Also-very-smart Brad DeLong shares a less popular but sunnier outlook and offers an FAQ. He also reassures us that if toxic assets are not already fundamentally under-valued, “then we have worse [...]]]> Nobel Prize-winning Paul Krugman despairs over the plan as he understands it now (we’ll see if that changes now that we have an “official” unveiling”).

Also-very-smart Brad DeLong shares a less popular but sunnier outlook and offers an FAQ. He also reassures us that if toxic assets are not already fundamentally under-valued, “then we have worse things to worry about than government losses on TARP-program money–for we are then in a world in which the only things that have value are bottled water, sewing needles, and ammunition.”

By bottled water, I presume he means gallon jugs, not the little land-fill fillers that are edging out beer in consumption to the dismay of others.

Calculated Risk (who also seems reasonably bright) sums things up, and gives another take: “It is pretty clear the administration opposes nationalizing insolvent large banks, and is instead willing to have taxpayers subsidize shareholders of the banks. So the question isn’t “Is this the optimal solution?” (it isn’t) but “Will it work?” Maybe, but at what cost?”

I’ll be back when I finish my Garden of the Apocalypse and make an ammo run.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: D's, Economics, Politics
Post tags: Bank Bailout 2009, Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman, Tim Geithner, Toxic Assets

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh