In The Blogs

Quote of the Day - 5.4.09

| Mon May. 4, 2009 3:34 PM PDT

From Paul Krugman, ruminating over the recent leaks about the results of the Treasury's stress tests:

Even Brad DeLong, who has been relatively sympathetic to the administration here, is disturbed by the idea that regulators are negotiating with the banks about the test results. Now it seems as if the report's contents may also be dictated by what, based on the response to leaks, the informed public is willing to swallow. ("Would you believe it if we say Citi is fine? OK, what if we say they need $5 billion? Not enough? How about 10?")

The source of the stress test leaks is mysterious, but it's the numbers themselves that baffle me more. Most of the leaks, for example, suggest that Citigroup will be told it needs additional capital of $10 billion, a figure so low it would barely be worth bothering with. Conversely, most of the numbers I've seen thrown around from independent analysts come to ten times that amount or more. If it turns out that Citi really is short by only $10 billion, it means we can all breathe a sigh of relief and declare an end to the banking crisis. I woldn't count on that, though.

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Comments

A total sham

Submitted by g. powell on Mon May. 4, 2009 6:43 PM PDT.

Citigroup decides what's good for Citigroup at this time, and that's what the stress test results will be. As expected, these "stress tests" will probably be a total sham. It is an inopportune time to ask taxpayers for more money right now, so the banks and govt will punt now and hope for the best. I don't see any evidence that Obama has a policy of stealth nationalization. For some odd reason, he would never do to Citigroup what he is doing to Chrysler. Don't make the mistake of saying the financial industry has a "lobby". The financial industry doesn't really need a lobby when they own a government.

What's good for Citigroup is

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon May. 4, 2009 7:57 PM PDT.

What's good for Citigroup is good for America.

Typo

Submitted by Godless Heathen on Tue May. 5, 2009 9:15 AM PDT.

What's good for Citigroup is good for 0.1% of America. Fixed it.

russian dating now this

Submitted by compiknews on Sun Nov. 8, 2009 3:12 PM PST.

russian dating now this appearance became more and more distributed. Many foreign rich men wish to get married on an common Russian or Ukrainian woman. Why do alien millionaires want to live only with Russian lady? All over the world there are many beautiful ladies, so why do they select only Russians? No one knows answer for this important russian dating and joyful question, but this note can show you a little truth. What do you think about Russian and Ukrainian ladies. Let me tell you. They are beautiful beautiful, kind, cheerful, funny and clever. Many them are very smart, but they choose a joyful family against their russian dating profession. Most of them wish to get married on a nice person and to raise a kid. They love their parents, they will help everybody who need them. In a dialog with common Russian or Ukrainian lady you will find many good feelings. russian dating Conversation with

Kevin: I give you immense

Submitted by Jasper on Mon May. 4, 2009 6:47 PM PDT.

Kevin: I give you immense credit for even attempting to follow this story any more. I was giving it my best for a number of months, but now my hair hurts at the very thought of diving in to analyze the insanity. I know when I'm licked.

which card is it?

Submitted by steve duncan on Mon May. 4, 2009 6:55 PM PDT.

All that is missing here is a sidewalk, a cheap folding table and 3 playing cards.

What's the hold up?

Submitted by freelyb on Mon May. 4, 2009 8:49 PM PDT.

They are definitely worried about public response. Good, they should be.

Or perhaps your Gov is worried about uninformed reaction

Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 5:00 AM PDT.

It is enlightening that 2/3 of the commentary here has wanted to conclude that (i) the Banks are Evil and Must be Nationalised and (ii) Anything not Confirming Our Prejudices is Corrupt and Not to Be Trusted. Frankly, Krugman is not a financial sector specialist. He is a trade economist - indeed a leading one. That does not give him specific expertise in banking structures, nor analysis of bank capital. That Krugman has been on a little Jihad for his own pre-conceived solution (which is not particularly rooted in a deep understanding of bank regulatory issues) is further renders his commentary - well about as fair and balanced as your Fox News. He may or may not be wrong, but neither is his commentary particularly convincing insofar as he is so very partisan for a pet theory not particularly grounded in his real areas of deep expertise. However, as the above comments indicate, the Treasury's real challenge is the people who already have conclusions and will reduce any data contrary to their conclusion to some Banker Conspiracy. And insofar as one of the most serious problems at present is less real solvency and more the psychology, that is a real and non-obvious problem for the US Treasury and Central Bank to overcome. Partly of course due to the rather opaque nature of the mass of non-traded instruments that are now "toxic" (or perceived to be, which is essentially self-fulfilling).

Why should we believe them?

Submitted by g. powell on Tue May. 5, 2009 6:58 AM PDT.

the Treasury's real challenge is the people who already have conclusions and will reduce any data contrary to their conclusion to some Banker Conspiracy. I agree with that. So what has Treasury, or the banks, done in the past few months to boost confidence in their approach? A year ago, I would have laughed if Simon Johnson, the former IMF economist, told me that the U.S. was ruled by a cabal of financial oligarchs. Now, it appears to be the only explanation for recent events. We've given a huge amount of public money to these people, who also earn huge compensation packages, for very little in return. It's up to the bankers and the Treasury to prove they're being straight with us. They haven't so far.

them is funnyly and simple.

Submitted by compiknews on Sun Nov. 8, 2009 3:12 PM PST.

them is funnyly and simple. russian dating Russian or Ukrainian girl are fond of cooking, their delicatessens are really tasty. russian dating Russian lady will wait you after your work with russian dating your child, she will love you. She will do all flat housecleaning while you are at work, she would take care of your kid; family life with her will be like a fairy. Look russian dating at ordinary American russian dating woman and tell me her good russian dating characterizations. I think that you won't russian dating find them. American women are lazy and rude. They are fond of beer, cigarettes, russian dating simple stupid series on the TV and they prefer to discuss them with their girls. It isn't interesting to talk and live with them, they can't grow a kid. That's why really clever men don't want to get russian dating married on them. Russian or Ukrainian ladies are much better then American. So if you want to start a really good family life with really good lady, the best method for you is to find a russian dating woman in Russia or Ukraine. Nowadays there are lots of ways of dating in the web, so prospecting of Russian or Ukrainian girl will be really simple for you.

The Banking Conspiracy is

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue May. 5, 2009 10:26 AM PDT.

The Banking Conspiracy is not a proven fact? Who knew? I thought the repeal of usury laws makes it clear who's running things. The same folks who don't like to hear about class warfare don't like hearing about a Bank Conspiracy.

Usury v. Freedom to be Greedy!

Submitted by MarkH on Tue May. 5, 2009 12:55 PM PDT.

There's a running argument about how much government involvement and coercion should ever be allowed. It varies from issue to issue, but our fundamental belief is people should be free and only limited in ways that might harm someone else. Consider usury...should someone be free to charge 8%, 12%, 30%, 153% or only 1.5%? I say they should be free to charge whatever they like, so long as they aren't a special kind of firm (like a big bank) which could stifle the entire economy with the wrong policy. Even in this crisis the gov't isn't forcing banks to loan money. There's an assumption that the gov't doesn't know enough about it to do it wisely. But, there should clearly be limits on fraud and gimmicks meant to squeeze people who don't have a clue what's happening to them. Perhaps the usury law shouldn't exist, but letting firms offering credit to change rates on existing balances or changing due dates or refusing to pick up the phone to listen to customers has to be too outrageous. Finding that line between regulation and control isn't always easy.