From The Department Of 20/20 Hindsight

TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky opines that the NY Fed could have done a better job in extracting concessions from AIG's credit default swap counterparties.  I say, rubbish.  This memo from the Department of 20/20 Hindsight is interesting, but until we get the supporting memo from the Department of Unintended Consequences we have nothing.

The Economist of Contempt (who is actually a lawyer, but nevermind) explains the absurdly weak negotiating position of the Fed, which had already committed itself to avoiding the global grab for assets that would have followed an AIG bankruptcy filing.

Felix Salmon thinks there was something fishy about Goldman's role in all this so he beats the populist drum, but without conviction:

But I’m maybe slightly more sympathetic to the Fed than most — or at least I understand how this happened. It shouldn’t have happened, that’s true: for the sake of putting a knife into the moral-hazard trade, some haircut — any haircut — should definitely have been imposed, even if it was only the 2% that UBS offered to accept.

But the government owned AIG, which created the situation that Germans call Anstaltslast: the fact that state-owned companies simply don’t default on their obligations. The government was also battling a major crisis using the only weapon at its disposal: enormous amounts of liquidity. When you’re putting out a fire, you don’t stop to worry that large amounts of liquidity are going to end up where you don’t particularly want them — the important thing is putting out the fire.

Well, yes.  A $2 haircut on the $62 billion under discussion would have saved the taxpayer about $1.2 billion - not nothing, but not consequential in terms of the Fed's trillion dollar balance sheet.

As to the moral hazard argument - please.  The moral hazard hawks had been given their day when Lehman was allowed to fail.  The consequences were not just ghastly but ghastly in a way that should have been easily predicted, which is to say, they were more or less unpredictable (who knew a money market fund would break the buck and crash out the commercial paper market?).  The idea that the Fed should have reprised that experiment in November in order to rally up a billion dollars (cue the Dr. Evil laugh) is daft.

Mr. Salmon's includes this:

I agree with Barofsky that, in hindsight, the payments should have been made at less than par; TED has a good explanation of how that could have happened, given sufficient aggression. After all, it’s not like Treasury wasn’t being run by a hard-charging former investment banker at the time.

No - TED has an utterly implausible, self-contradictory (but colorful!) explanation of how those negotiations could have proceeded.  First, the Fed negotiator engages in insane posturing and bluster:

But I am not your friend today. I am not your fucking friend. As far as you are concerned, you should view me as the Angel of Fucking Death. Because the time has come for each of you to do what is right for the greater good. It is time to think about survival, gentlemen—your own and that of your institutions—both now and in the future. For let me assure you that the decisions you make in this room today will be remembered. They will be remembered, gentlemen, as long as there is a United States of America. And if, God willing, we all come through this terrible crisis to a safer and more stable world, those people who helped us get there will be remembered. And, perhaps more importantly, those people and institutions in this room which did not help us, which put their own narrow personal and corporate interests before the interests of this nation and its people, will be remembered as well.

And let me tell you something, gentlemen, banker to banker: you do not want to be on that list. That list will be a world of pain. That list will be Death. That list will be populated with people and institutions which will have the full weight, power, and authority of the government of the United States of America brought down on them in the most thorough, comprehensive, and legal way you could possibly imagine. That list will be the proctology exam from Hell, and it will never end.

Yeah, yeah.  And on to the contradiction:

Would this approach have recovered all 40% of the original discount AIG tried to obtain? Probably not. Tough talk or no, the assembled banks would balk at completely unreasonable demands by the government. And if they balked, they would have time to mobilize their vast lobbying apparatus to try to counteract the government's bid through Congress. Delay would be deadly. You could not allow the counterparties to regroup, or even collect their thoughts.

You've gotta drop a daisy cutter on their ass, and roll the tanks in immediately thereafter. Shock and awe, baby.

Well, which is it?  If these banks have such formidable lobbying power (Likely!), then how can the threat of a lifetime on "The List" be credible?  Is Goldman cowering as a pariah today?  Please.

As to the basic premise (of an earlier post, anyway) that the Fed should threaten to burn down the entire financial system if their demands are not met, well, it does suggest a business model for cash-strapped municipalities: have their fire departments negotiate fee-for-service deals while standing on the doorsteps of burning buildings.  That could work.  It's not what people expect, but it could work.

It is up to the Fed to promote stability, not Goldman Sachs.  Sorry.

STRAY ASIDE:  I love the overlap between people who want to extend Khalid Sheik Mohammed every protection of criminal law but want to put all of contract law in the shredder in order to to get Goldman Sachs.  Keep the focus on evil!

Comments

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I love the overlap between people who want to extend Khalid Sheik Mohammed every protection of criminal law but want to put all of contract law in the shredder in order to to get Goldman Sachs. Keep the focus on evil!

Just depends on what you think is evil.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

But I think you've got a couple of good points here, starting with the overall one that there are a lot of idiots writing about this stuff. As we discussed at the time, this bailout was necessarily going to pay more for assets than they could have, because the underlying issue was a massively illiquid market that was artificially depressing prices. If they'd have paid pure market price, then Treasury might have eventually made a lot of money, but it wouldn't help the market clear and it would have put even more firms into the septic tank.

As far as how they could have pushed other people into doing things for the good of the country, ask Ken Lewis how that's working out for him.

[Gregory Koster]

Speaking only for myself TM, what's the solution to the problem? (The Epicuriean Dealmaker) TED for all the luridity of his proposed soluton, sees that setting the Feds up as a giant cash cow for the bankers when said bankers screw up on this colossal scale is a horrendous price to pay. The September 2008 implosion put The Once on the fast track to be Wrecker in Chief. That is part of the price paid for the bank bailout. Given that Chris Dodd will have a big role in new regulation of wall Street, crony capitalism is bound to flourish. That's bad for American democracy

[Rick Ballard]

"have their fire departments negotiate fee-for-service deals while standing on the doorsteps of burning buildings. That could work."

The illustration would be more colorful if the arsonist (Vampire Squid Ltd.) were standing there, giggling madly while waving a "side" insurance policy (CDS). I forget, how long has it been that insurance has been allowed to be sold to someone without an insurable interest? I suppose it must be long enough for the appropriation of the corpus of contract law to serve as a cover for arson.

[Pofarmer]

It is up to the Fed to promote stability

Which, ultimately, means stagnation, which, it would appear, is what we are getting into. You can only force the system into your box for so long.

[Melinda Romanoff]

I disagree. The Fed has two jobs, monetary policy, including regulation of the banking system, and the languished "full employment mandate" from the 60's. The dollar is to be regulated by the Dept. of the Treasury, with the Fed as the executor of that strategy upon request. Brokerages are to be regulated by the SEC.

Those are the rules as stated by statute. The fact that they are, or are not, followed is a reasonable matter for discussion. Such as, if CDS' were so bad, why wouldn't Congress allow derivative regulation? Was it too lucrative?

The whole subject makes me ill.

[Old Lurker]

Sorry, Melinda, I can't pay attention right now. I am still diagramming the sentences from that paper on China you linked to before going to bed last night...

[The Epicurean Dealmaker]

Yeah, I find Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" utterly implausible and self-contradictory, too. Colorful, though.

Zoom! Whoosh! (You missed it.)

Cheers.

[daleyrocks]

Have the Fed play hardball with AIG's trading partners - rating agencies step in and downgrade AIG - abra cadabra run on the bank, err, insurance company. Customers desert on both the life and P&C side. See Mutual Benefit Life of New Jersey for what happens in a run on the bank example for an insurance company.

[anduril]

Good point, Charlie. There are some who have sat through courses on Contract Law who could be persuaded that it is EVIL. :-) Although maybe beside the point. I try to follow this stuff, and it hasn't been real clear to me just how relevant contract law has been during the first 10 months of this administration. It appears that, if possession is nine tenths of the law, then another way of putting it is that bargaining position is nine tenths of the law.

I have a lot of sympathy with those who think that Goldman Sachs is the source of one helluva lot of evil. It is a bit unnerving to see them making out like bandits and their competitors--who don't happen to have sent a string of officers to Washington to be Treasury Secretaries and so forth--getting put through the wringer. That's not sympathy for GS's competitors, either. Just sayin'.

[matt]

it is simply stunning that there has been virtually no accountability for the largest bailout in history. No accountability for some of the actions taken by either administratiion; no accountability by the banks and financial institutions and no accountability from even the homeowners or mortgage brokers.

[Pagar]

My guess is that there will be even larger bailouts-and that there will be no accountability there either.

"Happy New Year, New York State. Come the end of December, you may be broke:

“If Gov. David Paterson and state legislators continue to do nothing about the way they spend money, the state’s general bank account will be $1 billion short at the end of December, according to state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, the man who writes the checks.

That means the state will not be able to pay $2.5 billion to cities, towns and villages for property taxes residents have not paid because of the state’s STAR exemption.

It means the state will not be able to make a $1.6 billion payment to schools.

And it means the state could miss five weekly payments of about $400 million each to hospitals and other providers who give services to Medicaid patients."

Does anyone really believe that there is billions of dollars lying around New York just waiting for the state to scoop them up?

Anyone want to hazard a guess how much money the State of New York will have to pay for security during the terrorist trials? On top of all the money they already don't have.

[anduril]

Ah--perfect! As if on cue I can drop this link: The Permanent TARP: Current financial reform proposals would establish 'too big to fail' as national policy.

With this and Obamacare, we'll have the Fascist "corporate state" in place:

Both bills are intended to cover more than just companies that are engaged in financial activities. Following the administration's lead, both provide that a company engaged in a financial activity "in whole or in part, directly or indirectly" could be subject to enhanced regulation and supervision.

The Frank bill seems intended to regulate all financial firms as though they are banks. Thus it requires financial activities to be transferred out of operating companies into a separate entity, which would then be regulated like a bank (even in its relations with its parent company).

The Dodd bill is a blunter instrument, proposing to regulate all companies that include financial activities "in whole or in part." But almost all companies—retailers, manufacturers and service organizations—engage in some financial activities, if only to promote the sale of their products and services. If the administration's health-care proposal has the potential to nationalize one-sixth of the economy, Messrs. Frank and Dodd are bidding to cover the rest.

Meanwhile, TM's heart is bleeding for Goldman Sach's. Please, lets talk about real evil.

[anduril]

IMAGINE!

Since this thread seems to have slowed down, I'll respond to popular demand by posting this neat piece here.

Imagine--a world in which Linux accounted for 89.2% of all Operating System use! Too hard to imagine? But it's true--if you consider the world of Super Computers to be a kind of world unto itself. Here's how OS usage for the Top500 supercomputers breaks out:

Linux 89.20%

Windows 1.00 %

Unix 5.00 %

BSD Based 0.20 % [Whoa! No, that's not a misprint, DrJ. There's gotta be a reason.]

Mixed 4.60 %

I got that from GNU/Linux Just Became Topper

Yes, as this shows, GNU/Linux is just as dominant in the supercomputing world as Windows is on PCs. However, unlike Windows on the desktop, which is slowly losing market share (not much, but a little), GNU/Linux is actually *gaining*: six months ago it had 88.60%. Windows, by contrast, remains stuck at a rather pathetic 1% - that's just five machines in the top 500.

That's pretty incredible, not least because Microsoft is throwing considerable resources at this market with its Windows HPC Server product. “Resources” in this case include the usual “here, take this software for nothing – oh, by the way, you need Windows Server HPC to run it....” Not that Microsoft is desperate, you understand.

So, next time someone tells you that GNU/Linux isn't able to run enterprise-level tasks, or lacks innovation, or will never become a market leader, just point them in the direction of that Top500 list...

[anduril]

Oh, and then there's this: The Future of Linux is Google.

Microsoft's main attraction--on netbooks, laptops, or desktops--is its familiarity. Both as a name and as an interface, Windows is a comfortable standard for users. Ubuntu offers a look and feel familiar enough for any mildly savvy user to get comfortable with, but not familiar enough outcompete Windows with mainstream users. Chrome OS, which will use a new windowing environment with the Chrome browser as its main interface, won't compete with Windows on familiarity. Instead, it will focus on two things Windows still lags in that are critical to success on small-form devices: simplicity and cloud connectivity. Once again, Google is attacking Microsoft at its weak points.

In bringing Chrome OS to market, Google has taken on some powerful partners. Intel, HP, Lenovo, Toshiba, Acer, Qualcomm, Freescale, and Adobe are all on board. This is about as close as you can get to a netbook-building dream team. As the hardware makers in this group vie to differentiate their Chrome OS devices, consumers are bound to get a wealth of interesting options. The strong will survive, the weak will go back to the drawing board, and Chrome will likely evolve--just as Android has--into a compelling platform all its own.

If anyone can pull this off, I think it's gotta be Google. For those of you who don't follow this, Google's Chrome OS (just like Android) is Linux.

[PD]

OT: Vince Flynn will be on Hannity's panel tonight, in a couple of minutes.

[DrinkDeep]

It's not what Geithner could/could not have done - it's that he's been fighting transparency with all he's worth since joining the Administration...this stonewalling has been noted every month by the Congressional Oversight Panel (cop.senate.gov). There's also the fact that he initiated a lawsuit to try and strip SIGTARPs right to investigate him, legally challenging whether the IG reported directly to Congress or to Treasury (basically tried to get rid of him the way they got rid of Walpin).

He's tried everything to block the the investigation and release of information - and today's release was just One audit of many in process. Much more to come - it was pretty funny to see Holder and Geithner introducing their new crackpot Financial Fraud Protection team today...who will 'prosecute those who behaved or benefitted illegally during the financial crisis'. If they're serious about prosecuting fraud, Timmy G will be in jail before too long -

[daleyrocks]

Along the same lines as Barofsky's criticism of the AIG bailout, since the government effectively controls Fannie and Freddie, shouldn't it be driving some hard bargains on paying off at par on those mortgage guarantees? Let's play the tape out folks.

[Jack]

Geithner and Bernanke are tools of Wall Street Exotic Paper. The screwed us on AIG earlier than when you suppose. It happened when they announced CDOs are legal and collectible financial instruments. They had to do that because many were pointing out they are illegal insurance contracts called something else--if it was not a real issue they would not have had to come out about it. They could have recognized that and called the CDOs illegal. CDOs would have collapsed simultaneously with little effect. They only have effect when their bluff is not called.

[Jack]

Anduril--

It is a crisis of faith. Irrefutable knowledge lack of laws and law enforcement in the financial industry created a disaster and Wall Street steals. On the other side, the replacement faith of anti-regulationism, with its angels and messiahs--wall street bankers--who are doing the lord's work if we only let them do so with freedom.

[jimmyk]

The moral hazard hawks had been given their day when Lehman was allowed to fail. The consequences were not just ghastly but ghastly in a way that should have been easily predicted, which is to say, they were more or less unpredictable (who knew a money market fund would break the buck and crash out the commercial paper market?).

And I suppose we should negotiate with terrorists because we might save some ghastly consequences in the short run? Also, a contributing factor to Lehman's demise (in the sense that no one was willing to buy it) was the fact that the feds had just a few months earlier put money into the Bear deal. So the potential Lehman buyers like Barclays were basically holding out for taxpayer dollars because they thought they could. There's your moral hazard right there.

the basic premise (of an earlier post, anyway) that the Fed should threaten to burn down the entire financial system if their demands are not met

The fact is, we don't know that the "entire financial system" would have burned down under some alternative scenario. We get that notion mostly from the people who stood to gain from the bailouts, and from the wimps who gave in to them.

Anyone who thinks the bailouts were necessary should go read up on what J.P. Morgan (the man) did to quell the panic of 1907. Hint: No taxpayer dollars were involved, and the world did not come to an end. And that was before deposit insurance.

[peter]

OT, this video is really funny courtesy Riehl world view: LUN

[daddy]

Well I for one am tired of downbeat news, so here's something upbeat.

Not only did they discover ">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8361995.stm"> Explorer Shackleton's massive stash of Scotch Whiskey buried 100 years ago under a hut in Antarctica, word is they are now going to dig it up and return it England so some of us can drink it.

Unfortunately it's a blend, not a single malt, which I suppose is the real reason the famed Explorer didn't just hang out with the boys and drunkenly freeze to death, but instead decided to risk that horrendous boat trip and trek across the Falkland Mountains, all so he could have a decent shot of single malt before saying his goodbyes. Anyhow, if you're into blended whiskey's and have a couple extra hundred thousand bucks to spare, I think you're in luck.

[daddy]

Peter,

I just clicked your Link. I take it all back. I'm ready for a blended scotch this very instant after watching that. With ice even. ---Gad!

[daddy]

And if anybody's having a little problem with the spouse lately, this excuse seems to work OK in the UK: ">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6591394/Man-had-nightmare-about-burglar-and-woke-to-find-he-had-strangled-wife.html"> Man 'had nightmare about burglar and woke to find he had strangled wife'.

[Janet]

A new Jack Cashill article up at Am. Thinker. LUN
A big hat tip to Tom Maguire!

[Neo]

I bet the AIG creditors would have laughed in their faces had the Fed tried the "madman theory of the presidency" on them.

[jimmyk]

I bet the AIG creditors would have laughed in their faces had the Fed tried the "madman theory of the presidency" on them.

No doubt, because "the Fed" was little Timmy Geithner who undoubtedly was looking like a scared rabbit, and who had already caved in with Bear Sterns and JPM, and who had showed his cards by revealing that there was no way they would let AIG go bankrupt. But go back a few steps in this game, put someone in charge who has some cojones, and maybe things play out a bit differently.

[anduril]

jimmyk, I'm with you.

[hit and run]

Based upon http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=stateSummaryAllCD&statecode=NC>the reporting on the stimulus to date, I hereby announce my intention of forming an exploratory committee to evaluate the prospect of running to become the next first representative of North Carolina's (newly created by recovery.gov*) 37th Congressional District.

The district has received $3,925,318 in stimulus money which has to date created 2 jobs.

If that doesn't work out, I will also consider:

00th district ($90,248 / 0 jobs)
24th district ($200,625 / 2.3 jobs)
86th district ($1,255,629 / 40 jobs)
91st district ($69,563 / 54 jobs)

------------
*Prior to recovery.gov's reporting, North Carolina was understood to have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina%27s_congressional_districts>13 congressional districts.

[Jack is Back!]

AP uses 11 reporters to fact check Palin's book.

Keeping the focus on real evil.

[anduril]

Department of 20/20 Hindsight? Obama: Too much debt could fuel double-dip recession.

President Barack Obama gave his sternest warning yet about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits, saying on Wednesday that if government debt were to pile up too much, it could lead to a double-dip recession.

...

"It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession," he said.

Gosh--do ya think?

The MSM take? They luv him when he's stern. Fingerprints? What fingerprints?

[Pofarmer]

"It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession," he said.

"But ya'll need to get back to buying houses, and SUV's, uhhhh, prisus's, ya hear."

It's the confusion of the message that is maddening.

Well, that, and the fact that he's just mouthing the words and doesn't mean any of it. The only thing that he's going to cut is the military.

[jimmyk]

President Barack Obama gave his sternest warning yet about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits

In other news, the President expressed grave concern over the risks of moving the trial of the 9/11 perpetrators to New York City.

And, in further remarks, he questioned the wisdom of the American people in electing an inexperienced and naive freshman senator to the presidency.

[anduril]

And he never leaves his fingerprints on anything--or so you'd believe if you only got your information from the MSM. It's Holder, or Congress, or Bush, but always someone else.

[anduril]

Here's the Dean of the Harvard Medical School--not that you need to be a Harvard doctor to figure this out: Health 'Reform' Gets a Failing Grade: The changes proposed by Congress will require more draconian measures down the road. Just look at Massachusetts.

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system. The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.

Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern.

In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.

What a concept! Democrats catering to special interests rather than "the average working American!"

[Rick Ballard]

Pofarmer,

Do you think that the Chicoms and the Japanese might have spit in the President's begging bowl? After all, Uncle Ben swears that he's stopped printing Bambibucks - how the hell is the President supposed to monetize any more of the deficit without new Bambibucks or Chicom and Japanese money?

The "double dip" bit is really risible considering the fact that the crystal clear nature of the 3.5% Q3 number as a clumsy artifact is screamingly apparent. I think Jimmyk's 'reverse J' is the most apt descriptor - and the short leg of the J is still just over the horizon. It will remain so as long as the (D)irty socialist wing of the Dems remains ascendant.

[Thomas Collins]

Hit and run, is that you who was quoted in an Instapundit 8:22 am post?

[Pofarmer]

The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction.
Hmmmm, in other words, bureaucrats don't like it.

The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible,

It would seem we agree on this point, but, I don't really see how anything being proposed helps this, in fact, the govt will have HUGE incentives to disquise the cost of care.

and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.

So, why don't we encourage competition, encourage more dr.s, encourage more innovation in medical care?

[hit and run]

TC:
Hit and run, is that you who was quoted in an Instapundit 8:22 am post?

I won't deny it.

[hit and run]

anduril:
Democrats catering to special interests rather than "the average working American!"

Republicans: This bill is unaffordable! It creates an unprecendented and uncontrollable bureaucracy that will not improve care and will jack up costs!

Democrats: Fear-mongers! Liars! Unpatriotic!

The bill passes, and the special interests lard up everything from regulations to coverage mandates, etc...

Republicans return to power.

Democrats: Budget deficits! Public debt! Republicans aren't fiscally responsible,this is happening on their watch!!!

Republicans: We are looking at rolling back some of the regulations and mandates in health care legislation to bring costs back under control and reform the system.

Democrats: DEATH PANELS!!! KILL GRANNY!!! RACISTS!!! WHY DO REPUBLICANS HATE THE POOR!!!

BACK! ALLEY! PODIATRY! TREATMENTS!!!

Democrats regain power.

[Thomas Collins]

Pofarmer, I hear that the very prospect of the passage of ObamaCare has already improved the delivery of health care and lowered health care costs in the Fifth Congressional District in Rhode Island! :-))

[Pofarmer]

Hit, I think you've gamed the outcome perfectly. Which, just proves, I guess I don't have as much faith in my fellow Americans as I thought I did. Dumbasses vote.

Rick.

When looking at tax receipts, it certainly doesn't look like much recovery is underway, and rail loading is still SOFT. However, the recent runup in Lumber futures has me wondering if something might not be afoot, well, besides inflation.

[Ignatz]

--However, the recent runup in Lumber futures has me wondering if something might not be afoot, well, besides inflation.--

I'm having a hard time explaining it myself beyond inflation. They're up about 65% from the bottom and Western lumber production (presumably nationwide as well) has been down 20-30% every year the last three years, so possibly it is an inventory bounce but I'm figuring it's mostly the dollar and commodity inflation.
Had a guy from China recently contact me about exporting logs to China, which hasn't happened for 20 years around here. Presumably that is a dollar play.

[Rick Ballard]

Pofarmer,

It's not housing and it's not remodeling. Could be export and it could be highway work. Forms for an overpass chew up a lot of ply and framing lumber.

Has anyone else noted overtime work on road projects? I've seen several low priority projects open on Saturdays.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

And I suppose we should negotiate with terrorists because we might save some ghastly consequences in the short run?

Jimmy, let's try a little gedankenexperiment.

You're President (shudder) and you have good reliable information that there's a terrorist on the observation deck of the Empire State with a one megatonne bomb on a deadman switch. Do you:

(1) negotiate, or
(2) say "go ahead and blow up New York, we don't negotiate with terrorists"?

[Porchlight]

OT,

1500 people were in line as of 7 am in Grand Rapids, MI, for a Sarah Palin book signing....that doesn't start until 7 pm tonight.

The first people in line, 3 young women @18 years old, arrived at 9 pm last night to camp out.

Lining up for Sarah

[Charlie (Colorado)]

The fact is, we don't know that the "entire financial system" would have burned down under some alternative scenario. We get that notion mostly from the people who stood to gain from the bailouts, and from the wimps who gave in to them.

No, we don't. But it was the way to bet.

[Pofarmer]

Had a guy from China recently contact me about exporting logs to China

That's going on a lot in commodities right now. The best play for the Chinese, who have lot's of dollars, looks to be to hoard commodities rather than dollars.

[Pofarmer]

These book lines scare me, I hope security is good.

[Ignatz]

--You're President (shudder) and you have good reliable information that there's a terrorist on the observation deck of the Empire State with a one megatonne bomb on a deadman switch.--

Regardless of how anyone feels one way or the other about TARP etc, I think Charlie has provided an excellent description of Dimon, Blankfein, Lewis, etal.

[Rick Ballard]

Ignatz,

The Dimon/Blankfein Explosive CDS Vest is high on every Wall Streeter's holiday gift wish list. It really looks great under a Contract Law Topcoat.

[jimmyk]

you have good reliable information that there's a terrorist on the observation deck of the Empire State with a one megatonne bomb

Wait, you left out the fact that he's got my daughter with him.

There's a name for people who base public policy choices on extreme scenarios such as this. But for now I'll let this go.

I think Charlie has provided an excellent description of Dimon, Blankfein, Lewis, etal.

Excellent, Ignatz.

[anduril]

hit,

I'm afraid you're all too correct, although the GOPers have floated some sensible reform ideas. However, that was the point of the article re the Special Interest State (that Sara linked and I've been pushing), which I obliquely refer to.

[Rob Crawford]

There's a name for people who base public policy choices on extreme scenarios such as this.

Yep.

Optimists.

[Tom Maguire]

Could I solicit some thinking on the earlier comment (7:11 PM)left with a link to The Epicurean Dealmaker:

Yeah, I find Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" utterly implausible and self-contradictory, too. Colorful, though.

Zoom! Whoosh! (You missed it.)

Cheers.

The Epicurean Dealmaker

I know what I think, but I welcome a reality check here.

[anduril]

From David Goldman's Inner Workings blog:

This morning’s news that housing starts “unexpectedly” dropped by 11 percent month on month is consistent with my grim view of the American economy. The crystal-meth monetary policy at the Fed makes everyone feel better, until they don’t. The nonstop rise in the price of dollar hedges tells us that it can’t last forever. Large balance sheets attached to the Fed’s money pump can show profits, and the price of spread assets (as PIMCO’s Bill Gross keeps emphasizing) is stupid rich. But at the capillary level, through, the economy is dying and gangrene is setting in.

Here’s year on year growth in commercial and industrial loans from weekly reporting banks in the US:

A 20% decline year on year does not look like a recovery. In fact, it looks like nothing we have seen since the Great Depression. C&I loan growth lags the end of recessions, to be sure, but this extreme level of credit reduction suggests profound trouble.

[Rick Ballard]

"I welcome a reality check here."

Dunno much about reality but A Modest Proposal is (IMO) done deadpan. The flying froth puts it in a different genre - the ZeroHedge style sheet may cover it.

I don't recall Swift ever having to explain his writing after publication. Perhaps I missed it.

[clarice]

Well, a Modest Proposal suggests that the Irish problem would be solved by eating the children, did'nt it?

I don't know how that relates to your post, but Epicurean Deal Maker seems to see some connection, Tom.

[clarice]

I suppose he equates that satire with this one:
"As to the basic premise (of an earlier post, anyway) that the Fed should threaten to burn down the entire financial system if their demands are not met, well, it does suggest a business model for cash-strapped municipalities: have their fire departments negotiate fee-for-service deals while standing on the doorsteps of burning buildings. That could work. It's not what people expect, but it could work."

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

The Epicurean Dealmaker is the "TED" who wrote the screed which led to TM's observation that "TED has an utterly implausible, self-contradictory (but colorful!) explanation of how those negotiations could have proceeded." TED is making the claim in comments that his screed was Swiftian in nature.

He may well believe it to be so.

[clarice]

Ah, I see now--Thanks, Rick

[Ignatz]

--Could I solicit some thinking on the earlier comment (7:11 PM)left with a link to The Epicurean Dealmaker...--

Sure. TED is not too swift.
I don't think he fully grasps the concepts of satire or irony.