Careful What You Wish For
For all of you adherents to the Paul Krugman/Joe Stiglitz world of "just nationalize the banks already" school of thought, I give you AIG.
AIG and its myriad counterparty contracts, insurance contracts and credit default swaps is the poster child of nationalization. We the Taxpayers own virtually all of it and will continue to pour endless billions down a black hole in order not to let it fail. As Eliot Spitzer rightly notes, these billions are the outrage; not the piddling, by comparison, bonuses wrongfully paid which are also an outrage.
Can you imagine what a takeover of Citigroup or Bank of America would look like? As much as it is easy to trash Geithner and Summers over this whole affair, maybe their carefully slow approach and hands off style aren't as disastrous for us in the long run as rushing headlong into the "nationalize everything" answer that seems to be the conventional wisdom.
Oh and trashing the Obama Administration over this will easily produce exactly the results the obstructionists in Congress desire: No EFCA, No Health Care Reform, No Carbon Taxes, No Major Reform of Government or Wall Street.
Be careful what you wish for because it just might end up in a new Republican Majority.
AIG and its myriad counterparty contracts, insurance contracts and credit default swaps is the poster child of nationalization. We the Taxpayers own virtually all of it and will continue to pour endless billions down a black hole in order not to let it fail. As Eliot Spitzer rightly notes, these billions are the outrage; not the piddling, by comparison, bonuses wrongfully paid which are also an outrage.
Can you imagine what a takeover of Citigroup or Bank of America would look like? As much as it is easy to trash Geithner and Summers over this whole affair, maybe their carefully slow approach and hands off style aren't as disastrous for us in the long run as rushing headlong into the "nationalize everything" answer that seems to be the conventional wisdom.
Oh and trashing the Obama Administration over this will easily produce exactly the results the obstructionists in Congress desire: No EFCA, No Health Care Reform, No Carbon Taxes, No Major Reform of Government or Wall Street.
Be careful what you wish for because it just might end up in a new Republican Majority.
Advertisement












Whooooo....who said anything about not letting them fail. My thought is, take them over...turn them into parking lots for some nice inter city park and put the former execs to work building the parking the lots.
March 18, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"take them over" has a lot of implications, including billions of taxpayer dollars down the rathole.
March 18, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The parking lot idea, works for me...hahaha
Seriously, although I believe in the concept of being careful what you wish for, if we are to trust the administration (which I do) shouldn't we trust in the fact they are capable of handling a temporary and limited form of nationalization? Don't know what that would look like, but it's a thought.
March 18, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see a problem with the government running the banks from a competence point. Heaven knows you would be hard put to it to find anyone less competent than those currently in charge of these banks.
It's the speed at which any decision would be made that bothers me. The idea that any major action would require an act of congress...this does not inspire confidence.
C
March 18, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point!!!
March 18, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if we just let them fail. The banks that are not in trouble would be happy to buy there assets wouldn't they?
March 18, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on the principle there Redneck. But all of the four biggest banks are in real trouble. And they account for 70% of all the bank assets in the US. So the whole financial system risks collapsing. Not just the US, but Europe and Asia as well. And no one knows what the repercussions of that would be.
But some things Geithner is doing look like what you have in mind: he is providing cheap financing to lots of smaller financial firms so they have the money to buy the assets of the big banks. So maybe he will take your advice in the end. :0)
March 18, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read that two of the bigger banks weren't in trouble Chase Morgan and Wells Fargo, I haven't heard of them having problems anyway
March 18, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an article showing what an audit of the big banks may find. If these results are right, then all the big four are effectively bankrupt.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/under-one-stress-test-big-banks-look-anemic/
March 18, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief.
"The future losses for some banks are staggering by CreditSights’ estimates: Wells Fargo, $119 billion; BofA, $99 billion; JPMorgan, $124 billion; Citi, $101 billion; Goldman Sachs: $47 billion; Morgan Stanley, $34 billion."
If pigs could fly, pigeon poop would be the least of our worries!
But if the banks are not looking carefully at likely recession-induced delinquencies and defaults, worse could happen.
March 18, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
hehn?? You're losing me, Eds... what are you getting at?
March 18, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those projected losses look crazy. I have to suspect the model used to create them, but otherwise the banks are crazy.
While it's easy to bash banks mindlessly now, that's not my thing.
March 18, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to think these numbers are understating the losses. I put more faith in other estimates where Citi's losses are likely to be more like 200Bn than 100Bn.
i like your healthy skepticism, but to still wonder whether the banks are insane, in the face of all the evidence, is going a bit far, I think...
March 19, 2009 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I was very wrong about them not being in trouble!! Sorry
March 18, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, he is my President. From my party. I am not going to 'attack' him Candide. But, the groundswell is not that bad at this point in time rather than a year from now. I might bode well in the end.
Oh, and did I ever tell you I laugh at your avatar everytime I see it. Voltaire would be proud.
March 18, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks buddy. Listen I agree with you. Obama is not only the smartest guy in the room, he is the luckiest guy in the room. All this faux outrage is going to come back and bite his detractors in the butt if and when things start to turn up. I just don't want Dems to jump on the Limbaugh bandwagon to score political points back at home (viz. Wyden).
March 20, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, AIG hasn't been nationalized... yet. The government owns warrants giving it the rights to 80% of AIG's stock. Those warrants are like stock options. They have to be exercised to take effect. AIG isn't nationalized until the warrants are converted to equity.
Part of the problem here (I think, anyway) is that they DIDN'T just nationalize the sucker. These half measures caused some of the problems. An outright takeover affords the government more control. Could work out better.
March 18, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink