Friday, January 22, 2010


Is it supposed to be news that Geithner talked to Goldman and JPMorgan on the day of the AIG bailout? First of all, we already knew that. Second of all, of course he did. Geithner had asked Goldman and JPMorgan to try to raise private capital for AIG, or, alternatively, to set up a $75bn syndicated lending facility for AIG. When they reported back to Geithner and told him neither could be done, Geithner decided the Fed had to step in. It would've been very strange if he'd asked Goldman and JPMorgan to try to raise private capital for AIG and then not talked to them before committing taxpayer resources.

Not surprisingly, one of the reporters on this story is Bloomberg's Chief Hyperbolist, Hugh Son. Someone really needs to stick an editor on that guy. It's getting embarrassing to watch.


Anonymous said...

"On the morning of September 16, 2008, Mr. Geithner was informed by Tinker Bell that a private sector loan could not be arranged." - SIGTARP, page 9

See, there was no need for him to be talkin' to deem evil bankers.

Ted K said...

As usual your comments strike me as insincere and disingenuous and well uh, just phony as hell.

Are we to believe that because the Treasury made a press release or public statement on Christmas Eve that therefor they are not attempting to be secretive, otherwise why make the announcement?? After all, they DID make the announcement. That is a very shallow (seedy-lawyer-like) argument to make, just as is your argument in your post here.

Not impressed with you sir.

Economics of Contempt said...

Ted K,

I have no idea what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with any Christmas Eve press release from Treasury. This has nothing to do with Treasury at all. This has to do with the NY Fed in September 2008. Please familiarize yourself with basic facts before commenting. If you can't do that, then please take your confused rants elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

SIGTARP had to have read every single pertinent document, including emails, from the Federal Reserve that had to do with the AIG bailout. The notion that some unknown facts, relevant, are going to be uncovered in this email reading frenzy is silly.

When Spitzer can demonstrate he's figured out out to transfer 10s of thousands of dollars to his whorehouse without tipping off his banker, I'll give that email blood hound some credence. I know tow-truck drivers who know how to do that.

As for insincere and disingenuous to the point of phony as hell, what do you call a media that writes stories that make email information sound like shocking new information when the same information was included in an audit months ago, or discussed under oath in congressional testimony months before the audit? I mean, JFC, it's to point where "freakin' dumber than a post" doesn't cover their incompetence. They're in a the clutches of a hormonal "get Geithner" psychotic episode.

Ted K said...

I was using the example to compare the LOGIC of your argument that the Fed was NOT being secretive, and none of the facts I listed were false or confused. I think your readers can get it quite clearly, even though you play dumb. You'll NEVER have a large readership here sir, people see through lies.

I think if that worked for you in court you must have caught many old judges on nappy time.

Anonymous said...

Ted K, so you argument that the head of the FBNY talking to the heads of major investment banks on the eve of bailing out a major counterparty to said investment IS in fact news is to talk about a completely different press release by a completely different organisation on a completely different date on a completely different topic? I have to agree, any judge is going to have a hard time trying work out what exactly your point is... I guess we aren't all as brilliant as you.


Economics of Contempt said...

Ted K,

I can't even begin to describe how little I care what you think. As you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and have no interest in educating yourself, engaging you further would be a waste of time. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable on a blog that's slightly closer to your level?

Aaron Caldwell said...

Geithner might be one of the dirtiest appearing people of the past decade, nothing surprises me anymore...

I'm wondering how blogs get added to your blogroll? I have recently started a blog that I think would be a beneficial add to your site.


Ted K said...

I see you've shaken up the world here EoC. Obviously you don't want to take it on, because you know you've already lost the argument. I see even trolling on REAL blogs like Mike Konczal's hasn't done you much good has it?? You know why?? The vast majority of people can always see through lies.

But I'll let you and your friends/pansies go on here. I figure since most people on the real blogs just come here to check if the manure barn smells the same as it did a month ago, your talents are well spent here.

Ted K said...

Is "Danny" some loser brother-in-law you got living in the basement, or just your imaginary friend????

Anonymous said...

Ted K, you are really full of yourself. Your posts are incoherent. Your personal attacks are genuinely stupid.

You're not impressed with EoC. I'm not impressed with you.


Nick said...

Ted K, please stop wasting our time with your semi-delirious and ignorant posts in the comments section.


Anonymous said...

This is not the products op-eds are created from, yetcheap D3 items this is where all of the motion is actually. You are able to talk about moral hazard until eventually you might be glowing blue in the face ( space ) and after that Wall structure Road will require ones lunch income in any case, and they will practice it in the comment page on many proposed
GW2 itemspolicies an individual just weren't actually alert to.