http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4AB7P820081112 It's not great, but it should definitely speed up the end of the panic, especially if it proceeds Swedish-style. I'd look for the market to tank big tomorrow and Friday, absent some other news, but it just might be the end of the Panic. Of course, with the continued aid of any sort (and what they're doing with AIG... just ), we can expect the recession to be several years long, but the end of the ridiculous volatility of the past few weeks will be welcome.
I disagree, I think it's bullshit for a number of reasons. First of all, it's not what Congress authorized the funds for. They are basing their authority after something said in the Congressional Record at the last moment, but there is absolutely nothing in the legislation that authorizes what Paulson wants to do, no matter how smart it may or may not be. Additionally this action raises a number of issues. Chief among them such action is favorable to those companies that are interested in acquiring smaller companies, once again raising the issue of companies too big to fail, which got us here in the first place. No this is one big clusterfuck, wrong when it was conceived, wrong when enacted, and wrong now.
Got a link, because I don't think that's right? I'm pretty sure there's only guidance and recommendations in the legislation, and that it's pretty much a blank check as far as requirements go. Well yeah, but it's a slightly less big clusterfuck than it was when the treasury was going to be buying up bad loans on the taxpayer dime. I don't approve of this either, but I think it's safe to say it's a tiny bit less bad.
Can't find the link I was thinking of, but I do know this was sold as a plan to buy troubled assets, not a capital injection.
So the US is following the plan Gordon Brown developed for the UK, which was adopted by the EU? Interesting. I always thought ours was the second best plan, with the US' a close third. The major difference is that the state doesn't have to bother with getting back the money from millions of individuals but can let the banks take care of it.
Never mind, it's worse than I thought, as bad as before if not actually worse. So much for the end of the Panic, it's not just stakes in the banks, it's wholesale bailouts of irresponsible consumers: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aVgfVZDnnFh4&refer=home Fuck Paulson. Fuck him right in the ear.
Last week was a deadline for applications for Tarp money. After seeing the scope of the bad assets on the balance sheets, it seems Paulson has reconsidered how effective the original plan would be. However, since government official are required by Rule to spend all money once approved . . .
Behind the scenes - Paulson and Bernanke’s actions from two months ago. A long article from Monday’s WSJ. I bolded parts that relate to the candid views of the decision makers (assuming the article is accurate).
I've been opposed to the government's attempt to involve itself in the markets that they have helped to screw up. Another problem I see with this is that the fed is looking to start purchasing stock in these companies. Why is it okay for the government to use our tax money to do this, but when Bush suggested allowing us to use an extremely small portion of money we work our asses off to put into Social Security, it was as if the world would come to an end allowing the citizen to have a small amount of investment control over their own money?
I'm at the point now where I hope the government does over-extend itself and goes bankrupt. Then we can start fresh, knowing that we can't have everything for "free".
Equity investment has been the solution all along - let the banks fails, but allow a credit market to exist and privatise it on the basis that no single supplier could have such a damaging effect on the overall economy. Arsehole. The facts never changed, there was a shortage of credit affecting Main Street, what this is triyng to plug the next bubble in the wallpaper and another doesn't spring up
People complaining that they can't do this because Congress didn't give them permission? Sorry they did give permission. Congress in it's typical stupidity gave full authority for Bernake to do whatever he wants. That's why they are only slightly bitching about it. All anyone has to do is pull the bill and show that the Democrats gave him that type of authority.
They knew full well this what they were doing. That is part of the reason details like this were kept hush, hush, until after the election.
I'm referring to Kirks allegation that Paulson intentionally hid the actual results from the Democratic legislation until after the election.
Actually if anything, hiding that would help the Republicans who voted for the bailout; they were a lot more likely to be voted out by angry constituents than Democrats.
Ouch! Paulson was, is, and always has been biased in favor of Goldman Sachs, and of a system with world financial markets necessarily interdependent with the big wall street houses. Just as we accuse the liberals of being blind to things like the double-standard of MSM, the culpability of Democrats to the collapse of the housing (and consequent financial) market, that free trade between states and limited government intrusion will result in greater wealth for everyone - so is Paulson blind to any world without big banks and an active central bank providing the basic building blocks of financial intermediation. At least that's what I see, anyway.
Is that what I said? If you can't point out where I said that, than it is your powers of deduction that should be questioned Ancalagon. Or do you just take the smug attitude with people when your Democratic Socialist undies get in a bunch?
