home

US = Japan 1990s

Paul Krugman point us to Adam Posen's analysis that Obama/Geithner are following the path of Japan in their Lost Decade. The essence is this:

What the Obama team is proposing is disconcertingly similar to the actions of Japanese Prime Ministers Hashimoti, Obuchi, and Mori in 1995 and 1998: Rather than ask the legislature for straightforward recapitalization money, you have the political leadership preferring to risk overpaying current owners of toxic assets rather than forcing sales. For all of Japan’s supposed intervention in markets, its government still lacked the stomach for taking over banks, let alone closing them.

Nothing we have not heard before. But I think Krugman's postscript is the really interesting part:

To be fair: the Obama team really does face huge political obstacles in doing the right thing. Maybe it really can’t be done; as Rahm Emanuel said about me, “[unprintable].”

The problem with accepting this at face value is that Obama/Geithner have not even tried to politically sell a truly effective plan. Maybe they can't do it. But you never know unless you try.

And let's be honest, the Obama Administration has shown no desire or even interest in exploring a different solution. This is the plan that Obama, Geithner and Summers want. They are not hoping or trying for something better.

Look, if you think the Geithner Plan is the best alternative we have, then you should be happy with what they are doing. Some of us think it is a recipe for disaster. That's why we rail against it and hope it gets derailed. It's that simple.

Speaking for me only

< Housing Prices Still Plummeting | Linda Ronstadt Goes to Congress >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    In that New Yorker article (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:00:56 PM EST
    Rahm blames the inability to get a better plan on the absence of Franken.

    Cop. Out. City.

    "We don't have the votes" is an inoperative excuse today.

    Heh ... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    that's too funny.

    Maybe Rahm is trying to get Franken to convince SNL to get him a job on the writing staff.

    Parent

    When the future of the free world rests on (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:05:04 PM EST
    the shoulders of a guy who was on Saturday Night Live for a season or two about 20 years ago, I guess you know we've got problems.

    What the hell happened to Rahm the fighter?

    Parent

    Not to mention ... (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:06:56 PM EST
    Rahm the congressional arm twister.

    Parent
    I was relieved when Rahm got the job (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    instead of Daschle (who I had assumed would be COS) but he's not doing much to impress.

    Parent
    personally (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    I was always fond of "stab them in their sleep Rahm"

    Parent
    I can't help it, I am too (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 08:45:01 PM EST
    Of course a little swearing never turned me off in the midst of informed conversation.  Swearing makes my husband shudder, and our son seems to genetically abhor it as well.  I don't know what they would do without me.  It would turn into a Mr. Rogers with mini me neighborhood around here :)

    Parent
    So put Biden on it (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 03:07:37 PM EST
    as we were informed that the reason for choosing him as veep was that he could help with Congress.

    Parent
    STOP! (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 03:17:52 PM EST
    You're killing me with logic.  Live up to something that was said on the campaign trail?

    The stupid.  It burns.

    Parent

    So, logically . . . (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 04:20:11 PM EST
    if the Dems get another seat in the Senate, then the economy will be fixed, and all will be well.

    See, Rahm has got to learn to be more careful with this blather of the moment that can come back with a bite.


    Parent

    Cream, can you tell me what it was (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 05:23:51 PM EST
    I said below that got me a "1" from you?  I've come to expect them from Thanin, but getting one from you hurts a little... :-(

    Parent
    Hmmm, she gave me a 2 for what pointing out (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:40:00 PM EST
    what I thought was an interesting (funny) typo in an article. Dunno what's up . . . . def not sop

    Parent
    See below also, sorry (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:53:09 PM EST
    as you and Anne are among my fave commenters.

    Computer is acting oddly in other ways.  

    Must.  Keep.  Visiting.  Kids.  Off.  Keyboard. . . .

    Parent

    Last night (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by joanneleon on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 08:14:29 PM EST
    you hit one of my comments with a "2" also.  I had left you a comment asking for some feedback, but never heard back from you.

    I've noticed that if you use the up and down arrow keys to scroll, and the "focus" is still on the ratings radio buttons of the comment you last rated, what happens is that your cursor scrolls through the ratings buttons (5, 4, 3...) instead of scrolling up or down the page.  You have to make sure you click outside the set of radio buttons before you can scroll.

    This might also happen with a mouse wheel as well.  

    I've nearly downrated a comment that I had just rated "5" several times but caught it because I noticed that the page didn't scroll.

    Anyway, that could be what is happening with you, I'm not sure.

    Parent

    Odd -- I gave 5's (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:52:19 PM EST
    but that's not what came through.  Will fix.

    Parent
    It's the same argument (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:08:03 PM EST
    Kerry gave prior to the November election regarding why we couldn't have healthcare.  This was before he had any idea about the makeup of the new Democratic Congress.

    They never "have the votes" for something they don't want.

    Parent

    You know, it is sort of political (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:35:31 PM EST
    suicide too if the plan doesn't work.  If this was positioned as "plan B" because Congress wouldn't agree to "plan A" at least the Obama Administration would have some political cover and even political leverage to go for "plan A" down the road.  As it stands now, this plan is being sold as the one they want and think is best without even the slightest public debate with Congress over other possible options.

    Parent
    Ding! (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    I have written that 20 times.

    It is of some value to be able to say "I wanted to do this but Congress would not approve it."

    FDR used that in 36. Truman used it in 48. It has value.

    Parent

    IIRC - That's how Clinton escaped (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:45:36 PM EST
    the blame for the government shutdown too.  That and Gingrich's fantastic belief that people would be happy that their Social Security checks wouldn't be sent out.

    Really, Obama has a similar bunch of nuts who could act as the perfect foil for anything he wanted to do if he played them right.

    Parent

    Yeah (4.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:52:21 PM EST
    but Obama's not politically astute enough to do that.

    Parent
    So the difference was that Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by hairspray on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:08:19 PM EST
    was the real power behind Rahm!  They always said Bill was a shrewd politician.  Must have been all that arm wrestling for 12 years with the good ole' boys of Arkansas.  Experience does count for something.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:46:35 PM EST
    those of us who live in the south know what they have to stand up to. It's even worse than the national GOP, the GOP down here is pure southern fried fundamentalists who hate everybody and think eveybody is a traitor and hates America etc.etc. Anybody who knows how to beat these jokes is one tough fighter.

    Parent
    Oh Honey, it has been a shocker for me (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 07:10:07 PM EST
    If Bill Clinton could get elected down here and supported the way he did he really should consider running for "God" next.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    That's (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:49:50 PM EST
    the lamest excuse I've ever seen. Like BTD says they haven't EVEN TRIED to do anything else.

    Parent
    Ok that made me laugh. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Faust on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:05:45 PM EST
    we do not have to accept this... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by iceblinkjm on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:02:16 PM EST
    we elected these people and they are answerable to us weather or not they like what we have to say.

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

    Worse (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:04:36 PM EST
    the Geithner plan has been criticized constantly by virtually everyone - and Obama/Geithner still haven't really engaged these criticisms.  It's practically the perfect opportunity to be pulled into a more radical, nationalization-oriented plan (FDR's "Now make me do it.")

    But as far as I can tell, there is no dialogue between Obama and his critics on this.  The farthest he's gone is saying he'll stand behind Geithner and Geithner is a great guy.  

    Yippee.

    The "make me do it" stuff is just a (none / 0) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    line that Obama's supporters have very sadly bought into. Whenever Obama fails to do the right thing they will simply castigate themselves for not being better advocates.

    Parent
    Well, maybe (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:13:36 PM EST
    My point is that if you believe "make me do it" is the model for governing successfully (and I think it can be and is more than "a line"), in this case, how much more of a left flank could you possibly ask for?  This plan is crapped on by 10 new "serious" people everyday.  Obama and co. are simply not listening.

    Parent
    I just love you (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 05:46:58 PM EST
    This plan is crapped on by 10 new "serious" people everyday.

    Parent
    It's true! (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 10:09:01 AM EST
    And if someone actually believed this plan would really work, you would think the Obama people would have them stand up and say "No really!  This is awesome!!!"  Exactly who is saying that?  Crickets...

    Aside from the merits or lack thereof of the plan, the fact that Obama doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks of it is driving me crazy.

    Parent

    I put it in the same category with (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:32:14 PM EST
    the administration's new penchant for the term "legacy" - as in "legacy assets" and "legacy costs" - which I see as a way of saying "hey - don't blame me; I just inherited this mess!"

    Parent
    Such a sad, squandered opportunity (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:39:11 PM EST
    to seize the moment and reverse the assault on the middle class. I guess we're not even going to get a whiff of FDRism.

    An insolvent bank though (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 05:42:39 PM EST
    is an insolvent bank, and everything needed for the FED to step in already exists.  When it comes to doing the right thing in that instance there is no political obstacle.  They simply don't want to do it.

    The Simon Johnson article (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by joanneleon on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:59:45 PM EST
    makes it all seem so clear.  Has Obama even been offered this perspective and has he considered it?


    The government, in its race to stop the bleeding, will typically need to wipe out some of the national champions--now hemorrhaging cash--and usually restructure a banking system that's gone badly out of balance. It will, in other words, need to squeeze at least some of its oligarchs.

    Squeezing the oligarchs, though, is seldom the strategy of choice among emerging-market governments. Quite the contrary: at the outset of the crisis, the oligarchs are usually among the first to get extra help from the government, [...] Meanwhile, needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk--at least until the riots grow too large.

    Eventually, as the oligarchs in Putin's Russia now realize, some within the elite have to lose out before recovery can begin.

    [...]

    In its depth and suddenness, the U.S. economic and financial crisis is shockingly reminiscent of moments we have recently seen in emerging markets (and only in emerging markets)[...]

    But there's a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests--financiers, in the case of the U.S.--played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.

    [...]

    The great wealth that the financial sector created and concentrated gave bankers enormous political weight--a weight not seen in the U.S. since the era of J.P. Morgan (the man).[...] But that first age of banking oligarchs came to an end with the passage of significant banking regulation in response to the Great Depression; the reemergence of an American financial oligarchy is quite recent.

    [...]

    the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of cultural capital--a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street was good for the country. [...] Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America's position in the world.

    [...]

    To break this cycle, the government must force the banks to acknowledge the scale of their problems. As the IMF understands (and as the U.S. government itself has insisted to multiple emerging-market countries in the past), the most direct way to do this is nationalization. Instead, Treasury is trying to negotiate bailouts bank by bank, and behaving as if the banks hold all the cards--contorting the terms of each deal to minimize government ownership while forswearing government influence over bank strategy or operations. Under these conditions, cleaning up bank balance sheets is impossible.

    "The Quiet Coup"



    It's excellent (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:28:49 PM EST
    We are a passengers on a ship (4.50 / 8) (#28)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 03:59:52 PM EST
    without a rudder, adrift in a turbulent sea, with a captain who knows nothing about sailing and a crew that can't figure out what to do or how to do it.

    The phrase that will come back to haunt these Democrats, and one they will be uttering in mournful tones in November of 2010 and again in November of 2012 is "we didn't have the votes," because if they keep this up, no one will find them worth voting for again.

    I'm not sure they know how to get control and legislate the agenda the American people elected them to enact.

    It's enough to make one weep.

    Here is my metaphor (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by joanneleon on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 08:35:53 PM EST
    We are passengers up on the deck of the ship, waiting in line for the rubber rafts, while others are below in their luxurious cabins.  The captain is being convinced by his crew to toss us overboard in the rafts into shark infested waters, with little sustenance, while the rest of them sail off to their private island.

    What I am not yet sure of is whether the captain realizes that his crew's proposition will ruin us, or if they have somehow convinced him that this is the best thing to do.  Maybe I am incredibly naive, but I still don't think the captain would do something like this intentionally.

    Parent

    Yup, the rest of us must (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 08:48:59 PM EST
    prove we can survive or we get to fail.  We should have had a plan, we must be accountable. I hope I'm worthy of surviving.

    Parent
    Just curious BTD (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:28:58 PM EST
    even if we nationalized today citi, bac and whoever else you wanted, do you really think a recovery would be forthcoming in the next two years?

    If so, please postulate as to how.  We are Japan in the 90's not because of the recap plans or methods being deployed.  We are Japan of the 90's because we have no production economy of any substance in the near future.

    Where will the jobs come from?  How will home prices recover in less than ten years? Will people continue to be under water working 3 crappy part time jobs for several years or will they just cede and move into bankruptcy like the record number of others doing it?

    The problem with your argument is that it does not address the liquidity issue of the american public and the question really is do we want two to three years of a horrible economy or 10 years of a crappy one.

    The next five years in our economy will be what it will be nationalization or not.  the costs or bailout would move to social programs, prison and FDIC payments and a bankruptcy lawyers will become the wall streeters of the 80's and 90's.

    Krugman et al would do a very good service to the american public if they would stop politicizing the issue and talk about how best to spend the 3-5 trillion we are going to spend anyway.


    A better chance there would be one (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:34:35 PM EST
    if we did that.

    Why? Because we could honestly deal with our financial crisis and then best apply our resources to economic recovery rather than propping up zombie banks.

    Imagine two mega banks, cleaned up, and back in the sound lending business instead of engulfed in manchinations to avoid telling us all the truth?

    Not to mention the fact that the government would have more money to promote stimnulus initiatives.

    I think it is a no brainer.

    Parent

    But do you think (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 03:03:13 PM EST
    that even cleaned up banks would be able to make loans to the little guy?  How many people are out of work (or will be by then)and how many of them will have credit?  Are banks going to extend credit to regular people to start business or pay bills?

    Parent
    Yes, some banks like mine (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 03:12:15 PM EST
    are still looking to do business, because it's their business.  Just sent a friend there for help with a business loan -- after we just went to talk refi and were offered an even better rate than advertised! and were told to tell others to come see our bank, if they had good business plans.  This is a bank in good shape because of good practices and commitment to its community.  And all that continues there.  It may take work to find the good banks -- but that's what everyone ought to have been doing all along.

    Parent
    We are lucky (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 05:51:45 PM EST
    Pentagon Federal Credit Union simply always offered us the best deals to be had, discovering that they didn't make crazy side bets and that they have money to lend and aren't full of junk assets was nice to find out but wasn't ever on my bank shopping list until recently.

    Parent
    you and i both know (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 03:32:15 PM EST
    that nationalizing c and bac is tantamount to nationalizing at least 3 other majors due to interconnectedness and the most dramatic shakeup of the banking industry since the GD.

    With a 56 trillion cds/cdo global market, we simply cannot cover even a third of the losses the domino effect will create.

    Alas, I do agree we are pissing away money because in 6 months the economy is not going to be better to any appreciable degree despite the hokus pokus of consumer confidence and real estate being "up".

    We will be competing this summer with last summers stimulus for month to month and quarterly results, and this stimulus is woefully miscategorized.

    We have committed nearly 8 trillion to this mess.  I cannot even begin to tell you how many jobs could be created for an eight of that outfitting every government bldg with solar panels.  

    I also agree and I am glad you said it, that we need to make a choice on how we are going to spend 8 trillion on our credit card.  Job creation or maintaining our current financial system.  I do not agree that this is about 2 zombie banks, there are whole lot of zombie banks right now holding cds/cdo paper that is essentially worthless.

    Parent

    I do not believe in covering losses (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    I believe in taking the actions that make sense for the US economy.

    If that means paying off the CDOs (almost certainly not) then do that. If it mean paying them 30 cents on the dollar (probably) do that.

    Your comment assumes things that simply are false.

    Parent

    elaborate (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 03:45:51 PM EST
    Modifications (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 04:43:43 PM EST
    of the existing obligations of insolvent banks.

    Pretty simple.

    Parent

    we'll see in less than a year (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 05:22:22 PM EST
    whether or not the plan works and just how easy it is to modify its existing obligations, i think you are being incredibly naive there and you think I am being incredibly stupid.  

    thanks for responding and keep up the good work.

    Parent

    The swedes saved their banks (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 05:55:35 PM EST
    and the only people covered in the insolvent banks were depositors.  The shareholders even got more than a haircut........they got fully shagged because their "investment" had failed.

    Parent
    might be worth reading Posen's article (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by souvarine on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 04:42:30 PM EST
    Only when Heizo Takenaka became the responsible minister in 2002 were Japanese banks forced to write down the value of the distressed assets before getting recapitalized. From that point forward, the Japanese economy began growing again, and within months, the worst of the Japanese banking crisis was resolved.

    We're not likely to begin recovering until our banking crisis is resolved. Until then businesses will continue having trouble getting credit and won't be able to expand. And even if Obama's fiscal stimulus manages to get demand going the dysfunctional banking system will be a drag on the economy.

    Parent

    In reading around the net tonight (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 07:43:09 PM EST
    it does seem that more folks are beginning to understand what is really happening to us.  It's sad that you literally have to self educate yourself into an armchair economist to be informed on what has taken place and is taking place but that's the sad truth.  It is gradually happening though.

    The death of trust (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:20:01 PM EST
    is an ugly thing to contemplate, but I think whatever trust we once had - to whatever extent we had it - is on life support and circling the drain.

    If nothing else, maybe we are becoming a little smarter about a lot of things, and that might be the best way to truly begin to hold the government, and corporate America, accountable.

    It's a hard way to learn, and all I can hope is that it's not too late.

    Parent

    My trust in people hasn't been tarnished (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:30:00 PM EST
    My trust in the oligarchy is a cinder though.  You know what fascinates me right now is how some of these Conservatives in my personal life around here that I have come to know, I could trust them with everything precious to me and it would all be fine when I got back?  Lots of people here very decent and kind yet very conservative.  It is always easy to spot the unkind uncaring conservative.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:24:04 PM EST
    Not sure of who you trusted in gov, but that was a mistake. I have never trusted any of them and never will. All politicians are professional liars and that is a fact.

    Parent
    Well, there was a time when I (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:39:02 PM EST
    had some level of trust in the media to hold the pathologically-lying politicians accountable, but now they seem to be in some mutually satisfying relationship together - with us on the outside, and them controlling more than ever what we are told and when; I have no idea what their real function is anymore, other than to try to make money for the corporations that own them.

    I am not a stars-in-her-eyes, swoons-over-politicians kind of person - never have been, so my skepticism level has always been pretty high.

    There are a lot of people who did trust the government, who did trust the media to tell them some truth - and I think more of those people are questioning that these days.

    Questions are good.  Skepticism is good.  But if it doesn't change anything, all we are left with is the anger.

    Parent