-
ADD TIME NEWS
- NEWSLETTERS
- Main
- Global Business
- Small Business
- Curious Capitalist
- Nerd World
- The Cheapskate Blog
- Money & Main Street
- Videos
Is the bailout plan just a cynical power grab?
I just got around to reading Glenn Greenwald's much-discussed post from Monday about how the Bailout follows the 10 normal principles for how our government functions. I agree with a couple of his points (that the concessions Treasury made to Congressional leaders in drafting the bill were mostly a joke; that a lot of economists don't think Treasury's approach is the best), but it's also a great example of how everybody sees the world through a lens distorted by their priorities and experiences.
Greenwald sees this financial crisis, and the government's reaction to it, through a lens distorted (or polished, if you prefer) by his obsession with the Bush Administration's past mendacity and power grabbing. So what Paulson is doing is pretty much by definition an unjustified putsch.
I tend to see Paulson's actions through a lens distorted (or polished) by my knowledge of past financial crises. Most of the ones I know about (the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, the Scandinavian financial crisis of the early 1990s--and let's not forget the near-panic of 1914) were eventually resolved by governments temporarily assuming extraordinary powers over the financial system and the economy as a whole. So while I have a lot of doubts about the particular approach chosen by Treasury, the idea that taxpayers are going to need to pony up a lot of money and give Treasury some leeway in deciding how to use it doesn't seem crazy to me at all.
Yves Smith calls it Mussolini-style Corporatism in Action. But you could just as well call it FDR-style corporatism or Carl-Bildt-style corporatism.
Update: Some related commentary (that I agree with) from Kevin Drum. (Via The Klein Who is Better at Chinese Cookery):
Paulson now works for the United States Treasury, but his instincts are the same as always: even if for no other reason than to boost his own ego, he's going to want to drive the hardest bargains possible — and the weaker the opponent, the harder he'll push.
Don't believe it? Take a look at the Fed/Treasury actions so far. Was the Bear Stearns rescue a sweetheart deal? No. In fact, the original $2 per share terms were so onerous that JP Morgan, which bought Bear, eventually raised the offer voluntarily. And what about Lehman Brothers? Would a Wall Street crony have let Lehman fail? Nope. The next day AIG was rescued, but read this and tell me if you think AIG got any kind of break in return for its $85 billion loan. They didn't. AIG got hammered.
Add Your Comment:
Most Popular »
- A Final Palin Post
- He Had a First Name. It Was O-S-C-A-R.
- Palin's Super Powers Explained
- Swampland Has A New Look!
- Baby Hand-Me-Downs Are Suddenly Trendy
- One Last Big (Yet Moving) Show for Michael
- Here's A Test
- All ready to sign up for John Meriwether's next fund?
- Health Care: Back to the Drawing Board
- Sacha Baron Cohen Is... Himself!
- Why Are Southerners So Fat?
- What Does Life-Extending Drug Mean for Humans?
- The Outsider: Where Is Sarah Palin Going Next?
- Oh Crap! My Parents Joined Facebook
- Obama: Getting Down to the Hard Choices
- Florida Wrestles with Its Python Problem
- After California: Which States Are in the Most Peril?
- Yes, I Suck: Self-Help Through Negative Thinking
- Google's Chrome: Taking Aim at Microsoft - and the iPhone
- Advice from an Economist Who Saw 1929











RSS