by Brian Brady
Commercial Real Estate Finance Expert
Structured Debt and Equity
Licensed Real Estate Broker in AL, CA, and FL
I tried so hard to keep an open mind about this Obama guy. The optimism of our people on Inauguration Day was infectious. The snappy patter of the “three words” video had my toes tapping and heart filled with optimism. Alas, the honeymoon is over. I now stand firm in my belief that President Obama has “The American Experiment” in his cross hairs with a bunker-busting Marxist bomb as the payload.
Obama’s defeatist attitude as President, which is markedly different than his optimistic attitude as a candidate, is permeating society as we know it. Witness Tom Vanderwell’s observation:
…we are now in a situation where the government does own some of the banking industry and the debate should now be about the how and not the whether or not.
In fairness to Tom, he’s the messenger and not the message but I, for one, am not willing to model the American banking system after the 1982 Mexican coup. I’m getting out my tin-foil hat and screaming from the street corners that nationalising (sic) the banks is unacceptable. My comment to Tom:
Actually, it should be about the how not. How quickly can we break up these outdated institutions and get them in the hands of local, productive entrepreneurs?
As you might have guessed, Tom’s in complete agreement with me:
Absolutely. My point was that essentially we’re already nationalizing them, let’s focus on what we have to do to get them reshaped into the type of institutions that will actually work….
It’s not just the banks. Wall Street had a small rally this past Friday morning. The unemployment report came out and while the figures were gruesome, the Street expected this mess and shrugged it off until…
The leader of the (still) Free (but holding) World said that this is the worst news since the Great Depression. His comment struck fear in the hearts of every trader at a post and prompted a 200 point reversal in DJIA fortune. By the way, with the Dow under 7000, 200 points matters; it’s a 3% swing. Fortunately, those same scared traders ignored our Boy-Leader and focused on the fundamentals of the market; it resulted in a late day rally.
All this could be chalked up to Obama’s inexperience (which we knew when we elected him). After all, it was only five years ago that Obama was still mixing it up in Springfield as an Illinois State Senator. I’m not riled up because of that. I got all worked up when I opened up the Sunday fish-wrap; I damn near spit my eggs out:
Obama says outreach to Taliban a possibility
President Barack Obama says the U.S. is not winning the war in Afghanistan and he’s willing to open the door to negotiating with some moderate Taliban leaders.
Obama made the comments to the New York Times Friday in a half-hour interview on Air Force One.
You have got to be f***ing kidding me. Negotiating with the Taliban, prior to the delivery of Osama bin-Laden’s head on a pike, should only be allowed when Pat Tillman rises from his watery grave and permits it. To suggest defeat in Afghanistan is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of men and women who have the Taliban holed up in caves. It further abandons the memory of the few thousand victims of its heinous acts of War against this Country. Even exiled Afghan Muslims want the Taliban out.
This from the guy who promised to listen to the grunts on the ground. Here’s what his “main jarhead” had to say about Afghanistan:
Marine Gen. Jim Jones, Obama’s national-security adviser, said last year that America cannot afford to lose in Afghanistan.
The media pundit (who used Gen. Jones’ quote) “redefines” victory, though:
But as it stands now, what constitutes losing has yet to be decided.
Thank you Sean Purcell. It’s all a matter of terminology. But wait ! Here’s another opinion from a Canadian considered to be the foremost expert in the world on “peacekeeping”:
Retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie said on Sunday that the only hope coalition troops have of beating back a growing insurgency in Afghanistan is to reduce it “to the point of irrelevance.”
Speaking on CTV’s Question Period, MacKenzie said victory against an insurgency does not come in a traditional from, such as an armistice or a surrender agreement.
“It’s not going to be that,” MacKenzie said. “But it’s going to be reducing the Taliban to irrelevance and you do that by guaranteeing security to the population of Afghanistan. That is the way you wean the less radical elements of the Taliban to come over and join Afghan society.”
But MacKenzie said as troop levels stand now, with one coalition soldier for every 653 civilians, there are not enough military personnel on the ground to guarantee security.
Did you get it? We CAN win the war against terror by reducing the Taliban to irrelevance but it’s going to require a greater commitment. A commitment, it would appear, that our Boy-Leader can’t stomach. I’ll stipulate that war is hell and that wartime command is difficult but the Boy-Leader asked for the job. He manipulated the fallout of the 2001 attacks to win the election and offers capitulation to that enemy as our alternative.
Oh, the blame for the economy? Forget Time Magazine’s list of culprits; most of them acted exactly as market forces dictated. The real blame for this crashed economy lies squarely on the shoulders of the bearded villan who masterminded it…
Osama bin-Laden.
Our war is a civil war now. It pits the forces of those who would take more of your money, keep a watchful eye upon what you do with what little is left over, and reduce our population to slaves to an economy like the centralised (sic) economies so prevalent in Europe and Asia. Oh! We’ll have to keep watching over our shoulder for the next attack from bin-Laden, too.
One man fired a shot across the bow and thousands are going Galt. America ain’t a lost cause…yet. When this movement towards mediocrity understands that it needs some movers and shakers to pay their bills, our electorate will wake up and embrace the principles that made this country great.
I can’t wait for the mid-term elections.
Tom Vanderwell says:
Brian,
Thank you very much for a couple of things:
1. Saying what many many people are thinking about what’s happening. We need to keep the pressure on.
2. Clarifying that I’m the messenger and not in favor of the problem. Never before in my 20+ years in the business did I think that I’d be working for the federal government. We need to get the banking world reshaped and cleaned up as quickly as possible and back into a workable shape. The way we’re doing it now is not working and it’s merely postponing the inevitable.
There are two main reasons that I write on here and on my own blog over at Straight Talk About Mortgages:
1. Because hanging out with people like Brian, Greg, Jeff, Sean, Teri and the rest is intellectually stimulating and good for my business.
2. Because there are a LOT of people in the world who don’t realize what is at stake and don’t have a solid feel for the danger that our economy is in. If we remain quiet, who’s going to talk about it.
Tom
March 8, 2009 — 1:02 pm
Mark Madsen says:
“Retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie said on Sunday that the only hope coalition troops have of beating back a growing insurgency in Afghanistan is to reduce it “to the point of irrelevance.”
Maybe this is a dumb question, but doesn’t the simple fact that Obama mentioned opening up talks with the Taliban make them relevant, maybe even significant?
March 8, 2009 — 1:11 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Brian Brady! Welcome to the trenches… I’m glad I’m no longer the only member of the IWA.
The discussion you and Tom had was interesting, but seemed predicated on the idea that “we” (the government? the people? the voters?) should figure out how to to get (banks) reshaped into the type of institutions that will actually work…. I have to ask: weren’t they already institutions that actually worked? I mean, other than the big ones at the top who broke our trust if not our laws, aren’t two-thirds of all banks doing just fine? Hasn’t the market already “reshaped” most of the “bad” banks… into $1/share zombies of bankruptcy?
Your link to the article on the banking industry in Mexico is VERY instructive. Here’s what I took away from it: banking is all TRUST. Once you let that get away from you, it is very hard to restore. Worse than losing trust though, is losing acumen. The government did in fact privatize the banks years after nationalizing them (something our own government would be hard-pressed to do) and look what happened: they didn’t know how to be banks. Apparently, if you spend a few years on the government “nanny-wagon” you don’t know how to go back out without training wheels.
The worst possible option is being realized right now: government ownership of the banking system. There is no full return from this mis-step. Trust and strength are often synonymous and both are broken by government management. Brian, you have said on numerous occasions that the answer is the break-up (or failure) of the big, national banks and the growth of the local banks. I could not agree more; but this is not possible when the local banks must compete with the government! Actually, I can’t even use the word “compete” since that is never what happens when economic decision making is centralized.
What we are watching from President Obama and this Congress is an outright power grab under the guise of an economic catastrophe. It is naive, ignorant and petulant. It is ruinous on an economic scale never before seen in the history of man.
BTW, don’t you just love military double-talk?
reduce it “to the point of irrelevance.”
A very nice way of saying “annihilate.” When you are facing an enemy who believes in martyrdom and the inherent evil of your way of life, their is no appeasement. It is a war of attrition, plain and simple. Does anyone seriously believe that the current brain trust – which believes in it’s own ability to fix the world given enough time and money – is going to own that little bit of realism? Good luck…
I can’t wait for the mid-term elections Amen brother.
March 8, 2009 — 2:25 pm
Jake Planton says:
Although I have plenty of arguments against this article, I will not start now. I have a busy Sunday to be distracted by this dribble. The point I want to make is that the American people are with Obama. Look at the polls. Don’t tell me polls do not matter, cause they do. There is a lot more than we know. I am not saying you have to agree with the man, but keep in mind he is 40 some days into the job, and has a hell of a clean up job ahead of him from the previous 8 years.
March 8, 2009 — 2:44 pm
Tom Vanderwell says:
Sean,
I might have missed something. What’s the IWA and how do others of us join?
Seriously, I think you are being overly optimistic about the health of the banking industry. In my “neck of the woods” there’s basically two types of banks:
1. The really big banks that gambled on mortgage backed securities, Credit default swaps etc. and lost.
2. The not quite as big of banks who got too aggressive in commercial real estate, development loans, spec loans etc. and lost. Some banks actually fall in to both categories.
While there are some banks that are healthier than others, I really can’t honestly say that there are any banks that I know of who are coming through this in good financial condition.
If we nationalize the banks without a predefined plan on how to “spin them” back out as privatized banks, it is indeed a recipe for disaster. However, a short, predetermined plan that will, within 6 to 12 months, get the banks back on their feet with cleaned up books, new management and significantly smaller client bases so that the failure of one doesn’t jeopardize the entire industry again could really work.
I told one of my co-workers that I could see Citibank getting turned into a “Citi of New England” and a “Citi of the Southeast” and a “Citi of…..” all smaller regional banks that would be a lot healthier.
You’re absolutely right, banking is about trust. Until we can put together a plan that will reshape and restart the banking industry, we won’t see trust restored. Let’s face it, the people who run the banking world (John Thain, Ken Lewis, Jamie Dimon, Kevin Kabat, etc.) haven’t actually done anything to inspire trust lately.
I’ve listed below in a small bit of shameless self promotion some of the articles that I’ve written over on Straight Talk about what some of the sharpest minds in the industry are saying about the banking crisis/what to do with it.
Jake – you’re absolutely correct about the President’s poll numbers. However there’s another poll (the stock market) that is telling a bit of a different story about the direction our country is going. And to quote Forrest Gump, “That’s all I’m going to say about that.”
Tom
http://straighttalkaboutmortgages.com/2009/03/07/fed-president-too-big-has-failed/
http://straighttalkaboutmortgages.com/2009/02/26/the-best-description-ive-read-on-what-to-do-with-the-banks/
http://straighttalkaboutmortgages.com/2009/02/23/dr-doom-on-the-banking-world/
March 8, 2009 — 3:04 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Jake,
What a devastating blow it is for all of us that you are too busy to deal with this “dribble.” Maybe you will grace us another time.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Tom is right about polls. The market is generally ahead of the citizens because they are not afforded the luxury of blind faith. They knew about Carter when his numbers in the public were high and they knew about Reagan when his numbers with the public were low. They’re putting their money up and it’s hard to do that when a President who’s only been in office 40 days has already broken his biggest promise (twice, actually: the “embarrassment of special interest riches” formerly known as Sen. Tom Daschle and the 9000 earmarks allowed by the man who promised to be the “scourge” of earmarks.)
Hard to clean up a mess in front of you when you’re leaving an even bigger one right behind you…
March 8, 2009 — 4:27 pm
Rob Thiessen says:
Brian…
Thank you for coming out!
Rob
March 8, 2009 — 4:34 pm
Brian Brady says:
“doesn’t the simple fact that Obama mentioned opening up talks with the Taliban make them relevant, maybe even significant?”
Of course The Taliban is significant, Mark. They caused thousands of deaths in lower Manhattan and DC, in 2001. It abrogates women to a role slightly above dogs. The Taliban, aided by its affiliated thug bin Laden, is without a doubt, an enemy of the people of the United States. Enemies, during a time of war, are most definitely significant.
The retired Canadian general suggested that victory is secured by “making them irrelevant” (which Sean identified, is code for “to defeat”)
“The point I want to make is that the American people are with Obama.”
Oh, brother. Jimmy Carter has a 71% approval rating after his first 45 days; Obama has 62% which is about where George Bush was after his first 45 days.
“Don’t tell me polls do not matter, cause they do.”
Okayfine. I suspect Carter’s approval rating was lowered by 52 from late ’79 through early ’81.
“keep in mind he is 40 some days into the job, and has a hell of a clean up job ahead of him from the previous 8 years.”
Agreed. Consorting with the enemies who caused the mess are not what I call “Presidential”.
Jake, you might call this dribble and I respect your right to judge it. I respect it so much that I’ll fight against this Boy-Leader to preserve that right.
Obama’s in over his head- like Carter. I can’t believe that I’m actually GRATEFUL for Hillary Clinton.
March 8, 2009 — 4:54 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Tom,
IWA comes from a funny comment made by someone on one of my posts where she referred to me being a member of the Irish With Attitude. I liked it.
I’ll take some time to read your links but I don’t think I’m being overly optimistic. I can’t find the article I pulled that stat from, but two-thirds of banks are not in danger. Now they’re having a bad time of it just like everyone else, but balance sheet and so forth is fine. Even on a big scale I’d say Wells is coming through this alright. Kind of like Ford: the market is hurting them, but they’re not bankrupt and certainly not in the same league with their less thoughtful counterparts. You wouldn’t look at Wells in the same light as Citi and B of A would you?
This is a bit of Rotarian Socialism, isn’t it? By which I mean no disrespect, but the very definition of RS is that it “sounds” good on the surface and is a quarmire of crap underneath. How do we clean up bank’s books, other than by natural market functions? Anything else is just prolonging or delegating the problem. How do “we” go about choosing new management? Why is it any of “our” business to begin with? Let the shareholders do what they think is best… it’s their money that’s gone. “Smaller client base” sounds a lot like centralized decision making…
You get where I’m going with this. Sure, cleaning everything up and putting a smile on everyone’s face sounds good, but is not a goal we should be holding out for government to achieve (they can’t).
We’re listening to a public that is hurting and wanting immediate relief. This is not surprising from a country that makes Ritalin a priority (“remove the highs and lows please”) and as with Ritalin, you end up with pliable zombies…
March 8, 2009 — 5:16 pm
Mark Madsen says:
“Of course The Taliban is significant, Mark.” –
Ok, Brian, “Significant” may have been a poor choice of words considering the context you put it in.
Maybe it would have just been easier for me to respond to your article with:
“You have got to be f***ing kidding me.”
I agree.
March 8, 2009 — 5:42 pm
Vance Shutes says:
Tom, Brian, Sean, et al.,
“…a short, predetermined plan that will, within 6 to 12 months, get the banks back on their feet …could really work.”
When have we EVER seen the gubmint instill a program that they KNOWINGLY would end in so short a term? NEVER, that’s when. Rather, gubmint brings about new programs and then NEVER eliminates the programs. That’s why our gubmint has grown to such outlandish size.
This is a bald-faced gubmint grab for power, and as soon as the people wake up and recognize it, the better. Like one of the commenters wrote “I can’t wait for the mid-term elections Amen brother.”
March 8, 2009 — 5:53 pm
Tom Vanderwell says:
Sean,
Seeing as how I’m predominantly Dutch, I’m not sure I can get into the IWA…..
“I can’t find the article I pulled that stat from, but two-thirds of banks are not in danger.”
I’d be interested to know if those stats refer to the number of banks or the asset size of the banks. I’ve heard that the top 5 banks control over 45% of the asset base in banking.
Looking at Wells, Citi and B of A, on the surface, they are different, but I don’t think we’ve seen the full ramifications of Well’s acquistion (aka forced marriage) with Wachovia work it’s way through yet. But, with that being said, as a banker, I’d rather be getting my paycheck from Wells than Citi right now.
How do we clean up the banks books? By means of a massive boost to the FDIC’s funding. Did you read the news this week that Congress approved a $500 Billion “credit line” for the FDIC? They are expecting to have to clean up some series bank issues.
Is there a good chance that the banks won’t ever get back into private hands, yes, unfortunately there is. But what are the other alternatives? 1. Keep pour money into the banks with no real sign of improvement in the financial mess. 2. Do nothing and let the situation deteriorate (even worse than it already is). Then we’ll eventually see a run on one or more of the banks and the banking world will really crumble.
Given those choices, I’ll prefer to take my chances on a “prepackaged” bankruptcy plan for the really sick banks.
Is cleaning everything up going to be as easy as it sounds? Nope. That’s one of the reasons the FDIC has rented major amounts of office space out in California. They are going to be busy for a long time. Is it going to be painful? Yes it is.
The banking industry, like the auto industry, is too big to be supported by the current economic environment. Radical changes are needed.
Oh, and by “smaller client base” what I mean is that we won’t have one bank that has a large percentage of the banking industry’s total assets. If we had smaller banks than Citi, B of A, Wells, etc. having a bank fail wouldn’t be a big issue.
Fascinating discussion.
Tom
March 8, 2009 — 6:58 pm
Bob Darrow says:
I think you are going to personally find out why you shouldn’t mix politics with business.
Just keep in mind there are folks out there who are readers who lean the opposite way politically.
And that your guy had the last 8 years to screw it all up royally. Try to stick to your area of expertise – Real Estate and Mortgages.
March 8, 2009 — 7:50 pm
Brian Brady says:
“They are going to be busy for a long time. Is it going to be painful? Yes it is.”
I’d ask you to consider the alternative, Tom. Here are 100 banks that are doing just fine:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123440907625176005.html?mod=article-outset-box
If Citi and BAC went into receivorship, I’ll bet we could find 20 regional securities’ firms to receive customer assets and 100 healthy banks to pick through the carcasses for good loans and deposits.
The FDIC will have a big job ahead of them but “preserving shareholder equity” shouldn’t be one of them.
March 8, 2009 — 7:57 pm
Missy Caulk says:
In light of the present financial crisis, it’s interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks– and corporations that will grow up around the banks–will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
My Uncle sent me this today, a retired Circuit Court Judge.
Thomas Jefferson also said,but I don’t know the date:”The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
March 8, 2009 — 7:59 pm
Brian Brady says:
“And that your guy had the last 8 years to screw it all up royally.”
Oh Mr. Darrow- the last guy wasn’t “my guy”. Regardless, the “screw up” incited by that thug bin Laden.
“Try to stick to your area of expertise – Real Estate and Mortgages.”
I believe that “area” was encroached first by the last guy and more extensively by the current guy. This isn’t politics, Sir. It’s survival.
March 8, 2009 — 8:11 pm
Tom Vanderwell says:
“If Citi and BAC went into receivorship, I’ll bet we could find 20 regional securities’ firms to receive customer assets and 100 healthy banks to pick through the carcasses for good loans and deposits.”
Brian,
We’re actually on the same page on that. Let’s look at what happens when a small (say a 5 branch bank) gets taken over by the FDIC.
1. The FDIC seizes the bank on a Friday.
2. By Monday morning, the good assets of the bank are transferred to another bank and the branches open up with the new bank.
3. The FDIC keeps the “bad assets” and eventually liquidates them to private investors over time.
In my opinion the same thing needs to happen with the big banks with the only substantial difference being that with banks the size of Citibank and Bank of America, it’s not going to be possible to move it all “over” to different banks in a weekend.
That’s all I’m saying….
Tom
March 9, 2009 — 4:18 am
Sean Purcell says:
Tom,
Over-all I think we are in agreement that smaller banks would not only work better, they’d serve their community better (much harder to over-lend OR default when the home owner and the banker have kids on the same little league team). I don’t agree with your two choices though. Obviously I’m not for pouring more money into these bankrupt companies. But option 2 is a direct by-product of option 1. Once we start putting money into some of them… you can’t be a little bit pregnant. Either you nationalize all the banks or you get the heck out of the way and let the failures fail. The fastest path to recovery is TRUTH. People need to feel trust again and that’s not going to happen when the government is in the middle making everything blurry.
BTW, did you see how the FDIC had to raise their insurance premium because the fund will run out? Eventually they halved the premium because of the increased line of credit but let me ask you: why in the hell is the FDIC insuring $250,000 deposits? What idiot has that much cash in an account and why does everyone have to be made whole for everything? This is where many of the problems begin: no self-reliance.
March 9, 2009 — 8:58 am
Sean Purcell says:
Mr. Darrow,
What a sad world it would be if intelligent discussion were discouraged for fear of losing business.
I haven’t had a “guy” in the White House in 20 years, but that’s not the point. I do have plenty of clients and not all of them share my views on self-reliance and free markets; they do enjoy my honesty though. Why would I do business with someone from whom I had to hide?
Try to stick to your area of expertise
The thoughtful analysis and discussion of areas that impact our clients lives and livelihoods IS the area of expertise for many of the writers here. I don’t know what you bring to the table, but many of us strive to add value at every turn.
March 9, 2009 — 9:42 am
Tom Vanderwell says:
Sean,
To follow up on your “pregnant” analogy…..
But we are already a little bit pregnant. What I’m saying is that we need to do one of two things:
1. Provide adequate supervision and “prenatal” care so that when the new, smaller entities emerge from this mess, they are healthy and we can build up from there.
or
2. Allow the “pregnant” bank to continue smoking, drinking and doing all sorts of things that are bad for them and then find out that the entities that we end up with are overweight, in ill health and not able to function correctly and can’t be trusted.
Is it risky to let the government be in charge of the prenatal care for our “new” banking system? Absolutely. But I think the same thing can be said for the auto industry, if we can (big IF) structure an orderly transition, we’ll be a lot better off than a chaotic, unorganized and totally random disintegration of the assets that the banking industry has accumulated.
“The thoughtful analysis and discussion of areas that impact our clients lives and livelihoods IS the area of expertise for many of the writers here.”
Sean – you just said exactly why I write here and on Straight Talk. Thank you.
Tom
March 9, 2009 — 10:33 am
Todd Covington says:
While I’m not for the status Que and a republican, some of the Obama ideas are unbelievable.
My biggest problem is that it looks as though Obama seeks to undo some things that are working. All the while he’s figuring out how to give more and more to the poor. 1 in 10 Americans are already on welfare. Is that not enough already.
As for foreign policy, it is a proven fact that negotiating with fanatics dose not work.
March 9, 2009 — 11:15 am
Tchaka says:
Brian wrote: Of course The Taliban is significant, Mark. They caused thousands of deaths in lower Manhattan and DC, in 2001.
Me: Huh? I believe you have them mixed up with Al-Queda.
Brian: We CAN win the war against terror
Me: This is possible ONLY if “war against terror” is a finite battle. However, it isn’t – therefore it can never be won. Try defining war against terror and from there you can see it can’t happen. Win in Afghanistan and that doesn’t stop events in Sudan. Or Somalia. Or Indonesia. Or UK. Or Thailand. We can go on and on. Somewhere someone has a gripe and is willing to die for it. Unfortunately, it’s part of being on this Earth.
March 9, 2009 — 11:34 am
Brian Brady says:
“I believe you have them mixed up with Al-Queda.”
Aren’t the two linked, Tchaka?
March 9, 2009 — 1:30 pm
Tchaka says:
Allies, yes. I would even say strong allies.
Linked as far as Sept 11, 2001 goes…no.
March 9, 2009 — 1:34 pm
Keahi Pelayo says:
Thank you, thank you, thank you for having the courage to post on the errors of our new President. Like you I had had high hopes and after 6 weeks, I am convinced our optimism was misplaced. Obama has taken issue the fundamental underpinning on which we have prospered and flourished for a long time. He is taking a socialist sledge hammer to something that need some tender loving care, not replacement. Did I say thank you!
Aloha,
Keahi
PS-as a citizen you are an expert on our country.
March 9, 2009 — 1:39 pm
Brian Brady says:
“Linked as far as Sept 11, 2001 goes…no.”
Pre-9/11 Afghan head of state and current Taliban leader Omar provided training camps for bin-Laden’s operatives prior to, and protection for them after, the attacks on our country.
You could suggest that the Luftwaffe wasn’t technically linked with Nazi aggression but I imagine the Brits who died from the “Blitzkriegs” would disagree with you. I can’t verify that because they’re dead.
I’m thinking that the thousands of victims of the 9/11 attack would have a difficult time ascertaining Omar’s “technical” innocence but again, I can’t verify that because they’re dead.
March 9, 2009 — 4:23 pm
Brian Brady says:
“Seeing as how I’m predominantly Dutch, I’m not sure I can get into the IWA…..”
Actually, it’s open enrollment day next Tuesday
March 9, 2009 — 4:29 pm
Tom Vanderwell says:
next Tuesday?
Cool! I’ll put it on my calendar. How do I sign up?
🙂
March 9, 2009 — 4:41 pm
Brian Brady says:
“How do I sign up?”
See Flanagan next Tuesday. tell him the San Diegans sent you: http://flanagansgr.com/
March 9, 2009 — 6:48 pm
Anita Clark says:
Obama scares the crap out of me.
March 9, 2009 — 7:05 pm
Tom Vanderwell says:
How did you know that Flanagans is around the corner from my office? Dang you’re good!
I’ll go see him next Tuesday in your and Sean’s honor!
March 9, 2009 — 9:16 pm
Doug Quance says:
It’s real simple.
If you want more of something – you subsidize it.
If you want less of something – you tax it.
Obama and the liberals want more poor people and fewer wealthy ones… and so far – they’re doing a good job of getting what they wanted.
March 9, 2009 — 9:46 pm
Sean says:
“Pre-9/11 Afghan head of state and current Taliban leader Omar provided training camps for bin-Laden’s operatives prior to, and protection for them after, the attacks on our country.”
While Omar offered safe haven to Bin Laden (an old mujahadeen ally with a long history of US intelligence ties), it’s been well established that the Taliban were not aware of the planning and execution of 911 until after the fact. Hitler controlled the Luftwaffe, not vice versa. Your suggesting the tail wags the dog. I’m all for rooting out every last Taliban but 911 would have occurred with or without the Taliban. However, it is plausible that 911 would not have occurred without Saudi dollars. Wahhabi fervor in Afghanistan would not have near as wide spread influence without Saudi and Iranian funding, especially for Wahibi schools. 19 Saudi’s took control of those planes, no one else. Intelligence suspected that Iraq may have had ties to Bin Laden while Saudi Arabia and Iran unquestionably did. It was suspected Iraq may be developing WMD’s while Iran unquestionable peruses them and states it would like to destroy Israel. North Korea even likes to test one on occasion. Bush concentrated our forces in Iraq.
March 11, 2009 — 8:23 pm
Tchaka says:
Thank you, Sean. Not only that, my response (had I gotten around to it) is that creating this link is a very slippery slope. If it were that easy to “be linked” then our country is guilty of a lot of things in this world. Well, we are (ie, no one is innocent), but we suddenly become bad guys because of our so-called “links”. And where does it stop? The UAE is one of several countries to recognize the Taliban and I believe had diplomatic ties…..does that now link the UAE to September 11th? At the very least they should be classified as hostile, no?
March 11, 2009 — 8:57 pm
Brian Brady says:
“While Omar offered safe haven to Bin Laden (an old mujahadeen ally with a long history of US intelligence ties), it’s been well established that the Taliban were not aware of the planning and execution of 911 until after the fact”
Omar provided training camps for Al-Qaeda operatives with the sole intent OF attacking America. It is a “technicality” that he didn’t know about the exact 9/11 plan. The obvious question would be “Why did he run if he had no connection to 9/11?”.
“The UAE is one of several countries to recognize the Taliban and I believe had diplomatic ties…..does that now link the UAE to September 11th?”
That’s a reach, Tchaka. The Taliban was DIRECTLY involved with the training of a proposed attack on the United States. The UAE recognized Omar as the (former) head of the Afghan state.
Let’s not confuse the point of the article, though. I won’t be an apologist for requiring the Taliban to produce bin-Laden before we negotiate. They protected him, they are protecting him, and they can produce him.
Anything wrong with making them turn over Public Enemy #1 before we start giving them alms?
March 11, 2009 — 11:15 pm
Tchaka says:
Yes, it is. Just as your post is a reach. I’m glad you got my point.
Having the Taliban as enemy right now is fine, their actions post Sept 11th warrant it. But our discussion is about pre- Sept 11th.
Moving forward, an assessment needs to be made as to the costs vs benefits of such a requirement. I don’t know the answer…….though I’m sure the Soviets, er Russians might be able to weigh in. Moreover, the terrain in most of that area is not in our favor. As for making demands of them, think about this from their POV. What’s their incentive? They don’t care if the war goes on for 30 more years.
March 11, 2009 — 11:33 pm
Brian Brady says:
“They don’t care if the war goes on for 30 more years.”
Neither did the Soviets nor did Hitler. It’s about resolve, Tchaka and it appears that our President ain’t got it.
Watch China- they tested him today
March 11, 2009 — 11:57 pm
Tchaka says:
You must not be understanding what I’m writing, Brian. It’s not all about resolve, it’s about cost-benefit.
March 12, 2009 — 7:07 am
Michael Cook says:
I feel like a kid that just missed out on Chistmas. Such a great article and even better comments and I missed the party. As usual, Brian and Sean are way off the mark and I do commend those above that tried to point this out. I can only hope to add to some value to the contrary point of view.
First, why is there so much anti-nationalization bias here. Is it because the banking system has done so well under the lax regulation of the Bush Era. While I dont blame Bush, I do blame the laissez faire policies towards banking.
Additionally, why should we trust the people who got us here to get us some where else? What is so bad about the government stepping in removing management, putting in good risk management policies and managers, wiping out shareholders, recapitalizing the entity and then spinning off the pieces to private buyers??? Dear God, “Nineteen Eighty-Four” has come and they have reanimated Stalin in the form of Barak Obama. Give me a break.
Brian and Sean, you are letting your political views blind you of common sense. Most of the people on this site have no idea how badly the banking system is damaged. In my opinion Tom was right when he said that just about every lending institution is in trouble. Many are insolvent and waiting for the FDICs knock. Deregulation and laissez faire economics works most of the time. When your banking system is insolvent, a hands off approach will not work.
Anyone remember “Let them eat cake…” That didnt turn out well for the Queen and “Let them all fail…” wont turn out well for the world today. If someone has a good, scratch that, ANY alternative to preventing a world banking system collapse I would love to hear it. I will be the first (of many) to say that laissez faire will not work.
As to the other political stuff, I will leave that to the masses.
March 12, 2009 — 10:37 am
Doug Quance says:
>Mike:
Better late to the party than never.
While I hold all of Congress responsible, these videos might show you that Bush & Co – though not effective – tried as early as 2001 to get a handle on this mess.
Take note of those who stood in the way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
March 12, 2009 — 12:07 pm
Brian Brady says:
“If someone has a good, scratch that, ANY alternative to preventing a world banking system collapse I would love to hear it.”
I offered it six months ago, Michael. Seize and break up the banks. You suggested that there were “plenty” of banks, then. Now, a meltdown if the Government doesn’t run them?
Don’t fear failure, Michael; it’s a costly but cogent instructor. It’s how we grow up.
March 13, 2009 — 4:49 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Michael,
Always great to hear from you and your measured, thoughtful insights:
As usual, Brian and Sean are way off the mark
I do disagree with you on some points, but find myself agreeing wiht others. For instance:
why should we trust the people who got us here to get us some where else?
is dead-on. The current administration is packed with political (as opposed to business or entrepreneurial) appointments just like the previous administration and they continue to spend money they don’t have. (The only real difference being the greater pace and damage of their spending due to its expansion of the most dangerous group we know: government).
I’d like to know how you arrive at statement such as:
just about every lending institution is in trouble. Many are insolvent and waiting for the FDICs knock
because I am reading about bank after bank (starting with Wells Fargo) who are waiting for the mechanism that will allow them to return the TARP funds so that they don’t have to commit business suicide under government control (in other words: they don’t see the economic wisdom of following the “post office” model of business).
Your main argument seems to be a fear of letting some of the big banks fail. I’ve got a secret for you: they already failed! Citibank has been insolvent for some time and the taxpayers have literally bought it twice. As I pointed out before, this is merely a matter of terminology at this point and while I despise that waste of funds, it does point out one thing: the world did not come apart. Our system is much stronger than you give it credit. Our greatest weakness – and most deserving fear – lies in the body politic.
March 14, 2009 — 7:49 am