Article

2009-03-06 Home Front Economy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 2009-03-06 10:08|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 So basically, Paul Krugman is on track to become Obama's very own Father Conklin - a fanatical election-year supporter who turned on the punative Saviour of the Left because he wasn't leftist enough, fast enough?

Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H. 2009-03-06 11:42|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2009-03-06 11:42|| Front Page Top

#2 Its what happens when a peson stands on the fence post of decision and instead of falling on one side or the other, chooses a little of both and falls straight down.

I don't like the idea of nationalizing the banks even if the arguement could be made to do so because I have zero confidence in who would be the decision makers; also do you really want the people who are in charge now deciding your health concerns? Back to the topic, why in the world do it with failed banks (ex. nationalize the energy industry under the name Enron) - the only way it would have any confidence with the people is if were successful in the first place before a state takeover - but if they are successful its because they didn't bite into the government apple.

Posted by swksvolFF 2009-03-06 12:39|| 2009-03-06 12:39|| Front Page Top

#3 So Geithner really, really believes the cost of an average home in southern California should be $1 million? Yippee! As soon as he can get me that much for my house I'm outta here.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-03-06 12:50|| 2009-03-06 12:50|| Front Page Top

#4 Ebbang, after a few days of Zimbob-style inflation your house will easily be worth that million you want. And Zero's working on it.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2009-03-06 14:04|| 2009-03-06 14:04|| Front Page Top

#5 I don't like the idea of nationalizing the banks even if the arguement could be made to do so because I have zero confidence in who would be the decision makers;

Yah, if we're going to have socialism, we need socialism run by someone who's at least tried to run a small business and failed, and knows that things can go astray of your best intentions.

All the democrats seem to have in the way of real businessmen are the people who made sweetheart deals based on their personal influence, like Terry McAuliffe or Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-03-06 14:58|| 2009-03-06 14:58|| Front Page Top

#6 Ebbang, when that happens, your grocery bill will average a grand a week.

Posted by Redneck Jim">Redneck Jim 2009-03-06 15:28|| 2009-03-06 15:28|| Front Page Top

#7 Suspending the MTM rule is an even dumber idea than anything the Obamanauts have yet come up with. Our troubles will not go away if the toxic waste is given an imaginarily high value, either. A lot of the big banks are truly insolvent, need to be taken out back & shot in the head. Housing is still ridiculously overpriced, even in places like Detroit & Cleveland.
do you really want the people who are in charge now deciding your health concerns? That is on the topic, very much so. I sure don't want the pirates & thieves who have run the world banking system into the ground to deciding to dig their holes even deeper. Sometimes I think chimps could make better decisions than the Best and the Brightest® have done.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-03-06 16:10|| 2009-03-06 16:10|| Front Page Top

#8 Although mark-to-market is a problem where there is no legitimate market, the whole MTM notion is not the full story. It emanates from FASB157 and applies only to assets held for sale. If a bank makes a loan which it holds on its books to maturity MTM has no relevance. There is the need for annual write down provisioning which is different. So the MTM issue is a bit of a red herring and not fully understood. [See Steve Forbes in the WSJ today - he gets it wrong as well]. But it is legitimate where there is no market - which should be defined as a ready and willing buyer meeting a ready and willing seller. At the moment the only buyers are hedgefunds who want to pay fire sale prices so that doesn't fit the definition. It is a mess and not easily susceptible to a silver bullet.

Posted by Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 2009-03-06 16:24|| 2009-03-06 16:24|| Front Page Top

#9 "Some adults are required but no-one will take the jobs"

The adults won't take these jobs because the White House staff studiously ignores whatever they have to say. There are stories about Paul Volker wandering the halls of White House trying to find someone to speak to while the political types make policy decisions without any input from the economic advisors.

Posted by Frozen Al 2009-03-06 16:38|| 2009-03-06 16:38|| Front Page Top

#10 These declinations are of no consequence. The One's devoted Leibstandarte primary staff will find the right people. There should be no concern, no concern at all.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-03-06 16:52|| 2009-03-06 16:52|| Front Page Top

#11 Our troubles will not go away if the toxic waste is given an imaginarily high value, either.

Way to demolish that straw man. The problem with mark to market is that it has effectively destroyed the ability of anyone to make a market in the "toxic waste" that is an incredible long term opportunity but would result in an immediate short term GAAP loss for any purchaser without creating any tax benefit. Listen to John Allison's presentation to understand how a responsible banker views mark-to-market.

A lot of the big banks are truly insolvent, need to be taken out back & shot in the head. Housing is still ridiculously overpriced, even in places like Detroit & Cleveland.

Great non-sequitur.

Mark to market should be reversed. We've had it for two years. Let's repeal it for two and see what happens.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-03-06 17:35|| 2009-03-06 17:35|| Front Page Top

#12 I'm with NS. MtM is no secret anymore. Nobody is going to get 'suckered' into buying some overpriced crap because it's no longer marked to market. In a market and economy like this, investors are deciding for themsleves what things are worth, they're not trusting anyones word on values.

Suspend it for a couple years and see what happens.

Posted by Mike N. 2009-03-06 19:40|| 2009-03-06 19:40|| Front Page Top

23:34 Black Charlie Clinegum5078
23:18 trailing wife
23:17 trailing wife
23:14 trailing wife
23:13 Pappy
23:08 trailing wife
23:08 Mike N.
23:04 Mike N.
23:02 trailing wife
23:00 trailing wife
22:58 Mike N.
22:51 trailing wife
22:49 trailing wife
22:46 phil_b
22:45 Annon
22:38 Frank G
22:27 Procopius2k
22:25 Mike N.
22:24 Mike N.
22:21 Frank G
22:21 Skunky Glins 5***
22:19 Annon
22:14 Redneck Jim
22:12 DarthVader