Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« He Wants To Thank Everybody Who Made This Book Necessary | Main | Class Warfare, Or, It's About The Hypocrisy »

March 25, 2009

Comments

bad

jwest!! Thanks for keeping us from worry.

thelonereader

thank you bad, clarice and Old Lurker, I am probably closer to OL than MAL. I doubt that I could live up to your exceptional insights and knowledge, but I am here to learn and grow.
And I could never fill your posts (shoes), though I am getting the old part down pretty fast.

MayBee

very interesting, jwest.

My husband's coworker was in Argentina in 2002-2002. She told him that her husband's full time job was waiting in line to get cash from the banks when it was available.

Old Lurker

Lonereader! Welcome. Don't be shy, just write what you think and all will be well! Just do. not. ever. engage with TCO.

jwest

Maybe,

The lines at banks are still ridiculously long, but I attribute that to a lack of ATM machines like you find in every other city.

Also, they take bank security much more seriously than we do.

Ranger

And the news just keeps getting better and better:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/26/video-social-security-surpluses-gone/>Video: Social Security surpluses gone

Add to that the fact that 47 of the 50 states are in deficit spending this year (and the Porkulus acutally forces States to permenantly increase expendatures to get Federal money that goes away in two years), and you are adding more and more drag on any economic recovery.

MayBee

I'm embarrassed for anyone who doesn't understand every detail of the financial situation.

Ha!

narciso

Correct me if I'm wrong, that was after the left Peronists led by Duhalde, basically said 'bless their hearts' to the IMF and defaulted, we're not in danger of that are we, right now, right.

By the way, in the LUN is a provision of the stimulus funds, regarding health care,
requiring the number of children enrolled
above the poverty level, to be increased,
which means that revenues have to sought out, after the stimulus runs out. One of
those 'nonexistent' strings, the Governors
are told shouldn't concern them. It strikes me and this is not a new thought, this should be the topic on Memeorandum, not these penny ante discussions about tax payer risk; oh that old chestnut. But isn't Obama's teleprompter so shiny, and as David
Letterman, says, he's really trying.

MayBee

Here's my budget idea:

Look up how much tax revenue we collected last year. That's the new budget.

bad

Geez, Ranger. Orzag is even more incompetant than he looks and this guy is the president's budget director.

MayBee

Add to that the fact that 47 of the 50 states are in deficit spending this year (and the Porkulus acutally forces States to permenantly increase expendatures to get Federal money that goes away in two years), and you are adding more and more drag on any economic recovery.

I would have liked someone at the presser to ask him why he's fighting Sanford so hard.

Uncle BigBad

OK, everybody. Time to read up on Murray Rothbard.

bad

Ranger's link says Orzag, Obama's budget director was incredibly wrong not just on Social Security surpluses, but also on the chance of the FMs becoming insolvent. The FMs risk, Orzag placed at less than 1 in 500,000 to 1 in three million.

Read it all.

DebinNC

We're being forced to become California when we should be trying to be Texas. Can it be true that 70% of the jobs created last year were in TX? I don't see Texans allowing their kids to be forced into Obama Youth brigades without a fight.

MayBee

That Rahm article is a GOLD MINE!


Another focus of Freddie during Emanuel's day—and one that played to his skill set—was a stepped-up effort to combat congressional demands for more regulation.

During a September 2000 board meeting—midway through Emanuel's 14-month term—Freddie Mac lobbyist R. Mitchell Delk laid out a strategy titled "Political Risk Management" aimed at influencing lawmakers and blunting pressure in Congress for more regulation. Through Delk's initiative, Freddie Mac sponsored more than 80 fundraisers that raised at least $1.7 million for congressional candidates despite a federal law that bans corporations from direct political activity.

Fresh Air

Tell you what. Since the dollar is no longer going to be the world's reserve currency, let's just go ahead and create a second one. And let's, while we're at it, just create to nations. One will look like Texas. All peoples who wish to be part of the low-tax, low-government regulation, high-growth country can move to the South. Those who wish to be in the country that looks like Massachusetts can stay in the North. We'll move all the military bases to the South, too. This will no big deal to the Northern Socialist Republic of Zero, since the U.N. will be guarding its borders.

bad

Obama says this online townhall isn't about him but he praises himself in his answer to the first question.

bad

yak, yak, yak, lecture, lecture, lecture

bad

It is, Maybee. If the Trib is stepping up, maybe some other msm outlets will as well.

Obama has several real economic screw-ups in his inner circle:

Geithner
Holbrooke
Rahm
Orzag

MayBee

live blog the on-line townhall, bad.
Did the education question prompt him to brag about CAC?

bad

Texas can't last as Texas forever. Texas thrives and companies bring in the libs from failing blue states when they move jobs here. Those same stupid libs vote the same stupid way they did that caused their previous state to fail.

It's a virus that will bring us all down.

I so hope I'm wrong.

MayBee

Oh, I see he brought up the no long summer break thing again.

If I were psychoanalyzing him, I would say he felt abandoned by and not attached to his mother, so he dreamed of having a nice Nanny State to raise him.

SWarren


Soros: Crisis Is Culmination Of Life's Work

From Sweetness & Light LUN

bad

ha ha ha maybee

He is soooooo boring I can't stay focused. Small snark only.

MayBee

Second psychoanalysis of the day:Obama heard Grandma grumble about Grandma at the bank all day every day, grew up to hate bankers.

MayBee

oops Grandpa was doing the grumbling.

bad

oops Grandpa was doing the grumbling.

Probably both grampa and grandma...

Ranger

ABC's Note is actually pretty tough on Obama today. One excerpt:

One way to count progress: 100,000 people have signed up to fight for President Obama’s budget.

A slightly different way to count progress: That’s after an e-mail was sent to 14 million people, and tens of thousands of volunteers knocked on a million doors over the weekend.

bad

Hey, Maybee, gramma had to work at the bank to put food on the table and provide insurance for the family.

hence the obsession with nationalized healthcare.....

Ranger

Oh, and another bites the dust:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/epa-deputy-admi.html>EPA Deputy Administrator Nominee Withdraws

"It has come to my attention that America’s Clean Water Foundation, where I once served on the board of directors, has become the subject of scrutiny."...

...

...the organization was accused of mishandling more than $25 million in government grants.

Jane

I am one of many lurkers that have a very difficult time understanding the in depth financial discussions taking place here at JOM. I manage to understand about 1 in five sentences.

I'm a regular and I feel the same way. I missed Cathy's post tho - so please put it at American Thinker so I have another chance to see it.

Hit, I'm happy for you. I do insist that you have an interview near me.

Jwest, where have you been?

Oh and there is a new thread if anyone cares.

bad

From the Inspector General's report at Ranger's link:

"While performing the single audit for the year ended June 30, 2004, RAFFA, the Foundation’s accounting firm, discovered accounting irregularities and a potential embezzlement of funds."

That's pretty distracting even if the nominee was not involved. $25 million ain't exactly chump change.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

But that's a red herring; I was asking about a country that survived a banking system collapse.

Implicit in your question is the unproven and unknowable assumption that we would have suffered a banking collapse without the actions taken by Paulson rather than something considerably wiser or more limited.
Also implicit in your question is the assumption that the next few years will be economically healthier because of all the bailouts than if we had suffered a quick meltdown. That is not clear at all and won't be for some time. They may very well turn out to be worse.
We do know that we suffered a systemic bank failure in the thirties and within three years had recovered from a 25% GDP drop (which mostly preceded and caused the bank failures not vice versa) even before the existence of the FDIC and even with a crazy policiy of initial monetary restriction by the Fed, tax increases and idiotic labor and price controls, Smoot Hawley and spending not unlike what Barry is trying now. Had we had a policy of tax cuts, free trade and free markets it's likely there would have been no Great Depression. The fact is wise governement policy usually prevents bank failures. Bad policy usually causes them, so that when we have a systemic failure it is wrongly seen as a cause rather than a symptom. And the assumption that the only way to avoid a systemic bank failure is by a massive intervention by the government is as unsubstanitated and conjectural as you say others are.
We also know that the Fed similarly popped a bubble in a different asset (too many dollars) in 1981-82 with much less systemic financial stress. Now, had we had 'fair value' accounting and other subsequent regulations in place then, most of the nation's banks at that time (possibly even more than now) would have been insolvent. That suggests regulatory excess and its repeal might very well have done more good at little or no cost than the Rube Goldberg, government expanding interventions have. Bill Isaac, who was the head of the FDIC in the eighties said as much on Larry Kudlow's show a day or two ago as did Bill Seidman.
The government needed to do something, but to defend what it actually did do as necessary and as having undoubtedly staved off a catastrophic meltdown is not only counter to historical precedent (Argentina being considerably less on point than the US of 1920, 1936, 1981 and 1991) but is also based on conjectures and assumptions just as large or larger as the ones you claim others make.

jwest

Jane,

It’s great to be back.

I’ve been off getting dental implants and learning to tango. Now that I have a smile like Obama, I can run for president.

hit and run

Middle-aged lurker...thanks!

Jane:
I do insist that you have an interview near me.

Is Just Jane hiring?

(did you decide on another name?)

Jane

I'm still negotiating. Dick is being Dick.

bad

Dick is being A Dick.

There... I fixed it for you...

boris

to defend what it actually did do as necessary and as having undoubtedly staved off a catastrophic meltdown ...

I don't read Chaco that way.

The first 1/2 TARP spent under Bush probably did avoid high risk of a more serious crash.

That is seperate from what Obama and his dimorats have been doing since.

Fact is the Obama government is now at the wheel (elections have consequences). All we are in a position to do at this point is rate the really bad stuff in comparison to the not so bad stuff.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

I don't read Chaco that way.

I do. I'm not saying he's defending porkulus but he seems to be defending every action taken with regard to TARP I and II and every other bailout asscoiated with finincial institutions of one sort or another. At least I haven't seen him saying which ones shouldn't have occurred.

The first 1/2 TARP spent under Bush probably did avoid high risk of a more serious crash.

Maybe it did and maybe it didn't. The point is there were sensible, smart, free market people advocating different and better options that were ignored. That's what the real question is, not the silly Democrat formulation of the only two options being do it our way or do nothing at all.

That is seperate from what Obama and his dimorats have been doing since.

It's hard to see how the second half or TARP is seperate from the first half. And Bushs', Paulson's and Bernanke's eagerness for massive intervention surely made the pavement a good deal smoother for porkulus and Barry's five year plans.

cathyf
My husband's coworker was in Argentina in 2002-2002. She told him that her husband's full time job was waiting in line to get cash from the banks when it was available.
To do some shameless snooty name dropping:

When I was in college, my econ professor, D. Gale Johnson, told us the stories that Hayek used to tell. One of them was that as a young professor in Austria during the hyper-inflation, it was his wife's job to go to the pay window and stand in line each Friday with the other professors' wives, and then as they got their money, they would sprint off to spend every penny as fast as possible. Since the payroll would have declined in value significantly by the afternoon.

hit and run

To do some shameless snooty name dropping:

Don't worry, I do that all the time.

Usually starts out something like...

"Like my dear friend cathyf on JOM said yesterday..."

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

Here's what I think is an essential read on bailouts, too big to fail, etc that was refrenced at the Corner.
It's a 42 page PDF so be forewarned.
Go to the first site, which just has the abstract, and click on one of the logos at the top. 'Stanford School of Law' logo worked for me.

RichatUF

Ignatz-

Thanks for the paper (full version link). A good read.

boris

And Bushs' ... eagerness for massive intervention surely made the pavement made the pavement a good deal smoother

And my point would be that Obama and the dimorats winning the election big was by far the more important event. A bigger crash and even fewer Repub senators would not be much of an improvement IMO.

Pofarmer

And my point would be that Obama and the dimorats winning the election big was by far the more important event. A bigger crash and even fewer Repub senators would not be much of an improvement IMO.

Just a reminder, McCains numbers really slipped when he went pro-bailout, and all that. If I recall, weren't calls into Congress in the high 70% range AGAINST the bailout? I find it hard to beleive that actually doing what the vast majority of Americans claimed to want, a couple weeks before the election, would have lead to greater electoral defeat. That doesn't make sense to me, unless you assume that those same people weren't ready for the consequences of their actions.

boris

Funny how being pro-bailout didn't hurt Obama one bit. Mysterious.

TCO

Face it you little cocksuckers like Charlie and JOM and Kim. You were wrong. Both on principle and in insights. you need to get your ass into the RINO party. Real men like Malkin and pofarmer will napalm and eat your babies. Socialist morons...

bad

Take your meds, TCO.

TCO

I'm going to play bridge at pogo...but I get even more angry then...

clarice

I take it TCO is still of the opinion that Charlie and JOM and Kim are responsible--if they'd opposed the bailout it wouldn't have happened. Otherwise his constant, often vulgar and vile railing at them would seem just madness wouldn't it?

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

I've often wondered what hell would be like, but was limited by my imagination.

No longer;
Playing bridge with TCO.

MayBee

I heart you, bad. ♥

srp

Except no banks were collapsing. The FDIC would have prevented any runs by depositors. The CP market just kept trucking despite lots of scare stories (and the Fed's eventual intervention there at zero cost to the taxpayer is hardly an argument for the TARP nonsense). Data published by the Fed showed no disasterously large breaks in credit availability.

The worst part of the intervention was that in order to sell it Paulson (and Bush by default) scared the bejeezus out of Charlie and everyone else and helped precipitate the collapse of consumer spending over the last few quarters. Repeat after me: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." And the iatrogenic effect of interventionist policy.

bad

♥ Maybee

TCO

Clarice, you have an incorrect assumption as well as an incorrect conclusion dependant on that assumption. Than again you are a wishcasting hack. And appear smart (although not) in comparison ot the nitwits here. And get accolades for it.

Oh...and I already addressed your point.

TCO

You go, srp. Ram it up the RINOs asses. Fucking bunch of Harriet Meiers like hacks. I fucking hate them.

TCO

Hey, srp. But at least a few Democrat votring bankers at GS sved a few quarters of income and avoidd being blown up. I mean who cares that we killed the industrial economy, compromised all our principles, opened the door to socialism, and put our children in 8 trillion of debt. At least the fucking idiots on JOM can yuck themselves over with their (unsupported by fact or theory) crap. Fucking hack morons. RINO scum.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame