Stress test kabuki

let the banks just "earn" their way back to solvency, as Tiny Tim proposes -- brilliant!!

And if anyone has questions about where the squillions of taxpayer dollars have gone, just ask Federal Reserve Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman. Or you could ask a rock -- in the end, you'd get about the same amount of information from either one.

the Iraq war buildup.

Exhibit 1: Chris Bowers

I am not going to pretend to know whether or not the tests are just bullshit. What I do know is that they better not just be bullshit, or there will massively negative political consequences for the entire Democratic Party as a result.

That's it? He doesn't pretend to know, and thus he will just go along his merry way, whistling a happy tune? How would anyone in PB 1.0 have reacted if a Republican blogger had written the following leading up to the Iraq war:

I am not going to pretend to know whether or not [Reports of Al- Qaeda in Iraq/Colin Powell's UN Speech, etc.] are just bullshit. What I do know is that they better not just be bullshit, or there will massively negative political consequences for the entire [Republican] Party as a result.

DK makes a great comparison to Iraq and we know how that turned out.

This situation does dwarf so many other issues as you mention, and that's why I can't get excited about Obama's small overtures to normalcy. It has ramifications on executive power that may come back to haunt us in so many areas (warrantless searches, torture, invading other countries, etc). If we suffer another 9/11 type attack I'm not sure Obama has the fortitude to avoid a Bush trap. And with an unaccountable executive we are practically begging Obama to abuse us down the road.

Lambert, I am also exasperated by the lack of coverage on financial issues by the left. I think that some take the lazy way out because "following the money" takes work and thought and would cause some to admit that they backed the wrong guy. I mean, nobody likes to admit that they have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, lied to, led astray and run amok. I, frankly, hate that we have been essentially punked by Goldman Sachs and AIG.

But please continue on blogging this issue. It is too big to sleepwalk past it. Thanks for all that you do. Peace!

Banksters. Per AP story today:

The White House told industry officials on Friday that it is leaning toward recommending that the Federal Reserve become the supercop for "too big to fail" companies capable of causing another financial meltdown.

Like, what could possibly go wrong with that?

Just before reading the AP story, I came across this at Susie Madrak's where she pointed readers to a piece by Eliot Spitzer in Salon about the make-up of the NY Fed committee.

So who selected Geithner back in 2003? Well, the Fed board created a select committee to pick the CEO. This committee included none other than Hank Greenberg, then the chairman of AIG; John Whitehead, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs; Walter Shipley, a former chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, now JPMorgan Chase; and Pete Peterson, a former chairman of Lehman Bros. It was not a group of typical depositors worried about the security of their savings accounts but rather one whose interest was in preserving a capital structure and way of doing business that cried out for—but did not receive—harsh examination from the N.Y. Fed.

The composition of the New York Fed's board, which supervises the organization and current Chairman Friedman, is equally troubling. The board consists of nine individuals, three chosen by the N.Y. Fed member banks as their own representatives, three chosen by the member banks to represent the public, and three chosen by the national Fed Board of Governors to represent the public. In theory this sounds great: Six board members are "public" representatives.

So whom have the banks chosen to be the public representatives on the board during the past decade, as the crisis developed and unfolded? Dick Fuld, the former chairman of Lehman; Jeff Immelt, the chairman of GE; Gene McGrath, the chairman of Con Edison; Ronay Menschel, the chairwoman of Phipps Houses and also, not insignificantly, the wife of Richard Menschel, a former senior partner at Goldman. Whom did the Board of Governors choose as its public representatives? Steve Friedman, the former chairman of Goldman; Pete Peterson; Jerry Speyer, CEO of real estate giant Tishman Speyer; and Jerry Levin, the former chairman of Time Warner. These were the people who were supposedly representing our interests!

Of course, there have been the occasional nonfinance representatives from academia and labor. But they have been so outnumbered that their presence has done little to alter the direction of the board.

So is it any wonder that the N.Y. Fed has been complicit in the single greatest bailout of poorly managed banks in history? Any wonder that it has given—with virtually no strings attached—practically the entire contents of the Treasury to the very banks whose inability to manage risk has brought our economy to its knees? Any wonder that not a single CEO or senior executive of a major bank has been removed as a condition of hundreds of billions of direct cash and guarantees? Any wonder that, despite its fundamental responsibility to preserve the integrity of the banking system, it sat quietly on the sidelines as the leverage beneath the banks exploded and the capital underlying their investments shrank?

Food for thought, huh?

Foxes guarding too-big-to-fail henhouses....? See no foxes, hear no foxes, speak of no foxes. That's our current administration.

The Left is generally silent on the economy because many of the Left are too scared by its failure and too busy trying to tread water to object to the scam.

Most people now realize the banks own it all which is a step forward.

This is another lesson in learned helplessness. The Company, as always, brings good things to life. Those feeling otherwise end up in the cornfield.

I think that the lack of engagement by the left has a great deal to do with Obamania --- because the financial issues are both so complex and opaque, there is a natural tendency to not engage them that is heightened by the fact that Obama is now running the show, and the left is still in denial about the true nature of his administration.

perpetrated by a bunch of suit-and-tie con artists helped by the politicians they could buy since approximately 1960, aimed at undoing everything FDR put in place to stop them being the out-in-the-open respectable thieves they were from 1779 to 1929.

Nothing complex or opaque about it -- greed turns to stupid like oats and hay turn to horse manure. Sometimes it happens honestly, out in front of God and everybody, and sometimes it's hidden behind rich veneers and costly clothes. Doesn't change what it is, just how it looks. Not how it smells.

of a narcissistic, sexually violent sociopath and during that engagement, I learned a tremendous amount about how con artists work. The shortest explanation I know of was from a guy in prison who had bilked by people of millions of dollars. In the beginning of a relationship - like within the first few minutes - he would tell a lie to the new acquaintance. If the acquaintance went along with the lie, then he knew he had them until the bitter end. Once someone had their "coming to Obama" moment, they were in on the con. They fell for the idea that nefarious means could be used to achieve an honorable goal - and of course, that never works. For God's sakes, the bill that moved the primary up in Michigan that eventually cost Clinton the nomination, was written by Republicans and passed on a party line vote with only Republicans voting for it. How is it desirable to choose our nominee based on the actions of the opposition? Yet, that is what we did and the lefty blogosphere acted as the shock troops for that action.

So, now they are in the position of having elected a right wing asshole who is handing trillions over to the banks and they don't want to admit that with all their analytical faculties, they fell for the bigotry and elected a right wing douchebag to the presidency.

Their refusal to investigate this is simple self-preservation. They were conned and they don't have the nerve to admit it yet. No one is who is actually familiar with clinton's voting record (and very few Obama supporters are) believes she would have handled it in this fashion. Heck, even Reagan wasn't this tied in to the financial industry. And yet, the blogosphere drove the anti-Clinton rhetoric and got their candidate elected. He is now the right of Bush and Reagan on critical issues. This is a catastrophe for the blogosphere and they have no idea how to deal with it.

Personally, I think Obama was the GOP candidate.

The Grand Old Pirates and the DINOcrats are all subsidiaries of the invisible empire that is global corporatism. For awhile, the oafish brutality of Bu$hCo-Cheneyburton suited their aggregate purpose.

Now, however, the $ystem's been run into the ground. The goal of placing an Obama- a Clinton would have done the same thing- in control is to smooth the flow of cash, and open the Treasury to the right people. As soon as they find the DINOcrats inconvenient, the banksters will abandon them, too.

The thought of us going off the financial cliff scares me so much it makes me, at times, desperate to believe this is not happening. Especially after reading that Bloomberg article over how Geithner (and Summers) believe banksters can "earn" their way out of this mess like the Japanese tried to.

Also: speaking of news coverage, CJR drew up a list of all the articles that foretold of the economic crisis from 2000-'07 in order to show how the press, overall, failed.