Maybe too much coffee this AM. Overstimulated?
1) Shoebox noted (and we picked up) a story from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, whose economists simply could not find evidence of a "bank meltdown" through October '08. Commercial lending was fine, consumer lending was fine, deposits were growing, and commercial paper was dandy. The only hitch was the TED spread, which had increased sharply--but the economists laid that off to a 'flight to quality' following the Chicken-Little Doom and Gloom stories put out by Paulson and the Administration.
I admit that I bought the story at the time. I relied on information from a few local financial-industry-connected pals. They had been told (sold?) the same bill of goods.
2) The Bush Administration, led by Hank Paulson (not GWB) importunes Congress to appropriate $700Bn to "rescue" the Banks, despite the findings above. This now includes a "rescue" of GM, FoMoCo, and Cerberus/Chrysler, as well as a "forced" Federal stock-purchase in a number of Banks. We need not remind you that Paulson is ex-CEO of Goldman, Sachs--
3) Paulson, now morphing into Napoleon, will soon use some of the $700Bn to recapitalize insurance companies--Met, Pru, NYL, and Hartford have been mentioned.
4) Malkin reports that ETHANOL producers (!!!!????) are also screaming for Bailout Dollars--and we have no good reason to expect the Administration to deny them, given its near-corrupt obeisance to Archer-Daniels-Midland (although the Democrat Party is just as corrupt--see, e.g., James Doyle, Esq., Governor of Wisconsin.)
5) The AIG $85Bn has turned into $120+Bn, with $90+Bn already burned; there's discussion of more "lending" into that sewer-drain going on as we burn bandwidth.
McCain has yet to distance himself from ANY of this crap (except the Ethanol Mob's corrupt practices.)
SO WHAT?
Well, here's the "what:"
So long as the GWB Boyzzzz are in the process of socializing the Banks and insurers, all of which McCain has implicitly or explicitly endorsed....
....and are working their way towards doing same with the Big Three and the ethanol mob...
...why not go full-bore with Obama?
We can have a McCain Sec/Treas who is calling the shots at the country's banks, insurers, and other places yet-to-be-named, or we can have an Obama Sec/Treas (Jamie Dimon, anyone?) who will do the same.
What's the difference?
Here's the humorist's take. But maybe it's not humor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Good point, not much difference. When Paulson asked whether the bailout was socialism he said "it's necessary." Well, perhaps it is. The fact is, the deregulators and privatizers have had their day in the sun and it ain't pretty. Capitalism wouldn't last a day without regulation. And the gov't spending on infrastructure, etc., has in fact looked a lot like welfare for the rich for a long time. Obama has a coherent plan that is more fair and addresses key economic problems, not to mention the standard of living for everyone. Hopefully, he can usher in a new day for America, just as by the end of FDR's presidency US was by far the richest country in the world, and in its own history. Total privatization and deregulation, as seems to be advanced by this blog, is more akin to Mussolini and Franco.
I'll agree with all your comments up to "Obama has a coherent plan...", although there are some quibbles here and there.
You don't help yourself with inane remarks like "by the end of FDR's presidency US was by far the richest country in the world"
Do you recall WWII? And the effects that had on Germany, France, England, and Japan?
Doh.
BTW: there IS a difference which is far more important than the economics.
It's abortion.
Fair enough. The equivalency only goes so far. I don't support going back in every way to the FDR era. Including how it relates to abortion. I don't want to go back to the time when abortions were had using clotheshangers and women died from infection in large numbers. Or, when women felt like they had to have as many babies as they could until they died. That's not good for anyone. There are 6.5 billion people on this earth already, for one thing.
Obama promises to defend the privacy clause in the Constitution, which means defending Roe v Wade. But he also supports the goal of reducing abortions.
There is no integrity, by the way, in saying that outlawing abortion is an important issue to you and then turning around and supporting a candidate who aggressively advocates bombing innocent civilians and putting our troops in harms way to protect "our oil."
Anony, your arguments are so...1960's!!
...and, by the way, characteristically non-sequitur-laden...
Take a rest. Smoke a joint.
Post a Comment