Skip to main content.

February 10, 2009

as they go along. So the prospects for the Geithner "plan" (little more than a press release, "no briefing, no documents") have all the elements of a "fiasco." Here is the quick nugget from this extensive post by Yves Smith (naked capitalism):
Smith: Thus, the banks get funding on an open-ended basis, with no requirement to write down or sell the dreck. And even if some miraculously does get unloaded via this process, we wonder how far it will get to really cleaning up the banks. Ken Rogoff estimates US credit losses at $2.0 trillion; this plan appears likely to fall far short of that, which means we still have a lot of sick banks, just somewhat less so.
You read it here: Geithner should have been forced out the minute his tax problems surfaced. He's a bad actor, overriding the better instincts of Obama's political team to fold up the insolvent "too-big-to-fail-save" banks. The sooner we get rid of him the better.

Later, after we are still swimming in the same muck six or ten months up the road, let's hope some better wisdom is able to settle in at the White House before it's really too late.

Comments

i think a bottom-up approach to improving the financial well-being of, um, people would have been better. i'm not talking about 'debt forgiveness.' it wouldn't be charity, it would be 'usury restitution.'

Posted by Montag on February 11, 2009 at 09:12

Yep. The number of dollars the taxpayer is sending to Geithner's friends for use as toilet paper easily could finance the program you suggest, Montag. The benefit would be the economy would start returning to health without parasitic banks in the loop anymore. My question is how many times do we keep letting them do this? Some of Obama's political people evidently have better instincts. Oyyy...

Posted by The Owl on February 11, 2009 at 09:18