TARP reconsidered

October 4, 2010

Interesting piece by former FDIC head Bill Isaac on the bank bailout:

In truth, customers of money market funds had already been calmed when Treasury issued a 100% guarantee of their money – before TARP was enacted.  The FDIC had the authority to reassure depositors under existing law, as was in fact done shortly after the TARP was enacted.

Two weeks after the TARP was enacted, Paulson abandoned the toxic asset plan and announced that the money would instead be used to shore up the capital of banks.  I had argued against the TARP in part because I believed capital infusions would support much more new lending than would the purchase of toxic assets.  Moreover, I believed capital infusions would be far less costly to taxpayers.

However, the TARP was not needed for capital infusions because the FDIC had existing authority to provide capital to banks.  I preferred strongly that the FDIC manage a capital infusion program rather than the highly politicized program Treasury implemented.

Treasury made two egregious mistakes on the capital program and many smaller ones.  The first blunder was to order nine large financial institutions – CitiGroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Bank of New York/Mellon, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and State Street – to accept $125 billion of taxpayer money that most of them did not need or want.

To some extent he adopts the John Taylor theory that it was the chaotic nature of the TARP roll-out that destabilized markets. Yet he also says he was in favor of capital injections.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

“The banks did not need this money”? What planet did this one come from?” Oh, his credentials are he was on Jeopardy. I am surprised his article is not a question. Why does he not explain this theory? This was a total waste of my time. Please write articles that do not insult my intelligence.

Posted by dennisaa | Report as abusive

It is a poorly written article, leaving much to assumption. But he is right, bailing out the banks only delayed the inevitable. Our monetary system is a ponzi scheme that will crash, you can’t print more money to pay old debt. So the banks should of been allowed to crash. Then government can print money based on GDP, a countries worth represents the value of its dollar on the international market. Makes sense to me, but you might also want to change the taxation system, as well as the electoral process . Ah heck lets just have a revolution why don’t we.
Well, at least that’s what I assumed he was saying in the article…..;)

Posted by Daemonnice | Report as abusive

“Now let us look at Wal-Mart again; you buy a product there, 6% goes to the employees, 10-18% is profit to the company, 25% goes to other costs and 50% goes to re-stock or the cost of goods sold. Of the 50% about 20-25% goes to China, a guess, but you get the point. Now then, how long will it take at 433 Billion dollars at year for China to have all of our money, leaving no money flow for us to circulate? At a 17 Trillion dollar economy less than 40-years minus the 1/6 they buy from us. Some say that if we keep putting money into our economy, it would take forever, but if we do not then eventually all the money flow will go. If China buys our debt then eventually they own us, no need to worry about a war, they are buying America, due in part to our own mismanaged trade, so whose fault is that? Not necessarily China, as they are doing what’s in the best interests, and we should make sure that trade is not only free, but fair too.”

http://www.worldthinktank.net/pdfs/TheFl owofTrade.pdf

on Wal*Mart’s China web page!

“Walmart China firmly believes in local sourcing. We have established partnerships with nearly 20,000 suppliers in China. Over 95% of the merchandise in our stores in China is sourced locally. Meanwhile, Walmart is committed to local talent development and diversity, especially the cultivation and full utilization of female staff and executives. 99.9% of Walmart China associates are Chinese nationals. All our stores in China are managed by Chinese local talent. 43% of leaders at senior manager level and above are female. In 2009, the company established the “Walmart China Women’s Leadership Development Commission” for driving women’s career development.”

http://www.wal-martchina.com/english/wal mart/index.htm

Now, with a six to one trade deficit with China….when was the last time you seen a George Washington..!!!!

Retail makes NOTHING…

Governments only make MORE DEBT…

It’s time for less of those two and for America to get back to what it does best….MAKE STUFF..

cause George Washington on that dollar can’t help anyone in the United States of America if he is being held in a foreign hand.

Made In America is the only way out of this mess cause foreign made put US here.

Posted by madmilker | Report as abusive