Wall Street Journal to Praise Obama for His Brilliant Economic Policies

[Ibleedburgundy]

I know this because based to the criteria set forth by the Wall Street Journal editorial board 5 Months ago, Obama's financial policies have been terrific for the USA:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell another 281 points yesterday, or 4%, while President Obama began his political push for nationalizing health care

...

The larger point is that economies don't spiral down forever without a reason and without policy encouragement. What's worrying about the plunge in equities since January 2, and especially in the last week since Mr. Obama released his radical budget, is that it has come amid the unveiling of the President's policy agenda. Equity prices have reacted to those proposals by signaling that they expect a much deeper and longer recession.

.....

The optimistic message in Mr. Cogan's comparisons is that recessions eventually end. How long they last, and how severe they get, depends in part on the choices our leaders make. The choices that Mr. Obama and Congress are making so far are not contributing to confidence, much less to recovery.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629834716846367.html

What really jumps out at me from this editorial is the WSJ's incredible respect for the power of Barack Obama. Not only do they credit him with the economic trends a mere 5 weeks into his Presidency, but they credit him with economic trends that started before he even took office.

Another outstanding feature of the WSJ is their incredible ability to deduce which policies and which discussions of policies are having a direct effect on the market. Even though those trends were consistent for 15 Months before Obama took office, they were able to know that the continuation of said trends was because of him. Again, amazing insight.

But here is what tells me the Wall Street Journal is going to praise Obama's economic policies any day now:

As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html

So there you have it. According to the Wall Street Journal editorial board, these are the key indicators as to whether or not a President's economic policies are sound:

1. The Dow Jones Industrial Average
2. Whether or not the recession is going to end in a timely manner

Let us examine the evidence:

1. The Dow Jones closed at 9,683.4 today. According to the WSJ, policies can be directly linked to how the stock market performs. By this measure, the stimulus was an awesome success. And can we please continue talking about Healthcare reform-because it's really helping my portfolio.

2. Today Ben Bernanke said the recession is likely to be over this quarter. Analysts say the economy is expected to have grown at a 3-4% rate over this quarter which ends September 30. The previous quarter was at -1% which was still a significant imrpovement of the one before. So clearly Obama's policies can be directly tied to us getting out of the recession. THANK YOU BARACK OBAMA!!!

No point in me posting recent articles/opinions from the Wall Street Journal editorial page praising Obama and his brilliant economic policies that are getting us out of the recession. A newspaper of such esteem will of course honor it's own criteria in the name of intellectual honesty. I don't even have to check. I applaud the WSJ for their ability to take off their idealogical glasses and apply their standards with principle.

[shally]

I know this because based to the criteria set forth by the Wall Street Journal editorial board 5 Months ago, Obama's financial policies have been terrific for the USA:



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629834716846367.html

What really jumps out at me from this editorial is the WSJ's incredible respect for the power of Barack Obama. Not only do they credit him with the economic trends a mere 5 weeks into his Presidency, but they credit him with economic trends that started before he even took office.

Another outstanding feature of the WSJ is their incredible ability to deduce which policies and which discussions of policies are having a direct effect on the market. Even though those trends were consistent for 15 Months before Obama took office, they were able to know that the continuation of said trends was because of him. Again, amazing insight.

But here is what tells me the Wall Street Journal is going to praise Obama's economic policies any day now:



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html

So there you have it. According to the Wall Street Journal editorial board, these are the key indicators as to whether or not a President's economic policies are sound:

1. The Dow Jones Industrial Average
2. Whether or not the recession is going to end in a timely manner

Let us examine the evidence:

1. The Dow Jones closed at 9,683.4 today. According to the WSJ, policies can be directly linked to how the stock market performs. By this measure, the stimulus was an awesome success. And can we please continue talking about Healthcare reform-because it's really helping my portfolio.

2. Today Ben Bernanke said the recession is likely to be over this quarter. Analysts say the economy is expected to have grown at a 3-4% rate over this quarter which ends September 30. The previous quarter was at -1% which was still a significant imrpovement of the one before. So clearly Obama's policies can be directly tied to us getting out of the recession. THANK YOU BARACK OBAMA!!!

No point in me posting recent articles/opinions from the Wall Street Journal editorial page praising Obama and his brilliant economic policies that are getting us out of the recession. A newspaper of such esteem will of course honor it's own criteria in the name of intellectual honesty. I don't even have to check. I applaud the WSJ for their ability to take off their idealogical glasses and apply their standards with principle.


i think it is perception and confidence more than reality..

[RedskinsDave]

Awww, poor Davey's pwesident sucks and he can't take it.

At what point will you admit the stimulus was nothing but a liberal hand out-fest? Real stimulation comes from giving people who contribute money, kind of like that idiot Bush did.

At what point will you admit the health plan does nothing but scare the living crap out of anyone who doesn't need free health care, aka people who have money invested in America?

[RedskinsDave]

i think it is perception and confidence more than reality..

Consumer confidence has been at all time lows under Obama.

[shally]

Consumer confidence has been at all time lows under Obama.

correct.. and, so far, we have a jobless recovery, regardless of who is to blame overall...

[Ibleedburgundy]

Awww, poor Davey's pwesident sucks and he can't take it.

At what point will you admit the stimulus was nothing but a liberal hand out-fest? Real stimulation comes from giving people who contribute money, kind of like that idiot Bush did.


Bush didn't give anything to anyone who plans on living a while longer. He merely replaced taxes with debt. Those of us who plan on being around are going to pay for the "tax cuts" to the tune to $4 trillion plus interest.

At what point will you admit the health plan does nothing but scare the living crap out of anyone who doesn't need free health care, aka people who have money invested in America

I think it's the Republican nonsense that is scaring people. You know, the idiots who think heathcare reform is about using your tax dollars to give insurance to illegal aliens, death panels, etc.

CBO already said 99% of folks who are insured will be able to keep their current plans.

Consumer confidence has been at all time lows under Obama.

...10 days after he took office. Clearly it's a reasonable expectation for Obama to have eliminated all fears of a deep recession within 10 days.

I can't believe you just advocated Bush policy and brought up the CCi within minutes. Consumer confidence tanked under your boy.

But if you think it's a good measuring stick, I'll be happy to revisit this thread over the next 8 years.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/wiipobcmcugrlnamqm6_8q.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.gallup.com/poll/114592/inauguration-bounce-consumer-confidence-disappears.aspx&usg=__rmPG8LqD14jrCLb0Q8otSakQolU=&h=334&w=544&sz=11&hl=en&start=16&tbnid=U5LHz1i0UwKe6M:&tbnh=82&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dconsumer%2Bconfidence%2Bindex%2BUSA%2 Bseptember%2B2009%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1W1ADBF_en

[Ibleedburgundy]

correct.. and, so far, we have a jobless recovery, regardless of who is to blame overall...

Unemplyment doesn't turn on a dime. Fewer people are going unemployed as the Months go on. Compare 216,000 net jobs lost last Month with well over 600,000 last December.

Employment is traditionally a lagging indicator relative to a recession. Bernanke says the recession is ending this quarter. If this recession behaves anything like the last four (albeit worse) unemployment will likely continue to rise for a few Months, level off, and then trend back down.

[Death_Venom]

Unemplyment doesn't turn on a dime. Fewer people are going unemployed as the Months go on. Compare 216,000 net jobs lost last Month with well over 600,000 last December.

Employment is traditionally a lagging indicator relative to a recession. Bernanke says the recession is ending this quarter. If this recession behaves anything like the last four (albeit worse) unemployment will likely continue to rise for a few Months, level off, and then trend back down.

I think the key indicator about the state of the US economy is that even though the jobless rate is slowing down many Americans remain unemployed.

In regards to Obama's "Stimulus Plan" I recently watched a special on MSNBC with many leading economists calling it "very poorly planned".......I could not agree more.

[shally]

Unemplyment doesn't turn on a dime. Fewer people are going unemployed as the Months go on. Compare 216,000 net jobs lost last Month with well over 600,000 last December.

Employment is traditionally a lagging indicator relative to a recession. Bernanke says the recession is ending this quarter. If this recession behaves anything like the last four (albeit worse) unemployment will likely continue to rise for a few Months, level off, and then trend back down.

if it is so, then alarmists like Krugman need to crawl back under the rock from where they came.. likening it to the Great Depression so as to give Obama a mantle of genius for solving it is disingenuous at best.. nothing that horrible could have been fixed that quickly

[BostonSkins]

Fundamentally, has he implemented any measures to prevent a systemic collapse from happening in the future? No, in fact they bemoan the fact that certain institutions are too big (in public) but all this crisis has done is consolidate the power in even fewer hands. Don't even get me started on the fact that Obama appointed Geithner Treasury Secretary when he was the guy responsible for regulating these firms in the years leading up to their collapse. It's akin to making an arsonist fire chief.

[BurgundyNGold]

Fundamentally, has he implemented any measures to prevent a systemic collapse from happening in the future? No, in fact they bemoan the fact that certain institutions are too big (in public) but all this crisis has done is consolidate the power in even fewer hands. Don't even get me started on the fact that Obama appointed Geithner when he was the guy Charged with regulating these firms in the years leading up to their collapse. It's akin to making an arsonist fire chief.
I'm seriously wondering in best way to promote competition and to mitigate systemic risk is to break large companies up (when they reach a certain market position) on antitrust grounds. It's needed to be done for years. The current theshold is way too high. Do you think that GM would have needed such a bailout if it had bee broken up into 4 or 6 smaller companies 20 years ago?

[Ibleedburgundy]

I think the key indicator about the state of the US economy is that even though the jobless rate is slowing down many Americans remain unemployed.


Sure, 9.7% or so. That will likely continue for some time. Probably will eclipse 10. But it has to slow down before it stops. And it has to stop before it reverses.

In regards to Obama's "Stimulus Plan" I recently watched a special on MSNBC with many leading economists calling it "very poorly planned".......I could not agree more

How so? To me, the worst part of the planning was when the administration acted like the Governmemts (federal and state) would be able to spend the bulk of the money quickly and thus create jobs quickly. In Government, management always does this-they constantly push for unrealistic schedules. It can expedite the process, but it also creates false expectations.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Fundamentally, has he implemented any measures to prevent a systemic collapse from happening in the future? No, in fact they bemoan the fact that certain institutions are too big (in public) but all this crisis has done is consolidate the power in even fewer hands.

Agree in principle but what choice did they have?

When would be a good time to break up the companies that exceed the traditional thresholds?

[dj_stouty]

The recession is over?!?!? Woo Hoo!

[BurgundyNGold]

How so? To me, the worst part of the planning was when the administration acted like the Governmemts (federal and state) would be able to spend the bulk of the money quickly and thus create jobs quickly. In Government, management always does this-they constantly push for unrealistic schedules. It can expedite the process, but it also creates false expectations.
The stimulus was not a jobs creator, save for the philosophical shift to move about 300,000 jobs back into the public sector that had been pushed out to the private sector over the past 20 years or so. Very little stimulus is reaching the private sector, which is where the vast majority of jobs are actually created.

The next round of stimulus (the one focused on science and infrastructure) will be the one that sees real job creation.

What the Obama stimulus did more than anything was to show (or at least imply) that the government was going to act and act decisively. That helped net the free fall in consumer confidence. It was more of a psychological boost than anything else. Given that the modern free market economy is based primarily on psychology, it was an effective move.

[BurgundyNGold]

The recession is over?!?!? Woo Hoo!
No, you need a quarter of (real) growth before you can say the recession is over.

[akhhorus]

The stimulus was not a jobs creator, save for the philosophical shift to move about 300,000 jobs back into the public sector that had been pushed out to the private sector over the past 20 years or so. Very little stimulus is reaching the private sector, which is where the vast majority of jobs are actually created.

The next round of stimulus (the one focused on science and infrastructure) will be the one that sees real job creation.

What the Obama stimulus did more than anything was to show (or at least imply) that the government was going to act and act decisively. That helped net the free fall in consumer confidence. It was more of a psychological boost than anything else. Given that the modern free market economy is based primarily on psychology, it was an effective move.

+1 The real impact of the stimulus package was confidence and green jobs(there's a ton of frothy money for solar/wind/tidal that will be felt in the next 10 months). As for the ibb v redskins dave debate, you're both wrong lol. Recessions end and the market was oversold by about 25%, so Obama doesn't get credit for being in the captain's chair when the economy corrected itself. But if the stim package(and other recovery forces) get the US about 3.5-5% growth by the end of the year, he can take credit for that. The stim package will have a significant impact, its just a question of how much.

[Ibleedburgundy]

+1 The real impact of the stimulus package was confidence and green jobs(there's a ton of frothy money for solar/wind/tidal that will be felt in the next 10 months). As for the ibb v redskins dave debate, you're both wrong lol. Recessions end and the market was oversold by about 25%, so Obama doesn't get credit for being in the captain's chair when the economy corrected itself. But if the stim package(and other recovery forces) get the US about 3.5-5% growth by the end of the year, he can take credit for that. The stim package will have a significant impact, its just a question of how much.

I wasn't really disagreeing with that, sans a facetious effort within the context of the WSJ's absurd cause/effect from a few Months back.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Anyway, the Dow jones industrial average is currently up 42% since Obama took office. Seeing as how they credited Obama with controlling the Dow when it was going down in the first 5 weeks of his Presidency, I'm sure the Wall Street Journal will be praising Obama's policies any day now.

[RedskinsDave]

Anyway, the Dow jones industrial average is currently up 42% since Obama took office. Seeing as how they credited Obama with controlling the Dow when it was going down in the first 5 weeks of his Presidency, I'm sure the Wall Street Journal will be praising Obama's policies any day now.

Selective metrics. Why wasn't that allowed under Bush? It was always consumer confidence and jobs. How are those coming along? How about housing? Oh yeah, those suck too. We should spend more money.

[RedskinsDave]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/21/news/economy/weak_recovery_economists_survey/index.htm

Don't even get me started on the banks that we bailed out still treating their victims like criminals.

Here's a ton of money, we don't care how you spend it. Oh, if the people who gave us this money come looking for help, shaft em. Thanks, Obama.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Selective metrics. Why wasn't that allowed under Bush? It was always consumer confidence and jobs. How are those coming along? How about housing? Oh yeah, those suck too. We should spend more money.

The WSJ selected the metrics...back when it suited their agenda. I agree with you that the Dow is a poor metric particularly when used as the only metric. Then again, I didn't write a dozen editorials implying the Dow is a singularly accurate metric for calculating the success of individual policies.

The whole point of this thread is not to defend Obama (although I certainly will defend him). The point is to show what a Republican turd the once-reputable WSJ has become.

[RedskinsDave]

Good idea. Its much better to take the WSJ to task than to actually discuss the horrible job Obama has done.

[Keino]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/21/news/economy/weak_recovery_economists_survey/index.htm

Don't even get me started on the banks that we bailed out still treating their victims like criminals.

Here's a ton of money, we don't care how you spend it. Oh, if the people who gave us this money come looking for help, shaft em. Thanks, Obama.

THIS. They should have had to offer principal write-downs as a caveat to taking the tax dollars. Cleans up the books, and allows people to relocate to find jobs without losing their shirts in a short-sale and the housing market returns to some semblance of normalcy. Everyone wins.

Right now, nobody can sell because even if they put 20% down, they are upside down on their mortgages and lenders are still dragging their feet on the mortgage mods.....oh and still paid out billions in executive bonuses.

[Keino]

Good idea. Its much better to take the WSJ to task than to actually discuss the horrible job Obama has done.

TAARP was passed by Bush sir.

[RedskinsDave]

TAARP was passed by Bush sir.

That's like blaming Henry Ford for pollution because he made the first mass produced car. There's a trillion dollars out there going to waste from Obama's desk.

[RedskinsDave]

THIS. They should have had to offer principal write-downs as a caveat to taking the tax dollars. Cleans up the books, and allows people to relocate to find jobs without losing their shirts in a short-sale and the housing market returns to some semblance of normalcy. Everyone wins.

Right now, nobody can sell because even if they put 20% down, they are upside down on their mortgages and lenders are still dragging their feet on the mortgage mods.....oh and still paid out billions in executive bonuses.

This is our common ground. The banks have been nothing short of disgusting.

[Keino]

That's like blaming Henry Ford for pollution because he made the first mass produced car. There's a trillion dollars out there going to waste from Obama's desk.

Agreed. But the Bank bailout and what we are both bitching about is not on Obama. In fairness, he did support it and to a certain extent I do too. We could not let our banking system collapse.

This is our common ground. The banks have been nothing short of disgusting.

Yes, and they have essentially encouraged intentional defaults by attempting to double dip on the money. The bailout should have been passed down to the consumer as well.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Good idea. Its much better to take the WSJ to task than to actually discuss the horrible job Obama has done.

The WSJ deserves to be taken to task. I'm more than happy to discuss other issues.

[justinskins]

The stimulus was somewhat weak because congressional Democrats treated it as a way to get fund sundry projects in their districts, and because Obama's presidential leadership was too weak to prevent it. At the same time, I'm not sure that a more efficient stimulus would have helped that much more. We are coming off the worst recession since the 1930s, and it's not even clear what the big growth sectors are going to be in the new economy. I'd be surprised if the housing sector recovers to its previous levels in less than five years. And the market for "green jobs" is really only as strong as government environmental regulations allow it to be, and we haven't seen much movement on that front.

As for the bank bailouts, they reflect a fundamental tension in free market economies. Every once and a while the financial system will experience failure; this will happen more often and more spectacularly in the absence of regulations to prevent excessively risk-taking by the institutions that the public trusts to manage its money responsibly. People on the right and the left like to criticize TARP, but unfortunately the government has to bail out the financial system in those situations or else it risks a total economic collapse. And even more unfortunately, when you bail out the financial system, it will immediately go back to its previous behavior: seeking out risky investments and lobbying against new regulations.

Finally, I don't see any reasonable argument for tax cuts. If the goal is simply to "goose" demand, clearly government spending works better. For those who reject Keynesianism, the argument is usually that you can increase economic growth by stimulating the supply side, i.e. by encouraging investment in private industry through tax cuts. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me given that we have just experienced a crisis of over-investment, and that the Fed has already pumped trillions of dollars into the credit markets through TARP. There's really no evidence that the system is still starved for investment capital. All the public discussions about tax cuts are just political posturing given the resurgence of the right wing due to 1. a very slow recovery, and 2. a string of left-of-center legislative victory that have enraged the right while making the left complacent, and the center confused as always.

[RedskinsDave]

Agreed. But the Bank bailout and what we are both bitching about is not on Obama. In fairness, he did support it and to a certain extent I do too. We could not let our banking system collapse.



Yes, and they have essentially encouraged intentional defaults by attempting to double dip on the money. The bailout should have been passed down to the consumer as well.

Its simply amazing. Everyone was screaming and yelling that deregulation and the greed of banks led us to the mortgage crisis. Then, most people agreed we couldn't just let them fail so we gave them money to stay in business. Of course this was done with zero regulation. Nothing in the deal said the money had to be spent refinancing bad loans or handling short sales. Instead and even worse, they got the money AND an sweet deal where any losses on foreclosures and short sales get to be deducted as losses.

Basically, we "punished" an arsonist for burning down his house by building him a new one and handing him matches and gas.

[akhhorus]

TAARP was passed by Bush sir.

To be fair, we've basically made our money back from TARP(still waiting on some of AIG's money back, but we'll see that). I don't know why anyone is bitching about it(the banks will do what they do regardless of what regulation is set up). We saved the banking industry and showed a profit. Arguably Bush's biggest achievement.

[Keino]

Its simply amazing. Everyone was screaming and yelling that deregulation and the greed of banks led us to the mortgage crisis. Then, most people agreed we couldn't just let them fail so we gave them money to stay in business. Of course this was done with zero regulation. Nothing in the deal said the money had to be spent refinancing bad loans or handling short sales. Instead and even worse, they got the money AND an sweet deal where any losses on foreclosures and short sales get to be deducted as losses.

Basically, we "punished" an arsonist for burning down his house by building him a new one and handing him matches and gas.

It's funny, because my boss and I were just discussing this issue this morning, and I was railing against the Banks. TAARP provided zero accountability on the issues that caused the crisis in the first place.

I am really feeling it in FL, where both of my homes are under-water and I am losing money on the rental annually although much of that is my own fault. All I am asking for is the same thing my lender got. A re-set button.

[Keino]

To be fair, we've basically made our money back from TARP(still waiting on some of AIG's money back, but we'll see that). I don't know why anyone is bitching about it(the banks will do what they do regardless of what regulation is set up). We saved the banking industry and showed a profit. Arguably Bush's biggest achievement.

The issue is that the economy, specifically the markets Dave and I were discussing could have been positively affected had just a little more thought and accountability went into the funds used to bailout banks. The issues I mention above with respect to principal write-downs etc. would certainly have been short term costly, but we would be coming out of the tunnel on a plethora of issues created by the vast numbers of Americans with negative equity in their homes and the inability to relocate for jobs.

[justinskins]

To be fair, we've basically made our money back from TARP(still waiting on some of AIG's money back, but we'll see that). I don't know why anyone is bitching about it(the banks will do what they do regardless of what regulation is set up). We saved the banking industry and showed a profit. Arguably Bush's biggest achievement.

The issue is more one of ideology. It's unsatisfactory from a political standpoint no matter what your view. For free marketers it's anathema that a massive infusion of government funds went into the hands of private interests; from a left-wing point of view, it's horrendous that the government bailed out the system while doing almost nothing for the little guy.

[akhhorus]

The issue is that the economy, specifically the markets Dave and I were discussing could have been positively affected had just a little more thought and accountability went into the funds used to bailout banks. The issues I mention above with respect to principal write-downs etc. would certainly have been short term costly, but we would be coming out of the tunnel on a plethora of issues created by the vast numbers of Americans with negative equity in their homes and the inability to relocate for jobs.

Its not like they had 6 months to discuss implementation. Paulsen and every credible economist was saying that this money had to be in the system immediately(Remember how much the market drops after the first House vote failed?). They should have done 2 things:
1-slapped an additional 100 billion onto the bill to flat out buy up underwater mortgages(or give out tax free assistance to those homeowners, say 100k each for a million homes?)
2-Go back and passed a separate bill to regulate the banks on banks that took TARP money during the lameduck in 08.

in retrospect, Treasury should have bailed out Bear Sterns for 80 billion instead of forcing them to sell in bankruptcy to JP Morgan. If they do that, none of the crisis happens since Lehman survives, Wachovia survives and AIG survives.

[Keino]

Its not like they had 6 months to discuss implementation. Paulsen and every credible economist was saying that this money had to be in the system immediately(Remember how much the market drops after the first House vote failed?). They should have done 2 things:
1-slapped an additional 100 billion onto the bill to flat out buy up underwater mortgages(or give out tax free assistance to those homeowners, say 100k each for a million homes?)
2-Go back and passed a separate bill to regulate the banks on banks that took TARP money during the lameduck in 08.

in retrospect, Treasury should have bailed out Bear Sterns for 80 billion instead of forcing them to sell in bankruptcy to JP Morgan. If they do that, none of the crisis happens since Lehman survives, Wachovia survives and AIG survives.


I can't really disagree with this. Like I said, I favored TAARP, but I don't favor the mechanics of how it has been implemented with specific reference to the things Dave and I discuss above. The banks have gotten bailed out and yet they continue to Screw over the people who need help.

[akhhorus]

I can't really disagree with this. Like I said, I favored TAARP, but I don't favor the mechanics of how it has been implemented with specific reference to the things Dave and I discuss above. The banks have gotten bailed out and yet they continue to Screw over the people who need help.

I agree, and if they had a month to slow down and set up conditions, they would have done it right. I hate to use a roman history reference(I can hear CNY screaming already), but there was an famous Roman, Crassus, who made a fortune(he's probably one of the 3 wealthiest men of all time) thanks to showing up at burning homes with his trained fire brigade and offering to put out the fire...if they sold the house to Crassus for 10 cents on the dollar. We were basically in the same situation, they had to pass a bill and they had to pass it before the world financial market shut down.

[BostonSkins]

To be fair, we've basically made our money back from TARP(still waiting on some of AIG's money back, but we'll see that). I don't know why anyone is bitching about it(the banks will do what they do regardless of what regulation is set up). We saved the banking industry and showed a profit. Arguably Bush's biggest achievement.

There will be no profit from TARP, now predicted to cost *only* $66 Billion.

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ah1ZmujIjO_w

The big banks paid back ASAP due to being able to borrow from Fed at 0% and pile into Treasuries (even at historically low interest rates). It's essentially a risk-free trade that allowed them to pay the Gov't back with the Government's own money (the interest).

[akhhorus]

There will be no profit from TARP, now predicted to cost *only* $66 Billion.

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ah1ZmujIjO_w


Thats a CBO projection. Depends on AIG's payment schedule. They're scheduled to make a 15 billion dollar payment this quarter and a 40 billion dollar one next quarter.

And even stipulating to the 66 billion figure(which I don't), it is pretty cheap for preventing Depression 2: judgment day.

[Keino]

Thats a CBO projection. Depends on AIG's payment schedule. They're scheduled to make a 15 billion dollar payment this quarter and a 40 billion dollar one next quarter.

And even stipulating to the 66 billion figure(which I don't), it is pretty cheap for preventing Depression 2: judgment day.

But as we've discussed it has failed to address the underlying issues which were major factors in leading to teetering on the edge of disaster....

[akhhorus]

But as we've discussed it has failed to address the underlying issues which were major factors in leading to teetering on the edge of disaster....

The FinReg bill that was passed into law did a lot to fix the CDO problem. That was, probably, the single biggest thing that caused the problem. You didn't just have banks seriously in debt, you had banks seriously in debt all tied together with crazy bets on each other's assets(and their performance). The Chinese Central bank had a trillion dollar bet on whether or not AIG would go under. Banks were betting on whether a city's bond rating would go down or not. AIG got screwed by betting on Wachovia's terrible investments, and then reinsuring all their bad bets along with making bets on all their bad bets. Combine the new Volker rule+Basel III and banks are seriously limited about how much cash they can now put into those risky bets, and the exposure has been limited by the regulation on the entities that are allowed to trade in them. And most of the swaps(some commodity based ones are exempt) now have to be traded in open exchanges.

As for predatory lending and consumer based issues, thats all on how the new CFPB is created.

[BurgundyNGold]

The FinReg bill that was passed into law did a lot to fix the CDO problem. That was, probably, the single biggest thing that caused the problem. You didn't just have banks seriously in debt, you had banks seriously in debt all tied together with crazy bets on each other's assets(and their performance). The Chinese Central bank had a trillion dollar bet on whether or not AIG would go under. Banks were betting on whether a city's bond rating would go down or not. AIG got screwed by betting on Wachovia's terrible investments, and then reinsuring all their bad bets along with making bets on all their bad bets. Combine the new Volker rule+Basel III and banks are seriously limited about how much cash they can now put into those risky bets, and the exposure has been limited by the regulation on the entities that are allowed to trade in them. And most of the swaps(some commodity based ones are exempt) now have to be traded in open exchanges.

As for predatory lending and consumer based issues, thats all on how the new CFPB is created.
The Volcker Rule doesn't end up limiting what a bank does very much. They're already spinning those operations off so that they can skirt the rules. Many of the swaps are being monitored, many are exempt. Also, it will be 18 months from the date of FinReg enactment (7/22/2010) before anything has to be done about them at a minimum. As for the CFPB, there is plenty in the FinReg bill that defines protections, but most of these are for things like credit cards and traditional banking operations (overdraft and the like). The CFPB will have a lot of power, but it will also take from 3- 5 years from date of FinReg enactment before that agency is even fully staffed. FinReg mandates that a lot be done within 36 months of enactment, but a lot of stuff extends out to 2015.

What is Gordon Gecko saynig in his new Wall Street promos? "Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs -- well, they get slaughtered." Nothing could be further from the truth. Pigs who stayed at the trough too long caused the problem and we paid them to keep eating at the trough. We really should have let the whole thing fail. Most people lost 50% of their retirement income anyway. At least they might have made is back after things started to regrow. Now we have little more than 20 years of stagnate economic growths staring us in the face, with no chance of those folks recovering their losses.

[akhhorus]

The Volcker Rule doesn't end up limiting what a bank does very much. They're already spinning those operations off so that they can skirt the rules. Many of the swaps are being monitored, many are exempt.

The spinning off of operations is mandated by the FinReg bill. They can only trade in Hedge fund and derivatives in separate entities, but the Volcker rule can't be skirted by doing that: the banks are limited about how much tiered capital they can sink into those spinoffs.

As for swaps, all securities based swaps are regulated by the SEC and put into exchanges(there was an exemption that prevented the SEC from regulating it at all put into law, which has been repealed). They were the problem in 2008. The exempted one, I believe, are commodity based ones.

[smoak]

The recession is over?!?!? Woo Hoo!

Not in my household. Holiday spending will be at an all time low... Or at least as the in-law are concerned. :D

[Ibleedburgundy]

LOL I love how the Republicans at the WSJ refer to John Kerry as the "former junior Senator."

he's our leader and our whole caucus is thrilled that he's unbreakable and unbeatable," John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking former junior senator from Massachusetts, who by the way served in Vietnam, said in a statement reported by Politico.


what a hack.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703506904575592341108343042.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

[cal_junior]

LOL I love how the Republicans at the WSJ refer to John Kerry as the "former junior Senator."

Or French-looking? Huh?

The Right does sensationalism and hyperbole very, very well and will always be superior to the Dems when it comes to getting out the message and "playing the game." But they suck at funny.