The private sector works independantly from and in spite of government something that Obama and company will never understand. As some have already commented, the so-called stimulus bills will do nothing to change the direction of the market which is already in the process of correcting the problems facing our economy.

Yeah, empty criticism is about all you slugs have left. If you knew what the fuck you were doing you might have a say in what gets done. But you don’t!

The people knew who got us here so they took away the conservatives’ power and sent them packing for decades.

Good riddance to human garbage.

Assets should always be valued at their book value, not what was paid for it. If its value depreciates, so should the book value, just like any other investment.

Bill,

Huh??? Your suggestion makes no sense… on several different levels. In the first place, how does one determine a “value” for an item which is not for sale? “Mark to market” is little more than a glib cliche if there is no market. You would have the asset holder changing the value of the asset weekly? Daily? Hourly? Mortgage backed securities are not fungible, particularly in a volatile real estate market.

Then there is the question of how one would determine one’s profit or loss on the investment if the asset’s value is being changed weekly, daily, hourly. Today’s “profit” becomes tomorrow’s “loss” all with no transactions to support the change? What you suggest is exactly the accounting, and finance, nightmare we have now.

Your position is superficial, simplistic, and obviously (given our current situation) ultimately untenable.

Many banks have been running at crazy high leverage ratios.

Gee, Brent, I wonder how that could have happened? Leverage ratios for FDIC insured banks are set by federal regulation. The only way for those ratios to get “crazy high” is for those same feds to force the banks to artificially de-value assets, market to market, thus reducing capital to cover the loss while inflating their leverage ratios. The “credit crisis” has been wildly exacerbated by the very federal regulators charged with preventing it in the first place.

The market has to grow 600% to get back where it was when obama was elected. Good luck with that Timmy the Tax Cheat.

It sounds like the banks are giving back the federal funds they were pestered into taking.
It was the Fed’s meddling into free markets that caused all of this.
Doing business with the government is the same as doing business with the devil; they both demand your soul in return!

Typo: 60%

thanks for cathing that.

Geitner is Obama’s Rumsfeld

Looking at a one year chart of the S&P 500, I don’t understand why opponents of Obama keep trying to stick him with the market decline. I appreciate that the markets don’t view his economic plans as magic bullets sure to reverse the financial and economic decline we’re experiencing…I don’t either FWIW. Perhaps the markets respond to more than who the President is and what his plans are?

Mickey,

I see your point, though I disagree with your assessment of Rumsfeld’s wartime culpability.

My point is that while Rumsfeld was not hired to oversee a war effort, Geithner was specifically chosen as Treasury Secretary because as Obama told us, he, Geithner, was “the one man who can save the economy.” It’s one thing not to be very capable at a task thrust upon you by circumstances. It’s quite another to prove yourself inept at the one critical task you were specifically hired to perform.

So Citi says Citi is “actually one of the better capitalized banks in the world”? Regardless of the truth of that statement, it “actually” says practically nothing since the standard set is so low. Many banks have been running at crazy high leverage ratios.

Bat,

I see Rumsfeld as messing up the war as much as Geitner is messing up the economy. They both are/were hard headed stuck in their own perspective and rejecting better advice

Bat:

It’s one thing not to be very capable at a task thrust upon you by circumstances. It’s quite another to prove yourself inept at the one critical task you were specifically hired to perform.

What were the chances, really, that Geithner would not be inept given that his boss is similarly mediocre?

Maybe that’s the biggest tragedy. Everyone saw this coming from the start and he was appointed anyhow with all the urgency of someone waving off a call from a telemarketer. Say it is vital and he’ll fix it, ignore the clear signs that he won’t and can’t, push it through with an uncaring attitude, waltz away.

Bat:

Despite Obama’s sanctimonious prattle to the contrary, Geithner is clearly unqualified for the job for which he was hired. Geithner is neither a banker nor a leader. He’s a bureaucrat. The same sort of plodding, unimaginative, lifer you find at the Post Office, the city water department or the drivers license bureau.

So really, not far from his boss who is about like a civil service administrator in character and capacity.

I think if we’re betting people, the long shot will be Obama putting up someone dramatically MORE capable than himself.