Scathing blog post by Robert Reich about Hedge Fun Mngrs

Oh my goodness.

Hedge fun managers made a combined 11.5 BILLION dollars last year. Thanks to, well, you and me, actually. Since we bailed them out. And now, they're going to buy those troubled, oops, I mean "legacy" assets from the banks with the money we gave them. And if it doesn't work out for them, guess who takes on all the risk? You and Me!

Excerpt:

So you and I and other taxpayers have kept these hedge-fund honchos flush enough to be able to reap the bonanza that Geithner now wants to bestow on them for cleaning up the mess they and others on Wall Street made -- a bonanza to be financed by you and me and other taxpayers, who are taking on all the risk.

Full text:

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-you-should-work-for-hedge-fund.html

Don't forget to read the end where Robert Reich slams in Economics Arch Nemisis Larry "The Blob" Summers.

The Swedish Model

I'm trying to be an Informed Citizen when it comes to talking about the bank bailout issue. I'm sick of people issuing blanket statements with no recognition of double standards or nuance.

Robin Young covered this story on the Swedish model of bank bailouts.

Link to story

And I found this in-depth article on the subject from the Cleveland Fed Reserve Bank:

http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/commentary/2009/0209.cfm?DCS.pr=20090212

These are a little heady for the noneconomist and I'm hoping as this subject of the Swedish model comes up more often, someone will be able to lay it down in less MoneySpeak and more Regular Talk.

Theories on Bailout Strategy

This is the latest buzz going about on the blogs (Kos, Hullabaloo, TPM, Democratic Strategist):

Patrick Ruffinni outlined a probable McCain strategy for dealing with the bail-out package:

Republican incumbents in close races have the easiest vote of their lives coming up this week: No on the Bush-Pelosi Wall Street bailout.

God Himself couldn't have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the Administration. That's why I want to see 40 Republican No votes in the Senate, and 150+ in the House. If a bailout is to pass, let it be with Democratic votes. Let this be the political establishment (Bush Republicans in the White House + Democrats in Congress) saddling the taxpayers with hundreds of billions in debt (more than the Iraq War, conjured up in a single weekend, and enabled by Pelosi, btw), while principled Republicans say "No" and go to the country with a stinging indictment of the majority in Congress....

In an ideal world, McCain opposes this because of all the Democratic add-ons and shows up to vote Nay while Obama punts.

History has shown us that "inevitable" "emergency" legislation like the Patriot Act or Sarbanes-Oxley is never more popular than on the day it is passed -- and this isn't all that popular to begin with. All the upside comes with voting against it.

So far, I've only found one comment (from the Hullabaloo post) about this posit that offered any good counter measure to the crafty position above:

From Andrew Foland (this is his homepage):

If she cares to use it, Pelosi has more power right now than either Bush or Paulson.

If you're Pelosi, you tell Hank he can have 40 votes (from the safest D seats imaginable) for the Dodd plan in the House. If he can get his party on board, great, they can get a bill through the House If he can't, there's no plan at all.

If they want a bill, make them find the votes, and make them take the responsibility. If they aren't willing to, maybe it's not such a crisis after all...

Fiscally speaking, the Dodd bill next to the Paulson bill is a difference of night and day. But politically speaking, I think the public won't perceive the difference, and the Dodd bill will be just as reviled as the Paulson plan.

Dems should use their leverage to (a) insure good government via allowing only the Dodd bill through and (b) insure the GOP takes the fall for it.