Next are JP Morgan and Wells Fargo?
Part of the too big to fail/succeed legacy was the four banks that were inviolate: Citi, Bank of America, JP Morgan and Wells Fargo.? The Fed can’t let any of these fail, so Bank of America (what a nice name) gets extra aid, even after the almost failures of Citi and? Wachovia.
From an idealistic strandpoint, I don’t get the aid.? If aid were not available, Bank of America would have been less aggressive, and we would be moaning about the smaller Merrill and Countrywide troubles today.
But, that’s not the case.? The aid provided has perverse incentives to banks.? The more you moan, and the bigger you are, the more you get.
This will not end well.? My experience tells me that those who are dependent tend to be so, until something big jolts them back to independence.? After all, dependence is comfortable.
December 21st, 20081:18 am at EditMost of the questions you ask have been answered on the public record. They are available for our evaluation.
In the case of Lehman, the Fed could not take the collateral because it did not qualify. If they had, you would have been leading the charge in objecting. Treasury had no authority.
In the case of AIG, there was concern about counter-party risk that extended worldwide. We got a demonstration of that from Lehman.
I am mystified by your criticism of the Obama administration ? yet to weigh in on this.
As a careful, loyal, respectful, and interested reader of your work, I have some questions. You have been critical of elected officials, appointed officials, independent bodies ? in fact ? every agency of government. Just how do you think we should be setting policy?
Is there some other country or system that is doing this better?
Just wondering?