Over at “Follow the Money” blog, Brad Setser notes a Wall Street Journal story reporting, “Citigroup officials hope to persuade private investors that have bought preferred shares — such as the Government of Singapore Investment Corp., Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and Kuwait Investment Authority . . .”
Setser goes on to point out, “But it is striking that none of the ‘private investors’ mentioned in the Wall Street Journal are actually, well, private investors.”
Speaking of banks, did you hear President Obama say the Feds would strong arm banks to do what they want? From last night’s speech:
Third, we will act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times. And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets, and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy.
But who will hold the government accountable? They spend the money we earn and make up money beyond that. Who will clean up the Feds balance sheet?
I don’t usually watch politcal speeches, by anyone, Conservative or otherwise. I forced myself to watch last night. God is merciful and I didn’t have a stroke.
Yeah, sometimes watching liberals speak is funny and sometimes . . . it’s not. I almost quoted the part where he said he would remove tax loopholes for the wealthiest 2% so that our children would not be saddled with tax debt due to current spending. But I don’t have anything to say other than I don’t believe it.
I think Obama’s in trouble, but maybe he still just talking.
Looking at Obama’s speech, words still mean something. Just not what they used to.
transfer wealth to the wealthy = cut the taxes of those who pay taxes
take charge of our future = continue to rely on the government to fix the economy
clean up the credit crisis = force banks to lend even if they don’t think it’s a good risk
Sorry, I’m in a snarky mood. I assume that I would have been more somber if I had been Christian on Ash Wednesday, but I’m Jewish and my next holiday is Purim – the holiday of silliness.
I hope you guys will forgive me for another link; but there was a great article on this subject at Mises.org. [‘The case for natural money’ – by George Smith.]
– I have no hope of convincing people (in my life time) that fiat money (i.e. paper money) is a scam, perpetrated by the rich upon the populace… but I hope some few brave souls will at least take a look at the argument.
– put simply; I don’t think money production is a technical matter, but think it’s a moral matter.
– I realize this seems an extreme view in our day; but it’s been the common view for millenia. (Plato in his ‘Republic’ was the first, I think, to suggest a paper currency. His idea was that this would create a dependent population. (The Chinese were the first to implement such a scheme if I’m right; but they later abandoned it because of its negative consequences.
– If the article is correct (based on the work of Hulsman) it’s only been in the last couple centuries that people have ever adopted the idea paper money is legitimate.
I won’t blame you a bit, Ori. This administration and congressional leadership begs for such criticism.
I don’t know, Searider. The money argument sounds like a wonkish policy correction, something that makes sense, but will not be practical until the world turns upside down. It’s a few steps removed from the congress willingness to make up figures and claim compassion.
I like the parody of Barney Frank you can hear on Rush Limbaugh’s show. Frank is criticizing the Bush Administration for not doing something to stop this mortgage crisis, namely preventing Frank and Chris Dodd from regulating it like they knew anything about the housing market. I hope many congressmen are thrown out of their ears, but that may only happen in isolated areas.