He gambled it on continuing Paulson's bailout program for the banks and chances are it was a losing bet and will break his presidency:
Why Obama's new Tarp will fail to rescue the banks
By Martin Wolf
Published: February 10 2009 18:06 | Last updated: February 10 2009 18:06
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ebea1b8-f794-11dd-81f7-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
Has Barack Obama's presidency already failed? In normal times, this would be a ludicrous question. But these are not normal times. They are times of great danger. Today, the new US administration can disown responsibility for its inheritance; tomorrow, it will own it. Today, it can offer solutions; tomorrow it will have become the problem. Today, it is in control of events; tomorrow, events will take control of it. Doing too little is now far riskier than doing too much. If he fails to act decisively, the president risks being overwhelmed, like his predecessor. The costs to the US and the world of another failed presidency do not bear contemplating.
What is needed? The answer is: focus and ferocity. If Mr Obama does not fix this crisis, all he hopes from his presidency will be lost. If he does, he can reshape the agenda. Hoping for the best is foolish. He should expect the worst and act accordingly.
Yet hoping for the best is what one sees in the stimulus programme and – so far as I can judge from Tuesday's sketchy announcement by Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary – also in the new plans for fixing the banking system. I commented on the former last week. I would merely add that it is extraordinary that a popular new president, confronting a once-in-80-years' economic crisis, has let Congress shape the outcome.
The banking programme seems to be yet another child of the failed interventions of the past one and a half years: optimistic and indecisive. If this "progeny of the troubled asset relief programme" fails, Mr Obama's credibility will be ruined. Now is the time for action that seems close to certain to resolve the problem; this, however, does not seem to be it.
All along two contrasting views have been held on what ails the financial system. The first is that this is essentially a panic. The second is that this is a problem of insolvency.
Under the first view, the prices of a defined set of "toxic assets" have been driven below their long-run value and in some cases have become impossible to sell. The solution, many suggest, is for governments to make a market, buy assets or insure banks against losses. This was the rationale for the original Tarp and the "super-SIV (special investment vehicle)" proposed by Henry (Hank) Paulson, the previous Treasury secretary, in 2007.
Under the second view, a sizeable proportion of financial institutions are insolvent: their assets are, under plausible assumptions, worth less than their liabilities. The International Monetary Fund argues that potential losses on US-originated credit assets alone are now $2,200bn (€1,700bn, £1,500bn), up from $1,400bn just last October. This is almost identical to the latest estimates from Goldman Sachs. In recent comments to the Financial Times, Nouriel Roubini of RGE Monitor and the Stern School of New York University estimates peak losses on US-generated assets at $3,600bn. Fortunately for the US, half of these losses will fall abroad. But, the rest of the world will strike back: as the world economy implodes, huge losses abroad – on sovereign, housing and corporate debt – will surely fall on US institutions, with dire effects.
Personally, I have little doubt that the second view is correct and, as the world economy deteriorates, will become ever more so. But this is not the heart of the matter. That is whether, in the presence of such uncertainty, it can be right to base policy on hoping for the best. The answer is clear: rational policymakers must assume the worst. If this proved pessimistic, they would end up with an over-capitalised financial system. If the optimistic choice turned out to be wrong, they would have zombie banks and a discredited government. This choice is surely a "no brainer".
The new plan seems to make sense if and only if the principal problem is illiquidity. Offering guarantees and buying some portion of the toxic assets, while limiting new capital injections to less than the $350bn left in the Tarp, cannot deal with the insolvency problem identified by informed observers. Indeed, any toxic asset purchase or guarantee programme must be an ineffective, inefficient and inequitable way to rescue inadequately capitalised financial institutions: ineffective, because the government must buy vast amounts of doubtful assets at excessive prices or provide over-generous guarantees, to render insolvent banks solvent; inefficient, because big capital injections or conversion of debt into equity are better ways to recapitalise banks; and inequitable, because big subsidies would go to failed institutions and private buyers of bad assets.
Why then is the administration making what appears to be a blunder? It may be that it is hoping for the best. But it also seems it has set itself the wrong question. It has not asked what needs to be done to be sure of a solution. It has asked itself, instead, what is the best it can do given three arbitrary, self-imposed constraints: no nationalisation; no losses for bondholders; and no more money from Congress. Yet why does a new administration, confronting a huge crisis, not try to change the terms of debate? This timidity is depressing. Trying to make up for this mistake by imposing pettifogging conditions on assisted institutions is more likely to compound the error than to reduce it.
Assume that the problem is insolvency and the modest market value of US commercial banks (about $400bn) derives from government support (see charts). Assume, too, that it is impossible to raise large amounts of private capital today. Then there has to be recapitalisation in one of the two ways indicated above. Both have disadvantages: government recapitalisation is a bail-out of creditors and involves temporary state administration; debt-for-equity swaps would damage bond markets, insurance companies and pension funds. But the choice is inescapable.
If Mr Geithner or Lawrence Summers, head of the national economic council, were advising the US as a foreign country, they would point this out, brutally. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF managing director, said the same thing, very gently, in Malaysia last Saturday.
The correct advice remains the one the US gave the Japanese and others during the 1990s: admit reality, restructure banks and, above all, slay zombie institutions at once. It is an important, but secondary, question whether the right answer is to create new "good banks", leaving old bad banks to perish, as my colleague, Willem Buiter, recommends, or new "bad banks", leaving cleansed old banks to survive. I also am inclined to the former, because the culture of the old banks seems so toxic.
By asking the wrong question, Mr Obama is taking a huge gamble. He should have resolved to cleanse these Augean banking stables. He needs to rethink, if it is not already too late.
"Is Mr Wolf jumping to conclusions?"
Quote from: Renfield on February 13, 2009, 06:46:35 AM
"Is Mr Wolf jumping to conclusions?"
Perhaps, but he's just one of many who seem to think they know how to solve the crisis. If you put ten leading economists in one room, the likely result would be ten different solutions.
Quote from: Martin Wolf 1080 on February 12, 2009, 07:02:44 PM
....it is extraordinary that a popular new president, confronting a once-in-80-years’ economic crisis, has let Congress shape the outcome.
Although it's much too soon to judge his presidency, Obama's handling of this first major test sure looks as if he's abdicated leadership to President Pelosi. President Obama, Congress, and the partisan press should all note that Obama was elected Chief Executive because of
hope in his promise to bring fundamental change to Washington and to rise above partisan politics. The enormous good will he enjoys is his
personal political capital. He must spend it wisely. Unfortunately he seems to have forgotten that as much as Bush was despised, with only a 24% favorable rating according to the Zogby poll shortly before the election, the Democrat-controlled Congress was even more despised, with a record low
11% favorable rating in the same poll! Having surrendered leadership to the Democrats in Congress on the economic recovery program, choosing instead to assume the role of salesman for Democrat special-interest politics as usual, Obama's actions thus far do not inspire confidence.
We're still waiting to see who the real President Obama turns out to be: the dynamic visionary who promised to end destructive partisanship and bring fundamental change to Washington's insider-special-interest-business-as-usual politics? Or the junior back-bencher who can be trusted to go along with his Party's Congressional agenda as shown by his voting record in the Senate? It may be too much to ask for courageous leadership from a young man with no experience running
anything with real consequences. But ask we must, lest this fateful opportunity be lost. The stakes are too high--and not just for Mr. Obama's political career, but for us all, including the whole world. We need a true statesman in the Oval Office, not just a glib salesman. Let us pray he can rise to the challenge.
Edit: Silly typo corrected and slightly confusing phrasing adjusted to improve comprehension.
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 13, 2009, 07:00:27 AM
We're still waiting to see who the real President Obama turns out to be: the dynamic visionary who promised to end destructive partisanship and bring fundamental change to Washington's insider-special-interest-business-as-usual politics? Or the junior back-bencher who can be trusted to go along with his Party's Congressional agenda as shown by his voting record in the Senate?
I think Obama is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Actually, I see him as more of a pragmatist than anything else. In one area I definitely agree with David - Obama needs to be very careful in his dealings with Pelosi. She's as partisan as they come, and Obama needs to rise above her. If not, she will throw him under the bus without blinking an eye.
I'm also concerned with Obama's Secretary of the Treasury. Although he's been hailed as "uniquely qualified" for the position, he is unique only in his ability to appear comatose when questioned by Congress. Overall, Obama's picks for the top positions in his administration have been less than inspiring.
appointing a bunch of cheats and liars (like Geithner) hasn't done him any good -- it makes it look like David's "President Pelosi" comment is quite acccurate. It reminds me of the football chant, "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING!!!!"
This article is pretty silly, it's only relevant if one presumes that there will be no future legislation concerning the economy. Obama has said multiple times that this is only the beginning, and the current stimulus package will not save the economy, it will only save it from getting worse. And I think he made it clear that even buying the toxic assets will also not be the solution. He himself pointed out that we need to stop being a nation of consumers and pay off the national debt.
And frankly any article that says that the presidency has already failed is obviously just stupid republican propaganda. We have four years with this president, if we hear the cry of Wolf ;) to often now, then in the future when republican pundits actually make a legitimate point, who will be listening?
This is just as bad as the dumb news reporters saying that he failed to break the partisan divide, when any reasonably intelligent person would realize that it's not going to be accomplished within a matter of weeks. ::)
(http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2009/02/Lincoln%20whoa.jpg)
The problem with this bailout is timidity, a desire to split differences to get support from the tax cutters who don't think you should spend money in a stimulus plan (almost a clinical definition of insanity at this late date). So in addition to being in some ways (possibly) misdirected, it will almost inevitably be too small. Political solutions tend to be grab bags where conflicting rationales are submerged under a "try everything, but not too much" approach that legislators can come to agreement on. But the Repubs are
not agreeing, they are positioning themselves for a calamitous failure, so why not be bold? Stop trying to appeal to a nonexistent bipartisanism. Obamas decent impulses aren't helping him here.
Quote from: DavidW on February 13, 2009, 09:55:54 AM
This article is pretty silly, it's only relevant if one presumes that there will be no future legislation concerning the economy.
I wouldn't say silly, but you have a point. This is an improvisation, and critics are looking at weak points which may be shored up in the near future. And it's probably not true that only what happens now matters.
You are mischaracterizing the differences between the Democrats' bill and the Republican and moderate opposition. The latters' position is not, as you suggest, that spending should not be a part of the plan, but rather that the spending in a massive deficit-financed stimulus bill should all be targeted at stimulus, and that it is unconscionable and counter-productive to lard the bill up with tradition Democratic Party special interest group spending that will provide very little bang for the buck as stimulus.
Most of what we call pork (bridges that usually are to
somewhere) is actually useful now. We should rebuild as much infrastructure as we can, with priority going to projects that can be started soon and can involve improved energy efficiency. So, we should build all those new schools we need, repair or rebuild bridges, increase subsidies for mass transit, etc. These are things that will boost the economy in the short term and the long term as well.
Quote from: Renfield on February 13, 2009, 06:46:35 AM
"Is Mr Wolf jumping to conclusions?"
He's correct to identify the problem as he does, I think. In the end some form of quasi-nationalization may be where we go. The administration is simply reflecting the disagreements that are found on the editorial pages as well, and with the added problem (as Wolf says) that solutions are not for the problem we face but for a problem that the government can handle with the usual kind of consensus.
Everyone supports infrastructure spending as appropriate, providing short term jobs creation with long term benefits that everyone agrees on. The Senate's latest iteration of the bill has increased infrastructure spending from the House's original <$100 Billion to ~$150 Billion. There's another ~$200 Billion in benefits payments and entitlements, most of which would be difficult to argue with. Another ~$300 Billion in tax cuts, with the difference of opinion not so much over the virtue of tax cuts but rather how they should be targeted to be most effective. That leaves ~$150 Billion in other appropriations and this, I believe, is the primary bone of contention.
Of course it will prove rather difficult for anyone--including the Members who are expected to vote on the bill next Monday--to examine all of the provisions contained in 1071 pages before the Monday vote.
Edit: Ack--I just checked the news and learned that the House already passed the bill late today. If I were spending my own money I'd probably at least want to read the contract and then sleep on it before making a commitment. And my sense of honor would require even more conscientiousness if I were spending other people's money. Guess that's why I'm not in Congress!
Either way, my future is screwed.
Quote from: G Forever on February 13, 2009, 03:42:03 PM
Either way, my future is screwed.
There's generation X optimism right there!
Quote from: G Forever on February 13, 2009, 03:42:03 PM
Either way, my future is screwed.
Well, you can always live in the past ;D
Quote from: springrite on February 13, 2009, 03:46:51 PM
Well, you can always live in the past ;D
My past isn't that good at all, either... actually, for me, it completely sucked.
See my new imaginary blog. The only solution is to create a pretend life. ;D
What are the chances "it" will work, at least well enough to slowly lift us into a shitty recovery that lasts years?
I say about 90% positive,
because my standards are low in an emergency and
The "it" that we end up with will have mutated away from what we have now. Contrary to what some may believe, we don't have to solve this by next week.
So I'm still optimistic in a way, though it's a pretty grim optimism. :-\
Your future was screwed the day George Bush became President, lied to us about Iraq, and then mortgaged everyone's future on a totally bogus war.
Quote from: jo jo starbuck on February 13, 2009, 08:29:55 PM
Your future was screwed the day George Bush became President, lied to us about Iraq, and then mortgaged everyone's future on a totally bogus war.
I don't understand why we're not hearing this message from the Democrats now, hammering it into everyone's consciousness the way the Republicans say the same things overandoverandoverandover. All it would take is "We've just lived through eight years of tax cuts and war, and look where those failed policies have gotten us." Democrats just don't have the hate in them, or something.
Quote from: nicht schleppend on February 14, 2009, 02:18:09 AM
I don't understand why we're not hearing this message from the Democrats now, hammering it into everyone's consciousness the way the Republicans say the same things overandoverandoverandover. All it would take is "We've just lived through eight years of tax cuts and war, and look where those failed policies have gotten us." Democrats just don't have the hate in them, or something.
his whole presidency is based on getting rid of the old hate-hate stuff, remember?
In a word, no.
Quote from: nicht schleppend on February 14, 2009, 02:18:09 AM
I don't understand why we're not hearing this message from the Democrats now, hammering it into everyone's consciousness the way the Republicans say the same things overandoverandoverandover. All it would take is "We've just lived through eight years of tax cuts and war, and look where those failed policies have gotten us." Democrats just don't have the hate in them, or something.
Because the congress is more at fault than the president, they would be fools to criticize decisions that they voted for. ::)
Quote from: drogulus on February 13, 2009, 07:11:55 PM
Contrary to what some may believe, we don't have to solve this by next week.
Completely agreed.
Quote from: nicht schleppend on February 14, 2009, 02:18:09 AM
I don't understand why we're not hearing this message from the Democrats now, hammering it into everyone's consciousness the way the Republicans say the same things overandoverandoverandover. All it would take is "We've just lived through eight years of tax cuts and war, and look where those failed policies have gotten us." Democrats just don't have the hate in them, or something.
Because the Dems won, and Iraq and the economy belong to them now. The words "failed policy" have a different meaning. Sometimes the party out of power makes an accusation of failure that's more or less true. This may be accidental, because the accusation will be made anyway.
Take the "temporary" tax cuts (please!) the oh-so-clever Repubs saddled us with. Not only were they destructive as policy, the form they took set some kind of record for malicious mischief. There was almost zero constituency for these cuts outside the inbred circle of party
apparatchiki. Yet many of the Dems voted for the cuts. It's too late now, any tax increase would be idiotic. It would be like leaving Iraq because being there is "wrong".
:P
Only time will tell ... Will Obama be like Ronald Reagan who pulled us out of what Jimmy Carter got us into? I don't know ...
Quote from: Coopmv on February 14, 2009, 01:59:09 PM
Only time will tell ... Will Obama be like Ronald Reagan who pulled us out of what Jimmy Carter got us into? I don't know ...
What do you think Carter got us into?
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 14, 2009, 02:03:38 PM
What do you think Carter got us into?
The hyper-inflation and the crushing military defeat at the hands of the Iranians. The western Europeans hated him then as much as they hated W since Carter vacillated in his foreign policies ...
Quote from: Coopmv on February 14, 2009, 02:05:43 PM
The hyper-inflation and the crushing military defeat at the hands of the Iranians.
I wouldn't call a failed attempt to rescue hostages a crushing military defeat. That said, Carter was as poor a president as I'd ever seen until the junior Bush had his turn.
Quote from: Coopmv on February 14, 2009, 02:05:43 PM
The hyper-inflation and the crushing military defeat at the hands of the Iranians. The western Europeans hated him then as much as they hated W since Carter vacillated in his foreign policies ...
Carter inherited the inflation. It was a consequence of massive deficits financing the war in Vietnam (for which both major parties bore responsibility--my,how history repeats itself for those who fail to learn!) which Gerald Ford had already identified as a major issue long before Carter's election.
Crushing military defeat at the hands of the Iranians? Did you just pop in from an alternate universe? Nothing remotely like that ever happened in our world.
Carter wasn't very good but he started the defense buildup credited to Reagan. They should share the credit. Also he appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed (saddling Reagan with him). Hmm...if only Carter would disappear long enough for me to have good thoughts about him... :D
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 14, 2009, 02:22:32 PM
Crushing military defeat at the hands of the Iranians? Did you just pop in from an alternate universe? Nothing remotely like that ever happened in our world.
It is the perception that matters. People are not going to analyze to the nth degree why the military helicopters crashed, which ultimately led to the failed rescue operation. You have the then Democratic mayor of NYC, Ed Koch, who labeled the four trusted advisers of Carter as the Gang of Four (nicknamed after the four henchmen for Chairman Mao) ...
Quote from: drogulus on February 14, 2009, 02:36:57 PM
Carter wasn't very good but he started the defense buildup credited to Reagan. They should share the credit. Also he appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed (saddling Reagan with him). Hmm...if only Carter would disappear long enough for me to have good thoughts about him... :D
But Carter never disappears. Given his failed presidency, one would think he would have silently departed to a private life. But no, the Dreamer continues to give us his wisdom.
Quote from: drogulus on February 14, 2009, 02:36:57 PM
Carter wasn't very good but he started the defense buildup credited to Reagan. They should share the credit. Also he appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed (saddling Reagan with him). Hmm...if only Carter would disappear long enough for me to have good thoughts about him... :D
The best decision made by Jimmy Carter was the appointment of Paul Volcker, who broke the back of the spiraling-out-of-control inflation. In hind sight, the worst decision made by Ronald Reagan was the appointment of Alan Greenspan, who has gotten us into this mess.
Quote from: Coopmv on February 14, 2009, 02:58:35 PM
The best decision made by Jimmy Carter was the appointment of Paul Volcker, who broke the back of the spiraling-out-of-control inflation. In hind sight, the worst decision made by Ronald Reagan was the appointment of Alan Greenspan, who has gotten us into this mess.
Carter does some horrible thing with his eyebrows that destroys his Presidency for me.
>:( Also, what does "nu-keeyer" mean?
Quote from: Bulldog on February 14, 2009, 02:54:02 PM
But Carter never disappears. Given his failed presidency, one would think he would have silently departed to a private life. But no, the Dreamer continues to give us his wisdom.
Unfortunately, I wish Jimmy Carter has completely departed to a quiet private life but he has not. His and W's presidencies were both failure, lets be fair about this.
Quote from: Renfield on February 13, 2009, 03:45:38 PM
There's generation X optimism right there!
Greg's way too young to be a generation Xer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y
Quote from: Guido on February 14, 2009, 03:17:19 PM
Greg's way too young to be a generation Xer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y
Unfortunately, the future looks quite bleak for Gen-X and Gen-Y ...
Quote from: G Forever on February 13, 2009, 03:42:03 PM
Either way, my future is screwed.
Your future mostly depends on you, oh superior one. :D
The subject line is just beltway blather. Obama is still hugely popular, and he'll sign the stimulus bill on Monday.
Quote from: Daverz on February 14, 2009, 06:45:28 PM
The subject line is just beltway blather. Obama is still hugely popular, and he'll sign the stimulus bill on Monday.
Is it beltway blather or European blather? Europeans have been much more assertive and critical of the US for the past twenty years or so. I thought I saw the Financial Times raising a question similar to this subject line a few days ago ...
Quote from: Coopmv on February 14, 2009, 02:58:35 PM
The best decision made by Jimmy Carter was the appointment of Paul Volcker, who broke the back of the spiraling-out-of-control inflation.
Yes, that's right.
Quote from: Daverz on February 14, 2009, 06:45:28 PM
The subject line is just beltway blather. Obama is still hugely popular, and he'll sign the stimulus bill on Monday.
This talk of "President Pelosi" (note the misogynism) and Republicans moderates holding out against stimulus bill ("it's just a spending bill!") is GOP spin, pure and simple.
The GOP plan is to obstruct any kind of policy until they can blame the recession on Obama.
Quote from: Herman on February 14, 2009, 10:36:19 PM
This talk of "President Pelosi" (note the misogynism) and Republicans moderates holding out against stimulus bill ("it's just a spending bill!") is GOP spin, pure and simple.
The GOP plan is to obstruct any kind of policy until they can blame the recession on Obama.
Aww...looks as if Hermie forgot to take his meds today. Your misbegotten attempt to slander me as a misogynist is noted as just another unprovoked swipe from a most persistent stalker, bearing no more relationship to reality than your bigoted mischaracterization of GOP objections to the bill.
Better luck next time but thanks for playing!
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 15, 2009, 02:50:37 AM
Aww...looks as if Hermie forgot to take his meds today. Your misbegotten attempt to slander me as a misogynist is noted as just another unprovoked swipe from a most persistent stalker, bearing no more relationship to reality than your bigoted mischaracterization of GOP objections to the bill.
Better luck next time but thanks for playing!
It's a stupid talking point, Ross, and, yes, it comes off as misogynist and peurile.
Quote from: Herman on February 14, 2009, 10:36:19 PM
This talk of "President Pelosi" (note the misogynism) and Republicans moderates holding out against stimulus bill ("it's just a spending bill!") is GOP spin, pure and simple.
The GOP plan is to obstruct any kind of policy until they can blame the recession on Obama.
I really don't agree that there is implied misogyny here, Herman. Simply because Pelosi is a woman, doesn't make her immune from criticism. It is true that there is partisan spin, and in both directions. But without doubt, even supporters of this bill (and I am one of them) can't help but see that there is a generous share of pork here. It may well be that even the pork will help in the job creation sense, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is there. And really, this is Pelosi's bill, not Obama's. At least in the creation of it. In the implementation and blame taking if it fails, then, of course, it will be all his.
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Hanover Band / Oslo Cathedral Choir / Kvam Hirsti (S) / Watkinson (M-S) / Murgatroyd (T) / George (B) / Goodman (Violin) - Bia 776 Op123 Missa Solemnis in D part 04 - Sanctus
Quote from: Herman on February 14, 2009, 10:36:19 PM
This talk of "President Pelosi" (note the misogynism) and Republicans moderates holding out against stimulus bill ("it's just a spending bill!") is GOP spin, pure and simple.
The GOP plan is to obstruct any kind of policy until they can blame the recession on Obama.
OK, this is pretty much correct, and looking at it from my point of view also functions as an accusation. The Repubs are fulfilling their partisan role in the expected manner, and I wish they would send at least a few signals that they would have voted differently if the package was not certain to pass.
This is the way politics is played. You vote with your party
against what you know is a necessary measure if you can, and vote
for the necessary measure if you must to ensure its passage. This is done to preserve the illusion that there are coherent sides that possess 1) the truth that will save us and 2) dangerous falsehoods that will plunge us into the abyss. Once in a great while this might even be true, but the game must go on regardless.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 15, 2009, 08:11:45 AM
I really don't agree that there is implied misogyny here, Herman. Simply because Pelosi is a woman, doesn't make her immune from criticism. It is true that there is partisan spin, and in both directions. But without doubt, even supporters of this bill (and I am one of them) can't help but see that there is a generous share of pork here. It may well be that even the pork will help in the job creation sense, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is there. And really, this is Pelosi's bill, not Obama's. At least in the creation of it. In the implementation and blame taking if it fails, then, of course, it will be all his.
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Hanover Band / Oslo Cathedral Choir / Kvam Hirsti (S) / Watkinson (M-S) / Murgatroyd (T) / George (B) / Goodman (Violin) - Bia 776 Op123 Missa Solemnis in D part 04 - Sanctus
Calling it the Pelosi bill has nothing to do with her actual role in crafting it. It has everything to do with the high regard people have for Obama and the low regard people have for the Congress. Remember how the Dems used to attack Tom Delay when Bush was popular?
Quote from: drogulus on February 15, 2009, 08:24:55 AM
Calling it the Pelosi bill has nothing to do with her actual role in crafting it. It has everything to do with the high regard people have for Obama and the low regard people have for the Congress. Remember how the Dems used to attack Tom Delay when Bush was popular?
True enough. I don't see her as a big bill writer, more as a ramrod, which is the job of Speaker in any case. But any attempts that Obama made to form a coalition went by the boards when the bill actually made it to the House. When the Republicans were told that the bill was going to pass no matter what they did, it didn't take any time at all for them to become the opposition again. I do think that they are burying their heads in the sand when it comes to whether something needs to be done. And hell, I am a "small central government" old-fashioned Republican in that regard, and even
I think something needs to be done. :-\
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Hanover Band / Oslo Cathedral Choir / Kvam Hirsti (S) / Watkinson (M-S) / Murgatroyd (T) / George (B) / Goodman (Violin) - Bia 776 Op123 Missa Solemnis in D part 05 - Agnus Dei
Gurn, they think so, too, I'm sure of it. At least most of them do.
Quote from: drogulus on February 15, 2009, 08:39:24 AM
Gurn, they think so, too, I'm sure of it. At least most of them do.
Probably so. Too bad they won't vote their conscience rather than their party line... :-\
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Anatol Ugorski - Bia 788 Op 126 6 Bagatelles for Piano #1 in G - Andante con moto cantabile e compiacevole
In a way it's kind of charming. The Speaker* gets up in front of the cameras and say we want to stimulate the economy, too, and if it wasn't for all this spending....it really is funny. These poor boobs rode along on the biggest gravy train in the history of the world because it was their gravy train and now they want to play the fiscally responsible card!
If these guys had the decency to burst out laughing during one of their press conferences I swear I'd become a Republican immediately. :D
Just imagine:
"We understanding the necessity for stimulus, but government can't (fit of giggles)...ohh I can't do this...look, just pass the damn thing and we'll see if it works, and if it doesn't we'll try something else!".
I'd like to see it just once. :)
*I meant the minority leader, Mr. Tanning Booth. ;D
Quote from: drogulus on February 15, 2009, 09:03:31 AM
In a way it's kind of charming. The Speaker gets up in front of the cameras and say we want to stimulate the economy, too, and if it wasn't for all this spending....it really is funny. These poor boobs rode along on the biggest gravy train in the history of the world because it was their gravy train and now they want to play the fiscally responsible card!
If these guys had the decency to burst out laughing during one of their press conferences I swear I'd become a Republican immediately. :D
Just imagine:
"We understanding the necessity for stimulus, but government can't (fit of giggles)...ohh I can't do this...look, just pass the damn thing and we'll see if it works, and if it doesn't we'll try something else!".
I'd like to see it just once. :)
;D Yes, me too. We all know they are full of shit. Why not share the joke. :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Andras Schiff (Beethoven's own Broadwood) - Bia 788 Op 126 Bagatelles (6) for Fortepiano #1 in G - Andante con moto
There is no doubt it is a good thing for the average taxpayers that the Democrats do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate. Divided government has always been good. The Clinton Administration would not have produced the budget surplus if not for the fact that the GOP had controlled both houses of the US Congress during much of the 90's. If it was not for the quid pro quo Clinton made with Greenspan - reappointment to the fed chair in exchange for low interest rates - we would not be in the current mess we are in ...
Quote from: Coopmv on February 15, 2009, 09:51:38 AM
There is no doubt it is a good thing for the average taxpayers that the Democrats do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate. Divided government has always been good. The Clinton Administration would not have produced the budget surplus if not for the fact that the GOP had controlled both houses of the US Congress during much of the 90's. If it was not for the quid pro quo Clinton made with Greenspan - reappointment to the fed chair in exchange for low interest rates - we would not be in the current mess we are in ...
If you define the governments role as what is good for the taxpayer then you might decide that spending money is bad, even to stimulate the economy. Why would you want to do that, though? The government,
any government is obligated to spend money on what needs to be done. Even ideologues, once they get in office, sometimes wake up and realize that a larger conception of their role is now required.
I'm a taxpayer. If I think that these bozos are trying to figure out how to convince me that cutting my taxes means more to them than spending the proceeds wisely I am not pleased. Should I be?
Damn it, you took the money, now do something useful with it! That's what you're there for!! >:( >:(
(http://www.tnr.com/images/logo/tnr_logo_960.gif)
TRB: Hurry Up and Waste Why Obama should have built more crap.Jonathan Chait, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, March 04, 2009Republicans like to accuse Democrats of wasting taxpayer dollars and being condescending eggheads. But if President Obama's economic stimulus fails to prevent a depression--and I'm not saying it will--it will be because he didn't waste enough money, and didn't spend enough time being a condescending egghead.
Full article here. (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=943f400a-335b-4173-90c3-3fa82fd12b8a)
Quote from: drogulus on February 15, 2009, 10:20:42 AM
If you define the governments role as what is good for the taxpayer then you might decide that spending money is bad, even to stimulate the economy. Why would you want to do that, though? The government, any government is obligated to spend money on what needs to be done. Even ideologues, once they get in office, sometimes wake up and realize that a larger conception of their role is now required.
I'm a taxpayer. If I think that these bozos are trying to figure out how to convince me that cutting my taxes means more to them than spending the proceeds wisely I am not pleased. Should I be?
Damn it, you took the money, now do something useful with it! That's what you're there for!! >:( >:(
I hear you. The government clearly wants people to spend, even on borrowed money. The tax policy clearly punishes savers - if you receive at least $10 in interests or dividends, you must report that income. There used to be a $100 exclusion, i.e. the first $100 of interests and dividends are tax-exempt and it was taken away some years ago. Now the politicians are crying out loud that people do not save enough. If they want people to save, they have to pass laws that encourage savings and discourage consumptions. But then business will be upset since they want people to spend. There is no win.
Quote from: drogulus on February 14, 2009, 02:59:32 PMCarter does some horrible thing with his eyebrows that destroys his Presidency for me.
Jimmy Carter's presidency: it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
Quote from: nicht schleppend on February 15, 2009, 02:23:01 PM
Jimmy Carter's presidency: it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
Agree. Those college years were nice ...
Quote from: drogulus on February 15, 2009, 10:20:42 AM
If you define the governments role as what is good for the taxpayer then you might decide that spending money is bad, even to stimulate the economy. Why would you want to do that, though? The government, any government is obligated to spend money on what needs to be done. Even ideologues, once they get in office, sometimes wake up and realize that a larger conception of their role is now required.
I'm a taxpayer. If I think that these bozos are trying to figure out how to convince me that cutting my taxes means more to them than spending the proceeds wisely I am not pleased. Should I be?
Of all the people running for the White House last year, Ron Paul made the most sense. The problem is there is only one thing the two major political parties can agree on: They hate a third party and will work in unison to destroy it.
Nationalizing banks gains GOP steam?
by Frank James
Nouriel Roubini, the economist who warned of the financial collapse long before it happened, is making waves again, this time with an opinion piece he co-authored in the Washington Post in which he and fellow New York University economics professor Matthew Richardson argue that U.S. banks should be nationalized.
An excerpt:
The U.S. banking system is close to being insolvent, and unless we want to become like Japan in the 1990s -- or the United States in the 1930s -- the only way to save it is to nationalize it.
As free-market economists teaching at a business school in the heart of the world's financial capital, we feel downright blasphemous proposing an all-out government takeover of the banking system. But the U.S. financial system has reached such a dangerous tipping point that little choice remains. And while Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's recent plan to save it has many of the right elements, it's basically too late.
The subprime mortgage mess alone does not force our hand; the $1.2 trillion it involves is just the beginning of the problem. Another $7 trillion -- including commercial real estate loans, consumer credit-card debt and high-yield bonds and leveraged loans -- is at risk of losing much of its value. Then there are trillions more in high-grade corporate bonds and loans and jumbo prime mortgages, whose worth will also drop precipitously as the recession deepens and more firms and households default on their loans and mortgages...
... Nationalization is the only option that would permit us to solve the problem of toxic assets in an orderly fashion and finally allow lending to resume. Of course, the economy would still stink, but the death spiral we are in would end.
This is really breath-taking, that even free-market economists are talking about the federal government taking over the nation's largest banks. I'm not sure which is more mind-bending, the thought of an African American in the White House or Citigroup becoming part of the Executive Branch. Bank of America would truly be living up to its name then.
What's even more astonishing is for a Republican from South Carolina, not Maine mind you, but the Palmetto State, a conservative like Sen. Lindsey Graham, to say that nationalization needs to be something to consider. And he wasn't alone. Rep. Peter King of New York also allowed for this possibility.
As Sam Stein reports in the Huffington Post:
In a gloomy segment about the financial sector on ABC'S This Week, two self-avowed fiscal conservatives said that the U.S. Government should at least consider nationalizing the country's banking system as a means of moving beyond the current lending crisis.
"This idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "But I think we've got so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community, throughout the world, that we're going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes. To me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. I'm very much afraid any program to salvage the banks is going to require the government... I would not take off the idea of nationalizing the banks."
The remark prompted a bewildered smile of sorts from fellow panelist Maxine Waters (D-CA) who said, to no one in particular, "We have come a long way."
Stein goes on to say in his report that Democrats like Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and President Obama oppose nationalization.
Schumer is Sen. Big Banks so his resistance to nationalizing financial institutions is not surprising.
But Obama has actually seems to be keeping an open mind about it. In a Friday interview aboard Air Force One with the Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page and other columnists, Obama was asked about a Swedish-style nationalization.
Though he acknowledged there'd be difficulties with it, he didn't rule it out. Here's his exchage with one of the columnists:
Q Just to follow up, if I hear you correctly you are saying that you could reach a point where you have to go further in terms of the government. If what you're doing now doesn't work --
THE PRESIDENT: I think what you can say is I will not allow our financial system to collapse. And we are going to do whatever is required to get credit flowing again so that
companies and consumers can do their business and we can get this economy back on track.
That sounds like an I'll-do-whatever-it-takes-including-nationalization type of statement to me.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/polit ... banks.html
According to the latest issue of BusinessWeek, the Euro zone will be hit by toxic assets comparable in magnitude to what the US is going through now. It is corporate debt for the Europeans ...
Quote from: Coopmv on February 16, 2009, 07:47:01 AM
Agree. Those college years were nice ...
Ah. We would have been in NY at the same time, then.
Quote from: nicht schleppend on February 16, 2009, 12:52:15 PM
Ah. We would have been in NY at the same time, then.
Recession or hyper-inflation did not seem to affect me that much during those college years. Pizza was only 50 cents a slice back then.
Quote from: Coopmv on February 16, 2009, 07:51:55 AM
Of all the people running for the White House last year, Ron Paul made the most sense. The problem is there is only one thing the two major political parties can agree on: They hate a third party and will work in unison to destroy it.
Third parties are co-opted, not destroyed. That is, the adoption of their ideas by one or both of the dominant parties destroys them.
Ron Paul? What has he said that indicates he could be useful in this crisis? He opposes bailouts, doesn't he? And he favors radical deregulation of the kind that would make this kind of crisis occur every few years, just like it did in the 19th century when every burst bubble pauperized a substantial percentage of the middle class. No, Ron Paul is a more extreme version of what we're suffering through now, and if you think we need him, then you should think capitalism must periodically endure a calamitous failure.
Are you a Doomer? Ron Paul appeals to a variant of the Doomer mind set. Everything is corrupt and deserves to die, and I deserve to enjoy watching it happen. You don't even need to be a Christian!
:D
Quote from: drogulus on February 16, 2009, 01:22:08 PM
Ron Paul? What has he said that indicates he could be useful in this crisis? He opposes bailouts, doesn't he? And he favors radical deregulation of the kind that would make this kind of crisis occur every few years, just like it did in the 19th century when every burst bubble pauperized a substantial percentage of the middle class. No, Ron Paul is a more extreme version of what we're suffering through now, and if you think we need him, then you should think capitalism must periodically endure a calamitous failure.
But Ron Paul's depiction of the borrowing/spending binge that has been going on
for over a decade is something I can not disagree with ... The relentless outsourcing of jobs has led to a permanent decline in the living standard for the American middle class ...
I don't want a depictor-in-chief. Perot was good at that, too. What can these guys do without a party to do it? It reminds me of that great Onion headline:
Giant poster of Mao seizes power in China - Enormous placard now controls world's most populous nation
Quote from: drogulus on February 16, 2009, 01:36:29 PM
I don't want a depictor-in-chief. Perot was good at that, too. What can these guys do without a party to do it? It reminds me of that great Onion headline:
Giant poster of Mao seizes power in China - Enormous placard now controls world's most populous nation
The political system is broken and the lobbyists, who are well funded by big corporations and even foreign governments such as China, have our politicians in their back pockets. These days, anyone who preaches against protectionism should have their credentials checked IMO ...
Quote from: Coopmv on February 16, 2009, 01:29:26 PM
But Ron Paul's depiction of the borrowing/spending binge that has been going on
for over a decade is something I can not disagree with ... The relentless outsourcing of jobs has led to a permanent decline in the living standard for the American middle class ...
No, Paul is right to the extent that there has been a borrowing and spending binge
There is no data to support that in aggregate outsourcing has harmed the "middle class". Global trade is a net benefit to everybody
http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/ricardo.html (http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/ricardo.html)
Quote from: bwv 1080 on February 16, 2009, 01:45:16 PM
No, Paul is right to the extent that there has been a borrowing and spending binge
There is no data to support that in aggregate outsourcing has harmed the "middle class". Global trade is a net benefit to everybody
http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/ricardo.html (http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/ricardo.html)
Check out this article reflecting the latest thoughts the best economic minds have about free trade. They began to preach free trade long before there were any believers ...
Economists Rethink Free Tradehttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_06/b4070032762393.htm
Quote from: bwv 1080 on February 16, 2009, 01:45:16 PM
No, Paul is right to the extent that there has been a borrowing and spending binge
So is everyone else who points this out. It didn't hurt us until we had a fatal deregulation combined with what would otherwise be a fairly common event, a real estate bubble. Borrowing and spending is just the way it works. Things are loose and then they are tightened up as they were in the late '80s and early '90s. There's nothing even interesting in that. We know how to handle budgets, taxes and spending and how to rein in excess. The problem is regulatory collapse, which means someone (like Greenspan, for instance) took this free market crap seriously. And the rot spread as everyone partied on. Did anyone see
60 Minutes last night? That banker told a hell of a story.
Quote from: drogulus on February 16, 2009, 02:03:57 PM
So is everyone else who points this out. It didn't hurt us until we had a fatal deregulation combined with what would otherwise be a fairly common event, a real estate bubble. Borrowing and spending is just the way it works. Things are loose and then they are tightened up as they were in the late '80s and early '90s. There nothing even interesting in that. We know how to handle budgets, taxes and spending and how to rein in excess. The problem is regulatory collapse, which means someone (like Greenspan, for instance) took this free market crap seriously. And the rot spread as everyone partied on. Did anyone see 60 Minutes last night? That banker told a hell of a story.
I don't buy the regulatory angle. It presupposes that wise government officials would have taken steps to prevent this when there is no historical evidence of this happening. In many ways all of the abuses in ABS, CDOs, CDS etc. were driven by Wall Street trying to circumvent existing regulations. Sure it is easy to come up with regulations in hindsight that would have helped, but where were those proposals 5 years ago? Stopping the lending binge back in, say 2004 or 2005 would mean throwing people out of work in construction and other industries, making it hard for low-income people to get mortgages, and leading to asset price declines for homeowners. What politician or goverment official is going to take responsibility for that?
Now there is little need for regulation because who is going to fund a 110% LTV option ARM on a house that is 10X the borrowers annual income?
Quote from: Coopmv on February 16, 2009, 01:53:01 PM
Check out this article reflecting the latest thoughts the best economic minds have about free trade. They began to preach free trade long before there were any believers ...
Economists Rethink Free Trade
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_06/b4070032762393.htm
Despite the flashy headline, no one in the piece really questioning the basic theory.
The meat of the article is here:
Quote
No one is suggesting that trade is bad for the U.S. overall. According to estimates by the Peterson Institute and others, trade and investment liberalization over the past decades have added $500 billion to $1 trillion to annual income in the U.S.
Yet concern is rising that the gains from free trade may increasingly be going to a small group at the top. For the vast majority of Americans, Dartmouth's Slaughter points out, income growth has all but disappeared in recent years. And it's not just the low-skilled who are getting slammed. Inflation-adjusted earnings have fallen in every educational category other than the 4% who hold doctorates or professional degrees. Such numbers, Slaughter argues, suggest the share of Americans who aren't included in the gains from trade may be very big. "[That's] a very important change from earlier generations, and it should give pause to people who say they know what's going on," he says.
Blinder warns the pain may just be starting. He estimates that eventually up to 40 million service jobs in the U.S. could face competition from workers in India and other low-wage nations. That's more than a quarter of the 140 million employed in the U.S. today. Many of the newly vulnerable will be in skilled fields, such as accounting or research—jobs U.S. companies will be able to move offshore in ever greater numbers. "It will be a messy process of adjustment, with a lot of victims along the way," Blinder says.
The rumble of academic debate is already having an effect on the Presidential campaign. In an interview with the Financial Times late last year, Hillary Clinton agreed with economist Paul A. Samuelson's argument that traditional notions of comparative advantage may no longer apply. "The question of whether spreading globalization and information technology are strengthening or hollowing out our middle class may be the most paramount economic issue of our time," her chief economic adviser, Gene Sperling, recently wrote. Barack Obama's adviser, the University of Chicago's Austan D. Goolsbee, is not convinced free trade is the culprit behind the squeeze on incomes. But he believes many U.S. workers aren't sharing in the gains from open markets and fears a political blowback unless something is done.
A CALL TO ACTION
What to do? Blinder argues for a big expansion of unemployment insurance and a major overhaul of the poorly performing Trade Adjustment Assistance program (TAA), which retrains manufacturing workers whose jobs disappeared
No economist named in the article is calling for protectionist measures, rather they want more social programs for those displaced by outsourcing.
Samuelson is quoted as saying in regard to the paper referred to as being against comparative advantage:
QuoteIn an interview last week, Mr. Samuelson said he wrote the article to "set the record straight" because "the mainstream defenses of globalization were much too simple a statement of the problem." Mr. Samuelson, who calls himself a "centrist Democrat," said his analysis did not come with a recipe of policy steps, and he emphasized that it was not meant as a justification for protectionist measures.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-comparative-advantage-obsolete.html (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-comparative-advantage-obsolete.html)
Mankiw goes on to discuss how the Business Week article distorted Samuelson to fit its sensationalistic headline implying that somehow economists were now rethinking the benefits of trade
Quote from: Coopmv on February 16, 2009, 01:05:05 PM
Recession or hyper-inflation did not seem to affect me that much during those college years. Pizza was only 50 cents a slice back then.
I used to go to the real, true, original Original Ray's, 6th Ave at 11th St. And yeah, it was .50.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on February 16, 2009, 02:12:52 PM
I don't buy the regulatory angle. It presupposes that wise government officials would have taken steps to prevent this when there is no historical evidence of this happening. In many ways all of the abuses in ABS, CDOs, CDS etc. were driven by Wall Street trying to circumvent existing regulations. Sure it is easy to come up with regulations in hindsight that would have helped, but where were those proposals 5 years ago?
They did, and it works. You correctly point out that the market migrates towards the unregulated fringe, so you have to move the regs back towards the targets. And if regulation rather than the failure to regulate is the problem, why is it the failure to regulate so obviously the proximate cause instead of regulatory excess, otherwise known as sound regulation. This is classics Republican thinking: "Government sucks, just look at us!". Well, yeah!
What I'm saying is that the failure to regulate is not a failure of regulation. Regulation is only made difficult by the presence of ideologues who misread history in just this way. Sound regulation is "oppressive", and when it's weakened or removed the resulting disaster is blamed on....regulation!
Why don't we use this reasoning with food, OK? Poisonous food gets into the supermarkets because oh, let's say, regulation doesn't work, so the answer is to remove regulations. And in order to do this we will conveniently forget that we just removed effective regulations! No wonder there's no evidence regulation works. The only evidence that really counts is the calamity that doesn't happen when we're vigilant.
Quote from: drogulus on February 16, 2009, 02:40:46 PM
They did, and it works. You correctly point out that the market migrates towards the unregulated fringe, so you have to move the regs back towards the targets. And if regulation rather than the failure to regulate is the problem, why is it the failure to regulate so obviously the proximate cause instead of regulatory excess, otherwise known as sound regulation. This is classics Republican thinking: "Government sucks, just look at us!". Well, yeah!
What I'm saying is that the failure to regulate is not a failure of regulation. Regulation is only made difficult by the presence of ideologues who misread history in just this way. Sound regulation is "oppressive", and when it's weakened or removed the resulting disaster is blamed on....regulation!
Now I am not the one being ideological here. Regulation, if broadly defined to include a functioning system of tort and contract law is absolutely essential to a capitalist economy. While one can imagine private organizations fufilling the roles of the FDA it is by no means clear whether the results would be any better. My skepticism is more based upon the ability of a political system to sucessfully implement regulatory measures that do not get hijacked by special interests. When the subject matter is not giving consumers poisoned food the goal is relatively easy to accomplish. Discerning when a bubble is occurring in the financial markets is an entirely different matter.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on February 16, 2009, 03:40:08 PM
Now I am not the one being ideological here. Regulation, if broadly defined to include a functioning system of tort and contract law is absolutely essential to a capitalist economy. While one can imagine private organizations fufilling the roles of the FDA it is by no means clear whether the results would be any better. My skepticism is more based upon the ability of a political system to sucessfully implement regulatory measures that do not get hijacked by special interests. When the subject matter is not giving consumers poisoned food the goal is relatively easy to accomplish. Discerning when a bubble is occurring in the financial markets is an entirely different matter.
I guess it's ideological to agree with either side, but I'm not a super regulator, I'm in favor of avoiding disastrous abandonment of regulation. And the people who warned about deregulation impress me more than the budget/spending hawks who chirp the same tune no matter what and even now don't appear to be right.
It's a little harder to regulate money and banks than food, but worth doing, as we can see now. You are doing just what I cautioned against, blaming the failures of deregulation on the idea of regulation. I note that you agree with me that a general adoption of this rationale would be a disaster. We won't do it, so not to worry. But the problem is not special interests, at least not the sort of problem we can't handle. Regulation works! The idea that a strong economy can be driven into poverty by the routine regs that used to prevail lacks any empirical verification. We know how to do this right (approximately), and we will prove it now by doing it again. This was a failure that could have been avoided, because we routinely have avoided it.
I think one thing that can be learned from the bailout is that capitalists can be no more depended upon to do the right thing than socialists. :-\
However it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.
There's also a middle, where the vast majority of ordinary Joes live and work.
Quote from: BaxMan on February 17, 2009, 02:54:06 AM
I think one thing that can be learned from the bailout is that capitalists can be no more depended upon to do the right thing than socialists. :-\
It depends who you ask. Schiff and Rogers (and Faber, and probably Roubini and Ron Paul too) will tell you that for years capitalism hasn't been allowed to operate in the US as Greenspan kept jumping in to bailout his friends instead of letting them fail. They give some pretty convincing examples too
Quote from: BaxMan on February 17, 2009, 02:54:06 AM
I think one thing that can be learned from the bailout is that capitalists can be no more depended upon to do the right thing than socialists. :-\
I agree. So you have to regulate.
Quote from: Herman on February 17, 2009, 04:41:09 AM
However it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.
There's also a middle, where the vast majority of ordinary Joes live and work.
I agree with this, too.
:) Quote from: ezodisy on February 17, 2009, 04:41:21 AM
It depends who you ask. Schiff and Rogers (and Faber, and probably Roubini and Ron Paul too) will tell you that for years capitalism hasn't been allowed to operate in the US as Greenspan kept jumping in to bailout his friends instead of letting them fail. They give some pretty convincing examples too
The worst thing is that by not being tough early on, we now have to do these bailouts, and we'll almost certainly do it wrong before we begin to get it right. I don't like the "fail your way to success" model, but it's the way really big things are often done because no one knows how to do it until some of it has been done.
Quote from: nicht schleppend on February 16, 2009, 02:33:09 PM
I used to go to the real, true, original Original Ray's, 6th Ave at 11th St. And yeah, it was .50.
I used to go there too in the mid to late 70's during my college days when I lived in the Village. I checked out the Solti's Tannhauser from the public library nearby (in some armory type of building on 6th) and the set was a mini fireworks. Those were the good old days ...
Quote from: Coopmv on February 17, 2009, 07:04:41 PM
I used to go there too in the mid to late 70's during my college days when I lived in the Village. I checked out the Solti's Tannhauser from the public library nearby (in some armory type of building on 6th) and the set was a mini fireworks. Those were the good old days ...
I lived at 11th and 5th, and then 10th & Broadway. I left NY in April of '78.
Quote from: nicht schleppend on February 17, 2009, 07:11:22 PM
I lived at 11th and 5th, and then 10th & Broadway. I left NY in April of '78.
I lived at Downing Street, one block south of Carmine Street where one of my sisters now lives with her husband .. Speaking of the Village People, they have lived there for almost 40 years ...