Catch 22 or something else?
Goldman Sachs wants to return the TARP money so that it can run its business without the Obama administration in its knickers, but there’s a catch. If Goldman returns the money that would be unfair to the weaker banks. NYT:
Goldman Sachs is planning to give back its TARP money soon. Very soon, actually — ideally within the next month, according to people involved in the process. That’s a much quicker timetable than the end-of-year goal previously set…“It’s just impossible to run our business in this environment,” said one senior Goldman executive who insisted on not being quoted by name for fear of crossing the Treasury Department…
here’s the asterisk, and it’s a big one. If Goldman succeeds in returning our money, it could put pressure on other banks to give their money back, too, lest they appear weak.
So let’s get this straight. (a) Goldman was forced to take the TARP money in the first place. (b) Taking the TARP money has been an excuse for all kinds of government annoyance and micromanagement. (c) Returning the TARP money should be good for taxpayers, but might seem unfair in the current environment. (d) And finally, even if Goldman does return the money, the government might try to put wage controls on its executives anyhow. We’re getting our metaphors confused: is this Catch 22 or Brave New World?
March 25th, 2009 at 6:14 am
I’ll tell you what it is: It ain’t the same country it was even three months ago. ‘”…“It’s just impossible to run our business in this environment,” said one senior Goldman executive who insisted on not being quoted by name for fear of crossing the Treasury Department…’ [Insert five minute burst of creative, top-of-the-lungs Tourette Syndrome here]. Now businesses are supposed to be afraid of the fool running the Treasury Department? Fools who can’t pay their own taxes, perform a press conference without stepping on their own cranks, or staff their offices competently without whining about the unfairness of it all? Screw these SOBs, straight to hell.
The honest folks running 99% of America’s businesses, the ones who DIDN’T get us into the problems this insane bunch of Marxists is trying to use to destroy everything we’ve all worked for over two centuries, would be making an utterly rational decision to immediately move their companies the hell out of America.
I’ve not the words (well, except for the Tourette’s blast. Those words always come in handy in times like these).
March 25th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Just the other day you wrote:
When legitimate principles, values and purposes conflict, the question is where to draw the lines.
Nevertheless, I’m dubious too.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:31 am
This is the banker equivalent of appeasement… You can try to buy off the enemy with “tribute” in the form of campaign contributions, but as soon as they get an opportunity, the Leninists will sack and plunder…
Turing Word: borrow – don’t borrow money without reading the fine print…
March 25th, 2009 at 8:10 am
The AIG bailout funnelled money to Goldman; who in turn are using that to pay back the US Taxpayer. Now everyone wants to bank with Goldman.
… The American Dream… You too can own a President…
March 26th, 2009 at 12:44 am
So, can I pay somebody to make the government go away and leave me alone? How much and where do I sign?
I see Patterson is off to a good start, firing 9,000 New York State workers when their union’s answer to “shared sacrifice” was “higher taxes.” The taxpaying slaves are revolting.
March 26th, 2009 at 7:56 am
It’s been said many times before, but it bears repeating: the proper literary reference is “the Godfather”, i.e., the government made GS an offer they couldn’t refuse. Appropriate, too, because of the Chicago culture from which the Administration springs.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Thursday morning links…
Bush’s folly is ending in victory
10 surprising facts about American health care
Are fossil fuels the source of increasing CO2? Related: Want science funding? Then go Global Warming
Govt debt auction did not go well.
An alternative to Earth H…