« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Credit Markets Are Worried

We Need the Paulson Rescue Plan, But It May No Longer Be Enough

Yesterday’s somewhat anticlimactic news from Capitol Hill was that the Senate passed a new (and disgustingly pork-laden) version of the Paulson rescue proposal. Asian stock markets fell on the news, although overnight-dollar interest rates also fell somewhat.

The action moves back to the House of Representatives, which is expected to vote on the new draft on Friday.

In failing to pass the previous version the other day, Speaker Pelosi laid just about the biggest egg one can imagine. She made herself look stupid and incompetent, which is bad enough. She also made a big contribution to a growing perception that Congress just doesn’t know how to do what’s right for this country.

And worst of all, she managed to delay action yet again on an emergency rescue plan that should have been passed ten days ago.

The stock markets rise and fall with the expectations for Congressional action. Significant sectoral rotation is now occurring in the stock market. Financial stocks are rising sharply with the prospect of additional capitalization from governments here and overseas. But industrial stocks are falling as evidence appears that the global economy just slammed on the brakes.

And in the meantime, the credit and money markets, where businesses go for near-term funding, are in a state of near-catatonia. And they’re getting worse with each passing day that Congress spends trying to play politics and cover their backsides at the same time.

The question which is now being asked in a few quarters is: ”Has Congress waited too long? Even if they enact the Paulson plan now, is it too late?”

Let me give you a brief description of how the credit freeze is playing out, and how it affects you.


The vast floods of liquidity that central banks have been creating over the last few days are bringing down overnight-lending rates. The overnight markets don’t appear to be in terrible shape. But term lending (for longer periods than one day) is nearly non-existent, and this affects the availability of funds for businesses.

The market for so-called commercial paper (borrowings by creditworthy businesses for periods of 270 days or less) has become severely strained by high interest rates, even for the strongest businesses.

This tells you that people with money to lend (such as corporate treasuries and various kinds of investors) are not making those funds available to private borrowers.

So businesses are choosing to borrow less, which means they’re also working to conserve cash. This has an immediate impact on economic activity, as companies slow down their projects and their spending, freeze hiring, and do other things that are more characteristic of deep recessionary periods than of the slow-growth period we’re in.

The sudden unavailability of payments then trickles down to the smaller and less well-capitalized companies that do business with the big ones.

For the most part, large companies in capital-intensive businesses have enough balance-sheet reserves to weather the storm, even if it should continue for some time to come. But as they pull in their horns, the question is whether their smaller partners can do the same.

The consumer also plays a big role in this. Polling data shows that most consumers are quite frightened about the sudden crisis. I can tell you firsthand that many people ask me if their money is safe in the bank. (It is, and if you pull your money out of the bank, you’ll make the problem worse. So don’t do that, and tell all your friends not to do it either.)

And as consumers get scared, they pull in their horns too. The rate of new-car sales just dropped by about a third, across the board. We knew that GM, Ford Motor and Chrysler were hemorrhaging sales, but this hit the Japanese automakers just as hard. That’s a bad surprise.

So what happens if the acute credit shortage continues for significantly longer? If it leads to isolated business failures and unemployment in certain regions and certain industries, the damage is containable. If that happens and it begins to spread, the situation would become… interesting.

All of this is irrespective of whether Congress passes their $100 billion pork-barrel and incumbent-protection legislation, that includes as a footnote the Paulson rescue plan. Members of Congress, who worry first about keeping their jobs, and second about doing what America needs, may have fiddled long enough to let the fire go out of control.

What kind of emergency measures are likely to be needed in order to contain a credit-driven spiral of business failures and sudden unemployment?

By all accounts (I’m not expert in the subject), there appears to be a significant amount of lending capacity in the local and regional banking sector. This can take up the slack now that Wall Street is temporarily out of action, but it may require emergency changes to banking regulations.

We may need to allow banks above a certain capital position to temporarily increase their leverage ratios and decrease their required reserves. These actions could serve to increase the availability of short-term funds, provided that bankers themselves decide they want to shoulder the additional risk. More creative measures by regulators may be required to ensure the latter.

Should emergency regulatory relief become necessary in the banking system, the people on point will include FDIC head Sheila Bair, who has done an outstanding job in handling the crisis to this point. And of course officials of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, whose charter includes banking oversight, will be heavily involved too.

But there is something I want to say to Members of Congress, in both parties.

Through cravenness and indecision, you people are the reason this crisis got worse. You should have passed the Paulson plan, without embellishments, ten days ago.

If the Fed, the Treasury, or the FDIC now come to you with requests to authorize emergency regulatory forbearance, your job will be to lead, follow, or get out of the way.

BUT NOT TO SIT ON YOUR BLOODY HANDS FOR TEN DAYS, ASKING YOURSELVES HOW BEST TO SHIFT THE BLAME TO THE OTHER PARTY.

-Francis Cianfrocca

COMMENTS

  • bk

    He promised yesterday that if he became President we would never ever need any sort of other bailout. So to hijack a line from “Heroes” – “Save the community organizer, save the world!”

    After all, aren’t we confident that Treasury Secretary Raines and Budget Director Johnson will do us right while Attorney General Gorelick goes after all the greedy bad guys?

  • bk

    You mentioned some private sector impacts – Won’t we see them as well in growing parts of the country, where municipal-type bonds to build roads, bridges, schools, etc. will get delayed since buyers for these type bonds are becoming rarer? How quickly might that sort of thing turn around – or not?

  • olderthangandalf

    This is a long way from being played out. The bill we are about to get isn’t a fix. It may be better than nothing in that it provides some relief, but it doesn’t address the fundamental issue of bank insolvency (unless the plan is to buy crap paper way over any realistic value with billions of taxpayer dollars, which may indeed be the plan). More is going to have to happen.

    It’s also not just a US problem. Banks in Iceland, Belgium and elsewhere around the world are getting bailed out by their governments, and the Euro zone is busy figuring out its own stopgap fix.

    The next President will be very busy addressing this. To say that neither of the two candidates seems all that well equipped for the job is an understatement.

    I wonder sometimes how things would look different if the crisis had ripened to an emergency stage early in the primary season – if Bear Stearns or a similar bank had hit the wall just before Iowa and talk of a bailout was on the front pages then.

    I have to think we would be looking at a Romney – Clinton race right now, with the edge to Romney.

  • shawng

    More than one economist has said (including Harvard’s this morning on Fox) that as soon as this is decided “in any fashion”–including refusal to pass–things will begin to ease. The issue is not needing the bailout, the issue is needing a path to pursue.

    If the market is left to it’s own devices, capitalists ‘will’ come into the market in due course. What is needed are backstops for ordinary people trying to make ends meet. And an end to this idiotic debt spiral the economy is in. An end to the “affordable housing” boondoggle that created this bubble.

    Reinflating the bubble through the bailout will ‘not’ solve the problem. It will simply ensure that the problem is put off to a later date with a vengeance. The debt cycle has to end, the bubble HAS to collapse. The bailout is a political measure to try to put off the day of reckoning…at the cost of nearly another trillion to the deficit.

    It’s the equivalent of choosing to accept death from cancer instead of the pain of treatment. It may make us look healthy in the near term. But it’s fatal.

  • johnCV

    I disagree with the bailout for several reasons, but I can also understand the arguments for it as well.

    Francis correctly points out that this whole crisis has become just some political club with which to bludgeon your opponent with is utterly disgusting. I am a partisan, but the actions of the democrat leadership has indeed been craven, and if you believe that if this bailout goes unpassed the econmy will collapse, I would say even treasonous. I do not use that word lightly.

    Disagrements on principle are honorable and desireable given the gravity of the situation – debate about whether to forever alter the very economic foundations of our society is certainly warrented. However if your position is that this must pass regardless of changes it will cause, then it is incumbent upon you to pass only the legistalion that you believe will address the problem (i.e. give Paulson the funding) or vote no on the funding. For ‘pork’ to be added to entice certain memebers to vote yay or nay on the single most life changing piece of legislation in a generation is so foul it defies explanation.

    What we have seen in the last 10 days is an orgy of bad political theater, parties negotiating in bad faith and, with the exception of the House R’s, a denial of the wishes of the citizenry. These politicians are obsessed with crude and petty political machinations, rather than doing what is right (by anyone’s definition). The only calculus is ‘how can I make my opponent look bad and get more power’. This must be how later day Romans felt.

    In the past, I have looked upon democrats as the opposition who must be defeated. The last year or so I have slowly come to the position that the democrats are now my enemy who must be destroyed. Thier corruption, ideology and leadership are a cancer upon this nation and the Constitution. They have had a 60 year head start and may even prevail, but for me, the rules have now changed.

  • streetwise

    I posted this piece

    at THE MINORITY REPORT, which illustrates how the problem touches one area that most people are very familiar with.

  • hunter

    McCain acted in foolish but typical Republican good faith.
    The democrats have no interest in saving this economy until after the election.
    We frittered away our power when we had it, by lack of using it.
    The people seeking power now, if they get it, will not have any compunction whatsoever about not using their power.
    Think of Mexico and PRI- single party corrupt and impoverishing rule for over 50 years.

    • shawng

      To think that the Senate will ‘buy’ House votes to get this to pass is absurd. Any House member who flip-flops this should be made famous for putting graft above principles.

  • Jaded

    hell what’s 300 billion here 850 billion there…when you have hard working Americans getting up and going to work to lay the riches at your feet!

    • blackhedd

      The Paulson plan will give Treasury the tools to control the adjustments that will inevitably happen.

      The credit crisis is now fourteen months old, but the current acute phase is about four weeks old. Wall Street firms started the current phase with severely impaired capital positions due to losses in housing.

      Now that they all have to de-lever from 30-1 down to 15-1 or so, that cuts their effective capital power in half, in addition to the trouble they were already having.

      We’ve never had a global financial crisis before in which information flashes around the world at the speed of light. The systemic risk is that all kinds of perfectly healthy institutions get taken out, in addition to the necessary process of letting the bad ones die.

      Do you want your capitalism with shock absorbers or without?

  • enrique

    The thing that bothers me most about this bailout and the ones that began with Bear-Stearns is that the overwhelming problem is that we are overleveraged, right? Not just you and me with our car loans, big mortgages and credit cards but all the financial institutions and companies out there.

    So its sort of like a house of cards where if the value of anything goes down or the price of borrowing increases things begin to fail in a cataclysmic way. People kept borrowing to buy assets that seemed like they would never go down in value so they seemed like safe investments.

    Instead of attacking the Community Reinvestment Act or mark-to-market rules which confound the problem it seems that we need to address the real problem: the Federal Reserve and its artificially low interest rates. It sets these rates to encourage lending which encourages malinvestment. During Greenspan’s era he torpedoed the Fed’s rates after the dot com bust to avoid a recession. It caused a giant bubble that we are simply working feverishly (and seemingly hopelessly) to keep from popping at the expense of our future economic freedom.

    Too much stuff is overvalued and the prices need to reset. Throwing money at it or buying securities or offering mortgage relief will only do the opposite by encouraging more capital outlays into areas that need less. The markets are frozen in part because no one wants to get in when it looks like the government will give them something for free. Let’s just get out of the way and let the market do its job. We do still believe in the free market, right?

    • Harold_Vaughn

      The whole world has been in standby mode for almost two weeks. This has given everybody some time to think about what needs to be done. I don’t know if that is good or bad, but it appears from what you have written that it would tend to be a good thing.

  • wsjreader

    I project the $700B bailout will do very little to calm the credit market. The central banks around the world have already injected massive amount of ‘liquidity’ into the system, but the credit market has shown no sign of improving.

    I believe the Fed/Treasury/economists are missing the boat here. It’s no longer a liquidity crisis, it’s a solvency crisis. Basically, banks are so fearful of being insolvent, they have to boost capital ratio, stop lending and preserve cash. The central banks can inject money into the system, but the banks will simply either hoard the money, or purchase the treasury bills in anticipation of further deterioration of the situations.

    When this credit crunch leads to real damage in economy, the vicious cycle will force banks to tighten the lending practice even further and not take any risk of lending.

    Basically all the money pumped into the market by central banks will go back as reserves.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Your point is well taken this should have been passed, unadulterated, many days ago. My general attitude to let the chips fall where they may was driven by the pork and other non related measures which would be attached to this bill. Congress, as usual, has delivered nothing worthy of our support.

    We therefore now have a bill which is most likely inadequate to provide any meaningful long term relief. It also does nothing to address or show a realization of the fundamental issues which brought about this crisis. In fact, attached we have measures that actually add to the terrible legislative lending fiats which brought us to the precipice- I am speechless.

    In my entire adult life, I have never been so disappointed with Congress, and I am a hopeless optimist. As we watched McConnell, Reid and especially Dodd speak last night both Democrat and Republican alike threw things at the TV and booed. I have never seen that kind of unity amongst my colleagues, NEVER.

    Here we have a bunch of men that brought us this mess leading the charge towards a solution? Worse than that, they put pieces of bad, unrelated or otherwise neglected legislation into this bill? What in Heaven?s name did we elect these people to do? Absolutely stunning.

    I have zero faith Congress will ever pass additional legislation which will address the root causes, lower the corporate tax rate, suspend capital gains taxes or take up any of the any measures which will abate this crisis. This group would probably need to add funding for studying the mating habits of Polar Bears in order to get any of that passed. I therefore prepare for the worst, knowing also the MSM is shilling for a Presidential Candidate whose economic dearth is only outstripped by an overt, comprehensive lack of good judgment and experience.

    • Dave_in_Fla

      It doesn’t just inject liquidity, like the Fed did earlier this week. It also removes the toxic debt from the bank’s balance sheet. You get both additional capital injected into the system, plus removal of portfolio assets that were paid for, but can’t be sold.

      Once the banks have that capital available again, they can reissue it as good debt.

      • bk

        If I followed this mess correctly, the 451-page bailout isn’t actually a bill per se, but rather an amendment to a bill that contains the pork.

        So the people who vote for it will say the bailout doesn’t include any extra pork, which is sophistry but will fly with the MSM of course.

        It was done this convoluted way because as a bill it would have had to originate in the House and the Senate couldn’t have acted on it until the House passed it.

  • Leon_H_Wolf

    There are about 165 of them on my list, including my former boss and current rep. If their pandering leads to depression, I will see them run out of office.

    • Dave_in_Fla

      Because the House shirked their duty on Monday, the Senate had to save this by amending an existing bill with the bailout package.

      The “pork” was already in the bill the House passed in March and sent to the Senate. The only additions were raising the FDIC insurance limits and the accounting rule changes, both of which are good improvements to the bill and arguably zero cost to the taxpayer (provided a bank doesn’t fail).

      All of these “pork” accusations are terribly exciting, but very disingenuous.

      • wsjreader

        In theory, yes, in reality, a big NO!

        If the bailout plan was passed ten days ago, it would take months for treasury to set up the mechanism to actually purchase the toxic assets and help banks with their balance sheet.

        The credit markets won’t wait, and the banks are facing collapse at any moment’s notice, and they will NOT put their faith on some grand plans months away. Their survival instinct is to preserve cash, boost capital ratio first, not to take risk of lending under such uncertainty.

        The proper measure is not some grand bailout plan, the proper measure is for central banks and treasury to take innovative, executive measures to reassure banks that they should not fear of going under.

        • Neil_Stevens
          • Dave_in_Fla

            So it doesn’t really matter if we try to save ourselves or not, does it?

          • Canthros

            That right there is a serious load of nightmare fuel.

          • wsjreader

            It’s worse than that. A bailout plan of a staggering price tag will only weaken dollars in the long run. The US households have huge amount of debt, the deleverage process is long overdue.

            This bailout plan is simply to prolong the painful process and increase the deficit in the long run.

            Watch out the markets. I strongly believe Dow is way overvalued with the deep recession around the corner. I can’t believe it’s still above 10,000. 8,000 might be a proper level at this point.

            As the author said, the real story is NOT stock market, it’s the crisis of credit markets. Average voters/Washington politicians simply do not understand this, they have no idea about the concept of credit spreads and the dire consequence of elevated spreads.

            Fed can lower the interest rate to ZERO but it won’t save the day. I fear for a duplicate version of Japanese economy for the past ten years. Although it probably won’t happen as US consumers are far more aggressive than their Japanese counterparts.

          • birdmojo

            Now NOT voting for an additional $700,000,000,000 is pandering?

            And you got the $700,000,000,000 you wanted, hurray. If the $700,000,000,000 doesn’t work, will the argument be that we got the $700,000,000,000 the first week of October instead of the last week of September and your plan totally would have worked if only it had been properly tried?

            Why not go whole hog and say “well, the plan that would have worked 100% went under, let’s try the “capitalism” thing and, when it fails, we can hold our middle fingers in the faces of the free market zombies as they moan “I don’t understand what happened, the invisible hand should have worked.” Assuming, of course, you aren’t leading your children in a Mad Max-kinda gang across a nuclear-ravaged wasteland culminating in your going up against Auntie Entity.

          • johnCV

            Dave, I understand your point about using the existing Bill as a vehicle to get the Bailout passed. Where your argument falls short is that the Senate amended the original pork laden POS House bill to add the Bailout funding and FDIC increases. If they changed the Bill for some things, why not others? I’ll answer – they needed the imbedded graft for loathesome congressional members who required it as a tribute for thier support. For these despicable public ‘servants’ it is not enough that if you believe the Bailout is required to save the intergalactic economy, you would be willing to vote for it on principle because it is best for America. No, they needed a way to get something more, or to smash the other party in the mouth or aggregat more power.

            They have raised pettiness and corruption to an artform.

          • malbis

            …and I am amazed at the number of people who are already making excuses and pointing fingers of blame at the Bailout Bill not being passed quickly enough as a reason disaster will happen.

            What happened to the predictions that the Market would fall 1000 to 2000 points last Monday if a deal wasn’t hammered out over the weekend? What happened to the predictions that the Next Great Depression would start if Congress failed to pass the Bailout?

            The predictions were flat-out wrong.

            Look at what actually happened. The Dow fell 777 points after the surprising spine shown by House Republicans and the defeat of the Bailout. And then it recovered about 500 points the following day after the shock wore off. Net drop–about 270 points (and another 20 points down on Wednesday for a total loss of about 300 points after the Bailout was defeated.)

            Or…about the same number of points the Dow has dropped today after the Bailout passed the Senate.

            The Bailout is still wildly unpopular with the average person. It looks like passing the Bailout is not going to work–and excuses will fly as wildly about why it won’t work as claims that the sky was falling last week flew–but the upshot will be that the 70-80% of the public who do not want the Bailout will believe that they were right all along.

            And they might just be right. I think that they are–I have never been in favor of it.

            What happens when it fails? Who takes the blame? Who takes the political hit? And who is left standing to actually fix the problems we are heading into?

          • enrique

            We have been living in a fantasy world for some time now. The notion that central banks can control the creation of capital has run its course. Why it’s all falling apart right now is probably something that books will be written about.

            A sound monetary policy is something that this country (and every other country in the world) has not had for a long time. Our federal reserve has for years encouraged a fractional reserve banking system. This means banks are required to only have on hand a fraction of what their total deposits are.

            This was a way to expand the money supply but now they realize that the values of their securities holdings aren’t worth much and they are trying to hoard cash and build up their reserves to avoid imminent failure.

            Nothing in this bill changes the fact that most banks are basically insolvent. The ones that were prudent and saved cash and didn’t invest deeply in the mortgage craze are safer. But essentially the FDIC (and increasing its deposit limits) does nothing to address the fact that there is not enough money in the bank to pay its depositors.

          • speciallist

            n/p

          • liberalrepublican

            Republicans want to wrap the crisis up in a nice tidy bow and blame Democrats (and D’s deserve a TON of blame), but the truth is that the fed messing with the economy and keeping interest rates artificially low took all the “self correction” off the market.

            Government intervention messes everything up.

            Clear?

            Now, we have a choice – more government intervention ($700B worth) or the pain of the past intervention.

            I would rather pull the bandaide off all at once.

            NO SOCIALISM.

          • enrique

            on Monday and it didn’t help. the fundamentals of the financial system are *not *sound and the overleveraging has to end. We can’t end the coming economic slowdown/recession/depression by leveraging our way out of it.

            That doesn’t make any sense. Any more than having a government that meddled in the market and causes bubbles should be given more power to meddle as in the Paulson Plan.

  • asleep06

    “The stock markets rise and fall with the expectations for Congressional action. Significant sectoral rotation is now occurring in the stock market. Financial stocks are rising sharply with the prospect of additional capitalization from governments here and overseas. But industrial stocks are falling as evidence appears that the global economy just slammed on the brakes.”

    Maybe the reason Americans aren’t buying stuff is because we’re about to be saddled with $700+ billion in additional debt, about $5000 for every working man and woman in the US.

    I can’t afford to spend or invest money because the government’s doing it for me.

    With this bill, you’ve just entrenched the decline of every other industry in America that people would have spent $700+ billion on. Nice work.

    Let’s see how your investment turns out, Dear Centralized Planners.

    Then again, if this is too late, there’s always the option of scuttling the bill…

  • skey

    …should it be passed at all?

    This is a serious question. If this sharp, precipitous move towards socialism won’t be enough, is it still worth it?

    I don’t claim to know enough about the markets to be able to know what’s really needed, but here’s what I see. On the one side, there are people like Blackhedd, Paulson, and a bunch of economists who think we’re headed towards a great depression if we don’t do something, and quick. On the other hand, we’ve got a large number of economists who say the other thing. And on the gripping hand, we’ve got Congress, who presumably have all been briefed at a much greater level of detail than we have, who evidently don’t believe it’s much of a crisis at all.

    On the whole, I probably would have supported the bailout initially. But if we’re going to get the depression anyways, why do the sharp move towards socialism and government-planned economy?

    • asleep06

      I’m trying to figure out when it will occur to all these Keynesians that all these bubbles are coming from their attempts to defuse the previous ones with more government meddling.

      Each bubble is growing bigger than the last, but these people still don’t have a clue about what that trajectory means…

      • asleep06

        Not cheap plastic ones that break and exacerbate the future shocks.

        I want a capitalism where private companies and individuals to do their own shock absorbing, and when they don’t, they pay the price.

        • enrique

          The real threat we now face is not when the correction and depression hits, it’s whose ideas prevail and what thinking is used to solve the crisis. If we continue to turn to the Fed we put ourselves at risk for further inflationary policies and misery. We will no longer be the leader of the world economically if we continue this spending.

          No one will buy our debt. No one will want our dollars.

          We need to now get people into understanding what Ludwig von Mises taught us about the depression and modern economies. The Austrian model of Economics explains everything that is happening.

          I have no hope for the Democrats supporting free markets, the only hope is within our party – and we need to do some educating quickly.

          • blackhedd

            The financial system needs to recapitalize. Now that we’re deleveraging everything (and believe me, we won’t see 30-1 ratios ever again in our lifetimes, except at Fannie and Freddie), additional equity needs to come from somewhere.

            The Paulson plan is a way of directing fresh capital into the financial system precisely from those investors best positioned to do so: foreign central banks.

            The only difference is that the credit re-insurance is being provided by the taxpayers.

            Yes, this is risky. No, it’s not as risky as letting the system find its own level.

          • Dave_in_Fla

            I’m not sure that the Senate can remove items from an already passed House Resolution, except in conference.

            Or are you claiming that the Senate had a buffet table laden with passed HRs and picked the one with the most pork in it to get the House to change its mind?

            If that is your contention, then you have missed your calling and should be writing mystery novels instead.

            On the other hand, if you are calling the FDIC change “pork”, then you have a vastly different definition of that term than I do.

  • Leverkuhn

    … I wasn’t thrilled about the bailout plan at first, but I’ve come around. I’m ready to swallow this crap sandwich for the good of the American people. I just wish Congress didn’t need a side of pork to be able to eat their portion.

    • enrique

      Signing up to give away our economic freedom is never the right answer. Once you give it up it is almost impossible to recover.

      Let’s all accept that a correction is necessary and one that may be a “depression” but that it is unavoidable. There is capital that is misallocated and only by the market’s creative destruction can we get moving forward again. Encouraging people/businesses/governments to borrow more is the exact *opposite *thing we should push right now.

      • aaronbg

        If the risk in the Gov’t purchasing these assets is the camel’s nose under the tent, that sets precedent for continued bailouts that lead to the govt “owning” production and the probability of that occurring is 60% then I would say that is worse than say the risk of the free-market not being able to correct itself and the govt being truly forced to step in, which I give a probability of 30%.

        So which one is truly the greater risk. Since at this point all we are doing is playing a game of risk management.

        • enrique

          that we need to really decide whether
          1) We want to allow the federal government to have equity stakes in a lot of the financial industry – lots of potential for mischief now and in the near and distant future.

          and

          2) We think that further borrowing by the US Governtment (which is by extension the American people) will solve the overleveraging by businesses.

          The federal government already spends far more than it collects in revenue and has been paying for its social and military ventures with borrowing. Well at some point central banks, investors, whoever realize that the United States is insolvent. I’d rather cut things off now and try and rebuild rather than lock the government into having ultimate control of all things financial and allow the same managers to continue trying to ‘manage’ the economy.

          • reldim

            Read the original post and you can probably see why this problem is bigger than just credit and liquidity – it’s about fear. Even if banks get liquidity and have funds, something needs to be done to get the bankers to actually lend that money.

            And the thing driving the “populism” of all this is fear. Who wins the game in a climate of fear – the lifelong politician who’s never even had to read a balance sheet let alone run a business – or the guy who successfully ran business, knows finance, understands economic questions – and has already saved an enterprise that was teetering on financial collapse (the Olympics). Romney would get the edge not because he can out populist Clinton, but because he would be in the best position to calm the public’s fear – to get them to feel like the guy in office knows the deal and knows what should and shouldn’t be done.

            Forget the idea of this all happening in January. If it had happened a mere 5 weeks ago we’d see a different race – Romney would be the VP nominee, and probably Clinton on the other side – and we’d perhaps all be better off with that scenario.

            As it is, McCain needs to get Romney on board with being his Treasury Secretary and get that announced. The guy that looks like he’s already planning for this to be the issue he’ll be dealing with for the first year plus of his presidency may get the edge in the public confidence match.

          • Neil_Stevens

            I don’t think it’d matter who the VP nominees were: Paulson would have published his plan, and people’s guts, left and right, would have strong reactions against it.

            If this feeling had come before VP selection, then a wealthy investor would be the last guy any ticket would pick.

            I think Romney would think he was the right man for the moment, but people’s emotional reactions would be just so strongly against him, or at least what they imagine wealthy investors to be like, that he would have no chance.

          • gamecock

            plan that failed in the House? In other words is it the improved version from the original Paulson plan?

            Has the SEC done administratively to the mar to market that we wanted? Have they done enough on that re-re-interpretation?

            And Blackie, isn’t it true that no matter if this plan was passed 10 days ago of 10 days hence or some other plan, that we were and are in for a hard time for at least a year more given the size of the mess?

            And doesn’t the $700B addition to the national debt portend ominous falls of the Dollar over the next 6 months that will cause gasoline to rise again?

          • Marcus_Traianus

            According to most of our government, I have gone over to the dark side so lets make this quick. Pork is a noun, informally meaning ?appropriations, appointments, etc., made by the government for political reasons rather than for public benefit, as for public buildings or river improvements?.

            Now, I can be a bit mentally hebetudinous when trying to multitask, but there seemed to be a large amount of the pages which had nothing to do with the crisis exigency. So is it an emergency or not? Ah, a question for the ages. But rather then address the immediate need, this tells me Congress had adequate time to sit down and determine, over steaks at Bobby Van?s, what completely unrelated nonsense they could put in this emergency bill. You?ll forgive me if the whole episode appears knavish, which is by the way, where I place your comment- but that?s just me.

            One might further hope they would realize this is a bailout of the government since they legislated that financial institutions were required to make these loans (it was for the ?little guy?); even in view of evidence this ?crisis? was the end state. However, they did not include revising those regulations in the bill which in fact perpetuates those practices, and indeed this entire situation with some new fiats. Amazingly your Congress is also putting the same buffoons creating this crisis out front at the press conferences as fine examples. This tells me Mitch McConnell either did a secret handshake with Democrats or has been kidnapped and cloned by aliens, you choose.

            There are additionally no indications Congress or Obama have any clue about what the next steps would be. Otherwise they would be behind ideas such as suspending capital gains or lowering the corporate income tax rate, now, not after putting fingers to the wind or long stammering periods interrupted only by ?uum?.

            So get ready, we will get the $700 billion. But based on the current course of action, I would get ready either for this to continue in the current state for some time (it?s the whole we are cleaning up the Republican-Bushy mess) or be kicked down the road a few years for a different generation to deal with

          • johnCV

            Or are you claiming that the Senate had a buffet table laden with passed HRs and picked the one with the most pork in it to get the House to change its mind?

            Ok, so it’s your contention the Senate can only ADD to a Bill passed by the House? They are somehow blocked from DELETING items from a House Bill? That’s what conference committees are for, to hash out the differences. Once reported back to both houses, THEN they must vote up or down .

            I have no idea how many other Bills have passed the House and awiat the Senate to take them up – I can only imagine given it’s miserly pace that this was not the only Bill available. My point is that this particular Bill was chosen because it’s rife with politcal payolla that would entice more dems to vote for it (perhaps at the sacrifice of some fiscally conservative R’s – but who cares, the MSM will paint this a dem’s saving the country over the bitter partiusanship of the R’s).

            Regarding the increase of FDIC limits of $250K vs $100K – big deal. Now you can have 1 account where before you had to have 3. There is no essential changes made other than that of convenience. This a payout to the banking lobby who were pissed off that the USGovt is now going to bailout the moneymarkets (thier direct competition).
            So yeah, it is pork, just fat free.

  • Mr_Green

    The market for so-called commercial paper (borrowings by creditworthy businesses for periods of 270 days or less) has become severely strained by high interest rates, even for the strongest businesses.

    This tells you that people with money to lend (such as corporate treasuries and various kinds of investors) are not making those funds available to private borrowers.

    I thought the idea of the bailout was to convince those “people with money” to start lending again. If its too late for the bailout to do that, whats the point?

    • shawng

      166 economists nationwide say these “shock absorbers” cause more damage than the problem. In fact, I have YET to hear a professional economist who actually has said this plan is a good idea. I have heard several explicitly say it is an unmitigated disaster in the making.

      No, I don’t want business to get a disincentive to succeed. I want private citizens who are going to take the beating for this on the daily level to get protection for the worst of the market’s viscitudes.

      The Paulson plan gives excessive and unconstitutional powers to the executive branch in the name of a panic that is, largely, self-created.

      The best thing government could do is take this chance to overhaul and/or remove the actual cause of this problem: GSEs. But the plan does nothing to do that. So the free market isn’t going to have shock absorbers. The free market is going to be sent out on guide rails. And it will repeat this problem, sooner rather than later.

      The debt cycle has to end. Period, if it doesn’t, it will cause far more issues than are dreamed of by the doomsayers. This whole plan is bad economics, bad politics, and unconservative.

  • Jack_Savage

    “We Need the Paulson Rescue Plan, But It May No Longer Be Enough”

  • Whitfox

    “The consumer also plays a big role in this. Polling data shows that most consumers are quite frightened about the sudden crisis. I can tell you firsthand that many people ask me if their money is safe in the bank. (It is, and if you pull your money out of the bank, you?ll make the problem worse. So don?t do that, and tell all your friends not to do it either.)”

    Paulson and company have been telling everyone of immediate financial collapse. What did you expect to happen?

    That the markets are doing so well, despite every attempt to collapse them, is a testimony to their strength.

    I’ve no problem with a liquidity-enhancing bill. But that’s not what the Paulson plan is designed to do. It just funnels more money towards banks that are too damaged and scared to lend to anyone. As you said, it’s time to look at altering Fed regulations. Let them direct money to banks that can and will lend.

    Unfortunately, as long as the Paulson plan is in play, nothing else is going to be considered. Don’t be angry with the Senate for loading the bailout with delay and pork. Be angry with the Senate for keeping this distraction alive.

    • Pentagon16

      You seemed pretty intelligent until you mentioned that the Congress has beeen cooking this obscenity over steaks at Bobby Vans.

      That is NOT a Washington area meeting place for the potentates of the Potomac. I think you meant the Caucus Room off of Pennsylvania Avenue..

      • Marcus_Traianus

        Bzzzzzt.

        The folks I have seen there are still in Congress, for now anyway. A bit off the beaten path and the quality is not that good, as say, Palmer’s. Plus they are not exactly sitting in the center room. But being your signon alludes to Pentagon, think covert. It’s the perfect place for, hmmm- I don’t know, birds that usually aren’t migrating together.

        Do yourself one additional favor genius; don’t make generalized comments about people’s intellectual prowess based on your contra intellectual observations. It appears foolish and bad intentioned, making everything else you write meaningless.