Interesting how what is supposed to be a independent non-profit organization is the recipient of large amounts of money from groups that have a fiduciary interest in one form of treatment.
Obviously, this is a legitimate reason to doubt the independence of the organization on issues related to the use of psychiatric drugs.
Tangimoana, Omaka, Renwick and Punawai
First, let’s look at the analysis of the shrill one, Paul Krugman in the New York Times. He notes that they will almost certainly need some level of bailout, as they are simply too large to be allowed to fail, and that most of the post 2000 craziness in the real estate market was as the GSE’s as bystanders, since regulators hold them back.
Atrios disagrees with the idea that thay are too large to fail, and says that they should fail, at least from the perspective of their shareholders, that these organizations can be reconstituted as fully government entities, as Fannie was until the late 1960s.
The support of (re)nationally is the general opinion of the blogosphere cognoscenti turns out to be pro-nationalization too, and, on the Marketplace radio today, I heard wingnut “economist” Amity Shlaes suggest the same thing, only she suggested that the “healthy” parts be re-privatized, leaving the taxpayers holding the bag for the bad parts.
It turns out that there is actually no disagreement, as Krugman endorses nationalization too in this blog post. It just did not make the cut in the limited space in his Times OP/ED.
He also notes that as the housing market inflated, the GSE’s became a smaller part of the market (chart pr0n):
In any case, it’s clear that the statements by the Fed and the Treasury Department have stabilized things, at least for now, as Freddie Mac, clearly the weaker of the two GSEs, just successfully sold $3 billion in short term debt, $2 billion for three-months at 2.309% and $1 billion six-monthsat 2.496%. the company said.
On the other hand, we have a number of investors saying that they are basically insolvent, including George Soros and Jim Rogers, and Goldman Sachs is predicting at least another 35% stock decline.
As a bit of interesting historical information, the Washington Post has a nice article about how the GSE’s built, and used, their lobbying clout to prevent restrictions and capital requirements from being increased.
Well, they got what they wished for, much to their unhappiness.
My guess is that the city’s numbers are more accurate than the federal poverty numbers, because they consider things that the feds don’t, like medical expenses.
The number in poverty is 23%, as opposed to 19% under the federal numbers, and of course, some wanker at the American Enterprise Institute was quoted as saying that the poor are, “a lot better off than they were 20, 30, 40 years ago”.
Yep, let’s go back to outhouses and cholera for the poor, just to be fair.
I’ve split off the GSE’s from this, along with the some other items that need more thought, so this is a short one: Oil flat, gasoline and diesel hit new record, and the dollar strengthened.
Well, the New Yorker just put our a new issue, and the cover is something else.
David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, defends the cover as “Satire, Meant To Target “Distortions And Misconceptions And Prejudices” About Obama.”
So a cartoon showing Barack Obama in Muslim garb, with a flag burning in the fireplace, bin Laden’s portrait on the wall, fist bumping with an AK-47 toting Michelle Obama is satire.
It may have been intended as such, but it’s not satire…or at the very least, it’s so poorly done that the satire is invisible to the observer, even one who is familiar with the magazine.
Interestingly enough, I think that the strongest critique, albeit an unintentional one, is a comment made by Jonah “Doughy Pantload” Goldberg in the National Review Online, he says that, “It’s almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of National Review.”
Well, yes it is, but the long term racism of the National Review is well known. William F. Buckley was supporting segregation into the 1970s.
We expect the National Review to be this stupid and racist. We don’t expect the New Yorker to be this stupid or racist.
This is a remarkable statement from a member of the Kuwaiti government.
They are concerned that the US will take unilateral military action against Iran, which would destabilize the region.
This is of particular note because Kuwait is the strongest Arab ally in the region, and firmly Sunni and hostile to Iran.
When you’ve lots Kuwait, you’ve lost everyone.
This was not a lucky shot or roadside bomb…this was a deliberate can extensively planned assault that killed 9 US troops.
They assaulted this base base with a large number of insurgents over a period of hours (see also here).
This sort of large and well organized operation shows a capability that the Taliban has not demonstrated before, and I can’t help but think that this is a prelude to a more ambitious operation.
Here’s am interesting take on the financial health of Citigroup.
The new CEO says that shrinking its $2.2 trillion balance sheet is a priority. By this he means that he wants to minimize potential liabilities, but he neglects to mention an additional $1.1 trillion in entities that are off the balance sheet, in things like trusts, financing vehicles, and CDOs.
The US system needs a major clean up and some sunlight, but companies like Citi resemble vampires, or at least some suffering from severe porphyria.
Showing the light of day to these financial concerns will kill many of them.
So, we now have the official public request.
I think that the immediate result will be a massive increase of violence directed toward the UN peacekeepers, and Chinese vetoes against anything further in the security council.
I suggest that you read it and draw your own conclusions.
As for me, the “residual force” thing gives me the willies.
I’m kind of wondering what took them so long. “Missing too many votes” is a classic Republican attack, and calling McCain AWOL should be effective.
There are now reports that the negotiators have given up on a long term status of forces agreement in Iraq.
It appears that the Iraqis want a time table, and Bush and His Evil Minions™ are unwilling to do that, so they will patch something together short term, and the next president will handle what happens next.
It looks like they are going to fix some things, particularly pre-payment penalties on abusive loans, requiring escrowing taxes, etc.
It’s not much, but it’s a start.
While writing on the impending bailouts of the GSEs he notes that:
The reality is that the U.S. has invested too much – especially in the last eight years – in building its stock of wasteful housing capital (whose effect on the productivity of labor is zero) and has not invested enough in the accumulation of productive physical capital (equipment, machinery, etc.) that leads to an increase in the productivity of labor and increases long run economic growth.
This is exactly the problem.
In fact the problem is more general. Our economy is no longer producing goods and service of value as a means of activity. Instead it is moving towards arbitrage, and at some point, there will be too many balls in the air for it to continue.
For all I know, it may already have happened.
Bush is threatening a veto, but given the current economic and electoral environment, I doubt that it will actually come to that.
Well, the Czechs have signed a deal with the US to install an ABM radar which is clearly directed at least as much at the Russia as at Iran, and they are shocked to discover that there are problems with oil deliveries:
Shipments to Czech oil refineries through the Druzhba pipeline, which ties Siberian fields to the Czech Republic, are declining, the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade said. It did not say by how much.
You sign off on a policy that is pretty explicitly threaten Russia, and you are surprised when they retaliate?
What planet are you on?
I get occasional readers from France, so I’m wishing both of them a happy Bastille Day!
Cynthia McKinney got the Green Party nomination.
I have had discussions with her constituents, and it’s clear that she is a smaller version of George W. Bush.
She is where she is because of who her daddy was, and her tenure as a member of congress was disastrous. When things needed to be done in the district, regardless of which side the political divide you were on, meeting were scheduled to make sure she could not attend, because she would screw up any consensus and generally throw fits.
I don’t think that this is the year to vote for a 3rd party candidate, but I consider that to be a matter of the reader’s personal conscience, particularly in safe states like Texas or Massachusetts.
However I strongly suggest that voting for this third party candidate is a betrayal of your obligation to cast your vote in a meaningful way.
She was right about distrusting Bush, but a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Check out her record. Talk with her former constituents, and then vote for someone else.
| 12:10 AM |