Waving his magic wand, President Obama has brought sight to the blind and made the lame to walk, yea verily.
Actually, he has ordered a halt to prosecutions of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay via the military tribunal process. The White House will review the cases individually and move most of them through the civilian process, although they keep open the option of using the military courts in some cases; in my view, they are so tainted by the BushAdmin’s use of torture during interrogations, and the puppet show that followed, I don’t see any value to the tribunal process at all. But then, I’m not in power, am I? (Dammit! Foiled again.)
Obama’s options for salvaging the financial industry look convoluted and bleak. But the “bad bank” option caught my eye:
That leaves the third and increasingly talked-about approach — have the government buy up the toxic assets and put them into a government-financed “bad bank” or an “aggregator bank.”
The immediate virtue of the bad bank is that the remaining “good bank” would have a clean balance sheet, unburdened by the uncertainty of future losses from bad loans and securities.
Richard Berner, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, described the “bad bank” strategy as the “least bad” of available options. The main advantage, Mr. Berner said, was that the government would have to decide how much it was willing to pay for the toxic assets. In turn, that would make it easier for the public to figure out whether the government was overpaying.
Banks may not want that kind of openness, because accurately valuing the toxic assets could force many to book big losses, admit their insolvency and shut down.
Boo-fucking-hoo. I thought a free market meant that bad businesses failed and good businesses thrived. Hahahahahaha – just kidding. Screw that ass sunshine, I want transparency when the people’s money is on the line. The best way to save the economy is to purge the bad actors and put integrity into the market. Please note I did not say “restore integrity.”