« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
I Say, Let 'Em Crash
Oh things are going well my friends. This stock market crash could not have come at a better time. Just look at John McCain squirm. All we need are a few more major bankruptcies, and we'll have the election locked up. As a special bonus, the greedy bankers are getting screwed too. If we play our cards right, we can cap their salaries, take away their bonuses, and make them write 1000 times on the whiteboard, "I will not overleverage myself." That way, the next time there's an irrational market bubble, the new batch of bankers won't fall for the promise of easy money the way people did in every bubble for the past two centuries because they'll remember that the last batch of bankers lost their bonuses. But really, this isn't about reform. I just like watching rich assholes get kicked in the nuts. Speaking of which, how many more points do you think the market has to drop before those traders start jumping off buildings? Let's do a raffle.
Now I know that some of you credulous sheep have fallen for that line about how we have to save the banks for the sake of the economy. But like Hillary said, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists. Anyway, once we get G.W. out of office, everything will be perfect. As long as Obama doesn't let the dirty CEO's and bankers off the hook (I like the guy, sometimes he lets practicality get in the way of a good ass-kicking), the working class will finally get its due, and we'll all be taken care of. No Democratic President would ever let hardworking Americans lose their jobs and have to go on welfare. And without any surviving credit card companies, people won't even have to go into debt to buy stuff. Anyway, I figure that most people have enough savings to get them through a two or three years without a job if that's what it takes to save the working class. Seriously, the more evil banks go bankrupt, the better off the American people will be. I say, let 'em crash.







Comments (161)
Love the clip!
September 22, 2008 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect video clip. I agree 100% - there is simply no logical reason we should save these companies from the consequences of their actions. Fuck the companies. We can help any people who may be caught without insurance or a job or in a mortgage limbo, but the companies themselves should perish as a lesson to other companies.
Less credit right now is a good thing. People don't need credit. They need a job that can pay the bills and a few pennies left over for a piece of gum. Hell, we may even be able to GO BACK to an America where a single income could get all that done, provide a vacation AND some savings at the end of the year. OK. Maybe not that last thing, but surely two working parents should be able to provide that without having two or three jobs each. Right? Isn't that the country we are?
The greed is just sickening. I have a feeling Barack won't be passing up any ass kicking that needs to be done once he wins. He just can't be Angry Black Guy right now and expect to win. I am sure we'll see what he picked up on the south side with these types of issues come January 20th.
I am reminded of when Barack asked a guy who questioned his dismissal of the gas holiday: "What do you drive? An Escalade?! Well, that's your problem right there." He then kind of laughed and shook his head before moving on. Didn't even need to tell us what his point was because it was painfully obvious.
That is why Barack will be the same kind of modern reformer that Carter was but be able to actually get things done like FDR by creating a governing majority of the vast majority of us - liberal and conservative - who reside in the common sense middle.
Great blog!
September 22, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Companies? We don't need no stinkin' companies. No banks either! All we need are good jobs. Lots of of jobs. Barack will give us as many jobs as we want because he knows how to give people jobs!
September 22, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's where he cut his teeth and the underlying premise of all his plans.
September 22, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Three or four or five companies going out business certainly doesn't mean the end of the US economy. If it does, then things are even worse than we think.
Yes, jobs are important to have here in the United States and promoting an environment that makes those jobs more likely to materialize is in our country's best interest. Renegotiating our trading policies and spending our money more wisely (most of which is spent by the executive branch) will lead to a more stable economy.
If we are paying $700 million for these companies then we should be majority stockholders and have the power to regulate them into something that isn't so damaging to the health of our economy. We can enforce standards of conduct again. We can certainly hold the executives accountable for their malfeasance.
No more free rides on the tax payers. You have a problem with that?
September 22, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, for a moment there, I though that we were on the brink of an economic catastrophe, and I started to get nervous about silly things like massive unemployment, expanding welfare roles, increasing violence, the usual doom-and-gloom stuff. But if it's just four or five companies, whatev. In that case, we can have our bankers and eat them too.
As for the free rides on the tax payers, I've written the mayor and the governor numerous times about ending the subway's subsidized ticket program, but they just ignore me.
September 22, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to have a conversation when it is done in snark mode. Not sure how to take things when they are presented in such a fashion.
Don't dismiss my call for accountability to mean cutting off my nose to spite my face and letting the economy fail in such a spectacular fashion, but nothing has proved to me we are in a crisis such as the one you describe. There is not a shred of evidence that says we must bail these people out yesterday with no strings attached.
Further, no one has shown that taking on such an enormous burden under the already enormous strain without calm and deliberate action wouldn't cause the catastrophe it is supposed to prevent.
September 22, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The greed is just sickening.
That's the kicker!
September 22, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not entirely sure folks are getting the snark here.
The problem isn't bailing out the banks, it's giving them a blank check, and not demanding a smidgen of accountability. If you think a blank check is okey-dokey, you can send one to me. I promise I'll only use it to help rich bankers afford their vacation homes in Paris.
September 22, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now, now.
Don't you want to help ($700 billion worth of help) save ?engish's business?
September 22, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! How much accountability do you want? I'll give you all that and more. You won't know what to do with the all the accountability. There will be an accountability glut, and then you'll have to bail out the accountability companies to keep them from going out of business and crashing the economy again. And it doesn't have to be a blank check. $100B should do just fine. I promise not to spend it on any subprime mortgages.
Please make the check out to:
☠enghis, Inc.
Government Bailout Recipient Department
1 Evil Corporate Lane
Suite #666
Corporate City, DE 19801
-----------------------------------------
☠enghis, Inc.
We put the "Accountability" in Accountability
September 22, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes, accountability. You're obviously a bright young man who knows the new 'one word":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSxihhBzCjk
Oh and think mebbe you went a little too subtle on the irony in your post for this crowd? How about something more like this: Rich people, banks, jobs--we don't need no stinkin' rich people, banks, or jobs--we heard tell Obama's going to give everyone forty acres and a mule in January! To the guillotines!
September 22, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a load of horseshit. The non-snark reading of this blog is the correct answer, even if delivered in an illogical and over-0the-top manner.
To boil down arguments against a bailout that doesn't include strong controls to "Fuck the rich" and imply that we don't understand that many "rich people" help keep the whole thing doing is taking the absurdity a step too far.
So, sweet, you guys advocate a Blank Check and Free Ride. Noted.
September 22, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll buy into Paul Krugman's suggestion: if propping up it should be like RTC, in that the stakeholders, i.e. us, get a say in how things are run. But simply buying up bad debt, and including Phil Gramm's UBS, a swiss bank, in the bailout, is insulting to common sense and deceny, in the extreme.
September 22, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not unless they save mine first. I want unlimited time on a golf course, and a $6,000 shower curtain, or I'm gonna have to take the economy down with me.
September 22, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
NYC gets the negative effects of the financial meltdowns first and worst, and we are feeling it already. I work in a large non-profit that is facing yet another round of budget cuts because of the loss of tax revenue - and that's assuming this situation doesn't get any worse. Not that we'll have to provide less services - demands for our services will go up, just less resources to work with. The people at the top some folks are so intent on punishing have the least to lose here. Instead of the 2 billion dollars, Maurice Greenberg will have to do with 100 million. It's hard to weep for him because he'll be fine.
But how about those employees who saw serious losses in their 401(k) value & will be facing an already tight job market?
Accountability - absolutely. Controls on executive compensation tied to stock performance - of course. Renegotiating mortgages for those who can afford to stay in their homes - yes! Letting these companies fail as some kind of perverse punishment that would have devastating ripple effects throughout the economy? Doesn't seem prudent.
And BTW - perhaps economists should have put their lot in with Hillary. She was the one calling for the federal gov't to have more direct intervention in foreclosure relief, which might have prevented where we are now.
September 22, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that also the same Hillary who said we shouldn't listen to all those fancy pants economists when they called bullshit on her gas tax holiday? I remember her.
September 22, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slogan contest! Everyone, propose your anti-banking slogan here. Winner gets a free government bailout. We already have a few nominations:
- Let 'em crash
- No more free rides on the tax payers
- No blank checks
- Fuck the companies
Guidelines: it should be concise and easy for people without economics degrees to relate to. Don't worry about oversimplification and cliches. It's all part of the fun.
September 22, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
- Protect Usurers My Ass. (since the PUMA movement needs some new folks to invigorate the dwindling numbers)
September 22, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
So would it be a joint venture? I like the "my ass" part, but "usury" is a bit too smart a word for this contest.
September 22, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Usury"!? "Too smart"!?
It's downright ELITIST!
September 22, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Banks Shmanks
September 22, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect!
September 22, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect pith Bruce :)
September 22, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue!
September 22, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know if these are pithy enough:
Barter your way to prosperity
Once I built a railroad, I made it run, made it race against time. Once I built a railroad; now it's done. Brother, can you spare some sea shells?
Mad Max Lives!
September 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Genghis on this. Too many posts seem to have no comprehension of what a Depression looks like. Too many posts just scapegoating "bankers" - as though no one else bore any responsibility for this mess. I wonder if age has something to do with it, I donno - but to not have gone through serious recessions, much less depressions, well... it may make one a little quick off the mark.
As a very WORST case, let me say that if $700 billion WOULD avoid a Depression, then it's money VERY well spent. Because the costs of a Depression are just nightmarishly higher than that. I'm all for deciding what's sane to do, how to structure the thing properly, maybe we don't really need this at all, bring in regulation and fresh air, and trot the worst of the lot off to jail. But let's NOT make light of the cost of a serious recession or Depression. Anyone that comes from some of North America's eternally poor rural areas (as I do), or some of the inner cities, can give you a pretty good idea what life looks like when 20%-40%-80% of adults can never find paying work. Life breaks down, and it's worth almost anything to avoid that. You lose EVERYTHING. Job, savings, home... pride... family ties... health... future... hope. That's kindof an ugly line-up. Not sure I want to join it.
So maybe let's at least keep the conversation focussed on WHAT to do, rather than working up a Palin-style frenzy about who's evil, or how tough we wanna be.
September 22, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know what a depression looks like. I've seen the Dorthea Lange photos and they ain't pretty. What some folks here are missing is that a depression is exactly what plenty of folks have been living through the last few years. No work, lost their homes, bread lines, the whole bit.
Did anyone care then? Not really. Now that it's stark reality ishas caught up to them and is staring them in the face, our upper 5% want a hand out to stave off the inevitable.
How is that gonna help, exactly? We've already lost the jobs. We've already lost our savings. Maybe if these jokers hadn't squeezed each and every penny so damn hard and shared their wealth a bit we wouldn't be in this situation, but nothing is going to change until we get the corrupt pols out of there.
This is a last ditch effort by Bush and Co. to get every stinking bloody dime they can get from the stoney American public. And Yeah, we should be talking tar and feathers, pitchforks, and prison time. LOUDLY.
The question is, what took so long?
September 22, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right. There are millions of people living a Depression-Era life right now that we don't get pictures of on MSNBC.
Perhaps it isn't as wide-spread as the original, but who is to say that continuing to turn a blind eye to the excesses in the system won't cause the crash Hank say this money will avoid.
There are complexities here (not to mention simple justice) that throwing good money after bad doesn't address.
September 22, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please see 1980:
http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp?StartYear=1977&EndYear=2007
September 22, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! 1980 will look like disneyland compared to what is coming.
September 22, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about regional breakdowns? I was saying that there are pockets in this country that have been living in a depression for several years now.
You might not believe it, but I bet Obama is perfectly aware of it. Anyone that's spent any time driving across this country knows it, too.
Tell me, how's the unemployment figures looking in the rust belt?
Apples and Oranges.
September 22, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak, why are you making me do your research for you? The highest unemployment rate in the country right now is in Michigan...
MI 8.9 / Nov. 1982 16.9
OH 7.4 / Jan. 1983 13.8
PA 5.8 / Mar. 1983 12.9
Want any more? They're all here: http://www.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm
September 22, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, those numbers calculated the same way they were in 1982?
DOH!
Um, no. But hey, you can look up stuff I already know for me anytime.
=D
September 22, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still a mighty big "If" in this entire premise that not a single person has explained or refuted.
Don't misread skepticism of the proposed context by known liars to be Pollyanna or unable to envision a way we could step in to stop some sort of meltdown. If measured and rational and deliberate debate leads to some sort of publicly-funded bailout of certain companies under certain conditions then I am all for that.
Giving Hank Paulson a blank check with no transparency and no accountability seems like a bad idea. If Bill Kristol doesn't even like it, then chances are we should look twice.
The threat of action was enough to stabilize things. Now is the time for thought. Then comes to time for action.
September 22, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You think things are stable right now? Not long ago there were 5 MASSIVE multi-billion dollar investment banks on wall street. Now there are none.
The world's largest insurance company is now controlled by the government.
The companies that facilitate the morgages on 70 percent of American homes are controlled by the government.
Taxpayer money of 700 billion soon to be more dollars is going to be spent on a bailout, complete with all moral hazard involved (the people doing this are not stupid)...why the hurry?
Interbank lending rates are still jaw droppingly high, the TED spread is out of control, and interest rates on 3 month T bills at one point WENT NEGATIVE. Gold jumped 11 percent in one day. For those who know little about finance, these are all very very very very very very bad signs of a compelete meltdown of the global economy. That is no exaggeration. Let me repeat it.
A complete meltdown of the global economy.
Paulson is desperate, everyone is desperate, because credit markets are STILL frozen and without liquidity the economy will freeze up like an engine without motor oil.
But Cox puts the axe on ALL short sales and magically the stock market goes up 300 points in five minutes and yo yos like yourself think that means that things are stable.
Get a clue.
September 22, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
the world's largest insurance company in the world is not controlled by the government but by the fed reserve which used your money and my money to take it over. that's part of the problem. i say no bail out. i want to see more options and i want to know what consequences are likely without the $800 bil plus.
September 22, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
the world's largest insurance company in the world is not controlled by the government but by the fed reserve which used your money and my money to take it over. that's part of the problem. i say no bail out. i want to see more options and i want to know what consequences are likely without the $800 bil plus.
September 22, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
[deep breath]
It's hard to know where to begin. So I won't. I'll just make some suggestions.
Do you have any idea why the Fed stepped in with AIG?
Do you know what a CDS contract is? What it does?
Do you know how deep AIG was in CDS contracts?
Do you know that if left alone, the CDS market was almost guaranteed to fail (and still might?).
Do you know what it would mean if the CDS market failed, and failed rapidly (i.e. a 5 trillion dollar market folding in the space of 3 days)?
I'm not saying the bailout is a good idea (although Dodd's plan makes me at least not want to s--t my pants) but I still think that most people who don't know finance don't realize how
f--ked
we
are
AIG: NOBODY liked it. Do you think shareholders liked seeing their capital dissolve into nothing? Do you think the CEO's liked being branded with this for the rest of their lives and summarily dismissed? Do you think the Fed enjoyed taking potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of really bad CDS contracts on their balance sheets? You think Bush is going to enjoy being the president who ramroded us into a three trillion dollar war and then raped our economy?
NOBODY liked it. I understand the anger. But at least try to do some research first so you don't sound like an empty headed rabid populist (i.e. McCain wanting to "punish the fatcats on Wall Street" or whatever bulls--t he's saying this week
September 22, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a bunch of semantic bullshit with no attribution and a lot of chicken little pronouncements that no one else is talking about and some fairly smart economists who are lot smarter than both of us think is not quite as bad as they are making out to be.
So, really? are we fucked because of some esoteric bullshit that no one understands? You need to get off your high horse with your pseudo education and find some common sense - we shouldn't bailout anything without some guarantees for our investment.
You need to step away from the koolaid, kemosabe, and stop calling people ignorant based on your own, extremely one-sided view of this.
If are system is so fragile then we are already fucked and bailing out a bunch of compulsive gamblers at the expense of future generations isn't my idea of a great deal for the American tax payer unless we get something out of the deal.
September 22, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, concentrate your fire. You can argue for delay, for a different deal, for punishing the worst, etc. But the stuff about today being like the Depression but not quite as widespread... and how bad can the loss of 3 or 4 companies really be.. this is just impossible to back, ok? Unemployment today has increased by what, 2-4 million? To reach Great Depression rates we'd have to throw ANOTHER 30-40 million out of work. GDP is down what, maybe 2-4%? Well, take off another 25%. Then take the wages of everyone LEFT working and cut them by 40%. Set up camps in the edges of cities holding millions, and put tens of millions on the roads. Take the Dow down not just from 14,000 to 11,000, but cut it to 2,000. You're killing your argument, and burying your questions, by talking along these lines.
On finance, all I know is that the financial sector is NOT like any other goods-producing sector. If we lost GM & Ford & Chrysler, that'd be a nightmare - especially in terms of regionalized unemployment. But when banks go, they're like the system that pumps invisible blood through EVERY company. Understand me here. I HATE finance, I'm an economist. "We make sense - they make shit up." And my mind balks every time it has to approach it. But it is just NOT possible to compare finance, one-top-one, with autos or steel or whatever.
Part of the reason it is so frightening today is that these guys are leveraged out at 22:1 or 30:1. Now, if a $100 Billion company goes under and is leveraged out like that, that's trillions of dollars worth of activity that gets tied up. In many cases, halted for months. Maybe years. And in so doing, other actors often then fear to move near whole sectors and products. And when they DO manage to sell this shit off, it drives down prices and values for everyone. It spirals outward, and a whirlpool forms.
Another reason I'm scared shitless is the US is in such massive international debt - a subject rarely heard within the country - and has trillions of $$$ held by foreigners. It may sound like mumbo-jumbo to you and me, but if T-Bills are offering a 0% rate of interest, why other nations would want to invest in them? And if they don't, the US $ crashes in value. And that can trigger some ugly ugly things. Hyperinflation. Or Government's responding by pushing interest rates up to 20% and beyond.
Last thing. An awful lot of us want to bash the rich. Many of them have been without morality, eaten up by greed, and have destroyed lives as they went. But when "the banks" go belly up, it is not -in terms of 99% of its consequences - going to hit THEM. Look. They've made their money, it's wealth now, let's go tax it later. Let's even handcuff them from taking more if we like, I don't care. But you HAVE to see that when they go under, not only do tens of thousands of their employees go under, but firms all across the US may then stop hiring and go under. Same with hedge funds, love 'em or hate 'em. Some of the biggest are investing for the universities, for pension funds - as well as for evil billionaire bastards. So your public policy issue is, "If we hate the bastards who ran these funds, do we screw them down into the dust, even if it means taking away any chances at bursaries for tens of thousands of students, and even if it crushes hundreds of thousands of pensioners?"
Other people will have to spell out the condition and implications of failure for these incredibly complex financial instruments... and I'm happy to discus, and learn, about what we can do next. But the comparisons to Great Depressions, the easy lumping of financial firms in with any other companies, the failure to recognize that the real-world hit will be borne by tens of millions, and the fact that this is not just about a hate-on for the big money boys - that stuff is extraneous, counterproductive and probably needs to go.
September 22, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we are fucked because of esoteric bullshit that *you* don't understand.
By no one else, do you mean you and your circle of friends? Because plenty of people are talking about it.
What attributions do you want? How about this:
Equity markets are controlled at this point by fear, because nobody trusts anybody. If that 500 point jump on Friday made you feel better, how do you feel today?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI
Pretty scary, huh? Maybe that's because 1 trillion dollars disappeared from the economy in less than a week last week, and if you haven't heard, there are no independent investment banks left on Wall Street.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97a410b6-884a-11dd-b114-0000779fd18c.html
So what? I hear you cry. Let all the greedy fatcats burn in their own greedy greed they deserve to go down in flames because they're greedy! Down with greed!
When the CEO of Bank of America was asked how many of the 8,100 commercial banks would make it through this crisis, he responded, "About half."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52822.html
Maybe he's full of chicken little bullshit too, just like me? He's the most powerful banker in the world but I bet he doesn't know shit. You're way smarter.
So, let's see, so far we have Leahman Brothers, AIG (I'll be generous and call it a bank, even though it's not), Merrill Lynch, and pretty soon we'll have Wachovia added on to the pile. I think the CEO of Bank of America knows what he's talking about. So, let's see, so far we have had 3, let's make that 4, bank failures out of a few thousand that may still be coming. And look what effect that has had.
Because we're not just talking about home prices going down, and foreclosures, which would be bad enough by themselves,(they're down 20 percent from peak so far and most think there's still a way to go before we see a bottom in this market, for reasons that would take a texbook to explain)
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/26/real_estate/Case_Shiller_home_price_report/index.htm?postversion=2008082611
We're talking about the asset-backed securities you've all been hearing about that were derived from pools of these mortgages (actually they are looked at as pooled cash flows). Most are at least a little familiar with ABS and know a bit about these toxic derivatives even if they aren't quants who know the math (yes I am currently taking a doctorate level class in derivatives so shove that up your ass).
So yeah, these have blown up. And because they are highly leveraged, they have cost many times more than the original underlying asset. And because they are mixed in with other mortgages that are actually good, it looks like these sucker bets are messing up price signals in the whole market, as nobody knows what any of the investments are worth (for many complicated reasons). Basically, the rotten apples are spoiling the whole bunch.
So maybe we can ride that out. And a few investment banks burn. Boo hoo. So what?
Well, if that was all there was, that would be fine. But now we have some rapidly cascading effects...first of all, many of these investment banks who were selling these subprime investments to the commercial paper market were leveraged at a rate of up to 30:1, so in order to hedge that credit risk (coupled with a maturity risk because CP usually has a 6 month to one year maturity and mortgages have a 15-30 or more year maturity), banks took out among other things CDOs (Collaterized Debt Obligations). What these do is act as insurance on cash flows from mortgages. If some of the morgages underlying the investments go bad, the seller must pay part of the cash flows which are due to investors who hold commercial paper from those banks. Otherwise, the bank pays a premium for these CDO contracts.
AIG was one of the world's leading issuers of these CDO's, and the market was huge...
www.sifma.org/research/pdf/SIFMA_CDOIssuanceData2008.pdf
Trillions of dollars of VERY highly leveraged bets on these mortgages, basically insuring debt with debt. Finance geeks and clueless assholes who criticize me should read this article which gives some insight on how CDO markets work
www.banque-france.fr/gb/publications/telechar/rsf/2005/etud1_0605.pdf -
These loans weren't risky and would actually serve to smooth cash flows and efficiently distribute risk AS LONG AS information about the risk profile of these asset backed securities was correct. We all know how that turned out.
Once these banks started defaulting, a wave of claims was starting to swamp AIG. AIG had capital, but not enough to pay out on a systematic failure. So basically it was a modern version of an old fasioned bank run. And since nobody trusted AIG because it was so highly leveraged in these complex derivatives, nobody wanted to give it the capital. So the Fed stepped in and opened up new channels that made it possible for AIG to accept FED loans, which confirmed market fears, which just accelerated everything. Next thing you know they're taking 85 billion from the US Fed at 11 point something percent interest (it's LIBOR plus some ridiculously high premium). And those outstanding CDO contracts? Well, we don't know how those will get paid.
Because we don't know, Lehman and all these other banks that are trying to collect on these payments can't get money, and are already completely out of capital themselves, and can't borrow anything because everyone knows they're teetering on the brink of failure, which means they can't pay back investors holding even the safest grade of CP, which means nobody is buying on the CP market anymore. It's basically shut down.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9cmb_Gl5Drs&refer=home
So what do you care about CP investors? Here's what you care...most corporations and medium sized businesses used to get funding from the CP market because it was cheap, low rate financing. Banks aren't lending to each other, the credit spreads are the highest they've been in decades, and nobody's willing to invest much in anything, as shown by the price of gold and especially by the interest rate of the 3 year T bill...
http://investmenttools.com/thefed/3_month_t_bill_rate.htm
What does this mean? This is generally considered the safest investment on the market, as the US government has a low chance of defaulting and 3 months is the shortest time period available. Notice how people are basically willing to give the government their money for free, or even less than free, because they don't trust the markets to preserve the value of their capital. Last week this rate reached the lowest point since the early 1940's and we know how great the economy was then...
Here's where you give a shit. There is no more credit. Have you read in the papers when it says that credit markets are FROZEN? Many many businesses finance themselves with as high of a debt to equity ratio as they can get away with, because debt is cheaper than equity and there's a tax shelter for interest payments. But now, sources of credit aren't only becoming prohibitively expensive, they are becoming really difficult to find at all.
This means that businesses won't invest in projects unless they are incredibly profitable, because there is neither debt nor equity financing readily available on capital markets.
This means that many businesses will die. All over the world...which means less jobs...which means poor retail sales...even less jobs...inflation might come about (but might not, reasonable economists disagree) from pumping trillions of dollars into the economy...poor countries in Africa that you don't think can get any poorer? They will. Not to mention the price paid in future living standards, government programs, defense (I hate it as much as you do but we do need it). Everything will get a lot shittier if we don't do something.
The problem is not me being chicken little, the problem is you having your head up your ass and thinking the markets are stable and things are fine. That's just stupid.
September 22, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
But other than THAT, everything's good, right? ;-)
Thanks man. Add a bit more cussing & post this, willya?
P.S. I'd appreciate it if you could drop my name in there as one of your know-nothing opponents though, ok? The mob's running a bit heavy right now, and I figure if you rank on me in public, they'll figure I'm one of THEIRS, savvy?
Cheers. I owe ya dude.
September 22, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is you explaining things like this and then cussing all us plebes out for not understanding one word in ten and wrapping it all up in, "Trust us. We know better because we caused the crisis in the first place."
If you want support for this from the ranks of us who don't believe every peep that comes out of Wall Street and the heads of banks that fucked us in the first place, then perhaps you can find a way to do so that explains in English what we will get for our $700 billion.
Or, you can keep spouting off about we are idiots and you are the Master Economic Analyst of the Known Universe or you can actually provide some rational and reasonable context to the discussion.
Context that provides SOLUTIONS and not band aids. All I hear from you is how bad it is and how stupid we are that we can't see that fact. Not a great method of converting people to your cause.
The only person here that has come close to presenting a rational view of this that morons such as myself can understand is Quinn and that is because he explained to be understood and not to be admired for his professorial understanding of the subject at hand.
September 22, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez man I gave you links and economic data and tried to help you out with an explanation because you thought I was being too vauge before and you were saying you didn't understand in anything but broad strokes so I was trying to be more specific so you would have a clearer understanding of the picture. If it went over your head I'm sorry but don't paint me for being some kind of elitist asshole because *you* don't get it.
By the way I don't work on wall street and I didn't cause anything. But keep on talking like you know what you're talking about...
September 22, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You provided a dissertation and a continued harangue as to why we are stupid for not understanding something that is painfully obvious to you and to at least half of the economic elite but not so obvious to others and seems to be more of the fear-based decision making that gets this country into trouble all the time.
September 22, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's not obvious to you, then try to understand it. I've tried to help you by explaining what's happening in the markets.
Do not shoot your mouth off about how everything is hunky dory and this is all just the rich trying to sham us all into a trick bailout and then cry about how it's all too over your head and way too complicated to understand when someone who actually studies what is going on tries to point out that your righteous indignation is incoherent.
Either try to understand it, or STFU.
September 22, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I don't give a shit about understanding it to the level that I lose all ability to judge it from an outside perspective and with objectivity, as you apparently have. You know just enough to come across as ignorant and reactionary. Great job!
September 23, 2008 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight:
You want to scream out your opinion about why all the banks should be allowed to crash and how this is all a sham.
When someone explains to you a little bit about the interconnectedness of markets and tries to touch a bit on what is going on in the debt/equity markets you cry about how it's way too hard for you to understand and I'm an asshole for trying to understand it myself and explain it to you.
You say this because you think that knowledge about what is going on somehow will you into an elitist person who caused all these problems in the first place. So apparently the only people who are justified to express opinions are those who have a vauge, opaque, shadowy understanding of markets, business, and finance.
Those people should be allowed to scream about how everyone who studies the problem, does research, or tries to find out why EVERY MAJOR PLAYER in this crisis is calling it the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression is really the cause of it all and should be thrown in jail and everything isn't so bad because hey it's only 4 or 5 banks and so we're fine because SAYING we're going to do something will magically unclog the credit markets. (a statement which is breathtaking in its ignorance)
Oh, I forgot the part about you calling me out for not being specific enough RIGHT AFTER you cried and cried about me being too specific for you. Nice move, that.
September 23, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
hmph.
Well said Shrivti.
September 22, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The markets are fine, credit is shaky buy no reason to rush this thru except to get it off the media.
It is death for the gop.
Like the drill, drill, drill, bill the gop now wants to vote after the election.
I say debate the bailout bill and vote for it after the election too. It will take time to fix this mess and reinstall regulations. A week is a joke. The corporate media is spinning hard like the lobbyists spending money.
Perfect timing for early voting to start.
Obama is going to win this cycle.
September 22, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what is happening around here, but I find myself agreeing with gotalife more often than not these days. That has to say something about the state of the electorate.
September 22, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too Big to Fail,Too Big to Bail.
Robusted.
Show Us The Money.
No CEO Left Behind.
No Bailout, No Way.
Bankers=Wankers.
Bailout=Corporate Sociali$m.
September 22, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
This mess is mostly fictional. If we really, really wanted to, we could just say "no, there is no crisis." And there would be no crisis.
Unfortunately, many millionaires' incomes depend on the suspension of disbelief here, so we are stuck with this bullshit "crisis."
And no, unlike Genghis, I am not joking.
September 22, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, roo_P, I feel ever so much better. Perhaps you could talk some sense into all those nutty economists who foolishly associate massive bankruptcies, record home foreclosures, and tight credit markets with recession.
PS All economic crises are psychological in nature--"The only thing we have to fear" and all that--but the pink slips are real.
September 22, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
roo_P are you trolling? god get a clue, take a finance class, educate yourself about what is going on, take drastic steps, because you sound like an idiot.
September 22, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you explain the "situation"?
Can you explain to me where there are actual assets involved?
September 22, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
see above post in reply to Teddy Roosevelt.
September 22, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are explaining why the situation is bad in the premise that something catastrophic is happening. You get no argument from me: if we accept the economy at face value, things are dire.
My premise is this: most of the money that has been, for want of a better term, lost? It was never there. And now real assets are being used to replace the imaginary wealth with the intention to start people generating make-believe money again.
On this point, you need to consider what has actually been lost. Has money disappeared?
September 22, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Money is nothing more than a store of value.
Has VALUE disappeared?
Ask all the people that are out of work if value has disappeared.
Ask people who are losing their homes if value has disappeared.
Ask small business owners who are struggling to make it through this mess if value has disappeared.
Ask every investor on this market over the last two weeks (or year, for that matter) if value has disappeared.
Yes.
September 22, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction. Money is three things: A unit of account, a store of value and a medium of exchange. This is Econ 101, people.
September 22, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snap! Love it when someone is being an egotistical ass and gets nabbed on the basics.
September 22, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, I stand corrected. But the larger point stands. Real people are being hurt and will continue to be hurt by what is happening now.
September 22, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you got to the line, "Anyway, I figure that most people have enough savings to get them through a two or three years without a job..." that should have tipped you off that Genghis was using irony. But, then, what's the point of the post? Couldn't you just have said, "I support the bailout"?
The crisis isn't a couple of "investment banks" failing. That's just a symptom. Unfortunately it is a symptom that, left untreated, is going to develop into something nasty. Hell, as of today, none of the big i-banks exist any more, in that form. The stock market is rebounding. So, is the problem gone? Did just the promise of the blank check cure the disease or did it just temporarily mask the symptoms?
I am not opposed to fixing the problem, even if it costs $1 trillion. But I am opposed to a blank-check bailout. There'd better be some serious strings attached.
September 22, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I figured that the raffle for suicidal traders would have been the tip-off.
September 22, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh Heh. I missed the raffle line... didn't even see it. But yeah, that should have been the tip-off.
September 22, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, people listen up. I'm stepping out of a snark mode for a moment because I'm now too appalled to snark. I've been seeing some very weird responses from people on this thread and others. Some people seem to be in Pollyanna mode. I don't know what economists you're reading because none of you have cited any support. Perhaps your gut tells you that "the fundamentals are strong." Try finding people who actually know what they're talking about who believe that the nation is not in serious economic jeopardy. What I find are articles like these:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/news/economy/the_threat_and_the_bailout/?postversion=2008092208
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aQ055w2uqXT4&refer=home
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/09/22/bailout-prevents-great-depression-20.html
Could the economists be mistaken? Of course. They're not seers. But they know a lot more than you people do, and your failure to take their warnings seriously is reckless folly.
Other people have been suggesting that things are already bad and can't get any worse. Once again, no evidence. Upthread, I linked to an annual summary of the "misery index," unemployment rate + inflation rate. Here it is again:
http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp?StartYear=1977&EndYear=2007
- Current: 11.3
- 1980: 20.8
The unemployment rate in August was 5.7%. In 1982, it was 10.8%, almost double. That was a recession. The cities were convulsing with violence and crime. Job openings in New York for menial positions had applicant lines for blocks. Cities and states struggled to pay for services and tax revenues declined. Workers suffered layoffs by the millions. This Administration has been an historic disaster, and if we slide into a recession, they will be the ones to blame. But if you think that current economic climate is as bad as it can get, then you may be in for a very painful lesson. Alas, so may we all.
As I've said elsewhere, we need economic reform, including more regulation, and there should be oversight of bailout. But if you see this potential catastrophe as an opportunity to score political points or stick it to the rich, then you're either more out-of-touch than Phil Gramm, or you have some seriously fucked up priorities.
September 22, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, some sort of intervention is required. I don't pretend to know enough about economics to propose my own plan.
However, I do think that those who brought us this mess should be fucked as part of the solution.
I'm so goddamn sick of so much fictional wealth. I don't care how many bankers lose their jobs, their luxury penthouses, their Damian Hirsts.
These greedy, smartass little fuckers should be chased by mobs with torches. Short of that, doesn't seem unreasonable to me that if you're part of the management of an institution that the government is forced to bail out, you should either go to jail, or be forced to live off the millions in assets you've stashed away. Sell a yacht! Or that ski-in-ski-out trophy home in Aspen! Stay employed? Keep your bonuses? Hell no. We reward failure, high-level, gross-negligence failure, moreso than we do hard work, honesty, or real value.
And we if buy all their bad debt, we should own the fucking companies they mismanaged into the ground. No bailout without consequences.
So, my slogan is "Fuck the greedy bankers."
That will make the bailout a lot more palatable. We need a morality play here.
September 22, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The proper "fuck-you" would be steep tax rates on extreme wealth.
1) No one can spend a billion dollars on anything they can personally use, not even 20 million.
2) The wealthy are in it mostly for the competition between matched rivals, not for teh personal income.
3) Steeply progressive income rates and 50% rates on short-term capital gain, (I'd peg that at at least a year), would shift the premium to long-term, reliable income instead of windfalls.
4) The financial elite should consider the advice given to lottery winners---take the income, not the payout.
September 22, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Works for me. Plus, you've got bullet points.
I'm all for that sort of taxation. I've never believed that money was anything more than score-keeping at that level, ie, that taxing "wealth" was any sort of disincentive to innovation, creativity, etc. Neither have I seen it as a penalty. Rich is relative.
And long term, want to see more of this, not less. But in the short-term, I do want to see some of these arrogant assholes hang.
They wanna play titans of the universe? Then to make it real game, the sort of game they shove down everyone else's throats, there should be penalties equivalent to the rewards.
That's what really pisses me off...The rules for the little guy just don't apply to anyone but the little guy.
September 22, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'see, now THIS is talking more sense. Yes, it's probably good to avoid a Depression. And apparently, since we're all going to suffer somewhat (my share of $700 billion, with interest, should be, ummmm.... nought nought... carry the nought.... well... about equal to.... my pension.) That said, how about creative and fun ways to deal with the worst of the worst.
Me? I like re-education camps. So did my Dad. He was Conservative, by the way. But he just felt time on the farm, or working in the woods would do these folks a heap of good. there's NOTHING like getting up at 6 am, at -40, having your lips stick to your tin of coffee, hiking with the oxen for two hours to the woods, then swinging an ax all day. And repeating it. Every day.
And we could provide free firewood to widows! As for these guys, I think "character-building" would be the polite spin. I suspect you all have far more creative ideas, but I just want to put in my vote, early, for that old standard... MANUAL LABOR.
September 22, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not hearing me. Or Dijamo. Or Quinn. This is not about the bankers. We do not have economic "Smart Bombs" that we can aim at the corner offices of Wall Street. New York City is already feeling the hit. Secretaries, hotel workers, waiters, and custodians. And when this hits the city's tax revenues, it will affect city services (time to cut back on homeless shelters), schools and teachers (and therefore kids), and so on. And it may soon spread to the rest of the country if not the world. Are you prepared to lose your job so that you can punish the bankers? Are you prepared for others to lose theirs?
September 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I do hear you. I understand why we need a bailout. And I'm saying bail away.
But if the collapse of all sorts of other industries in this country, like auto manufacturing and steelmaking, and the massive layoffs associated with these over the years haven't sent us into nuclear winter, telling the executive management of all these firms that they're fired isn't going to hurt anything. Addressing the issue of executive compensation isn't going to hurt anything, or addressing the various motives that created all this crap is going to hurt anything.
If we truly stand on the brink of financial Armageddon here, then the folks who clever-assed us into it should pay, one way or another.
I'm not saying they're going to. These assholes never do. But they should. And feeling that way, feeling viscerally angry about it, is not irrational, and does not mean we don't understand what's at stake.
Keeping the system afloat is one thing. Absolving individuals from responsibility is another.
September 22, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/fury-at-25bn-bonus-for-lehmans-new-york-staff-937560.html
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. No $2.5b bonus pool for Lehman's NY staff. At this moment in time, that's just a nonstarter.
September 22, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis, I may weigh in more later (and yes, that Is a threat), but I'm pretty much dumbfounded by some of what I'm seeing. Holy Shit. People seriously comparing what we have now and a Depression? Stating that things aren't such bad shape? That it's all fictional? So what if a few big companies go under?
Look, I may think the bail-out is a giant scam, badly structured, can wait - all of that is open to sensible debate, ok?
But those other statements - and this site is littered with them right now - are just utterly clueless. In economic terms, they're the equivalent of hillbillies rolling in the aisles and speaking inn tongues. I'm fucking dumbfounded around TPM these days. I mean, I knew there wasn't much desire to engage in economic posts earlier, but this stuff is just batshit crazy.
WTF, people? Read a goddamn book. Learn something. You're talking about people's lives, and the amount of personal resentment and/or denial that seems to be influencing people's reading of the situation is just off the charts.
And yeah, if you want to argue with me, go ahead. But I calls 'em as I sees 'em. And this is batshit, full stop.
September 22, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
word
September 22, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell yeah! Ah cain't smell nothin' an it hurts like hell, but mah face sure is pissed off!
Fuck them dudes!
September 22, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with quinn and genghis here. I have felt very isolated the past few days. It’s as if I’m discovering that everyone else who reads blogs is some kind of wacky lone survivalist, typing away in their bunkers with a ten year supply of food and ammo, and a vault filled with gold bars. I am struggling to understand why so many of my fellow blogosphere denizens seem serenely unconcerned with the fate of US capitalism, and appear to have jobs that do not depend in any way on the ability of US capital to keep supplying them, or their customers, or their customers’ customers, with the money they need to keep their operations running.
September 22, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. When weird stuff hits, there seems to be about a 90% tendency to Panic, Deny or Bunker. And it's doubly weird to come on TPM and find it in about the same proportion. Fortunately, after a few days, things tend to creep down to a more manageable 80/20.
I also find sniffing glue helps clear the mind. Highly Rec'd.
September 22, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13689.html
And anything recent from Krugman.
They're increasingly skeptical
September 22, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm skeptical of the bailout too. That's not the point. Economists are skeptical of the bailout because they worry that it won't work or will provide too much power to the Treasure or cost too much. That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about people who are dismissing the real risk to peoples lives for the sake of indulging in political and class resentment. Krugman and the other economists may criticize the bailout, but you don't seem them making light of the economic conditions and treating them as opportunities for political gain.
September 22, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well tarnation and hellfire! I went and made a whole serious post ... and that wasn't even the point of this thread. Dammit.
Jeez ... you are on a mission to fight teh stupid?!?
Good luck. I'm off to find a more serious thread on which to engage in economic opinion malpractice (I like to think I'm merely dumb).
September 22, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but I don't see them dismissing the anger either. They, in fact, share it.
September 23, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually agree Genghis.
I was thinking about it the other night. And I am very low income at the current moment, and struggle to meet just some of my more normal bills. That which will more than likely change by the end of this yr.(restarted my career in my actual industry a yr and a half ago.....from bottom up :(, after a 3 yr hiatus).
And even though it will hurt like hell. I say, LET IT CRASH.
Fuck a Bail out. Lets see what happens. I wont even feel bad about it, because I know all of the morons who voted for Bush dont feel bad right now.
NO BAILOUT. LET IT BURN.
September 22, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I do understand how fucked we are, even with the bail out.
No bail out would probably stop everything in its tracks. A worst case scenario that most people have begun to think about it. And finally might Wake up the "Lost Ones" of this nation.
September 22, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't understand how f--ked we are, or else you wouldn't be saying what you're saying.
Seriously, study finance, read up, and think.
Not all finance is about money grubbing investment bankers. Most of it is about financing things that give people jobs and allow them to support families and, you know, eat.
That financing is dying right now. Which means not only will the economy tank and unemployment skyrocket here, but all over the world. You think you've seen poverty and social unrest in the world? Just wait until this thing blows up. Only, last time this happened, nuclear weapons didn't exist. You do not understand what is at stake. Please try.
September 22, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless we fix the problem properly, we will be right back here in ten years, when we are ass-deep in sustainability project costs, and the problem still won't be solved.
The market is going to (and deserves to, unfortunately) lose some value while they figure out the best solution, but to advocate rash action with little understanding of long-term consequences seems to advice of a fool, no matter how well "educated" you seem to be about high finance.
Some pretty smart motherfuckers got us into this mess in the first place.
September 22, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rapid action is urgent. Yes, this bailout plan has problems, I don't support it. But something has to be done. Will you jump up and down for joy if taxpayers have equity stakes in shitty stocks? Either way, something will have to be done, and soon.
And who exactly do you think is best equipped to give advice on the nature of the problem or how to fix or properly regulate it? People who know something about how finance works, or at least do some goddamn reading to figure out what they're criticizing, or people like you who scream "elitist" when someone tries to explain to you what is happening and you don't like it?
I would argue that it's people who didn't know what the f--k they were doing who got us into these problems in the first place. Smart motherfuckers are needed more than ever.
September 22, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, you use insults instead of persuasion. There are at least as many people counseling caution and pragmatic action as there are screaming for rapid and immediate action, damn the consequences. The more you use derision and fear, the less likely it seems you know what you are talking about.
September 22, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude I'm really getting tired of you. I gave you all sorts of data and you tell me I'm being an egghead who is arrogant full of bullshit and somehow the cause of all this. Now I'm not substantive enough for you and only use insults.
I give up, I agree with you now. Everything is stable and fine. Okay? Jesus.
September 22, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I said you are being an asshole, not that you didn't provide enough information. There is a difference.
September 23, 2008 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Asshole, huh? Didn't you JUST flame me for only using insults in posts?
What's the deal with that?
September 23, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
No...actually I get it.
And no, I dont know everything there is to know about Finance. Not at all.
But I get exactly what your saying.
I just dont give a shit. I dont care AT ALL. Let it burn.
I really dont care. Because no matter WHAT is done. No matter if Obama gets in or not. Unless you fire or jail ALOT of people. I mean Fire and Jail and or heavily fine them. The systems will still be in place. What will happen is the same shit that happened after Bill Clinton.....2 terms under a Dem and then right back into Republican hands(maybe) or 20 yrs...or 28 yrs...the SYSTEMs and FAMILIES will still be in place.
And we will still be fucked.
Real Change...lets either clean house or let them burn imo.
Im just over it and im over the grasp that these fools hold on this country and its people.
September 22, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
you say you want a revolu-tioooon weeell you knoooow...
we all want to change the world.
September 22, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that I get the context here, G. I guess I'm just not seeing people saying what you seem to be satirizing. I'm looking at what guys like Reich, Krugman and Thoma are saying and it seems to make sense. They're being critical of a plan that seems too big, too simple and too fast. They're not saying don't do it, they're saying that there simply has to be a quid pro quo here.
Perhaps I've just missed the type of commentary you seem to be gunning at here.
September 22, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a bunch of it at William Reich's thread yesterday. And more on this thread today.
As for Reich himself, the only issue I have with him is leveraging the bailout to address executive compensation, which is on one hand a small matter in terms of its contribution to this crisis and on the other hand larger than this crisis in that inflated executive comp extends far beyond wall street. We should certainly address the issue to the extent that we are able but not within the context of stabilizing the economy.
September 22, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think most sensible agree that stabilizing the economy is a top priority. However, we're also going to need to address the conditions that got us here.
Perhaps it's too soon for contemplating the philosophical nature of this fire while it still burns, but I think this may be a major blow to anti-regulation free market ideologues.
At any rate, long-term stability should also be a concern. In fact, I'd like to see more of an eye for long-term stability in the current proposal.
September 22, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree on all accounts. I'd like to see a comprehensive proposal from Obama, not necessarily tied to the current bailout, to introduce more regulation into the financial markets. I would amend the bailout plan to minimize taxpayer risk, but after that, I would move the rest into a separate package. We don't have to do everything this week. The fallout from this meltdown, however it turns out, should provide the political cover to get this done.
September 22, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like it or not, the bailout (in some form) will happen. (And I agree with Genghis and others that it needs to.) Individual CEOs, etc., are inconsequential. They're symptoms of an extreme ideology. Those symptoms will present during any outbreak.
Naomi Klein, who deserves to have good things happen to her IMO, wrote a couple days ago about the question of what is (or isn't) to be done in the wake of all this. Broad strokes but accurate, I think.
http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/09/free-market-ideology-far-finished
September 22, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hr book "the shock doctrine" dealt with things exactly like this. If you didn't see her on Bill Maher last Friday, it's worth a listen. Goggle Tullycasts2.
September 23, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's full on PR. Politically, we can't take tax money and hand it to the people who just ground the economy into the dirt.
It's not about fixing the economy - it is a good governance thing. If it's not addressed now, once the money is allocated it never will be.
September 22, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter whether we do or not except for our collective sense of just desert. So some CEOs lose their guaranteed bonuses (which probably results in a lawsuit that ends up getting them their bonuses in the end anyway). So what? Will cutting the bonus offer anything to the taxpayers? Will the next CEO at the height of a bubble in 10-20 years pay attention to the fact some CEO years before in a different bubble and a different economy lost his bonus? What do we get out of cutting the salary and bonuses for a small handful of CEOs, which may or may not be upheld in civil courts, and at what cost?
September 22, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, it's not a common sense thing. People need to see something tangible. It's more like an overhead basis point on the bailout package.
What are the chances that folks are really going to understand what's going on? The money's gone. Shit - most of it never existed in the first place.
After 8 hours' study I think I finally understand what a CDO is and how it can be swapped with a different class of revenue stream and not ever booked. I also think I understand how you can write $10bn worth of CDO coverage on only $1bn in outstanding debt - so when the loan fails the cost is exponentially more than the original debt. I also understand that $1bn in assets is not required to swap or initiate a $1bn CDO (the reason for Buffet's "Financial WMDs" comment). I still haven't figured out the hook - it seems to be in day-trading; they are able to gamble $100bn worth of "assets" backed by only $1bn in loans.
Now try and get someone to understand that ... and then explain that AIG both issued and held trading positions in these instruments and the implications - while they are out for friggin blood. Executive compensation is a small concession to quiet the masses - especially because ethically, those execs shouldn't get bonuses out anyhow.
Also, everyone has totally let the rating companies off the hook! These things are complex, but not THAT complex. The rating methodology was incompetent and there was a conflict of interest.
September 22, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rating companies aren't off the hook. They've been lambasted in the press and lost all credibility with traders, investors, etc. They'll get theirs, don't worry...after the storm passes. That's like, 10th on the priority list at this point though.
September 23, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the temptation towards an emotional or vengeful response that would be self destructive is enormous. Also notable that the temptation for presidential candidates to leverage that emotion with demagoguery must also be huge. McCain can't do it because he's so much a cause of the problem.
But we are VERY lucky to have a democrat of as much substance as Obama, who refuses to go on a populist rampage of demagoguery.
September 22, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point.
September 22, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's just hang the sign on that famous (infamous) street if the government decides to bail 'em out:
The People's Republic of Wall Street!
September 22, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post ties up all the Keating, Gramm, McCain loose ends in one neat little bow:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/21/9322/74248/245/602838
September 22, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Stuff the bailout. No bailout and the little guy will probably get screwed. Even with the bailout he'll still get screwed.
Greedy pigs. There's the window, what's your hurry.
September 22, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy shit, you are delusional.
Ha.
Haha.
Hahaha.
Tell people in Russia how awsome it is to live without credit.
Hahahaha.
This one takes the cake.
Hahahahaha.
The wellbeing of the working class and fairness in the economy are not something that will just "work out" if we get the right people in office. We are going to have to lobby politicians, our politicians, hard to ensure that these things happen. It's going to be a long, hard slog, even if Obama does all the right things and everything goes as well as possible. It's going to get darker, for everybody, before it gets better for the working class.
The only thing I can agree with you on?
September 22, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Customer0012. Thanks so much for your thoughts. Judging from the number "ha's" in this post, it seems that you have an excellent sense of humor. Now if you can just combine that with a sense of irony, you'll be a force to be reckoned with.
September 22, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's irony?
September 22, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's what Genghis uses to make his shirt so wrinkle free
September 22, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then I'd say it works!
September 22, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Web 2.0 standards dictate that you tag posts and links such as this with or .
Additionally, tagged posts will not be indexed as "ironic" without the inclusion of at least one of the following in the text:
1.) Pabst Blue Ribbon
2.) A really shitty band that you know on a personal level
3.) A mustache
Failure to comply will result in higher stuffed-animal blood pressure, and may also result in endless trolling of previous and/or future posts.
September 22, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 22, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
A multihued shirt also qualifies under the proposed Web 3.0 standards.
September 22, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that as a Fun Da Mental I’m very strong. So there. Banks, no thanks!!
.OMG!! What are you?! The Nero of TPM???!!!
September 22, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought that we went over this last week. I'm the Ultimate Machine. Why do you keep trying to reassign me?
September 22, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
So sorry for the reassignment,Dr. ☠enghis. My bad. It was the failed reasoning of a human brain which has since been taken over by a leveraged buy out.
P.S. Loved Bananas. ;) Thanks.
September 22, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome. Do Sleeper next. It's even better. I should watch it again too. We can do articleman's idea. ;)
September 22, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I like these proposals, they just don't go far enough.
Let's get rid of the energy industry while we're at it. We don't need electricity any more than we need a financial system.
Besides, blogging via semaphore helps to get in you shape and encourages pithy posting.
September 22, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's unfortunate that so many people who obviously have some education under their belts don't know anything about business--and I'm not talking about billionaire business either.
Without credit and ready financing, the small businesses you depend on, like your local independent coffee shop, Internet service provider, dentist, cafe, music shop, car repair shop, surfboard shapers, bike shops, etc., will likely go under. Your friends who work for those companies will lose their jobs, their apartments or homes, their cars and more.
Most small businesses depend on a combination of credit cards, temporary bridge loans (generally to cover payroll when they have a cash flow crunch--most months of the year), and owner financing (usually a home equity line of credit). To imagine that you will not be affected seriously if we just "LET IT CRASH" requires either complete ignorance or a massive dose of hallucinogens.
September 22, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appreciate your attempt. :-)
But judging from the reaction, and from what else is getting posted here lately, methinks it might be wise choice to go elsewhere for information on this "story" until a bill is in the offing. Besides Reich's post, unless they get Jared Bernstein back posting here, I don't see much chance for efficient learnin' of anything except infotainment on what are the latest cheers and jeers from the pitchfork brigade. Even if Josh Marshall gets some of the Congressional info. he is asking for from readers, The Hill is a better, quicker, and more reliable gossip source. (Actually, this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who realizes that for the last few weeks this site has been all Palin all the time? Bread and circuses...I participated some, shame on me.)
September 22, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Believe it or not, both shrivti1 and quinn esq should be read here. Shrivti1 has a good grasp of the market and what is happening in the short-term credit markets right now.
Quinn is also correct to point out that we are not close to a Depression right now. But on October 29, 1929, as bad as that day was, that was also true, and had timely intervention occurred, perhaps the Depression would not have happened.
The dominoes are stacked to collapse, unless there is some form of a bailout that addresses the key causes. And it appears that leaders as well as economists on both sides agree that separating $500B-$1T of the worst "assets" out of the system will keep it from spiraling downward. Finally, one of the primary things that happened in 1929 was not inflation - rather the opposite - deflation. And it happened very quickly.
My own company was "frozen" out of the commercial paper market last fall. Management responded by cutting 20-30% of our workforce, and we drew down on our credit lines at the banks instead. If this kind of thing becomes commonplace, the economy will quickly spiral down from a recession to a depression.
I absolutely do not support any "blank check" bailout. If we are going to legislate a suspension bridge to get us across this gap, it will need cable-strength regulatory oversight and perhaps a page taken from the S&L crisis. At many banks that failed and were recapitalized and sold, all of the senior executives were required to resign, and no severance pay was permitted.
September 22, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This something I can get behind and helps facilitate understanding of the other, more esoteric factors around this.
No one is saying we shouldn't act, but acting precipitously makes no sense either. The guarantee that the bailout is coming as soon as the details are worked out should be enough to keep things status quo.
If the promise of help isn't enough to stabilize things, we have bigger problems.
September 22, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at what the markets did today. Until we actually do something, that's your new status quo. Have fun with it.
September 22, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always have something pithy to add, huh? Perhaps the markets need correcting? Perhaps we should be more concerned with crafting the right solutions instead another set of half-measures that leave us with the bill and no long-term plan for fixing the systemic issues that caused this shit in the first place. You can be really very dogmatic about this stuff.
September 22, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The markets do need correcting. Some banks do need to go under. Regulation needs to happen, things need to change.
But what is going on right now is not a correction, it is a rout. The markets are broken at the moment. If it were just a correction then people who actually know what they're talking about wouldn't be reacting the way they are.
September 22, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet, some "people who know what they are talking about" are counseling caution and deliberate action instead of overreacting. The only ones calling for immediate action and demagogues - such as you.
September 23, 2008 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are plenty of people who are saying we have to act. At the beginning of this thread my impression was that you thought the best course of action was to do nothing and let the market handle it. I was telling you that the markets are dysfunctional and broken and cannot handle it.
Look I'm not saying that something has to be done RIGHT THIS SECOND, nor am I suggesting that Paulson's plan is a must-do plan.
What I am saying is that something must be done. And the more time that goes by, the more expensive it becomes to do it.
Let's consider how we need to totally reform and regulate the financial system in a calm, measured way...after we prevent its complete and impending meltdown. The more time that passes before we do the latter, the more expensive and difficult it will be to do the former.
September 23, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
For example, this language (which was in the proposed bill) is not acceptable. Ever.
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
September 22, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
AlaskaSense,
Sorry to hear about the downturn at your company.
Something tells me this is about to become way more common, and very soon (maybe the fact that companies like GM were put on the infamous "do not short" list is some indication. Banning short sellers is a panic-driven and ill-considered response...but to include auto companies? That tells me things are baaaaaaaad out there. Either that, or auto company lobbies bought Paulson many many hookers last weekend.)
Thanks for the recommendation. I swore a bit too much in my posts I suppose but come on, people, I expect y'all do some research and know what you're talking about if you have such strong convictions.
The Bush Administration has been the biggest champion of unregulated free market activity since Regan, and probably even more. Don't you think they would love to avoid these kind of historically massive market bailouts if it were at all possible, especially in an election year? Even if you don't understand finance, doesn't that give you at least a little bit of an idea of the magnitude of what is going on?
I agree, the bailout plan has many problems. I would not be against an equity stake for taxpayers...frankly, taxpayers will lose billions and billions of dollars on this no matter what our equity stake is, because what good are equity stakes when asset prices are collapsing and stock prices going right down the crapper with them? I can have an equity stake in the dog shit on the front sidewalk, but that doesn't mean I'm making money off of it. (Even though there's probably a market in dog shit futures somewhere).
But that's not the point. The point is to rail against the downturn and the greedy billionaire bankers and crony capitalists because you're part of the unthinking pitchfork and torch wielding mob? I just held TPM readers to a higher standard is all, I figured they would do some research into what they were complaining about instead of just becoming sheep and parrots. People complain about MSM but then act just like them and talk when they don't know what they're talking about.
Anyone can learn the basics of what is going on in the markets if they want to. I'm not really that smart, I just WANT to know what's going on so I read a lot about it and try to learn from the many many people who know more than I do about this.
Anyway thanks for the props.
September 22, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis, long before the next president takes office, guys like you will be paying 20 bucks for a loaf of bread. I love your idealistic spirit, but you're clueless on the economy. If the rich assholes get kicked in the nuts, I guarantee you, YOU will be the one who will do the puking. Wise up. This IS a crisis, and its effects will be widespread and unbelievably painful. We need to deal with the problem. It's not good enough to say, "They had it coming." There's no "they" in a depression.
September 22, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There seems to be an issue with your reception. Please adjust your ears until the signal clears.
September 22, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe irony needs a bailout.
September 22, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The blogger may be trying for some clever snark but it in the end it just comes across as a fourteen year old thinking they can give the finger to the man and still go on as business as usual.
September 22, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too clever by far, apparently.
September 22, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explains nausea I've felt all last week.
September 22, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now hang on a moment. I'm not in favor of McCain at all, and I'm all for Obama's success in this race, but eagerly looking forward for major bankruptcies because it might benefit Obama's chances is as tasteless as looking forward to a major terrorist attack because it might benefit Mcain's chances. If you might condemn those who look forward to an attack because it might afford the opportunity to win the election, think about what you just wrote.
I only agree with "let 'em crash" in the sense that, as Ron Paul put it, we're not fixing anything; we're just delaying and intensifying the inevitable. Lessons need to be learned, and by bailing out these rotten greed-driven corporations, we're just teaching them the wrong lessons.
September 22, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya think?
September 22, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy cow. Please let's don't put Ron Paul in the middle of this. The 17th century wasn't as much fun as it reads. (Or either Berkana has just topped genghis, big-time).
I don't know much, but it doesn't seem most people can't comprehend that we are best served by not letting the financial system collapse and that, if we taxpayers are to buy the failed institutions we need to make certain we don't pay more than they are actually worth - and that we set in place a viable and dependable way to reorganize and operate them.
Am I 'way off here? If so I am genuinely open to anyone who actually understands all this.
September 22, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not far off.
I don't claim to understand all of this, but look...
The reasons we have to bail these people out are manifold, but essentially its because there's no liquidity in the market which means:
1. price setting signals don't work
2. nobody knows what anything is worth
The firms who have these assets need to recapitalize but they can't raise capital while these unpriceable assets are on their books. The government thinks that getting them off their books will do two things:
1. give these firms the capital they need to operate effectively again and
2. restore investors' confidence in the value of firms and pricing mechanisms
It's like clearing out a minefield. If you know there are thousands of mines there you can't see...or even one...then the whole area won't have a soul there doing anything. But guarantee that you've swept it and the land might be productive again.
So, if this is to work, the odds are (and nobody can say with any degree of certainty, because sensitivity analysis goes out the window when we're talking about a crisis like this) that we're gonna have to buy this crap for more than it's worth. Which means we will eventually lose money.
If we put protections in place to guarantee that we only buy profitable assets, then that kind of counteracts the idea of getting all the bad assets off of the banks' books. After all, the defining characteristic of bad assets is that they are, well...bad.
September 22, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The firms who have these assets need to recapitalize . . . .
Why? So they (whoever "they" are) can continue operating their proprietary "trading desks" and loaning their capital to hedge funds?
There are thousands (5-6000) of banks that are doing fine. Why do we need a few mortgage warehousers (WaMu types) and a few hedge funds (Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, for examples)?
September 23, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those banks aren't doing fine. They have stuff on their balance sheets they haven't marked down yet because they don't have the capital base to support the losses...Investors suspect this is the case and their stocks are tanking along with the rest of the financials.
Expensive interbank loaning may shrink their capital base further along with the eventual losses they will take from having these securities on their books. That could lead to an even bigger credit crunch than what we've already been seeing. Not to mention the modern-day bank runs we've been seeing replaced by old-fashioned, put-the-cash-under-the-mattress type of bank runs.
This won't be like the Great Depression--back then the US had the per-capita income currently seen in Botswana. We have five times more. So in order to get to people-living-in-Hooverville, pencils-for-5-cents type of depression, the fall would have to be astronomically greater.
But it will be bad, the worst we've seen in our lifetimes.
It's easy to say "fine let it burn" until you're the one who has lost your job, can't pay your rent or credit card bills, have no medical insurance, are driven into bankruptcy, etc etc
September 23, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reference to Ron Paul is very appropriate here. Lately I feel like TPM has turned into a site for pissed off far right populists.
Those criticizing the concept of the government bailout here (as opposed to the specifics of the bailout, which is quite another issue) might reflect on the fact that they're lined up with the libertarians and the most hardline Republican free marketers. Senator Obama, mainstream Democrats, moderate Republicans, and even the Bush administration are united in realizing the need for the bailout.
I can understand why banks, particularly of the Wall Street sort, are unpopular. But it doesn't take too much of an understanding of financial capitalism to realize what a mess we'd all be in if the banking system failed. If references to the Great Depression seem too distant and sepia toned, try looking at other countries that have had collapses more recently. The Eastern Bloc (post Communism) and Latin America (far too often) offer instructive examples.
September 22, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think the banking system is going to fail?
September 23, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
?enghis - if your local economy sinks any more and business is not too good, there is one place Bush has created high paying jobs. Iraq. Contractors get 100K or above with good health benefits.
September 22, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so there. Can you get me one of those no-bid contracts?
September 22, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The market has been on a drunken binge these past two terms and, ohmigod, they just puked all over everything! They will have to sleep in it. We all will. Then, once the dumbasses, or Zom-Bushes as I prefer to call them, wake up, they just might realize who stunk up the place. Preventing the stench prevents the Dems from getting the White House, Congress, and a rational judiciary.
The Reich is forcing this issue now so that it might blow over before the election and McCain has a chance. But the wind is in favor of Obama so they're taking one last leap at the brass ring because they may not get another chance for 4-8 years. $700 billion really changes the score.
No one knows how much money has been printed during the Bush years at the end of the day, so money's actual value is simply a SWAG.
September 22, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shriv, thanks for the education efforts upthread. You should write your own post about it.
September 22, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that there are 2 ways to go about solving this mortgage crisis. (1) Bailout the banks when people default on their mortgages, thus protecting the banks and the bankers who helped get us into this mess; OR (2) bailout the people who are likely to default on their mortgages, thus making the bad debt good, enabling the banks to continue operating and people to keep their homes (and start spending money now that they don't have to worry about their mortgages). So long as we have a trillion dollars lying around, why not give it to the American people who are struggling, who McCain pretends to care so much about?
The first option is the Bush/Paulson plan, and despite the socialist-sounding rhetoric, is exactly in line with traditional conservative Republican fiscal policy - it's trickle-down, save-the-rich economics. The second one seems to make more sense, but I haven't heard anyone pose the idea. Will someone with a better economic understanding of this mess please tell me why I'm wrong?
September 22, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I don't claim to have a perfect understanding of this situation...this causes and ripple effects will be written about and felt for decades to come.
I totally agree with you that this market won't find a bottom until housing prices find a bottom. I think a lot could be gained by putting a program in place to try to keep struggling homeowners in their homes. But you have to remember, a lot of subprimes were 2nd or 3rd houses that were bought as speculative investments assuming that house prices were going to keep rising. Subsidizing their mortgages is like buying John McCain another house. And, unfortunately, there are some homeowners who just don't have the cash flow to justify owning a house. Helping these homeowners out in the short run will only prolong the agony of them and of the economy. They, sadly enough, will have to lose their homes.
Also, I think if the crisis were contained to ONLY housing or ONLY mortgage backed assets, this solution might have some traction. But it's the second third fourth etc. tier effects that are choking the system and causing the most harm. I think these cascading effects are what must be stopped, and because of the complicated nature of some of these derivative contracts, supporting the value of the underlying asset (the houses) won't do the job we need it to for the system to keep working.
Look, I too think it's a fucked up system. But the alternative, at this point, is much worse.
I am a proponent of well-considered and rigourous reform. But it seems like people here want to plot the best place to put the new smoke detector system while the house is burning down.
September 22, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you have to remember, a lot of subprimes were 2nd or 3rd houses that were bought as speculative investments assuming that house prices were going to keep rising.
"Subsidizing their mortgages is like buying John McCain another house."
This is really good, and needs to be communicated THIS way for people to begin to grasp some of the basics. Cheers.
September 23, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Let 'em crash", eh Genghis? Great 'Airplane' hook BTW, but I'll bet you don't go looking to economics for laughs again for a while, eh?
And people wonder why grouchy old McCain has a chance in this election. Detect any anger/rage/grouchiness out there today?
Anyway, well done on wading through. Getting shrivti's input was quite valuable I think. Cheers.
September 22, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto. Who knew there were so many misanthro-pisseds among us?
September 22, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always have mixed feelings when people miss my snark. On one hand, I think it's a mark of good satire to be able to walk the line between plausibility and insanity. Many people missed (and still miss) the irony in Swift's Modest Proposal. You try to sneak into their heads until they find themselves nodding at the most outrageous suggestions. Inevitably, people who either aren't clever or aren't paying attention miss it entirely.
On the other hand, it's hard for me to bear the idea that people think I actually believe the outrageous suggestions. If I were a true satirist, I'd say fuck'em.
PS I also appreciated shriv's work in this thread.
September 23, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot. My FAVORITE part was when you flipped Robert Reich for William Reich. Wilhelm Reich was an interesting lad, as you clearly know. But I think some of his inventions are increasingly releveant to our economic crisis.
Wiki - "Reich's work on the link between human sexuality and neuroses emphasized “orgastic potency” as the foremost criterion for psycho-physical health. He said he had discovered a form of energy, which he called “orgone,” that permeated the atmosphere and all living matter, and he built “orgone accumulators,” which his patients sat inside to harness the energy for its reputed health benefits."
I still dream of Organon Cloudbusting.
September 23, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious. I missed that Freudian, er, Reichian slip. I actually know one of Wilhelm Reich's granddaughters. She's a psychotherapist. Go figure.
September 23, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I got out of this thread was that there are extremes. There are those who are over reacting and there are those that are under reacting.
No doubt the situation isn't good. But I doubt it's so bad that we need to panic and give the Bush administration yet another bullet to kill the country with. Nor do I think that the Dow losing 300 points is a biggie. It lost that and it gains that. It's speculation, and the speculators are hysterical.
Not folks I want at the helm.
Too excitable, The truth is, that folks are fed up and not going to bend over this time. That's a part of the equation that needs to be acknowledged and accepted because that isn't going away.
Enough! From all of you.
September 22, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks very kindly, shrivti1. I appreciate your help.
September 23, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment