Comments on: Credit And Credibility http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/26/credit-and-credibility/ n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:59:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: House to vote on bailout today; please, God, let the Republicans show that they have a spine! « Nathancontramundi http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/26/credit-and-credibility/comment-page-1/#comment-14493 House to vote on bailout today; please, God, let the Republicans show that they have a spine! « Nathancontramundi Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:20:33 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/26/credit-and-credibility/#comment-14493 [...] My own two cents: Part of the fundamental problem is that we incline, all too easily, to think in macroeconomic terms, of “the economy”, rather than of our myriad local and regional economies. Daniel noted, a few days ago, that “[s]mall banks are functioning and even thriving as deposits have started flooding into them, and credit from these banks does not seem as if it will be drying up.” I suspect that the owners of First Farmers Bank and Trust and the First National Bank of Monterey, back in North Judson, even if the woes of “the economy” have hit home (actually, at least as of May, they had, for the better), probably have much less to fear than the shareholders of Wachovia had. These small banks, which serve the people who know the owners and employees of the bank, which serve as an important life-blood for countless small businesses across the country, help to drive our economies; the “too big to fail” banks drive — or wreck, as it were –”the economy”. Our purportedly conservative president wishes to “secure the economy” (to employ the present defensive jargon), rather than to allow our economies to function naturally, without fear (Yes, I apologize, I’ve anthropomorphized things as abstract as the economies.) of disaster caused by intervention. This, Mr Bush, is decidedly un-conservative, as has been most of your presidency. [...] [...] My own two cents: Part of the fundamental problem is that we incline, all too easily, to think in macroeconomic terms, of “the economy”, rather than of our myriad local and regional economies. Daniel noted, a few days ago, that “[s]mall banks are functioning and even thriving as deposits have started flooding into them, and credit from these banks does not seem as if it will be drying up.” I suspect that the owners of First Farmers Bank and Trust and the First National Bank of Monterey, back in North Judson, even if the woes of “the economy” have hit home (actually, at least as of May, they had, for the better), probably have much less to fear than the shareholders of Wachovia had. These small banks, which serve the people who know the owners and employees of the bank, which serve as an important life-blood for countless small businesses across the country, help to drive our economies; the “too big to fail” banks drive — or wreck, as it were –”the economy”. Our purportedly conservative president wishes to “secure the economy” (to employ the present defensive jargon), rather than to allow our economies to function naturally, without fear (Yes, I apologize, I’ve anthropomorphized things as abstract as the economies.) of disaster caused by intervention. This, Mr Bush, is decidedly un-conservative, as has been most of your presidency. [...]

]]> By: BarryHatesLogins http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/26/credit-and-credibility/comment-page-1/#comment-14450 BarryHatesLogins Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:51:52 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/26/credit-and-credibility/#comment-14450 "The House majority does not want the bulk of the responsibility for passing the deal and wants political cover by having most of the Republican caucus vote for it. As long as that seems unlikely, it is possible that the deal may not happen. The obvious question is why the House Democrats would not want to take the lion’s share of credit for saving the day, if that is what the bailout will actually do. One reason why they do not want to own this deal is that they are hearing the same overwhelmingly negative reaction from their constituents as the GOP members are." Other reasons are: (1) even if the bailout works, we're still in a nasty recession, and things will probably get worse next year. That's a bad place to be in. (2) The real big problem is that any action taken in the next ~110 days will be taken by a group of proven corrupt, rotten sh*t-heads (the administration) who are more likely to simply steal the money than to use it for anything productive. “The House majority does not want the bulk of the responsibility for passing the deal and wants political cover by having most of the Republican caucus vote for it. As long as that seems unlikely, it is possible that the deal may not happen. The obvious question is why the House Democrats would not want to take the lion’s share of credit for saving the day, if that is what the bailout will actually do. One reason why they do not want to own this deal is that they are hearing the same overwhelmingly negative reaction from their constituents as the GOP members are.”

Other reasons are: (1) even if the bailout works, we’re still in a nasty recession, and things will probably get worse next year. That’s a bad place to be in. (2) The real big problem is that any action taken in the next ~110 days will be taken by a group of proven corrupt, rotten sh*t-heads (the administration) who are more likely to simply steal the money than to use it for anything productive.

]]> By: nathancontramundi http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/26/credit-and-credibility/comment-page-1/#comment-14412 nathancontramundi Fri, 26 Sep 2008 23:39:17 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/26/credit-and-credibility/#comment-14412 Hmm, small banks doing well; "too-big-to-fail" banks in need of help from the government. . . . Makes me wonder just how many of the big players would -- even <i>could</i> -- exist in a more truly free market. Hmm, small banks doing well; “too-big-to-fail” banks in need of help from the government. . . . Makes me wonder just how many of the big players would — even could — exist in a more truly free market.

]]>