Comments on: Rahm Emanuel’s and David Axelrod’s New Dilemma

By: Sophie

Sophie — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:25:03 +0000

Passing out the coffers of the United States of America is the Emperor and Paulson providing all American’s with membership to the ‘GROUPTHINKTHINKTANK that (starting with saving AIG) the world will end as we know it if we don’t save the “toobigtofail” banks’ is the tailor in the story, THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.

By: Marty Z

Marty Z — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:54:22 +0000

I believe that the comment by the following was the most insightful:

The Interest
12 Feb 09 at 1:09 am

Bottom line, this structure of money ultimately relies on central banking which is at the top of the banking pyramid. It is in with the government effectively creating a cartel. The IMF won’t fully critize this form of banking as they too will cut off their money center. I highly recommend this book called “The Case Against The Fed” which illustrates the current banking structure.

http://mises.org/books/fed.pdf

Indeed, there is another way of banking; but it means the Government will lose its main source of spending power through inflation.

By: try2bamused

try2bamused — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:36:47 +0000

Don’t know about you, but my money is on the banking lobby; my price target on the SPX is 150.

Very nice site, by the way.

By: Edward

Edward — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:11:00 +0000

We’ll have to wait and see, won’t we? I, for one, have some optimism….I may be naive, but I don’t think we’ve been duped! It’s not all talk.

By: dougie

dougie — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:00:16 +0000

Why would you be so sure other than talk (which is about as cheap as some cdo’s) that Obama and his friends have anything other than well wishes for the banksters?

By: Edward

Edward — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:54:06 +0000

Obama says it’s not in our culture to nationalize. However, he was elected to make the tough choices, and presumably he’s not beholden to the banking elite. It may be time to think of this as, “it’s not in our culture reject innovative thinking..” It seems that a lot of top economic thinkers advocate nationalization (obviously short-term, to be followed by privatization.) The “we’re all Swedes now” argument. Some fear that this will lead to a run on the banks. How likely is this? Are there real risks beyond damaging our own “cultural sensibilities?”

By: tom

tom — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:15:48 +0000

What has happened to sweat equity? We run around like headless chickens at the thought of worthless fiat.If you want change,quit your job,grow your own food and school your kids at home.If that’s too hard,buy a new flatscreen.

By: Sarah Jordan

Sarah Jordan — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:47:54 +0000

Only when the banks became something other than banks did we all get in trouble.

Banks, at least my understanding of banks, is to take money, loan money, receive money in return for those loans. Investment funds have a different function and should remain separate from banks. Hedge funds by nature are totally too risky to be paired with a bank. Those walls should never have been removed. Now to fix this situation things should return to their intended function.

You have to trust all the people mentioned have respect for each other and their input in a strategy discussion. From what I have heard it really strikes a delicate balance. Geithner let it be known banks are not going to have such an easy ride this time to settle the public’s nerves, but at the same time tried not to spook the system. Forget Wall Street’s reaction as it is too easily manipulated and you have no idea who is pulling the strings to achieve an intended outcome.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:20:02 +0000

Forgive my ignorance but I’m scared and looking for answers. I’ve come upon this site which seems to have thoughtful people with economics in their blood, so to speak.

Question: If these banks are nationalized (and from what limited knowledge I have, I’m leaning in that direction), who runs and manages the day to day operations? What happens to the Board of Directors?

By: R. Cuadro

R. Cuadro — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:28:47 +0000

In response to eRobin at 2/12 @ 7:57am:

Are you referring to the US government? Or other national government’s efforts when it comes to nationalizing banks?

There’s an article in today’s NYT’s which illustrates the difficulty the government is having managing the banks it has already taken over: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/business/economy/14assets.html?hp

In order to cope with the sudden increase in workload, the FDIC has a division whose budget has increased from $75 million last year to $1 billion this year. It’s calling up retirees and hiring contractors. They will do the best they can, I have no doubt. But I also know it will end up as a boondoogle. Taking over large institutions like Citibank, BofA and whoever else will be problematic.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:00:45 +0000

Simon,

Do you think the administration is avoiding such a re-boot of the banking system for fear of inducing a run on the entire system?

By: Mighty Memnon

Mighty Memnon — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 04:32:28 +0000

On November 4th I voted and then rejoiced at the election of our President. The reasons for my rejoicing transcended politics, class, ideology and race. I remain hopeful but I cannot deny a growing feeling of unease and confusion. The majority of our country recognized the need for change. I now fear that we were too simplistic in our hopes and dreams. I fear our President has also overestimated the challenge and the adversaries of fundemental reformation of the critical institutions of our economy. The current crisis our Republic faces lays bear the powerful entrenched mechanisms and sturcture that has, for too long, made governing policy resemble lunacy and our fundemental rights are nullified. The Treasury Secretary will now have to demonstrate if he embraced his duties as an impartial regulator or is he in fact an enabler of the greatest Ponzi scheme in history.

By: G.Morris Jr.

G.Morris Jr. — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:33:58 +0000

What is Israeli military personel Rahm Emmanuel(masaud) doing in the chief of staff position in the first place.I guess it’s the same as selling our ports to international corps.It all ads up to the end of America as we know it.Get ready for the Amero people.

By: G.Morris Jr.

G.Morris Jr. — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:30:01 +0000

FDR said,
“in politics, if it happened you can bet it was planned that way”.
This says to me that we are being hustled big time and no one is willing to stand up and say it out loud.
the only solution is to take the printing of our currency back, and use a national fiat currency to replace the ever weakening Fed.dollar.It has been a very successful tool for combating the international banking cartels in America’s history

By: G.Morris Jr.

G.Morris Jr. — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:17:29 +0000

Geithner is making the same threats that Biddle made to Lincoln previous to the starting of the civil war.
Obviosly(civil war) lincoln had more balls than anyone in power today.