the big French banks face some residual monoline, cdo and cmbs risk but by no stretch of the accounts (but obviously not, judging by some of the commentary, imagination) could they be termed “at risk”. BNP and SocGen are particularly well placed to pick up profitable pieces of weaker players. Even CASA, with the most US subprime exposure amongst its peers, can rest easy on a deposit base throwing of over 30% of its funding requirements.

But what none of them could negotiate are the ramifications of widespread baking failures in neighbouring EU countries (and that’s setting aside the greater interest of such an eventuality’s impact on the French economy).

Heading off the problems with a EU wide fund is naked self-interest – but not necessarily of the type indicating a bomb is about to go off in a major French banking group.

Salutations.

1/ BNP appears to be one of the biggest banks in the world to have dodged the bullet. It’s mentioned as an acquirer every time a weaker bank needs to be taken over (it made a bid for Fortis over the week-end).
2/ SocGen took a hit with Kerviel, but since Morgan Stanley paid big bucks to hire SG’s former head of Equity Derivatives (who resigned because of the Kerviel affair), the market seems to have decided there must be something in the Equity Derivatives franchise after all.
3/ Credit Agricole is the big French bank at most risk. All it needs is time. It has a big deposit base which can regenerate earnings.
4/ Of the smaller French banks, Natexis has been having the most problems.
5/ Dexia, one of the banks which had to be rescued this week-end, is Franco-Belge. But I’m sure the French think of this bank now as Belgian, not French.

With that said, the French don’t make these proposals unless they think they will benefit. So maybe the high officials know something we don’t.

My point wasn't that blind faith should be invested in finance experts, but that Congress and the experts have failed to illustrate to the public exactly how their plans may unfold – Congress & MSM generally emotionally maneuvering us, and finance-insiders speaking to each other in their familiar tongue (technical/insider jargon & unspoken understandings that bypass outsiders' comprehension.) Not to suggest that I want to be taught at, I want a translation.

Several of the people I'm curious about and have seen referenced on here (O'neil, Faber, Hussman), have conflicting views and plans. Fleshing out their ideas is necessary and its ironic & telling that as the middle class is disappearing, were seeing Congress address the public more like ignorant peasants, while the real discussion is saved for the 'elites'* who can handle it (*don't mean to make anyone gag, couldn't think of a better word).
I don't expect the insider world of finance to take on the role of real journalists and elected public officials, but someone should be translating for them, and fueling the discussion of ideas – what are those people called?

This is what I don't see in Congress, CNBC, freelance blogs (not so much), or finance print (I don't follow this at length to be honest.)

I don't invest much faith in being 'rescued' from a fire by an arsonist, but they do know more about structural fires than your neighbor (or Congressperson.) I think you're more correct reserving doubt about their motivations & wisdom, than questioning their knowledge. That said, my point remains that they're failing to transmit what's happening to the public.

As always, informed people evoke good questions and incite discussion (pressure from the bottom up.) That should be accompanying this whole endeavor. We have neither right now. We're getting pressure (fear) from the top down to move this, and its irresponsible & shows incompetence, if not reason for suspicion.

I don't even see broad discussion of how the power in society is heavily shifting, what this means for our political institutions, individuals' power, etc. Something between the blackout & denial, and conspiracy theories – now rather than in a history book.

Quite. Note that in another recent post, an excellent analysis by FairEconomist make it clear that the Hanke-Panke plan will help Bank of Goldman City and so forth, and accelerate the destabilisation of the economy.

The whole situation is quite reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq war. In that case, the debate was limited by the neocon strength in government and the media to a decision between invading Iraq immediately and waiting five minutes and then invading them; other options such as not invading Iraq at all were ignored or ridiculed: the wisdom received from the neocon overlords was that such an idea was not fit for polite society.

In this case, despite severe criticism and plausible proposed alternatives from Soros and so many others, the debate is limited to passing the Hanke-Panke scam or being responsible for the end of life as we know it. Other options are simply ignored. The Senate puts another hundred billion and another few hundred pages on the pig, but fish, chicken and beef are simply not on the menu: there is not enough time to consider doing anything other than completing the destruction of the economy of the United States, adding a nice coup de grace to policies that appear designed to have produced exactly the present crisis situation.

In both cases, a crisis is manufactured and used as an excuse to do great damage to America and of course others also, with normal democratic processes curtailed and precedents set for dictatorial executive power.

One must ask oneself:

“Why DO they hate America SO MUCH?

What the current administration is doing to America international image and position is litterally horrendous.

Two issues that have been explored

1) Why are some European banking and insurance companies bursting or on the verge of? The answer is “investment” (sic) in the US.

2) Who is in charge? This is a national issue. Do the way you want. This is tax payer’s money. One who is national not EC level.

Two questions that are underexplored.

1) Why this question of EC funding has arised at political? Probably because of our nutty neo-con “finance minister”, Madame Lagarde.

2) Why has Deutche Bank called for intervention at EC level? Probably because their losses are too high to be absorbed at german level. At least politically.

1. Europe doesn’t have the institutions to do a bailout. How will this play out as the plumbing starts bursting over there?

2. Will our bailout leak into europe? I.e. are the europeans hoping that we will bail out their banks through the back door?

irony, indeed.

Aren’t they the same ‘experts’ who got us in this mess? Why do you believe them? Because they claim to be “experts”?

A good analogy is reduction in LDL cholesterol/ increasing HDL cholesterol to prevent heart attacks- turns out it does not work. All those doctors who were telling you to avoid fatty foods were also lying. Remember all those doctors telling you that low fat diets help you control weight- now it turns out that is exactly what you do not want to do. Same with those who tell you that controlling blood sugar with drugs without reducing carbohydrate intake reduces your risk of complications.

I can go on and on.. the sad reality is that the so called “experts” have been the wrong more often than right. This peculiar ability is due to the fact that becoming a publicly renowned expert involves preaching popular dogmas that have no relation to reality.

Don’t be intimidated by experts who tell you that you are too dumb to understand. The reality is that anything you cannot explain to a motivated adult of normal intelligence is probably BS.