(Source: Max Ernst.)
Showing posts with label unicorn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unicorn. Show all posts
Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
More Failure for the Candy-Crappin' Unicorn™
The New York Times reports: Metamorphosis at Caterpillar Over Jobs.
Another casualty of the stimulus package became apparent while we were waiting for the final language of the reconciled bill to appear online. It appears that Caterpillar won’t be hiring back any of those 22,000 laid-off workers because of the President’s $789 (Ed: sic) stimulus package, despite the fact that President Obama alluded to words by the company’s executive just earlier today touting the measure.
With the very familiar logo of Caterpillar looming around him at one of the company’s hard-hit plants in Peoria, Ill., President Obama publicly repeated the promise that Caterpillar’s chief executive officer, Jim Owens, might be able to rehire some of the people who were laid off — if the stimulus were passed.
But oops. After the president left, Mr. Owens not only did a turnabout on rehiring; he also suggested there may be even more layoffs. Although he said he continued to support the stimulus package, it wouldn’t result in a reversal of layoffs for anyone: “I think realistically no. The truth is we’re going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again.”
The Candy-Crappin' Unicorn™ has failed again!
Another casualty of the stimulus package became apparent while we were waiting for the final language of the reconciled bill to appear online. It appears that Caterpillar won’t be hiring back any of those 22,000 laid-off workers because of the President’s $789 (Ed: sic) stimulus package, despite the fact that President Obama alluded to words by the company’s executive just earlier today touting the measure.
With the very familiar logo of Caterpillar looming around him at one of the company’s hard-hit plants in Peoria, Ill., President Obama publicly repeated the promise that Caterpillar’s chief executive officer, Jim Owens, might be able to rehire some of the people who were laid off — if the stimulus were passed.
But oops. After the president left, Mr. Owens not only did a turnabout on rehiring; he also suggested there may be even more layoffs. Although he said he continued to support the stimulus package, it wouldn’t result in a reversal of layoffs for anyone: “I think realistically no. The truth is we’re going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again.”
The Candy-Crappin' Unicorn™ has failed again!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Shreddin' Time
Martin Wolf in the Financial Times asks the obvious questions: Why Obama’s new Tarp will fail to rescue the banks.
Has Barack Obama’s presidency already failed? In normal times, this would be a ludicrous question. But these are not normal times. They are times of great danger. Today, the new US administration can disown responsibility for its inheritance; tomorrow, it will own it. Today, it can offer solutions; tomorrow it will have become the problem. Today, it is in control of events; tomorrow, events will take control of it. Doing too little is now far riskier than doing too much. If he fails to act decisively, the president risks being overwhelmed, like his predecessor. The costs to the US and the world of another failed presidency do not bear contemplating.
The new plan seems to make sense if and only if the principal problem is illiquidity. Offering guarantees and buying some portion of the toxic assets, while limiting new capital injections to less than the $350bn left in the Tarp, cannot deal with the insolvency problem identified by informed observers. Indeed, any toxic asset purchase or guarantee programme must be an ineffective, inefficient and inequitable way to rescue inadequately capitalised financial institutions: ineffective, because the government must buy vast amounts of doubtful assets at excessive prices or provide over-generous guarantees, to render insolvent banks solvent; inefficient, because big capital injections or conversion of debt into equity are better ways to recapitalise banks; and inequitable, because big subsidies would go to failed institutions and private buyers of bad assets.
Why then is the administration making what appears to be a blunder? It may be that it is hoping for the best. But it also seems it has set itself the wrong question. It has not asked what needs to be done to be sure of a solution. It has asked itself, instead, what is the best it can do given three arbitrary, self-imposed constraints: no nationalisation; no losses for bondholders; and no more money from Congress. Yet why does a new administration, confronting a huge crisis, not try to change the terms of debate? This timidity is depressing. Trying to make up for this mistake by imposing pettifogging conditions on assisted institutions is more likely to compound the error than to reduce it.
Assume that the problem is insolvency and the modest market value of US commercial banks (about $400bn) derives from government support (see charts). Assume, too, that it is impossible to raise large amounts of private capital today. Then there has to be recapitalisation in one of the two ways indicated above. Both have disadvantages: government recapitalisation is a bail-out of creditors and involves temporary state administration; debt-for-equity swaps would damage bond markets, insurance companies and pension funds. But the choice is inescapable.
If Mr Geithner or Lawrence Summers, head of the national economic council, were advising the US as a foreign country, they would point this out, brutally. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF managing director, said the same thing, very gently, in Malaysia last Saturday.
The correct advice remains the one the US gave the Japanese and others during the 1990s: admit reality, restructure banks and, above all, slay zombie institutions at once.
Looks like the Candy-Crappin' Unicorn™ has failed to crap out candy!
Has Barack Obama’s presidency already failed? In normal times, this would be a ludicrous question. But these are not normal times. They are times of great danger. Today, the new US administration can disown responsibility for its inheritance; tomorrow, it will own it. Today, it can offer solutions; tomorrow it will have become the problem. Today, it is in control of events; tomorrow, events will take control of it. Doing too little is now far riskier than doing too much. If he fails to act decisively, the president risks being overwhelmed, like his predecessor. The costs to the US and the world of another failed presidency do not bear contemplating.
The new plan seems to make sense if and only if the principal problem is illiquidity. Offering guarantees and buying some portion of the toxic assets, while limiting new capital injections to less than the $350bn left in the Tarp, cannot deal with the insolvency problem identified by informed observers. Indeed, any toxic asset purchase or guarantee programme must be an ineffective, inefficient and inequitable way to rescue inadequately capitalised financial institutions: ineffective, because the government must buy vast amounts of doubtful assets at excessive prices or provide over-generous guarantees, to render insolvent banks solvent; inefficient, because big capital injections or conversion of debt into equity are better ways to recapitalise banks; and inequitable, because big subsidies would go to failed institutions and private buyers of bad assets.
Why then is the administration making what appears to be a blunder? It may be that it is hoping for the best. But it also seems it has set itself the wrong question. It has not asked what needs to be done to be sure of a solution. It has asked itself, instead, what is the best it can do given three arbitrary, self-imposed constraints: no nationalisation; no losses for bondholders; and no more money from Congress. Yet why does a new administration, confronting a huge crisis, not try to change the terms of debate? This timidity is depressing. Trying to make up for this mistake by imposing pettifogging conditions on assisted institutions is more likely to compound the error than to reduce it.
Assume that the problem is insolvency and the modest market value of US commercial banks (about $400bn) derives from government support (see charts). Assume, too, that it is impossible to raise large amounts of private capital today. Then there has to be recapitalisation in one of the two ways indicated above. Both have disadvantages: government recapitalisation is a bail-out of creditors and involves temporary state administration; debt-for-equity swaps would damage bond markets, insurance companies and pension funds. But the choice is inescapable.
If Mr Geithner or Lawrence Summers, head of the national economic council, were advising the US as a foreign country, they would point this out, brutally. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF managing director, said the same thing, very gently, in Malaysia last Saturday.
The correct advice remains the one the US gave the Japanese and others during the 1990s: admit reality, restructure banks and, above all, slay zombie institutions at once.
Looks like the Candy-Crappin' Unicorn™ has failed to crap out candy!
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Readin', Ritin' and Retardness
From CNN: US Treasury set to lay out financial plan.
The U.S. Treasury Department will likely lay out its framework plan for strengthening banks and dealing with the financial crisis early next week, a Treasury official said Monday.
The Treasury is working with other government agencies to craft a plan that will allocate the second half of a $700 billion financial rescue fund and further bolster the banking sector while also supporting credit markets and providing relief from home foreclosures.
Problem : $40T
Response: $350M (+ $800M)
Conclusion: FAILURE
Thank you for playing, Geithy-boy. You fail in 'rithmetic.
BORING. NEXT.
The U.S. Treasury Department will likely lay out its framework plan for strengthening banks and dealing with the financial crisis early next week, a Treasury official said Monday.
The Treasury is working with other government agencies to craft a plan that will allocate the second half of a $700 billion financial rescue fund and further bolster the banking sector while also supporting credit markets and providing relief from home foreclosures.
Problem : $40T
Response: $350M (+ $800M)
Conclusion: FAILURE
Thank you for playing, Geithy-boy. You fail in 'rithmetic.
BORING. NEXT.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The Messiah™'s Ethical Rules (in practice)
Politico.com reports: Geithner enlists lobbyist as top aide.
Newly installed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner issued new rules Tuesday restricting contacts with lobbyists – and then hired one to be his top aide.
Mark Patterson, a former advocate for Goldman Sachs, will serve as chief of staff to Geithner as the Treasury Department revamps the Wall Street bailout program that sent an infusion of cash to his former employer.
Last week, the White House announced the president had waived the ethics rules to clear the way for the nomination of William Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist, to be deputy defense secretary.
That was a quick fall from "ethics". LOL.
Newly installed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner issued new rules Tuesday restricting contacts with lobbyists – and then hired one to be his top aide.
Mark Patterson, a former advocate for Goldman Sachs, will serve as chief of staff to Geithner as the Treasury Department revamps the Wall Street bailout program that sent an infusion of cash to his former employer.
Last week, the White House announced the president had waived the ethics rules to clear the way for the nomination of William Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist, to be deputy defense secretary.
That was a quick fall from "ethics". LOL.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The bee-yatch be retractin' an' you be a fool for listenin'!
After some back-pedaling and some more back-pedaling, the Messiah™ comes back with: Obama Calls for Sacrifice, Scaling Back Campaign.
President-elect Barack Obama said turning around the U.S. economy will require cutting back on some campaign promises and personal sacrifice from Americans.
“I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped,” Obama said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program, scheduled to air tomorrow. ABC posted excerpts of the interview, Obama’s first since returning to Washington as president-elect, today on its Web site.
Roll back the barrel, bee-yatches, this politician be rollin' back on everythin'. You be a fool to be believin' in him in the first place.
BWAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHHHHHHH!!!
President-elect Barack Obama said turning around the U.S. economy will require cutting back on some campaign promises and personal sacrifice from Americans.
“I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped,” Obama said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program, scheduled to air tomorrow. ABC posted excerpts of the interview, Obama’s first since returning to Washington as president-elect, today on its Web site.
Roll back the barrel, bee-yatches, this politician be rollin' back on everythin'. You be a fool to be believin' in him in the first place.
BWAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHHHHHHH!!!
Monday, December 08, 2008
More Backpedaling
From the venereal and diseased New York Times: Obama Warns of Further Economic Pain.
Saying that the United States economy was likely to worsen before it improves, President-elect Barack Obama on Sunday pledged to pursue a recovery plan “equal to the task ahead,” including the creation of a vast public-works program not just built around bridge and highway projects, but on creating “green jobs” and disseminating new technologies.
Even if the current economic crisis looks nothing like the Great Depression, Mr. Obama said, “This is a big problem, and it’s going to get worse.”
I thought once the Messiah™ was elected, it was going to be all roses and rainbows and dancing white ponies.
What happened?
Saying that the United States economy was likely to worsen before it improves, President-elect Barack Obama on Sunday pledged to pursue a recovery plan “equal to the task ahead,” including the creation of a vast public-works program not just built around bridge and highway projects, but on creating “green jobs” and disseminating new technologies.
Even if the current economic crisis looks nothing like the Great Depression, Mr. Obama said, “This is a big problem, and it’s going to get worse.”
I thought once the Messiah™ was elected, it was going to be all roses and rainbows and dancing white ponies.
What happened?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)