naked capitalism

EvilHenryPaulson says:

The makers of worsted wool NASCAR sweaters are going to make a fortune

I need to position myself so they may trickle down all over me

This bill has a good chance at failing. European and Asian markets won’t be able to make heads nor tails of the situation

S says:

BANANA REPUBLIC

Anonymous says:

This is so naked… not naked capitalism but naked greed and naked corruption.

By the way, I’ve never posted on your blog before but I’m an avid reader, your output is appreciated and essential! I tip my (tin) hat.

Anonymous says:

And our reps/senators have turned off their phones and the email is DOWN?

WTF?

Gregory says:

It seems possible that the Bailout Bill got wrapped into an already-existing Senate bill as an amendment for parliamentary reasons…hence the plethora of pre-exiting minutiae.

(although, finding out what the Senate does on their non-crisis days is not very heartening at all, is it?)

the Bailout part of the bill is here:
http://banking.senate.gov/public/

no wooden arrow shafts are mentioned…

GDL

Anonymous says:

This just gets worse by the minute .

This seems like the cue for the dictator to walk in and grab power in like in 3rd world countries ( bloodless coup in the Banana Republic )

Gregory says:

There is some stuff which might help Main Street…

The WSJ had an article yesterday or today about community banks facing a double hit on Agency preferred losses…

This bill contains a provision to allow banks to write off their Agency preferred losses against ordinary income instead of only against capital gains…

Local banks dying off would make this crisis a Main Street issue pretty quickly.

(not that relying on Agency preferred shares to juice yield is something those local banks should be given a free pass for)

GDL

SlimCarlos says:

Hey — Lemme know when you guys come up with a better idea! But no need to hurry, 'cause hey, these bastards deserved what was coming, right? So please, go fine-tune your models and chillax over a bottle of Shiraz.

Meanwhile, in the real world….

Credit Crisis May Affect 2009 Harvests, Schafer Says (Update2)

By Alan Bjerga

Oct. 1 (Bloomberg) — The credit crisis roiling financial markets may affect next year's corn, wheat and soybean output should farmers find themselves unable to get loans to buy seeds and fertilizer, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said.

“We certainly could see tight credit having an effect on agricultural production'' in the U.S., Schafer told reporters today after speaking to Department of Agriculture workers in Washington."

….

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQfDSBXUXOo0&refer=home

SlimCarlos says:

>>That's BS – the farmer's have sweeteners more than you and I will ever HAVE! They're making RECORD PROFITS this year – that's BS and spin at its best..

Two things: 1. These record profits came at ag prices twice what they are now, and, even then, to put a finer point on it, "record profits" against years of the lowest ag prices since the 30's doesn't mean a whole lot. Secondly, 2. Just becuase you've made profits doesn't mean you don't need finance. It is actually very expensive to plant a crop — the fancy seeds (courtesy of Monsanto), fertilizer (priced that recently?), planting expenses (read fuel), etc. If you think these guys have squireled away enough retained earnings to self-finance, well, you're likely not from the midwest, are you?

But hey, the farmers had it coming too, didn't they? Besides, who needs them? So what if they get sucked into Roubini's Great Black Hole. Who says you can't live off Shiraz?

Anonymous says:

I would assume that McCain will vote against this bill, because of all these, um, earmarks?

Douglas says:

This blog is going off the deep-end with unwarranted hysteria.

Is it possible that because this is an amendment, the “pork” (or whatever) in this bill WAS ALREADY THERE.

Failing to make a determination on that, which the post does not, this post and the entire thread is just a lot of ill founded arm waving.

I think in the last post, about “pork”, someone posted that they started crying.

I mean, come on people this is getting silly.

Doug

doc holiday says:

Voters have a bazooka being held to their heads in this do-or-die effort to confuse people.

The main point here is, which wall street firms need the cash, and why do they need it? This needs to be clarified like The Chrysler bailout — we need clear individual contracts versus the bullshit of a bailout for a pool of nameless crooks that will hide behind derivatives, and then go back to work, drunk as hell to power back up the nuclear reactor.

There needs to be individual accountability for anyone getting taxpayer revenues! We at the very least, need to see structures like Bear Stearns has and we need to see disclosure of all the toxic garbage!

Anonymous says:

I think our country is in very serious trouble.

I see several differences between now and 1929:
* Our government was considerably better in 1929
* Americans had savings in 1929
* We had the gold standard in 1929

I’ve been trying to decide if Paulson is evil or just plain incompetent. I’m leaning towards evil at this point. It’s inconceivable that someone could come up with a bailout plan so corrupt unless they had corrupt intentions. The parties that are going to benefit the most are Friends of Hank and most likely foreign creditors.

There’s been plenty of experience with banking crises and how to resolve them efficiently. Paulson’s plan is shockingly bad.

Bernanke has spent his whole career preparing for such a situation, and he has failed miserably.

The mainstream press, including Wall Street Journal, have failed the American people regarding this legislation, just as they failed the American people in the lead up to the Iraq war.

freude bud says:

I don’t think that’s what Doug means. What he’s asking is whether the extra 200 pages were in the bill which the Senate amended so they might send something back to the House. (The bill they amended was originally known as Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007 and, of course, had nothing at all to do with the financial crisis … kind of funny name though, given the situation.) I am not really sure as to the answer, but my guess given “Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:” is that all the language is new … or at least newly added to the bill. Worrisome, given the serious language people have been putting forth to the general public, but I cannot say definitively.

Richard Kline says:

I do not know who uttered this famous quote regarding Massachusetts politics; probably it was old before it’s current speaker was born:

—Nothing is on the level.
—Everything is a deal.
—No deal is too small.

The US Congress creates, and lives in, its own reality. Only in a real crisis, when the drape is drawn back, do we see the bathetic little men and women groping, grinding, and guzzling through their business as usual, while telling us not to mind those rats behind the curtain but attend to the phosphorescent (and stinking) effusions of the Great and Terrible Fund.

For years, we’ve watche this same kind of spectacle from afar; in places like Ecuador, the Philippines, Turkey, Thailand, . . . Japan. But we were supposed to be, well, _better- than that. Or at least bigger. Or, so we thought, richer. Instead, we’ve joined the peer group.

... and the cow goes moo says:

Anyone have a definitive answer about how much of the trash quoted in the post is new or old? Or know where an inquisitive person might be able to track the timing of additions?

But to add a quick thought: Regardless of whether it’s trash put in to pass a bailout bill, or trash to help pass the “Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007″, this is still some incredibly brazen misuse of funds (or unbelievably opaque government spending). What does any of this have to do with the bailout bill OR mental health and addiction?

(Thanks for all the posts, Yves, and thanks for the helpful comments to everyone here)

andthecowgoesmoo says:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/business/02tax.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1222971406-czPDn5VoOT2CmAX932bLNw

A NYT article that states, unevquivocally (though they could be wrong), that some of the terms found in the bailout bill were added on to win over some Senators. So perhaps some of the individual sections Yves quotes were part of getting the original mental health and addiction bill passed, but there certainly are tax breaks added to get the bailout bill passed as well.