervention is better for lenders than for borrowers. Goldman also said it expects bank losses to continue, and that in their estimate the sector has recorded only half the losses it must take.” We forecast $2.1 trillion of losses from U.S. credit this cycle, or a roughly 9% cumulative loss rate,” Goldman said. “About $1.1 trillion of losses have been announced to date, or about half of our total estimate, with about 80% of these losses showing up at US institutions and the remainder showing up primarily in Europe,” Goldman concluded.
@ 29
Those aren’t my principles of rhetoric. Most people recognize that an ad-hominem argument and an appeal to authority (different sides of the same rhetorical coin) are not valid arguments.
As for Jamie Galbraith’s and Barry Ritholtz, if you can find any comment where I blithely accept something they’ve said without considering the validity of their analysis, please do so. Post it here. Hell, an exhaustive attempt at that ought to keep you busy for quite some time.
As for the comment you linked about Darcy Burner, I’m amused at how you managed to completely miss the point. Wingnuts here were using synonyms for “articulate” and “intelligent”, and transforming them into a derogatory epithet for no reason other than the fact that Darcy Burner happens to be female. A man exhibiting the same qualities would have been praised beyond compare. It was pure sexism, and not one of you twits had the balls to see it for what it was.
Oh yes Don Joe, your thoughts are so high and lofty, in the stratosphere.
That’s why I named you HAs Rocketman… You shoot like a Saddam Scud, but seldom hit your mark.
Search for what? No one really knew Ritholtz or J Galbraith until you threw them up here to make your “points”. You threw up their credentials as a braggadocio way of saying “look at my creeps, they are better and smarter than your creeps”.
As I said before I like Martin Wolf and will continue to read his analyses.
@ 33
Search for what I asked you to search for: namely any instance where I have appealed to authority when referring to either Galbraith or Ritholtz. You won’t find any, because I never have.
I have certainly suggested that people take a look at their research, but I have repeatedly said that one should always examine their analyses. Not once have I ever said that anyone should take what either of them says at face value.
The only person here who worships any mortal person is you when you decided to take Sam Zell’s word over Nouriel Roubini’s. Do you still remember that? You took Zell’s word over Roubinin’s word because Zell had made boatloads of money in the real-estate market while Roubini was just an academic. Never mind the fact that, as someone who has a stake in the real-estate market, Zell had a vested interest in promoting a particular point of view.
I, on the other hand, thought Roubini’s points were far more sound, because his analysis was sound. His arguments were simply better crafted.
Need I remind you who was right and who was wrong? Today, Roubini is all over the talking head shows. Zell is nowhere to be found.
You’re an inveterate fool, Puddy. I kick your ass all over the block around here, and, even then, you’re too stupid to figure it out. I turn you into the laughingstock of HA, and you just keep coming back for more.
Hell no, Don Joe, I won’t go!
As I stated before no one here knew of either until you told us. You used their analyses quite a few times here as Puddy remembers.
Speaking of “kicking” remember this stupid comment:
@ 52
Also Jonh Doe: When I am attacking the 16%er Donkey here I usually skip over my side because there are few of us (18) and many of you (over 62).
Riiiiight. Compare this to this.
Can you say “busted”? Yes, you can.
You used a comparison of Sound Politics vs HorsesAss. It wasn’t even the comparison. I saw how dense you were then. Sometimes it’s better to allow a man to look foolish on his own. You still didn’t get the 18/62 ratio even to this day fool.
Yes you kick my butt all over the place. In your vacuous mind.
@ 35
As I stated before no one here knew of either until you told us.
Other than admitting that you’re woefully uninformed about Economic matters, what’s you’re point? Should I have pointed people to their work without mentioning them by name?
I’m beginning to think that you don’t even know what the phrase “appeal to authority” means.
@ 36
Speaking of “kicking” remember this stupid comment:
Well, yes, your comment was stupid. It’s good that you can face reality.
You used a comparison of Sound Politics vs HorsesAss.
Yes, I did. I’d pointed out that you’re nothing but a partisan hack (and a completely idiotic one at that), and that you could prove that you aren’t by showing us how you give equal time to lambasting folks on SoundPolitics. My argument is was based on the same “16%er” argument that you’ve pressed here. Funny how you think that argument applies to me, yet doesn’t apply to you.
No Don Joe you fool…
If you took a few minutes and looked at the “links” you’d see Paddy Mac was called Puddy Mac, etc. I didn’t even post in those Sound Politics threads. But you went off and ran with it. So some of those “vaulted” links you placed here weren’t about me at all. But in your small neanderthal sloped cranial orifice you ran with it…
The 18/62 ratio you fool is the 18 conservative posters on HA and the 62 libtard posters on HA. If you can’t process facts, they I’ll be glad to continue to show your stupidity to the whole world.
I posted in only 4 of those Sound Politics threads and none where Paddy Mac was called Puddy Mac.
But to Don Joe, who didn’t do his homework… As Eddie Kendricks said “Keep on Trucking Baby”…
@38
But this would mean . . . Don Joe got some basic facts totally wrong – is that possible in view of his ALWAYS thorough research and analysis? – and that he would owe one big mea culpa . . . and you an even bigger apology. Let’s see if he’s up to it.
@ 38
If you took a few minutes and looked at the “links” you’d see Paddy Mac was called Puddy Mac, etc. I didn’t even post in those Sound Politics threads. But you went off and ran with it.
I’m glad you put the word “links” in quotes, because there aren’t any in your comment at 38. Perhaps you want to try again?
I vaguely recall some flak a long time ago about a “Puddy Mac” and a “Paddy Mac,” but, frankly, I don’t recall any of the details. It’s entirely possible that, at one point, I had the two of you confused. I’m human. I do make mistakes from time to time.
On the other hand searching for ‘”Puddy” “Paddy Mac” “Don Joe” site:horsesass.org’ and ‘”Puddy mac” “Paddy Mac” “Don Joe” site:horsesass.org’ both turn up zero results.
A search for ‘”Puddy Mac” Paddy Mac” site:soundpolitics.com’ turns up two hits where different people used “Puddy Mac” to address the comments of someone calling himself “Paddy Mac”, neither of which were me (though one of them was Lee). That being the case, if I did perpetrate a case of mistaken identity, I’m not alone.
I should note that all during your excursion into the deep, dark recesses of ancient history, you’ve managed to drop the current issue on the floor. You’ve not answered the questions I asked of you above. Want to try again? Should I have pointed to the analysis of Jamie Galbraith and Barry Ritholtz without naming them?
Here you go Don Joe:
Regarding your continual asking of a question until you get an answer… Sure. You could have told people to look up their credentials. I would have. I trust no Democratic.
@ 42
Well, I guess my memory isn’t that faulty at all, and you really couldn’t have picked a better thread than that one to demonstrate your inability to follow a line of reasoning. Thinks for the link. Anyone who isn’t totally bored at this point is welcome to follow the entire exchange. Your repeated use of “veni vidi vici” was cute to say the least.
Here, I will simply point out that the fact I was calling out was exactly how little you post at Sound Politics. I even spelled that out in this comment.
And, since I never made a false claim about Puddy, it would seem that djoie owes Don Joe an apology. One wonders if djoie is up to it.
And, now, for this brilliant piece of insanity:
You could have told people to look up their credentials
So, you expect me to point you to people for their analyses of current events, but not point out that analyzing is what they do for a living? In some circles, that would be considered a discourtesy, though apparently not in the circles in which you travel.
Golly Don Joe, not only is your memory faulty but you have the wrong argument. You never commented on the 18/62 ratio, which all can see was my comment. Wolf Blitzer made the 16% comment fool. You went off on a Don Joe track derailment extravaganza. You just don’t pay attention to anything but economic details, and they have to be in the Don Joe compartment otherwise chuck ’em
You claimed I made all those comments on the site. I never heard of uSP. Where is it? Wrong.
You made the search without regard to the search content. I never heard of uSP. Wrong again.
Then you claim about the substance I post, from four posts. I posted on SP. Can’t seem to find uSP. Keep Searching fool.
And if you ask nice to Stefan he’ll show you where Puddy disagreed with other conservatives, and the beating I took. Too bad you need to search better at SP. I never heard of uSP.
Regarding people’s credentials or not, take your argument to those on your side. You’ll lose that argument really quick.
Keep your economic faith, it’s the only thing going for you.
@ 44
You never commented on the 18/62 ratio, which all can see was my comment.
How on earth can you say that? You’ve pasted the entirety of my comment and linked it here. I quote that exact statement in which you reference that 18/62 ratio as your justification for the fact that you jump all over the comments of liberals while letting right-wing stupidity slide.
Why, when I quoted your entire comment, did you conclude that I was talking about the 16% bit and not the 18/62 ratio?
You claimed I made all those comments on the site. I never heard of uSP.
My god, you are so fucking dense it’s unbelievable.
I posted a link to a site search for the string “Puddy”. You went off on this insane idea thinking that the point of that search was to find your posts. Why, on earth, would I do that when you were posting under the moniker of “Puddybud” at the time? Indeed, I later posted a link to the site query for the string “Puddybud” and noted that the search for “Puddybud” produced more hits than did the search for the string “Puddy”. (Interestingly enough, that’s still true today.)
Now, why did I search for “Puddy” and not “Puddybud”? Well, more often than not, anyone replying to a comment posted by someone calling themselves “Puddybud” would address a reply to “Puddy”. Comment threads tend to be informal, so people usually select something akin to a first name as a form of address. People looking at “Puddybud” would, more often than not, select “Puddy” as something close to a first name. You can see that phenomenon here in the comment threads.
Why would I want to see replies and not posts? Well, because people tend to reply far more often to stuff with which they don’t agree than they reply to stuff with which they agree.
(By the way, both of those are things I learned from a presentation on social computing made at a Microsoft Tech Fest several years ago.)
All of this, Puddy, was a direct comment on your 18/62 ratio as your justification for, as you put it, “jump[ing] all over lefty crap immediately.” What those web queries prove, quite conclusively I might add, is that you do not jump all over righty crap on a web site where the ratio of conservatives to liberals would be in the reverse of what it is here and where the topics of discussion would generally parallel the topics discussed here.
And if you ask nice to Stefan he’ll show you where Puddy disagreed with other conservatives, and the beating I took.
I don’t need to ask Stefan. The web queries I posted provide all the evidence that we need. That you seem completely incapable of digesting what that evidence shows isn’t my problem.
Too bad you need to search better at SP. I never heard of uSP.
You never heard of “uSP”? Amazing. So, you have remained completely unaware that folks here refer to SoundPolitics (SP) as unSoundPolitics (uSP)? I don’t need to find a better web query, but you certainly need to read and digest better.
Regarding people’s credentials or not, take your argument to those on your side.
I’m taking it up with you, dipshit, because you keep attributing to me an argument I have never made. I will take it up with folks on my side when they attribute to me arguments I’ve never made, but, so far, none of them have.
Keep your economic faith, it’s the only thing going for you.
My economic faith? I’m not the one who believes, despite ample evidence to the contrary, that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act are responsible for the credit crisis in which we find ourselves now. I’m not the one who has been completely willing to jettison all reality for the sake of keeping a worn out, decrepit and bankrupt philosophy alive.
And I am, most certainly, not the one who spends the vast majority of his time bashing liberals when, as all evidence shows, conservatives and conservative philosophy have done far more damage to this country than any liberal ever has.