Wall St. Wipeout: Stocks, Other Companies Tumble

Another bad day on Wall St. CNN's Money reports:

Dow slumps 250 points as AIG bailout adds to fears about the financial markets. WaMu, Goldman and Morgan Stanley tumble.

< Alaska AG: Employees Won't Honor TrooperGate Subpoenas | McCain Campaign Lawyer Involved in Attempt to Derail TrooperGate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Sarah Palin. . . (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:43:49 PM EST
    may get her "end times" sooner than she was expecting.

    Nah.... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:20:01 PM EST
    It's real, but it's not real, if you catch my drift.

    Even if we're living like Mad Max, the sun will rise and life wil go on.

    If the sh*t really hits the fan, I know where the supermarket distribution warehouses are till I find fertile hunting grounds:)


    Watch out for soaring oil prices (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Dave B on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:22:27 PM EST
    Looks like people looking for places to put their money are funneling it back into commodities, including OIL.  Here we go again...

    You want to see a scary so called flight (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by 1jpb on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:29:41 PM EST
    to quality, look at the government bills and notes.



    Someone needs to play off McCain's line (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:51:40 PM EST
    "We will never put America in this position again"-"You're damn right you won't and the American people are going to see to it!"

    Re the economy: (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by sas on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 05:47:01 PM EST
    Bring back Hillary NOW!!!

    I don't want either of those two yahoos running the country in times like this.  Neither Obama nor McCain has any sense of what to do.

    Clinton and taxes (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 06:39:30 PM EST
    As I recall, Bill Clinton started to balance the budget by raising taxes shortly upon taking office. Some of these taxes were even retroactive.

    With a deficit that dwarfs the one that Clinton inherited, how can Obama or McCain promise to cut anybody's taxes and at the same time reduce the deficit?

    I don't get it.

    I would have more confidence in the democratic ticket if Hillary Clinton were on it.


    Your other choices are nader and bob barr. (3.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:09:41 PM EST
    350 points right now. (none / 0) (#1)
    by tigercourse on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:40:58 PM EST

    Seen at Calculated Risk (none / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:47:59 PM EST
    Senator Gregg: "I don't see any shoes out there that meet the standards of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae or AIG.

    Senator Dodd: "I agree with that."

    NPR: "Meaning there won't be another huge huge bailout of this kind? You don't see one on the horizon?

    Gregg: "I don't see any entities out there that appear to be in trouble that meet this type of standard--that they would melt down the entire system if they went under."

    Dodd: "Some banks. Some banks, some regional banks, but nothing of the size of AIG, Lehman Brothers or Merrill Lynch."

    I tried to explain to one of my colleagues at lunch how the average guy on the street has no understanding of why some companies are getting bailed out but not other companies, it all seems so arbitrary if you don't understand the financial sector.  He didn't get it.

    It occurs to me that although George Bush is the last person I want to hear anything from right now, it just seems really, really weird that the government is taking major, unprecedented steps and people don't even get to see the President go on TV and say "hey, here is what I'm doing and why I'm doing it."  It's like we're back in the pre-9/11 phase where Bush is just chilling out and playing golf while a bunch of other people run the government for him.

    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:52:09 PM EST
    Bush gave up golf in solidarity for Iraq.

    They're keeping Bush (none / 0) (#6)
    by rooge04 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:53:54 PM EST
    out of it to pretend that he's not there anymore. All he would do is be bad news for McCain if they trotted out that loser.  I wish they would.  Ugh.

    I cannot believe the complete sh*&show that the Republicans have left us with after only eight short years. My goodness could they have messed up worse?  It boggles the mind just how thoroughly they've destroyed the country.


    Really now? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:28:43 PM EST
    Are you really surprised? I'm not. McCain and probably the entire GOP apparatus has probably warned him not to show his face.

    It's ironic that for all these years I have wanted him to go away. Now that he's going away, I simply don't care. If he showed his face, I wouldn't feel anything other than indifference.


    I dunno (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:36:04 PM EST
    I think it is more that Bush himself does not want to be anywhere near these tough decisions.

    LOL (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:37:20 PM EST
    You might be right. The decider has given up making decisions! Oh, the irony once again.

    considering Paulson (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:25:15 PM EST
    is more eminently qualified than any of the candidates and our current president it makes sense that he is making the decisions.  It also makes sense that a lame duck president who has a horrible confidence rating not come out and speak on the economy as that might scare the dickens out of people and cause a run on the market.  Bush needs to stay exactly where he is and let Paulson sort it out.  

    This is where the Palin pick pays dividends (none / 0) (#7)
    by indy in sc on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:58:49 PM EST
    for the dems.  Had McCain picked Romney, I think we'd be in some trouble.   Everyone is looking for the right voice on the economy right now--Barack is getting much better at it, but still has a ways to go to really connect with his message.  The only reason he has time to keep getting better is because McCain/Palin are even worse at it.  If McCain had Romney, people would flock to that ticket for some semblance of competence on the economy.  They'd be wrong, but it would be hard to convince them otherwise.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:32:56 PM EST
    it kind of depends on what you think is worse. McCain's "reforming wall street" ad is better than anything i've seen from Obama so far. The mccain media shop is running circles around Obama's. Judging from the clips I watched this morning, Obama's message is not getting out through the press. Mccain is going around the press while Obama is unfortunately still relying on it.

    If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would think that the media loved Obama during the primaries simply because they knew all this would happen and they could go back to their first love: The Maverick.


    Really?! (none / 0) (#47)
    by WS on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:41:03 PM EST
    McCain's Maverick ads sound like bad movie trailers.  

    "He's a ... She's a ... Together they'll fight ..."  What the heck?!  Nothing substantive at all, only empty platitudes.  


    Well, (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:42:11 PM EST
    he has an ad out there already on the subject. Does Obama?

    I did hear (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by WS on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:48:54 PM EST
    an equal pay for equal work ad on the radio that was good to okay.  It needed a reference to the Fair Pay bill to make it better.  

    There's also the 2 minute close up economy ad that someone posted.  

    Plus, there's the economy speech he did yesterday that got publicity.  

    O's recent stuff are more substantive than McCain's.  McCain's ads usually just has "reforming Wall Street" and "crisis" without prescribing anything, which is understandable since he really doesn't believe in regulation.  


    The 2 minute (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:58:56 PM EST
    one is good if you can get people to watch it. Is it going to be on TV? Or sent around in email?

    TV (none / 0) (#58)
    by CST on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:01:27 PM EST
    not sure where though.

    If you read (none / 0) (#60)
    by WS on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:08:33 PM EST
    the article, you would know the ad is playing in battleground states.  

    Not really (none / 0) (#53)
    by WS on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:55:56 PM EST
    Obama hasn't left a vaccuum on the economy.  He's actually been on top of this with the big speech yesterday that got way more press than the elections press release McCain sent, which I just heard about just now when you wrote about it.    

    That's why you see the polls swinging back to equilibrium or to Obama.  


    The problem (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:00:51 PM EST
    with the speech is that from what I saw, only one soundbite came out of it and it was something to the extent of things are so terrible.

    Press (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:59:51 PM EST
    realeases don't cut it. No one reads them and they get lost in whatever else is going on that day.

    Well. . . (none / 0) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:01:22 PM EST
    McCain would be in less bad shape if he'd chosen Romney since Romney probably can come up with a better prescription for the economy than "pray".  But he'd still belong to the party in power at the time the financial system collapsed.

    This is true (none / 0) (#71)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 07:16:51 PM EST
    Romney would have been a very good pick in these financial times.  He is a financial wizard to say the least.  

    Romney's company., Bain Capital, is said (none / 0) (#72)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:01:51 PM EST
    to be one of the vultures trying to pick up divisions of the dying three for cheap. How would that do any good for McCain?

    Oooo. (none / 0) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:00:18 PM EST
    4.5% collapse.

    And we close at (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:04:41 PM EST
    a -451 for the Dow and and a cool -109 for the Nasdaq. The fundamentals of the economy are sound or so we've been told.

    Off nearly 200 pts in the last 1/2 hour (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:08:47 PM EST
    Dunno what that means.

    Get ready for the rapture. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:13:05 PM EST
    Jerry Falwell was right.  Who knew!

    Shrug (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    there was a big drop at the end of the trading day Monday, then things actually picked up quite a bit on Tuesday.

    Right now things are just in a state of flux.  There's no leadership which leaves people confused and worried.  The big winner today in the markets was GOLD, and if people are moving their money into gold of all things then you know they're desperate for a safe place to stash it.


    You have an extra. . . (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    letter "L" in the word "flux".

    HA (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:15:57 PM EST
    Oh great, goldbugs. . . (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:15:30 PM EST
    It means... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:26:20 PM EST
    ...we're lucky the trading day didn't last another hour or so.

    All bad humor aside--if you look at a plot of the DJIA for today, it has a lot of "noise", as expected, but the overall trend is unmistakeably downward all day.  That's not good news.  I hope everyone catches their breath overnight, possibly with the addition of some good news after hours, and things calm down tomorrow at the open.


    We've yet to see how... (none / 0) (#38)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:29:58 PM EST
    ...the overseas markets will react.  They could increase the panic overnight.

    there is no good news (none / 0) (#61)
    by bigbay on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:12:37 PM EST
    The world economy has been propped up by easy credit for decades. China's economy is built on Western deficit spending. It was all bound to come unwound at some point.

    Oh, how you exaggerate! (none / 0) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:12:31 PM EST
    The Dow is only down 449.36.

    I apologize (none / 0) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:22:48 PM EST
    I hate when I jump the gun and exaggerate. Must be the sound fundamentals that propped it up those 2 pts at the buzzer. McCain was right god bless him.

    Tempers are Flaring... (none / 0) (#13)
    by santarita on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    The CNBC crew just about took the head off the representative from Standard and Poors.  

    I saw a quote from Harry Reid saying something to the effect that he doesn't know what Congress should do about this mess because it is unprecedented.  UHmmm...

    This is a time for national leaders to say reassuring things.  Wall St. seems close to panic mode.  Yes there are systemic problems but nothing that can't be fixed, even if the fix may be painful.

    Reassuring. . . (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:14:11 PM EST
    Hello, I'm George Bush and I'm hear to manage this financial crisis.



    Yep... (none / 0) (#20)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:16:27 PM EST
    ...thank Dog we have a CEO pResident to see us through these difficult economic times.  

    /end snark


    Bush is a national leader in name only. (none / 0) (#65)
    by santarita on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:34:07 PM EST
    I fully expect Chertoff to be making an appearance announcing that FEMA has moved into Wall Street.

    Man (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:17:21 PM EST
    I don't have any money in stocks (besides like 500 bucks in my 401k) and even I'm starting to get nervous here.

    Too many people comparing this to the great depression for my taste.

    Frankly, I have no real idea what an economic crash means for the country, I was raised in the 90s and still in school when the bubble burst.

    How does this effect development?  As an engineer, does this mean I am probably gonna have MORE work from the government (in the event of a "new deal" type of reform), or that no one is going to want to build anything at all?

    Changing climate (none / 0) (#43)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:36:11 PM EST
    I'm an economist by training (but please don't hold it against me), and one of the things I remember very clearly was the extended discussion we had in my banking course about how much things have changed now compared to the late 20's/early 30's.

    The short version is that we have many more mechanisms in place (like account insurance to greatly reduce the threat of bank runs), and also a dramatically different view of such matters from individual voters through all relevant portions of state and federal governments.  

    Can a Great Depression II happen in the US?  Yes, but it's far less likely now than it was 80 years ago.

    My hunch is that we'll see a lot more economic pain as the mortgage mess and the financial sector meltdown continue to work themselves out over the next year or so.  There will be a lot more government intervention, endless finger pointing, some more Companies With Famous Names being bought or going bankrupt, and a lot of sleepless nights.

    My biggest fears are that [1] government does something stupid in trying to ease the pain, or [2] they do far too little in the way or new, appropriate regulation in response to these messes, leaving us vulnerable to the whole thing happening again in another 15 or 20 years.


    A good post (none / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:17:23 PM EST
    I wish people would shut up about "moral hazard". Yes, bridging AIG through its current crisis is not something you want to do; and yes, it would be better if the market solved its own problem. But even a cursory analysts of the serpentine connections between AIG and capital markets tells you that the latter just can't happen, so you have to hold your nose, be an adult, and live with the former.

    moon-landing-2Moral hazard, while real sometimes and in some places, is vastly overrated as an effect. Granted, it's seductive in the same way that risk homeostasis is -- the notion that, for example, people drive faster and take more risks because they have seatbelts -- but like risk homeostasis, moral hazard is vastly over-diagnosed. People at major financial services outfits don't project five years into the future and say, "Lever up, boys and girls. We'll either make a lot of money now, or be bailed out later." Real people in real markets don't think that way. Matter of fact, if anything, they're short-sighted in that regard to a fault.

    Further, imagining that people load up with "end of the world" liabilities in an effort to be anointed with "too big to fail" status is muddled non-thinking from run-amok conspiracy theorists. They would be better off sticking to, you know, perhaps denying the Apollo moon landings. Because the idea that a GM can now credibly post-AIG make the case that capital markets will blow up if we don't assist it too is silly -- and suggesting that auto companies (just to pick an example) will now plaster themselves with leverage bombs to make their own "We're dangerous too!!" case stronger is sillier still.


    They gotta hurry. Even with the Fed now printing (none / 0) (#73)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:04:39 PM EST
    air money for AIG, there is only so much in the government piggy bank, and it seems to be first come, first served. Moral Hazard was only for the small suckers anyway.

    Would someone please... (none / 0) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:18:21 PM EST
    ...let me know when it is time to put my savings in a coffee can and bury it in the backyard?

    Last Monday. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:20:42 PM EST
    Dang! (none / 0) (#28)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:23:37 PM EST
    Now I have to find a really big coffee can--and a backyard.

    Wait a day or two. . . (none / 0) (#30)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:25:30 PM EST
    you won't need such a big can.

    I'm converting everything into... (none / 0) (#34)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:27:57 PM EST
    ...nickels since they are worth more than 5 cents these days.  

    I suppose I should invest in some firearms and ammo too.


    Hmm, I have a backyard for ya (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:31:21 PM EST
    and I'll even stand by ya while ya dig it.  Least a friend could do. . . .

    Now, do any wiser heads here know whether I ought to worry that most of my retirement depends upon whether wiser heads continued to prevail at the ever-dependable TIAA-CREF?  Always rock-solid . . . but rocks and much else underfoot seem to be shifting these days.

    Sigh.  I hoped to retire at 60.  But I bet it will be 70 at best.  And my poor spouse who retired once but had to go back to work when his company pulled health care now figures that he never will retire again.  (Btw, what with going back to school in between, he never really got a day off that he could call retirement.  Lucky he doesn't even like golf.)  


    Thanks... (none / 0) (#45)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:39:19 PM EST
    ...but I always thought that if you buried something there, it turned into cheese?

    I'm in the same boat--depending on PERA to make me enough to perhaps retire someday.  Guess it all depends on the underlying funds and how they perform.  In a down market, they're going to take a hit I'm afraid.  

    Of course, I've come to the conclusion that I will be dead long before I retire.


    Or the contrarian view. (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:39:24 PM EST
    The multi-millionaires of the past bought up stocks when the rest of the world decided it was time to go to the coffee can. It follows the "it's always darkest before the dawn" theory.

    Sure sounds like a sensible approach if you have the huevos to lose it all.

    It should be noted that a McCain administration could lead to a total eclipse of the sun thus negating the aforementioned darkest before the dawn theory and justifying the coffee can.


    No, THIS Monday. . . (none / 0) (#59)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:03:26 PM EST
    or perhaps next is the time to go into stocks.

    That's what I've been doing.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:27:14 PM EST
    my whole life...it's safe, with no ATM fees and 24/7 access to your dough:)

    Not sure if that would be the best bet (none / 0) (#49)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:46:17 PM EST
    You should have put everything into gold a year ago.

    My biggest concern are the (none / 0) (#29)
    by 1jpb on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:24:51 PM EST
    Main Street conservatives that have been convinced we are facing a Fannie/Freddie and "greed" problem.

    I don't think any of the relevant and knowledgeable congressional Rs truly believe this.  The folks on Wall Street will differ on the actual causes and remedies, but I doubt that any of them would say this is simply a Fannie/Freddie and "greed" problem.

    But, what option do the Rs have?  I can't imagine that they'll acknowledge their core philosophy of limiting regulation has failed.  And, yet it is indisputable that the unregulated and lightly regulated instruments have been the problem.  Traditional FDIC banking (and even the GSEs (especially before 06, when they starting trying to soak up some of the fallout from non-GSE products blowing up)) have been regulated.  As a result they have been (by orders of magnitude) the most prudent folks.  

    Experiment over.  

    McCain was right. (none / 0) (#32)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:26:23 PM EST
    Our economic fundamentals are sound.

    The sound is BOOM!

    Don't you mean "WOOSH"? (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:28:16 PM EST
    This may be the price we have to pay (none / 0) (#41)
    by vj on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:35:02 PM EST
    to finally get the Republicans out of the White House.


    You're assuming the White House will still (none / 0) (#74)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:08:12 PM EST
    be there in January. What I frankly expect is to have the R constituencies do everything they can between now and then to loot the oil and gas supplies (Bush is saying he will veto the stinky compromise so that ALL restrictions on offshore drilling will lapse on Oct. 1, not just the part in the compromise) and privatize them and everything else they want to grab, and otherwise bankrupt the country so it will be the Dems' problem on Jan. 20 and they can snipe them endlessly.

    Praying for the economy is a better idea than (none / 0) (#57)
    by Don in Seattle on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:01:23 PM EST
    most of the ones the Administration is pursuing. Praying, at least, will presumably do no harm.

    OK, Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac were already quasi-governmental corporations, and the consequences of letting them fail would have been calamitous. But saving them has led in short order to the Federal government's intervening to save AIG, a garden-variety insurance company, albeit a large one.

    The cost of the AIG bailout, they are saying, is 85 billion dollars. Does anyone have a handle on the potential cost of the much larger, and seemingly more open-ended, Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac rescues?

    I'll grant that there have been government bailouts of private (i.e., non-government) businesses in the past, and not all of them have been disastrous. (Saving Lee Iacocca's Chrysler Corp., almost 30 years ago -- can it really be that long? -- comes to mind as an example.) So maybe it's a good thing that the Executive branch should have this sort of power. But I wonder, does the Constitution explicitly grant such power? (I doubt it.)

    Is there any Constitutional limit whatever on how much money the Executive can unilaterally dole out to save a private company? They used to say that Congress had "the power of the purse," but this Administration is acting like it has the keys to the vault.

    AIG is the investment manager and trustee for the 401K's of many Americans. It's ironic to think that George W. Bush, who set out less than four years ago to cash in some of his "political capital" to privatize Social Security, may be doing the opposite, by in effect nationalizing the defined contribution retirement plan business. Or rather, it would be ironic, if it weren't so scary.

    I was listening to ex-AIG & ex-Lehman employees on podcasts today and they were saying that this whole thing stemmed from margin borrowing that has been piling up unchecked for many years.  Did the street create this crisis now because they believe Barack is going to win and knew they would get a bailout under Bush?  If this unbalanced balance sheet has existed for some time now, why would it suddenly collapse now?  I think the investment bankers have decided it's Obama in 2009 and caused the crisis preemptorily while they still had a pres willing to shift their risk to the people.  You KNOW all the poor laid off MBA sharks will have jobs again in 30 days with the 3-4 giant consolidated banks left standing . . .

    "I'm sick and tired of this Republican garbage" - Joe Biden.  

    I very much doubt (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:24:26 PM EST
    that an Obama administration would have handled the present crisis any differently than the Bush administration is right now.  It's not like Treasury Secretary Paulson is calling the shots in some kind of ideological Republican manner.

    A Democratic administration might have kept the crisis from happening, depending on how much lead time they were given, but once the crisis is here there are few good options.  It's kinda like, no matter who was in office on 12/7/41, once Pearl Harbor gets bombed it's pretty clear we're going to war with Japan.


    This blog has been extremely educative for me. (none / 0) (#66)
    by rennies on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:59:30 PM EST
    But wasn't it the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Billey Act that repealed the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act thus eliminating the depression-era walls between between banking, investment, and insurance that made this crisis possible? Glass-Stegall erected walls between banking, investment management, and insurance, so problems in one sector could not spill over into the others, which is precisely what is happening now?

    Republican legislation, for sure. But who signed the bill into law -- in 1999?

    The Blame Game: (none / 0) (#67)
    by rennies on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 05:08:57 PM EST
    a very compelling and sane article on Atlantic.com.


    Run on Canning Jars (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 06:08:39 PM EST
    Went to the Farm and Fleet yesterday, seeking a case of quart Jars. was told there'd been  a run over the weekend, sold out, and the manufacturer tells them not to expect more before January.