Friday, September 11, 2009
FYI ... CNN BAILOUT TRACKER
CNN has a useful bailout tracker (hat tip to Rude Awakening). It shows which agency is on the hook (actually, you and I are) and where the money's going.
It also tells you how much of our taxpayer funded bailout money has been committed, and how much has been spent. So far $11 trillion has been committed, but just $2.8 billion has been spent. As you can imagine, there are side stories to all the committed money (which I've discussed elsewhere).
You can check out all the numbers here.
- Mark
It also tells you how much of our taxpayer funded bailout money has been committed, and how much has been spent. So far $11 trillion has been committed, but just $2.8 billion has been spent. As you can imagine, there are side stories to all the committed money (which I've discussed elsewhere).
You can check out all the numbers here.
- Mark
POVERTY UP, INCOME DOWN (and other "good" news)
George Bush not only handed President Obama an economy that is in shambles, but his reckless policies helped destroy and turn back the economic gains that President Clinton left him (which includes blowing through projected trillion dollar surpluses; but that's another story). According to the Census Bureau, as reported by the NY Times' David Leonhardt:
If you can imagine it, things could actually be worse. According to economist (and periodic guest on our program) Mark Thoma, "Without public insurance programs and the stimulus package, the news would be even worse."
Any way you look at it we're in trouble. The numbers are telling us that not only is the American consumer carrying more debt than ever, but we're losing the earning capacity to help revive this economy (on a personal note, my income was cut 10% this year). This helps explain, in part, why I've been arguing for some time now that this recession is far from over. In fact, I think we're looking at at least five years (minimum) for recovery. That is, if the financial sector doesn't screw things up again.
Generally, blame for this mess can be found in two areas: (1) Slower than average economic growth during the Bush years and (2) growing inequality during the Bush years. More specifically, blame can be assigned to blind stupidity, reckless deregulation, and unrestrained greed.
- Mark
P.S. In the FYI category, during the Bush years child poverty rates went up ...
... while the number of non-elderly who have no insurance rose to 46.3 million.
The typical American household made less money last year than the typical household made a full decade ago ... Median household fell to $50,303 last year, from $52,163 in 2007. In 1998, median income was $51,295. All these numbers are adjusted for inflation.According to Leonhardt, "there has never before been a full decade in which median income failed to rise."
If you can imagine it, things could actually be worse. According to economist (and periodic guest on our program) Mark Thoma, "Without public insurance programs and the stimulus package, the news would be even worse."
Any way you look at it we're in trouble. The numbers are telling us that not only is the American consumer carrying more debt than ever, but we're losing the earning capacity to help revive this economy (on a personal note, my income was cut 10% this year). This helps explain, in part, why I've been arguing for some time now that this recession is far from over. In fact, I think we're looking at at least five years (minimum) for recovery. That is, if the financial sector doesn't screw things up again.
Generally, blame for this mess can be found in two areas: (1) Slower than average economic growth during the Bush years and (2) growing inequality during the Bush years. More specifically, blame can be assigned to blind stupidity, reckless deregulation, and unrestrained greed.
- Mark
P.S. In the FYI category, during the Bush years child poverty rates went up ...
... while the number of non-elderly who have no insurance rose to 46.3 million.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
SOUTHERN COMFORT: Thank You South Carolina!
Mark Sanford, Caitlin Upton (Miss Teen "such as" South Carolina 2007) ... and now Joe Wilson.
So, what's up with South Carolina? If you don't watch Jon Stewart, or don't enjoy his style of humor, you shouldn't watch this clip.
- Mark
So, what's up with South Carolina? If you don't watch Jon Stewart, or don't enjoy his style of humor, you shouldn't watch this clip.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Thank You, South Carolina! | ||||
| ||||
- Mark
HEALTH CARE ... WWJD (Who Would Jesus Deny)?
President Obama gave a great speech last night (text here). He laid out in clear and very definite terms where the opposition is misrepresenting the facts, and what the public option actually does. Using public universities to explain the "public option" was, for me, the best metaphor for understanding what we're talking about: No government takeover, just more options.
There were also several inspiring moments - especially his comments regarding Ted Kennedy - and several others that demonstrated Republicans could care less about decorum and respect. Watching Eric Cantor Tweet/use his BlackBerry during President Obama’s address was telling.
Another moment that stands out was Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) outburst, when he yelled "you lie" to President Obama. In a few words Rep. Wilson was responding to President Obama’s comment that those who are not citizens of this country - and who are here illegally - would NOT be covered by the reforms he's proposing.
Apart from the fact that no one from the Democratic side of the aisle ever called President Bush a liar in Congress - when he actually lied about Saddam Hussein's intentions and capabilities - Joe Wilson's outburst demonstrated the difference between Republican Reality and what's really going on in this health care debate.
In a few words, the Republicans are playing Small Ball politics with the issues (I'll discuss why below). And they're doing it with slander and innuendo.
Let's take the issue that drove Joe Wilson's petulence. At the heart of Wilson's outburst is his fear that illegal aliens - the top Republican bogeyman, behind terrorists and liberals - will have access to government funded health care. President Obama says they will not be covered under his program. Who's right. Incredibly enough, they both are.
Before I explain, let's ponder for a moment Joe Wilson's issue. He wants to deny public health care to non-citizens. Look, I'm not a Christian (just a bad Catholic) like Joe Wilson, but I'm having problems believing that Jesus would share Rep. Wilson's position. If I'm wrong "WWJD?" takes on an entirely new meaning. You know, Who Would Jesus Deny? Anyways ...
First, let's be clear. Under the plan that President Obama is proposing, no person who isn't a citizen - and who's here illegally - will be eligible for his health care program. Period. However - and this is where the confusion lies - we know that emergency rooms across the country will not turn away those who are sick and dying. Who ends up paying for these people? We do of course. Put another way, because the vast majority of medical professionals actually feel an obligation to those who suffer, we will have "illegals" who are treated under a "public" program.
But access is not mandated by the proposed programs or policies. It's mandated by a sense of humanity and common decency, which is found in the medical profession.
In this way Rep. Wilson and our esteemed representative here, Kevin McCarthy, are technically correct when they say illegal aliens "could be covered" by public health care. Simply put, because the medical profession is full of caring people we will end up paying for people who suffer, and are not U.S. citizens (about $4.3 billion per year). But these people are NOT covered under the President's proposal. Nor are they covered under H.R. 3200 (see Sec. 246; p. 143). See the pickle?
What's at issue here is not coverage, but politics.
Let me give you an example of how this works by way of our local representative, Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield). During his Town Hall/Political Rally (which I discuss here) he fed his audience the political red meat they craved by agreeing or supporting those who railed against illegals in this country.
This was in line with his position that illegal aliens "could be covered under H.R. 3200" (#12 in his Town Hall Packet ). Congressman McCarthy understands full well that coverage isn't intended for illegal aliens. Yet, he also understands that one of the ways to scare his constituents - and Americans - into opposing President Obama's health care initiative is say that the hated Brown Hoardes will benefit.
At best, the focus on illegals is a red herring. At it's worst, it's race-baiting. Congressman McCarthy - who is a smart guy - understands this. But he and his Republican colleagues are also playing a parlor game. At the end of the day, non-citizens will be treated in emergency rooms under any scenario, including the status quo. The medical profession, fortunately, puts lives ahead of politics.
Ultimately, the reason Republicans are playing Small Ball politics now is because they know that if President Obama is successful on health care - as the Democrats were with social security and medicare, which are wildly popular - they stand to lose a generation of elections.
You see, effective government programs undermine the Republican "let-the-market-work-even-when-it-fails-and-threatens-to-drag-the-country-into-an-economic-black-hole" meme. Hence, the Scare America tactic with "illegals" (who, I'm sure, Jesus hates too) who might get health care in America.
So, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, maybe it's time to ask, WWJD?
- Mark
ADDENDUM: In the FYI category, Nevada Republican Dean Heller sponsored an amendment to H.R. 3200 to require verification of citizenship in order to access the public health care plan. Fortunately, Democrats saw it for what it was - a political red herring - and defeated it. Democrats understood that the amendment was "insufficient for the purpose of preventing illegal aliens from accessing the bill’s proposed benefits" (for the reasons I noted above) and wouldn't "provide mechanisms [i.e. resources] allowing those administering the program to ensure illegal aliens cannot access taxpayer-funded subsidies and benefits." In a few words, the amendment was seen for what it was, political grandstanding.
UPDATE: It turns out that Joe Wilson has a history of disrespecting colleagues and going off the deep end on stuff he knows little about.
There were also several inspiring moments - especially his comments regarding Ted Kennedy - and several others that demonstrated Republicans could care less about decorum and respect. Watching Eric Cantor Tweet/use his BlackBerry during President Obama’s address was telling.
Another moment that stands out was Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) outburst, when he yelled "you lie" to President Obama. In a few words Rep. Wilson was responding to President Obama’s comment that those who are not citizens of this country - and who are here illegally - would NOT be covered by the reforms he's proposing.
Apart from the fact that no one from the Democratic side of the aisle ever called President Bush a liar in Congress - when he actually lied about Saddam Hussein's intentions and capabilities - Joe Wilson's outburst demonstrated the difference between Republican Reality and what's really going on in this health care debate.
In a few words, the Republicans are playing Small Ball politics with the issues (I'll discuss why below). And they're doing it with slander and innuendo.
Let's take the issue that drove Joe Wilson's petulence. At the heart of Wilson's outburst is his fear that illegal aliens - the top Republican bogeyman, behind terrorists and liberals - will have access to government funded health care. President Obama says they will not be covered under his program. Who's right. Incredibly enough, they both are.
Before I explain, let's ponder for a moment Joe Wilson's issue. He wants to deny public health care to non-citizens. Look, I'm not a Christian (just a bad Catholic) like Joe Wilson, but I'm having problems believing that Jesus would share Rep. Wilson's position. If I'm wrong "WWJD?" takes on an entirely new meaning. You know, Who Would Jesus Deny? Anyways ...
First, let's be clear. Under the plan that President Obama is proposing, no person who isn't a citizen - and who's here illegally - will be eligible for his health care program. Period. However - and this is where the confusion lies - we know that emergency rooms across the country will not turn away those who are sick and dying. Who ends up paying for these people? We do of course. Put another way, because the vast majority of medical professionals actually feel an obligation to those who suffer, we will have "illegals" who are treated under a "public" program.
But access is not mandated by the proposed programs or policies. It's mandated by a sense of humanity and common decency, which is found in the medical profession.
In this way Rep. Wilson and our esteemed representative here, Kevin McCarthy, are technically correct when they say illegal aliens "could be covered" by public health care. Simply put, because the medical profession is full of caring people we will end up paying for people who suffer, and are not U.S. citizens (about $4.3 billion per year). But these people are NOT covered under the President's proposal. Nor are they covered under H.R. 3200 (see Sec. 246; p. 143). See the pickle?
What's at issue here is not coverage, but politics.
Let me give you an example of how this works by way of our local representative, Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield). During his Town Hall/Political Rally (which I discuss here) he fed his audience the political red meat they craved by agreeing or supporting those who railed against illegals in this country.
This was in line with his position that illegal aliens "could be covered under H.R. 3200" (#12 in his Town Hall Packet ). Congressman McCarthy understands full well that coverage isn't intended for illegal aliens. Yet, he also understands that one of the ways to scare his constituents - and Americans - into opposing President Obama's health care initiative is say that the hated Brown Hoardes will benefit.
At best, the focus on illegals is a red herring. At it's worst, it's race-baiting. Congressman McCarthy - who is a smart guy - understands this. But he and his Republican colleagues are also playing a parlor game. At the end of the day, non-citizens will be treated in emergency rooms under any scenario, including the status quo. The medical profession, fortunately, puts lives ahead of politics.
Ultimately, the reason Republicans are playing Small Ball politics now is because they know that if President Obama is successful on health care - as the Democrats were with social security and medicare, which are wildly popular - they stand to lose a generation of elections.
You see, effective government programs undermine the Republican "let-the-market-work-even-when-it-fails-and-threatens-to-drag-the-country-into-an-economic-black-hole" meme. Hence, the Scare America tactic with "illegals" (who, I'm sure, Jesus hates too) who might get health care in America.
So, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, maybe it's time to ask, WWJD?
- Mark
ADDENDUM: In the FYI category, Nevada Republican Dean Heller sponsored an amendment to H.R. 3200 to require verification of citizenship in order to access the public health care plan. Fortunately, Democrats saw it for what it was - a political red herring - and defeated it. Democrats understood that the amendment was "insufficient for the purpose of preventing illegal aliens from accessing the bill’s proposed benefits" (for the reasons I noted above) and wouldn't "provide mechanisms [i.e. resources] allowing those administering the program to ensure illegal aliens cannot access taxpayer-funded subsidies and benefits." In a few words, the amendment was seen for what it was, political grandstanding.
UPDATE: It turns out that Joe Wilson has a history of disrespecting colleagues and going off the deep end on stuff he knows little about.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
YET ANOTHER DOUBLE STANDARD ...
Those of you who have read my book know that I have much to say about the credit card industry, and the financial giants who benefit from government-escorted profits. In a few words, there's no free market here. Favorable legislation's done much for their bottom line. It has also made the industry fat and lazy (see Chp. 2 of my book). Little has changed.
It turns out that the credit card industry is busy racking up billions more in overdraft and other fees. Their argument, according to the NY Times, is that "they are merely charging a fee for a convenience that protects consumers from embarrassment, like having a debit card rejected on a dinner date."
Concerned about public embarrassment on a date? Give me a break. The industry sees an opportunity to get people on a debt treadmill and take it, plain and simple.
Some, no doubt, will agree with Scott Talbott, the finance and credit card companies chief lobbyist, who said: “Everyone should know how much they have in their account and manage their funds well to avoid those fees.”
All I have to say to this is, Where was this guy when all the finance companies were busy purchasing toxic instruments with money they didn't have? Where was this guy when the financial titans of America lost track of how much they were on the hook for as their brokers made these irresponsible purchases? Where was this guy when the financial giants of America racked up responsibilties that drove their company - and our nation's economy - into the ground?
If there ever was a double-standard, the bailed-out-with-taxpayer-dollars financial sector now owns it.
Currently banks routinely cash the largest checks of customers first so that accounts are drained for later, smaller, checks. Worse, the banks don't have to let customers know they're doing this, nor do they have to warn customers when they're reaching their limit because of this tactic. Their rationale is simple. If you cash several smaller checks, and then have one $1,500 check bounce, you can only charge one overdraft fee (typically $12-$35). But if you cash the $1,500 check first, so ten smaller checks (for utilities, credit cards, etc.) can bounce, you now have a new source of income.
How much is this worth, you ask? According to the NY Times, this year alone, banks are expected to make $27 billion by covering overdrafts on checking accounts. Typically these are tied to debit card purchases or checks that exceed a customer’s balance.
Things have gotten worse ever since the financial giants were able to get congress to write legislation that allows the credit card industry to jack up your rates if you're in trouble elsewhere, even if you're current on your account with them (this is called "universal default"). As a result, the first round of bounced checks and overdraft charges inevitably lead to another round of late and over-limit fees elsewhere. In this way, the overdraft cash cow, in many ways, is little more than a government escorted piggy bank for the financial sector.
Hey, doesn't the Bible say something about exploitation and oppression (and hypocrisy)?
Just asking.
- Mark
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
OUR ALICE IN WONDERLAND ECONOMY
I've been meaning to post on health care for some time - and will do so later this evening - but this article ("AIG Advisor Group’s Retention Bonuses Will Be Paid Out by Its Broker-Dealers, Not Its Parent") caught my eye ...
According to Workforce Management the broker-dealers from the once-careening-into-bankruptcy-and-now-taxpayer-funded-AIG will NOT be paid bonuses from AIG. Sounds good, right? After all these broker-dealers are part of the same group that put together the toxic financial packages (CDOs & CDSs; see links) that turned into garbage, exploded in our collective faces, and helped drag the company down. They also helped insure that AIG would need an $85 billion taxpayer funded bailout, for no other reason than they screwed up big time.
In a real business - and in a real market economy - if you put together a deal that exploded in your face and threatened your company with insolvency some people would expect to get fired. If you walked away with cash in the process some people might even be brought up on charges, and could be looking at hard time. But in this Alice in Wonderland economy that's not the case.
It turns out that AIG's brokers will get paid for their incompetence and greed. But not by AIG. Instead, they're getting paid by AIG. Huh? Here's how it works.
Since AIG (and other financial firms) ran into a hail of fire for planning to reward their broker-dealer screw-ups with bonuses they decided to forego paying out bonuses about 6 months ago. Instead AIG is going to allow companies like SagePoint Financial - a subsidiary created by AIG - to pay out bonuses.
Got that? AIG, the parent company that's on the hook for tens of billions in losses manufactured by broker-dealers, and their shoddy business practices, is not paying out bonuses. AIG created subsidiaries like SagePoint (part of the AIG Advisor Group Inc., which includes FSC Securities Corp. and Royal Alliance Associates Inc) will go ahead and pay out bonuses. Nice.
Here's the real fun part. The bonuses aren't called bonuses. They're called "business-building loans" because - at least on paper - they're supposed to be paid back. Only they don't have to be paid back. Why? Because the loans (i.e. bonuses) are structured in way so that they don't have to be paid back. As Workforce points out, they're really "forgivable" loans, that happen to double as "retention bonuses."
See what I mean by "Alice in Wonderland Economy"?
So, you all can rest easy. AIG's mess will not grow because they're not paying out bonuses to reward incompetence. Instead, AIG subsidiaries will do their dirty work. All is good. As Alice might say, "If it had grown up, it would have made a dreadfully ugly child; but it makes rather a handsome pig, I think."
Hey, I think I just saw a rabbit go down a hole ...
- Mark
According to Workforce Management the broker-dealers from the once-careening-into-bankruptcy-and-now-taxpayer-funded-AIG will NOT be paid bonuses from AIG. Sounds good, right? After all these broker-dealers are part of the same group that put together the toxic financial packages (CDOs & CDSs; see links) that turned into garbage, exploded in our collective faces, and helped drag the company down. They also helped insure that AIG would need an $85 billion taxpayer funded bailout, for no other reason than they screwed up big time.
In a real business - and in a real market economy - if you put together a deal that exploded in your face and threatened your company with insolvency some people would expect to get fired. If you walked away with cash in the process some people might even be brought up on charges, and could be looking at hard time. But in this Alice in Wonderland economy that's not the case.
It turns out that AIG's brokers will get paid for their incompetence and greed. But not by AIG. Instead, they're getting paid by AIG. Huh? Here's how it works.
Since AIG (and other financial firms) ran into a hail of fire for planning to reward their broker-dealer screw-ups with bonuses they decided to forego paying out bonuses about 6 months ago. Instead AIG is going to allow companies like SagePoint Financial - a subsidiary created by AIG - to pay out bonuses.
Got that? AIG, the parent company that's on the hook for tens of billions in losses manufactured by broker-dealers, and their shoddy business practices, is not paying out bonuses. AIG created subsidiaries like SagePoint (part of the AIG Advisor Group Inc., which includes FSC Securities Corp. and Royal Alliance Associates Inc) will go ahead and pay out bonuses. Nice.
Here's the real fun part. The bonuses aren't called bonuses. They're called "business-building loans" because - at least on paper - they're supposed to be paid back. Only they don't have to be paid back. Why? Because the loans (i.e. bonuses) are structured in way so that they don't have to be paid back. As Workforce points out, they're really "forgivable" loans, that happen to double as "retention bonuses."
See what I mean by "Alice in Wonderland Economy"?
So, you all can rest easy. AIG's mess will not grow because they're not paying out bonuses to reward incompetence. Instead, AIG subsidiaries will do their dirty work. All is good. As Alice might say, "If it had grown up, it would have made a dreadfully ugly child; but it makes rather a handsome pig, I think."
Hey, I think I just saw a rabbit go down a hole ...
- Mark
Friday, September 4, 2009
OUR STIMULUS CHALLENGE
For those of you wondering why the "recovery" we're currently experiencing will NOT continue check out this USA Today article by David Lynch. In a few words Lynch argues that we can't depend on deficit-stimulus dollars forever. Private demand has to rise. This demand can only come come from three sources: consumption, investment and exports. Unfortunately, things don't look too good. Lynch writes:
Every nation is looking to export their way out of this current mess. This, unfortunately, can't be done. Worse, if we're not careful accomodating trade partners will become fierce trade competitors. Aggressive trade nationalism, competitive tariffs, and currency wars will become part of the mix. Anyone familiar with how world trade deteriorated in the 1930s knows this does not bode well for our future. As then Secretary of State Cordell Hull is reported to have said, "if goods can't cross borders, soldiers will."
Stay tuned.
- Mark
Consumers ... are sidelined by the need to repay debt. Investment, too, is unlikely to contribute much to growth, because many industries already are saddled with unused capacity. (Think anyone will build a new auto plant any time soon?)In the end, Lynch makes one simple point about future consumption, which I also discuss in my book: "the American shopper is tapped out." This leaves exports.
Every nation is looking to export their way out of this current mess. This, unfortunately, can't be done. Worse, if we're not careful accomodating trade partners will become fierce trade competitors. Aggressive trade nationalism, competitive tariffs, and currency wars will become part of the mix. Anyone familiar with how world trade deteriorated in the 1930s knows this does not bode well for our future. As then Secretary of State Cordell Hull is reported to have said, "if goods can't cross borders, soldiers will."
Stay tuned.
- Mark
MORE STUPIDITY FROM FOX (GLENN BECK)
Glenn Beck has to be one of the stupidest people on the face of the earth. What an idiot ...
Tune in for Beck's next segment: "Hammer and Sickle found on piece of toast ..."
- Mark
Tune in for Beck's next segment: "Hammer and Sickle found on piece of toast ..."
- Mark
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
BAILOUT MASTERS ... "GENIUS"
I've always gotten a kick out of these cartoons ...
I especially like this today because Wile E. Coyote helps explain what's really happening with our bailout plan, and how it's currently blowing up in the face of the American taxpayer. Here's how it's happening.
As the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department continue to shove free money and loss guarantees on Wall Street financiers, they seem to believe that the appearance of "recovery" (in the stock market) and small returns ("As Banks Repay Bailout Money, U.S. Sees a Profit") make them genius-like. They did, after all, "save the world" from economic disaster.
What's not discussed in these "save the world / we're making money" narratives is how the U.S. taxpayer is now on the hook for trillions of dollars in loss guarantees ... which were generously offered up by the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. Why is this important? Because, as Mr. Wile E. Coyote found out, the finaciers don't have to worry about the toxic assets on the books because they're just dumping them off - or funneling them back - on to the federal government (see Wile E. Coyote clip if you're having trouble understanding how this works).
Apart from the Fed and FDIC guarantees, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that at least one source has made it clear that even if the banks are paying back $4-12 billion that the banks are still in the red to TARP for $148 billion. This means that every American is still taking it on the chin financially (about $1,200 each). Still, we are being told that "it's all good."
Finally, we want to keep in mind that one reason (perhaps the only reason) the banks are returning some of the TARP money so soon is really tied to greed. As TARP recipients, paying some of the money back is the only way they can start giving out the bonuses that they've "earned" over the past year.
I suspect that once the bailout funds dry up that this thing will blow up in our face again. Genius, indeed.
- Mark
I especially like this today because Wile E. Coyote helps explain what's really happening with our bailout plan, and how it's currently blowing up in the face of the American taxpayer. Here's how it's happening.
As the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department continue to shove free money and loss guarantees on Wall Street financiers, they seem to believe that the appearance of "recovery" (in the stock market) and small returns ("As Banks Repay Bailout Money, U.S. Sees a Profit") make them genius-like. They did, after all, "save the world" from economic disaster.
What's not discussed in these "save the world / we're making money" narratives is how the U.S. taxpayer is now on the hook for trillions of dollars in loss guarantees ... which were generously offered up by the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. Why is this important? Because, as Mr. Wile E. Coyote found out, the finaciers don't have to worry about the toxic assets on the books because they're just dumping them off - or funneling them back - on to the federal government (see Wile E. Coyote clip if you're having trouble understanding how this works).
Apart from the Fed and FDIC guarantees, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that at least one source has made it clear that even if the banks are paying back $4-12 billion that the banks are still in the red to TARP for $148 billion. This means that every American is still taking it on the chin financially (about $1,200 each). Still, we are being told that "it's all good."
Finally, we want to keep in mind that one reason (perhaps the only reason) the banks are returning some of the TARP money so soon is really tied to greed. As TARP recipients, paying some of the money back is the only way they can start giving out the bonuses that they've "earned" over the past year.
I suspect that once the bailout funds dry up that this thing will blow up in our face again. Genius, indeed.
- Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)