home

The Obama Plan to Give Even More Handouts To the "Masters Of The Universe"

Paul Krugman:

The Geithner plan has now been leaked in detail. It’s exactly the plan that was widely analyzed — and found wanting — a couple of weeks ago. The zombie ideas have won. The Obama administration is now completely wedded to the idea that there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the financial system — that what we’re facing is the equivalent of a run on an essentially sound bank. As Tim Duy put it, there are no bad assets, only misunderstood assets. And if we get investors to understand that toxic waste is really, truly worth much more than anyone is willing to pay for it, all our problems will be solved.

. . . [T]hese funds will have skewed incentives. In effect, Treasury will be creating — deliberately! — the functional equivalent of Texas S&Ls in the 1980s: financial operations with very little capital but lots of government-guaranteed liabilities. For the private investors, this is an open invitation to play heads I win, tails the taxpayers lose. So sure, these investors will be ready to pay high prices for toxic waste. After all, the stuff might be worth something; and if it isn’t, that’s someone else’s problem.

But we must protect the "Masters of The Universe." This is truly outrageous.

Speaking for me only

< Is Making 250K A Year "Ordinary?" | Divorce-Styles of the Rich and Famous >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Obama was always an... (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 08:56:02 AM EST
    insider wannabe.

    checkmate.


    Is This the Change We've Been Waiting For? (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Alegre on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:13:07 AM EST
    Really... seems like more of the same to me.

    Reading this post, I tried to imagine (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:43:40 AM EST
    how the Republicans would have done any differently.  I'm still trying.

    Parent
    So I guess it's true (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:49:34 AM EST
    The parties really aren't that different when it comes right down to it.

    Parent
    Versailles wins! (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:03:50 AM EST
    Quelle surprise.

    Parent
    They aren't... (3.00 / 2) (#77)
    by kdog on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:56:41 AM EST
    war, economics, drug laws...two peas in a pod these parties, the differences lie in the relatively superficial wedge social issues and that's about it.

    Parent
    But in fairness (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    HRC would have been protecting the plutocrats too.

    No matter what, average Joe was doomed to get effed on the economy.

    Given Obama's remarkably progressive budget attempts, I think an HRC administration would been almost identical: protecting fat cat robber barons and the torture regimen, while pushing for a readjustment in taxes and a fuzzy healthcare reform. No talk of raiding SS though from HRC...'bout the only difference.

    Parent

    HRC (5.00 / 8) (#99)
    by souvarine on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:45:50 PM EST
    We don't know what Hillary Clinton would have done as president. But there is very little evidence from her campaign, or her actions as Senator after the primary, to suggest that she would protect fat cat robber barons. The evidence from the campaign, and the key difference between Obama and Clinton on domestic issues, was that Hillary Clinton argued that the market was broken and failed to address health care, income inequality and financial imbalances. She argued that market based policies had gone too far and it was time for the government to step in. Obama argued that the market is the best arbiter of these issues and his policies were market based.

    Those differences are reflected in the argument the progressive blogosphere is having over these policies. New Democrats, like Nate Silver and the DLC, support Obama's market approach to the financial crisis. Keynesian Liberals like Krugman and Dean Baker continue to argue for the government intervention that Hillary Clinton advocated in the primary.


    Parent

    Who knows, (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:32:24 PM EST
    who cares?

    Parent
    politics matters (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by souvarine on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    I care. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama presented significantly different economic plans and philosophies in the primaries. Those different approaches lead to significantly different responses to this crisis. The purpose of politics is to highlight political differences so that voters can make an informed decision.

    If we pretend that these differences do not exist then we abandon our ability to evaluate what policies are best for our country.


    Parent

    Uh last I knew (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    Obama is the president. There is little benefit in fantazing what Hillary might/ might have done. Where did you buy your crystal ball? Diagon Alley?

    Parent
    change (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by souvarine on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:20:17 PM EST
    Who's fantasizing? I want President Obama to change his policy so that he will be successful and we will all be better off. I am pressuring my fellow citizens and President Obama with arguments for a different approach to economics. As it happens Hillary Clinton also advocated for this different approach, but what matters is that there is a difference and the reasoned basis for that difference.

    If I pretend that there is no difference, or allow people to delude themselves into thinking that there is no difference, then I will fail to change anything.


    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:32:55 PM EST
    What Hillary advocated is one thing (and I agree with you). But what Hillary would actually have done is anybody's guess. As long as those are separate and clear. I don't disagree with you.
       However, let's also be clear: I didn't vote for Obama because I believed he would give away the store to the bankers, while letting the rest of us eat the debt. Nor do I believe he promised he would. In fact his statements after the convention, would clearly lead me to believe otherwise. I am sure he did not run on a "soak the poor, and give to the rich" platform. If I wanted that, I would have voted for Jolly John.

    Parent
    fair point (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by souvarine on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    I may trust Obama's (and Geithner's) motives more than you do. But the contrast between his words, as recently as in his speech to Congress, and these policies is harder and harder to reconcile.

    My theory is that the administration is having an internal argument over these policies, and Obama early on (before the weakness in bank assets was more clear) chose Geithner's approach. Obama tends to stick to a strategy even when things get rough, he has a consistency that can be admirable. But there are indications from within the administration that they are prepared to change course. Once Obama is convinced that Geithner's approach won't work then the administration will turn on a dime.

    I have no idea what it will take to convince Obama, but I don't think he entered this situation thinking that his policies would end up paying off bankers.

    Parent

    i agree cream, (none / 0) (#108)
    by sancho on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    but this 'outrageousness' is also what people voted for when they voted for obama. he has never suggested he'd do otherwise. congrats, everybody.

    Parent
    This Was Predictable (5.00 / 11) (#88)
    by Athena on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:20:24 PM EST
    This is the "change" that was really a hallucination on the part of the electorate "believing" that Obama was what he promised.  Obama had no record of bucking the establishment or taking risks, and some of us wondered why he would gather the level of adoration unmatched by accomplishment.  Obama was a deep insider, propelled by very establishment forces who used the theater of "change" to seduce voters.

    Obama has chosen to side with Wall Street.  His supporters had better wake up - and stop imagining him to be what he is not.

    Parent

    Reading this Krugman... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by NealB on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:22:52 AM EST
    ...what I don't understand, is why the Clinton economic team that Obama's installed (Summers, Geithner, and Rubin), the team that managed to turn the first Bush recession into the 90s economic boom, why is this team of economic leadership failing so badly this time? Puzzling.


    Was Geithner part of the Clinton team? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by DFLer on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:33:07 AM EST
    maybe that's the difference

    Parent
    The big difference (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by SeaMBA on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:01 AM EST
    Is that Clinton is not President. Now, if we had another Clinton as President... Just sayin ;-)

    Parent
    The leader matters (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:41:13 AM EST
    The person who sets the direction and the tone and the conversation, in other words (dare I say it?)...it's the decider that matters.  Clinton wanted to do good things for the country while beating the Republicans at their own game.  Obama wants to be loved and praised and wants to make Republicans happy.

    Parent
    What matters - I think - most of all (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 05:04:42 PM EST
    is that the leader himself actually understands the complexities and workings of the current financial system, and therefore is not, perhaps, as susceptible to being manipulated by the particular biases and interests of the members of his economic team.

    For a leader to have the ability to call BS when the team is trying to convince him it's really just a special brand of chocolate, is essential to creating a plan that works.

    I tend to think that Obama has been convinced, by people who want it to be so, that it is essential that we save the big Wall Street firms - I do not think he believes it because he knows the subject well enough to have come to that conclusion on his own - and that is why this is not going to turn out as well as things did during the Clinton years.

    Parent

    Summers (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Munibond on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:02:33 AM EST
    Don't know enough to answer your question, but could someone please tell me what Summers has accomplished in his adult life that warrants his exalted position, and what about his economic philosophy makes him appealing to Democratic presidents?  From what I can gather he is a coldhearted Friedman acolyte who played a big role in deregulation/intentional failure to regulate financial institutions and products during the Clinton administration and who may be to blame for Harvard's huge endowment fund losses from risky investment strategies.  What are his selling points?

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:16:29 AM EST
    those who know how to deregulate, surely know how to reregulate! right? Right?? And since our economy now suffers from irregularity from those who fed us deregularity, they must, must be the only ones who know how to reregulate regularly!
     However Summers and Geithner seem to be choosing not too. Why? Only the masters of the Universe can understand such complexity. So, our economy still suffers from constipation with no return to regularity in sight.

    Parent
    Because there are few regulations (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:05:49 AM EST
    left to repeal that might spurn economic growth.

    If you really look at what the Clinton team did the heart of the plan was to unshackle Wall Street and let them run free.  Hard to make the market much more free than it is now and the unchecked freedom is what led to the collapse so people are quite as enthusiastic about these freedoms as they used to be - even some people on Wall Street are thinking it is time to revert to the old model of regulating the financial industry.  Of course, those people are probably much poorer now than they were a few months ago so they probably don't weild as much influence as they used to.

    Parent

    Clinton's Genious (3.66 / 3) (#25)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:18:32 AM EST
    Was he was delt a good hand.   An economy starting it first runup after a recession.   The facts are the economy started turning around the two quaters before he took office.

    Then the internet took off, the computer improved efficiency in the work place by leaps and bounds.

    Clinton was smart enough to get out of the way, make some big changes, collect some taxes to balance the budget.

    Basically there is little he didn't do right.   It wasn't the hardest job in the world but it could have been screwed up.

    Most importantly he had a partisan advisary in the Republican congress that kept him honest.  

    Obama has no such luck.  he's inherited an economy on the way down.  He's got a partisan Democratic congress that he has to try and make happy and he's trying to use the policies that created this financial disaster to fix it.   We had a good run but it's time to actually "change" not try and borrow, tax our way out of a problem created by to much spending and borrowing in the first place.

    Parent

    a good hand? (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by souvarine on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:31:23 AM EST
    Too many people buy this invisible hand argument with regard to the 90s economy. Clinton expanded FCC and DOJ anti-trust regulation, taking on the monopolistic tariffs of the telcos and limiting the ability of large tech companies like Microsoft to dominate their markets. Without those regulatory changes the Internet would have evolved in very different ways, largely along the walled garden model. The ISP market never would have taken off, since the telcos would not have allowed them to compete, and telcos would still be charging extortionist rates for data connections above 64k bps. Europe and the rest of the world would never have had to respond to the competitive pressure of the exploding US Internet, and their government telecom monopolies would be closely husbanding data connections.

    When Bush was (s)elected in 2000 the tech trade press got all excited about a new era of lax regulation. It was obvious to close observers, and it soon became clear even to libertarian techies, that a Republican administration meant a return to favoring monopoly companies and the choking off of innovation. The ISP market disappeared, the spread of broadband slowed to a halt, and the US fell behind the rest of the world in Internet adoption. We are now back to a point where only large companies can prosper in the tech market.

    Clinton was dealt a massive deficit and an uncooperative Congress. The expansion of the 90s, the longest expansion ever, didn't just happen and wasn't just some speculative bubble. Clinton made it happen, and the technology revolution at the core of it evolved into one of the productive pillars of our economy today.

    Parent

    Yup, I'm glad somebody (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by NYShooter on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:35:10 PM EST
    Get's it.

    The main thesis, in my opinion, of Clinton's belief and approach to our economy was the slogan, "a rising tide lifts all boats."

    To some people, it's just a throwaway slogan, like car dealership advertising, "our service is #1." The dealer has no intention of really providing good service, just finding a catchy "come-on slogan." But Bill Clinton actually believed it.

    His Treasury guy, Robert Rubin, in his book, wrote, (I'm paraphrasing) "The President asked me, ` what would have a greater benefit to our economy, giving a million dollars to one industrialist, or giving a dollar each to a million consumers?"

    And thus was born a more progressive tax code, and a decade of unprecedented prosperity.


    Parent

    They are not failing (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by iluvela on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:00:32 AM EST
    They are dealing with something that does not come close to resembling the 1990's. They are dealing with an entirely different paradigm.

    Parent
    They're succeeding admirably (5.00 / 8) (#49)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    transferring wealth to bankers and debt to the rest of us. All done with no strings attached for the bankers. Yay!

    Parent
    So then you prefer (none / 0) (#58)
    by iluvela on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:28:16 AM EST
    that the government let the entire financial system go down the toilet and the economy with it? You prefer a depression rather than a bailout?

    There are two fixes here. One is the road Obama is taking. It uses taxpayer money. The other is nationalization. It uses the same taxpayer money, but probably much more.

    So either way we have "debt to the rest of us". You want more debt or less? Or if you want no debt at all then you have no economy and far fewer jobs available. Pick your poison.

    Parent

    As usual (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:31:52 AM EST
    this is the false choice presented.

    Try it with folks at another site. It does not work here.

    there are other options.

    Parent

    What are the other options? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Green26 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:41:20 AM EST
    I'm not indicating there aren't any others; I'm just curious what you believe they are.

    Parent
    Temporary takeover (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:46:12 AM EST
    and negotiation with stakeholders.

    This has been written about a million times here.

    Parent

    That option (none / 0) (#87)
    by iluvela on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:15:19 PM EST
    has far greater risks than the one Obama is taking. Obama is smartly using all his available options first, with the last one being nationalization if need be. And if his plan works then he avoids the very messy and largely unpredictable mess nationalization represents. And he saves a ton of taxpayer expense. Plus he keeps the stock market from crashing again, which nationalization would do because nationalization would wipe out billions of market cap, not to mention create a further lack of confidence in the financial companies and the stock market itself. And then add to that it appears that the banks are now producing profit again so they can not only grow their way out of part of the mess, but it also makes them a better risk to continue to provide them with the loans and/or equity backed assistance we are providing them with.

    Parent
    Actually it doesn't (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:28:56 PM EST
    The option Obama is forwarding basically locks in the downside for the government and the upside for Wall Street.

    A better plan is temporary takeover with negotiations with stakeholders. that way everyone is locked in to the upside AND the downside.

    Parent

    My reading of the plan (none / 0) (#101)
    by steviez314 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:52:51 PM EST
    is that the government does get upside too..we will be equity owners of up to 80% of the equity in the partnership, where the total equity contributed is 15% of the total capital.  I guess the private investors could take the full 15% and our only role is to provide the 85% debt financing.

    Now, we do have downside, because the decision has been made not to give bank bondholders any haircut.  (I am ignoring bank equity holders, since they've already been shaved down to the skin basically.)  I'm not sure where I come down on that decision, because there may be other factors at play here--how many bonds do foreign governments own and what pressure are they applying; what would a bond haircut do to pension funds and insurance annuities?  There hasn't been much discussion about the effects of a bond haircut.

    One major concern I have about a temporary takeover is that there would be enormous pressure on the government to sell the assets quickly.  I think that would result in the robbery of the century, and if you thought private capital is making out good under this plan, you ain't seen nothing yet.

    Parent

    Tremendous Pressure; Many Myths (5.00 / 7) (#120)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:01:34 PM EST
    Based on my experience with the RTC, I do not agree there would be tremendous pressure on the federal government to sell assets too quickly; business case has to be prepared, legal inside and outside has to review, then all has to go up the chain, and other government agencies with regulatory authority such as the IRS and the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guaranty Board) have to review aspects affecting them.  

    There is so much legal and business talent currently available.  It is a myth that nobody but those at AIG FP can understand the "complex" transactions.  There is also no hard evidence that I've seen that government's hand in unraveling the financial products created by this division would bring down the whole financial system.  If Congress would get off its butt and investigate, i.e., rejoin the reality-based world and get some hard facts, Congress could put pressure on the administration to do something effective.  Since Congress seems hell-bent on not finding out facts and reacting to public pressure without looking into things, it has failed to serve the role of an effective and independent branch of government.  Elizabeth Warren is the only person I've heard who makes sense, but I don't know if Congress is putting her knowledge and perspective to any good use.  Input here anyone?


    Parent

    Next Week there will... (none / 0) (#139)
    by santarita on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 04:58:41 PM EST
    be hearings with Geithner.  At that point Geithner should be called on to answer the questions raised by Warren - that is assuming the reps and senators can think about anything other than bonuses.

    Two questions for you:  How long did it take RTC to carry out its mission?  And assuming nationalization of some or all of the large holding companies, once nationalized, what would the government do with the banks and how long would it take?

    Parent

    Good questions - (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 07:15:37 PM EST
    I do not have authoritative answers for your questions.  The RTC was created by statute in 1989 and terminated at the end of 1995.  According to Wikipedia, the RTC closed or otherwise resolved 747 thrifts with total assets of $394 billion. S&L's were placed into RTC receivership or conservatorship as they "failed" -- on a rolling basis. Some of the S&Ls had large operating subsidiaries in non-"bank" regulated businesses. Length of time it took to resolve assets or sell any particular institution probably varied and depended on complexity of issues involved; receiverships lingered as last most troubled assets remained. I'll try to find more info for you. The FDIC has been and continues to do same thing for a long time. There is an interesting history at the FDIC site Link  
    Please understand I am not saying the RTC was perfect or that FDIC process is.  What I am saying is that the process has worked, and to assume that real temporary oversight of the largest financial institutions will not work creates a justification (false IMO) for the status quo.  How successful temporary oversight or takeover would be may well depend on how much thought and competence is invested in the approach and the exercise of government authority.  

    Parent
    I Agree With You... (none / 0) (#151)
    by santarita on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 08:01:45 PM EST
    nationalization, temporary takeover, or whatever else you want to call the governmental exercise of effective control over the troubled financial institutions is not new and is more than likely to occur sooner or later.  But it will not be a walk in the park and temporary will be in the eye of the beholder.  For many years I worked in the Farm Credit System - created in its more complete form during the Depression to provide reliable financing for agriculture (because the banks weren't lending).  The government stock was fully retired about 30 years later.  

    Parent
    One more thing -- re equity (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:08:39 PM EST
    To me, equity is meaningless, especially since, as someone pointed out on MSNBC last night (I don't recall who), that the federal government has refused to use its 80% interest to demand any board seats; however, I don't like the idea of board seats, because it gives the government fiduciary duties to the corporation & its shareholders; in fact, there may be case law that imposes certain fiduciary duties on a majority shareholder, such such duty, it seems to be, is in conflict with the federal government's duty to taxpayers.  

    Temporary takeover, as I've seen it in operation, mneans the government, with its duty to maximize returns for taxpayers, gets a chance to look over what's there, not just rely on largely self-serving statements of management, and come up with a fact-based plan of attack.  

    If the government is resisting temporary takeover, it's not solely because the so-called Summers/ Geitner brain trust thinks temporary takeover is a less effective solution, but because they and Obama prefer to continue policy of relying on Wall St. to regulate itself; to me this is a losing proposition.  Without access to all documents, and proper review of contract terms, etc., we are the blind throwing darts and hoping to get close to the bull's eye.

    Parent

    False choice (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:05:35 PM EST
    First, I prefer not to have a bailout with a concomitent depression-- especially with a no strings attached bailout to those who have led us here in the first place. Interesting you do not mention that as a possibility. You seem to assume the money we are throwing to bankers is being used responsibly for the country. How do you know that? where's the credit being freed up? that was the rationale given for the first bailout.

    Second, I prefer a temporary takeover, with a negotiated restructuring.

    Third, A reregulation of the whole industry. I really wouldn't mind if the cowboys get kicked to the curb, with no bonuses, and replaced with dull, safe plodders that actually, ya know protect their constituents.

    Parent

    Hookfan is really Galbraith (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:09:56 PM EST
    Galbraith said that only dull safe types can run banks and investment institutions from here on out, and hopefully we aren't all too stupid to realize this :)  I think he also said something wanting to know how Timmey was going to fix problems that had his own fingerprints on them :)

    Parent
    No strings? (none / 0) (#90)
    by iluvela on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:24:30 PM EST
    We have equity in the institutions so that can't be called no strings. The other money is in the form of loans, which are strings. And if they don't pay we can then nationalize as a last resort.

    You people who call for nationalization first are shooting your wad without using the other available options first. That is just not good business sense.

    Parent

    You people who support this bailout (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    are just giving the wad to the bankers, while shooting at the rest of us. . .

    Parent
    I support the economy improving (none / 0) (#118)
    by iluvela on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    Saving the financial institutions is the way to do that. Every rational person agrees with that. Nationalization is just one way to do that at at higher expense and in a more more risky fashion. If you don't think nationalization is a bailout in itself then you don't understand what it is at all. If you want the government to buy up all the so called bad assets with your tax dollars as opposed to having private parties doing so then I have to question your judgment and any sincerity you might have as to minimizing taxpayers investment.

    How do you minimize taxpayer investment by having taxpayers buy the assets instead of having other people buy them with their own money? You don't. Your way costs the taxpayer an additional investment plain and simple. Nationalization will also not only cost the taxpayer what they are investing now but it will cost us additionally because we now own the bank and will have to pay for the government bureaucracy to run it on top of the salaries of those who run it's day to day operations.

    And if you don't like how that government bureaucracy is running things now what makes you think you will like how they run something they have no experience in doing?

    Parent

    Problem (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:16:56 PM EST
    Other people are not buying toxic non-assets with their own money. They are being offered the opportunity to buy them with the backing by tax payer (read mine and yours) money, which minimizes their risk and maximizes ours. Who is setting the prices to be paid for those toxic non-assets? why negotiate hard for a good or even fair price if the tax payer (namely you and me) holds the risk? This bailout is a fool's errand.
      Second, nationalization, even temporary, does entail risk. But it also grants effective control. Geithner's plan is not to exercise effective control and restructuring. But seems based on a committment to trust those who got us here, by giving them money to do with as they please. Perhaps even to do with just as they have done before.
       It's a giveaway without transparency or control while the taxpayer owns the risk.

    Parent
    Faulty Assumptions (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:24:04 PM EST
    You assume, incorrectly IMO, that temporary government takeover of financial institutions by definition means that the financial institutions are not save-- this is not the case. Many institutions over which FDIC is appointed as conservator end up being sold as whole business.
    Second assumptin seems to be that government temporary takeover means the government buys up all bad assets at taxpayer expense; this is also not consistent with history; when government takes over a financial institution, various scenarios follow, including sale of entire institution, sale to the private sector of performing (good) assets as well as non-performing (bad) assets, clean up of various problems, etc., and various combinations of these actions.  So, in the end, the government and the taxpayers get to benefit from the sale of the institution and/or its good and bad assets; as a pure equity holder of institutions left to their own management, government and taxpayers only realize on value if that management succeeds in turning the business around to the point where there is an increase in the market price of the stock that equals the monies handed over by the government.  I, for one, have no faith that we will ever see any real recoupment this way, and I believe the bonus payments represent, in effect, attempts of bank personnel to get as much money for themselves as they can before the banks are taken under or fail beforehand.  What is their incentive to maximize value for the taxpayers?

    There is a third assumption, I also believe to be faulty, which is that the government bureacracy has no experience running financial institutions.  This is incorrect.  And during the last recession (1991-ish), the federal government hired, either directly or as contractors, many talented professionals to help it manage and sell assets of failed financial institutions.  In addition, when an institution is in government conservatorship, a good portion of the pre-existing personnel remain in place, so their knowledge and talents remain available, but there is government oversight of operations and management of assets.  

    Parent

    Do you think that the S & Ls ... (none / 0) (#141)
    by santarita on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 05:01:11 PM EST
    are equal to the scope and size of large global bank holding companies?

    Parent
    For the most part, no (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 06:32:27 PM EST
    but this doesn't mean that the method won't work.
    As a corporate lawyer, I've worked on lots of deals for small companies and some deals for very large ones. Larger deals for larger companies are often easier to do, because larger companies usually have more sophisticated management systems in place. Smaller companies often pose a greater challenge, because there are fewer systems and often no general counsel, etc.  Size can require more manpower to review, etc., but, to me, the primary obstacle based on size is the media/Wall St meme that these institutions are "too big to fail...", i.e., too big for direct supervision.  It seems to me that in the absence of real government supervision, we will not preserve value for the taxpayers, restore faith in the markets, or get the credit markets going again.  On the other hand, if the government is forced, kicking and screaming, to take over the large failed institutions, and does not put enough and sufficiently qualified manpower behind the effort, temporary government takeover will fail as well.  But it seems to me we are now just throwing $ at the institutions and management that got us in trouble in the first places, and crossing our fingers that doling out money in this way will work.  


    Parent
    I'm not sure... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by santarita on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 06:44:14 PM EST
    that the "too big to fail" meme is just about management issues - it's more about the intertwining with so many other businesses.  Parties with substantial involvement with AIG include insurance companies, foreign and domestic, pension plans, large and small, state and local governments and foreign governments.  So it's really a combination of size and scope.  

    The USG probably needs to exert more control and supervision over AIG and the large banks.  

    Parent

    Precedent for (none / 0) (#150)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 07:22:46 PM EST
    working with PBGC, IRS, Dept of Labor, state insurance regulators etc. at RTC, and most probably at FDIC.  

    Parent
    I'm a girl (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:43:01 PM EST
    I don't shoot wads

    Parent
    Wad do you mean, a girl? (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by NYShooter on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:44:34 PM EST
    I always felt you were a Lady.

    Blush:)

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:54:25 PM EST
    you can't just go by "advisors". Look no further than the BushI/BushII foreign policy. Same advisors with a completely different policy. The difference that as I see it having someone with the experience and judgement to know when to listen those advisors and when not to. It seems neither Bush nor Obama have that capacity.

    Parent
    While I understand the sentiments (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:45:04 AM EST
    of this and many other posts about the bailouts, it appears the facts about the complexity of this issue are lacking.  The likes of Citi, BofA, JPM, etc., are not banks but holding companies involved in banking, securities, insurance, etc.  The U.S. government has no authority to take over a holding company because of the conduct of one of its operating companies.  Given that reality, if the banking operating company fails, the entire holding company fails (due to the enormity of the failure).  Additionally, our financial apparatus is very interconnected; performance of one institution directly affects many other institutions.  So any failure of one could make the term "ripple effect" an oxymoron; think "tidal wave".  
    The facts of the matter are that there are basically two options, each proposed by our respective political parties:
    1.  The Republican proposal would be to let the free market dictate results and let the chips fall where they may;
    2.  The Democratic proposal would be to do what is necessary to avoid financial and economic armegeddon.
    Now, which proposal do you support?

    Define (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:48:12 AM EST
    "necessary."

    Parent
    It appears the Obama team is doing just that. (none / 0) (#11)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:54:53 AM EST
    Obama changed the definition for AIG (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:57:30 AM EST
    compensation several times -- changed the allegedly sacrosanct contracts for bonuses and other compensation -- according to Treasury documents now released (thank you, FOIA).

    So that shifting definition is of no help.  "Necessary" was your word; what's your definition?

    Parent

    You may be misunderstnading the message. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    This is probably because the situation is fluid.  

    Parent
    Full of platitudes today (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:05:55 AM EST
    aren't you?

    Parent
    I get the message just fine, thanks. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:22:02 AM EST
    It's just that I don't like the message.  You do.

    Parent
    That's inaccurate! (none / 0) (#60)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:31:45 AM EST
    I didn't get any of the Bush stimulus checks.  I won't get any Obama stimulus tax reductions.  Bailouts for those "too big to fail"  don't put money in my pocket.  My 401K, real estate, non-retirement investments are down 6 figures.  I'm looking at the big picture and hoping we can fix this.  I'm willing to give Obama latitude.  
    (And for any who don't know my username, I'm a former Hillary supporter who fought up until Nov. 3rd, when I acquiesced.  Now he's got my support...and hope.)

    Parent
    Diverting the discussion again (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:35:20 AM EST
    does not surprise me.

    You like the message.  

    That has nothing to do with the checks (which we didn't get either, because at that time, my spouse's stock -- not mine; I have none -- was worth something.)

    Parent

    Oy! (none / 0) (#76)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:55:27 AM EST
    Stimulus for individuals is based on income, not investments.  
    Now, I'm really outta here!

    Parent
    Uh, and investment income (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:57:56 AM EST
    when there was some, even though dividends are turned back to pay down investment debt.  You do not even understand basics of taxation, it seems.

    Parent
    You say (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    The U.S. government has no authority to take over a holding company because of the conduct of one of its operating companies

    I'm calling BS on that. The U.S. can damn well seize the whole company.

    Moreover, what makes seizing Citi any different in principle from seizing WaMu? Should we even have an FDIC if it's not possible for it to do its job?

    Parent

    Chitown is correct. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Green26 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    The FDIC, which can take over or shut down banks, has authority over banks, but not bank holding companies.

    The Fed is the regulator for bank holding companies, i.e. the parent companies of banks. The Fed has authority to regulate and force holding companies to do certain things, but the Fed does not have authority to take over or shut down bank holding companies.

    Currently, various federal and state authorities regulate banks, bank holding companies, thrifts, etc--i.e. regulatory oversight and authority is divided among a number of authorities. One of the ideas being discussed in connection with future regulatory changes in this area, is to have one federal regulatory body to have oversight and authority over the all types of entities.

    Parent

    To clarify: (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Green26 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:01:52 PM EST
    Citigroup Inc. is the parent company of all of the Citi entities.

    Citibank NA is the bank. NA means it's a national (i.e. federally chartered) bank and stands for "national association".

    Citi and Travellers merged a number of years ago, to form this mega financial services company.

    Parent

    And the government (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:12:09 PM EST
    can nationalize Citibank NA right now.

    What part of that do you think is wrong?

    Parent

    From today's online NY Times: (none / 0) (#135)
    by Green26 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 03:11:20 PM EST
    "The government now has the power to take over only the banking unit that controls federally insured deposits of large troubled institutions, not the parent company, a limit that could pose problems if large financial conglomerates like Citigroup or Bank of America continued to spiral downward."

    Problems in big financial institutions are not confined only to their banks. Obviously, companies like AIG are not banks.

    Parent

    Whoa, horsey. (none / 0) (#26)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:20:15 AM EST
    Don't get your panties in a bunch:

    "Asked why large, troubled banks like Citibank can't be saved by the FDIC and must rely on taxpayer bailouts, Bair explained that the FDIC deals only with federal or state chartered depository institutions.

    She would not comment specifically on any bank but said "[these institutions] are really very large financial organizations....it's more than a bank. It's a broker dealer. It's offshore operation. It's foreign deposits," says Bair. Companies like Citigroup are large holding companies, with a variety of assets operating around the world.

    She says because of this, there is no equivalent resolutions procedure to what the FDIC currently does that could encompass such an broad-based financial company with so many entities."

    http://www.zimbio.com/Sheila+Bair/articles/113/60+Minutes+Bank+Failed+Happens+Next


    Parent

    So then go to Congress (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:23:15 AM EST
    Just saying "we can't do it" is ridiculous.

    Parent
    Many laws are ridiculous. (none / 0) (#30)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:29:03 AM EST
    not responsive. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    I'm sorry you feel that way. (none / 0) (#35)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:39:04 AM EST
    I've laid the facts out for you and others.

    Parent
    Acxtually you haven't (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:05:24 AM EST
    Citbank, N.A. CAN be taken over by the feds.

    Parent
    My regard for you is very high. (none / 0) (#50)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:13:53 AM EST
    Is it possible to disagree without being disagreeable?

    Parent
    Fact are not subject to argument (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:28:11 AM EST
    Citibank, N.A. Do you know what it is?

    Parent
    Agreed; who regulates is determined by (none / 0) (#127)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:34:24 PM EST
    I read a law firm review of financial institution regulation -- post the link last week.  According to this review, the federal government agency which has authority to appoint a receiver or conservator is the agency named in the charter (presumably within a range of choices dictated by applicable law).  It is possible, then -- but I don't know for a fact, that bank holding cos. are regulated by one agency, and the subsidiary insurance business, banking institution, insurance business, etc. are regulated by other agencies.  If parent put into receivership or conservatorship, applicable agency, I believe, is in charge, and it works in concert with agencies regulating any subsidiary.  I believe, when the RTC was in operation, there were arrangements worked out with other agencies that had authority over different aspects of the bank's business or the business of any bank subsidiaries.  There is no reason this can't be replicated now, agreed on perhpas a larger scale.  
    Did I read somewhere that the Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS"), as well as the Fed, may have regulatory authority over holding cos., and some have criticized the abilities of the OTS?

    Parent
    OTS Has jurisdiction over parts of ... (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by santarita on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 05:17:06 PM EST
    AIG.

    The Fed has jurisdiction over bank holding companies.

    The NY Fed put out a chart outlining the various authorities.  It's on-line.

    State regulators can ask the FDIC to serve as receiver or conservator of banks under their jurisdiction that are not also under the jurisdiction of any of the federal agencies.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#147)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 06:33:45 PM EST
    for this; will look at chart

    Parent
    You are wrong about 1 & 2 (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:08:17 AM EST
    The GOP did and would be doing exactly what Obama is doing now - which is part of the problem - both would pour money in and neither it seems has any real desire to address the systemic problems that brought us here.

    Parent
    I miss your point (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:16:33 AM EST
    Let's assume they can't take over the holding company.  Okay, why not just take over the operating company, if that's where the problem lies?

    Parent
    please see my reply to andgarden .... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:23:11 AM EST
    That doesn't answer my question (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:27:09 AM EST
    Huh? (none / 0) (#34)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:33:34 AM EST
    Black and white, Steve.  US (fdic) has no authority.  Read the quote or click the link.

    Parent
    I'll ask again (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:39:05 AM EST
    if the FDIC has no authority to take over a holding company, why not just take over the operating company, if that's where the problem lies?

    Parent
    The answer has to be that of course it can (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:43:07 AM EST
    otherwise the FDIC insurance that Citi supposedly has is not real.

    Parent
    Obviously (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:45:05 AM EST
    My name is Denny, not Sheila Bair. (none / 0) (#39)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:44:01 AM EST
    You are wrong on this (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:04:06 AM EST
    The banking operation can of course be taken over. Or do you think Citbank, N.A. is not part of the FDIC umbrella?

    Parent
    Let me be clear for you, Steve, and any others. (none / 0) (#40)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:49:17 AM EST
    There are laws.  Legislators create them.  If you lobby, you may be successful in having them changed.  
    Hopefully, I have enlightened you.  
    P.S:  message---messenger.  


    Parent
    Yeah (4.20 / 5) (#41)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:56:01 AM EST
    Here's the thing.  If you don't understand the first thing about the subject matter - if all you can do is provide a link and act like a dick if anyone asks a followup question - then maybe you should be looking to acquire a little more information yourself instead of acting like you're the only one who understands anything.

    Parent
    Dude, hungover or what? (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:01:45 AM EST
    I explained the situation.  Some, including you, questioned my explanation.  I provided supporting documentation.  And I'm (!!!!) the one with a misunderstanding of the subject matter?  
    Take some Advil.  

    Parent
    Your explanation is wrong (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:04:34 AM EST
    Populism or legislation: (none / 0) (#52)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:17:54 AM EST
    "She says because of this, there is no equivalent resolutions procedure to what the FDIC currently does that could encompass such an broad-based financial company with so many entities."

    Time to enjoy a beautiful day in downtown Chicago.   Sadly, I spent some of my day on this post.  

    Parent

    You explained (none / 0) (#51)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:15:24 AM EST
    that the feds supposedly have no authority to take over a holding company.

    I asked, if they have no authority to take over the holding company, why not just take over the operating company where the problem lies.

    You, apparently having no ability to even comprehend that question, keep referring back to the original point.

    Let me know if you ever feel like discussing this issue like a grown-up.

    Parent

    Shrill! (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by trillian on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:13:12 AM EST
    Obama and the Altar of Greed

    Key quote.....

     

    Probably no one on the planet could rescue the GOP right now, except for Barack Obama.  So why on earth is he doing so?
     

    Who could have guessed (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by jen on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:29:31 AM EST
    it would feel so awful to say told ya so? :(

    Parent
    simply put... (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by S on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:59:29 AM EST
    sadly and simply put...he is one of 'them'

    I read that article, I am still amazed that people do not question where all his 'campaign donations' came from...he escaped all scrutiny and we are all supposed to believe the most money ever collected just came from the little folks...

    ..if Obama really wanted to be a'progressive' and produce 'change we could believe in' he would have chosen someone like Krugman, or Krugman himself, for Treasury...

    ...no, instead we are to believe Obama was 'stunned' to hear AIG thieves were getting bonuses after his Treasury snuck into the congress and forced removal of all restrictions on the bonuses...sooner or later, heads have to come out of the sand...

    ...strained credibility and one broken promise after another...FISA, no earmarks, forget that scapel and line by line on waste and abuse, on and on...in less than two months being to take a toll...

    Parent

    and the great irony is they will still call him (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by kempis on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    a socialist.

    I wanted an administration to do the pragmatic thing, find the best solution, whatever the problem. However, this appears to be a Country Club solution. Geithner is thinking like an industry insider, and therefore he has created a solution to protect the interests of industry insiders--not the overall financial health of the nation. He apparently thinks they're one and the same. I'm not sold on that. If I were, I'd have voted Republican for the past thirty years.

    When our foremost economists think the administration is screwing up--with astronomical sums of money when we're already in deep debt--I get nervous.

    But what do I know. Perhaps Denny can write Krugman and enlighten him.

    Parent

    Check out Matt Taibbi (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:34:08 AM EST
    Search on Machivellian,

    If there is 11 dimensional chess going on, this is what it is.

    Parent

    Taibbi was (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    on Real Time with Bill Maher last night; program will be replayed this weekend and all next week.

    Parent
    The more I read (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:14:50 AM EST
    the more that I come to believe that attempting to save the existing structures this way isn't going to do much to improve the situation for the households of this country, and it isn't going to do much to save the structures.  They will just fall down now instead of being blasted wide open.  The structures are so defective and so full of toxic assets they cannot flourish no matter how much money we print, and since people know what has been happening nobody is going find any new found confidence to begin investing in the system until the whole system is "changed".  That is "change" we need.  Even after we get that "change" it is still going to take people some time to develop faith and confidence enough in the New New Deal to invest in it again.  But hey, what do I know?

    Agreed (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:37:08 AM EST
    It would be nice if somebody got out in front of this, but I don't think the Village is capable of it. I guess I've got to go in search of my "Bernie Sanders is God" T-shirt....

    Parent
    Paul Krugman -- (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by snstara on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:18:06 AM EST
    Please remind me again why no one in this administration is tapping his world class brain?

    Hearing about Geithner's 'plan' makes me sick - it most definitely is an outrage.  I wonder: is anyone in this administration interested in, or capable of, looking out for those of us not aligned with Wall Street?

    Because (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:39:54 AM EST
    Please remind me again why no one in this administration is tapping his world class brain?

    He didn't believe from the beginning......

    Parent

    You've got that right. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by snstara on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:31:54 PM EST
    I just read a Krugman diary over at the big orange. Apparently, some of the commenters believe his support of the other candidate totally negates his ability to make substantive comments on the Obama Administration's plan.  So in essence, since he wasn't an early convert to Obama in the election, his economic expertise doesn't count.  

    And, at least one troll there is actually equating Krugman's criticism with Limbaugh's expressed wish that Obama fail.  Now it's true that any nut can post this trash on a diary thread.  But I think you'd have more than 2-3 posters calling b.s. on that nonsense over here.

    Parent

    Krugman is not so smart (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by iluvela on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:21:38 AM EST
    on this issue. If you want to read smarts and understanding on the issue then read the many George Soro's books available, his lates addressing the credit crunch. Read a man who lives in this world and does not just try to theorize about it in a 750 word column every week.

    Actually Krugman is pretty funny this week. He is saying that Obama wants investors to believe that the assets are worth something but yet Krugman does not explain why they are not, and never has.

    He says the government backing up those assets so investors will buy them is a good deal for the investors and a bad deal for taxpayers in case the assets do go bad. But yet the same Krugman was advocating less than a month ago that the government should buy those assets directly. That was a good deal for tax payers? How?

    What Obama is trying to do is put a layer of fiscal responsibility between the assets and the taxpayers pockets. If the assets turn out good, which may be the case for anyone who understands exactly how they are structured, then the taxpayer  never had to have their dollars used to purchase them. Which means that those tax dollars can be used elsewhere in places such as health care.

    On the down side if the assets go completely sour then we end up guaranteeing/buying the assets which is exactly what Krugman suggested we do in the first place. So when Krugman says we should buy them outright it is a good idea, but when Obama says let's defer the purchase and hope we never have to buy them it is a bad idea? Krugman makes no sense on the issue. He really does not have a good understanding of the very complex issue and seems to mostly write a disjointed populist 750 word space filling column that aims to solve nothing.

    And yes I know he has a Nobel. But his Nobel has nothing to do with understanding the issue at hand. His Nobel is one in theory of a completley different subject and gives him no standing on the current situation.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:26:34 AM EST
    Talk about uninformed. What a comment. Do you know who Krugman is and what he has study academically for a long time?

    Parent
    DId you hear that Krugman's son... (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:36:02 AM EST
    ... worked for She Who Cannot Be Named?

    I rest my case!

    [irony alert!]

    Parent

    What? Krugman has no children! LOL (none / 0) (#144)
    by aeguy on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 05:47:05 PM EST
    Krugman also has no (none / 0) (#152)
    by Green26 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:02:26 PM EST
    business experience.

    From recollection, I believe he has been in academics his whole life, except for a year or so in the Reagan White House or administration. He also served on an Enron advisory board.

    I'm sure he's very educated and smart. However, my view is that he lets his politics overwhelm his views on the financial crisis, banks and business.

    I know he let his politics overshadow his statements on Iraq, based on having read some of what he wrote on Iraq and having some direct contact with him.

    Parent

    Didn't read your last line... Sry! (none / 0) (#145)
    by aeguy on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 05:48:03 PM EST
    Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by iluvela on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    advocated the purchase of the assets. He said so in his column. That's fact. Now he is saying guaranteeing them is bad when the worse case scenario is we would have to buy them as he suggested in the first place. That is a most ridiculous argument on his part. As a business person if you can lay off a liability on someone else with the worse case being you end up with the liability at a latter date then that is a bet that costs you nothing. In fact it saves you the initial taxpayer outlay that Krugman would want. if he wants to handle his personal finances in that manner fine. I rather not have him handle the taxpayers finances in that manner though.

    If you think spending the money for the assets upfront only to turn around and try to sell them with government guarantees to investors at a later date as Krugman suggested is better that selling them to them with government guarantees in the first place is a better idea then you can explain why if you wish. Deferring the purchase of them with a chance of never having to purchase them at all with taxpayer money is a wise move.

    Parent

    Of course he did (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:10:33 PM EST
    And so do I. Perhaps the concept of temporary takeover is not comprehensible to you.

    Perhaps the concept of negotiating with counterparties is beyond your abilities.

    And you call Krugman uninformed.

    Parent

    Nationalization (none / 0) (#103)
    by iluvela on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:53:45 PM EST
    is comprehensible as a last resort. Is exploring and using all your available options prior to point of no return nationalization comprehensible to you?

    "Perhaps the concept of negotiating with counterparties is beyond your abilities."

    I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "negotiating", as that is a broad and undefined term by you. If you maybe mean breaking up the banks into separate parts to make them more viable then you should know that the banks are in the process of doing exactly that. Obama has stated that his people want restructuring and that restructuring is already taking place. If "negotiating" means something else to you then you are free to explain it.

    Parent

    A last resort? (4.33 / 3) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:56:52 PM EST
    You see, to you giving the Masters of the Universe a haircut is only a "last resort." Therein lie the problem.  

    Parent
    The only question is the bondholders haircut (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by steviez314 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:15:00 PM EST
    Basically, the banks' equity and preferred holders stakes' market values are small enough to be rounding errors at this point.

    So lets talk about giving the bond holders a haircut.

    As I mentioned before, the Swedish Model did not haircut the bondholders.  So, if we decide to do the same, then this Geithner plan is basically equivalent, financially, to the takeover model.  Of course, a takeover has more control aspects to like and we'd feel better to fire some executives, but that's not a financial issue.

    I still think shaving the bondholders presents issues we haven't discussed, like foreign gov't ownership of some of the debt.

    And of course, we could easily end up impairing US insurance companies ability to pay claims or annuities if we haircut their debt holdings.  Will the US gov't have to bail out insurance companies next?(this might be down the road no matter what---their GICs are in trouble with the market down so much)

    I don't know the answer to this, but the contrarian in me suspects, the massive Fed QE and yield curve will help every bank out of this on their own (maybe not Citi, but I still think so) and nothing so dratic will need to be done.

    Krugman's latest blog post mentions "bank panic".  The funny thing is, there is no sign of one--no run on any big bank by depositors, domestic or foreign, no debt holder panic.  The only panic we've seen is in bank common shares, and that could easily be due to uncertainty over gov't plans, short-selling and...the usual stock market panic.

    I'm not being a polyanna, but over 30 years, I've seen optimists stay optimistic too long, and pessimists stay pessimistic too long.  Human emotion is a trend follower.

    Parent

    That is your view of the problem (none / 0) (#113)
    by iluvela on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:27:01 PM EST
    My view is to get the financial system and the economy back up to speed ASAP. Nationalization is the slowest way of doing that. The last bank, a single bank at that, and an isolated case as opposed to a worldwide crisis, took 10 years to unwind from nationalization. Now take possibly several banks combined with the domino effect on the economy and the stock market, jobs and lending, and the complexity and severity of the worldwide crisis 10 years may be a relatively short period of time. If so that would not be a good thing for the economy, jobs, lending, or the stock market. But yet your main worry is haircuts? If I were you I'd worry less  about a handful of bankers and worry more about what serves the masses in the shortest amount of time.

    BTW you never did define "negotiating". Negotiate what with who? There are a lot of stakeholders. What would you negotiate with each of them when you nationalize? And why?

    Parent

    There's no use in getting the financial (none / 0) (#138)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 04:37:19 PM EST
    system back up to speed when the financial system has already failed us.  Any money we allow investors to take as profits in the next few years could be lost money.  If the economy collapses, those profits leave the country and end up invested elsewhere.  

    Any solution that makes regular Americans take the risk without guaranteed payback if and when the economy recovers would simply reinforce the plutocratic system that created this mess.  A new, complex system that hides more information from the public will not save our economy.  

    We need to get back to basics - bailout main street, buy each and every mortgage across the country, provide low interest and/or longer terms, pay the original banks a monthly to handle the same payments they handle now, pay the same attorneys who would handle the bank foreclosures to handle those loans that were so over-mortgaged that there's no saving them, and if the properties can't be sold, then keep them and rent them out through HUD or VA, already existing government services.  Finally, let the taxpayers recoup the rewards of a recovered economy even if it's years down the road.  The sale of bad mortgages will assist in mitigating the problems with toxic assets.

    The rest of the toxicity will have to just fall out where it will.  Credit card debt, bad investments, tough luck.  

    The bottom line is we need to demand socialized gain if we're stuck with socialized risk.

    Parent

    Dream On (none / 0) (#140)
    by iluvela on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 04:59:12 PM EST
    Last I looked Obama is nowhere near a socialist. Neither are those he has appointed. Neither is the main of the Democratic Party for that matter. In fact they are not even close to being Progressive. But yet Obama is who many Progressives backed and voted for. Gave him millions of their hard earned dollars. I'd say they got a poor return for their investment.

    Parent
    We really don't know how progressive Obama is. (none / 0) (#153)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:42:20 AM EST
    Certainly he has to toe the establishment line in many cases.  Progressives need to step up the plate and come up with workable alternatives to the Geithner plans.  It's our job to "make him do it" (in the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt).

    At the very least, we could use our alternative online groups to demand that all funds used to bail out financial institutions have to be paid back to the public in direct proportion to the gains the banksters receive from our help.  That one simple change to each of the plans ensures the public doesn't get ripped off while the super rich use our money and leave when economy collapses.  Obama says we're all in this together.  Okay, let's make sure if the banksters profit, we profit equally.  

    As it is now, we're basically funding a "trickle down" version of recovery.  What's to prevent the Masters of the Universe from taking the last remnants of our consolidate wealth and spending to beef up some other country's economy, one that doesn't have all the hassles of individual rights?


    Parent

    price (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by souvarine on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:29:43 PM EST
    The point you appear to be missing in each of your comments is the pricing of those assets. Krugman and most economists are arguing that the government should not pay much above market value for these assets. Geithner has structured each of his plans to pay the bank's book value for these assets.

    Geithner's argument is that the banks won't play unless they get book value. Which is true, if these assets are priced at market value some large banks are insolvent and the government will be forced to take them over. The critics are pointing out that paying book value has huge moral hazard, is more expensive to the taxpayer than admitting that some banks are insolvent and cleaning up the mess, and will just result in zombie banks since there is no chance the government will spend the trillions that would be required to clean all of the bad assets off of these banks books at book value.

    Geithner's hope is that these assets, for the moment mortgage backed securities, are significantly underpriced by the market. The problem with that argument is that house prices are still significantly above historical norms, so it is more likely that even the market value of these assets is optimistic.


    Parent

    I'm not missing anything (none / 0) (#125)
    by iluvela on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:23:58 PM EST
    in my argument as my argument addresses facets of the issue not the entire issue which would take several books to explain.

    Instead of responding to what I wrote you instead introduce something that does not directly address what I wrote as if it makes what I wrote incorrect. It doesn't.

    As for your market value - I'd like to see you describe just what the market value of those assets are. It would be impossible for you to do that but you throw the term around as if it means something.

    One of the arguments to pay book value is that if you don't then you severely reduce the net worth of the banks. Now many will say 'so what?'. Well if the banks are not worth what they are currently carrying on their financial statements it means that their credit worthiness and thus their ability to borrow so they can lend is hampered. And as a result so is economic recovery.

    So we have a two edged sword. If the banks get book value the populist cry is that they are getting too much. If they don't get book value then the population suffers because the recovery will take longer due to the banks inability to borrow sooner, thereby lend sooner - both critical to the recovery of the economy.

    So if you are willing to prolong the recovery so that banks don't profit from getting book value then that is the price you will pay for you not wanting the banks to profit. So again in not wanting them to profit you in turn impede yours and others ability to profit and prosper. And by allowing them to get book value and profit you are likely going to profit and prosper and a faster rate.

    So the question is how much are you willing to pay so they don't profit?

    And in addition the longer they don't profit the longer your tax dollars will go to prop them up until they do.

    This is not a simple problem with simple solutions as some try to make it out to be.

    As for your argument about the assets themselves Obama is trying to get private investors to buy them. and some already have bought some. If he is successful in having them buy enough of them your argument of the government having to buy them outright is no longer an argument at all.

    Parent

    30 cents (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by souvarine on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:57:47 PM EST
    You wrote:
    Krugman advocated the purchase of the assets. He said so in his column. That's fact. Now he is saying guaranteeing them is bad when the worse case scenario is we would have to buy them as he suggested in the first place.

    I was explaining how Krugman could advocate for purchasing these assets (not guaranteeing at an inflated price), but still differ with the Geithner plan to purchase assets. I took your comment above to indicate that Krugman was inconsistent and explained how he is consistent.

    According to the NY Times, via Galbraith, the market price for these assets is about 30 cents on the dollar:

    pools of RMBS can be sold for about 30 cents on the dollar now. But banks are unwilling to sell for less than 60 cents -- either because they really think the loans will experience only a 40 percent loss rate, or because they fear that  acknowledging market value will put them into insolvency.

    Yes, insolvent banks cannot lend money. That is why the banks are not lending money and why they must be taken over by the government. Then the government can clean up the mess, by paying off at a discount or reneging on the bank's obligations, and put the depositors money back to productive economic use.

    The Geithner alternative is to attempt to leverage limited government funds with private capital and use that to keep insolvent banks alive. Historically that approach has been more expensive than nationalization and fails to get loans flowing. That is why people argue that Geithner's plan will prolong the recession, where biting the bullet now with nationalization is the quickest way to return bank deposits to productive lending.


    Parent

    Actually Krugman (none / 0) (#136)
    by iluvela on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 04:15:44 PM EST
    advocates to nationalize; takeover the bad assets; pay off some of the banks debts; and then sell the bank to private investors - who are likely to be the same people you took it over from. Sweet deal for the bankers.

    As for "insolvent" banks. Who says they are insolvent? They are hurting but will make money the first quarter of this year. So those of you who like to toss around words to see if they will stick are just doing that. Most of you have never looked at their financial and/or even know how to read them.

    Some bank stocks like Citi have actually gong up 300% in the last few weeks. Apparently experienced investors do not think they are insolvent.

    Geithner? More like Obama really. You guys just keep on screaming when you have not even presented a plan on how nationalization would even work other than Krugmans 'as easy as 1-2-3 scenario' which leaves out a million details that make all the difference between success and failure.

    As for the worthless assets. When the government is guaranteeing them they are no longer worthless are they? They become as secure a T-Bills. And as such they are no longer only worth pennies on a dollar. They are worth much more. Face? Probably not. But that is up to the government as to what they want to risk? If they say they are worth 80% and guaranteeing them for that then that is what they will sell for minus the normal investors discount. And if yu had nationalization that is what the government would do with the assets anyway. So why nationalize when the same exact thing will happen to the assets? That is where you guys lose the argument. When the assets are treated the same with Obama's plan and your nationalization (which Obama will not do anyway) then you have no argument for nationalization at all. What is the upside of nationalization if the  assets are guaranteed and sold by the gov't to private investors in either case? There is none which is why none is ever presented. It's all just  yelling out nationalization ! nationalization! with no explanation of the detailed plan.

    Sorry but until I see someone present a detailed nationalization plan and then see government representatives actually consider it I will look at such talk as just a bunch of people on blogs following a 750 word Krugman essay written on deadline as a bunch of foolishness. Krugman , like a mosquito on water, adds new twists and turns every week often contradicting himself weekly. For me topical 750 word essays have no real credibility and no plan - other than to sanitize the bank's books and then sell it back to the people who now own it free and clear of encumbrances. Sweet deal.

    Parent

    Because he can't seem to divorce (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:14:46 PM EST
    his job title from what comes out of his mouth for anybody, not even for the Obama.

    Parent
    We need solutions that justify (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:32:53 AM EST
    our expenses.  The general public is angry about continued giveaways to the rich while the middle class is struggling, but most people haven't grasped the long term cost of these programs that still might fail to produce the hoped for results.  Needless to say, complete economic collapse would result in a police/military takeover of our country, or at the very least, a police state resulting in loss of basic protections many of us take for granted.  There is much more at risk than just a depression; no less than our basic ideals and way of life could be taken from our fledgling democracy.  

    People are not yet as alarmed as they should be, partly because  you can't fix a problem until something is really broken. We're still limping along committing our resources to programs that allow others to bleed us dry.  Our government should guarantee that any investment we make results in payoff back to the American taxpayers, not investors unwilling to take on the risk themselves.  Who needs their money?  We can print our own if we're sure it will pay off in the long run.

    Looks like we're still going full speed ahead toward a huge iceberg because we need ice for the straight up drinks in first class.

    I hope our Congress will follow thru... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by S on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:23:05 AM EST

    firedoglake.com/2009/03/21/james-k-galbraith-reponds-to-geithners-toxic-asset-plan/

    ...this is so complicated for most of us, but...

    ...this advice sounds like a no brainer to me...

    I always liked (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:32:59 AM EST
    the "public-private" plan, to be perfectly honest, but I never imagined it would involve absolving the private participants of ALL risk.

    If the only way private entities will participate in making a market for these securities is on a completely risk-free basis, then the solution is hopeless and needs to be abandoned.  Making a market that doesn't want to be made is just throwing money down the drain.

    If you're on the other end of the drain... (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by lambert on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    .. then having somebody else throw money down it is fine, just fine.

    Let's dispense with the notion that there's any notion of the public interest involved here at all, shall we?

    Whenever you hear "it doesn't work," always ask "work for who"?

    Parent

    So then how (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by iluvela on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:58:13 AM EST
    do you take those assets of the books of the banks which is requited to get lending and the economy going again?

    You either get private investors to buy them and guarantee the assets so they will be buy them. Or the government has to buy the assets with your tax dollars. Or you let things continue to deteriorate.

    Parent

    The point is (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    you need a legitimate pricing mechanism.  Adopting something that looks like a market-based solution, but actually isn't because the people setting the price aren't taking any risk, will just lead to absurd overpayments.

    Parent
    That statement is not accurate. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Green26 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:48:38 PM EST
    Under proposal, private investors will have some of the risk. The significant backing of the government is designed to encourage private investment groups/funds to be formed and to have much larger amounts of money.

    Obviously, private companies and investors aren't willing to do this now on their own, or they would already be out there doing it.

    If these private-run funds were just going to overpay for the assets, why would they even bother to form the funds and put up some of their money? Do you think they would want to waste their time (setting up the funds, evaluating and negotiating for the assets, and then trying to straighten out and collect on the assets) and lose their own money? They'll be in it to make money.

    Parent

    Thatr statement was perfectly accurate (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:55:37 PM EST
    What you are arguing is that the Geithner plan will produce a fair market based price.

    to me that seems ridiculous in that the "bidders" will have no downside risk. that is a rigged market.

    and when assets are overvalued at this price, when they do not come up to scratch, the government holds the bag.

    It is an incredibly stupid idea.  

    Parent

    The bidders absolutely have (none / 0) (#107)
    by Green26 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:08:21 PM EST
    downside risk. The bidders will put up their own money.

    You are misrepresenting the facts, or don't understand them.

    Parent

    The way I understand it is (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by trillian on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:26:10 PM EST
    They will not be paying what the asset is truly worth.....which in most cases, is zero.

    You and I will make up the difference. The bidder will eventually sell, make a profit..... which will have been financed by us, who end up with nothing but a huge deficit.

    I believe it's called socializing risk and privatizing gain

     

    Parent

    Just keep in mind, under a takeover like (none / 0) (#110)
    by steviez314 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:18:08 PM EST
    the Swedish plan, where debt holders are covered 100%, the gov't holds the bag too, except for the common and preferred equity we wipe out (pretty small numbers at this point)

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    According to the NYT, the government is putting up something like 95% of the capital, in the form of non-recourse loans.  That doesn't leave the private participants exposed to much risk.

    The overall problem with the current environment is that no one seems to be incentivized to take any risk whatsoever to address the situation, because it's clear that if they just bide their time the government will step in and take the risk for everyone.  The private sector apparently needs to perceive the possibility that inaction will lead to a serious downside before they'll be incentivized to stick their neck out.

    Parent

    No, that's not what the NY Times article says. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Green26 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:48:12 PM EST
    The proposal has 3 prongs, only 2 of which involve private investment.

    1. "the Treasury will hire four or five investment management firms, matching the private money that each of the firms puts up on a dollar-for-dollar basis with government money."

    This looks like the risk and reward would be shared 50-50 between private investors and the Treasury.

    2. "the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will set up special-purpose investment partnerships and lend about 85 percent of the money"

    "The remaining 15 percent will come from the government and the private investors. The Treasury would put up as much as 80 percent of that, while private investors would put up as little as 20 percent of the money, according to industry officials. Private investors, then, would be contributing as little as 3 percent of the equity, and the government as much as 97 percent."

    Note that this doesn't mean that the private investors would put up only 20% of the equity (or 3% of the total money). That's just the minimum they would have to invest. It looks to me like the private investors could put up all of the 15% equity. This would presumably be an agreement between the private investors and the FDIC.

    If the FDIC puts up some of the equity, then the FDIC would have "upside".

    The loan would be non-recourse to the partnership and would carry a low interest rate. Non-recourse means that the lender would have recourse only to the assets purchased and not to the partnership--in terms of repayment of the loan.

    Normally/often in partnerships like this, the equity partners would not receive any distributions until the loan is repaid. Sometimes the managing partners would receive a management fee. No management fee was mentioned in the NY Times article.

    All quotes from the NY Times article.

    Parent

    Agreed. Those are the basic choices. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Green26 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:12:51 PM EST
    The original Paulson plan was to have the government buy the assets. However, that plan didn't get going, in large part because there wasn't a market price for the assets and no good way to set the price. There was also an issue involving the government paying too much for the assets and the banks not being willing to sell at a low price.

    This current proposal is thought to be an improvement, because it is thought that the private companies (backed by the government) will negotiate hard and not pay too much for the assets, and the banks will negotiate hard to get a better price and one they are willing to accept.

    One of the issues lingering at this time is that there is concern that private investors, or some, may not want to do business with the government on this, because they are concerned (a) that certain stimulus bill limitations might catch them and (a) about the unpredictability of the Congress.

    In the past several months, there has apparently been alot of money getting ready to engage in the opportunity to buy troubled assets--depending on the program and specific opportunity.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:43:40 AM EST
    I'm Becoming Rorschach! (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    This drive to protect the Master of the Universe makes me think about Rorschach's line from WATCHMEN (both book and movie):

    ... and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "save us!" ... and I'll look down and whisper "no."

    And, yes, I am a bit concerned that the current political climate has caused me to embrace even a fragment of Rorschach's philiosphy.

    But ...

    Make no mistake about it, (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by SOS on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:25:23 PM EST
    the Fed and feds will continue to fling fiat, create debt, absorb assets--and even entire sectors of the economy--in order to keep the Ponzi scheme from continuing to collapse.

    This is the ultimate "last ditch" effort. And the reason for this desperate act is that the Fed must step in and fund the U.S. government because our foreign debt-enablers cannot or will not continue to fund our profligacy.

    The angry mob (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    should be calling for an audit of Obama's campaign contributions....

    Betcha some "masters of the universe" would be included heavily in that audit.

    Oh, you can see for yourself (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:50:22 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    after watching Bernacke on 60 minutes the other night I was starting to think that things might change for the better. But I was wrong about that. We are going to have another 4 years of Bush economics and it seems that there's nothing that we can do about that.

    the trouble is the wreckage (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 03:10:13 PM EST
    what will be left 4 years hence: mountains of debt as far as the eye can see.

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 04:24:03 PM EST
    it's scary isn't it?

    There's much better ways to handle the problems that we have but they aren't gonna happen apparently.

    Parent

    Obama's in trouble (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:07:55 AM EST
    Deficit will sore

    He can't do 1/4 of the things he wants.  He was delt a bad hand.  His legacy should be how he turned the ship around economically and leveled with the American people that 20 years of debt creation was foolish.  He should lead by example and cut federal spending to reduce the deficit.  Instead he's doing the opposiste.  Running up more debt that will take years to pay back.

    That will be his legacy.

    Telling peoplethey were fools (none / 0) (#133)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 03:08:40 PM EST
    would not make for much of a legacy.

    Parent