The government needs to stop giving money without getting either control or a reasonable chance of repayment of the money. If it doesn’t do so, it won’t be able to fix the economy.
When Citigroup got its bailout, the market capitalization of Citi was about 20 billion dollars. The government basically guaranteed about 250 billion dollars of bad Citi debt, in exchange it received 7 billion of preferred shares without voting rights, paying 8% dividends (less than the 10% Buffet got). Warrants were also given, at a price about 4 times what Citi was trading at at the tme.
So, let’s summarize: in exchange for 7 billion and some warrants that may never pay back, the government put itself on the hook for 250 billion dollars. For 20 billion dollars or maybe a bit more, the government could have simply bought out Citigroup.
Now, it would make no sense for a private investor to buy Citi, but if the government has decided that it will never let Citi fail, and it’s hard to read the Citi bailout any other way, then it’s already on the hook for all of Citi’s debts anyway. And if it is, then there is no downside to owning Citi: it gets all the upside if it turns Citigroup around, after all—not just a few warrants, but the ability to issue stock and pay dividends when it chooses, to itself. There’s no taxpayer protection like that.
Add that to the fact that the current management of Citigroup is clearly incompetent, and there’s no reason not to take over Citi. And with Citi under control, one of the world’s largest banks, the government could have used it as a policy instrument, having it lend in the overnight market at the rates the government determines, having it give out credit directly to consumers and businesses at government rates and so on.
So, Citi should have been taken over. There was no reason not to, and every reason to do so, unless the first concern was to make sure executives kept their jobs rather than that Citi be viable, taxpayers be protected and the credit logjam be broken.
Now we move to GM.
GM’s market cap as of this writing is slightly under 3 billion dollars. Having GM go under would very likely bring down both Chrysler and Ford, because shared suppliers would go under at the same time. Job losses would be in the 2 million to 3 million range. GM going under could quite possibly turn a very bad recession into an actual depression.
Which is to say, in real economic terms, GM is just as much "too big to fail" as Citigroup is. The question here is not "how much is it going to cost", the question is "are we willing to let it fail?" If the government really is, after throwing trillions at the financial industry, and the travesty of Citigroup, then the government is so captured by the financial interests who donate to it that it is no longer capable of looking after the interests of all Americans, but only key donors.
If, on the other hand, the decision is made to help GM survive and restructure, then the government is essentially on the hook for all of GM’s debts, in the same way it announced to the world that it will effectively back up all of Citi’s debts (after 250 billion, are they going to blink at the rest?)
If that’s the case, the simplest thing to do is just nationalize GM. Buy out the shareholders for the 3 billion their shares are worth, or hey, be generous and pay them double—6 billion. In the current context, that’s not even real money. Get the best auto people in the world and have them go in and restructure GM. Spend the necessary money and make the necessary cuts. Restructure the company to serve America’s interests—get the Volt working, increase mpg ratings, restructure the dealer network. Do it all. Fix the company and make it viable again. Then, once it’s working again in a few years, start selling it back to the private sector. Do it right and the government will make a significant profit.
But, more to the point, there are no halfsies here. This is like being "slightly pregnant". The government either decides to keep companies like Citi alive or not. If it’s in, it’s in all the way. And if you’re on the hook for a company’s debts anyway, there’s no reason not to own it. That way taxpayers don’t just get the downside, taxpayers get all the upside. And while in control of the company you can both fix it properly and use it to fix the US economy.
The number 1 rule of the financial crisis so far has been that the people who caused it must be left in charge of everything. Going forward that has to change, because if it doesn’t change, the money being thrown at the situation, even if it papers over the problem, won’t fix the underlying flaws and it won’t be paid back to taxpayers. Which means that when the geniuses who screwed up the Big 3 and the financial sector screw it up again (this is their track record, they will do it again) there won’t be enough money next time. The world may be willing to let the US print 10 trillion dollars once and pretend it’s real money. They won’t do it twice.
This is "do it right" time. You will be graded. There will not be a retest. And the penalty for failure is a depression.



96 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
The Bushies’ market fundamentalism prevents them from nationalizing anything. It’s hard to see that things can get much worse in the next six weeks, but Paulson will probably find a way.
gee, you make it sound like the United States is a democracy or something.
But the aristocrats came in through the bathroom window during the Reagan Administration, and they are not going away just because they trashed the place.
I don’t remember seeing you at the Krugman book salon today Ian. Here’s his answer to why Citi won’t be nationalized:
I asked if that would be the same under Obama/Geithner, but he didn’t A my Q.
http://firedoglake.com/2008/12…..nt-1746832
Then we would have some “Federal Banks” for a stronger monetary policy. Banks with a will to loan instead of paranoid lenders?
I wonder where Citigroup and Royal Bank of Scotland will be in five to ten years?
Especially since I believe Britain DID nationalize RBS and ‘allow’ the current RBS management to walk out the door with their clothing but not their golden parachutes.
Have to shut the casinos down and return to banking services.
Hi Ian bet it’s getting cold up yout way.
I missed it, but did read it. This phobia needs to go away. Clearly it won’t happen under Bush/Paulson. But one can hope the “Pragmatists” in Obama’s cabinet and ec. team will prove… as pragmatic as advertised.
Yup, below freezing a fair bit lately. Winter is here.
In addition to the costs you cited with regard to GM will there not be significant operating cost shortfalls for the next few years that should be anticipated.
Oh, and Paulson should be in prison.
Please don’t hold your breath waiting for change.
We did wriggle out of him why he’s not negative on the Obama economics team: he knows them all in some way or another. Sees Geithner at meetings, etc. BTW did you catch that Bernanke hired him? Heh. I tried a Bernanke rant to see if I could provoke him, but he didn’t bite. He does acknowledge that propinquity could have its drawbacks.
I did already know Bernanke hired him. Yeah. Didn’t know that till about 2 weeks ago. It explains a lot. In general though I’ve noticed he gives these guys a lot of rope. He did more or less admit it.
What about Robert Rubin’s role in Citigroup? Is this another example of Glenzilla’s aristocracy at work (see his blog today), protecting the Ruling Class and sticking us proles with the bill?
Is the involvement of Rubin and his acolytes in high places an indication that under Obama, the “recovery” won’t be much different?
I guess that will be one of the tests of Glenzilla’s hypothesis: If Team Rubin gets special treatment, then Obama won’t challenge the aristocracy, and “Change we can believe in” is mostly cosmetic.
Bob in HI
Actually, I think I used to know that Bernanke was head of the Princeton econ dept, so could have put 2+2 together, but I’d forgotten about the Bernanke-Princeton thing.
Krugman sez that all these folks are not ideologues and have learned from what has happened since they were last in power (pragmatists), so we should trust them. Someone (probably selise) asked for evidence that Rubinites have changed but that was another of the Qs that never got A-ed.
What is being missed here is that if the Fed and Treasury hadn’t given Citi a big loan and underwritten its debt, where would be the theft and looting? Paulson and Bush have their priorities after all.
That was probably me but anyone think the Citi deal would have gone down the way it did if Rubin had not been on the board and Obama’s principal economic adviser?
He and Jeff Skilling would make excellent cellmates.
They can while away the hours reminiscing about Harvard Business School.
I want Citi nationalized so taxpayers can take over their $400 million “naming rights” to the Mets’ stadium, which no one on Team Bailout seems to want to see them forego. [Ditto re Citi’s sponsorship of one of the BCS bowls.]
Then we could be the ones to decide to call it “$700 billion and all I got was this lousy stadium” Field.
Today it was announced that Nov job losses were 250K. With my arithmetic that put our year to date over a million. After the first of the year we will be looking at massive store closures. Unemployement consequences? Obama’s goal is 2.5 million jobs in a couple of years. This won’t come close to being what will have been lost especially if the auto industry fails.
Agreed and Bernanke should be his cellmate.
Citigroup is connected to the Saudi royals and I do NOT support nationalizing this company nor do I think they should get a bailout. They’ve screwed America over for too long. I say ‘let them eat their own cake after they bake it & frost it!’.
We could become highway moguls, too.
No, oh course not. I thought Krugman was terribly weak and gullible about the Obama economics mafia. And probably for the reason stated: he’s on the fringes of it. Just amazing how a rubbing elbows with the powerful corrupts one’s power to think.
They could probably fill a special wing of a prison with MBAs from Harvard. And they’d have no trouble getting donors to make it posh.
Yes he should. Did you see him stumble his words the other day when he ALMOST admitted that he knew the economy was in the shit hole last December and did nothing? Spit.
I think in some cases the calamity has pushed firms into trouble and it didn’t make sense to force a change of management. To some extent that’s true with the car companies and Citi too. Where change appears most needed with the car companies is in the boards of directors. Their long-term vision and strategies have been failures or certainly not moved along fast enough to avoid their current situations.
Paulson is, like Bush, an embarrassment.
Are banks lending at all? If not, then why do we continue to protect them? After all, what else are they about? Taking people’s money in deposits and such and then not lending makes them too big to stay in business (as opposed to too big to fail).
The TARP was to get rid of the bad mortgages and amended to save the financial system. Well, they soon discovered that simply buying up the mortgages wouldn’t work without a LOT more money and saving the financial system has run into a crisis of “confidence”. Nobody seems to want this crisis to be fixed.
On top of that: Sheila Bair’s FDIC program to fix mortgages has been rejected; direct efforts to fix mortgages runs into mortgage servicers who have difficulty fixing them; mortgage-backed CDO senior tranche holders want their mortgages changed for fear of devaluing the CDO and ’some say’ having a bankruptcy judge fix a mortgage ‘breaks the contract’ which is somehow verboten.
NOBODY wants this fixed.
They’d rather all homeowners live on the streets than change anything. Who needs Al Qaeda with a financial sector like this?
So, what do we do? Wait for Godot, er Obama? When he gets in what happens?
I think we have seen the enemy and he has his own private jet.
Nope. As of this week, Obama’s goal is to save or create 2.5 million jobs. As there are about 137 million jobs now, if there are, say, 120 million at the end of Obama’s term, he can say he saved 120 million jobs.
Don’t know why W’s speech writers didn’t figure that one out.
Yes, his stimulus is not big enough. Need to write on that.
Alas, bailing out crooks and dinosaurs is not prudent. They offer nothing, why do they not receive in kind?
I leave now, as anyone that could be in favor of bailing out those that steal directly from us every day, is not rational.
The picture is of a fictional character, as is the subject matter.
2.5 million jobs in two years is 100,000 a month, which doesn’t keep up with population growth as folks attempt to enter the workforce. I keep waiting for someone, anyone, to challenge this on television, but no one does.
Maybe that’s why Obama won’t call on FOX reporters during his press conferences? *g*
Obama called on a Foxy today.
Nationalizing the auto industry should prove interesting- this is the government who couldn’t successfully run a whore house in Nevada- maybe they’d have better luck with cars?
Maybe he gives them a lot of rope because he’s actually in a better position than most to judge them on their:
1. economic knowledge
2. professional competence
3. ideological flexibility
4. personal integrity
His POV will be different than ours: his judgment more informed in some respects (by both his personal expertise and access), but not infallible. To what degree his personal relationships warp his view is unclear, but the fact that he recognizes the possibility makes me give his judgments considerable credence. More than someone whose expertise doesn’t include direct personal knowledge of the players involved. YMMV.
Oh but the govt doing the running would be Obama’s team, and we are filled with hope for them.
Well there ya go- can’t remember which govt. fucked up the mustang ranch.
250K. That’s scary.
After GM goes into bankruptcy, all kinds of businesses will fail next spring in the slow retail season (including, possibly, the one Mr. Snap and I own.
Yes! Trusting insiders and other insiders’ evaluation of their competence has worked out so well so far….
Krugman answered our skepticism about the Rubinites reluctantly. There were are lot of the same Qs before he tackled it. And then he answered no followups (actually he did do one for me). Krugman is not shy and is articluate. He could have enlarged along the lines of the 4 points you mention, as we were clearly very concerned about them. But Krugman didn’t. That’s why I think his answer was weak.
imo not so much fear of public ownership itself, but rather fear of those ideologues who would raise noise about it. The fear is so intense that not only will those in the current administration not “go there”, very few on the left will write about it either. Naomi Klein being one of the few. Ian Welsh shows courage in his post, and I, for one, greatly appreciate him taking up this ultra-taboo topic.
The fact is that the US has nationalized private companies before, a number of times.
I don’t know enough about this topic to know if nationalization is the right tool or not (although I believe it may be at least as good as what has been tried so far), but what does bother me is that certain solutions are not even discussed, not because they are inappropriate, but because they are ideological “third rails”.
I still think our government should give us a check for $10,000 and we’ll decide if we want to save the money or spend it on a car, pay off credit cards, put it towards our mortgage, or blow it at Neiman Marcus. Okay, government? Jees. Bailing out anything besides us is ridiculous!!!!
BTW, today’s jobs report is from a private survey.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/…..refer=home
The govt data for Nov get reported Friday at 8:30am. I don’t know how the two compare, but judging by a one-month overlap, it looks like the govt data might show a larger job loss.
I heard an estimate today that it could be as high as 350K
I wouldn’t be surprised.
Agreed, but the suggestion is to buy CITI all at once on the stock exchange. Of course, the process would bid up the price; but, as Ian suggests, call the major holders together and tell them you’ll double the current price. You would definitely pick off the portion who are desperately illiquid at the moment. And it doesn’t take 100% ownership to control.
As to the Saudis and their buddies, there are a number of ways to handle foreign capital – some of which are even more radical than ‘nationalizing’ corporations. How about a really tough, annual ‘wealth’ tax on foreign stock holdings, at market prices? If they stay in the game, and if the stock values rise, they at least pay us some ‘rent’ on the gains.
Calling The Shrill One an insider is a bit of a stretch.
In my view he’s someone with inside knowledge, but not an insider’s mindset. He has been more resistant to economic groupthink than just about any major economist or pundit outside of Roubini.
But if you’re asking me whether I think that there’s empirical evidence that a Nobel-winning economist has both superior insight, knowledge and judgement about exceedingly complex economic issues than some people commenting on a blog… well, um yes.
There’s no faith involved… just an assessment of whose advice and opinion holds more weight. The jury is still out about whose right.
I’m not sure I’d trust wiki on that. Fannie & Freddie are listed as nationalized, whereas Krugman described them as being in govt receivership. I don’t know for sure which is accurate but I would go with Krugman not wiki on that one.
Apparently it was the Bush Sr. administration who tried and failed to run a whore house:
Conforte dealt mostly in cash and kept few records. By 1990, the IRS had seized the ranch, putting the federal government in the unique position of running a brothel.
The government failed and the ranch was padlocked for the first time. The IRS auctioned off beds, the bidets _ even the room numbers _ to recover some of Conforte’s tax debt.
The brothel was sold for $1.49 million to a shell company overseen by Conforte and his attorney, Peter Perry. Conforte returned briefly to run the ranch, then fled to Brazil in 1991
The American public was opposed to nationalization during the Great Depression, despite the gravity of the economic situation and the relative ineffectiveness of the New Deal recuperative, rescue policies and programs to turn things around. At the time, it was thought that nationalization and other socialist-like steps somehow ran counter to “basic” American values. (GROAN). I see little reason to hope that the national ethos has evolved in the last 75 or so years.
Well, there were the Nobel Prize winning economists who busted Long Term Capital Management.
None of whom graciously offered to put their necks on the FDL chopping block for an hour and a half today.
Those guys you speak of – they are like Mark Penn. They scram, pronto.
Even if you take fannie and freddie out, or consider them partial nationalizations, it remains true that the US has nationalized industries before, which was my point.
The fact that nationalization is such a forbidden topic shows how far the nation has been pulled Right–especially when so few on the “Left” will even mention it. Kudos to Ian for taking this up.
Maybe he realized there was no room to influence opinion on that score.
The proof will be in the pudding, and everybody has a right to hold their own opinion in the meantime. It’s expressed certainty of opinion about future events and behavior that I have an issue with.
He seems to be allowing for the possibility of a positive outcome with the team that Obama has assembled, based on his knowledge of who they are and what the scope of the challenges are. It would seem presumptuous of me to think there is no possibility that his view could turn out to be right.
What I trust about Krugman is based on what he has evidenced:
> That his values align well for the most part with liberal values.
> That he has superior knowledge of economics.
> And that his insight and judgment have given him a great predictive batting average on matters economic (politics, not so much)
Given that, I can’t easily toss his judgments on the players… even though I have some reservations regarding their intentions.
Just saying that those types are fallible. I never felt cowed by going against big name economists when evidence led me to do it. All we were doing is asking for evidence that the Rubinites had learned, or were pragmatic, and Krugman didn’t provide it.
It does run counter to basic american values. I readily acknowlege that. We’re all about private property, private mode of production. But we are in extraordinary times.
Huh? So you think in addition to his other notable skills, Krugman is also a mindreader? And without even the help of body language. Wow.
I dislike using the word “trust” when speaking about issues for which real information can be provided.
A name that would make you feel special:
$250 Billion Field!
Interesting that Bush would de facto nationalize a union in the “national interests…”
“Finally, the administration could replace striking longshore workers with Navy personnel. When Reagan used the military to replace striking air traffic controllers in 1982, CEOs nationwide saw his action as an invitation to permanently replace their own striking workers-a tactic that, while legal, had been largely untested until then.”
http://www.labornotes.org/node/1208
Who were completely wrong in the assumptions that underpinned the model they built. Which shows that exceptionally intelligent, celebrated and knowledgeable people can be utterly wrong in their beliefs. Certainty of opinion, ideological rigidity and arrogance (re ability to predict the future) are positive risk factors in increasing that probability. Which relates to Krugman how?
Do you give Krugman’s views no credence at all? If so, what evidence is there that your views about the future are demonstrably more correct?
Yes, just as he shredded the 4th amendment, renditioned habeas to a dark cell in eastern europe, and made torture the national past-time.
All these, and so much more, because the nation was in danger.
But the american economic community cannot even utter the word “nationalize” because that’s unamerican?
Part of my answer to you is in 51.
The evidence on my side is what there guys have done in the past. Will give you a sample if your not familiar. What we were looking for from Krugman is evidence of his assertion that the Rubinites have learned from experience, are pragmatists, etc. He didn’t provide that evidence, so I am stuck with my usual model of human behavior, which is that people continue to do the same thing that they have always done. (Obviously doesn’t work for people who are erratic, but that is not so for the Rubinites who have been quite consistent.)
Listen, I much prefer Krugman to be right. But we’ve never been well served by taking anyone’s word for anything in the past several decades. So I’m not taking his word.
Use ‘confidence in his judgment’ instead then. The confidence is not absolute as the judgment is not infallible (as I originally stated).
That you discount his view so dismissively is what I don’t understand. Is it not even worthy of your examination? Is it impossible that he is the one who is more correct in his judgment of the players?
See my 61, and if that doesn’t answer your question, ask me to further explain.
That’s a good bit of trivia. It’s somehow appropriate that it was being run by a Bush…and that it went bankrupt. Makes me wonder if Dubya’s presidential library will also fail. heh
Another way to put it is in the context of making decisions under uncertainty. The model of consistency in human behavior has worked well, but is of course not infallible. But when making a decision when I don’t know the outcome, I’d rather go with what has worked often than take a chance on someone’s judgement on people, when I don’t know his record on that score. I can judge Krugman on economics because he’s written a lot that I can read and evaluate. His track record on evaluating people I don’t know anything about.
Seems to me that economics is not an exact science and that it resembles reading tea leaves.
Off to make dinner. Will check back later.
Except that, frankly, he gave Bernanke and Paulson too much rope. His judgment on their competence was not as good as many of those of us who did not know them personally.
I love Krugman, but this is, in fact, one of his biggest blind spots.
To me it isn’t so much a matter of whether they were wrong in their time. There is a question of whether they have learned from that experience or if they’re simply willing to try another tack today. What’s more important is that the political “conversation” had us going to the Right for a long time and that the Democrats (such as they were) went that way and now it has failed — so, the next step is to pick up ideas which have been just laying around for the last 60 years and which have worked.
We need to fix our current problems and apply real Democratic ideas to really fixing the system.
The political conversation indicates that fixing the federal debt problem the Republicans created isn’t the highest priority! We need investments in society. Letting the Republicans spend us into debt and then just trying to pay that down is a fool’s errand.
Oh please. Krugman is an insider in the world of economics. During the 90’s John Kenneth Galbraith called him the hit man for economic orthodoxy. He’s not a political insider, no, but in the world of economics and finance, yeah, he’s an insider.
I’m not aware of any recent polls. But I don’t think, worded rightly, you couldn’t get it well over 50%.
In the words of a great Zen master, “We’ll see.”
It’s unlikely, since his judgment has been weakest in the past when dealing with people he knows well, like Bernanke.
To everyone who thinks nationalizing GM is a good idea, I give you this.c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B…..orporation
Sorry that we’ve got two threads going in the same discussion. I’m a slow typist so my earlier replies follow your later responses.
There is an
implicitexplicit assumption in your statement that the best way to understand the future (including future behavior) is to study the past. Which works if the future is actually like the past (at least in important ways). But what is happening now is completely unlike the past. All the assumptions that underpinned the modern global economy have been proven, by dramatic evidence, to be false. Which is why all the models of prediction are failing.Now if you’re one of the guys that built and or used those models successfully in the past (before their bounds became apparent), will you continue to do so in the future? Now that they’ve been shown to be completely inadequate for the task at hand? (kind of like using Newtonian physics to solve a quantum mechanical problem).
Why would I believe that people universally described as brilliant and expert in their field will continue to apply models and beliefs that have been invalidated? I would do so only if I knew them to be ideologically driven.
Krugman’s evidence is that he knows them not to be ideological, from actually having worked with them in the past. (i.e. direct experience). Why is that not evidence to you? Do you think he is unable to distinguish an ideologue from a pragmatic thinker? I can understand that it’s not conclusive evidence, but we all recognize true believers once we’ve worked or lived beside them for a while. If he says they’re not true believers then—lacking more compelling contrary evidence—I start with that as a working hypothesis… and see if initial future evidence supports that view or refutes it.
Not faith-based at all. No blind trust, but an open mind without a pre-filter of belief one way or the other. Other than that the future will not be like the past… in some most important ways.
Paul, as long as it makes the Saudis suffer somehow, I’m all for it. ;-)
And besides, I don’t want Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid to have the decision to kill the Corvette or Camaro. Gotta have some passion in the mix…
During the 90’s perhaps he was — which is probably the only reason the Times hired him to write on economic issues. (because he wouldn’t rock the boat in any significant way) His shift in thinking and subsequent trajectory has not been what they bargained for.
Krugman is one of the few who easily admits when he has been wrong in the past—probably because he doesn’t want to be wrong again in the future. And releasing faulty assumptions and beliefs is pre-requisite for that. In doing so, he certainly moved outside of acceptable insider opinion during the Bush era. (Which seems to me more relevant to the discussion than where he was in the 90’s.)
When I said he doesn’t have an insider’s mindset, I meant that he doesn’t care where his opinions land him relative to ‘common knowledge’. He doesn’t require the acceptance and validation of other insiders, which gives him freedom to explore ideas beyond the prevailing orthodoxy. (even if his career was birthed within it)
I had forgotten what Ian brought up, which is that Krugman’s record on evaluating people has not been great. I’m sure that has been floating around in the back of my mind but didn’t come up to the typing fingers until I read Ian’s comments.
You never know whether an economist’s an ideologue or not until you stress test him, i.e. put him in a situation where his past theories are no longer relevant, and see what he does. Don’t think most of Krugman’s contacts with the Rubinites have been in those cirsumstances. Though some might have been and that was just the sort of info I was hoping to get from him. But as I didn’t, I can’t make it up.
I was a business cycle forecaster, so I know all about turning points, how to identify them when they’re there, and how to resist them when they’re not (like the saw about the stock market forecasting 9 of the last 5 recessions). Not that my record is perfect, far from it (forecasting is a loser’s game they say), but rather I developed skills that allowed me to think about what changed and what remained the same.
Krugman’s opinion is a datum for me. I’ve duly noted it (even more so after this thread *g*) and I’ll keep an eye out for confirming or denying additional info.
Yeah, you got that right. I know someone who died of cancer not long ago. This means that cancer treatment is a crock, and medical solutions to cancer are totally hopeless, because that one patient got treatment and it didn’t work.
Boy, you sure set me straight on that. Thanks.
Bernanke is a tough one. My understanding is that he was widely respected as an economist before landing at the Fed. The assumption that domain expertise and intelligence are sufficient markers for future performance is a common one, and I agree it doesn’t always serve.
He has been a disappointment for sure. Maybe he just doesn’t have the stones to stand up to Paulson (a steamroller if their ever was one). Maybe his expertise regarding the depression is clouding his view about what he is seeing today, causing him to misjudge what is really going on. In the end it doesn’t matter much, because the results have been disastrous.
But I put him in a different category from Paulson whose intention and actions seems an order of magnitude more self-dealing.
And don’t get me started on health care. I hate that socialized medicine because I don’t want Pelosi or Reid deciding if I can see my doctor or not. I’d much prefer to leave all that in the hands of the insurance companies and HMOs, because they’re in the private sector.
What I’d really prefer is “F***ed Taxpayers Ballpark.”
Do you think that has a chance?
Nobody has gagged Geithner and Summers. The exponential growth in the housing bubble began in 2004. That was 4 years ago. Geithner by the way has been at the New York Fed since 2003. Yet he never saw the housing bubble coming or its bursting on August 9, 2007 even though by early 2006 the bubble was fully mature or a whole year and a half before it went splat. Now during all that time both Summers and Geithner could have said what they would do. Even after Paulson let Lehman go down in mid-September of this year precipitating the meltdown, they really said nothing very much, just the few odd noises that Paulson and Bernanke were doing a good job. Krugman’s own judgment is suspect on this since he too liked what Paulson and Bernanke were doing and he also supported the nutty Paulson bailout. And as I mentioned earlier today, Geithner was involved in both the Bear Stearns and AIG which certainly had their shady insider angles to them.
So after all this, their failure to foresee the current crisis and their general support for Paulson and Bernanke’s deeply incompetent and ineffective efforts, we are supposed to still, in the absence of any countervailing evidence, give them the benefit of the doubt? Why? We have the evidence of their records during the Clinton years, during the run up to both the bubble and the meltdown, and their reactions to them. We also have all the opportunities if they had something new or different to say which they did not use. This is way more than is necessary to come up with a judgment about the them.
I literally did not pay attention to the financial markets & economy from when I left Wall St in 2000 until this year. So I took the conventional wisdom on Bernanke to be accurate. Now he acts like a jerk, so out of curiosity, I listened to his speech, Monday I think, at Austin Chamber of Commerce. It was a long boring litany of what went wrong when that landed us in the mess we’re in today. Not one word about regulation or deregulation.
It didn’t take more than that for me to figure out he’s a charlatan. I’m sure that wasn’t the first time there was living proof that he’s not up to the job. So I don’t accept your assertion that Bernanke’s a tough one.
I asked Krugman about that today, but it was another of the Qs he didn’t answer.
I would agree with that, with a slight shift of emphasis. I think Krugman’s political instincts are suspect (evidence: his positions on Clinton v. Obama in the primaries), and his understanding of how people will react under political pressure hasn’t been very consistent.
My view is that the nature of the crisis moves accomplished people out of their comfort zones — including their comforting thought patterns and ideological conformity. They have to question fundamental assumptions about not just what is at play and how it might unfold, but also what the real nature of their role is, and where their deeper intention lies. (At least that’s the opportunity that crisis present on the upside.)
I’m not going to assume that these people (Obama’s economic team) is incapable of stepping up to the moment. They certainly have the knowledge and ability to do so. And presumably the motivation. Will they then? I think that there are just as many valid reasons to belive that they will than that they won’t.
I don’t think that a reflexively pessimistic and cynical view is any more illuminating or inherently correct than a rigidly ideological one, or a blindly trusting one. That’s all I’m arguing against – or for, depending on your viewpoint.
And with that, back to my preferred comfort zone of contented lurking!
Lurk less often. Nice chatting.
Obama and his economic team have not been shy about saying what they want to do when they want to. So they have floated a two year $600 billion stimulus and the aforementioned job numbers which can be interpreted in a couple of ways.
I pointed out at the time that the stimulus comes out to $300 billion a year and this is likely insufficient, a $400-$600 billion stimulus per year is probably needed. Think back to the transient improvement of the $160 billion earlier this year for comparison. The Obama team has also signaled that much of this will go for infrastructure projects. Nothing bad about that but the question which eCahn asked Krugman earlier today was what happens to those jobs after those projects are done? And in terms of short term stimulus as Ian as often pointed out unemployment benefits and food stamps give a much bigger bang for the buck.
There may also be some support for help for homeowners but as far as I can tell nothing comprehensive and consistent, just a general backing for the handful of different programs we are already seeing.
No mention has been made of nationalization of banks and without that it is going to be very messy, very expensive, and very partial solution to the toxic asset and credit problems meaning that a recovery will likely be considerably delayed.
Finally, there has been almost no discussion of re-regulation. Again this promises a handful of incomplete, partial regulations which will be a lot less effective than they might be.
One of my friends who is a very very good mathematician (world class) took a close look at Bernanke’s papers. His assertion was that the math doesn’t add up in a couple key papers, but that unless you’re willing to spend a lot of time and know a lot, you won’t notice.
Take it as datum. However, he then predicted Bernanke’s behaviour (ahead of time) and has been mostly right.
Funnily enough, I think Krugman’s criticisms of Obama were mostly pretty spot on.
Heheh. It’s the benefit of the doubt he gave to Bernanke and Paulson and the bailout I have issues with.
sorry i missed this thread – one other point about today’s discussion with krugman was that he did warn about about trusting him re his comments on geithner et al:
So you’d rather have the government tell me which cars I should want? If I can’t get them in a Chevy or Ford dealership, then I’ll just go over to the local Nissan dealership and order a 370Z. Leave the Corvette, Camaro and Mustang out of this. They’re American institutions.
And if you really think the government telling the car companies what to do is a good idea, please read post #74, kthxbai.
If you really think the car companies running themselves is a good idea, read GM’s financial statement.
kthxbai
When has the US Government ever operated a business at a profit?
Their mantra is to try get it done no matter the cost.
I’d rather bail them out because it is a national security issue.
When China gets their hands on our manufacturing techniques, they will open up their interior to development. Think several Billion people. The US will then become a non-entity.
They will cash in their treasury bonds. We will become a third world country.
… so you’d rather have politicians run GM into the ground instead? Did you even bother to look up British Leyland?
GM is already in the ground, you silly person. That’s why they’re wanting Billions of your (and my) money. So they can continue building the Camaros you love so well.