7.4 trillion to try and stop 700 trillion of derivatives from unwinding. The suits have really screwed us this time.
It looks like Iraq will have to move over as Bush's biggest legacy. I know, I know. People on this site don't want to blame the Boy King because he's just a short bicycle ride from the finish line, and besides he's a godly man who clears brush on his ranch. I think it's time to get past the teenage puppy-love phase with this jerk and realize the magnitude of destruction that is unfolding here.
Yes, there were other people involved. Alan Greenspan was a big player, but the Republicans have been minding the store for 8 years.
We needed a President who saw this coming and avoided it before it arrived. Instead we got a malicious clown.
It also irks me when I think about the millions of times I've heard Republicans brag about their acumen at business. How wise and fiscally conservative they were. If so, I'm glad they weren't hopeless incompetents. Think of how bad this might have been.
And if I seem obsessively consumed by my anger at this President and his cabal of morons, just wait. You'll have plenty of time to get angry yourself when you see this go down.
We put a dry drunk nitwit in charge of the free world. A mediocre, uninterested mind in the toughest job on the planet. In a way, what happened as a result all makes perfect sense. The only shocking part is the magnitude of the failure.

Well, the good news is that you folks with earned incomes will soon be able to pay off your mortgage balance with a week's after-tax wages.

And, by the way, I paid $6.50 for a loaf of bread yesterday at the Pearl Bakery, so $10 doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. $100?

"We needed a President who saw this coming and avoided it before it arrived. Instead we got a malicious clown"

I don't disagree, but I sure didn't see the sheeple in Congress saying anything either. Face it, our govt at that level is mostly on a downward spiral IQ-wise. Rather than doing anything when things go south, they'd rather figure how to blame the other guy - very productive.

Bill,

Bush was a lousy president and his policies did little help to avert the financial meltdown (and in some ways they worsened this).

But this was a long time in coming. I remember college prof's lecturing on the perils of deficit spending, unsupportable entitlements and shortsighted monetary policy long before the Internet existed.

Both parties have a lot of blame here. The scary thing is that the D's are now going to have to confront it and follow the advice the Republicans usually offer (but never follow through on): cutting gov't spending by massive amounts.

I think the only primary candidate for president that got close to predicting the economic implosion was Ron Paul.

Everybody else (both parties) told us what we wanted to hear. Not sure when that is going to change (maybe when Congress gets the backbone to start saying "no" to any more bailouts).

Finally, some evidence that Bush hasn't been a complete screw-up. Per Jimmy Kimmel:

"According to statistics, Mexican emigration to the United States has dropped 42 percent over the last four years. You have to hand it to President Bush. He knew the way to stop people from sneaking in was not to build a fence, it was to make this country very undesirable."

Steve-

The president, not congress, appoints his people and sets the tone of how the federal government does its job... I can attest that the SEC and other financial regulatory bodies most definitely changed for the worse when Bush came into office.

Do you think Congress is supposed to be pouring over the books of our financial institutions? That's not how it works. Well, that is until they come looking for a bailout.

Don't forget that this is the President who asserted his right to ignore legislation passed by Congress over 700 times. Bush's whole approach to governing was that he could do any damn thing he wanted, so to try and suggest he was boxed in here by a Congress controlled by his own party for the first 6 years is ridiculous.
If anything this is an argument for 3-branch government - something Bush and Cheney ignored with open contempt.

Bush had an explicit active policy of telling regulatory agencies not to regulate. On the environment, financial sectors, business, across the board. One quick ay to have "small government" is to order all of the appointed political hacks in the executive branch not to do their jobs.

As for this crisis, it seems to me that the sheer size of the derivatives exposure is so large that the taxpayers literally can't hold back the tide. If the exposure is 100 times what we've put in so far, then maybe we can stop the collapse and we're just throwng a good $2 trillion down a hole.

Here's something I wish I understood: if derivatives are like insurance, is there someway to just write them all off, and contain the losses to the premiums paid, rather than the "pay off" value of the insurance.

In other words, if I've paid $100 in premiums to get $10,000 in insurance, just tell me tough luck and the overall loss is $100 rather than $10,000. I get screwed, but the systemwide exposure is 1% the magnitude.

The scary part is the way one wave of failed derivatives causes the next wave.
The theory that they aren't telling us where the money is going because they're rewarding their friends is plausible, but I have to think they're afraid to let us know the extent of the problem. This is sandbag the levee time. Maybe this is Katrina and we're New Orleans.
Of course they're caught between not telling us and hurting our confidence in them, or telling us and really hurting our confidence in them.
One really bad sign considering the role confidence has to play here, is that Paulson and Bernanke have already admitted they were colossally wrong about their initial assessments of what to do.

Of course you could write them off. That is what a financial system with any shred of integrity would require. That would mean that the haves would have to take the fall. Don't hold your breath.

Who would lend to us if we just wrote off the derivatives? Remember, we needed to borrow a billion a day back when times were good.

Who would lend to us if we just wrote off the derivatives? Remember, we needed to borrow a billion a day back when times were good.

We have to do both.

1) Let the companies that underwrote insurance-style derivatives (without the assets to back them) fail.

2) Stop borrowing a billion a day (this will happen sooner or later as the world stops lending to us).

What's that old saying about the first thing you're supposed to do when you find yourself in a hole?

Bill: "The theory that they aren't telling us where the money is going because they're rewarding their friends is plausible, but I have to think they're afraid to let us know the extent of the problem."

I agree. I get the feeling that even some of the press is avoiding talking about what the extent of the exposure really portends.

We talk about "too big to fail", but we're avoiding the fact that the problem might be "too big to solve even if we want to." Most Americans still have the confidence that if we really want to, the gov't CAN fix this - just that it's an expensive bummer. At some point Americans may decide that we CAN'T stop a tsunami no matter what.

I feel like we all have Godzilla standing over our shoulders, but the only way to keep him there is for everyone to keep believing that Godzilla doesn't exist.

The stock market, through the wisdom of crowds and the professional investors, is already factoring in the magnitude of what we face, that's why the market has lost half it's value so far. It's sitting on the fence to see if we figure out the emperor has no clothes, or if we pull through it on a cloud of delusion.

"Of course you could write them off. That is what a financial system with any shred of integrity would require. That would mean that the haves would have to take the fall. Don't hold your breath."

derivatives are "settled" not written off. they are not "debt" but are arrangements between parties to hedge assets or securities. and unfortunately its not the rich that would suffer the most but rather those employed by corporate america.

Well put: James Howard Kunstler

http://is.gd/8NQx

Zombie Economics

Though Citicorp is deemed too big to fail, it's hardly reassuring to know that it's been allowed to sink its fangs into the Mother Zombie that the US Treasury has become and sucked out a multi-billion dollar dose of embalming fluid so it can go on pretending to be a bank for a while longer. I employ this somewhat clunky metaphor to point out that the US Government is no more solvent than the financial zombies it is keeping on walking-dead support. And so this serial mummery of weekend bailout schemes is as much of a fraud and a swindle as the algorithm-derived-securities shenanigans that induced the disease of bank zombification in the first place. The main question it raises is whether, eventually, the creation of evermore zombified US dollars will exceed the amount of previously-created US dollars now vanishing into oblivion through compressive debt deflation.
My guess, given the usual time-lag factor, is that the super-inflation snap-back will occur six to eighteen months from now. And the main result of all this will be our inability to buy the imported oil that comprises two-thirds of the oil we require to keep WalMart and Walt Disney World running. At some point, then, in the early months of the Obama administration, we'll learn that "change" is not a set of mere lifestyle choices but a wrenching transition away from all our familiar and comfortable habits into a stark and rigorous new economic landscape.
The credit economy is dead and the dead credit residue of that dead economy is going where dead things go. It came into the world as "money" and it is going out of this world as a death-dealing disease, and we're not going to get over this disease until we stop generating additional zombie money out of no productive activity whatsoever. The campaign to sustain the unsustainable is, besides war, the greatest pitfall this society can stumble into. It represents a squandering of our remaining scant resources and can only produce the kind of extreme political disappointment that wrecks nations and leads to major conflicts between them. I don't know how much Mr. Obama buys into the current adopt-a-zombie program -- his Treasury designee Timothy Geithner was apparently in on this weekend's Citicorp deal -- but the President would be wise to steer clear of whatever the walking dead in the Bush corner are still up to.
All the activities based on getting something-for-nothing are dead or dying now, in particular buying houses and cars on credit and so it should not be a surprise that the two major victims are the housing and car industries. Notice, by the way, that these are the two major ingredients of an economy based on building suburban sprawl. That's over, too. We're done building it and the stuff we've already built is destined to loose both money value and usefulness as the wrenching transition goes forward.
All this obviously begs the question: what kind of economy are we going to live in if the old one is toast? Well, it's also pretty obvious that it will have to be based on activities productively aimed at keeping human beings alive in an ecology that has a future. Once you grasp this, you will see that there is no reason to despair and more than enough for all of us to do, so we can recover from the zombie nation disease and get on with the next chapter of American history -- and I sure hope that Mr. Obama will get with the new program.
To be specific about this new economy, we're going to have to make things again, and raise things out of the earth, locally, and trade these things for money of some kind that we earn through our own productive activities. Don't make the mistake of thinking this is optional. The only other option is to go through a violent sociopolitical convulsion. We ought to know from prior examples in world history that this is not a desirable experience. So, to avoid that, we really have to put our shoulders to the wheel and get to work on things that matter, and do it at a scale that is consistent with what the world really has to offer right now, especially in terms of available energy.
In my view -- and I know this is controversial -- a much larger proportion of the US population will have to be employed in growing the food we eat. There are many ways of arranging this, some more fair than others, and I hope the better angels of our nature steer us in the direction of fairness and justice. The prospects of a devalued dollar imply that we very shortly will not be able to get the all the oil-and-gas based "inputs" that have made petro-agriculture possible the past century. The consequences of this are so unthinkable that we have not been thinking about it. And, of course, the further implications of current land-use allocation, and the property ownership issues entailed, suggests formidable difficulties in re-arranging the farming sector. The sooner we face all this, the better.
As the fiesta of "globalism" (Tom Friedman-style) draws to a close -- another consequence of currency problems -- we'll have to figure out how to make things in this country again. We will not be manufacturing things at the scale, or in the manner, we were used to in, say, 1962. We'll have to do it far more modestly, using much more meager amounts of energy than we did in the past. My guess is that we will get the electricity for doing this mostly from water. It may actually be too late -- from a remaining capital resources point-of-view -- to ramp up a new phase of the nuclear power industry (and there are plenty of arguments from the practical and economic to the ethical against it). But we have to hold a public discussion about it, if only to clear the air and get on with other things, namely the new activites of alt.energy. But I would hasten to warn readers (again!) that we'll probably have to do these things more modestly too (don't count on giant wind "farms"), and that we are liable to be disappointed by what they can actually provide for us (don't expect to run WalMart on wind, solar, algae-fuels, etc).
In any case, we're not going back to a "consumer" economy. We're heading into a hard work economy in which people derive their pleasures and gratification more traditionally -- mainly through the company of their fellow human beings (which is saying a lot, for those of you who have forgotten what that's about). Our current investments in "education" -- i.e. training people to become marketing executives for chain stores -- will delude Americans for a while about what kind of work is really available. But before long, the younger adults will realize that there are enormous opportunities for them in a new and very different economy. We will still have commerce -- even if it's not the K-Mart blue-light-special variety -- and the coming generation will have to rebuild all the local, multi-layered networks of commercial inter-dependency that were destroyed by the rise of the chain stores. In short, get ready for local business. It will surely be part-and-parcel of our local food-growing and manufacturing activities.
I hate to keep harping on this -- but since nobody else is really talking about it, at least in the organs of public discussion, the job is left to me -- we have to get cracking on the revival of the railroad system in this country, if we expect to remain a united country. This is such a no-brainer that the absence of any talk about it is a prime symptom of the zombie disease that has eaten away our brains. Automobiles (the way we use them) and airplanes are utterly dependent on liquid hydrocarbon fuels, and you can be certain we'll have trouble getting them. You can run trains by other means -- electricity being state-of-the-art in those parts of the world that do it most successfully. I know that California just voted to create a high-speed rail link between Los Angeles and San Francisco. It's an optimistic sign, but it shows more than a little techno-grandiose over-reach. High speed rail would require a mega-expensive re-do of the tracks. We need to scale our ambitions for this more realistically. California (and every other region of America) would benefit much more from normal-speed trains running every hour on the hour on tracks that already exist than from a mega-expensive, grandiose sci-fi program that might not get built for ten years. The dregs of the Big Three automakers can and should be reorganized to produce the rolling stock for a revived railroad system.
Even amidst the financial carnage underway right now, the public is enjoying a respite from high-priced gasoline, but it is due to be short-lived. As I've already said, we are in danger not just of oil prices going way back up again, but of losing access to our supplies from the exporting countries. In other words, we're just as likely to face shortages as high prices, and soon. Oil shortages are certain to produce a political freak-out here unless we get our heads screwed on right -- and this means that Mr. Obama had better prepare quickly for a comprehensive action plan in the face of such an emergency (which has to include a robust public information initiative).
In the meantime, Mr. Obama must dissociate himself from all activities aimed at the care-and-feeding of zombies. Mr. Obama is correct that there is one president and one government at a time, and since this is the case in reality, he must avoid being contaminated by the choices they make as their clock ticks out. Obviously, world markets might be more disturbed if Mr. Obama were to step up and actively contradict everything that is being done to cultivate zombies right now. He is in a very delicate position. But being a man of intelligence and sensibility, he may successfully navigate this rough passage.
That this melt-down is building straight into the Christmas holidays is one of those accidents of history that leaves one reeling in wonder and nausea. The cable networks better be prepared to bombard the public with round-the-clock showings of It's A Wonderful Life, because they're going to need all the moral support they can get as zombies stalk through the silent night, holy night.

its not the rich that would suffer the most but rather those employed by corporate america.

Not to mention the retired, disabled, widowed, and others who have savings or retirement plans that they depend on now for financial security.

There is exactly one way we can save ourselves the trauma here: If perchance we have back-engineered an energy system from off the planet.
We need a giant leap for mankind. If the government has anything they haven't disclosed on this, now is the time.

Remember that the DEMS> where in power for the 6 of the 8 years>>>>>>and before that they were in charge for 8 years>>> and another 40 years>>>>so who are the idiots now going to be more DEMS! Soooooo there!

"Do you think Congress is supposed to be pouring over the books of our financial institutions?"

Remind me again about what Chris Dodd or Barney Franks' responsibilities are - if not finance? Try to remember the one group with a lower approval rating thatn Bush is Congress.

My point is, yes, Bush screwed up. But rather than actually do anything constructive they'd rather sit around and find people to blame.

Obama just appointed his experts to Treasury and Economic Boards -National and Domestic. He has outlined the stimulus plan and job growth agenda. Meanwhile Paulson babbles and seems totally at sea, gladly willing to hand the problem over. Congress needs to act now and they will on the auto industry. Congress must learn from Paulson's failure to attach spending requirements to the bank rescue plan. Exempt spending on executive compensation and limit asset purchases. Bush has become so marginalized that he will probably not stand in the way of Congress enacting Obama's recovery plan formulated thus far. Meanwhile the inauguration won't come soon enough. This Christmas it's cases of albacore for all.

Kunstler's been predicting the apocalypse "in the next few weeks" for a long, long time. He also thought Y2K was going to bring down civilization as we know it. Yawn.

"Meanwhile Paulson babbles and seems totally at sea"

I agree, at first I thought there was some thought out plan - now it seems like a lot of pseudo-significant gestures.

Kunstler's been predicting the apocalypse "in the next few weeks" for a long, long time. He also thought Y2K was going to bring down civilization as we know it. Yawn.

and government and Wall Street have been better at understanding what's happening?

Kunstler's called the plays with uncanny accuracy, overall. much of what he discussed in the Long Emergency has already come to pass, or has begun to happen.

perfect prediction? no. right on the big picture? he's hard to ignore.

meanwhile, get ready for gas at $4 and up again in the next 3-6 months. there is a prediction for you.

"Don't forget that this is the President who asserted his right to ignore legislation passed by Congress over 700 times."

You tell me the last time Bush vetoed a spending bill.

"... the feeling that even some of the press is avoiding talking about what the ..." muck is deep.

"... cable networks better be prepared to bombard the public with round-the-clock showings ...," or maybe if all TV went off, like a nationwide blackout of only TV appliances. hmmmmm ...

Anyway, this thought popped up recently in an internal dialogue box: What if all the car companies go out of business, WHO is going to buy TV advertising time ???

... or 8-page 2-color Sunday paper-space inserts ???

On the other hand, if We the People socialize the car factories and keep the industry in business -- owning, overseeing, and directing it -- then how much ad budget decision do We Peeps allocate, to see ourselves on TV tell ourselves we make cars?

I figured one time that, on a $20ooo SUV, as much as $4ooo the buyer pays went for advertising, which supported the TV to inject that programming crap TV puts in the massmind.

---
Oh, didja see the latest new book from the biosociology master, (E.O.Wilson) explaining how each person in the community adds to the self-knowledge of the Community, (where the capital 'C' indicates the at-large 'Community,' overall, is a living, thinking organism).

E Pluribus Unum, by STEVE JONES, November 21, 2008 Book Review -- The Superorganism: The beauty, elegance and strangeness of insect societies, by Bert Hölldobler and Edward O. Wilson,
Hölldobler and Wilson’s central conceit is that a colony is a single animal raised to a higher level. Each insect is a cell, its castes are organs, its queens are its genitals, the wasps that stung me are an equivalent of an immune system. In the same way, the foragers are eyes and ears, and the colony’s rules of development determine its shape and size. The hive has no brain, but the iron laws of cooperation give the impression of planning. Teamwork pays; ...

And, by the way, I paid $6.50 for a loaf of bread yesterday at the Pearl Bakery, so $10 doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. $100?

Quoting prices at expensive boutique stores isnt really fair. You can get expensive bread at many places like Panera Bread and even Whole Foods. But you can still get a loaf of sandwich bread for $1 at the supermarket. (Even fresh french bread for $1.50.) And if you really want to stretch your dollar, go to one of the bakery outlets.

And if you really want to stretch your dollar, go to one of the bakery outlets.

i pay a bit more for better bread (or make it) because most "cheap" bread's primary ingredient is--corn syrup. check the label.

it's sad to see folks feeding themselves and their children what's essentially a paste of white flour and corn syrup; two of the most nutrition-free, fat-encouraging substances around.

$10.00 for bread may be the yeast of our worries.

Re. Corn Syrup . . . view the DVD documentary KING CORN. And I thought sugar and salt were the most ubiquitous substances in our manufactured foods.

Re. the recent full page ads in the NY Times and elsewhere by economically troubled companies . . . It's worse than flares from the Titanic; it's more like the Titanic's crew setting fire to its own lifeboats in a desperate attempt to attract assistance.

Priced print advertising space in a major paper or network air time per minute lately?

expensive boutique stores

Jon, it's actually just a local bakery. Local folks making stuff to eat out of basic ingredients. Right there, in the back. You should give it a try.