Has Barack Obama’s presidency already failed? - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 41 (permalink) Old 02-10-2009, 07:54 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Has Barack Obama’s presidency already failed?



Has Barack Obama’s presidency already failed? In normal times, this would be a ludicrous question. But these are not normal times. They are times of great danger. Today, the new US administration can disown responsibility for its inheritance; tomorrow, it will own it. Today, it can offer solutions; tomorrow it will have become the problem. Today, it is in control of events; tomorrow, events will take control of it. Doing too little is now far riskier than doing too much. If he fails to act decisively, the president risks being overwhelmed, like his predecessor. The costs to the US and the world of another failed presidency do not bear contemplating.

What is needed? The answer is: focus and ferocity. If Mr Obama does not fix this crisis, all he hopes from his presidency will be lost. If he does, he can reshape the agenda. Hoping for the best is foolish. He should expect the worst and act accordingly.

Yet hoping for the best is what one sees in the stimulus programme and – so far as I can judge from Tuesday’s sketchy announcement by Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary – also in the new plans for fixing the banking system. I commented on the former last week. I would merely add that it is extraordinary that a popular new president, confronting a once-in-80-years’ economic crisis, has let Congress shape the outcome.

The banking programme seems to be yet another child of the failed interventions of the past one and a half years: optimistic and indecisive. If this “progeny of the troubled asset relief programme” fails, Mr Obama’s credibility will be ruined. Now is the time for action that seems close to certain to resolve the problem; this, however, does not seem to be it.

All along two contrasting views have been held on what ails the financial system. The first is that this is essentially a panic. The second is that this is a problem of insolvency.

Under the first view, the prices of a defined set of “toxic assets” have been driven below their long-run value and in some cases have become impossible to sell. The solution, many suggest, is for governments to make a market, buy assets or insure banks against losses. This was the rationale for the original Tarp and the “super-SIV (special investment vehicle)” proposed by Henry (Hank) Paulson, the previous Treasury secretary, in 2007.

Under the second view, a sizeable proportion of financial institutions are insolvent: their assets are, under plausible assumptions, worth less than their liabilities. The International Monetary Fund argues that potential losses on US-originated credit assets alone are now $2,200bn (€1,700bn, £1,500bn), up from $1,400bn just last October. This is almost identical to the latest estimates from Goldman Sachs. In recent comments to the Financial Times, Nouriel Roubini of RGE Monitor and the Stern School of New York University estimates peak losses on US-generated assets at $3,600bn. Fortunately for the US, half of these losses will fall abroad. But, the rest of the world will strike back: as the world economy implodes, huge losses abroad – on sovereign, housing and corporate debt – will surely fall on US institutions, with dire effects.

Personally, I have little doubt that the second view is correct and, as the world economy deteriorates, will become ever more so. But this is not the heart of the matter. That is whether, in the presence of such uncertainty, it can be right to base policy on hoping for the best. The answer is clear: rational policymakers must assume the worst. If this proved pessimistic, they would end up with an over-capitalised financial system. If the optimistic choice turned out to be wrong, they would have zombie banks and a discredited government. This choice is surely a “no brainer”.

The new plan seems to make sense if and only if the principal problem is illiquidity. Offering guarantees and buying some portion of the toxic assets, while limiting new capital injections to less than the $350bn left in the Tarp, cannot deal with the insolvency problem identified by informed observers. Indeed, any toxic asset purchase or guarantee programme must be an ineffective, inefficient and inequitable way to rescue inadequately capitalised financial institutions: ineffective, because the government must buy vast amounts of doubtful assets at excessive prices or provide over-generous guarantees, to render insolvent banks solvent; inefficient, because big capital injections or conversion of debt into equity are better ways to recapitalise banks; and inequitable, because big subsidies would go to failed institutions and private buyers of bad assets.

Why then is the administration making what appears to be a blunder? It may be that it is hoping for the best. But it also seems it has set itself the wrong question. It has not asked what needs to be done to be sure of a solution. It has asked itself, instead, what is the best it can do given three arbitrary, self-imposed constraints: no nationalisation; no losses for bondholders; and no more money from Congress. Yet why does a new administration, confronting a huge crisis, not try to change the terms of debate? This timidity is depressing. Trying to make up for this mistake by imposing pettifogging conditions on assisted institutions is more likely to compound the error than to reduce it.

Assume that the problem is insolvency and the modest market value of US commercial banks (about $400bn) derives from government support (see charts). Assume, too, that it is impossible to raise large amounts of private capital today. Then there has to be recapitalisation in one of the two ways indicated above. Both have disadvantages: government recapitalisation is a bail-out of creditors and involves temporary state administration; debt-for-equity swaps would damage bond markets, insurance companies and pension funds. But the choice is inescapable.

If Mr Geithner or Lawrence Summers, head of the national economic council, were advising the US as a foreign country, they would point this out, brutally. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF managing director, said the same thing, very gently, in Malaysia last Saturday.

The correct advice remains the one the US gave the Japanese and others during the 1990s: admit reality, restructure banks and, above all, slay zombie institutions at once. It is an important, but secondary, question whether the right answer is to create new “good banks”, leaving old bad banks to perish, as my colleague, Willem Buiter, recommends, or new “bad banks”, leaving cleansed old banks to survive. I also am inclined to the former, because the culture of the old banks seems so toxic.

By asking the wrong question, Mr Obama is taking a huge gamble. He should have resolved to cleanse these Augean banking stables. He needs to rethink, if it is not already too late.

FT.com / Columnists / Martin Wolf - Why Obama?s new Tarp will fail to rescue the banks

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 41 (permalink) Old 02-10-2009, 07:55 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
We have been waiting on you to post this. It has been on drudge for HOURS.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #3 of 41 (permalink) Old 02-10-2009, 07:57 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
LOL
DP is offline  
post #4 of 41 (permalink) Old 02-10-2009, 08:16 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
TNTRower's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2007
Vehicle: '98 E320 Wagon (non 4matic)
Location: Atlanta, GA & Malabo, Equatorial Guinea
Posts: 6,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TNTRower
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
We have been waiting on you to post this. It has been on drudge for HOURS.
So no comments then on the validity of the article? I mean the Financial Times is SUCH a conservative outlet and all.

Who's John Galt.

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel. --Benjamin Netayahu
TNTRower is offline  
post #5 of 41 (permalink) Old 02-10-2009, 08:19 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
The dude inherited a cluster fuck that was EIGHT years in the making and you expect him to rebuild it yesterday?
DP is offline  
post #6 of 41 (permalink) Old 02-10-2009, 08:28 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
We have been waiting on you to post this. It has been on drudge for HOURS.
I was waiting for you to post it...

What do you think? Is it over??

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #7 of 41 (permalink) Old 02-10-2009, 08:30 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 11,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 744 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
We have been waiting on you to post this. It has been on drudge for HOURS.
Who is "we"?

© All photographs and likenesses of Multipurpose are protected under copyright
law. Any use of photographs in whole or in part is strictly prohibited
unless authorization is granted in writing by copyright holder. All rights
reserved.
Multipurpose is offline  
post #8 of 41 (permalink) Old 02-10-2009, 08:31 PM
BenzWorld Elitist
 
Marsden's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2005
Vehicle: Mercedes-Benz
Location: United States
Posts: 11,333
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 420 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Oh I hope so I hope so I hope so.

We republicans LOVE failure when we're not in power.

And... when we ARE. Hey WTF?
Marsden is offline  
post #9 of 41 (permalink) Old 02-10-2009, 08:31 PM
BenzWorld Veteran
 
ogrenutz's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2006
Vehicle: '81 300GD Cabrio, '78 450 SEL 6.9 Rocketship, Rover HSE
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 704
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewprof View Post
The dude inherited a cluster fuck that was EIGHT years in the making and you expect him to rebuild it yesterday?
Yes, if not a little sooner. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If he can't get the job done, people just won't believe he's the messiah anymore.

"Truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self evident"-Arthur Schopenhauer
ogrenutz is offline  
post #10 of 41 (permalink) Old 02-10-2009, 08:35 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multipurpose View Post
Who is "we"?
It's a secret.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Barack Obama for President............ Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 16 10-24-2008 03:12 PM
    Barack Hussein Obama Sr. concretist Off-Topic 23 09-14-2008 09:11 PM
    It's Barack Obama/Joe Biden GeeS Off-Topic 77 08-24-2008 12:38 PM
    barack obama credit card theboss Off-Topic 2 07-28-2008 02:52 PM
    If Obama wins the presidency... benz rider Off-Topic 34 05-16-2008 12:14 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome