Financial Russian Roulette (by Paul Krugman)
Most of the business of finance is carried out through complex deals arranged by “nondepository” institutions, institutions like the late lamented Bear Stearns — and Lehman. The new system was supposed to do a better job of spreading and reducing risk. But in the aftermath of the housing bust and the resulting mortgage crisis, it seems apparent that risk wasn’t so much reduced as hidden: all too many investors had no idea how exposed they were… The real answer to the current problem would, of course, have been to take preventive action before we reached this point. Even leaving aside the obvious need to regulate the shadow banking system — if institutions need to be rescued like banks, they should be regulated like banks — why were we so unprepared for this latest shock?
"Massive Systemic Meltdown" (by Arthur Silber at The Power of Narrative)
Look at it this way. It'll be something to tell your children about, as you all sit around the campfire and open your last can of food. Or you can learn to shoot moose. Of course, someone might still blink, putting off the day of reckoning for a few more weeks, or a month or two. But I doubt that can be done much longer. This will be a good week to be unconscious. Or heavily drugged. Your choice, because we're free and that's why they hate us. Or something.
No, it's really not the economy (by lambert at Corrente)
No, it’s not the economy, no no no no no. That’s for the Clintons, but they’re not shiny. La la la la la I can’t hear you! Sarah Palin has a seaplane!
But wait! Maybe Obama’s meeting with the Big Dog last week did some good. See below.—Caro
Obama blames Wall St. crisis on Republican policy (AP)
CHICAGO - Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Monday the upheaval on Wall Street was "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression" and blamed it on policies that he said Republican rival John McCain supports.
If Obama started acting like a Democrat, some of the disaffected might be willing to take another look. But it may be too late to woo back many of them. Click below for some of the reasons why many of us doubt his sincerity when it comes to issues.—Caro
Click here for more political and media news headlines.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
- Caro's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
he never says "Bush" or "Republican"--
Not one of the articles on him "blaming Republican policy" include any direct quotes naming the culprits--or assigning any blame to those companies that cooked all their books and sold shitty mortgages over and over--as if they were passive pawns who were forced play games with billions.
Stuff happens.
Doesn't it?
guess so--like magic
and also--he doesn't say what he's gonna do to prevent this stuff--and his economic advisors are not for more regulation--at all.
Mistakes were made.
Weren't they?
FEMA's on the job--not--again
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politi... -- FEMA bashed for Hurricane Ike response
is this true? Obama tried to stall GIs' Iraq Withdrawal--
it's the NY Post tho -- http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/pos...
" WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview. ..."
Well, the NY Post was the paper that
sounded the clarion call about Hillary's plan to assassinate Obama, so they just have to be believed about this story, too, doncha think?
well, Obama's campaign is overreacting to it--
why would they do this if there wasn't some truth to it? And they're not strictly denying it, btw--
Politico -- Obama campaign contests Taheri column -- http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0... -- "... An Obama aide accused Taheri of confusing the Status of Forces agreement with a Strategic Framework Agreement, for which Obama has pushed for congressional review. ..."
it seems it's essentially true,
whether Obama was pushing for US Congressional review of something that a sovereign nation would never agree to--or if the columnist is confusing diff. agreements.
and isn't our military presence there a UN thing
too? It's only a Congress thing if they're willing to cut the funding or force a withdrawal or timeline--which they're not--no?
Amberglow, Let me Explain It To You
The Status Of Forces Agreement is one between Iraq and this country. The position of the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign has been that any such agreement is essentially a "treaty," and is therefore subject to review and approval of congress before it can be finalized, as per the constitution. The Bush administration position was that it was solely an agreement and thus, purely the responsibility of the administration, to be finalized without congressional approval, although the Iraqi side would have to be presented to their Parliament.
Are you with me so far?
The Agreement was an attempt to lock the next President into permanent basis within Iraq and to make it even more difficult to get out. The Bush administration was so arrogant and overreaching in its demands of the Maliki government, that even a puppet like Maliki knew that he couldn't present anything like what the administration's demands to Parliament without losing any chance of winning the upcoming elections. The result was a long impasse during which time, Maliki gained enough confidence that he no longer found it a necessity to get such an agreement passed. The negotiations had been set aside, although there is recent evidence that the Bush administration is still pushing for some kind of agreement.
At any rate, that is what Obama is talking about. Even if he were against the Iraqi government negotiating a draw-down agreement with Bush, there shouldn't be anything shocking about that; it would not mean that he was pretending to want a draw down while working against it; it would only mean that he was concerned about finding himself, if he becomes President, committed to a longer drawn-down that he feels is necessary, or will be necessary. Bush can withdraw as many troops he wants anytime he wants to; he doesn't need an agreement with the Iraqis to do that. But an agreement made to a longer schedule than the next President might believe is necessary will be a problem. Of course in the case that it is McCain, there will no desire to get out of Iraq, and there will be a status of forces agreement for permanent basis within Iraq, which McCain obviously sees as our payment for the Trillion or so the Iraq war will have cost us.
if that agreement was meant to keep troops there,
and Obama was trying to get Iraq to keep the troops there, how could that possibly be it?
seriously.
And all he would have to do is withdraw how many he wants once he took office--no matter what an agreement with the previous president said, no?
And it's not a treaty anyway, no matter what he says.
or is he planning on honoring agreements
made by Bush that he explicitly and repeatedly said won't be operative once he's in office?
Why would he be committed? Why wouldn't he renegotiate? Why is what Bush does the law set in stone, when it's just an agreement?
or does it mean he would go to Congress
and if they voted no withdrawal, he wouldn't withdraw? And if they voted to withdraw the agreement would be meaningless anyway?
or go to them to make a real treaty?
or go to them to approve him moving soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan? and if they didn't, he couldn't?
...