LyrArc Article Gist
Timothy Geithner as New York Fed Chairman was a key person in the rescue of Bear Stearns. In an interview with the WSJ he recounts events and defends his actions on March 14 in a conference call at 5am in the morning with Ben Bernanke, Kohn, and other regulators and staffers and Treasury Secretary Paulson. By 7 am a decision was made choosing from 2 options not to do it, let Bear Stearns fail, and Fed would make an infusion of liquidity into the banking system to reduce the impact, or make a loan to to give time for Bear Stearns to make a merger. Mr Bernanke did the head count and all top officials agreed to the loan option. At 7.30 the morning of March 14 about $80 billion in short term loans would come due. If Bear Stearns went into bankruptcy protection lenders would get back collateral instead of cash and might sell the collateral en masse and pull back trillions of dollars of similiar loans to other investment banks. Also Bear Stearns had trading positions with 5000 other firms so the ripples would extend throughout the banking system. At issue in a Bear Stearns collapse with no Fed loan- a full blown run on Bear Stearns had begun on March 13 with customers and lenders pulling out billions of dollars. The man- Geithner does not have a PhD in economics and has never been a banker or trader, the background of previous chairmen of the New York Fed. He joined Treasury Department in 1988 and was an assistant to first Treasury Secretary Rubin and then his successor Sommers. Geithner was active in the rescue of Mexico, Indonesia and Korea in the Asian and Latin American banking crises. He was appointed to his position at the New York Fed in 2003, so he has 15 years of experience dealing with international banking crises. The criticism- has come from a colleague at the Fed Vincent Reinhart on the oped pages of the Washington Post, and from former Fed chairman Paul Volcker in a speech to the New York Economic Club. Geithner has asked to speak at the same club to give his account and his defense of his action. Note that Bernanke and Paulson and Kohn were in on this decision and voted in favor of it and there appears to be a consensus that all in the conference call supported it. Geithner kind of put it all together and so he is defending it. Geithner's contribution- Geithner pulled in the other players in the financial markets into close communication with the Fed. He assembled an informal advisory group including Rubin, Summers, Greenspan, Volcker, former New York Fed Chairman Corrigan and investment banker Pete Peterson. He would also phone them individually asking : what should we think about an issue? What are the best 3 arguments for or against? What do smart people think? He also initiated a series of dinners at the NY Fed's executive dining room in which 5 or 6 senior executives from a major investment firm would meet his own top people. He also calls CEO's of important banks and investment firms every week in a crisis situation to ask- Whats changed? Whats better? Whats worse? What worries you? And after the credit crisis in August ,Geithner joined Bernanke in a small group that included Fed vice chairman Donald Kohn and Kevin Warsh, a Fed governor, investment banker and White House aide. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Pakistan army and its anti India mindset is at the root of the problem Pakistan faces. The army has factions that support the Taliban. Its intelligence agency, the ISI, helped create the Taliban as a way to get strategic depth (as they called it) in Afghanistan, for it sees as a necessary perpetual conflict with India. And the failure in Pakistan, the crisis of Pakistan, lies in the failure of elected politicians, the failure of the army, to provide responsible government and peaceful relations with India and with Afghanistan. By pursuing a Hindu-Muslim conflict agenda, and a anti-foreigner agenda for Afghanistan, Pakistan has ended up undermining its own government, institutions, and sovereignty over tribal areas and the North West Frontier Province. The US by getting involved in the Hindu-Muslim conflict agenda, and the anti-foreigner agenda during the Cold War, by supplying weapons and aid for this to successive Pakistani military governments, now finds itself as the foreigner in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pakistan army's anti-foreigner agenda, now that the Americans are the foreigners, is not something that even the army or the civilian governments can control. The only thing the army knows, and its raison-de-etre, is the protection of the state of Pakistan and an antiIndian, Hindu-Muslim conflict agenda. After 60 years of doing this since its founding the Pakistan army knows no other way. Failure to do what it is doing would remove it from its critical role as the most important institution in Pakistan, and relegate its officers and the army to a smaller role, with smaller committments of resources, a smaller army, and the loss of its privileged role in Pakistani society. This is the answer to Holbrooke's question to Pakistani businessmen, and civilian leaders, in Lahore recently, what is the crisis of Pakistan? And these businessmen and civilian leaders also touched on the army's role. For America as it sees the need to build a new economic partnership with Asia that would help revive economic growth, there is the need for deep soul searching. The Pakistan military sucks up resources that are so badly needed elsewhere, for the kind of construction the Obama administration sees for America, of roads, bridges, schools, new energy infrastructure. How can what is good and planned for America not be whats good for South Asia, for India, Pakistan, SriLanka and the entire region? The resources that are sucked up by the Pakistan military and its actions to foster aconflict atmosphere merely adds to the way resources are sucked for the military in India, when they are badly needed for development, economic growth, and the same kind of infrastructure building and education that the Obama administration plans for the US. Without correcting this flaw in its policies in South Asia the Obama administration cannot create a partnership with Asian countries that could play a critical role in America's own economic growth....

LyrArc Article Gist
David Brooks says the Paul Ryan Budget proposal is a bold step forward that is badly needed in this debate on health care, even though it has some grave weaknesses which need to be corrected. It is a bold step forward because he says Democrats say they want no middle class tax increases, or are not willing to say what kinds of tax increases they support, and yet they believe the Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security programs are worth preserving. This is'nt based on reality. He cites the weaknesses, beginning with the one discussed in David Leonhardt's column in the New York Times on April 7, 2011. Too many Americans pay too little into Medicare taxes and expect to collect several hundred thousand dollars more in Medicare benefits. The example given in Leonhardt's column is from a study that shows 56 year olds with average earnings pay about $140,000 in dedicated Medicare taxes over a lifetime, and then go on to collect $430,000 in benefits. Middle class and affluent boomers can't get off paying their share like everybody else. Its just the right way for their children and the nation's children. Ryan's plan excludes older people reaching retirement in ten years. The other major weakness is that the cuts are too deep. Things like the Pell grants which Ryan proposes to cut back to 2008 levels need to be preserved, and more money has to go into science, education and research and early childhood education for the U.S. to be competitive with China and India. The Ryan proposal places cuts that would be required so that tax revenues need to be at 18% of GDP. The number where a larger consensus exists is for tax revenues at 20% of GDP (also supported by business and the Wall Street Journal's editorial columns). This would preserve programs that are most productive for the economic future of the U.S. Ryan's proposal lets the hope for reducing costs of medical care rest entirely on future retirees deciding how much medical care (tests, procedures etc) they consume through larger cost sharing. Yet a structure and framework is needed to manage these costs effectively, and some combination of incentives to retirees to control costs and an effective structural framework is needed. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Tyler Cowan writes about the problems of crony capitalism and lack of opportunities in American capitalism as it is practiced today.

LyrArc Article Gist
Dionne cites comments by Bowles and Simpson saying the Paul Ryan U.S. budget proposal falls short of a serious bipartisan effort for deficit reduction for a number of reasons. The reasons cited by Bowles and Simpson are: The proposal exempts defense spending from reductions, does not apply savings from tax expenditures to deficit reduction, relies on much larger reductions in domestic discretionary spending than the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plan, and at the same time making reductions in safety-net programs that could in their words "place a disproportionately adverse effect on certain disadvantaged populations." This should give moderates in this debate time for pause and reflection says Dionne.

LyrArc Article Gist
Ann Lee a former investment banker and now adjunct Professor at New York University, gives us facts that show the smaller banks that lend to small and medium sized businesses in the country are being closed by the FDIC. According to ADP small business that employs between 1 to 49 people, accounts for 48 million jobs, those between 50 and 499 employees account for 42 million jobs, and large business for only 17 million jobs. Without access to capital these small and medium sized businesses will continue to layoff employees, creating a vicious cycle of falling credit and demand. According to Automatic Data Processing's August employment report large business shed 60,000 jobs, medium sized business 116,000 jobs and small businesses shed 122,000 jobs. These smaller banks says Lee have done most of the lending to small and medium sized businesses. And overall lending has dropped from pre-crisis levels. Treasury's Capital Purchase Monthly Lending Report shows that banks that received government money actually reduced loan balance by $54 billion. According to reports issued by major credit rating agencies $700 billion of asset backed securities were underwitten in 2007. In 2009 only $10 billion was issued. This has a significant impact in every area. Banks have no incentive to lend with all the bad nonperforming loans on their books. They only hope that over time renegotiated loan terms would enable to recover these loans. But this might take a decade says Lee, if this is similiar to other crises like the one in Japan. She says what the banks do to make money is to borrow virtually unlimited amounts from the Fed at near zero rates and earn money from the spread when they lend to the Treasury. Does our current banking system make sense she asks. Banks are not investing in economic activity, in real products and services,but engaged in agovernment backed shell game that enriches bankers at the expense of everyone else. She says that the banking lobby may prevail in preventing the nationalization of the banking system, but this will not prevent questions about the status quo and its assumptions from arising if the recovery and regulatory reforms fail. ...