Missing: A Plan to Fix the Economy
I thought Barack Obama delivered a great speech tonight. It’s only weak spot was this little ditty on his administration’s approach to the banking system:
[W]e will act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times. And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets, and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy.
I would be hard-pressed to say what that means. And yet the other part of the speech about the banks—the part about how rescuing the financial system isn’t about rescuing bankers its about rescuing the entire American economy—was spot-on. The idea of the stimulus is to close the gap between what we are producing and what we could be producing. But without a well-functioning banking system, it’ll be difficult-to-impossible for the economy to ever get off life support. Businesses with opportunities to expand need to be able to get loans. Obama’s plan for the economy is a three-legged stool—stimulus, housing, banking—but the banking leg is the most important one and it’s also the one on which the administration has been least convincing. I saw a poll showing that 80+ percent of the public feels more optimistic after Obama’s speech. I’ll feel more optimistic when I see a convincing plan for the financial sector.
58 Responses to “Missing: A Plan to Fix the Economy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 25th, 2009 at 11:05 am
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Obama and Geithner are being deliberately vague in their language about the financial sector, much like Fed Chairs when discussing their forecasts, in order to avoid spooking the markets.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Five months ago, I argued here that the Government should replace the bankrupt banks –not save them — by setting up a new National bank to lend to citizens and businesses. To quarantine the financial sector disease off from the real economy.
Last night, Obama finally seemed to get the idea:
“First, we are creating a new lending fund that represents the largest effort ever to help provide auto loans, college loans and small business loans to the consumers and entrepreneurs who keep this economy running. ”
Of course, it would have been better if he had seen the light $10 Trillion ago –but if you’re depending on Geither and Larry Summers for advice, you’re bound to end up buying several rounds of drinks for Wall Street.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:14 am
There are foreign policy issues with nationalizing the banks (why do you think Hillary went to Asia?). China and Singapore and many other Sovereign Wealth Funds own big equity stakes in some of our largest banks. Nationalizing them would wipe out our shareholders and since China has been toeing the line by launching their own stimulus as per US recommendations, it’s a touch subject for us to wipe out their assets over here.
When nationalizing your own bank due to insolvency becomes a foreign policy issue, you know you’re in trouble (and why Obama, Geithner et al have been as vague as possible on the subject).
February 25th, 2009 at 11:14 am
What Joe from Lowell said. I’m really at a loss to understand what people who make “criticisms” like Matt’s expect Obama to say. “Hey Citibank, yes I’m lookin’ at you, you’re insolvent and we’re about to take you over.” I mean, if Obama were that stupid I’d support impeaching him. Fortunately, he understands very well that a huge part of his task right now is NOT to frighten the horses.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Don’t go all Mickey Kaus on us now, being contrarian just to be contrarian. My Uncle Jim wants Obama to start manipulating the Dow Jones back up over 10000. My other uncle wants Obama to help him get a job and save his house. I mean, the guy can only do so much, and he’s doing what he can.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Matt wrote:
How much evidence is there, really, that this is a problem right now? Clearly lending standards have tightened, but they always do somewhat during a recession simply because default risk goes up. Also, lending standards for many things were clearly way too lax and going back to an era of bad loans will only perpetuate the problem.
It’s important to note that it’s not “the banking system” that we are really worried about. The FDIC and the Fed can handle all of the small and medium sized banks. It’s a small number of mega-banks, principally Citi, BofA and a couple others that are the problem. It is clearly in the interest of the shareholders & creditors of those megabanks to persuade all of us to give them free money. Framing the problem as “the banking system” is a good rhetorical ploy for them. Why progressives should want to buy into it I don’t know.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:27 am
“Hey Citibank, yes I’m lookin’ at you, you’re insolvent and we’re about to take you over.”
But management, don’t start liquidating assets or selling off your shares or anything.
Framing the problem as “the banking system” is a good rhetorical ploy for them. Why progressives should want to buy into it I don’t know. That’s a really good point. One under-appreciated lesson of this whole debacle is how fortunate we are to have a distributed system of small, local community banks and credit unions. That sector is solid as a rock, and oh yeah, tends to have Outstanding Community Reinvestment Act ratings. Which is unpossible.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:32 am
TURKEY TROTS TO WATER
Is the banking plan secret or just not actually there at all?
Are Summers and his protege Geithner vague, confused, or in over their heads?
When do we get a decisive break from crony capitalism?
What do people do when hope runs out and there has been no change, just more flim-flam like “public utilities” with a wind-mill stuck on their ponds of coal-ash, nuclear waste, and toxic-debt.
When do the lobbies for bond-lawyers, paper-hangers, arms-peddlers, and the pin-stripe pirates shut down?
THE WORLD WONDERS
February 25th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I get your point, but let me try to explain why some “people who make criticisms” make them.
If Obama had selected two tough, smart, retired Iowa bankers to clean up this mess, I wouldn’t need him to say ANYTHING about the plan. But when he chooses — and brings to the front and puts in charge — two clowns like Summers and Geithner who have been asleep at the wheel for years, he loses me. That’s when I kneejerkingly start going through all of Obama’s statements, trying to pick the pepper out of the fly shit.
Also, the criticism serves the constructive purpose of keeping these clowns honest, even if they’re now fully on board. I may be wrong, but I think Geithner, if left to his own devices, would waste another trillion dollars trying to “attract private capital.”
February 25th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Econobuzz, I agree with you, but Obama can’t and sure as hell shouldn’t make up for the presence of those questionable characters by running his mouth. So Matt’s post remains malapropos.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Re “Fortunately, he understands very well that a huge part of his task right now is NOT to frighten the horses.”
—————-
Unfortunately, Obama does NOT understand that when horses break their legs , you shoot them.
Quickly, so even if they are frightened they aren’t for very long.
Time to send Citi to the ole glue factory. And if you want to tell Citi it’s “greener pastures” so that it will hobble docilely into the trailer, that’s fine with me.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:46 am
But it needs to be done quickly, because the rest of the herd are getting anxious and show signs of bolting.
To carry the analogy further ….
February 25th, 2009 at 11:46 am
The real disconect in this post is that Matt himself was telling everybody to STFU about nationalization, and deny it all the way up to the second before they do it in one fell swoop… now he’s complaining that Obama didn’t announce loudly that he’s going to nationalize the banks. Hurwhaaa?
February 25th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I’m going to say this again for the benefit of those of you that haven’t figured this out…or aren’t privy to what’s going on behind the curtain.
Geithner has little if anything to do with this…This is all the Larry Summers/Rahm Emmanuel/David Axelrod plan — hence why its so vague. None of these three know what they’re doing and neither does the President. What they’re trying to do is put together a politically popular package that satisfies, the American Public, Wall Street, and most importantly, the left. That in my opinion is the problem. This is far beyond politics.
That having been pointed out again, I though the best comment of the night came from my wife (who’s done a couple of stints in the government as an auditor). She asked just how the President is going to simultaneously ensure that all of the folks that took out these terrible loans are not going to get a hand out…how government money is going to be used “properly” by the banks…overall, just how the Obama administration is going to provide oversight given the reality that they can’t even keep watch (on a good day) over DoD and how it throws away money. An IG to look over all of this…my wife laughed.
This is a joke…A total joke. And you guys on the left need to advise the President (who’s clearly over his head on all of this stuff) to start listening to some adults (like Geithner) or ever Rubin.
The United States can’t be run like some fiefdom in Chicago where payouts come first, and then….maybe…action. That’s the problem plain and simple. We needed leadership on this and no one (Republicans and Democrats) can provide it while their dropping money to their special interests.
One term Presidency…Really a shame…but you heard it here.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Even if you fix the banking system, why would any business plan on expansion when faced with new labor regulatins, new environmental regulations, higher taxes, new financial reporting regulations, new energy regulations, and new transportation regulations. Until all of those regulations are worked out and implemented, most businesses would be foolish to plan on an expansion. Why plan on producing something in the U.S. when the government could regulate the entire industry ouf of existence in a few months?
February 25th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Re DTM’s comment “We actually need a functioning banking system, one which holds onto these deposits and is making new loans, and I think that is something progressives can and should understand.”
—————-
But this $10 TRILLION rescue shows NO sign of doing that.
Our economy is cratering because the government has NOT restored lending to real businesses.
Even though it could have easily have done so by using the assets it’s dumping into bankrupt firms to instead create a new National Bank that lends to real businesses that are solvent.
This political pandering to campaign donors is threatening the United States of America in a very real way. The Republican committed an act of traitorous sabotage whoring for Wall Street.
But the Democrats are sabotaging the necessary rescue effort by trying to rescue some of the richest fuckers in the country from the consequences of said rich fuckers irresponsible behavior.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:52 am
And the push to nationalize is just another left-wing handout/wish. Its no different than the Republican hangup on drilling in ANWAR…All to stick it to the other sides special interests.
Neither is bright…And Matt really needs to shred the ThinkProgress memos on pushing for stupid ideas like that one.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:55 am
The big banks’ assets (loan portfolios) have lost so much value they’re worth less than the banks’ liabilities, and so they’re insolvent. Only choices are (1) write down debt (= some type of bank liquidation and/or reorganization) or (2) grab sheeple $$$ to change the balance sheet equations.
Obama’s choice: screw the wealthy bank owners/bondholders or screw the sheeple. With Wall Stree weasels Summers, Rubin, and Geithner calling the shots, game over.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Don Williams,
We already had national banks al la Fan and Fred…How did that work out for you guys?
This is not Dave…We’re not going to solve the economy’s problem by just lending the money that we print to any business that “needs” it. This is real life.
Honestly, does anyone ever learn from history?
February 25th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Re Ed Smithe’s comment “We already had national banks al la Fan and Fred…How did that work out for you guys?
This is not Dave…We’re not going to solve the economy’s problem by just lending the money that we print to any business that “needs” it. This is real life.”
——————-
1) The problems with Fannie and Freddie largely laid in the fact that they were NOT national banks — they were private enterprises free to buy favors from Congress. Even so, they didn’t fuck us as badly as the bastions of “free enterprise” seem to be doing.
2) Obviously, any time the government is involved , you run the risk of political corruption. But the problem is not government — it lies in not jailing or shooting fuckers who richly deserve it.
The predators in the “private sector” sure as shit aren’t restrained by any need to get and keep our votes. Nor are their crimes subject to scrutiny by the news media and Congressional opponents.
At the end of the day, the government has unrestrained power to grab every scrap of wealth in this country. You can either run government well or suffer the consequences. You can’t evade it.
Although a passport and a few pounds of gold buried somewhere would not be amiss.
February 25th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
My own hunch was that Obama et al just haven’t worked out what the actual plan is, but that Obama feels like they will soon. I’d like to believe that, but I’m not making any strong assumptions until we see it.
February 25th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
No GS-10 in the government, left to her own discretion, would have allowed this colossal fuckup to have happened. I didn’t advocate printing money and giving it to whatever business asks for it. But I think our Civil Servants could run a bank far better than the “private sector” has done.
Fuckups based on massive deceit are not allowed by civil servants. Try conning an IRS officer if you don’t believe me.
No — you need a Republican President , Republican Congress and a critical mass of two-faced Republican federal judges to create a mess like this.
February 25th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Don Williams,
“Five months ago, I argued here that the Government should replace the bankrupt banks –not save them — by setting up a new National bank to lend to citizens and businesses.”
This is an awful idea, as it would politicize the lending business even more than the CRA, Fannie, Freddie, etc. did. Maxine Waters would demand that the National Bank lend to one of her constituent’s businesses regardless of its credit worthiness, and so would hundreds of other members of Congress.
“Last night, Obama finally seemed to get the idea”
No he didn’t. He was talking about an already existing program to support the secondary market for lending.
“Unfortunately, Obama does NOT understand that when horses break their legs , you shoot them.”
This is a crappy analogy. If the horse is valuable enough, and if the leg is repairable, then you try to repair his leg, even if it means he’ll be in a sling for months. If not, there are usually more humane ways of euthanizing him.
“But it needs to be done quickly, because the rest of the herd are getting anxious and show signs of bolting.”
The analogy gets worse. If you want to keep a herd of horses from bolting, the last thing you’d do is shoot a firearm at one of them.
February 25th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
If it were me, I’d want to have a good hard look at the books of those banks (the “stress test”) before I signed off on a final plan.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Re Fred at 26: “This [a Government Bank] is an awful idea, as it would politicize the lending business even more than the CRA, Fannie, Freddie, etc. did.”
——-
Oh, I don’t know. I’ve been sending mail from one end of the country to the other for decades via a US government organization called the Postal Service — and the mail has always gotten where I sent it.
Rates have gone up slowly with time in line with inflation and are still a very good deal. I haven’t been suddenly told that I need to cough up $40,000 or the country will collapse because we won’t be able to send mail no more.
Part of this low cost reliability is that my mail carriers seem happy to do their job well for a modest salary. I don’t have to deal with a lot of arrogant $300,000/year Harvard MBAs focused on nothing else but how to extort money from me by coming up with creative ways to fuck me.
Or deciding that “innovation” requires that we send mail as ads on Internet sites or that we outsource mail sorting to some tribe in New Guinea because they’re cheap.
Maybe we should reeducate those Wall Street MBAs and CEOs. Maybe we should send them to work in the Postal Services for 4 or 5 years.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
It’s only weak spot was …
I think the speech had a couple other weak spots. Specifically, Obama’s insistence on continuing to talk about clean coal, and the crap about strengthening social security through “universal savings accounts” whatever the hell that is.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Don Williams:
“1) The problems with Fannie and Freddie largely laid in the fact that they were NOT national banks — they were private enterprises free to buy favors from Congress. Even so, they didn’t fuck us as badly as the bastions of “free enterprise” seem to be doing.”
No, they were only the ones that provided a market to those “bastions of ‘free enterprise’” to issue loans (regardless of how piss poor the customer was) so that they could get their greedy hands on them, all in the hopes of “making dreams possible.” And you’re going to tell me that they were “private” enterprises? Is that a joke? Do private enterprises, in this case banks, have the implicit backing of the federal government when they fuck up? Freddie and Fannie didn’t even describe themselves as “private enterprises.” Perhaps you should listen to them rather than trying to craft some kook reasoning behind their completely and utterly predictable failure. Where were you for the last 10 years to push for them to become “national banks?” Or was it that you had faith in them along the lines of such visionaries as Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and a few corrupt, moronic Republicans?
Perhaps “private enterprise” shouldn’t have issued those loans…But who can blame them when you’ve got the government ready, able, and more than willing to buy them up?
And your suggestions on running things better are completely and utterly utopian…Totally devoid of any kind of analysis of reality. Especially when you say, “you run the risk of political corruption” as if that’s something that just MIGHT happen.
Again, this is the real world…and human behavior is not something that one ought to approach with wishful thinking. Running things better? Is that really your answer? Honestly, that puts you in a long line of discredited left-wing revolutionaries that believed that they could conquer history.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Don Williams,
“Oh, I don’t know. I’ve been sending mail from one end of the country to the other for decades via a US government organization called the Postal Service — and the mail has always gotten where I sent it.”
Another awful comparison. There is no room for the Postal Service to politicize mail delivery, since it is required to deliver all mail with the appropriate postage. Banks, on the other hand, are not required to give loans to everyone who asks for one, and in fact, they can’t. That leaves plenty of room for political interference in deciding who gets loans, especially if one giant, government-run bank is doing the lending.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
You’re ignorant, lying or both. Fannie / Freddie’s combined market share actually DECLINED during the Wild West period of mortgage lending. In no way were they a major part of the problem.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
No Steve, you’re most obviously the ignorant one. Fan and Fred would buy up those loans and then turn around and repackage them through securitization and sell them off.
THEY WERE THE PROBLEM. Stop being ignorant and put the pieces together.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Rad what I wrote, moron, REAL SLOW until it begins to sink in. Their market share IN THAT VERY FUCKING ACTIVITY was declining.
Jesus, conservatives are stupid.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I guess MoveOn and ThinkProgress don’t have a talking point to respond to reality.
I’d imagine that people like Steve will encourage them to waste time and money to figure one out though.
It’s amazing to me that every single large think tank in town (left or right wing) is totally devoid of any logically thinking analyst. As much as you guys might like to ignore it, you’re no better than the Heritage Foundation when it comes to pissing away donations on politics.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Market share of what Steve? Does the talking point expand beyond that?
Market share of total lending activity? Market share of mortgages?
Do me a favor and cite the ThinkProgress talking points page and I’ll figure it out myself and then calmly explain to you why you’re wrong.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
BTW Steve, according to your man Andrew Cuomo…Fan and Fred were responsible for the purchase of nearly 80% of U.S. mortgages (many of which they would repackage and sell off).
Just how is it again that I’m wrong? It seems to me that 80% is a pretty tough number to beat…unless of course there’s a bank that’s buying up 81%. But I digress.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
DTM,
It depends on what your definition of “subprime” was. According to the folks at places like Countrywide and WaMu, they were pushed by Fan and Fred to fudge on this issue.
Do you really think that those banks would have issued loans without a buyer?
February 25th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Guys…It’s not just not adding up for you on this issue.
Do yourselves a favor and look at this apolitically…I promise I won’t tell your cocktail party friends that you’ve accepted that Fan and Fred were a terrible idea.
Look, if it makes you feel any better, you can tell my “republican” friends that I don’t believe in markets without government interference…and that I believe that the private sector is greedy…and that greed is a big part of this crisis.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“This isn’t an accurate description of the choices. First, a reorganization, rather than a liquidation, would likely require new financing from the taxpayers (or “sheeple $$$” if you prefer). Second, even in a liquidation, unless you are talking about not fully covering insured deposits, that will probably take some “sheeple $$$” too.”
In a liquidation or reorg, shareholders & bondholders get zip, assets (loan portfolios) are sold at auction and the proceeds are used to defray FDIC deposit insurance liabilities. FWIW, Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz says the banks should be allowed to fail (liquidated), otherwise were going to pull a Japan and pour endless public $$$$ into zombie banks. The only relevant $$$ metric is the net FDIC liability vs. the public $$$$ required to restore solvency. The latest Roubini estimate for solvency restoration is $3.6 trillion.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
And also, quit blaming Geithner. The guy is a complete asshole…but that doesn’t mean that he isn’t smart.
You can chalk up the falling markets and the continued malaise on the President, who thinks that Larry Summers, Rahm Emmanuel, and David Rov…I mean Axelrod know more about the economy than the dude who ran the NY FED.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Ed Smithe:
Market share of what Steve? Does the talking point expand beyond that?
Market share of total lending activity? Market share of mortgages?
Do me a favor and cite the ThinkProgress talking points page and I’ll figure it out myself and then calmly explain to you why you’re wrong.
Well Ed you don’t provide any links either. I’ve had conservative acquaintances spout these Limbaugh talking point to me also and I just don’t buy it.
Time magazine has a list of the 25 peopele most to blame:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350,00.html
and it looks like they feel the need to be “balanced” so they blame Fannie/Freddie more than reasonable (got to sell those magazines). The only link you could give are from conservative sites I bet.
The numbers show Fannie/Freddie were part of it but bad loans to poor people brought down the entire economy? Come on.
Obama’s speech was great and he did say “He gets it” that everyone is angry about giving money to the bankers who caused this crisis. I’m inclined to believe him, but we’ll see.
Matt: The idea of the stimulus is to close the gap between what we are producing and what we could be producing
More specifically it’s to prevent us from getting caught in a viscous circle. I thought Obama did a good job of explaining what he’s trying to prevent in non-faggy (see Idiocracy) terms. More importantly he laid out a sunny Ronnie Raygunesque vision of where we’re headed if we succeed. Louisiana gov Jindal’s response just showed they’re cocooning like Barry Goldwater. If the economy turns around in 2010 as Bernanke said it might if everything goes perfectly, the Republicans will get smashed.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
What DTM at #38 said (and I enjoyed Smith’s Clitnonesque weaseling in “response”). Of course, rightards like Smithe only “know” what Rush Limbaugh tells them. But who cares, really. At this point, they have 30% of the country with them in their delusional parallel universe, and the rest either pointing and laughing, or gazing meaningfully at lampposts.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Conservatives are apparently too stupid to use Teh Google, but it took me all of 30 seconds to find this link.
February 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
FROM:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-is-obama-reluctant-to_b_166572.html
“…tough love for bankers is being promoted by everyone from Nouriel Roubini, Paul Krugman, and Ann Pettifor to Niall Ferguson, the Wall Street Journal, and Milton Friedman’s old partner, Anna Schwartz, the co-author of his seminal work, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. “They should not be recapitalizing firms that should be shut down,” says Schwartz. “Firms that made wrong decisions should fail.”
The plan laid out — or, more accurately, sketched out — this week by Tim Geithner makes it very clear that he is on the wrong side of the issue, more worried about the banking industry than the American people….”
February 25th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
$350 billion into TARP, money spent because certain private enterprises were deemed “too big to fail,” you’re actually asking that question?
Good lord.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
And you say Arianna doesn’t understand the issue?
February 25th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Well, the consumer fooled the banker. So what you gonna do? Shoot the banker, give him welfare, or make him sell apples.
Either way, the consumer snookered these guys and they have no credibility. Get new bankers.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
As I understand it US banks have 7 trillion in deposits, at least 4.5 trillion of which are covered by the FDIC and approximately 45% of the deposits are with big mega banks. US banks apparently have 13 trillion in “assets” a high proportion of which are no doubt now classified as Level 3 Mark to Fantasy. I also don’t think ANYONE knows how those “assets” compare with the derivatives, off balance sheet debt, etc etc. So clearly at some point the US government will provide trillions to the banks if only to just cover deposits.
I figure there are 5 possibilities at this point 1) Obama is getting poor advice from his economic team who in turn somehow believe they can just turn back to the clock to the days of Allan Bubblespan. 2) Obama is more corrupt than I thought and knows zombie banks will lead to Japan style stagflation but has been paid not to care. 3) Sometime last year during the TARP and merger period the treasury and/or fed made explicit promises to not let any of the current players go under 4) Obama and his team know the zombie banks are insolvent and will be a drag on the US economy for years but have run the Credit Default Swap numbers and believe trying to settle the 64 TRILLION in derivatives would be worse 5) Obama and his team know the top 5 banks are zombies and want to nationalize them but are taking the FDR approach. “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.” Franklin D. Roosevelt Comment to a group of reformers.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Peter,
I provided you a quote from the center-left attorney general from the state of New York. Apparently he didn’t get the ThinkProgress memo. Look it up, because it completely counters your non-fact based argument:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2008/03/03/afx4725264.html
Just because you have no facts to back your assertions, doesn’t mean that I don’t. That’s the thing that emotionalists on both the RIGHT and the LEFT need to learn. That some of us aren’t slaves to our ideology, that we actually do analysis before we open our mouths.
You ought to try it sometime. It’s very liberating to have the ability to break away from the heard of sheep. Do yourself a favor and read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Its clear that a dose of stoicism would do your intellect well.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Steve,
Liberals like you are too stupid to connect the dots.
Again…WHO BOUGHT THOSE LOANS?
If you’ve got someone to buy those terrible loans from you…what are you honestly worried about…they’re no longer your problem.
For a bunch of folks that throw the term “greed” around so often, it’s shocking that you can’t see why having GSEs that bought 80% of the loans issued in the US is an extraordinarily bad idea.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Oh and Peter…do yourself a favor and start reading the Economist. You’re 18 now, you can handle a magazine that doesn’t devote 4 pages to celebrity news.