LyrArc Article Gist
After delaying taking a loan from the IMF, a multilateral lender known for setting austerity conditions for its loans, Pakistan finally accepts a IMF loan of $6 billion over 3 years. In August 2018 Pakistan turned to Saudi Arabia for $3 billion loan and deferring oil payments of a similar amount, UAE for $3 billion, and China adding another $2.2 billion. A sharp drop in the country's currency reserves left Pakistan little choice. Other problems were a overvalued exchange rate that hurt exporters under the previous government and fiscal spending on needed infrastructure that could not be matched with changes in tax collection. Pakistan has some of the poorest tax collection in Asia, depriving the government of the funds needed to finance infrastructure.  The IMF loan is a smaller loan so that Pakistan would feel less compelled to comply with the difficult conditions often imposed by the IMF that has made it unpopular in developing countries, particularly in Latin America. This is the 21st IMF loan to Pakistan. Only Argentina has had to turn to the IMF for 21 loans. For example the IMF conditions to Pakistan require increasing the electricity and gas prices. Under the IMF plan Pakistan must cut its budget deficit before debt service to 0.6% of GDP next fiscal year starting in July 2019 from the deficit of 1.7% expected this year.  To do this tax breaks of 350 billion rupees or $2.5 billion next year have to be removed. The central bank autonomy was also promised and with this 2 former Pakistani IMF officials now head the central bank. Because widening the tax collection base and better tax collection are promises made in the past to IMF which have not happened, this report in the Economist magazine says implementation in this IMF plan will also be lax, more so as the IMF loan is small and supplemented with funds from other countries. A cartoon in one magazine critical of the IMF shows the IMF officials from Pakistan negotiating for the Pakistan central bank with the IMF head Christine Lagarde. Increasing the Pakistan tax base is essential for Pakistan's development to invest in infrastructure similar to what is happening in India. Releasing funds for infrastructure, roads and railways, hospitals and education, requires a larger tax base in all South Asian countries. Without this internal capital and showing results of spending -with successful infrastructure implementation with least or no corruption or overspending- countries risk falling behind.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist magazine points out that Indian companies will have to invest more in innovation if they are to maintain return on investment. It says the GST, government action to reduce corruption since 2012 through court decision on crony capitalism, better functioning markets for land, natural resources and capital, more efficient supply chains, will force large Indian companies to compete by becoming more efficient. Under the previous regime before 2012 large Indian companies were able to make high ROI but this was an illusory advantage, as the growth in the Indian economy could create opportunities for firms that can compete with innovation, quality and efficiency. In this sense the Indian economy is entering a new phase under the Modi administration with stretch goals and efforts to create  the next ten year period of growth very different from the past.

LyrArc Article Gist
This issue of the Economist magazine looks at Saudi oil price cuts and the future for shale oil in the world's energy mix. In the short run overleveraged companies in the shale oil business in the U.S. will be affected by oil prices below $50 a barrel. The Economist points out that shale oil deposits are extensive in the U.S. and other parts of the world. The upfront costs are as little as $1.5 million for drilling a well. As a result the economics of shale will depend on new advances in technology and efficiency to bring costs down below existing costs averaging of about $57 a barrel, with some producers at costs of $35 a barrel. Because of technology advances anticipated in the field it points to shale oil as a reliable source of low cost oil supplies in the future, keeping oil prices lower than in the past and much less subject to manipulation by cartel pricing or oil price shocks. The lower volatility and lower level of oil prices will be good for the rapidly growing economies in Asia and the developed economies of Europe and the U.S., and for countries in Latin America such as Argentina with large shale deposits....

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in The Economist magazine shows that Germany no longer runs the European Union in the way it has previously. During the austerity crisis with bank bailouts in many countries in southern Europe Germany played a key role. Merkel was perceived as the dominant partner in the relationships with French presidents Sarkozy and Hollande. Britain perceived Germany's increased dominance during that period as a threat. Brexit Leave campaign played on these fears and a diminished British role. Merkel's handling of the migration crisis also played into the hands of Brexit Leave campaigners with poster pictures of migrants crossing European borders in large numbers on British buses. Merkel changed course on migration policies and gradually reversed it to where Germany no longer welcomes economic migrants preferring that they stay in their home countries with German aid to these countries. Merkel's CDU is now facing challenges from a fragmented electorate with many parties and its own diminished role. Gradually the perception of Germany's role is now also reversing. Even though the new president of the European Commission is Ursula Leyen from Germany, there are more Spaniards, French, Italians and Belgians, work in the commission and parliament than Germans, More Director General roles are held by Italy. Germans in Brussels also do not take directions from Berlin, and are actually more Francophile and federalist in their thinking. Germans opinion is more diverse and plural than the idea of a dominant German view. Greens in Germany are coming first in polls showing how much is changing. These multilayers and different strands of thinking make Germany introverted as it is at present. Leyen is seen as more European in outlook and a more European Germany may be the result than a German Europe.  This may play a part in any new elections in Britain or a second referendum on Brexit as polls suggest there is a shift in opinion in Britain underway. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the Economist magazine says Mr. Obama's final State of the Union address showed the frailty of change in the Obama years, with much of it in danger of being removed based on which way the 2016 election goes. A similiar opinion is expressed in Deutsche Welle DW.com's editorial opinion, which stated that one of the tragedies of the two terms of the Obama presidency is that change probably will come with a successor in the office, even though this was what Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is true especially for the middle class and working class, which continued to suffer in the Obama years, leading to widening inequality of opportunity and social disparities. Candidates from both parties now offer solutions based on growth and revision of the tax system on the right, and some version of free health care and college on the left, to increase access to economic opportunity.

LyrArc Article Gist
Failing schools with poor teachers, and no examination system to keep out teachers who lack training and education, are a major problem for Mexico. It was part of the education reforms passed in Congress in 2013. A week before elections the militant teachers union CNTE has mounted protests to prevent this from taking place. The Mexican government of president Nieto temporarily suspended examinations as a result of the protests. This article in the Economist magazine says this affects the credibility of the government's committment to the reforms Mexico needs to become competitive in the global economy, and could affect how investors see the reforms being implemented for the oil industry. It also questions the autonomy of independent bodies setup to implement the reforms, leading to a statement by the National Institute for Education Evaluation(INEE), clearly setup by Congress to implement this reform, that this violates the constitution. Can this happen to the telecom and energy regulators, whose authority could be undermined in other ways, say critics....

LyrArc Article Gist
Its going to be very difficult to adopt the bad bank option in current circumstances, where the banks find their situation continually and rapidly deteriorating with renewed loss of public confidence and collapsing share prices. The efforts with the first TARP under Treasury Secretary Paulson to isolate the toxic assets of banks did not take off and had to be diverted to capital injections for precisely this reason. Banks in November and December 2008 went through a continually escalating problem situation, with losses, collapsing share prices and so on, and the government had no breathing room to develop the bad bank solution. In some cases decisions had to be made in a few days to prevent the collapse of some banking institution like Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley or Citicorp. At the same time its very clear that there can be no restoration of confidence in lending, and no recovery, without lending by banks, without a bad bank to separate these toxic assets from the banking system in the USA. The Swedish and American example in the 1990's of a bad bank, was possible because the banks were either gone bust, or under government ownership. With the banks in private hands, it is somewhere between difficult to impossible to value these toxic assets without serious problems. So nationalizing these banks becomes the only serious option, which would become more acceptable as the crisis unfolds in 2010, and it becomes clear that one way or another the government is guaranteeing these assets. Banks are in reality entirely dependent on the US government for capital and support, and it would not be wise to pretend otherwise. The safest and most direct option would be to mitigate the risks of nationalization, with prudent safeguards, and develop the bad bank option with the government in ownership of banks, in which case the bad bank option can proceed quickly. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist looks at the 3 options facing Britain and America to tackle the financial crisis, and evaluates each option for its merits. It says nationalization is an option, and adds that it supported the nationalization of Northern Rock in the UK early on. Where nationalization is the best option considering the scale of the problem, as in the case of RBS in the UK, this should be followed without exacerbating the problem by pretending that it can be avoided. With its huge losses and large committments by the government of Britain, the state ends up with majority ownership. So for individual banks this policy would be a good one. With the government on both sides of the table, this avoids the major problem of how to value the assets, and of the bank's shareholders plotting to grab taxpayer's money. Expect to hear more about nationalization as a best option under the circumstances, says the Economist. This may also be because the situation is likely to get much worse in 2010. The single most important criteria should be it says returning the individual bank to good health. The other option is to collect toxic assets in a bad bank, with the clean bank rid of these assets not having to set aside reserves for losses of an unknown magnitude. This helps get lending and credit starting to flow again if banks are more willing to lend. The third option is guarantees by the government regarding the bad assets and insurance. The Economist does not think the insurance and gurarantees offered by the British government recently will work by itself, and feels it should have been combined with the separation of toxic assets of banks in a bad bank. The Economist also feels scale will be needed considering the magnitude of the problem and its continual escalation....

LyrArc Article Gist
Arseniy Yatseniuk, resigns as prime minister of Ukraine in April 2016, as his popularity declines with falling living standards and corruption scandals. The new government is still from the old political elite. Prices have gone up by 50% in recent years and GDP has fallen in the three years of conflict with Russia.This article in the Economist magazine says young civil activists in Ukraine are working hard to set up institutions- sometimes parallel institutions such as the Reanimation Package of Reforms of 50 non-governmental civic organizations- that wil give Ukraine better governance after decades of corrupt governments. Online coverage on corruption is increasing creating an environment where the poor governance of the past is no longer the norm.The IMF which has a $17 billion loan package for Ukraine has ceased disbursements till Ukraine can take action against corruption and improve governance. The IMF insisted on the formation of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau. As the U.S., EU, and NATO, come closer to Ukraine, during a period of tense relations with Russia, the quality of Ukrainian governance is an important issue for formerly Communist Eastern European countries and for the rest of Europe. It all depends on civic society and young people with new aspirations to change the way things are done....

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the Economist magazine says Brazil's new president Michel Temer, once impeachment proceedings lead to the resignation of Dilma Rousseff, is only slightly less popular than her. Polls show 58% of Brazilians say Temer should be impeached close to the 61% for Rousseff, and his party is also affected by the Petrobras corruption scandal. Brazil's large trade unions supporting the Worker's Party of Rousseff see it as a "coup" or "golpe" and promise strikes, combined with large street protests, this comes as the country faces a second year of falling GDP at 3.8% according to the IMF. Brazil has a budget deficit of 10.8% and needs changes in public spending, including pension reforms, which are unlikely under Temer or his party the PMDB, or under the PMDB's Mr. Cunha. Some experts see the change in Brazil as part of a broader shift in Latin America, that happened in Argentina recently with the election of Mauricio Macri as president, towards governments that move to the centre in politics and reduce state intervention in the economy to stimulate growth. This is unlikely to happen in the short run, with society deeply divided and the area in front of the Brazilian Congress cordoned off to separate the opposing factions and rallies of political supporters....

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the Economist magazine says views in the Trump base of support in rural areas and among white working class voters are likely to persist for some time. One reason given is that many of these people live in isolation and little contact with the more educated urban voters in America. Another factor cited here is that only a fifth of voters follow politics closely, and of these voters only a small fraction have a good grasp of the positions of the two major parties. Most people follow the instincts and thinking of the groups they are with. As a result many of the issues covered in the media such as climate change and U.S. withdrawal from the Paris agreement, the Comey firing and the Mueller investigation into Russian meddling in the election, president Trump's Twitter comments, are not having much impact on the president's ratings among his support base at this early stage of the Trump presidency. Yet it is too early to tell only 6 months into the Trump term in office. After 8 years of president Obama's two terms in office voters who feel left out are not likely to change their views in so short a time. Republican voters as distinct from the core Trump base voter are also unlikely to change their views after 8 years of Democratic party administration. By staying close to traditional Republican party positions president Trump is likely to continue to have the support of the lifelong Republican party voters unless things change. Can a centrist position emerge after voter fatigue with excessive partisan opinion, as voters seek to make America a more quieter place and a consensus on working together to lift all boats emerges. This could be expected as time passes.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This Economist briefing on Greece before the referendum of July 5, 2015, gives a detailed account of the Greece debt crisis since 2010 leading up to the election of Syriza left party in Jan. 2015 and the referendum.

LyrArc Article Gist
Are fears of the N word or nationalization causing Geithner, Sommers and Obama to muddy up prudent decisive action, a serious plan of attack, against the banking crisis. The dithering seen so far says Krugman suggests that Geithner and company think that toxic assets that are worth 40 cents on the dollar are really worth much more, and if only things improve then a large part of the crisis will go away, as these toxic assets get priced at a higher level. This just doesn't look like its going to happen with the losses that companies like AIG are incurring. Bernanke even said there are no zombie banks, and AIG he said was not a zombie financial institution. So dithering continues with risks of a prolongation of this crisis to perhaps a decade, in the President's own words, and the cost much larger with even weaker public support as the bill gets larger.

LyrArc Article Gist
Krueger and Posner, eminent economists, say the reason wages have stagnated in the U.S. with wages not having budged much over a decade 2008-2018, is not only because of globalization and automation as long term trends. They attribute this stagnation in wages to "monopsony power," or power American corporations have over workers because of their stronger bargaining position and because workers have few alternatives.  For most of this period 2008-2018 high unemployment as reflected by the people out of work and taking part time jobs or having stopped looking for work, shifted bargaining power to companies. The Economist magazine pointed out that workers have not shared in the profit and gains corporations made during this period. Here Krueger and Posner show additional factors such as non compete clauses in worker agreements that have depressed wages. Half of franchise agreements prohibit competition for labor. Outsourcing work to other companies that hire workers means these outsourcing companies have more power over workers than the original companies using the labor. Unions represent only 7 percent of private sector workers by 2017, compared to 35 percent in the 1950's, so that there are no mechanisms to counteract the greater bargaining power gained by companies vs. workers. The way workers have roots in the communities they live and the consolidation of employers into a few companies in a particular area, mean fewer options exist for workers.  Senators Warren and Booker and the anti-trust division of the U.S. Justice Department are in agreement on this issue of widespread use of noncompete agreements that is considered unlawful, says this report in the NYT, offering hope for a solution to bring a better balance between the rights of workers to fair wages and companies seeking profit for stakeholders. Issues about workers, lack of gains for workers, prevalent outsourcing, and the frustrations of labor with parties that had lost touch with their worker base- such as Labor in Britain, SPD in Germany, Socialist Party in France and the Democratic Party in the U.S. - have led to political upsets with support shifting to other parties. This has not led to significant change to improve bargaining power of workers to correct the imbalance that now exists between labor and companies, leading to calls for change. Eric Posner is a law professor at the University of Chicago law school and co-author of a new book "Radical Markets: uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society." This book turns the popular notion on its head that free markets have produced the imbalances that hurt social cohesion and democracy, by saying it is precisely the suppression of free competition such as for labor that have created this unhealthy situation. This is true in other areas where monopoly power has developed in other parts of the U.S and European economies in 2008-2018, as also for distortions in capital allocation that hurt infrastructure and other public investment. Krueger is a professor of public affairs at Princeton University and former head of the President's Council of Economic Advisors in 2011 under Obama, showing that Democrats themselves failed to correct this imbalance leading to a shift to other parties and Mr. Trump, who also appear to lack ideas or solutions to this problem that affects social cohesion and democracy. This is contrary to the vision of American or European society of better opportunity for all shared by all Americans and Europeans for most of the twentieth century. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this essay in Der Spiegel, Charles Hawley says that the Trump movement has become a movement of patriotic downtrodden whites, with a whole range of interests-of extreme right talk show hosts, Tea Party politicians, white power supremacists, those left out by globalization in the working class especially in the midwestern states. The danger he says is that this movement of which Trump has become a part, rejects the narrative on which America is based of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers establishing a country based on principles of "the inalienable rights of man," that have evolved through the years to include black people, women, and minorities.  To put this in perspective, president Obama writing for The Economist magazine in October 2016, puts this movement in a different context- that of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Know Nothing Movement of the 1800's, the anti-Asian sentiment in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, periods when anti-immigrant or anti-foreign sentiment gained prominence. Obama's view is that it is not fundamentally economic. In this he is right in that some of the forces on the far right do not stem from globalization. Yet he would be missing a great deal if he did not address the economic problems for the middle and working class that have given such views the support of a broad segment of the population, especially in some midwestern and older industrial states compared to say the economy of California or New York. Obama is aware of the problems in his essay as he points to the problems of workers trying to get a decent wage, of job losses through globalization, and the aggravation of these problems by the financial crisis of 2008 when some of the potential physicists and engineers as he calls them went into the financial sector to create faulty mortgages. Yet he goes back to the free trade and global networks of supply chains as having reduced global poverty, without showing a keen awareness of how it has through a combination of events and decades of policy indifference to manufacturing communities in the U.S.- as documented by experts and shown in Lyrarc, with David Autor and Gordon Hansen in the WSJ, 2016- 08-16. A Gallup Study, WSJ, 2016-05-16, supports Obama's assertion by showing that many of Trump supporters are actually self-employed and not in economic distress. Yet the movement would not have taken its proportions without the merging of different groups particularly largely disadvantaged working class voters, and fortunately Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, have a better sense of this than the president. It is by their efforts that income and wealth disparities can be tackled in a way that restores the social fusion of all parts of society- in Hillary Clinton's emphatic words in the final debate by "growing the middle," growing the middle class. This is the task of the next decade, or possibly two decades. (For Gallup study see WSJ, How Economic Anxieties Explain Trump's Appeal- And Where They Fall Short, Nick Timiraos, 08-16-2016. And for Autor, Hanson, see Tallying the Toll of U.S.-China Trade, Justin Lahart, 08-27-2011)   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in The Economist magazine looks at the internal debate in Germany after the July crisis in Greece following a "no" referendum and the position taken by Germany on turning down any ideas on debt renegotiation to reduce the debt burden. Centre right parties say this is simply enforcing the rules. The left parties say this is moving Germany to post post-nationalist. German chancellor Kohl and post war Germany took the position that Germany was a "post-national society." Thomas Mann, a well known German writer, said Germany needed to come out " not for a German Europe, but for a European Germany." And Hans Dietrich Genscher, a foreign minister stated that Germany's only interest was that of the EU. This was a recognition of the situation of the idea presented since reunification in 1871 that the new country was too large for a balance of power in Europe, yet too small to impose its will on Europe. This was shown in the July negotiations when chancellor Merkel accepted the position put forward by Valls and Hollande of France that a Greek exit from the eurozone was not an option. Germany did not seek to impose its will, say centre right parties. In fact chancellor Merkel sees Britain as a serious partner and cannot understand why some in her party can see no problem with a British exit from the EU. In fact many people in Germany will be relieved when this phase of the crisis is over, when the diminishing of moral hazard makes it possible to consider debt reduction for Greece and the austerity programs have introduced discipline to national budgets, so that the next phase of tighter and closer union for the European Union can take place- restoring Germany's aspirations for a "post-nationalist society." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The corporate share buybacks announced by U.S. companies in the last 3 months now exceed $200 billion, more than double than in 2017, according to a WSJ analysis. This includes Cisco, Wells Fargo, AbbVie, Amgen, Alphabet (Google). The surge in corporate buybacks started in December after the tax cut of the Trump administration cut U.S. taxes by $1.5 trillion over a decade, cutting the corporate tax rate for large companies from 35% to 21%. The tax cut also included a one time tax for repatriation of $2 trillion held by U.S. companies overseas. This WSJ analysis says there are questions whether the tax cut is working, whether it will encourage new investment, lead to companies increasing wages, or whether this will largely result in corporations returning money to investors with larger dividends and corporate buybacks. Morgan Stanley's analysis of earnings transcripts of companies in the S&P 500 show 44% of the companies say they will use some portion of the tax gains to make capital investments and increase wages, with 28% going in the opposite direction and using them to return money to shareholders. Experts caution that corporate buybacks do not always lead to the company's stock outperforming the stock market. The future of companies depends more on the capital investments and in human capital. There is a sense that workers wages have stagnated since the mortgage financial crisis in 2008, with the economic crisis, globalization and outsourcing, reduced alternatives for workers, geographic pressures in relocation, all pushing wages down.  This is being closely watched with articles on stagnation in wage growth this week in the NYT and WSJ, and earlier in the Economist magazine. Reports on the Trump administration tax cuts passed by a Republican Congress suggested a large tilt towards benefitting the highest income households. Problem with higher stock prices reaching the broader middle class are recognized in that one third of stocks are owned by overseas investors, and 84% of the remaining stocks are owned by the wealthiest 10%. Republicans have turned to bonuses typically of $1000 per person given by companies yet this amounts now to about a few billion dollars over an estimated 4 million Americans, says this WSJ analysis. This is not enough to justify a huge tax cut and raise the deficit by over a trillion over 10 years on the assumption that it would lead to higher wages or capital investment when about $200 billion goes to boosting stock prices. This comes at a time when the American middle class is not broadly invested in the stock market after the exit following the battering stock prices took during the 2008 financial crisis. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the Economist magazine says the banks have paid large fines for wrongdoing but individual accountability has not been achieved. Only one individual conviction has been achieved related to market rigging in Britain. The penalties paid by banks between 2009 to 2014 worldwide add up to $245 billion, according to CCP, a research group. The problem says the editorial is that without individual accountability this is likely to be seen just as a cost of doing business. For the culture at banks to change individual acountability has to be established, and only now are banking regulators realizing that the public's disillusionment with the political parties in power during the last decade in Europe and the U.S. has its roots also in the way accountability has been tackled. Editorials in the WSJ and the NYT have addressed the same theme and expressed the same concern. The May 21, 2014 editorial on the U.S. Justice Department's legal settlement with Credit Suisse. "Holder convicts Switzerland," was critical of the Justice Department because this settlement did not bring accountability or justice. Columnists Eavis and Reilly in the WSJ, Protess and Greenberg in the NYT, were also critical of the settlement. Other legal settlements followed the same pattern throughout 2012-2015. Another aspect of this and a larger problem is that the same management has remained in place in some places. Shareholders expressed their feelings at the recent Deutsche Bank meeting in June 2015 when one shareholder association asked the question: "Mr. Jain are you the solution to the problem or part of it?" questioning how the same management that created the problems was going to fix the problems. A week later the two co-CEO's departure was announced and a new CEO appointed. BaFin, Germany's regulatory authority was described as not providing effective oversight on management at Deutsche Bank, by Eyk Henning in the WSJ March 28, 2014. It is too early to say if the public's frustration with the slow pace of establishing accountability and generating culture change is at long last registering with regulators and the political parties running the government. Prime minister Cameron and chancellor George Osborne's decision to put $1 billion into communities throughout Britain from the fines, described in the WSJ May 31, 2015, and an additional $227 million pounds from a legal settlement with Deutsche Bank in April 2015 for creating 50,000 apprenticeships, is the first sign of a conviction developing in political parties that instincts of fairness and the compact between the people and their government handed down over many, many years and generations, need to be respected. In the U.S. communities devastated by the recession and foreclosure crisis, especially inner cities, could benefit from Cameron and Osborne's exceptional idea. For the political parties and the political elites in Europe and the U.S. it is a way to restore some of the trust lost in the last decade. For banks a change of management, cultural change, will benefit the employees and shareholders, and improve relationships with customers, restoring trust over the next decade....

LyrArc Article Gist
An overwhelming number of readers who commented on this article by October 27, 2009, were opposed to sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Looking at all comments in detail one finds that of the 64 readers commenting only a handful, about 8-9 supported sending these troops. Ninety percent of the comments to this editorial asking Obama to fight this war with conviction seriously questioned the wisdom of doing this. Many readers asked why aren't the Europeans putting thier lives at stake, and two asked how the Economist could with astraight face say that Britain's 500 troop increase was a welcome gesture. Readers questioned the assumptions and statements made by the Economist such as" letting the region "slip into amaelstrom of conflict," or "permanent cross-border instability," and "a terrible betrayal of the Afghan people, " in many of the comments. Readers seem conscious of the fact that its not a precipitate withdrawal that is being discussed, its a war for the long haul that it inevitably becomes as the US forces get deeper into the conflict in the mountains of Afghanistan. The discussion is not about the next 6 months but of next year and the year after that and the year after that. That is also what General Colin Powell advised President Obama. He asked Obama to think clearly about the clear goals of this mission. See the link to Powell. The question arises is whether the Economist sensitive to its readers thoughts on this subject, and it is how does it account for such an absolute majority of sensible readers having serious questions, doubts, and outright opposition to a deeper conflict in Afghanistan?...

LyrArc Article Gist
Joe Nocera talks to experts like Simon Johnson at MIT. Johnson says that when he talks to other experts, after a two minute discussion, they say we should just nationalize the banks. Here Christopher Whalen, a veteran bank analyst, of Institutional Risk Analyst, and Joshua Rosner of research firm Graham-Fisher, say the same thing, with the phrases, lets get on with it or just do it. Says Simon Johnson, thats what we told emerging market countries, Thailand in 1997, or Russia in 1998, when he worked at the IMF. He says we told them to close down some of the banks, and take over the others, and inject government capital. He adds its the best practices, and its straightforward. So asks Nocera, is Geithner talking about the stress test banks will be subjected to, as first step preceding nationalization, more of a calculated approach to gradually introduce the idea of nationalization. But he isnt sure, as Geithner also told David Brooks of the NYT, that governments were not so good at managing banks. No one knows for sure. But says Nocera thats exactly what the government did to solve the S&L crisis. And the man who was former chairman of the FDIC, and helped run the program for the Resolution Trust Corporation, says the government did a pretty good job of it, taking over banks, replacing top managers and directors, and stripping out the bad assets and selling off the now healthy banks to private buyers. So can it be done again and will it be that hard? Yes, its been done before, and its not that hard say these experts. Every month that the administration and Geithner procrastinate puts the banks in a deeper hole, and will mean more layoffs and a worse crisis, even years taken to recover. What he has'nt mentioned is that even if after some procrastination the government gets around to doing it to clean up the mess, there is one added complication this time that is different than what happened with the S&L crisis or with the Swedish cleanup, or the Japanese cleanup after 2003, this time the global economy is caught up in the crisis which makes recovery that much tougher....