Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Wall Street Roundup
[H]ere is the truly offensive section of an overreaching piece of legislation: "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."
This puts the Treasury's actions beyond the rule of law. This is a financial coup d'etat, with the only limitation the $700 billion balance sheet figure. The measure already gives the Treasury the authority not simply to buy dud mortgage paper but other assets as it deems fit. There is no accountability beyond a report (contents undefined) to Congress three months into the program and semiannually thereafter. The Treasury could via incompetence or venality grossly overpay for assets and advisory services, and fail to exclude consultants with conflicts of interest, and there would be no recourse. Given the truly appalling track record of this Administration in its outsourcing, this is not an idle worry.
But far worse is the precedent it sets. This Administration has worked hard to escape any constraints on its actions, not to pursue noble causes, but to curtail civil liberties: Guantanamo, rendition, torture, warrantless wiretaps. It has used the threat of unseen terrorists and a seemingly perpetual war on radical Muslim[s] to justify gutting the Constitution. The Supreme Court, which has been supine on many fronts, has finally started to push back, but would it challenge a bill that sweeps aside judicial review?
[In the S&L crisis], the government did not need a strategy to decide which bad loans to take over; it dealt with anything that fell into its lap as a result of a thrift bankruptcy. But under the current proposal, the government would go out and shop for bad loans. These come in all shapes and sizes, so the government would have to judge what type of loans it wants. They are illiquid, so it's hard to know how to value them. Bad loans are weighing down the financial system precisely because private-sector experts can't determine their worth. The government would have no better handle on the problem.
In practice this means the government would make subjective choices about which bad loans to buy, and it would pay more than fair value. Billions in taxpayer money would be transferred to the shareholders and creditors of banks, and the banks from which the government bought most loans would be subsidized more than their rivals. If the government bought the most from the sickest institutions, it would be slowing the healthy process in which strong players buy up the weak, delaying an eventual recovery. The haggling over which banks got to unload the most would drag on for months. So the hope that this "systematic" plan can be a near-term substitute for ad hoc AIG-style bailouts is illusory.
Republicans may suffer damage not because their remedies are worse but because a lot of their ideology about how markets work has been belied by events. Republicans are the party of rewarding people for risk-taking. If the government covers part of the losses, then the risks were illusory in the first place. (So, of course, were some of the rewards. A good percentage of the proceeds from the controversial Bush tax cuts was surely poured into this black hole of speculation and unknowability.)
President George W. Bush, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and treasury secretary Hank Paulson all declare their preference for free-market solutions and a desire to minimise moral hazard. But they sound like François Mitterrand in mid-1983 when he abandoned his socialist programme commun in the face of capital flight and a collapsing franc, all the while proclaiming his devotion to socialism.
Turns out we didn't need "stealth socialist" Barack Obama to pervert capitalist America into a crumbling nationalized economy run in private by a dome-skulled kleptocracy as our nation's battered military wastes away in the forgotten bummer of a civil war in Afghanistan.
Who imagined that the great opportunity for joint progressive and libertarian advocacy and activism would end up being economic? But that's where we are. This loathsome bailout plan is a slap in the face to anyone who believes in either free-market principles or social justice.
[B]ad policies get enacted all the time. But we're at a point now where congress is, allegedly, in the hands of progressive leadership. Simply put, if congressional Democrats manage to acquiesce in a plan that spends $700 billion on a bailout while doing nothing for average working people and giving the taxpayer virtually no upside in a way that guarantees that even electoral victory would give an Obama administration no resources with which to implement a progressive domestic agenda in 2009 then everyone's going to have to give serious consideration to becoming a pretty hard-core libertarian.
Bernanke says, "There are no atheists in foxholes and no ideologues in financial crises." But if there's ever a time to hold strong to fundamental principles, it would seem that this would be it. We're setting precedents that will govern the behavior of the international business community for decades to come. Do we really want to signal that risks are public and rewards are private?
For that matter, do we really want such fundamental decisions being made by obscure, unaccountable men like Bernanke, Paulson, and SEC chair Chris Cox? Shouldn't Congress and the president be more than bit players?
At a practical level, Amity Shlaes is right when [s]he notes that, "The stock market crash of October 1929 and the Great Depression were not the same thing." And a New Deal II could just as easily lead to Great Depression II as letting creative destruction do its thing.
|9.21.08 @ 5:21PM|#
We're setting precedents that will govern the behavior of
the international business community for decades to come. Do we
really want to signal that risks are public and rewards are
private?
That signal has already been sent. See Freddie, Fannie and A.I.G.
We need to say, "Oops, my mistake complete
fuckup. No more of this stupid shit."
Paul|9.21.08 @ 5:28PM|#
Do we really want to signal that risks are public and rewards are private?
Gotta hand it to him, this is the statement that sums up
everything in this whole, godawful mess.
Mad Max|9.21.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Ron Paul, thou shouldst be living at this hour . . .
oh, wait, he *is*!
Damn, that's embarrassing - nobody is more unpopular than some jerk
who's right and won't shut up about it. Look what they did to
Jeremiah.
|9.21.08 @ 5:42PM|#
Damn, that's embarrassing - nobody is more unpopular than
some jerk who's right and won't shut up about it. Look what they
did to Jeremiah.
Damned Cassandras.
Don the libertarian Democrat|9.21.08 @ 5:54PM|#
I like the Henley post. We need to get libertarians and liberals together to kill this monstrosity. I'm posting about this on Kos and Huffington, and getting basic agreement. Maybe we can raise enough of a stink to slow it down at least.
toshiro_mifune|9.21.08 @ 5:57PM|#
It's not a one time $700bil. infusion. It's pool of $700
billion. So the can buy $700b worth of whatever, wait a few months,
say what they bought is now only worth $300b and buy $400b
more.
From almost anyone too, they're including non-US based investment
firms in this. Can't piss-off the Chinese, can we?
Also, commercial RE.
I suppose none of that matters since Herr Paulson will be beyond
the law.
DFD|9.21.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Another negative take on this disastrous plan.
Some excerpts:
If banks and financial institutions find it difficult to recapitalize (i.e., issue new equity) it is because the private sector is uncertain about the value of the assets they have in their portfolio and does not want to overpay. Would the government be better in valuing those assets? No. In a negotiation between a government official and banker with a bonus at risk, who will have more clout in determining the price? The Paulson RTC will buy toxic
assets at inflated prices thereby creating a charitable institution that provides welfare to
the rich-at the taxpayers' expense.
[. . .]
As during the Great Depression and in many debt restructurings, it makes sense in the current contingency to mandate a partial debt forgiveness or a debt-for-equity swap in the
financial sector. It has the benefit of being a well-tested strategy in the private sector and
it leaves the taxpayers out of the picture. But if it is so simple, why no expert has mentioned it?
The major players in the financial sector do not like it. It is much more appealing for the
financial industry to be bailed out at taxpayers' expense than to bear their share of pain.
Forcing a debt-for-equity swap or a debt forgiveness would be no greater a violation of
private property rights than a massive bailout, but it faces much stronger political opposition. The appeal of the Paulson solution is that it taxes the many and benefits the
few. Since the many (we, the taxpayers) are dispersed, we cannot put up a good fight in
Capitol Hill; while the financial industry is well represented at all the levels. It is enough to say that for 6 of the last 13 years, the Secretary of Treasury was a Goldman Sachs
alumnus.
[. . .]
For somebody like me who believes strongly in the free market system, the most serious risk of the current situation is that the interest of few financiers will undermine the fundamental workings of the capitalist system. The time has come to save capitalism from the capitalists.
|9.21.08 @ 6:07PM|#
C'mon, you guys, lighten up. Someday we'll all be dead, if only from starvation.
|9.21.08 @ 6:10PM|#
The time has come to save capitalism from the capitalists.
The best defense against capitalism is the free market.
|9.21.08 @ 6:32PM|#
You know, I managed to avoid thinking about this by partying
from Friday night through this afternoon, but there's only so long
you can use alcohol and drugs to battle reality. This is such a
clusterfuck it's unbelievable.
C'mon, you guys, lighten up. Someday we'll all be dead, if only
from starvation.
"You can eat this now, or be hungry in a couple of days when we run
out of money for food."
|9.21.08 @ 6:33PM|#
Very interesting to note that on the Corner Newt Gingrich and Yuval Levin have both expressed strong skepticism about the plan. If they're not supporting the administration here, who is? If not for the profound idiocy of the Democratic Congress I think we could rest fairly easy.
Eddy|9.21.08 @ 6:34PM|#
So much for "too big to fail," now the standard is what, "too big a campaign contributor to fail?" Come on, who do we have to blow to get a hand-job this big? Accountability has long been dead in government and now it has officially been called on Wall Street.
SIV|9.21.08 @ 6:35PM|#
I would prefer the market be left to sort this mess out.If the State has to "do something" the voluntary equity for cash swap seems the lesser evil than buying the debt instruments.
Eddy|9.21.08 @ 6:37PM|#
At least with a stadium we had the chance to buy tickets. Can I have mustard on my shit hot dog?
BDB|9.21.08 @ 6:53PM|#
I would prefer the market be left to sort this mess out.If the State has to "do something" the voluntary equity for cash swap seems the lesser evil than buying the debt instruments.
Sounds good to me. Hey, we agree on something!
LarryA|9.21.08 @ 7:00PM|#
I can see Obama and McCain scheduling a joint press conference to say, "See ya in four years. When this all gets sorted out we'll be standing by to pick up the pieces."
toshiro_mifune|9.21.08 @ 7:12PM|#
When does Paulson suspend elections until the "economic crisis is resolved"? A week before the polls open, a day?
|9.21.08 @ 7:14PM|#
I notice that all of the sources Jesse found were liberals,
progressives, or libertarians.
So, what's up with the Republicans and conservatives?
tarran|9.21.08 @ 7:24PM|#
Joe,
I suspect most Republican pundits wouldn't bat an eye if George
Bush danced into a press conference wearing a hammer and sickle
arm-band and announcing the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Their focus is power, the getting of it, the using of it. Ideology
is for the guys who come in second in elections - you know, the
first losers.
|9.21.08 @ 7:27PM|#
I'm searching for opinion. The consensus here is like that line
from Airplane "They bought their tickets - I say, 'let 'em
crash'"
What is it that Paulson and Bernanke told Congress that made them
universally crap their drawers? Why is Greenspan (no small player
in this clusterfuck) stating end of the world? There are two ways
to look at this:
$700B worth of socialism is a calamity OR $700B on top of a $9T
nat'l debt in a $13T annual economy is not the end of the world.
Seems to me calmer heads would invoke the latter, but clearly these
guys are scared. Are we a day away from a run on the banks if this
doesn't go through or what.
Dagny T.|9.21.08 @ 7:48PM|#
there's only so long you can use alcohol and drugs to battle
reality
This is what you get when you party all weekend. You get
fork-stabbed. Fork-stabbed!
Kolohe|9.21.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Look what they did to Jeremiah.
Damned shame. He always had some mighty fine wine.
libertarian democrat|9.21.08 @ 7:56PM|#
This is fucking BS. This should be something dems, libts, and republicans could all get together against, but who knows? Politicians have been acting even stupider than usual lately.
Jesse Walker|9.21.08 @ 8:00PM|#
Joe: Caldwell is a conservative. I think Joyner considers himself a conservative too.
own goaled|9.21.08 @ 8:03PM|#
$700B on top of a $9T nat'l debt in a $13T annual economy is
not the end of the world.
How much money do you make in a year? Probably many thousands of
dollars, right?
So you wouldn't mind giving me a grand for no reason? I mean
compared to $40K or whatever, it's not much.
|9.21.08 @ 8:03PM|#
Pelosi: "Congress will respond to the financial markets
crisis by taking action this week in a bipartisan manner that will
protect the taxpayers' interests. The Administration's $700 billion
proposal does not include the necessary safeguards. Democrats
believe a responsible solution should include independent
oversight, protections for homeowners and constraints on excessive
executive compensation.
"We will not simply hand over a $700 billion blank check to Wall
Street and hope for a better outcome. Democrats will act
responsibly to insulate Main Street from Wall Street.
own goaled|9.21.08 @ 8:05PM|#
Bernanke says, "There are no atheists in foxholes and no
ideologues in financial crises."
Oh, and Helicopter Ben, there have been atheists in foxholes ever
since there were foxholes, you insufferable fuckup. It's
illustrative though that you pair your theocratic bullshit with
your economic bullshit, though.
|9.21.08 @ 8:06PM|#
Ha! I like this one better, from an unnamed Democrat:
Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will
actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take
responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said
that there can't be any "add ons," or addition provisions. Fuck
that. I don't really want to trigger a world wide depression
(that's not hyperbole, that's a distinct possibility), but I'm not
voting for a blank check for $700 billion for those mother
fuckers.
Nancy said she wanted to include the second "stimulus" package that
the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans have blocked.
I don't want to trade a $700 billion dollar giveaway to the most
unsympathetic human beings on the planet for a few fucking bridges.
I want reforms of the industry, and I want it to be as punitive as
possible.
Henry Waxman has suggested corporate government reforms, including
CEO compensation, as the price for this. Some members have publicly
suggested allowing modification of mortgages in bankruptcy, and the
House Judiciary Committee staff is also very interested in that.
That's a real possibility.
We may strip out all the gives to industry in the predatory
mortgage lending bill that the House passed last November, which
hasn't budged in the Senate, and include that in the bill. There
are other ideas on the table but they are going to be tough to work
out before next week.
I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful
purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs,
CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage
related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they
have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now
required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel
properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although
most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in
the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely
in character for me.
I'm open to other ideas, and I am looking for volunteers who want
to hold the sons of bitches so I can beat the crap out of
them.
anarch|9.21.08 @ 8:13PM|#
Isn't there something unpersuasive about a government that turns its citizens into fiat-money junkies running a WOD?
|9.21.08 @ 8:13PM|#
And with that, Pelosi signals what her plan. Take this request
and use it as enormous leverage for significant regulation and even
more handouts.
I assure you that congress will make this awful proposal much, much
worse before it gets passed.
Nigel Watt|9.21.08 @ 8:24PM|#
And with that, Pelosi signals what her plan. Take this request and use it as enormous leverage for significant regulation and even more handouts.
I assure you that congress will make this awful proposal much, much worse before it gets passed.
Of course, but they'll pat themselves on the back for it.
Fuck this.
|9.21.08 @ 8:24PM|#
This is what you get when you party all weekend. You get
fork-stabbed. Fork-stabbed!
Please tell me you saw the first two episodes for this season. The
human meat thing and the fucking gas. Oh my god. My cousin and I
were freaking out about it on the way to the party yesterday.
"Which one of us do you want to take you in the back and bang
you?"
|9.21.08 @ 8:48PM|#
The Treasury could via incompetence or venality grossly
overpay for assets and advisory services, and fail to exclude
consultants with conflicts of interest,
[...]
Now come on. Could anyone seriously see this happen?
|9.21.08 @ 9:00PM|#
So you wouldn't mind giving me a grand for no reason? I mean
compared to $40K or whatever, it's not much.
Don't mistake my question for acquiescence - I'm pissed.
This seems to work out to around $2.5 k per capita, maybe $10k
average per taxpayer/family. In the short term, probably favorable
to the 401k losses taken if the Dow were to drop a few thousand
points but there's clearly more to it - the fear is palable. I just
don't grasp what has them running so scared.
|9.21.08 @ 9:38PM|#
So, somebody help me out here. Exactly what is to prevent these folks from spending the 700 billion on hookers and blow? And if they did spend it on hookers and blow, what, if anything, could we do about it?
Paul|9.21.08 @ 9:48PM|#
Johnny Clarke:
Joe points out:
Democrats believe a responsible solution should include
independent oversight, protections for homeowners and constraints
on excessive executive compensation.
"We will not simply hand over a $700 billion blank check to Wall
Street and hope for a better outcome. Democrats will act
responsibly to insulate Main Street from Wall Street.
Feel better?
One word: FISA
Oh fuck it, two more words: Iraq War
own goaled|9.21.08 @ 9:49PM|#
We could demand equal helpings of hookers and blow for the middle class. That seems to be the logical extension of the current Democratic position. As the old saw goes, the GOP will demand a $700B bailout, the Dems a $500B bailout, and they'll ultimately compromise on a $2T bailout.
own goaled|9.21.08 @ 9:59PM|#
independent oversight = we want a cut of the free money
too
There were a lot of nice-sounding words associated with the Dem
cave-ins on FISA and Iraq, too.
|9.21.08 @ 10:01PM|#
joe | September 21, 2008, 7:14pm | #
I notice that all of the sources Jesse found were liberals,
progressives, or libertarians.
So, what's up with the Republicans and conservatives?
I went to Redstate.com to see if any conservatives supported this
anathema, and found nothing in support, and this commentary in
opposition:
Not as eloquent as Newt Gingrich, but it looks like some Republican
in Congress aren't gonna roll over and play dead for Bush on this
bad puppy
Nick|9.21.08 @ 10:05PM|#
"So, what's up with the Republicans and conservatives?"
Rejoicing that their stocks are protected? Republicans are once
again proving themselves to be more pro-aristocrat than pro-free
market.
Sadly the best thing that can happen from this whole thing is that
the companies still fail after the loan and then taxpayers will be
out a great deal of money. Lessons harshly learned would hopefully
lead to the realization that government can't fix the economy and
to the expulsion of all the politicians advocating for this thing.
Expensive, yes. But potentially worthwhile as an example. If the
companies succeed, the lesson won't be learned and it will happen
again.
Someday people will look back at this time when Republicans
advocated for regulating the free market and Democrats decided it's
a good idea to bail out the rich and realize just how messed up
both the major parties are. Libertarians can get a better feel for
which politicians are truly pro-free market based on their response
to this issue.
Nick|9.21.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Guess I shouldn't have been so overbroad.
*Many* Republicans are once again proving themselves to be more
pro-aristocrat than pro-free market.
Nick|9.21.08 @ 10:08PM|#
"Turns out we didn't need "stealth socialist" Barack Obama to
pervert capitalist America into a crumbling nationalized economy
run in private by a dome-skulled kleptocracy as our nation's
battered military wastes away in the forgotten bummer of a civil
war in Afghanistan."
That was just flat out hilarious.
Fluffy|9.21.08 @ 10:17PM|#
Paulson has to put himself beyond the courts, for a pretty
simple reason.
The process of selecting, pricing, and prioritizing assets to buy
will create many opportunities for either apparent or actual
favoritism. Remember, Bear and Lehman were allowed to die, but
heaven and Earth were moved to save Goldman.
$700 billion worth of winners will be picked, and everyone else
will be a loser. Paulson doesn't want the losers to sue.
Fluffy|9.21.08 @ 10:26PM|#
Oh, by the way, I think it's interesting that Phil Gramm managed
to get it fixed so that foreign banks, like his employer UBS, could
also get bailed out by the new $700 billion fund.
Why in hell would we want to bail out foreign banks? Aren't there
foreign governments available to bail out foreign banks?
You know, with Phil Gramm on the payroll of UBS and a big part of
McCain's foreign policy team on the payroll of Georgia, basically
McCain's entire agenda is up for sale to foreign nations.
Since that's the case, we should start collecting funds to outbid
the current bidders. After all, Phil Gramm's salary at UBS can't be
that high, and McCain's foreign policy was sold to Georgia for a
handful of millions of dollars paid to his advisors. Could we get
some Koch money and some Soros money together, maybe have a Ron
Paul moneybomb, and buy up the set of traitors and punks McCain has
surrounded himself with?
|9.21.08 @ 10:30PM|#
Why am I hearing so much about libertarians "getting in with the
democrats"?
I realize that Reason has a lot of cool liberals to impress, and
I'm scared too; but seriously, we libertarians disagree with the
liberals primarily on grounds of ECONOMICS. You think those clowns
are gonna "unite" with libertarians to help win back capitalism?
This is like trying to get a five year old to align with the
monster in his closet.
The only thing I've heard a liberal say about this mess is that
capitalism is dead. And some bromides about greed. And that
regulations didn't come soon or strong enough. And Obama blagh
blagh McCain. In short, the same thing the Republicans have been
saying.
I don't care how hip it is, libertarians should not appeal to the
economic understanding of socialists. Ever.
Naga Sadow|9.21.08 @ 10:49PM|#
Epi,
Partying? On the eve of the apocalypse? You should be hoarding
food, water, guns, and other essential goods! Personally, I'm
working on my swordmanship.
"You're listening to Klost home of the Apocalypse. The call in
question of the day is who will be the new king? I'm sending in an
ICBM across the wasteland for all of you on the yellow brick road
to Vegas looking for a hero. If you find one send him my way,
baby."
Paul|9.21.08 @ 11:44PM|#
A priori, why do you think we're so pissed. We know that the
Dems are just salivating over this while republicans sit with grave
faces, trying to figure out what went wrong.
You noticed this $700 billion was a "bipartisan" response? Everyone
here is pretty much on the same page when politicians get all
bipartisan on us.
It usually means it's time to start fondling the firearms.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.21.08 @ 11:48PM|#
The Night of the Long Knives is at hand. And y'all are going to
be on the wrong side of the barricades.
Well, maybe not Joe. ;-)
Peggy Lee|9.21.08 @ 11:49PM|#
Is that all there is?
Well, let's break out the booze and have a ball.
Mike Laursen|9.22.08 @ 12:23AM|#
This seems to work out to around $2.5 k per capita, maybe
$10k average per taxpayer/family.
That's OK, they can make up for it by sending out more economic
stimulus checks!
|9.22.08 @ 12:38AM|#
"Oh, by the way, I think it's interesting that Phil Gramm
managed to get it fixed so that foreign banks, like his employer
UBS, could also get bailed out by the new $700 billion
fund."
The US has went from "Daddy Warbucks" to everyone's economic
biatch crack whore during the Bush Administration, great
legacy, heckuva job there Bushie.
Lefiti|9.22.08 @ 1:10AM|#
"Regulators have abandoned their duty by letting markets regulate themselves. It's because a market fundamentalist ideology has come to dominate the behaviour of market participants and market regulatorsover the past 25 years ... and the idea that markets are best left to their own devices became policy."--George Soros
Lefiti|9.22.08 @ 1:19AM|#
Let us pray.
Hail Market,
Full of grace,
Prosperity is with thee.
Blessed art thou among systems,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Capital.
Holy Market,
Mother of Goods,
pray for us consumers now,
and at the hour of our bankruptcy
Lefiti|9.22.08 @ 1:25AM|#
Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million
E-Mail
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CHARLES DUHIGG
Published: September 21, 2008
Senator John McCain's campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a
month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by
the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them
against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.
|9.22.08 @ 2:05AM|#
there's only so long you can use alcohol and drugs to battle reality
Could you tell me what that is, exactly? I'm going shopping and
there's no point buying more than the effective dose. Money's tight
and all.
$700B on top of a $9T nat'l debt in a $13T annual economy is not the end of the world.
That's $2333 each for me and the missus. Kinda feel bad my (3) kids
getting saddled with the $7000. I guess since they were going to
get crushed by Social Security and Medicare, what's a couple more
pallets of bricks?
Democrats believe a responsible solution should include independent oversight, protections for homeowners and constraints on excessive executive compensation.
Let us set aside for the moment the FACT that we l/Libertarians are
right on economics. Let us stipulate -- for argument's sake -- that
some theoretical government could make decisions here better than
the market. How could anyone POSSIBLY believe that THIS particular
government could?!?
And, as to Democratic oversight, since their mandate to Stop the
War in 2006, they have so far alternated between "saying [his]
name, bitch!" and "squeal[in'] lahk a pig!". How can Pelosi speak
on this with authority? How can she speak to it with a straight
face?!
This is where I think we actually have a chance for outreach to the
Dems and the Reps. When the powers on both sides are saying "this
is so terrible that we can't even TELL you how bad it could get,"
we can remind the soon-to-be-former believers in state power, "this
is what they said about Saddam's WMDs, Guantanamo, warrentless
wiretaps -- they only say this to scare you into submission; STOP
SUBMITTING!!"
Bernanke says, "There are no atheists in foxholes and no ideologues in financial crises."
This is an excellent analogy to point out that, no matter HOW bad
things appear,
and no matter HOW bad things become, turning to SATAN is never the
logical choice!!
Signing over our paychecks and our economic freedoms to a cadre of
secretive, power-hungry incompetents is a Faustian bargain, pure
and simple. Except, Faust got a few good years out of it, and there
are going to be scarce few outside of Wall Street and the Beltway
who will get any pleasure out of this AT ALL.
To the barricades!!...
|9.22.08 @ 2:29AM|#
US Constitution, Article III, Section 2: "In all the other Cases
before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate
Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
By my reading of the Constitution, this rarely used power makes it
proper for Congress to remove this bill from the Supreme Court's
jurisdiction. However, removing the district courts, which have
original jurisdiction, does not seem proper.
Nick|9.22.08 @ 2:34AM|#
"Regulators have abandoned their duty by letting markets
regulate themselves. It's because a market fundamentalist ideology
has come to dominate the behaviour of market participants and
market regulatorsover the past 25 years ... and the idea that
markets are best left to their own devices became policy."--George
Soros
Guess those Southeast Asian regulators shoulda stopped George Soros
before he drove most of Asia into financial bankruptcy in the late
90s and caused serious poverty for millions of people of those
countries simply for his own greed. Yeah, he's really got a heart
of gold...not.
|9.22.08 @ 2:45AM|#
I keep telling conspiracy theorists that they are wasting their
time- the truth is always on page one! You don't need a conspiracy
to nationalize a country. Paulson has just announced himself, in
every newspaper, as new Czar of USSA and no one blinks. In bold
print on page one, and everyone misses the point.
We Libertarians were vindicated sooner than we thought. And its not
comforting at all. I am officially terrified of mandatory gov.
health care.
|9.22.08 @ 2:49AM|#
This debacle has me constantly thinking about the James Brown
"Living In America" performance in Rocky IV.
Shit seems appropriate somehow.
Elemenope|9.22.08 @ 3:30AM|#
We Libertarians were vindicated sooner than we thought. And
its not comforting at all. I am officially terrified of mandatory
gov. health care.
Holy non sequitor, Batman!
Seriously, how do you segue from this fucking travesty of a bailout
to health-care policy? I understand that in some ideologically
fueled zones not connected with reality, they are somehow similar,
but...when you have to talk to us plebes, fucking take one thing at
a time. WTF.
|9.22.08 @ 3:43AM|#
The financial state of the U.S. has everything to do with
health-care policy...and pretty much everything else vital to
living that the government wants to control but shouldn't.
Meant no offense to the "plebes" and yeah, the transition to health
care policy was a bit scatter shot. But I'm not writing a book or
paper you will be grading. And the idea "What in the hell is this
gonna do to people that are sick and need health care." popped into
mind.
I suppose I could've added similar concerns to food, gas and any
number of other material goods and services linked to the financial
structure of the country.
I'm afraid that this is going to be not so "loosely connected" to
reality, ideologically-fueled or not. I am afraid that with a
nationalization of finance, there will be all sorts of things
people used to be able to afford but will soon not be.
~|9.22.08 @ 4:33AM|#
Those dayum libruhls aren't the natural enemies of libertarians,
necessarily. They're just afraid of the Hobbesian nightmare that
they think a free market would create. They're not evil; they want
everyone to be clothed and fed, and they don't trust anyone but the
state to do it.
If they're paying any attention, the last eight years have left
them with a distaste for overweening federalism. Their boy Obama's
platform looks like it could be a disaster, if implemented as
written, but what are the odds of that now? Either president will
be treading water for at least four years.
Libertarians are a more rational and optimistic lot. We know there
are more efficient ways to get the things that liberals want. This
would be a really bad time to turn into gun-fondling reactionaries.
Let's keep the floor open for dialogue, and separate ourselves from
the Social Darwinist racketeers that caused this mess.
|9.22.08 @ 4:53AM|#
This isn't the corruption of politics by money, instead, it's the corruption of money by politics.
SIV|9.22.08 @ 6:26AM|#
Bloomberg is reporting this am they are going to take all bad
debt. Credit card, car loan etc.
No switching you cash from FDIC insured accounts to the newly
insured money market accounts either.This is a fucking coup.
|9.22.08 @ 7:58AM|#
Well, this is just what we get by taking the government from a
Harvard MBA and handing it to a 'community organizer'.
Wait, what? It's not 2009 yet?
WTF?
Rhywun|9.22.08 @ 8:34AM|#
This would be a really bad time to turn into gun-fondling reactionaries.
Yeah, I'm a little sick of that meme, myself. Unless it's Data
saying it.
ed|9.22.08 @ 8:52AM|#
There are no atheists in foxholes
That's insulting to both atheists and foxes.
Gilbert Martin|9.22.08 @ 8:55AM|#
"Republicans may suffer damage not because their remedies are
worse but because a lot of their ideology about how markets work
has been belied by events."
So this is a all a result of "the market" , eh?
Yeah - well execpt for:
The federal reserve creating an asset bubble in real estate by
pumping up the money supply, driving down interest rates and
devaluing the dollar.
The creation of, and changes to the "Community Reinvestment Act"
whereby government encouraged lending to people with bad credit and
the securitization of the resulting loans.
The existence and mismanaged of quasi-government entities like
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that served as a conduit for loan
securitization and would never have been able to exist in the
marketplace at all to begin with without implicit (now explicit)
government backing.
And last but not least, the Sarbanes Oxley "mark to market" rules
that greatly contributed to the panic and forced drastic markdowns
in long term assets - securities on loans that weren't in default
and/or foreclosure because they couldn't be valued due to short
term trading freezes.
Other than all that, it was all due to "the market".
anon|9.22.08 @ 9:16AM|#
Did anyone else catch the irony in Yglesias' "Simply put . . .
"(long, incoherent run-on sentence)?
On writing competence alone, the guy doesn't need to be included in
the group.
|9.22.08 @ 11:00AM|#
"We Libertarians were vindicated sooner than we thought. And
its not comforting at all. I am officially terrified of mandatory
gov. health care, retirement, morning exercises, housing,
food, one piece jumpsuits, and soylent green
factories."
There fixed that for truthiness.
Rubbadubdubicus|9.22.08 @ 11:01AM|#
The efficacy of free markets and wastefulness of regulation does
not need to be validated by every single economic downturn for
laissez-faire to remain justifiable. It is a surrender to ideology
that occupies unknowns with preconceptions.
Economic crisis in particular is an ink blot.
wondering|9.22.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Any one else notice that the guy who will do the buying and the sellers are all Zionist Jews?
Russ 2000|9.22.08 @ 11:59AM|#
Given the truly appalling track record of this
Administration in its outsourcing, this is not an idle
worry.
Wouldn't the bigger problem be what the NEXT adminstration does?
The current one only hss 3 months to go.
Of course, both parties are betting they'll win on election day, so
they both support this tribute to American stupidity.
Nash|9.22.08 @ 3:42PM|#
I don't see any kind of Libertarian/Liberal alliance as a result
of this. I see both self proclaimed liberals and conservatives
supporting the bailout for "stability" reasons. We can't let the
big bad corporations wipe out old people's 401k's you see. The
Liberals are just blaming deregulation legislation of the 90's as
the root cause and putting up with the bailout (with socialist
strings attached) as a means to exercise more government control of
the market.
Like they said, the crash isn't as bad as the inept government
"help" that is coming as a reaction to it.
Mike Laursen|9.22.08 @ 4:13PM|#
I see both self proclaimed liberals and conservatives
supporting the bailout for "stability" reasons. We can't let the
big bad corporations wipe out old people's 401k's you
see.
I'm not clear on what you're saying here. Do you know actual
liberals who reacted this way, or is it how you think they would
react? The liberals I've talked to haven't reacted the way I
thought they would -- they're pissed about the bailouts, sounding a
lot like libertarians.
Nash|9.22.08 @ 6:37PM|#
"I'm not clear on what you're saying here. Do you know actual
liberals who reacted this way, or is it how you think they would
react? The liberals I've talked to haven't reacted the way I
thought they would -- they're pissed about the bailouts, sounding a
lot like libertarians."
The liberals I know on the internets. Or at least the Obamanrol the
economy.ations I know, are ardent supporters of the bailout. Using
tax payer dollars to bail out corporate entities and keep short
term stability is a testament to government stepping in to help
control the economy from runaway free market collapse.
They think it's unfortunate the bailout is occuring but support it
100%.
Mike Laursen|9.22.08 @ 11:11PM|#
They think it's unfortunate the bailout is occuring but
support it 100%.
Disappointing. One would hope that some government screw-up someday
would be so massively stupid it would make liberals think twice
about their fixation on government as the great problem solver. I
guess no chance as long as there's a Republican government -- too
easy to blame it on them.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245