Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Change

Posted by on Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Amid criticism that his plan does not adequately address economic stresses on consumers, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is changing direction for the allocation of last month's $700 billion bailout.

Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Secretary Henry Paulson plans to use the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue program to help relieve pressures on consumer credit, scrapping an effort to buy devalued mortgage assets.


"Illiquidity in this sector is raising the cost and reducing the availability of car loans, student loans and credit cards,'' Paulson said today in a speech at the Treasury in Washington. "This is creating a heavy burden on the American people and reducing the number of jobs in our economy.''

Paulson's remarks are an acknowledgement that the centerpiece of the $700 billion bailout request to lawmakers was ill-conceived. Neel Kashkari, the Treasury official who heads the rescue program, told legislators last month that officials shifted to buying stakes in banks because it was a faster way revive capital markets and the economy.


"I will never apologize for changing a strategy or an approach if the facts change,'' Paulson said.


Treasury and Federal Reserve officials are exploring a new "facility'' to bolster the market for securities backed by assets, Paulson said, adding later that the program would be "significant in size.'' Officials are considering using a portion of the bailout money to "encourage private investors to come back to this troubled market,'' he said.

He could run into trouble implementing the decision though:

Lawmakers, who could reject Treasury requests for the remaining $350 billion, are pushing for aid to automakers including General Motors Corp. Paulson is resisting.


Automakers "are a key part of our manufacturing industry and manufacturing is critical,'' Paulson said in response to a question after his prepared remarks. "We need a solution, but the solution has got to be one that leads to viability.''

But here's the most interesting part:

Paulson said he has no timeline for notifying Congress of his intent to use the remaining [Troubled Asset Relief Program] funds, and reiterated that he's "comfortable'' that $700 billion is "what we need'' to stabilize the financial system.

Anyone agree that October's bailout attempt will be enough to stabilize the financial system?

Via Bloomberg

 

Comments (10) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
So AGAIN, we have written a blank check.

Our representatives should be so ashamed. But they're not, and they never will be.
Posted by Non on November 12, 2008 at 10:39 AM
2
Wait until the airlines ask for theirs. Worldwide, 30 airlines have gone tits up this year, and another 30 will go in this recession. The biggest ones will be US carriers, all of whom are essentially bankrupt.
Posted by Fnarf on November 12, 2008 at 10:42 AM
3
And as go the airlines, so goes Boeing. Eek. Nationalize the lot or let 'em fade away - rock and a hard place.
Posted by tomasyalba on November 12, 2008 at 11:15 AM
4
@3, consider that under nationalization, you have the same people bungling the government bailout appointing people to run these nationalized companies. And subject to the political whims of the government. Nationalization doesn't save a bad business from failing, it simply passes the price of failure on to tax payers until it isn't politically viable.
Posted by Bellevue Ave on November 12, 2008 at 11:53 AM
5
BA, you're right - and the political viability in the short term, say the period of at least one term of office for any given elected official, is what makes nationalization a bit tempting. Adding to temptation, selling the let-'em-hang option requires consistent, committed, principled articulation of the overall public benefit while jobs are being lost left and right.

It's a bitch.
Posted by tomasyalba on November 12, 2008 at 12:12 PM
6
Oh wow, so the bailout was all a con job and a bait 'n switch after the Republicans ran the nation like the world's largest pump and dump scheme?

The most amazing thing is that no one saw this coming.
Posted by Original Andrew on November 12, 2008 at 12:20 PM
7
This might seem fucked to say up but really, is it worth burdening the rest of the gainfully employed with packages that are aimed to keep the unemployment rate at some arbitrary percentage point (with juked stats?). Unemployment has more political value than economic value as a metric.

Instead of flushing money down the toilet we should just expand unemployment benefits by 700 billion.
Posted by Bellevue Ave on November 12, 2008 at 1:12 PM
8
Fuck it. Enough with trying to help the banks and existing lenders. Every time we help them and pad their capitalization cushions, they refuse to lend. We're already doing direct government lending for college and small businesses. Let's go whole hog. After all, with proper lending standards, you actually make money on loans.

We've lost approximately $700 billion from the money markets in the past two months. Begin direct lending, not just buying existing commercial paper, but selling it and also banker's acceptances, repos, and the rest. The LIBOR will cease to matter if we pour $700 billion into a government directed money market fund. Then fuck the banks. They can either begin lending and competing, or as they contract, smaller money market players can come in or we can expand our government run operation.

Begin offering car loans, offering mortgages, rather than just buying or guaranteeing them. How are they gonna default? The government can garnish their fucking wages. Offer credit cards with a maximum interest rate of 10%. Begin low cost payday loans.

We'll save the economy and make a fucking mint.
Posted by Gitai on November 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM
9
Gitai, that is wholly retarded idea. You ask how will the government default? Do you need examples of governmental collapse that correspond to bankrupt economic policy? Really?

and that doesn't even speak to the level of corruption that would occur if the government was handing out debt. If there is no risk of default BAD SHIT HAPPENS.
Posted by Bellevue Ave on November 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
10
And this doesnt even consider the potential side effects of government lending or the wishful idea that liberal and progressive schools of thought are going to socially lend to conform with social goals.

Wall Street may have shaken faith in a wholly unregulated free market but Bush has shaken my faith in government providing objective governance.
Posted by Bellevue Ave on November 12, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy