why are we throwing money at banks at all?

we need liquidity, instead of “throwing money at them” we should be “making money for loans available”

bing, any money they get from the government is simply for loans and nothing else

In a more ideal world that is exactly right. What Paulson brought to Dems was an emergency call for action and no time to include details like oversight or restrictions on the money’s use.

Or did the eponymous Mr. Blunt have another depression in mind? The one he’s living through.

He is saying two things (I think): that Obama’s plan is creating a depression because it won’t stimulate the economy and create jobs and/or that we’re not really in a downward spiral destined for a Great Depression (owing to Bush’s activities) and that even if we recover quickly, it won’t be because of the stimulus, it would be because Dems just overhyped the situation and it really wasn’t all that bad to start with.

Lose, you caused it. Win, you didn’t help.

Rep. Blunt is a smart cookie.

If you want someone making sure that a whole lot of money spent on a whole lot of nothing, then Gary Locke is definitely your man.

Somehow, any real sense of urgency seems absent on Wall Street, not just in Washington. Things can happen when financial crises get bad enough, things that aren’t financial at all. Bad things. At some point, our corrupt politicians and financiers should therefore remember that the time when they can accept a businesslike financial haircut may be passing. Maybe they can indeed count on fooling all of the people for a little longer. Maybe their bought politicians and media will be enough to let them evade any real reckoning. But maybe not. Maybe, just maybe, a Directory may be the future rather than a board of directors. Apres nous, le deluge?

the banking industry lends the fed’s money for a finders fee, they are responsible for that money

bing

they are in the busness of lending money not in the business of gambling

“Who will take the haircut?”

It’s difficult to watch a system that seems to still be able to claim that ‘capital’ is the source of wealth. Therefore, anyone who manages or controls or claims to own ‘capital’ shouldn’t have to take a haircut because that would somehow damage ‘capital’.

It’s a system that ignores moral hazards by claiming the the logic of the market will always sort out ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. That very assumption is deeply flawed.

Until we walk backward far enough to really examine, expose, and have a conversation about our flawed assumptions regarding economics, we’ll continue to hurtle from one ‘crisis’ to the next – while at the same time the GOP Senators and the GOP House leadership will not be held accountable for their fraudulent, foolish economic ideology which seems to originate somewhere in the late 18th century.

Who should take a haircut?
– The GOP **and Dem electeds** who played key leadership roles getting us into this mess — particularly Phil Gramm, Bush41, Baker, DeLay, and the rest of the ‘deregulation’ lawmakers.
– The SEC who turned a blind eye.
– The key managers on Wall Street who didn’t have enough judgment to investigate the ability of their own institutions to cover CDO and CDSwaps.
– The ratings agencies.
– The rah-rah cheerleaders in the media who couldn’t be bothered to do actual reporting on the impending disaster.
– The greedheads who kept swapping.

To be honest, most of what Stirling says could be done under marginalizatin could be done under nationalization as well. The difference is under nationalization you actually have the physical plant and client accounts already in place.