Tweet
Seems as if Paulson is considering a significant equity injection by buying shares after all. He didn’t even want the authority to do so originally, and fought against it, but a watered down clause which requires the government to buy preferred, but non voting shares if it buys a company’s junk is in the final bill. It’s very discretionary language, which leaves the price and so on to be determined by the Treasury secretary, but it’s there.
This is what England is doing, except that they’re probably getting voting shares, thanks. And its what other countries have done in the past. I’m not convinced it will solve the problem, but it at least makes sense if you think the banks main problem is insolvency. What doesn’t make sense is having the shares be non-voting. If the government has to bail you out and save you from your own stupidity greed and incompetence, the government should also get to tell you how to run your business until you’ve paid all that money back.
Because there’s a strong argument that the problem isn’t just insolvency, but that banks don’t want to lend deep below the rate of inflation, I don’t think this will solve the entire problem. Still, there’s no question that insolvency is a problem so this is probably a good idea. As usual when dealing with Bush and Paulson, however, they’re doing the right thing in the stupidest way possible however, in order to assure that the rich fools who run the banks don’t lose the power they so badly misused. I guess, given that they don’t believe in responsibility for themselves, they see no reason to impose it on other powerful rich men. Responsibility, after all, is only for homeowners who can’t repay mortgages, not for CEOs who paid themselves millions and destroyed their companies and the economy.
Free market fundamentalism in action. Too bad the Democrats didn’t insist on getting Buffett shares rather than non-voting crap, or that judges be allowed to revise mortgages to allow homeowners to keep their homes. But Obama promised Donna Edwards he’d get bankruptcy reform through as President. I trust that promise will mean more to him than his promise to vote against FISA.
161 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Thanks Ian.
digg
Ian-I think you should cut Obama a little slack. Hopefully he will win and hopefully he will recognize what is sensible and what is not. I sympathize with him over FISA what with the other side calling him a traitor in spite of his vote-imagine what they would be calling him had he voted “No”. By the same token he had to vote for the bailout or be accused of causing the problems which are here now as well as those that are sure to come.
BTW I hear the sheriff of Cook county is refusing to evict foreclosed families. His reason is that he does not have proof they received the required 120 day notice. Don’t know what he will do when he gets proof of notice. The natives are getting restless and the hierarchy is breaking down. Maybe some good will come out of this.
“Non voting shares …”
The ‘heck-of-a-job’ mentality always rides high.
That’s what make ‘Murkuh great.
“If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride …”
One hopes Obama is reading up on FDR (and speaking with the best economists money can’t buy).
Seems to me Paulson’s behaving “erratically.”
Throw the spaghetti (i.e. taxpayers money) against the wall & see what sticks.
Kudlow on cnbc is once again proving he is out of touch with reality in cheerleading for capitalism.
I really appreciate you keeping on top of this. I’m going to start emailing/calling my reps, along with Dodd, and Donna Edwards, both of whom I donated to.
Because of your posts, I think liberals/progressives/and Democrats can have some influence on what is a very fluid situation.
Seconded enthusiastically.
That sheriff probably won’t appear in uniform at a McPalin rally in order to bash Obama.
i get this, but only if there other lending/investment opportunities. it doesn’t help the institution cope with inflation to keep cash on the books. as it now stands, i’d expect that the fear of not getting their principle back (aka insolvency of the debtor) is the greatest concern.
in fact, i’d think high inflation would encourage investment (and lending if interest rates were non zero), even if the returns did not keep pace with inflation – because cash will be in a worse position.
I’m actually coming to admire his ability to look for (completely wrong) nuggets of optimism in the crisis sesspool. My imagination is not as rich as his. /s
Ian these guys are brilliant dontcha know! Why else would they make so much money? Politicians couldn’t run a company just ask Carly
“cesspool”
that is what hope is about, giving someone the benefit of the doubt and a belief that things will improve. If we don’t have hope, despair fills that vaccum.
the other side will call him a traitor no matter what he does. selling out the 4th amendment didn’t protect him from that… and besides, it’s not just his votes that are at issue – it’s what he’s using his leadership position to accomplish. as far as i’ve seen, and please correct me if you have info to the contrary, obama has done nothing to earn cutting him any slack.
Were I a banker, I’d be reluctant to loan to anyone unless I expected to make a profit on that loan. But my expectatons of making a profit would be colored by that person’s likelihood of making good on the terms of the loan. The less likely, the more I’d charge. Rational behavior. But, if I knew that the govt would make good for them, I’d be much more inclined, especially if I had a govt guarantee.
But, now bankers are not loaning, even to each other, because either
* they can’t make money loaning at the current interest rates, inflation rates, and levels of risk, or
* they have (or anticipate) a shortage of funds to loan and have expectations of better future opportunities for loaning whatever funds they do have. (I doubt this reason, given that the Fed is now loaning to banks.)
Part of the risk problem is that bankers have no way of knowing who is solvent and who isn’t. And the recent congressional decision to drop “mark to market” bookkeeping for assets has killed all hope of knowing. (Companies are currently reluctant to disclose portfolio value.)
I cannot even conceive of the stupidity involved in evicting the renters sight unseen anyway! Why would whoever want the property to go dark. Leaving it empty makes it a target; ripening fruit for every thief that can drive up with a rented uhaul to pull out everything from copper wiring to bathroom fixures. It happens. It’s dumb, and when it happens, it will be the fault of whoever decided to evict the renters instead of taking their rent payments until they get a handle on things!
Speaking of weird things heard recently on cnbc the most amazing I’ve heard was related to the coordinated international rate cut. Michelle Caruso-Cabrerra, who was reporting from somwhere in Europe, said something to the effect: Jean-Claude Trichet (head of European central bank), Mr. Keep-Inflaion-Down-at-All-Costs, I wonder what they had to do get him to go along. Perhaps a 14-year old girl.
Followed by stunned silence among the other 4 or 5 people participatiing in the discussion, and a quick switch to a commercial.
Think I’ll se if anyone YouTubed it.
You must have not visited the other Ian threads regarding Paulson and Obama.
Ian I recall you writing about taking preferred stock, as a superior option before the votes. Am I right in thinking that this is a big plus for taxpayers, because we’re not wasting a huge percentage of the $700 billion paying Goldman Sachs, PIMCO or someone else to act as asset managers, who have to determine prices for the toxic mortgage backed securities? Please feel free to ignore as I think you have already addressed this in previous posts.
IIUC, it was the right-wing congressmen who imposed the non-voting stock requirement to avoid any appearance of dreaded socialism.
Buying preferred equity as opposed to toxic assets seemed to be the advice of all of the economists I read, including Krugman, Stiglitz, and Calomiris.
I’m with you on that. Urban/Surburban blight anyone?
oh dear.
agree that i need hope too. my hope is not that obama will honor his promise – but that we will hold him to it. perhaps just as unrealistic as any other, but there it is.
This is movement in the right direction. As such, I welcome it.
I favor the govt buying defaulted mortgages at bargain prices, renegotiating with the homeowner, and then reselling the renegotiated loan at some appropriate time.
I do not favor the govt buying derivatives.
Why cut Obama any slack, or anyone inside the beltway for that matter. Obama keeps backing bad legislation on the hill and many progressives “hope” it’s just to appeal to more undecided voters (see Daily Show take on undecided voters). If you can put hope on the table for dinner, send us the recipe! Understand we have one political party in DC, and it’s the political class. Sure they fight and bicker, like any siblings, but when it comes to lining their pockets, they cue up very quickly. You can bet the ones that benefit most from this bailout mess are the politicians, and that includes Obama.
now you’re making me wish i had cable tv. *g*
Whatever hope means to you, is the hope that you hold on to. It’s either that or despair and last I checked, despair has yet to lead to any significant changes in this counrty or the world
for selise @ 22
then I hope you are working on the local level to get ‘better dems/progressives’ into office.
We’re all entitled to slack. Let he who is without sin etc. etc. Obama said in his book that he manages relations with whites by telling them what they want to hear. We, whites, may not like it, but it’s an effective technique. It’s a habit that will die hard, if it dies at all.
As for selling out the 4th amendment, FISA was a done deal. Opposition, while principled, would be pointless and Obama is too good a politician to take meaningless stands.
I am totally uninformed about the law, but isn’t there some law that requires a banker or CEO to act in a prudent manner with other people’s money? Couldn’t a civil suit claim that these bankers took egregeious risks and then pocketed the gains from those risks leaving the depositors and shareholders holding the bag?
It was really stealing wasn’t it? [edited by mod]
[Mod Note: Please no not suggest acts of violence be carried out on others — even if in jest. Thanks.]
Not on YouTube. But little nuggets like that do not justify the subscription fee. Will sure live in my memory though.
The short selling ban ended today.
So now the hedge funds can now resume deciding what companies should and should not exist anymore.
Neither was I until I realized those are the securities that were sold to many pension funds. Now I don’t know what to think!
not advocating for despair, but also not for unrealistic hope that requires we don’t think about unpleasant things even if true. realistic hope?
Free markets are a good way to organize certain things. But they are neither the panacea nor the sole remedy that some on the right believe them to be.
Nothing like playing god with the livlihood of other folks
Paulson as head of Goldman Sachs is one of those most responsible for creating this disaster. He has been in and remains in denial about the nature of the crisis and his role in it. I can’t help thinking his Christian Science background with its emphasis on the will plays into this. So he consistently underestimated and under-reacted to events early on. Then he comes up with this big investment banker solution but big as it is it 1) isn’t big enough and 2) is focused in the wrong areas. It is hard to imagine, given all this, someone less qualified, or less credible, to deal with the current crisis.
unrealistic hope? that would go to each person’s own definition. Some would say it was an unrealistic hope that a man of color would be the nominee for president.
cnbc just interrupted W presser in Slovakia (or is it Czekoslovakia? These things happen just so fast, it’s hard to keep track.) to go to commercial. Love it.
absent any any evidence to the contrary – i would agree. but at some point there is just too much evidence. i’m not suggesting throwing stones or doing harm in any way. just that we remember recent history and not, like charlie brown with lucy and the football, continue without reason to hope this time will be different.
… and btw, i see the fisa story completely differently than you do. it wasn’t a done deal in march when the house killed it. it could have stayed killed.
The markets in reality are nowhere near what the textbooks would call “free markets.” The problem is that the wingnuts can’t make intelligent distinctions.
Aww hell did we let him out of the country again? I try not to keep track him
This is exactly right. It is the fear of the loss of principle. Some interest return would if not generate profit mitigate loss. This loss would be further mitigated by any fees associated with the transaction.
You are absolutely right, but homeowners, the occupiers of the property are evicted all over the place and what’s more, the lenders, whose title is questionable because the income stream from the mortgages was pooled and sold all over the place, resist anything that reduces the principal and interest to something the homeowner can afford. The stupidity is that the reduced principal and interest will most likely provide a greater recovery than the lender will eventually recoup after the building stands vacant and the neighborhoods deterioriate.
Obama’s suggestion that bankruptcy judges be permitted to reset mortgage terms is a good one although that power should be extended to all foreclosure judges. In Connecticut they’ve started a mediation program where before foreclosure the parties go to a mediator to see if they can’t work something out. Neither the mediator nor the judge can reduce the principal without the consent of the lender which IMHO greatly reduces, if it does not destroy, the effectiveness of the program.
He’s running against John McCain for POTUS.
If he were just a U.S. Senator from Illinois, not running for office in November 2008, I’d be happy to join you in bashing him.
His responsibility to Democrats, Americans, and the world is to beat McCain. In order to do that, he has to run to the middle. As the polls clearly confirm, this race was a dead heat until the economy tanked. You did the leg work. Practically the entire Senate and House voted against liberals/progressives/Strange Bedfellows wrt FISA. Did you want Obama to use up political capital to make the FISA vote closer, at the risk of losing to McCain?
In order to move the liberal progressive agenda forward, we actually have to win elections. We have to forge alliances with the black caucus and the unions. It looks to me like the unions could have cared less about FISA.
Harry Reid and a lot of other Democratic Senators who are NOT up for re-election have infinitely more responsibility imo for the FISA disgrace than the Dem’s Presidential candidate.
OT – per MSNBC, Sarah Palin, will drop the first puck at a hockey game Saturday in Philly. There will also be an “Ultimate Hockey Mom” contest.
How dignified.
when i comes to people and what we will do, i am way way too ignorant to know what is realistic and what is not…. but i’m going to have my doubts if the hope depends on not being exposed to disconfirming evidence.
McCain argued loudly for a wet t-shirt contest for both Cindy and Sarah to enter. He was overruled by his campaign which sent him into petulant frenzy.
Didn’t know that. Very interesting. Could explain a lot. Thanks.
Yes, as I always like to say is free markets are a fiction. They have never existed. To understand markets, you need to ask who runs them and for whose benefit.
No one is saying blind faith. that is different than hope. Hope has to do with expectation. No one here has evoked Obama as some sort of faultless savior, rather he is the hope to replace what has been in place for 8 years. Having been exposed to his stances and votes I don’t agree with has not dminished that hope or the necessity to get a dem in office
In this state, there are no foreclosure judges. We use Deeds of Trust with trustees with the power of sale if the terms of the trust deed fail to be met. If you’re behind in you’re payments, the trustee’s instructions are to sell the property at an appointed time on the steps of the courthouse or some other place. Period.
Why are you even bothering to post? Were you waving your surrender flag as you wrote that comment?
Start a third party. Let us know how many LOCAL candidates you get on the ballot. I’m not asking you to actually WIN, just try and get someone on a ballot. Let us know how you do.
Liberals and progressives need to learn tactics from Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and other white supremacists. They didn’t join George Wallace’s third party. They knew they could do a lot more for white supremacists from INSIDE the Democratic party. They called themselves “conservative” Democrats.
even if i agreed with you about what obama’s responsibility is – it is not mine to ignore what he does. imo, my responsibility includes judging the actions of all politicians according to the same standards, regardless of the party they belong to.
In the 1990s, I thought that the future of responsible macroeconomics work would be the analysis of market imperfections, and what to do about them.
Well, I said “responsible,” but the wingnuts replaced responsibily with ideology.
Here, here!
I have no illusions about Obama. His record speaks for itself, but he is infinitely better than McCain and I think there is an opportunity for we progressives to push Obama in the right direction. There is no such opportunity with McCain.
Remember FDR ran as a pretty middle-of-the-road moderate, but circumstances and activists pushed him.
Wingnuts use their ideology as a cover to allow them to steal.
Great, you shouldn’t but I hope you are also helping get local progressives into office. i’m sorry but keyboard commandos don’t get better candidates elected.
Nationalization or partial nationalization would mean the government was buying into the total worth, good and bad, of the bank, not just the toxic shit the bank would like to get rid of. This would also give the government control over how the bank was run and this is important in freeing up normal credit operations, and it would also give the government access to the bank’s books in a way that would allow the government to really assess the bank’s solvency. This would be important in deciding whether to liquidate or recapitalize it.
cnbc pre-commercial tease: gonna talk about GM market capitalization before the 1929 crash. We’ll be surprised.
I’ll let you know.
heh – probably no actual wet T-shirts at this venue, but I *sure* hope that there are some good YouTubes of the actual contest.
I’m kind of doubting that it will be “G” rated.
Wonder what the talent competition will be?
Yep.
Wow! what happens if there’s a dispute about payment or anything else, such as title issues if the mortgage was pooled. Can’t you go to court to stop the trustee or at least question his bona fides?
that was not meant to be in any way mean spirited.
“but that banks don’t want to lend deep below the rate of inflation,”
Makes no sense. Was not the case in the ’70s when interest rates were below inflation. Where are the banks putting their money to get the return?
GM market cap right now below where it was in March 1929.
Couldn’t happen to a more clueless company.
And for those of us who are still finding it difficult to grasp WTF happend, there is this: The Financial Meltdown Through The Eyes of A Dog:
http://scienceblogs.com/princi…..bubble.php
“It’s clear that investors are betting that GM won’t make it.” CNBC reporter.
Would it also give the gov’mint some control over CEO and other officers compensation and golden parachute provisions?
ecahn and hugh:
don’t know who said it, but it’s from a talk monday at the new america foundation.
From today’s schedule, I see that Obama is campaigning in three different locations in Ohio. Biden is campaigning in three different locations in Missouri. McCain really stretches himself and hits one Wisconsin place. Palin matches him by hitting one Ohio place.
Is this because McCain/Palin have effectively given up?
Is this because McCain is too old to do more and they think that by having Palin match him he looks less old?
Is this because the Republics think the fix is in and they can just coast?
Andrew Sullivan found this picture, and it’s just too cool :
http://andrewsullivan.theatlan…..assets.jpg
Trouble is, in this case, govt=Paulson.
The truth here is that if Obama already to the presumptive nominee had signaled to Hoyer, Pelosi, and Reid that he did not favor and would oppose the FISA Amendments Act they would not have brought it up for consideration. Instead the likely scenario would have been an extension to throw it over to the next Administration. If Republicans had not gone along, they could have been blamed for not really backing “national security”.
?
Guess I better google it.
Oh I’m sure GM will turn things around with a new 6000 SUX or something else that gets “really shitty gas mileage.*”
*for all you RoboCop fans
TBogg’s on it too: Barack Obassets
We’re in a phase of international oligopolies audited by national governments.
Over the long haul, the laws of supply and demand, however are always what ultimately matter. That’s not a defense or an apology for capitalism. It’s just the way things are. As we pollute all the ground water, the cost of drinkable water skyrockets. One of many problems we face is the accountants/governments do not account for “capital” such as clean water, because no one “owns” it.
I think what’s important to separate is that capitalism, according to Adam Smith, required a level playing field. That was government’s role and that’s why it’s called “political economy.” The Republicans destroyed the level playing field. I hope we can get it back.
very cool, thanks. I have a link (somewhere) that also explains the sub-prime mortgage in everyday terms anyone could understand
lol. now you know how i feel when you talk econ.
I’ve never heard of that being done. That’s why they do Deeds of Trust instead of mortgages. It expedites the process; three months and you will be scheduled for a foreclosure sale unless you reinstate (that may be the wrong word). You would have to bring all past payments up to date and pay a penalty or the cost of starting the legal proceedings. It’s simple, pay or they take back the property. No ifs, ands, or buts!
I’ll buy that for a dollar.
But since we know what the ailments of the global economy are, we could have managed them better. No reason to live in a dog-eat-dog world. (Joke: capitalism is a dog eat dog world, whereas in communism, it’s just the reverse.)
Ha, guess I’m delusional, expecting itelligent economics policy.
I once heard a talk by an anthropolgist whose research area was markets. He had quite a different take than do textbook economists, and one that is much closer to what I’ve observed in real-world business.
Also, I recently got further insight into markets by reading the wikipedia entry on Joseph Stiglitz. Now I’d like to read more of his stuff regarding asymmetric information etc.
Hopefully, Obama will take McSame’s frequent advice about not telling the enemy every move he would make as president.
He may be reserving some of his economic plan details to be revealed when he wins.
Actually, this is a better link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLMVNyYb1SE
From the Lysenkoism wiki.
Wow, just wow. Guess we’ll be lucky if we get rid of the wingnuts any time soon.
Yes, the guys currently in charge of solving this crisis are precisely the guys who created it. Except for “Print more money” Bernanke who I think has loss his mind.
Asymmetric information is the tip of the iceberg. Asymmetric power is MUCH more important in real world “market.” All economists seem embarrassed to even mention that.
What if the company that is foreclosing is no longer the owner of the instrument, because it has been sold and split and bundled to Timbucktu? Can they do that?
O on teevee giving campaign speech on economics
Perhaps he should search for it in his beard. *g*
Presumably the pension funds bought default swaps to mitigate risk on their realestate holdings, in which case that risk goes away if and when the government buys the mortgage. But they might also have bought derivatives that are bundled slices of many different mortgages, in which case they’ll get their share as the government buys up those underlying mortgages. (At least, that’s how I think it works.)
And you do a terrific job of it.
I know I’m not going to change your mind. I am concerned that some others might thing that in order to be zealous liberals/progressives, they have to abandon the Democratic party. That’s why I reply to your comments. I want people to know there are alternatives out there.
You worked very hard and very selflessly for Ned Lamont. I appreciate that. Ned also lost in the general. That doesn’t mean his primary victory wasn’t a great milestone for liberals/progressives, it was.
It’s about targeting. There are tons of Vichy Dems out there led by Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer. We need to unseat them first. With such a target rich environment of Vichy Dems, why you want to attack Obama and Edwards is beyond me?
Now after Obama is President (I hope), stuff changes. Then he really is the leader and you can attack all you want. I’ll certainly revisit my opinion of him then. But while he’s in a TWO-HORSE race with a nutcase like McSane, he needs our support.
Maybe you missed, on a prior thread I asked you about all the liberals/progressives, who you thought were better than Donna Edwards?
Should we be equally diligent in trying to hold McCain’s feet to the fire to adopt progressive viewpoints, or just Obama’s. Why wouldn’t we be on a conservative website, trying to advocate progressive policy, unless we perceive some difference between McCain and Obama? If there is a difference, what is it?
There is going to be an article in Rolling Stone next week written by RFK, Jr. and Greg Palast…it is about the massive plan to steal the vote, and they will describe ways to deal with the tricks that are being played to prevent people from voting nationwide. Palast was interviewed on Democracy Now this morning.
i thought it was a brilliant analogy. more from wiki:
Breaking – AIG is calling off its latest luxury retreat.
Attack seems too harsh a word. More accurate would be analyze what they’ve done.
And the reasons for paying close attention to those 2 seem pretty obvious. Obama is now the leader of the D party. Edwards was one of the most progressive of the congressional Ds. What they do is a very important indicator of the future of the D party.
McCain=low hanging fruit.
They have been advertising a new Hummer III truck
The money supplyis not behaving the way economist want it too.
There is $360 trillion dollars in the financial systems of the world.
Compare that with total assests, assets at risk, safe assets and total debt.
There is plenty of money. That represents value of good and services produced. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
That is what Paulson has been doing with the bailout and the central bank injection of capital.
1. They are trying to control risk by bringing it under government guarantee. The risk has been leveraged so high it will take a lot of time to bring ot back under control as it is long term debt.
2. Bamks are not charities they operate on percieved profits which they do not see in the bear future with high inventory of goods. LOBOR and TED spread..the cost of money bank to bamk is very expensive so less borrowers are qualified.
3.In consumer drivem economy the key is DISPOSABLE income. That portion of income and potential credit worthiness has been spent. The only way to get the economy going is to get the consumer out of debt.
A) reduce consumer housing cost, utility cost, nedical cost, transportation cost which have balloned as a percentage of household expenses.
b) Protect the consumer from usury, loan to own debt and relief by allowing bankruptcy which puts more responsibility on the lendors by motivsting them to take on fewer risky debt deals.
C) New Deal constructs like HOLC and existing FHA streamline program which allows lowering interest rates for good borrowers.
Increasing disposable income can be done by raising wage levels to “living Wage” targets through tax cuts as Obama supports. Longer terms on mortgages at lower rates. The retail industry has a huge stake in this disposable income and could be saved a lot of pain. Subsidizing education so people do not come out of schools with $200k debt and can start consuming earlier.
Disposable income…create it. republicans have shrunk it and taken the money and run.
supposedly there is a caging effort here in Indiana this time.
I voted yesterday, and was amazed at the the number of people doing the same at 2:00 P.M. on a Wednesday. Mostly people of color, presumably wanting to make good and goddamned sure that their vote *is* counted.
Very funny.
You’re saying both are equally cynical, self-seeking, hopeless, but McCain is just not a fun challenge?
I believe I read recently that people in California are challenging that in courts, and winning, as we type.
Or perhaps I’m hallucinating (like McInsane).
Today is the one-year anniversary of the peack in the Dow around 1400.
I think this just pushes the argument back one level. Just as free markets don’t really exist neither do level playing fields. A truly level playing field would have identical players who all acted exactly the same way and this simply never happens in the real world where you have many different kinds of players acting many different ways. So your level playing field will favor some and disfavor others.
too bad they had to be shamed into it
I didn’t say anything of the sort about Obama & Edwards. Seems like you might be engaging in a bit of projection?
GRITtv up top…
I prefer to “encourage” living wage and higher wages for workers by changing corporate tax laws:
The higher the differential between CEO pay and that company’s average worker pay (in US dollars, no matter where they live), the higher the corporate tax. The corporate tax goes down as the differential decreases, with the maximum tax benefit hitting as CEO pay exceeds no more than 5x the average worker pay.
This way, corporations are free to lavish unearned wealth upon their CEOs, CFOs, etc – they just have to also pay the tax piper to boot.
Have you forgotten how badly Pelosi wanted her complicity buried?
I don’t recall if Harry Reid was as deep as she was?
I completely agree, it would have been nice if Obama had done what you suggested. Pelosi had nowhere to run, she couldn’t turn around and support McCain.
He’s a politician. He has to work with Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, and the rest. Why should he stick his neck out for a piece of legislation that won’t help him beat McCain?
I don’t mind you criticizing Obama. What I don’t get is how you leave Reid, Pelosi, and Hoyer out of it?
OT, iirc, that all took place, before he got the nomination. What Hillary doesn’t matter? There’s a helluva lot of blame to go around.
IMHO, the most under reported story is that New Deal capitalism seems to be prospering in serveral parts of Europe. Per-hour productivity exceeds that of the U.S. in four or five of those countries — Luxembourg, Norway, Belgium, and Ireland come to mind. And, their quality-of-life index is higher than here.
Per the capitalist doctrine that’s supposed to be impossible.
Oh, forgot: this ALSO discourages out-sourcing work to cheap/slave labor markets because CEO pay would be based on the US dollar value of the slave laborer pay. Thus, you eliminate the value of using slave labor in spades.
thanks for remembering all the time i spent i CT.
for me it’s about judging each politician independently of the others and according to my own standards… because that is the info i need to be able to compare and rank politicians. if i rank them and then stop judging them independently, but instead according to the ranking i’ve already given them – then i’ll be reinforcing my own biases instead of trying to overcome them. for me, that would be a blind spot bias acting to reinforce a confirmation bias. maybe it’s different with you?
I ave noticed any lack of criticism of Pelosi & Reid here. After all of that in the last two year, I think we learned that they’re hopeless and have moved on.
I was trying to interpret how McCain is low hanging fruit. My real point,however, was that I would think anyone who thinks there is no meaningful difference between the parties and candidates would spend equal time either trying to perfect, taking shots at, or ignoring both parties and candidates. The concentration on one would seem to indicate a belief that there is a difference and a motive of either damaging the less desirable or reflecting greater disappointment in the better but imperfect candidate or party.
of course there is a difference.
criticizing obama is not praise for mccain. likewise thinking mcain (and palin) are dangerous wingnuts does not make obama a great progressive.
What I meant by low hanging fruit is that it’s too easy to criticize McCain, and people here already know all that so it’s a waste of time. It is far more important for progressives to analyze people who would be models for what we would hope will happen.
But the difference is not so great,in terms of effects on the nation, as to favor the election of Obama vs. McCain?
Well said.
No politician is going to do what we’d like 100% of the time.
Obama and Edwards, while not perfect, are waaaaay down the list of the problems we’re having with Democrats.
Better Ds is one of the main reasons I was attracted to this blog.
Thanks
I don’t want my comments to be construed in any way as enabling Vichy Dems. I was raised a Goldwater Republican for crying out loud. Once I started to read Jane Hamsher, Christy, and emptywheel, I knew they were right. They were arguing for honest/good government.
As I said above, I don’t think Obama is the leader until he beats McCain. Once he’s elected, I hope, I will rip him as strenuously as selise, if he doesn’t do a lot better on FISA. As you know it gets to the heart of the Republic, the separation of powers.
My concern is that we as liberals/progressives in our efforts to be authentic can lose sight of the practical realities. We have zero traction without the black caucus and the unions. The unions obviously could have cared less about FISA. I think there’s a lot to be said for “loyal dissent.” Yes, I disagree strenuously with Obama on FISA, but it’s still easy to support him within the narrow confines of his race with McCain. I think holding a Presidential candidate to the same standard as a Senator or a Congress person is a big mistake.
Her is the corrected version my apologies for all the typos.
The money supply is not behaving the way economist want it too.
There is $360 trillion dollars in the financial systems of the world.
Compare that with total assets, assets at risk, safe assets and total debt.
There is plenty of money. That represents value of good and services produced. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
That is what Paulson has been doing with the bailout and the central bank injection of capital.
1. They are trying to control risk by bringing it under government guarantee. The risk has been leveraged so high it will take a lot of time to bring it back under control as it is long term debt.
2. Banks are not charities they operate on perceived profits which they do not see in the bear future with high inventory of goods. LIBOR and TED spread..the cost of money bank to bank is very expensive so less borrowers are qualified.
3.In consumer driven economy the key is DISPOSABLE income. That portion of income and potential credit worthiness has been spent. The only way to get the economy going is to get the consumer out of debt.
A) reduce consumer housing cost, utility cost, medical cost, transportation cost which have ballooned as a percentage of household expenses.
b) Protect the consumer from usury, loan to own debt and relief by allowing bankruptcy which puts more responsibility on the lenders by motivating them to take on fewer risky debt deals.
C) New Deal constructs like HOLC and existing FHA streamline program which allows lowering interest rates for good borrowers.
Increasing disposable income can be done by raising wage levels to “living Wage” targets through tax cuts as Obama supports. Longer terms on mortgages at lower rates. The retail industry has a huge stake in this disposable income and could be saved a lot of pain. Subsidizing education so people do not come out of schools with $200k debt and can start consuming earlier.
Disposable income…create it. republicans have shrunk it and taken the money and run.
even small differences in policy (and other areas), in terms of effects on the world, make for very big real world impacts – life and death for many people. i don’t think i’ve ever said otherwise.
The majority party will never (almost by definition) be seen far from the perceived mainstream of american politics…Goopers held on for a few years by praying loudly and publicly. Dems, should they win and hold, will do so with their own mainstream “Big Daddy” persona—”We’ll take care of you”.
off to the farm… good day to all.
That’s a good point to be reminded of. Seems like Netroots should do more bridge builing with those groups, but doesn’t immediately occur to me how, since Netroots is bottom up. Perhaps some of their blogs to link to & participate in? Requires thought.
So you do think that Obama is preferable to McCain and offers more hope for a better nation/world?
Believe me I blame and have blamed all three for their roles in the FISA Amendments Act.
Eli has a new post up: “Jon Stewart Vs. Sarah Palin”
D party is to the right of 70% of the population (and R is even farther to the right), if you believe surveys. That would seem to refute your contention that
We have to continue to attack Hoyer and Reid. I don’t think we can move on without doing more damage to the more liberal members of the Democratic party. IMHO Reid and Hoyer have the power base in the Democratic party.
WRT Edwards, when liberals/progressives attack her, without weakening Hoyer, all that does is drive her towards Hoyer. He’s going to tell her,
Shouldn’t the real question here be: Does Obama want my vote and what has he done to earn it?
Eli’s upstairs with some Jon Stewart.
I know, your liberal credentials are beyond solid with me.
I have learned a ton from your posts over the years and laughed a lot too at your terrific wit.
If you asked “Is the democratic party to the right or left of me?” how many americans would say “to the right?” More than fifty percent?
On what issues do you think that the Democratic party is to the right of most americans?
I guess that might be the case if I weren’t more desparate for pragmatic, rational leadership, with which there is some hope of restoration of our form of government, economy, and international standing of a mere eight years ago, than Barack Obama is to become president. In the current state of affairs, I think I need him more than he needs me.
There, fixed it.
Nullification of swaps would go a long way toward reducing potential losses and deleveraging risk. Swaps were meant to decrease risk but were abused and now have substantially increased it.
I already know that Obama wants my vote and has asked for it and tried to earn it. To me, the real question is how will I feel if I wake up Nov. 5 and realize that because I failed to vote or wasted my vote, McCain is the President elect and we will have four more years of Bush-like policies.
Despair has led to many changes in the World … all of them negative …
I know, I know you were talking about positive changes … *g* … ((( wb )))
The economy is skewed to motivate disasters as is the body politic. And old minds don’t handle change well as it threatens their power structure.
The politics of power leads to the nightmare of wars. The United Nations is an attempt to collaborate which is not in the interests of neocon philosophy.
Allocation of resources and wealth is really the problem. Rewards for good behavior are in short supply as are penalties for bad behavior. If you use your talent as a student to achieve you are awarded with scholarship. If you produce well you get higher pay. Those are good behavioral concepts. Rewarding white collar and political crooks should not be tolerated but it is and they are screwing a good thing up. Workers should have rights and should not be enslaved by low wages and high debts. They will drive the economy and receive the kind of good recognition they have earned.
The politics of hope needs to be based on sound principles. There is a lot to gain from implementing these concepts in the Obama policy,
Health care that is affordable is a bonus for everyone except of course medical profiteers. If big pharma does not want to invest in R&D let government or Non Profits pick up the slack with some funding.
The “Vigah” of the Kennedy tears was encouraging people to live healthy lives, More of that from leadership is welcome.
OMG … ((( HotFlash )))
How’ve you been ? I lost your e-mail addy and website … e-mail me … we’ll meet for coffee/drink
Hugh, I agree with all you say with one exception. Paulson may be in denial now about the nature of the crisis and his role in bringing it about, but in my opinion he was not in denial about his part in causing it when he presented his two and one-half page “Plan” to the Senate.
The most glaring condition in that “Plan” was that there be no oversight as to use of the $700 Billion bailout and that Congress remove the possibility of court action resulting from implementation of his plan.
That term/condition in the “Plan” should have put the brakes on the whole deal right then. It shouts that crimes had been committed and possibly more would be committed in carrying out the plan. At that point the Senate Banking Committee should have stopped further action until Paulson was thoroughly questioned as to why that statement was included.
Paulson knew how the crash came about, that he was one of the main architects of it, and that unlawful, probably fraudulent methods had been used, and that he was guilty as Hell.
The Senate should have at that point demanded his resignation.
Ian thanks for explaining all this. I have one likely dumb question, where does the Dodd-Shelby $300 billion figure in all this. what effect is it supposed to have and will it make any difference in the larger bank crisis? and also, how come McCain’s mortgage buyout tag is only $300 billion, the amount Dodd and Shelby said would help only some homeowners?
I agree that Paulson’s 2-3 page plan is evidence he was hiding what he intended to do. I think the Congress engaged in a major con when it added on hundreds of pages to the original Paulson plan but kept all of the vague unstated parts of it intact.
Are we going to reinvent Keynesian state capitalism by degrees?
I know I’m thoroughly EPU here, but this is the relevant topic.
Warrantless spying on Americans. The Iraq Debacle. The Wealthfare bailout.
Hopefully. It is way past time to purge Milton Friedman from the halls of economics.
Well if they are changing course to a plan that at least has a chance of working that is a good thing. Why this was not the plan to begin with is beyond me.
700 billion down the drain seems a lot more palatable when it might actually work.
Do you have any citations either in the press or a legal citation? I’d appreciate it.
Hugh, to what extent do you think the foreign countries now in financial crisis blame Paulson’s propaganda which he sold to their big banks?
The Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, has called on European leaders to create a new world order that minimises the role of the US.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..ut-US.html
Oops, better make some actual economic changes or the rest of the world is going to freeze you out…
The Group of Seven rich nations is no longer effective and should be replaced by a steering group that includes emerging economic powers like China, India and Brazil, World Bank President Robert Zoellick said on Monday.
http://in.reuters.com/article/…..9720081007
Wow, I’m really sorry about my stupid attempt at humor that moderator edited out. Really thoughtless of me in the current environment or anytime for that matter.
The link below gets the video, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
I’m fairly certain that most of you here have seen it and probably read the book by the hit-man, John Perkins. In the video Perkins explains that he was compelled to write the book by 9/ll. I have the book; it’s next on my reading list.
I highly recommend watching this video. It goes way back to the scullduggery devised and controlled by USA in many countries (even VietNam, Panama, S. America, etc). Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbdnNgqfsB
Link bad. I got alert “malformed character”.
Just Google: Confessions of an Economic Hitman
Its time to start planning.
Well congratulations, it looks like we will win and gain substantially in the Senate and the House.
Now is the time for each of us, and all of us out here, to start the drumbeat for the primary challanges of 2010. Each and every member of the Party who voted for the 700 billion dollar rip off that Barak supported will be targeted for replacement with a true progressive.
We are starting now to campaign to replace Harry in the Senate and Nancy in the House. They both have more than amply demonstrated that they have neither the guts or the smarts to lead in the Congress. We are not taking back to government to let incompetent jerks give away the store to the corporate interests.
We want an honest, strong, and smart Secretary of the Treasury appointed. If Barak appoints anyone other than Warren Buffet, they had better be prepared to show that they have all the qualifications of a Warren Buffet. Buffet will not either sqander our money or fail to get value for our dollar. No political Hacks need apply and any history of elective office will disqualify the person immediately.
To echo Barak, this win is not an end, it is the first step of We the People takeing back that which is ours. A very good thing for you politicians to remember.