"On the other hand, just suppose Geithner had followed the Krugman plan, and announced the immediate nationalization of Citigroup and Bank of America on Monday morning. It's hardly a stretch to imagine an ensuing market crash as bad or even worse than what we have already witnessed. And market crashes don't just hurt the pocketbooks of the rich. They wipe out pensions and have an undeniable effect on consumer psychology."

The stock market would tank, and then it would be up again the next day,as investors saw it wasn't the end of the world. We would be no worse off than we are now and we would be on the way to doing what we need to do. I greatly admire Mr. Leonard's work and I've learned a lot from HTWW but this seems to be a specious argument. 401Ks are already tanking. Many people have no value left to lose.

and while the President's stands get bolder and bolder as other actions fail, so does the opposition in Congress. The neocon troglodytes will never admit their philosophy is a failure. And with every half measure Mr. Obama takes, they get bolder, talk louder and the President's approval rating slides further downward.

Mr Geithner isn't talking about chump change. He's talking about a trillion dollars. At some point, in the not too distant future, whether economically grounded or not, inflation worries and need to have SOME fiscal constraint will begin to get more traction with the public. While I don't get with the hyperbole and fireworks in this debate, I'm more with Krugman, the time for action is swiftly slipping away.

The problem is, right wing (and in this I include a large swath of the Democratic Party) rhetorirc is not to be taken at face value. I came across this passage that was like a searchlight in the darkness. It made sense out of a lot of apparent contradictions.

"In ideological terms, it was totally opportunistic: It demanded and applauded vigorous state action in behalf of its key values, and denounced state intervention in behalf of its enemies.... The "Robber Barons" had no ideology, they had interests. They had no theory of the state, but they knew what they wanted from it. "

The same is true of today's Robber Barons.

from John P. Roche, "Entrepreneurial Liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment" Labor History, 1963 pp 3-31

In the last quarter of the Nineteenth century and well on into the Twentieth, so the legend runs, the United States was dominated by a "conservative," "individualistic," laissez-faire elite which succeeded in rewriting the Constitution and notably the Fourteenth Amendment to impose its ideology upon the nation. This notion has a certain superficial persuasiveness, but regrettably it is hardly sustained by a close analysis of the history of the period. There was clearly an elite of businessmen, but it was neither ruggedly individualistic, in terms of classic liberal economic thought, nor "conservative," in any acceptable definition of that much-abused term. On the contrary, this elite lived at the public trough, was nourished by state protection, and devoted most of its time and energies to evading Adam Smith's individualistic injunction. In ideological terms, it was totally opportunistic: It demanded and applauded vigorous state action in behalf of its key values, and denounced state intervention in behalf of its enemies. The Constitution was not, in short, adapted to the needs of laissez-faire "conservatism"__ which is a respectable, internally consistent system of political economy-- but to the exigent needs of the great private governments. The "Robber Barons" had no ideology, they had interests. They had no theory of the state, but they knew what they wanted from it. Their key value, entrepreneurial liberty, might require a strong state one day (to combat trade unions) and a weak state the next (which would not pass wage and hour legislation), and this inconsistency troubled them not.

I have great respect for your work Mr. Leonard, but your discomfiture over the actions of CODE PINK shows a horrific sense of proportion and judgement. I guess you think we should just shut up, sit down and let our betters F**K us up the bunghole.

Summers took millions of dollars in speaking fees from Wall St. banks that later got their bailout while he was lining up to be part of the administration. He has no credibility so why SHOULD he be allowed to pollute the airwaves with his blather?

Everywhere these Wall Street hacks show their heads they should be met, and handed the ridicule and revulsion which they so rightly have earned. No rest for the wicked, that should be our motto. We should see that it happens. NO BUSINESS AS USUAL, until all the cons and fraudsters that crashed the world economy get justice done. THEN the rest of us can get on with furthering the debate about solutions which Mr. Leonard desires so greatly.

SUMMERS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, not part of the solution. PERIOD.

They will "reasonably" and "politely" discuss us off the blasted cliff. Every day of reasonable discussion, in the face of what even Mr. Leonard admits is the probability that Treasury' assumption of a liquidity not a solvency issue is FALSE, every day this false debate takes place is another 20,000 families out on the street, another $100 million in interest on false solutions accumulated.....

every day of reasonable discussion, which is UNreasonable because the evidence is against it......

makes finding a solution to this crisis less likely.

Did you know that in NORMAL times, these kinds of complex derivatives were impossible to value? That was a big part of the problem of untangling the Enron mess. It had a lot to do with the failure of Long Term Capital Management. They are worthless toxic trash, especially now in this time of turmoil. But they always have been worthless trash.

THE BANKS ARE INSOLVENT. REORGANIZE THEM.