but then i feel like the day is coming soon when i would NOT be surprised if we wake up one day and see a UFO camped out on the white house lawn.

but that’s me.

things that make you go 'whoa'.

and look what i just found from 2001:

Moody's To Acquire Majority Interest In Argentine Credit Ratings Agency

http://tinyurl.com/6yxn96

then there's this one:

http://www.moodys.co.in/

i would be surprised if this list of countries spreads all across the dymaxion map.

"We ought not to allow some punks at Moody's to be deciding whether and when major financial firms should be brought to their knees,"

agreed, we ought not.

however, the $64T question is how 'we' can prevent 'we' from doing that.

if anyone has a suggestion, we're all ears…

If our situation is so dire as to require all the actions that have been taken to date, perhaps a moratorium ought to be declared on all collateral posting requirements or other financial claims that are triggered solely by a rating downgrade. We ought not to allow some punks at Moody’s to be deciding whether and when major financial firms should be brought to their knees, imposing massive destruction with little if any corresponding benefit to individuals or the financial system.

interesting way to reframe the conundrum tom.

if that is the question, then that begs the further question:

why was Bear bailed out?

one gentleman makes a claim to an answer here:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6724.html

although me does recognize the vital importance of maintaining a discerning eye for hyperbole (especially when choosing to put on the tinfoil hat and considering an argument made from a self-styled oracle), the evidence alone referenced there (in the charts & graphs) when combined with the statement from Volker but how letting gold go to $850 an ounce in the late 70's was his biggest mistake…

…makes me wonder if maybe at least one of the answers can be found on the side of the yellow brick road.

'we're off to the see the wizard!'

> We do wonder why we are all not on the same page, but what are we to do? One thing is for sure, we should not be distracted!

and neither is the Treasury Dept.

and therein lies the fundamental issue.

p.s.
me likes ‘we’ too, even when me does not agree with ‘we’, because me has an opportunity to make a constructive criticism (or include a larger perspective) of ‘we’ in the comments section.

and thus me becomes a part of ‘we’.

see?

This NYT article sounds like an attempt to throw red meat to the pitchfork crowd in a desperate attempt to boost sales. Will it succeed over the intermediate term?

I doubt it.

In terms of the quote:

‘Fine, I’m your partner. I’ll go to Congress.’ , precisely WHAT is Bernanke SUPPOSED to say in the middle of the conflagration, “I’m not going Hank, you are on your own!!”?

Would that have calmed the markets?

By contrast, the more sober Fed reporting of Krishna Guha in the FT reveals that from the beginning of the discussions of the TARP package, Bernanke STRENUOUSLY insisted that recapitalization was far more important than buying up toxic assets from banks.

But is THAT red meat for the NY Times? Of course not. They are trying to sell newspapers in a desperate attempt to stave off bankruptcy.

They are paying the price for Judith Miller and other scandals.

In terms of blaming the Fed for lack of oversight of Lehman, the obvious point should be stated that ALTHOUGH the Fed REPEATEDLY tried to gain supervisory jurisdiction over IBs, the SEC had primary supervisory jurisdiction over the investment banks and Cox was a true jihadi trying to keep the Fed at bay.

But again, that fundamental and sober point doesn’t sell newspapers.

Matt Dubuque

On the other hand, perhaps if Paulson had not scared the crap out of equity holders with his confiscation of FNM and FRE, the other banks would not have faced such a high cost of equity that they would have hesitated the way they did. Lehman might be alive, which would mean AIG would be alive, which might mean that we would not be in the crisis we are in now.