Saturday, April 04, 2009
Fork me
Identifying, as I usually do, with the corporate tools...
Context, and a much better graphic, here. And, of course, "The Mob Song" from Beauty and the Beast.
The question, of course, is whether Gaston is in league with the president. If so, President Obama should remember that the mob can devour unanticipated targets.
8 Comments:
By 
richard mcenroe, at
Sun Apr 05, 10:14:00 AM:
By 
, at
Sun Apr 05, 12:04:00 PM:
One of the great blessings we enjoy in the US is the ability to bring about real change through debate, voting, petitions, referenda, etc. When change only comes about through armed revolution, it comes at a very high price, and the destruction wrought slows progress and cuts prosperity off at the knees.
Obama is stoking the sort of anger that leads to vigilantism and violent revolt. Those of us who are protesting the out of control spending by the federal government and the drive to put corporations under state control MUST AVOID getting sucked into Obama's pitchfork fantasies. While I understand the symbolic significance, and the real anger that many people have, I truly believe that this administration would love nothing more than to have an excuse to crack down on dissent because it is getting violent.
Words are powerful things- it is imperative that even in blog posts we make clear that we will not threaten or use physical violence against those we disagree with. Leave that to the ACORN bus tours.
By , at
Sun Apr 05, 01:56:00 PM:
From Link:
Meanwhile, the New York Post is reporting today that the head of TARP oversight, Harvard Law prof Elizabeth Warren, will go public with a report this week calling for the firing of top executives at TARP recipients. According to the Post, she's also calling for "accurate valuation of the troubled assets currently being held" and for wiping out current shareholders.
Elizabeth Warren has a hard-on for banks. Her expertise is bankruptcy law -- she thinks banks screw consumers over credit cards. She's probably right ... but go tell that to the Senator from MBNA, Joe Biden.
She's only one official ... and I can't tell if the Post is exaggerating what she'll say in this upcoming report ... but I'd be surprised if she's taking this position without approval from Obama & Co. Once again, they're intent on creating fear and uncertainty and then exploiting it. This may feed into concerns with upcoming stress tests at the big banks.
So are toxic assets still undervalued? I thought Timmy's plan, recent market deals done by the banks themselves, and easing mark-to-market were all about validating that toxic assets had probably been written down too much.
I suspected that Axelrod was behind pumping up the AIG bonus story. It's right out of the Alinsky playbook. Obama loves to step in after one of his agents creates controversy and outrage.
Still developing ...
By , at
Sun Apr 05, 02:12:00 PM:
Link, again:
The following is a post on Coyote Blog:
"Mesa Econoguy:
And the WSJ has an op-ed by Stuart Varney citing a Fox Biz story that Obama is refusing repayment of TARP money, retaining effective control over a solvent money-center bank:
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
If they begin forcing bankruptcy for solvent institutions, wiping out shareholders, and installing their stooges in management (who will then direct lending practices), get ready for war. First shareholder class-action legal wars, then open armed conflict."
As many of you know, some of the big banks didn't want TARP money but were forced to go along, lest the banks who really needed it be made obvious. The literal contractual terms gave the government the right to rewrite the terms of the TARP deal after the fact.
***
Another thing. Does anyone else find it funny that Obama is in Europe calling for major country nuclear disarmament at the same time North Korea is firing off a rocket?
By Elise, at
Sun Apr 05, 03:47:00 PM:
The original Politico story with the pitchfork line made clear that some of the bank CEOs (Dimon is the only one specifically named) want to give back the TARP money as soon as possible and Obama refused to "streamline" the process to do so.
My question is, so what? The bank CEOs don't need permission to give back the money. They can simply set up accounts and dump their TARP repayments into those accounts. The banks can then write a letter to the Treasury Department (cc'ed to Congress and all major news outlets) letting Geithner know the money is waiting when the government is ready to take it and saying that the banks consider themselves out from under TARP, thanks for the help.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Apr 05, 04:35:00 PM:
Elise, I am no TARP expert, but I believe you are mistaken. Prior to the third anniversary of a TARP investment, the shares may only be redeemed from the proceeds of a new equity investment from a private source, NOT retained earnings or other source of capital. Of course, with bank stocks in the basement nobody wants to issue common equity right now, so even if the bank in question is plenty overcapitalized it cannot get out of TARP without the government's consent. For one view on why that consent will not be forth coming, see Stuart Varney's recent op-ed piece.
By , at
Sun Apr 05, 04:46:00 PM:
TH, you're right on TARP redemption. For most banks, TARP money is cheap capital ... hard to replace right now, even if it weren't for that specific provision.
I suspect that this story line is diversionary, and we're all being played. We had a couple of weeks of Wall Street bonus stories. Now, expect a couple of weeks on how bank managements are A) jeopardizing the government's investment and B) not lending to people who need it. People like Barney Frank can argue A) and B) at the same time.
Stories can't develop about how wasteful Obama's budget will be, if we're pre-occupied with whether Obama might nationalize a few banks.
If that sounds paranoid, it fits the times.
Link
By Elise, at
Sun Apr 05, 06:02:00 PM:
Mea culpa, TH, I leapt before I looked.
It still seems to me, though, that PR-wise it would be a good idea for the banks to make it perfectly clear that they are prepared to return the money. I realize they have *said* they are but perhaps putting their money up-front would focus more attention on this issue.
Even if Varney's story about a bank being threatened by the government if it attempts to return the money is correct (and I hope, more sincerely than I can say, that it isn't), perhaps if a number of CEOs acted in concert it would be more difficult for the government to punish all of them.
If nothing else this post has convinced me to send a link to the original Politico story along to the people I know who voted for Obama. I'll be interested to hear what they have to say about Obama refusing to take back the money.
