Recent Opinion in the NY Times

ajsango

Hi All,

I wanted to share with you an article that I recently read on the NY Times web site.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/sundown-in-america.html

I thought the author made great points on how to fix the current mess we are in with regards to the dysfunction of Washington and the sad state of affairs this country faces in the near future.

If you can comment or share with those you know - I think it deserves every concerned citizens' attention.

Thanks.
Ant

mikepegg44

ajsango wrote:

Hi All,

I wanted to share with you an article that I recently read on the NY Times web site.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/sundown-in-america.html

I thought the author made great points on how to fix the current mess we are in with regards to the dysfunction of Washington and the sad state of affairs this country faces in the near future.

If you can comment or share with those you know - I think it deserves every concerned citizens' attention.

Thanks.
Ant

pretty interesting take. I like the part where he points out that Republicans are as Keynesian as anyone else, just in a different way. But all in all, they bastardized keynes too. They created a lovely hybrid of incompetent spending habits.
I liked this part too-
Had President Bush and his Goldman Sachs adviser (a k a Treasury Secretary) Henry M. Paulson Jr. stood firm, the crisis would have burned out on its own and meted out to speculators the losses they so richly deserved.

The only thing I question is the numbers on the debt and where he got that analysis. He says the CBO estimates are too rosy, which is probable, but that seems like it simply takes the worst possible scenario into account.

I hope people read it with an open mind and not 'he worked for Reagan'...While it is valid to point out the sideways hypocrisy, I hope people just read his arguments and think about it for a while. There has to be a better way to tax and spend. There just has to be. There has to be a different relationship between business and the gov't that does not involve manipulating legislation and regulations and getting pork for campaign contributions....there just HAS to be and we better try it soon.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

I hope people read it with an open mind and not 'he worked for Reagan'...While it is valid to point out the sideways hypocrisy, I hope people just read his arguments and think about it for a while. There has to be a better way to tax and spend. There just has to be. There has to be a different relationship between business and the gov't that does not involve manipulating legislation and regulations and getting pork for campaign contributions....there just HAS to be and we better try it soon.

i haven't had a chance to read the article but in reading this it reminds me of Jeff Rubin who used to be the chief economist for CIBC (one of the major banks here in Canada) ... dude used to push the same agenda but now that he isn't tied to a bank ... he's singing a different tune ... he believes in the sustainable economy and building for little to no growth ...

DriftingByTheStorm

mikepegg44 wrote:

I liked this part too-
Had President Bush and his Goldman Sachs adviser (a k a Treasury Secretary) Henry M. Paulson Jr. stood firm, the crisis would have burned out on its own and meted out to speculators the losses they so richly deserved.

that doesn't even make SENSE?
Paulson was involved in the bailout planning, rather extensively, from what I understand.
just google "paulson bailout", and I don't think you'll find a whole lot backing the notion that he was going to let the thing just "blow over" and be dealt to "speculators", when "speculators" is a misnomer, and those taking the hits were the very banks that Paulson was beholden to (ie. Goldman, Morgan, et. all).

The only thing he ever really opposed in any half-meaninful sense of the term was the money to the auto makers.

Here's an article showing Paulson proposing the plan with Bernanke, and then urging for "swift action" to get 2\3rds of a trillion to his cronies to save their asses: Paulson and Bernanke grovel for cash...

i mean... "the crisis would have burned out on its own and meted out to speculators the losses they so richly deserved" ...
doublespeak huh ???

PS - also, the entire section sandwiching in that comment is a load of shit:
"There was never a remote threat of a Great Depression 2.0 or of a financial nuclear winter, contrary to the dire warnings of Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman since 2006. The Great Fear — manifested by the stock market plunge when the House voted down the TARP bailout before caving and passing it — was purely another Wall Street concoction."

and "The Main Street banking system was never in serious jeopardy, ATMs were not going dark and the money market industry was not imploding."

Says WHO?
The numbers were FUCKED. The amount of counter-party risk, unknown number of derivatives hanging off of these, adn systemic exposure was so epically fucked, how the hell can this guy just off-the-cuff toss out the notion that it was just "another Wall Street concotion".

I'd LOVE to agree with him, because its practically the most sinister dark commentary I've seen in a mainstream rag ... guy is practically accusing "wall street" of utter outright theft under duress with false motives, lies, and what is essentially the definition of "conspiracy" ... but he's wrong. Just really wrong. Things were fucked. They still are. But they would have been very very very very acutely fucked.

And then he goes on to rant about how very little of the money "went to the truly needy".
Who the fuck was talking about the truly needy in any meaningful sense?
This whole thing was about bailing out THE BANKS (and their associated industries) nearly EXCLUSIVELY. This money was just handed over to backstop systemic loss by providing liquidity and capital. AND THAT WAS MADE PLAIN IN THE RUN UP. There was no pretense here.
???

mikepegg44

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I liked this part too-
Had President Bush and his Goldman Sachs adviser (a k a Treasury Secretary) Henry M. Paulson Jr. stood firm, the crisis would have burned out on its own and meted out to speculators the losses they so richly deserved.

that doesn't even make SENSE?
Paulson was involved in the bailout planning, rather extensively, from what I understand.
just google "paulson bailout", and I don't think you'll find a whole lot backing the notion that he was going to let the thing just "blow over" and be dealt to "speculators", when "speculators" is a misnomer, and those taking the hits were the very banks that Paulson was beholden to (ie. Goldman, Morgan, et. all).

The only thing he ever really opposed in any half-meaninful sense of the term was the money to the auto makers.

Here's an article showing Paulson proposing the plan with Bernanke, and then urging for "swift action" to get 2\3rds of a trillion to his cronies to save their asses: Paulson and Bernanke grovel for cash...

i mean... "the crisis would have burned out on its own and meted out to speculators the losses they so richly deserved" ...
doublespeak huh ???

PS - also, the entire section sandwiching in that comment is a load of shit:
"There was never a remote threat of a Great Depression 2.0 or of a financial nuclear winter, contrary to the dire warnings of Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman since 2006. The Great Fear — manifested by the stock market plunge when the House voted down the TARP bailout before caving and passing it — was purely another Wall Street concoction."

and "The Main Street banking system was never in serious jeopardy, ATMs were not going dark and the money market industry was not imploding."

Says WHO?
The numbers were FUCKED. The amount of counter-party risk, unknown number of derivatives hanging off of these, adn systemic exposure was so epically fucked, how the hell can this guy just off-the-cuff toss out the notion that it was just "another Wall Street concotion".

I'd LOVE to agree with him, because its practically the most sinister dark commentary I've seen in a mainstream rag ... guy is practically accusing "wall street" of utter outright theft under duress with false motives, lies, and what is essentially the definition of "conspiracy" ... but he's wrong. Just really wrong. Things were fucked. They still are. But they would have been very very very very acutely fucked.

And then he goes on to rant about how very little of the money "went to the truly needy".
Who the fuck was talking about the truly needy in any meaningful sense?
This whole thing was about bailing out THE BANKS (and their associated industries) nearly EXCLUSIVELY. This money was just handed over to backstop systemic loss by providing liquidity and capital. AND THAT WAS MADE PLAIN IN THE RUN UP. There was no pretense here.
???

Isn't stockman arguing that Paulson should not have advocated for bailing out anyone? Not that Paulson didn't ask, but rather that he shouldn't have asked. I am not sure what you are arguing against there? can you be more specific? I am a bit confused, but mostly because your knowledge on the subject seems vastly superior to mine.

I was a bit put off by the lack of numbers he used, but the article was so long and scatteredthat I cannot believe more numbers would have made it more readable. I am basically self taught when it comes to economics, and have only made a small dent in the banking/investment practices area and am still learning, so take me to fucking school if you please!

DriftingByTheStorm

mikepegg44 wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I liked this part too-
Had President Bush and his Goldman Sachs adviser (a k a Treasury Secretary) Henry M. Paulson Jr. stood firm, the crisis would have burned out on its own and meted out to speculators the losses they so richly deserved.

that doesn't even make SENSE?
Paulson was involved in the bailout planning, rather extensively, from what I understand.
just google "paulson bailout", and I don't think you'll find a whole lot backing the notion that he was going to let the thing just "blow over" and be dealt to "speculators", when "speculators" is a misnomer, and those taking the hits were the very banks that Paulson was beholden to (ie. Goldman, Morgan, et. all).

The only thing he ever really opposed in any half-meaninful sense of the term was the money to the auto makers.

Here's an article showing Paulson proposing the plan with Bernanke, and then urging for "swift action" to get 2\3rds of a trillion to his cronies to save their asses: Paulson and Bernanke grovel for cash...

i mean... "the crisis would have burned out on its own and meted out to speculators the losses they so richly deserved" ...
doublespeak huh ???

PS - also, the entire section sandwiching in that comment is a load of shit:
"There was never a remote threat of a Great Depression 2.0 or of a financial nuclear winter, contrary to the dire warnings of Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman since 2006. The Great Fear — manifested by the stock market plunge when the House voted down the TARP bailout before caving and passing it — was purely another Wall Street concoction."

and "The Main Street banking system was never in serious jeopardy, ATMs were not going dark and the money market industry was not imploding."

Says WHO?
The numbers were FUCKED. The amount of counter-party risk, unknown number of derivatives hanging off of these, adn systemic exposure was so epically fucked, how the hell can this guy just off-the-cuff toss out the notion that it was just "another Wall Street concotion".

I'd LOVE to agree with him, because its practically the most sinister dark commentary I've seen in a mainstream rag ... guy is practically accusing "wall street" of utter outright theft under duress with false motives, lies, and what is essentially the definition of "conspiracy" ... but he's wrong. Just really wrong. Things were fucked. They still are. But they would have been very very very very acutely fucked.

And then he goes on to rant about how very little of the money "went to the truly needy".
Who the fuck was talking about the truly needy in any meaningful sense?
This whole thing was about bailing out THE BANKS (and their associated industries) nearly EXCLUSIVELY. This money was just handed over to backstop systemic loss by providing liquidity and capital. AND THAT WAS MADE PLAIN IN THE RUN UP. There was no pretense here.
???

Isn't stockman arguing that Paulson should not have advocated for bailing out anyone? Not that Paulson didn't ask, but rather that he shouldn't have asked. I am not sure what you are arguing against there? can you be more specific? I am a bit confused, but mostly because your knowledge on the subject seems vastly superior to mine.

I was a bit put off by the lack of numbers he used, but the article was so long and scatteredthat I cannot believe more numbers would have made it more readable. I am basically self taught when it comes to economics, and have only made a small dent in the banking/investment practices area and am still learning, so take me to fucking school if you please!

err. i think you are right.
The language just threw me off. "HAD they stood firm", seemed to indicate to me, "Had they gotten their way" ... but it still makes no sense to me, even if they aren't praising Bush and Paulson for opposition (to which they offered none) the article still epic-fails on the point of the need for the bailouts, imho.
We can argue our support for or against them, and if they did any real good ... but flat out saying that there was no systemic risk involved seems pretty absurd to me, given the numbers that I saw cited ALL over the place relating to the dollar amounts of the KNOWN contracts involved (let alone the strange derivatives that we couldn't quantify) indicated serious FUBAR, not just some "blip and then it will pass" type BS.

I do absolutely agree that the crisis was seized upon and used to further an agenda. I would even go so far as to say it was partly manufactured in the sense that if the media had just laid off of it, it could have stayed under the rug a bit longer, but it was there. and it was real. [being more sinister still, you could argue that the entire speculative housing boom, non-restrictive lending culture, and no-money down loan environment was entirely planned and deliberately used to instigate the crisis ... and i would even agree with that, potentially. but i don't agree that there simply was no crisis.]