looks like we're about to find out

Well, that thing just got flushed. Interesting.

1) It was certainly a hell of a lot of money. And money that was quite possibly not going to do any discernible public good. If, for instance, it either didn't prevent or somewhat postponed inevitable bank failures, we'd all be holding the bag in ways much more tangible than we are at this moment. It was also (most likely) the greatest incentive to make the same mistake/continue banging your head on that wall any of us have ever seen. It would have done the utmost that could humanly be done to insulate executives/shareholders from consequences. A lot there to hate, regardless of your political persuasion, leading to

2) For there to really be an honest prospect of better days, better practices ahead, it seems that the executives and shareholders who bought into this mess are going to have to take it on the chin. Now, that sucks, and there can be no doubt. Economics is scientific because of very powerful predictive principles about human behavior. Where it falls short, it seems to me, it falls short because people are given too much credit for being rational actors. The only surefire way to prevent more "bad behavior" (i.e., risky, unwise speculation) in the future is for bad actors to bear the brunt of their mistakes now. Anything else gives people too much credit, i.e., for being able to repent of trying to get really rich in nefarious/risky ways. Won't happen, unless they lose their shirts.

3) Beyond which, a bailout-less world is one in which the consequences of bad behavior fall most heavily on those perpetrating it. UNLESS

4) The sky really is falling, and we will now have the credit contraction/widespread bank failure/run-on-your-local-bank that some people have forecasted. Barney Frank and George Bush and Nancy Pelosi will look like the goddamned Founding Fathers if that comes to pass.

5) While we're on the legislative groping that's gone on, interestingly, opposition to this seems to have crystallized mostly on the hard left and right. Let me just say that it does not engender great confidence in Nancy Pelosi that she brought a must-pass bill to the floor with only the support of at best 60% of her own caucus. The libruls weren't having it. Additionally, people like John Barrow were scared shitless. If it really is Doomsday (as she apparently believes), she would have been willing to risk getting 0 Republican votes. But it doesn't make any sense when your own (fairly strong) majority can't pass it, because they either don't believe in it, or don't want to touch it w/a 10-foot-pole. I dunno, maybe getting everyone on record before the Dow tanks is a relatively strong setup move for Round 2?

6) Am I the only one who woke up in the wee hours (about 5) this weekend wondering if this was the last weekend before a new Great Depression?

It's a Lot Like This

If you're trying to get an idea.

Lord Jesus

Well, here I am, a depositor at Washington Mutual.

My drinking has lots of bad consequences, but I also talk to financial planners whilst tanked, and I learn things . . .

I always assumed that FDIC basically rendered your average (sane) depositor/investor safe, BUT little did I know. . .


if your bank fails, and you need the FDIC, you will receive 1 DOLLAR before they shut your shit off, and tell you to get out of line. THE FDIC WILL NOT SAVE YOUR ASS. That's an important point.

Oh, ye Wachovia depositors, do not assume ye are far behynde. Things are very much up in the air. If St. McCain proves willing to sacrifice The Economy As We Know It to save his shit-sorry campaign, watch out. The liquidity crisis might be coming to a theater near you.


If there's a takeaway, it is . . . there are lots of people with a WHOLE LOT MORE money than me. They have this money out of a certain commendable form of persistance. I really can no longer accept the idea that it's because they're smarter than me.

Damn. Just Damn.

Watch CBS Videos Online

Burning Time After Reading

OK, saw Burn After Reading the other day . . . and, eh.

Typical Coën brothers fall-apart ending. It was funny, yes, but not fall-out-of-your-chair-funny, as I had been led to believe, by people I Trust About Humor, because they are funny.

So what up? I think we all unconsciously hold Hollywood to a much lower standard, like, "I saw [fill-in-the-blank-flavor-of-the-week-play-for-our-demographic], and it was grrreeat!" when in fact, it's merely OK. This is affirmative action for the cineplex. Wes Anderson is Public Enemy No. Fucking One (as I've said before) on this score. Call a mediocre movie (even if it has St. Malkovich) a spade, for God's sake.


SPOILER ALERT















Totally didn't see Brad Pitt getting offed coming, though. Killing the most interesting character (except Lietke, of course) was a change of pace, and a sure sign that we'd be getting off the bike soon.






























*and scene*

oh, hi there, T.T.

I'm back in the saddle, but I want busy people in Czechoslovakia, so change of venue.

Annnyway, I hate the way this looks so far, but just wanted to get up and posting. I promise this thing will look more inviting within 14-17 days. Nevertheless, this site is your indispensable up-to-the-minute guide to All Things T.T.

It's all going to get progressively more true over a moderate span of human time.

Just Another Manic Wednesday

Encouraging signs from the Democratic leadership that sanity will prevail in the government's response to Wall Street's, er, meltdown, whatever . . . .

I hate that word, "meltdown." Like "dimension" or "catalyst" (good God, "catalyze"), I would like to see uses beyond its technical meaning banned. A meltdown involves the compromise of the core at a nuclear plant. Not a shit fit. Why isn't "shit fit" good enough?

Anyway, I like that Schumer's talking some money now, maybe more later. That is manifestly the only sane response to this, not committing such a gargantuan sum ($700b, for you cave dwellers) with less than a week's deliberation. The politics are interesting. Republicans making sounds like they don't want anything to do with what eventually passes, Democrats trying to hedge their bets.

Well, it's tricky. Whatever gets passed, if it's even marginally effective, will have arguably saved us from a recession. But, like "no attacks since 9/11," it would be a rhetorical strategem of probably limited effectiveness. A catastrophe averted isn't tangible in the way that $700b worth of new debt is. Is this thing really necessary? It seems like it probably is (based on the wide array of experts who are soberly warning that it is), but who knows? Anyway, Democrats should just get to a bill that's broadly acceptable to their caucus, and ram it through. See if Bush feels like saving the economy this week.

BTW--why is it that there's so much frigging doubt about the bill that will come through? It's a spending bill, therefore, it must originate in the House. The Democratic-controlled House. Because of House rules, the Democratic leadership can absolutely kill any bill they don't like. One bill will come up for a vote, and that bill should be the one that has the chance of holding the caucus together. Bush won't like it, but it will be the only bill he will see. People talk about this like the administration can just submit their own idea, and then Democrats have to react to it. No.