Please welcome Matt Taibbi, author of The Great Derangement, in the comments — jh
Timothy Geithner says that our vexing economic state is due to bankers taking "risks they did not understand," but that explanation sounds rather feeble in the face of mounting evidence that suggests we’re living in the time of the oligarchs. Last week, the arrival of Matt Taibbi’s perfectly-timed article on AIG in Rolling Stone let us all know in plain but elegant language just how royally fucked we were:
By early 2009, a whole series of new government operations had been invented to inject cash into the economy, most all of them completely secretive and with names you’ve never heard of. There is the Term Auction Facility, the Term Securities Lending Facility, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, the Commercial Paper Funding Facility and a monster called the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (boasting the chat-room horror-show acronym ABCPMMMFLF). For good measure, there’s also something called a Money Market Investor Funding Facility, plus three facilities called Maiden Lane I, II and III to aid bailout recipients like Bear Stearns and AIG.
While the rest of America, and most of Congress, have been bugging out about the $700 billion bailout program called TARP, all of these newly created organisms in the Federal Reserve zoo have quietly been pumping not billions but trillions of dollars into the hands of private companies (at least $3 trillion so far in loans, with as much as $5.7 trillion more in guarantees of private investments). Although this technically isn’t taxpayer money, it still affects taxpayers directly, because the activities of the Fed impact the economy as a whole. And this new, secretive activity by the Fed completely eclipses the TARP program in terms of its influence on the economy.
No one knows who’s getting that money or exactly how much of it is disappearing through these new holes in the hull of America’s credit rating. Moreover, no one can really be sure if these new institutions are even temporary at all — or whether they are being set up as permanent, state-aided crutches to Wall Street, designed to systematically suck bad investments off the ledgers of irresponsible lenders.
Chinese premier Wen Jiabao says he’s “a little bit worried” that we’ll pay back their $1.2 trillion in depreciated dollars. The Europeans and the Canadians don’t want to put any more money into the financial system until we take steps to keep it from being looted all over again. The only one who doesn’t seem to be worried is Timothy "what, me worry?" Geithner, who has no backup plan if his trillion dollar gift to the banks (with no compensation limits) doesn’t do the trick.
Yesterday white collar criminologist William Black said that we need a Pecora Commission to look into major reform of the American financial system. Marcy Kaptur echoed that on the floor of the House today. We sure need something. Very much looking forward to hearing what Matt has to say on the subject.



118 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Hey Matt – Welcome back to Firedoglake for more derangement.
Hi egregious. Am I all set here?
Welcome, Matt. The article was amazing — were you already working on it when the AIG bonus scandal erupted?
(Humming Jeopardy theme)
Matt!
Welcome to FDL!
Oh, yes. I’ve been working on it for months. The funny thing is that the story about those AIG bonuses actually came out in early January. I was doing interviews about it right after the New Year. No one seemed to care back then. Then suddenly last week it became a big deal. I don’t know why.
Hello All!
I guess my first question would be for Matt…
What would you do to make this whole “thing” stable again? And, who would you trust to do that?
Thanks, i enjoy your stuff Matt… cheers.
Even weirder… the information about those bonuses has been public for a while. It was in AIG’s SEC filing. So for Geithner to say he was surprised by it was really odd.
Looking good.
Welcome Matt, you have lots of fans here at Firedoglake, I hope they all get a chance to come and chat with you.
When are you going on Bill Maher to skewer Stephen Moore or some other wingnut ?
Hi Druidity. I can’t say that I have a good answer to that question, but the people I interviewed all seemed to think that what is needed is a series of slow, orderly breakups of these huge conglomerates — and when necessary the state needs to step in an nationalize some parts of the economy. This quasi=public quasi-private thing… it seems nuts.
Welcome back, Matt. And thanks again for pwning The Hair.
Welcome Matt, and thank you for your fabulous article on AIG in Rolling Stone.
Matt,
Are you calling Geithner a liar? I hope so.
Hi Petrocelli, glad to hear it. I think I probably won’t be doing Bill Maher for a while — haven’t heard from them. TV just doesn’t seem like my thing, to be honest.
Back in the days when I was at Goldman Sachs (1976-1986), they made sure that their political contributions were carefully distributed to each party, and there were designated people to head up these efforts, two of whom have become Treas. Secs., along with two more who are their accolites. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall to hear how they planned their takeover of the U.S. govt. And I’ll bet there are some recently ex-employees who know a lot about it and might be willing to spill the beans confidentially.
It wasn’t odd. Geithner is surprised by the sun rise every morning. That’s about the state of his awareness.
MaryM, Geithner’s response was beyond weird. He was literally in the room back in September when hundreds of i-bankers were poring over every line of AIG’s books. For him to say he was unaware in any way about this bonus situation is just bizarre. It’s almost worse if he’s not lying.
Matt, your appearance last week on Morning Joke was kinda special…
Elijah Cummings was actually on Liddy since December, and an AIG spokesperson was on CBS saying that none of the bonuses were for AIG financial products people at that time.
http://firedoglake.com/2009/03…..-long-ago/
They’re just lying weasels. Listening to Liddy get a foot massage in that House hearing was truly disgusting. He’s running around saying he’s only getting a dollar, without mentioning he gets equity and he’s up for a bonus in 2010.
As a technical note, if you hit the reply button at the bottom of each comment, a band will appear informing us who you are replying to.
The most disturbing part of your recent article, IMO, was the bit about AIG selecting its own regulatory agency, which of course did no regulating at all.
What can be done to ensure that Wall Street gets regulated closely in the future?
The other aspect of the Liddy story is that Liddy is an ex Goldmanite who got installed as head of AIG by an ex-Goldmanite (Paulson) in order to bail out… Goldman. Why these people don’t have their heads on pikes, I have no idea.
Great, that frees you up to come here more often.
Your article in Rolling Stone is brilliant !
Matt you write “By early 2009, a whole series of new government operations had been invented to inject cash into the economy, most all of them completely secretive…”
Who invented these operations – who was in charge? Who did those in charge report to?
Amazing stuff – depressing, yet amazing.
Welcome Matt! Great piece on AIG.
Ben Bernanke just refused to tell Joe Baca “when AIG was broken?”–what year. He did blame OTS as being the wrong regulating agency, but didn’t talk about the things you report about in your article on the regulation that allowed AIG to choose to be regulated by AIG.
So how would you answer Congressman Baca’s question?
Maxine Waters tried to corner Geithner this morning about which Sachs fellows were in any way involved with treasury, the fed, anywhere. Weasel is damned right.
Matt — thanks so much for coming to FDL today to chat with all of us. Fantastic AIG article. As Jane says above, it lays everything out in plain and painful language.
Are there particular regulations that you’d like to see enacted? And, if so, what are the odds they actually will be, in your opinion, in the current political and business-lobbying climate?
Not sure if you watched the hearing, but Maxine Waters was hammering that angle pretty hard.
Timmeh summoned some righteous outrage that anyone would question the motives of all the Goldman alum involved in (not) bailing out our national economy.
Yellowsnap, that’s a difficult question because the regulatory environment is so fractured right now. Technically speaking the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act gave the Federal Reserve sweeping power to be the primary regulator of the financial services industry. But in practice it didn’t happen like that, and there are all sorts of loopholes. There is no federal regulatory agency for the insurance business, for instance. And companies and banks can manipulate their corporate structures in order to pick their own regulators. I’m sure there is going to be some kind of reorganization.
I heard Geithner say today that he wasn’t aware of the bonuses until March 10 — but he was asked directly about them in a Senate hearing on March 3. Then he qualified, saying that he didn’t know the legal implications of the contracts until March 10. And then he said he urged pulling the Dodd language about bonuses from the stimulus bill in February because he was worried it wasn’t legal. So I guess he was worried about all the bonuses except the AIG ones.
It doesn’t even make any sense on the face of it.
Welcome Matt!!!
Shout out for your latest in RS. I WAITED for that since last October.
Thanks and it totally rocked.
How wonderful to see you here.
Thank you for coming.
siri
Christy, I’d start with regulating Credit Default Swaps. In my mind the lack of regulation of these derivatives was a fatal flaw in the system. It indirectly encouraged an explosion of lending and leverage. The laws should be changed so that a person selling CDS protection actually has to post the full amount of the guarantee — or close to that amount.
I hope you’ll reconsider about not going on tv – you are very fresh, a good interview, and have a lot to say.
Welcome back Matt.
thank you for your fabulous RS piece – and for pulling their “too complex” covers – brava, brava
tv not your thing is this nation’s loss – I politely implore those responsible for spreading the word on your work, including Mr Wenner to get on it yesterday – americans deserve to hear what you had to say on this vital issue
p.s. – happened to catch hard copy of USA Today this am – it had a distinct Taibbi flavuh right there on the front page – headlines screaming “Gamblers” “Iffy” “Repeat Offenders” … sigh
Digg this guest visit RIGHT HERE!
Hi, Matt. Excellent article, even though I’m not done with it yet. I read a few paragraphs and have to break. It’s all just so disturbing.
Over at TPM, there’s some optimistic speculation that this is part of a bigger plan. The analogy has even been made that the negotiators are giving the armed robbers a cigarette and a cup of coffee to calm them down enough to get their finger off the switch and give the SWAT team some time to get into position. That ultimately there is a plan for large-scale dismantling, but it can’t be done if the Robbers are panicking.
Then again, I agree with you that Geithner’s response isn’t reassuring: lying or incompetence. (Haven’t we heard that somewhere before?)
Any chance the optimists have it right?
Thanks again.
I also think Gramm-Leach-Bliley should be rolled back and Glass-Steagall should be reinstated. We wouldn’t have to bail out these “systemically important” companies if we hadn’t allowed them to get so huge. Plus the merging of insurance, i-banking and commercial banks created all sorts of conflicts of interest… like ratings agencies pressured by their superiors to give good ratings to securities written by some other wing of the company. That all needs to change.
Welcome Matt. Big fan of your work. The latest piece was a good read. I e-d it all over hell and creation.
Slightly OT, but given the complexity of the issues the panel was (ostensibly) trying to address today, what is your opinion of the five minute limit that was imposed (and rigidly enforced) on Q&A? Thanks.
Geithner was surprised by the hew and cry, not by the fact of the bonuses themselves.
Populist frustration is beyond their ability to foresee.
I also applaud your recent article in Rolling Stone. How much do you think quants are implicated – they used a Gaussian Cupola model without examining the assumptions regarding asset value correlation.
Wrong answer! You’re GREAT on Maher. We can all email them and request you back!
I’m in!!!
I second that … audiences love that condescending smirk you display to rebut wingnut comments.
Nola, I know what you mean about it being disturbing. There were times when I was so frustrated during the writing of this piece that I had to take a walk to avoid throwing stuff.
I personally don’t see the “last cigarette” plan. It seems like they’ve been getting that last great meal five meals a day for thirty years.
Wasn’t Henry Paulson responsible for rolling that back in 04 ???
Matt: thanks so much. You always kill it, from back in the NYpress days till now.
Dugg
Regarding CDS derivatives – should regulation forbid naked CDS contracts? That is if a bank has no exposure to the underlying asset should they be able to bet on the asset’s default?
It seems to me that CDS should be limited to use as insurance only, and be subject to insurance style reserve requirements.
Thanks newt … Let’s digg this up, folks
Hey, Matt, welcome. . .
I believe I heard Timmy Neutron Geithner propose that the Treasury be given the authority to take over failing firms like AIG in the way the FDIC takes over banks–at least I think that is what I heard. Not that I have a lot of faith in this group’s ability to manage such a plan in the public interest, but in theory, might that be superior to all of these secret cash injection mechanisms?
I third it. I’ll dun Maher’s site myself.
WMD–
Well, he tried to get around the bonus issue by adding the phrase “in full” when asked how much he knew. But it’s a moot point – these bonuses were reported on CNN back in January. I interviewed several congressmen about them back then. EVERYONE knew about them. And nothing was done until it suddenly became a big deal in the media. So he looks bad in my eyes just for that.
Forgot his worry about bonuses that GM or Chrysler people might get–those fall squarely in the realm of “damn the law.”
I’ve been a HUGE fan since your article last year about John McCain.
Matt,PLEASE don’t deny me some eye candy by refusing to go on TV!
You and Jane both prove you’re bothmore than just “pretty faces”.
Matt, I imagine you started the RS piece knowing something about market complexities. Of all you learned – setting aside the criminal aspects – what came as the biggest surprise about the size of the market?
Dugg!
and i too e’d the RS read everywhere, and got several responses thanking me cause the recipient FINALLY GOT IT what the hell all the mystic lingo meant, finally could understand the whole game a lot better.
That article just cleared up so much in such simple terms. I’ve read about a bazillion articles on this debacle and Matt, YOURS was the ONE that really made it understandable.
LIke I said, I’ve been waiting and waiting for this from you.
It was WAY worth the wait!
WMD (again)
Yes, naked CDS… I don’t see the societal benefit there. All that is is gambling. There is a reason they needed specific exemptions from gaming laws. When 20 thousand people can bet on one mortgage, you have potential for massive leverage to be created out of thin air. They should be abolished.
matt, i have a question. we’re entering this new feudal space as you’ve elaborated so well, but my question is whether we are thinking too apocalyptically because even though these lying bankers are going to continue to get the money, eventually the system of abstracting this kind of debt is going to get unsustainable in itself. that is, even with a bailout, we’re not going to be reconnected in the same late 90s way with other countries or our own. therefore… is it better to let the spectacle clear itself out? or to complain to our senators, who are probably too stupid anyway to do anything about it, even if they had good intentions?
Great article Matt
The term Credit Default Swap is fraudulent. It is insurance, was sold as insurance, and is still referred to as insurance. By changing the name they sought to suck it out of the regulations for insurance. FRAUD
Good take down, Matt. I especially liked this:
Newtonusr, actually I had no background in any of this stuff when I started. It was a nightmare. I’d call up people and say, “Tell me something about something, so long as I can understand it.” I didn’t even know enough to ask questions. And I gradually realized that this was the main issue — that they had created a system too complex for ordinary people to grasp. Hell, even AIG’s senior management didn’t understand this stuff. That was what was most surprising, how much of it was a mystery even to the participants.
“The effort of people like you to pin this whole thing on minorities, when in fact this whole thing has been caused by greedy traders dealing in unregulated markets, is despicable.”
You really don’t have to sugar-coat it for us…
Thank you for sharing your insights with us, Matt, and for being an excellent journalist! In addition to reinstating the Glass Steagall Act, do you think we could get a repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 as well?
Completely agree on Glass-Steagall. I just wonder if the legislative nerve will ever be there.
If not now, then I wonder when?
Jonesy, we’re past that point. There’s no sense even speculating about just sitting back and letting the disease take its course, so to speak. It’s like that line in Dr Strangelove — our only option right now is “total commitment.” We are committed to this government bailout now, and if it doesn’t work, God help us.
I think Matt and John Stewart should storm the U.S House. Fork it, take Colbert with ya!
Call it, Laughing The Gates… or do a segment called in search of the golden butt plug. Because they all act like they can’t bend over far enough!
I agree Geithner doesn’t come out looking good.
I asked about quants because I’m a mathematician and the way those models were used is professional malfeasance. I hope that it was management innumeracy and not malfeasance.
how do we get regulations to forbid this in place?
What is your best guess as to the consequences down the road if and/or when this bailout scheme fails? 2010 and 2012 elections, for example?
RoyalOak: the Fed is entrenched as a massive political power right now, although to some degree it has sort of been taken over by the Treasury — I’m going o be writing more about this issue later, but we’re going to be hearing a lot about something called the “supplementary financing program” that started last year and involved the Treasury dumping about $500 billion onto the Fed’s books. Some are calling this a surreptitious bailout of the Fed. But regardless, the Fed is here to stay.
Speaking of derangement, I think it was your article about the Evangelicals I was thinking of,sorry.It was terrfic.
You were on Maher discussing it.
Shoto, the key thing I wanted to get to in the piece is that voters don’t really have options right now. BOTH parties are completely complicit in this mess. Until there is a real alternative politically, we’re going to keep getting these Wall-Street-friendly pols running things, because the influence of their money is so strong.
Yes. And then any legitimate question posed to the banksters is met with an I-really-don’t-have-the-time-or-patience-to-explain-it-to-you eyeroll. Geithner was doing a furrowed brow version of the eyeroll this morning to feign confusion at questions.
I’ve been sort of occupied recently so I have not been following the testimony at the hearings and so on, but I’d like to ask this question: where’s Hank Greenberg in all of this, has he been asked to testify, and is any of the money ending up in his pocket since he still owns a sizeable chunk of stuff formerly associated with AIG.
matt – why do you blame phil gramm for the CFMA and the repeal of glass-steagall when the clinton administration was pushing for both?
wonder if the optimists know about Mark Patterson – he’s Geitner’s Chief of Staff
not only is he straight outta Goldman-Sachs, not only did he receive one of those magical waivers in the whole no-lobbyists-in-WH contretempts, he was Wall St’s Field Commander in charge of scuttling Obama’s proposed Exec Pay Reforms bill in 07
ironic in that we’ve all spent time here talking about the impact of embedded Bushies all over Govt.
Matt,
May I ask,why do you Paulson been in basically a protective cocoon during all these hearings?
I rarely hear his name mentioned.
Isn’t he really the Wizard of Odds behind the curtains,pulling the puppet’s strings?
WMD: not sure how they get new regulations about this. I’m sure it will come up. But it’s important to remember that even though it wasn’t technically illegal, regulators could still have stepped in and stopped what AIGFP did. They just didn’t.
I talked to one banker who said she thought there would be legislation about this next year.
You most definitely made that point. In fact, the point was delivered in such a way that it became possible to forward the piece to individuals who might otherwise be put off by what they perceived to be a partisan tone. There was none of that. It was made abundantly clear that the whole system is diseased. How one even attempts to deal with that problem at this stage of the game is anyone’s guess…
I blamed both parties for it. Gramm was the congressional sponsor of both laws, but we did point out that they were passed with Democratic support. And if you had the print version, we point out Rubin’s role in this in the sidebar in some detail.
“…to feign confusion at questions…
and run out the bullshit five minute clock.”
Again, and I won’t drone on about this, if anyone came away from the piece thinking I blamed this on the Republicans, that’s my mistake. We tried very hard not to even get into the red-blue blame game with this. The first draft was nearly 14,000 words long and didn’t mention Bush’s name once. It just isn’t about that.
Anyway, folks, thanks for coming out today, I really appreciate the questions. If you have any more, please feel free to write me at m_taibbi@yahoo.com.
Take care and thanks again!
BOO YAAH!!!!
you got THAT RIGHT!
Thank.You.Matt. Very much.
I, for one, did not get that sense at all. The whole system is completely polluted with Big-Time Cash. And the buyers got what they paid for…and more.
thank YOU, Matt.
We’re all waiting for the next piece.
Keep it up, man. You’re the BEST.
Thank you for taking the time to visit us at the Lake!
ShotoJamf Yeah, but there was a heavy dose of condescension in his feigned confusion. It was insulting.
@82:
After all, we wouldn’t EVER want to eliminate confusion,now would we?[Snark]
Thank you so much – hope to see you here again.
Exactly.
This is the same transfer of wealth that is breaking
our freaking backdemocracy.I voted for hope and change. Not spare change, table scraps, and this trickle-down bs.
kudos for your RS article…great explanations and disturbing questions. You make a good case against both parties (esp the fundraising need and Clintonites who wanted pals on Wall Street), but why is it that no one is asking Hank Paulson to come back and explain his AIG deal? Everyone is piling on Geithner, who has admittedly some dubious connections to GS, Rubin, etc, but it seems to me that the worst abuses were accelerated by the Repubs in the last 8 years. It also seems to me that Obama realizes that the key is huge changes in the regulatory agencies, but he also has great faith in Geithner. Will Obama be able to renovate the industry as much as is needed?
No question about that. Then again, how could us “great unwashed” possibly understand such concepts? The guy is a Class-A Dipshit.
Thanks so much, Matt — come by and chat any time. We’d love it.
Jeez, thank you Jane and company.
Thanks again for coming here today. It wasn’t just AIGFP, Citi, BoA and others have ridiculous CDS books (notional values over $2T for Citi and BoA).
Another worry is that all the new money being created is going to lead to inflation outside of financial assets – we’ll see real inflation in consumer prices as the dollar tanks. We’ve been hearing China talk about using Special Drawing Rights as a new global reserve currency. There’s also evidence that the monetization Bernanke has started is going to become more necessary – TIC flows were very negative in January, meaning we didn’t have foreign buyers for our debt, and our external account had to be balanced by monetization. This is very worrisome.
WOW!
For someone such as myself who lives in Podunk ,USA,there’s been some REAL heavy hitters on this site,the past few days.
This venue is a treasure.
Sincerest thanks to Ms. Hamsher and all here who have made these interludes possible for those of us who don’t have “cosmopolitan” options to meet and greet authors in person.
Considering how many billions are being passed on from AIG direct to big European banks, I guess Europe can sit back and let American taxpayers bail out their banks for their foolish decisions.
Oh, and as bad as Geithner’s current plan is, he’s showing signs of a backup plan: he’s seeking authority to seize failing bank conglomerates, which would only be needed to impose the Swedish solution.
Thank you for coming out, Matt. And thank you Jane, Christy and Crew for making this possible. All of you are way out in front on this story.
i only have the online version and i don’t see any mention rubin, summers, greenspan or clinton (you do mention the names of some of the D senators who voted for repeal). phil gramm is mentioned 7 times during the discussion of the CFMA and glass-steagall and the impression is certainly that it was primarily his doing.
i’ve gone back and read hearing testimony and watched cspan archives of house and senate debates. phil gramm is an asshole but wouldn’t have both bills passed easily without him – because greenspan, rubin, summers, levitt and so many Ds in congress agreed with him?
this is really important because we now have summers and, for example, gensler in the current administration and most dems don’t know the key role they played in all of this because they think it was phil gramm’s doing. and that’s just not what i get from the historical record. if, however, there is source material i’ve overlooked i’d love to know about it so i can correct my understanding.
Congressman Cummings is saying not so fast on that relax thingy -
he’s calling for an IG in the AIG/Counterparties bamboozle
btw, the good congressman singles out Goldman-Sachs in his letter to colleagues
thanks. love your writing. very, very find rant.
I second that. Love the writing.
Here’s a graphic of the TIC flows
http://www.financialsense.com/…..age016.jpg
looseheadprop upstairs
Matt Taibbi,
I loved that little exchange with Byron York.
Thanks again for being here, Matt. Looking forward to seeing you back again.
The sands in Obama’s hour glass are rapidly running out. There was a full page on the Financial Times that appeared today directly addressing the leaders of the G-20 on the eve of their meeting in London.
Sadly our government through the use of the media is trying their best to play down the fear factor while dumnbing down our society. After reading this brief essay, perhaps many will come to understand just how close to the abyss the world’s society really is. I sincerely hope that Obama will speak more to the people this evening from the heart, rather than a telepromter.
http://www.lemetropolecafe.com…..240309.pdf
looseheadprop blisters Dick Cheney upstairs!
Turley to Obama: Indict Cheney Already!
That’s a noisy graph!
One month doesn’t make a trend. Nonetheless monetization is happening, and that means dollar devaluation.
The graph is hard to see (too small font) but the data is over the last thirty years
Got it from here. Although it looks like this guy is a raving Libertarian; he seems to have a lot of good points
emptywheel is so on the case today, and is at the top of the front page!
Joe Baca: When Was It Broken?
This is off topic but hysterical considering what is going on. I know this conversation is over but for those following the comments, I’m watching the Nightly Business Report on PBS. The CEO of Toll Brothers, the builder of luxury homes is saying that they have seen an uptick in contracts for their luxury homes this month. See, the bonus money/gov’t giveaway is already stimulating the economy.
Thanks, Christy & Jane for another grand slam guest thread, the third in two days.
Thanks Matt. And FDL Co.
Y’all are doing yeomen’s work.
Wasn’t there a provision in the stimulus bill for companies making pikes?
I heard that question and I admit I was confused by what he was asking. I mean, did he want to know when the company became insolvent or when people set about to break it.
Anyway, it’s pretty irrelevant since the gov’t. is making it unbroken every day until it gets unwound and dealt with.
Here’s something else. Have you ever noticed when you have a personal insurance claim they don’t always pay all of it, just something like 80% or so? There’s an incentive in that to avoid problems and a protection for insurance companies against some frauds.
I suggest CDSs never be allowed to cover 100% of failure or else there will be too many cases like our current mortgage-backed securities problem, where they would rather default and collect CDS monies instead of letting somebody modify/fix a mortgage and cost the asset owner a few percentage points. It’s either all or total failure plus collecting the insurance…no in between.
I wasn’t following this very closely at the time, but my impression with this and especially NAFTA was that Clinton basically said, “You want a free market and competition? I’ll show you free markets and competition and you can’t handle it.” And we got these things.
Of course, the Bushies abused the idea as they did with the home ownership idea. They distorted, twisted and abused everything Clinton tried to achieve. They didn’t want any Democrats to be seen as successful. And, possibly they wanted to use each of these initiatives and ideas for their own purposes.
Clinton was right and the free market idea when taken to it’s extreme just lets the jackals run amok and destroy things. Now we have the political support and majorities in Congress and the presidency, so we can fix things.
Actually, I don’t think Republicans will be a problem. I expect it to be a very bi-partisan non-partisan work product.
TV is very much your thing if you have the proper venue, say, The Rachel Maddow Show. You were great. Thanks.