Geithner Plan

"So the Geithner plan is really two bets in one. The first is that this is not the worst case scenario and does not require the fixes developed for the worst case scenario. The second is that if this turns out to be the worst case scenario, then we still have those fixes available to us, and the need is clarified among the actors -- like Congress and the market -- whose reaction in the absence of consensus could scotch the whole thing" - Ezra Klein, The American Prospect

I'd say this is as succinct an explanation as I've seen yet for the underlying rationale behind the administration's possible thought processes on solving the banking crisis. And for me this 'keeping bullets in the gun" approach does indeed seem a prudent course of action, politically speaking. The predominant counter view comes, not surprisingly, from Paul Krugman who argues, as is his general wont, that Geithner's plan will cause the sky to fall.

I have a love/hate thing going with Krugman and I'm willing to bet I'm not alone. As befits an economic Nobel laureate, he's often spot on in his analysis, especially when forecasting long term economic trends. However, for me he generally skews dangerously close to demagoguery; I have a difficult time taking anyone seriously who so often seems to see issues in absolutes. That is, in my opinion Krugman devalues his contributions to economic science by being so rigidly and unceasingly political. He so routinely chooses to use his column as a forum for promoting the progressive agenda that it has become difficult, if not impossible, to perceive him as an honest broker. Consequently, in moments such as the present crisis, during which his considerable scientific skill might be brought to bear to help solve problems and provide perspective, his credibility becomes as much the issue as his analysis. Accordingly, I read Krugman unfailingly but take everything he has to say with a grain of salt and run it thoroughly through my bullshit-o-meter. In this circumstance I find Klein's thoughts on Geithner's plan to be both more measured and objective than his.

Theories 101

My recent problem is that ever since my friend hipped me to the realities of banking I've been skirting the fringes in a manner I'm not accustomed. Case in point: "Zeitgeist" . I'd not even heard of this movie before last week but I watched it yesterday and it gave me a lot of food for thought. If you've not seen it, the general premise is that a select group of bankers rule the world and manipulate events so that they may keep the world in endless debt and thereby beholden to them. More or less, whether via organized conspiracy or no, that sounds about right to me. Perhaps not the manipulating events part but the general idea of ultra-capitalists is not a far fetched notion to me a'tall.

Over time I've come to believe that genetics and environment are the biggest pre-disposers of human behavior, the umbrella above class, ethnicity or race (note the order). A saying which encapsulates my feeling best is: "It takes all kinds to make a world." I think if one submits to a non-religious view of understanding human nature (which does not, I'd like to add, necessarily preclude religious faith), one eventually runs smack into Darwin to explain both the diversity and similarities between peoples. From this worldview, super aggressive, greedy folk -- - such as some bankers or, hey, how bout those financial products unit managers at AIG - - are but a necessary variation on the human theme. For years I've heard Warren Buffet trot out the same genetic/sociological explanation for his successes: "Take me as an example. I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I'd been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can't run very fast. I'm not particularly strong. I'd probably end up as some wild animal's dinner." So why not a class of folk wholly or mostly lacking what we currently consider an appropriate amount of, um, shame or thought for the welfare of others? Could we call these people 'functional sociopaths'? Just marinate on that for a sec: how many people, from all walks of life, might we line up underneath the general heading of 'functional sociopath'? How about the functioning alcoholic who's just a tragic accident away from life imprisonment? Or the wife beater who is but an unfortunate blow away from the death penalty? Congress, as I write, is debating an appropriate manner by which to punish those responsible for bringing down our economy. But weren't these people simply doing what they do, being whom they are within varying degrees of excess? I'm not looking to absolve poor behavior, only to better contextualize it. Interesting to think about, yes?

I'm still in the tank for Obama but I agree with Krauthammer again, this makes two weeks in a row, a new record!!

The Great Non Sequitor by Charles Krauthammer

I'm mostly down with Obama's social re engineering thing, howsoever he chooses to frame it, although I must say I'd feel much more confident if I had the sense the country could fiscally afford and readily absorb all that he's proposing. And I could stand for him to be more focused with how he funds his spending priorities. Be that as it may, the manner by which Obama has rolled out his program is indeed intellectually incongruent I believe. I cannot decipher the necessity for it. Obama was elected to work towards the very goals he's set forth; there's nothing at all duplicitous about working towards fulfilling his campaign promises. Why then does he give us the fuzzy math and the circular logic? Why not shoot straight with the American people? Anyone with eyes can see we need to bolster and upgrade our infrastructure, from highways to education to healthcare. There are legitimate, persuasive arguments to be made for pursuing these goals, even with deficit spending if need be. Why give the Krauthammers of the world fuel? There's no rationale for obfuscation; Obama's popularity suggests the public is offering him wide berth to pursue his program. By failing to make the proverbial ducks line up, Obama runs risk of potentially alienating and eventually losing the support of Mr. and Mrs. Joe "Middle-of-the-country" Sixpack.

As I've said previously, I expect more from dude. If you want us to be Sweden, tell us! Lay it out there for us, maybe show us some brochures. Thats what Obama needs, some really cool brochures outlining the benefits of the Social Welfare state. Man, I bet a lot of folks would go for it if he just laid it all out there! Of course Mr. Krauthammer fails to mention that, if the recent polls are to be trusted, a majority of Americans think Obama has done a pretty good selling job already . Only eggheads and nerds like, uh, like...Krauthammer! (not me, no not me) need for the numbers to add up and the socratic arguments to follow form. And another thing: lets not forget that there's a ton of unbalanced, untethered folk out there with guns who've been waitin' on our boy to even hint at being a "Socialist" and then you could get to where there's trouble in the lowlands awful quick. So back atcha Krauthammer! One might say Obama's pragmatism is of the most utilitarian variety imaginable: keep hisself standing and breathing and keep on doing the peoples work, as he so defines it.

How To Tell Your Woman Done Gone (For Dummies)

A Scene taken straight from a Movie:
Where girl silently drifts away
from the self-absorbed dude
who once held her sway, in every way.

Little by little the audience sees
her heart turn towards the open door,
left ajar by his poorly executed but
good intentions.

And when the pain of living a love
that is no longer alive become
too tense a pressure to bear,
when it boil down to the bottom
she will not shed nary another tear.

And perhaps in the most dramatic tradition
he'll come home one day and she'll be gone,
or maybe there'll be a different, new knowing
smile in her eyes, or even:
he stumbles upon her in an unspeakable act.

Or could be that in the hands of an artiste
of thoroughly cruel intention, he'll have his man
with eyes that slowly drift from her to the floor
ask her simply, almost rhetorically:
"why don't you laugh at my jokes anymore?"


ADDENDUM:

Act 3, Scene 3:

More dispirited than embarrassed, he broke from her bemused gaze and stared intently at the floor. "you know I bruise like a grape," he mumbled somberly after sufficiently melodramatic pause. When there was no immediate response, he looked up to find her muffling laughter: during the silence she'd turned away to the muted television just in time to catch a particularly funny scene in a classic movie from the '80's. For the umpteenth time, Lewis had stuffed the salmon down his Santa Claus suit and for the life of her she couldn't keep from sniggering...


ADDENDUM II:

Act 2, Scene 16:

In a moment of sudden clarity the thought came upon her. As is often the case with such bursts of awareness, it arose at a most peculiar time and place: while she was signing autographs after a show. "I'm so over him." During the taxi ride back to the apartment she had ample time to further consider the ramifications. Until now it had not even occurred to S. that for weeks, maybe even months, she'd been in the act of leaving him. Presently the signs came into stark focus for her. A wry smile began to widen as it dawned upon S. how much J., her new personal assistant, actually favored C. Not as he was now; but as he'd looked back then, when she'd originally fallen for him. J. was a bit taller perhaps but still the resemblance was uncanny. The angular face, lean torso, the feminine fingers. Even his ubiquitous afghani-style hat and colored glasses. Rather than proceed to the next logical progressions of the thought and wonder (A) how on earth she could possibly have missed the similitude during the interview process or (B) if perhaps C. had noticed it too, instead another, completely disparate sensation came. A warm throb which spread rapidly from the top of her head to settle in the pit of her stomach. It was deep resentment, bordering upon anger, born of the endurance of literally years of C.'s nuanced rejection. Yes, S. was certain he loved her. But it was a needy, codependent love and C. barely hid the fact that it was a love she had to re-earn on a semi-daily basis. Though she understood from whence such machinations came, enabling him had never returned her the loyalty and affection she had once been so sure would one day follow...