Nobel Laureate Joeseph Stieglitz on Obama's bank bailout

[paulk]

"What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization"

Other excerpts from this op-ed already online and due in print tomorrow (April 1st) on page A-31 of the New York Times:


So what is the appeal of a proposal like this? Perhaps it’s the kind of Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves — clever, complex and nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets. It has allowed the administration to avoid going back to Congress to ask for the money needed to fix our banks, and it provided a way to avoid nationalization.


<...>


What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a “partnership” in which one partner robs the other. And such partnerships — with the private sector in control — have perverse incentives, worse even than the ones that got us into the mess.


Joseph E. Stiglitz, a professor of economics at Columbia who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1995 to 1997, was awarded the Nobel prize in economics in 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/opinion/01stiglitz.html?pagewanted=1

-------------------

Since the other thread of this got locked when the poster got ts'ed, I put this up again because I felt this should be discussed. And DU is supposed to be a "discussion board. I don't agree with the policy of locking threads when the OP gets kicked off when the subject itself is not reason for the thread to be locked.

So... here's a 2nd liberal Nobel Laureate economist coming out against the Geithner/Obama bank bailout. Should he go under the bus next? Are his ideas credible? Is it OK now to make fun of the size of his ass, like a thread over in GD is doing for Krugman? Shall we accuse him of hubris, egomania, paranoia, etc also?



edit: fixed link

[Teaser]

1. Sure, I'll accuse him of those things. And goatrape as well.

Maybe it's true. But it has nothing to do with the fact that I think he's wrong.

[paulk]

14. why do you think he's wrong?

[Teaser]

16. let me google my old posts

I have a really long analysis of the Geithner plan, and why it at least deserves a shot. see if I can dig it up.

[EmilyAnne]

63. Please find it and post it. Please? Thanks. nt

[n2doc]

2. Of course!

And don't forget to go to his blog and post nasty comments as well!

Hard to get a civil discourse on anything nowadays. One is allowed to complain once or twice, but if one makes a habit of complaining, especially about the same subject, one gets thrown in with the Freepers. Doesn't matter if the subject is War, Bailouts, or Israel/Palestine.

[defendandprotect]

3. Stieglitz is telling simple truth so many don't want to hear . . .

What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a “partnership” in which one partner robs the other. And such partnerships — with the private sector in control — have perverse incentives, worse even than the ones that got us into the mess.

And Obama is entrapping us in this "partnership" over which the public has no control--!!!

Wake up DU!

[Overseas]

20. Many of us who love the President would prefer nationalization of the banks

for a while, and sweeping reform to re-regulate them and let those who have gambled too heavily on toxic assets fail. We know that while our right wing media may characterize such moves as Scary Scary Commie, they really are not. They are just better financial management cleaning up the messes the Deregulation Bonanza of recent decades has left behind.

We want the financial system to work for us, rather than the reverse. When the deregulators talk about the Free Market, they seem to mean a market Free of Consequences for themselves, with most of the risk absorbed by the gullible taxpayers. We have had enough. We want re-regulation.

We need to reinvigorate anti-trust legislation to break up companies that have become "too big to fail."

I am glad that the G20 will be pushing for strict regulations in the financial sector. It needs major over-hauling.

We who love our President and still want much tougher controls on the financial sector should go ahead and urge him toward deeper reform. His friends from the corporate sector will be pushing for much less regulation than we need, and for taxpayers to absorb all their bad risks. So I hope the general public and economists that support a more sweeping overhaul continue to speak out for it.

[girl gone mad]

35. Which exposes the FDIC to extreme risk.

You know, that little agency that insures all of our bank deposits?

[defendandprotect]

42. FDIC has already been exposed to "extreme risk" -- remember S&L theft & embezzlements . . .?

That's the idea ---

The FDIC was intended to cover the occasional criminal activity at a bank or two --

not mass criminality disguised as bad luck and poor lending practices--!!!

They've pretty much done the same thing with the pension funds - in that case,

under-funding them based on estimates of very sunny profits!

In order to arrange these large steals there first has to be great distortion of law/regulations!

[truedelphi]

38. And let's face it - from some of the postings in this board -

The attitude is that economic matters are very difficult to understand. And it would take time and too much concentration to figure it out. So as long as Obama is so nice and so smart, let's cut him some slack and give him some time.

Never mind that a bad plan is a bad plan, and all the time in the world is not going to put out a fire someone is spraying gasoline on.

[defendandprotect]

43. Propaganda that you have to be an expert to understand theft is unbelievable . . .!!!

Evidently, the public woke up to the BONUS deals and if so they can wake up

to the rest of the criminal financial maneuverings!

They'll need a bit of help from someone like Jon Stewart or Keith Olbermann,

maybe -- but not much... !!

[quickesst]

62. Ha ha....

"Propaganda that you have to be an expert to understand theft is unbelievable . . .!!!"

...and yet, it seems very few can express what they understand without the help of the latest "expert" who has "nailed it." The nail so often referred to around here must have a head on it the size of an 18" pizza(mmmm pizza!!) to accommodate all those professional hammers. This is just the latest round of "My expert is more experter than your expert".
Actually, the repeat performances found here daily are getting rather tiresome in that nothing posted here will influence this one way or the other, and has for some time, detracted from the substance of DU. If someone needs twenty experts to explain the same thing twenty different ways, nineteen of those experts are wrong in some way or another. As long as the left remains so divided on this thing, the repug right is left to do maintenance on their GOP Slime Machine in preparation for the coming battles that will be waged full force against Obama, and the Democratic Party. I wonder how many will be "surprised" at the results. Thanks.
quickesst

[paulk]

68. actually -

I don't think the GOP is benefiting much from the left being divided over this. Voters are still going to give the new administration a lot of leeway, IMO, and will judge the Republicans on the strength of their counter arguments, which, judging by the most recent budget proposal coming out of the Republican House, are bordering on insane.

I think the debate over how to deal with the banks is one Democrats need to have. The Republicans are almost irrelevant on the economy at this point.

[ClarkUSA]

4. Ivory-tower economists can whine all they want. Meanwhile, the economy is recovering...

While Krugman and Stieglitz kvetch, the American economy turns from a bear to bull market, housing sales exit the red zone,
housing sales has gone up for the 2d month in a row for the 1st time in god-knows-when. construction picks up, future layoff
numbers drop for the first time in six months, consumer confidence triples since January, etc.

[terisan]

8. After the burglary, life does go on--just with more sacrifice on the part of the burgled.

So as long as we just give our money to big bankers and let our future selves and our children carry their debt life is ok?

Pay the ransom and we get to live. Pay the tribute to the kings and we survive.......

The bailouts were hardly necessary--they were done by choice.

[ClarkUSA]

11. Spare me the melodramatic pap...

1. Bush II was responsible for the TARP bailout, not Pres. Obama;

2. President Obama's stimulus plan is clearly working.

Since consumer confidence has tripled since President Obama took office, I feel free to say that "the burgled" disagree with your
negative assessment of the Obama administration's economic policies. I wonder what all of the naysayers will be saying a year
from now when the country emerges out of the recession? I'm sure Krugman/Limbaugh/Stieglitz and Co. will think of something
from the cushy confines of their well-heeled existences.

[paulk]

25. So now we're conflating BOTH Krugman and Stiglitz to Limbaugh

Way to go, dude!

And the "ivory tower" thing is a good start, also!

btw - this thread isn't about the stimulus plan - it's about Geithner's proposed bank bailouts. Do you have any specific criticisms of the article in the OP?

What do you think about this part?

"The main problem is not a lack of liquidity. If it were, then a far simpler program would work: just provide the funds without loan guarantees. The real issue is that the banks made bad loans in a bubble and were highly leveraged. They have lost their capital, and this capital has to be replaced.

Paying fair market values for the assets will not work. Only by overpaying for the assets will the banks be adequately recapitalized. But overpaying for the assets simply shifts the losses to the government. In other words, the Geithner plan works only if and when the taxpayer loses big time."


or this?

"Consider an asset that has a 50-50 chance of being worth either zero or $200 in a year’s time. The average “value” of the asset is $100. Ignoring interest, this is what the asset would sell for in a competitive market. It is what the asset is “worth.” Under the plan by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the government would provide about 92 percent of the money to buy the asset but would stand to receive only 50 percent of any gains, and would absorb almost all of the losses. Some partnership!

Assume that one of the public-private partnerships the Treasury has promised to create is willing to pay $150 for the asset. That’s 50 percent more than its true value, and the bank is more than happy to sell. So the private partner puts up $12, and the government supplies the rest — $12 in “equity” plus $126 in the form of a guaranteed loan.

If, in a year’s time, it turns out that the true value of the asset is zero, the private partner loses the $12, and the government loses $138. If the true value is $200, the government and the private partner split the $74 that’s left over after paying back the $126 loan. In that rosy scenario, the private partner more than triples his $12 investment. But the taxpayer, having risked $138, gains a mere $37."

[LooseWilly]

30. Here's a counter-question...

... and by the way, thanks for pulling those snippets- I really didn't want to read that whole article. I think the snippets answer my underlying questions.
But now here's the other side of the confusion- If the banks and whatnot which are over leveraged and under capitalized, if they are Nationalized... would that entail the Feds assuming all of the risks of those theoretical assets that are worth $0-$200? Would the reason to do this simply be the fact that the Federal Government is almost impossible to "over leverage"? And the possibility of taking all the proceeds?
And, are there some sort of debts that would have to be taken on too?... Or are the financial institutions in question not actually bankrupt, but rather so over leveraged that they don't dare make any more loans (adding to their self leveragization, as if that was a word...) until those theoretical $0-200 assets play out, and they can make some sort of appraisal of where they stand with regards to their own capitalization... If the latter is the case (and I barely understand what I just wrote), then would the government be expected to pay some sort of "eminent financial domain" reimbursement?... or are we just advocating taking shit because the guys who were running it before are idiocrats?
(I'm not sure I would object to the latterest possibility, but I think its a point that should be explicit, if it is indeed the case.)

Ohh yeah, and "aimless shout to fit in with the crowds" :nuke:

[paulk]

33. I think this article is worth reading -

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/stiglitz

not that it completely answers your question...

Seems like the gist of the argument is "yes, nationalization is going to cost us money, but at least it will fix the problem - the current solution will also cost us a lot of money, perhaps even a lot more money, and won't solve the underlying problems that caused this crisis in the first place.

I don't think any of us layman can get a real grasp of this - there's a reason they call economics the "dismal science". It's all a guessing game. The question is - who's guesses are you going to take, a couple of Nobel Prize laureates or some guys (Summers, Giethner) who were part of the system that caused this? And, to be honest, I couldn't even make that choice with confidence, when it comes right down to it...


---------------

There's another linked article from daily kos downthread that is also worth reading, imo -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/31/14929/9741?detail=f

[CaptJasHook]

66. This is on the money, pardon the pun.

The big argument on DU really has nothing to do with the plan. It is really about trust.

There are those on DU who will never trust Wall Street to do anything honest or beneficial. Geitner is connected to Wall Street and therefore we cannot trust his guesses. Those in the Anti-Corporate/Wall Street camp will wave the Nobel Laureate flag in order to show the credentials of their water carrier.

There are others on DU who wish to trust Obama, his intentions and campaign promises. They are betting on overwhelming success of the elections and choosing to trust the politicians whom they put into office.

I tend to trust human nature, both good and ill. My guess is that Wall Street has discovered how much it can push to make a profit. They will retreat from their excesses for a generation (until everyone has forgotten) and then some schmuck will start trying this all again. In the meantime, our collective outrage will summon the will to pass some regulation (with enough loophole for Wall Street lawyers and bankers to take advantage of later), we will rebuild what we lost and get on with our lives.


My hope is that in the meantime we pass some meaningful reforms that bring us closer to giving the freedom of education to our children, making sure single payer health care is passed and that unions are reinvigorated.

[paulk]

70. well said

and I don't think we have any choice but to "trust the politicians we put in office". The alternatives don't even bear consideration.

What bothers me is the partisanship that leads some to define trying to push those politicians in a certain direction as "opposing" or those that will defend everything on the basis of support for supports sake. Of course, then there are those who will oppose everything the President does through motives that are less than stellar, and that number includes as many on the far left as the far right.

Neither position gets us where we want to go.

[defendandprotect]

44. And William Greider -- always right there telling us what's really going on . . .!!

[girl gone mad]

36. Obama threatened a veto over the second half of TARP..

so he is at least responsible for half of it.

Also, if you'll recall, he personally lobbied Senators to change their votes on TARP I. He was very much for it.

[zalinda]

50. One of the reasons housing is up

is because foreigners are coming over here and buying houses by the dozen. In Detroit, they are selling houses at 10, 100 even 1,000 at a time to foreign investors. With these kind of bargains, why wouldn't housing go up?

zalinda

[Bluenorthwest]

64. Yeah, and the slight bump in 'starts'

also hides a nugget, which is that the starts are mostly for multi family units, ie apartments and condos, not single family homes. If you have property, and funds, but no buyers on the horizon, you build rentals. It is not much of a great sign at all.

[sendero]

52. The economy is recovering?

You freaking moron, 750,000 jobs lost in march and we're recovering?

You are what is wrong with America, you are an idiot.

[flyarm]

53. Clark usa..you are welcome to come here to Fla, and see how many grandma's

are now going to food banks, of many kinds..maybe one of them is your grandma?? See i go feed them on Sundays, and they don't want to tell their kids that they don't have enough money because their retirement funds and their investments now aren't worth a shit..

Or maybe you can come see who's buying all the foreclosed homes here..

where i live..beach property, the only sales have been to the British and foreigners..and those are few and far between!

I was just on the North east part of Fla..and drove A1A on the beach from Daytona to St Augustine..in less than 1/2 mile..I counted 214 homes for sale or under forclosure..214 in less than 1/2 mile..all beach front.

These property 2 years ago..would have been untouchable...now..they are DIME A DOZEN.

THE BEACH WHERE I AM ON THE West Coast of Fla..i have never ever ever seen so many properties on the market..forclosure signs everywhere.

A small local mall I went to last night..with a grocery store anchor..has 12 empty store fronts..12..

Every where I go here..there are empty store fronts..

Our brand new Huge beautiful mall, is now closing at 830 pm..because the mall is empty..and this is the height of our " TOURIST SEASON"..I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW BAD IT WILL BE BY SUMMER

This tourist season is the worst I have ever seen, and I have been here since 1982

WTF are you drinking when you say the economy is in recovery?????? Are you really this brainwashed?????????

Or are you too young to know what a good and bad economy is..or is it naivety????

[OneBlueSky]

59. pouring money on the problem solves nothing . . .

all it does is postpone the day of reckoning a little longer . . . at some point, though, these "leaders" in Washington are going to have to realize that printing gobs and gobs of money and then spewing it all over the very people who caused this crisis in the vain hope that they will somehow "solve" the problem is, and always has been, insanity . . . the money will keep them afloat a little longer, but the money's going to run out . . . and when it does, we're right back where we started, except that we're now trillions more in debt and are swimming in newly printed dollars . . . (hmm, wonder where that will lead?) . . .

Obama badly needs to sit down with the contrary economists, hear what they have to say, and debate their differences . . . it all has to do with his fundamental, underlying assumptions about the economy and our financial systems (capitalism is good, free trade is good, regulations are bad, etc.) . . . those assumptions need to be challenged and challenged hard, and an afternoon with Krugman, Stiglitz, Grieder and a few others might at least cause him to question some of his assumptions -- an absolute necessity if we are ever going to make any real progress . . .

Obama can choose between solving the problem and preserving the status quo . . . what he can't do is both . . .

[Lorien]

67. Provide links please

everything I've read shows the economy worsening.

[terisan]

5. Only a perceived conservative (Nixon) could go to China; only a perceived liberal can rescue Wall St

Reagan would never have been able to accomplish for the Big Banks what Obama has accomplished.


If a Dem president had tried opened up relations with China, that president would have been so attacked by Conservatives and Republicans he would have had to back off.

Only a perceived rabid anti-communist, like Nixon, could pull it off. The right wing base would not attack their leader in power.

Same with the massive transfer of wealth from the people to Wall Street---only a perceived Liberal could pull it off-because the liberal base is loathe to criticize. It has been effectively neutralized.

[Skwmom]

7. That pretty well sums it up.

Bill Clinton sure got a lot passed on the behalf of corporations: media consolidation, financial industry deregulation, NAFTA, gave China most favored nation status, etc.

But shhh.... we can't criticize Clinton or Obama, they have a D in front of their names.

[defendandprotect]

45. Just think how close Wall St. came to getting their hands on Social Security money . . .!!!

[chill_wind]

6. Stiglitz: A Bank Bailout that Works (The Nation)

4 pages

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/stiglitz

[SharonAnn]

51. Whoa. When I clicked on that link, Norton Internet Security gave me a serious warning:

Site is Unsafe

Norton Safe Web has analyzed this page and determined that the site is unsafe to visit. This Web site may attempt to install malicious software on your computer.

The site may also have some threats that are classified as Annoyance factors. These annoyance factors are not dangerous, but it can be a threat to your identities. Some examples of annoyance factors are hack tools, pop-ups, joke programs, trackware, misleading applications, and unwanted applications that install without your permission.

Symantec recommends that you do not visit this page.

You can click Full Report to get more information about this Web page. You can also use this link to provide your feedback on this Web site and to read user reviews from other Norton customers.

That's the first time I've ever received a warning like that from Norton Internet Security 2009 and I've been using it for four months.

[chill_wind]

58. Yikes? The Nation's website gave you that?

I'm running AVG, a firewall, and firefox with noscript and not encountering anything like that.

I hope your system is unharmed and OK! Here's an alternate link at the CBS news site:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/06/opinion/main4848007.shtml

[glitch]

9. Thanks for posting again. K & R nt

[Kolesar]

10. Need an "ml" at the end of that url/link

It did not execute for me. try this
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/opinion/01stiglitz.html

[paulk]

13. thanks -

fixed in OP, now.

[ProSense]

12. Is it worse than this:

March 31, 2009, 7:31 AM ET

Guest Contribution: The Real Geithner Plan, a ‘Nuclear Option’

By Guest Contributor

The Obama administration is seeking broad new resolution authority for banks, Peter Boone and Simon Johnson argue that the powers should be approved by Congress and used quickly and decisively. Boone is chairman of Effective Intervention, a U.K.-based charity, and a research associate at the Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics, and Johnson is a former IMF chief economist, and is currently a professor at MIT Sloan School of Management and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. They run the economic crisis Web site http://BaselineScenario.com .

The Obama administration last week proposed draft legislation for a “resolution authority” that would effectively permit the government to liquidate or restructure large systemic financial institutions. If passed by Congress, these powers would allow the governments to treat nonbank financial institutions more like regulated deposit-taking banks. This authority offers a clear path to recapitalize institutions without using taxpayer money and therefore avoiding some dimensions of moral hazard but, if implemented poorly, the existence of this “nuclear option” can cause panic in financial markets and substantially delay recovery. This fear may be with us already — despite all of the material and moral support already on the table, the market is pricing in the highest ever risk of default for Citigroup senior debt, i.e., about a one in three chance over the next five years. (See the credit-default spreads for major banks.)

Imagine what happens when these powers are passed. The U.S. Treasury and FDIC would immediately have the tools need to walk into America’s largest financial institutions, such as Citibank or Bank of America, and liquidate them, or rewrite their contracts and capital structures. Such powers are clearly useful: if the banks are undercapitalized, and private money is not available, then the government could force creditors to swap claims into equity, thus instantly recapitalizing the banks while avoiding use of taxpayer funds. With such steps, the problem of moral hazard, where creditors to banks are bailed out by taxpayers, would at once be forgotten. Shareholders in banks would lose through dilution, some (unsecured?) creditors would lose with debt-equity swaps, while the nation would be better off having a well-capitalized banking system. The banks would remain private but now be controlled by (ex)creditors.

However, today these powers don’t exist, and none of us know exactly how this authority would be used if it ever lands on Mr. Geithner’s desk. We’ll now have a healthy debate in Congress and then see revised versions passed and signed into law. But as this debate proceeds, creditors and shareholders in all such institutions will be nervous. We’ll be giving the Treasury a “nuclear option” and no one can be sure who is safe. A natural reaction by clients and investors of these banks will be to edge towards the exit immediately and to stay away until the dust has settled. It won’t matter whether institutions are solvent: Due to the uncertainty and risk of losses, investors and clients may run. We’ve seen repeated waves of such panics over the last year, and we can live through them, but each successive one hurts the institutions we are trying to save and delays recovery.

What should the administration do to prevent the panics that can ensue from this legislation? First, if they plan to use it soon, they need to pass this legislation quickly. There is good logic behind requiring creditors to bear part of the cost of restructuring, but we can’t afford to have this hanging over credit markets for months to come.

Second, once passed, the new authority should be used. There is no point in incurring the political and financial costs of passing this legislation now unless it is really needed.

Third, as in any major crisis, the aim should be to use this weapon once and decisively. If the government first hits one “weak” institution then another, and piecemeal restructures the sector, then investors and creditors will constantly “game” the system. This will drive down share and debt prices, forcing the government into action, gradually moving down the chain of institutions. We’ve seen this with successive panics at Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, Citigroup, etc. The most solvent institutions today could be made insolvent through higher credit costs brought on by the uncertainty, and the recession will be deeper.

more

[paulk]

15. can the Obama administration get this legislation passed?

On the face of it, this does seem like a precursor to nationalization. But, for me at least, it's hard to read motive into some of Obama's actions. It depends on how one sees him, I suppose. I haven't been able to work up the level of trust needed to believe there's some kind of Machiavellian chess player at work here who will implement, eventually, more progressive policies. I guess we'll find out at some point, but so far he seems to be coming down far more on the right side of center than left.

One thing that does worry me about the proposed legislation is how a future Republican administration would use it. I'm reminded of the repeal of Glass/Steagel - supported by the Democratic President and the majority of Dem Senators (only 8 voted against). I'm sure the rationale was that there were enough regulatory agencies and rules in place to govern any excesses the banks could dream up. Except then we got a Republican president who took the governor completely off and didn't regulate anything for two terms...

And now we're living with the result of that.

[ProSense]

17. Here's the most important part

However, today these powers don’t exist...

[amborin]

21. that's effectively same as nationalization: if their

bad plan doesn't work, then they will need to take over and liquidate

[ProSense]

22. That says they don't yet have the authority to seize those companies. n/t

[paulk]

24. I don't see why, though

the FDIC has already seized some banks. And Congress passed a resolution trust act during the savings and loan crisis under Bush pere. That was effectively seizing those organizations.

[truedelphi]

40. But bureaucrats love re-inventing the wheel. They live for it.

See the post right under this one as to other advantages of wheel re-inventing.

[truedelphi]

39. Hasn't there been entire OP's and discussion here on DU arguing that these

Powers already exist? Maybe I am again hallucinating, but it seems that just a few days ago these discussions were quite active.

Of course, Geithner and Bernanke both want Credit Default Swaps to continue. And if the pretense that these powers don't exist continues, then the Congress will indeed spend time reinventing the wheel in order to create legislation that has bigger loopholes than the legislation that already exists.

Which is probably the WHOLE point.

[ProSense]

46. They do not exist. No matter how often the facts stating that they do not exist are ignored.

They don't exist.

[paulk]

71. "facts" that come from a Wall Street Journal blog

are certainly open to question.

[jonestonesusa]

65. Good news...

Thanks.

[stillcool]

18. I'm going to be spending some time..

with this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/31/14929/9741?detail=f

it's a lot of reading, and to me much of it is a foreign language..but it is something I am going to keep reading until I get a good grip on it. An article here and there isn't cutting it for me. I can't form and opinion out of ignorance.

[Kolesar]

23. A Simple Guide to the Banking Crisis

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/a_simple_guide.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis
happy studying!

[stillcool]

31. I don't want another simple guide..

I want to understand.

[Kolesar]

37. It is well written...eom

[defendandprotect]

48. S&L "crisis" was simply theft and embezzlement . . ..

and this is simply overturning of regulations which protected us from

criminal capitalism and creating new regulations which permitted theft!

[Vidar]

19. K&R.

[leftofthedial]

26. Stieglitz and Krugman are correct.

The Paulson-Obama-Geithner plan is nothing but a needlessly complex MASSIVE giveaway to financial corporations.

In terms of creating a sustainable, healthy US economy from the ruins of what these same Wall Street crooks destroyed, every penny given to the banks is wasted.

They also are correct that it privatizes virtually all profit and socializes virtually all gain. It is a scam of the first order. Blatant. Criminal. Inexcusable.

[defendandprotect]

49. ... so is Wm. Greider who commented this week -- not flatteringly!!!

[ProSense]

27. Here's another thing to consider in terms of a plan:

Why didn't Krugman advocate Gordon Brown's plan?

[paulk]

28. red herring

and besides, Brown's plan had large elements of the Swedish plan, which Krugman has advocated all along -

as opposed to the Japanese model, which Geithner seems to be following.

[ProSense]

29. No, unless there is a clear contrast

to Geithner's plan---Brown vs. Geithner---this is not a red herring.

Brown's plan was not full nationalization, and it included aspects of the U.S. plan.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Maybe Stigligtz Is Right. Maybe He's Wrong

I don't have a Nobel Prize in Economics but to throw him in the same group as Rush and the Republicants is moronic.

[Danascot]

34. In the immortal words of DUer leftofthedial:

It's like trying to pump hydrogen into the Hindenburg.

[truedelphi]

41. That was so clean and succinct and

Explosive! (I'd forgotten which DU'er said it, but I'm glad I can give him credit now.)

[EndElectoral]

47. We need to listen when Stiglitz speaks. He's brilliant. Obama needs to heed his words as well.

[inna]

54. but but but but.... Stiglitz is a FREEPER!!

didn't you get the memo??


p.s. was someone actually "making fun of the size of Krugman's ass"??


oh dear. i don't even know what to say/write.

[paulk]

69. here-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5355341

[AtomicKitten]

55. No doubt Obama has considered all points of view.

While I understand the posting and re-posting of these vehement differences of opinion serves a purpose :shrug:, this is and has always been Obama's decision and I am confident it was not made lightly.

Regardless, the proof will be in the pudding and dire predictions of failure and worse are for all intents and purposes parlor talk. Nobody has a corner on omnipotent wisdom in these matters.

[Fiendish Thingy]

56. What evidence do we have that Obama has truly "considered" all points of view?

At the very least, he or Geithner could offer an effective rebuttal to Krugman, Stiglitz, Greider, et al...but they haven't as far as I've seen.

[AtomicKitten]

57. If we've learned nothing else about Obama over the last 2 years, he's no dumbass.

While I am not thrilled with the Clinton economic retreads in this administration, suggesting decisions have been made lightly or without counsel is ridiculous.

Nobody really knows the remedy for this economic mess for sure, yet there is a myriad of opinion out there. This administration doesn't owe anybody a rebuttal and, yes, I do believe Obama's has taken all points of view under advisement.

[SwiperFox]

60. ...

Are the blind posts defending this Republicrat scheme, pushed by Obama, made by paid sycophants?
I am truly curious as to what you guys think. Lots of our stolen money we're talking about here.
Surely they can spare some for infiltrators and propaganda.

[JTFrog]

61. Do the idiotic posts comparing Obama to Bush reek of republican infiltration?

The propaganda part seems to be in full swing there sport.

[SwiperFox]

72. Infiltrate this!

The Republican and Democratic parties are designed to play imbeciles against each other in a political sports game. Does it matter what team you are on if the elite own the stadium? There is only ONE party, the party of criminal corporations. Wake up!

[JTFrog]

73. I think you forget where you are. We support democrats here. n/t