On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:26 AM, michael perelman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Also, it allows Obama to avoid being labeled as a socialist. Â Other than > that, it sounds stupid.
I disagree. On its own terms, the plan makes a lot of sense. We should soon find out if the banks have a mere liquidity crisis (which this plan should resolve) or a deeper insolvency crisis which should lead to nationalization. Treasury has clearly learned from the failure of Paulson's TARP: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2009/db20090322_447222.htm "This approach is superior to the alternatives of either hoping for banks to gradually work these assets off their books or of the government purchasing the assets directly," Treasury said in a briefing paper. "Simply hoping for banks to work legacy assets off over time risks prolonging a financial crisis, as in the case of the Japanese experience. But if the government acts alone in directly purchasing legacy assets, taxpayers will take on all the risk of such purchases—along with the additional risk that taxpayers will overpay if government employees are setting the price for those assets." -raghu. -- Plankton lobbyist: "NUKE THE WHALES!" _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
