I disagree with the interpretation of the acts of various people in officialdom as "cowardly" when they use journalists to spew official positions from anonymous positions. They know the anonymity gives their words greater weight, and allows them to continue on without facing criticism for those words. Also, by not publicly revealing their positions in an undeniable way, they preserve later wiggle room if their remarks later seem wrong or foolish.

That is a tactical decision, not a matter of bravery or cowardice. I would not congratulate a military officer who, out of concern for the preservation of her own bravery, rode on top of her tank through a free-fire zone completely uncovered. She should instead do the sensible thing, and ride surrounded by armor a couple tanks back, so that she's still alive to make command decisions when the lead tank runs over a mine, or into an ambush of some other kind.

The point I'm trying to make here is that accomplishing your goals in the most effective manner possible can never really be cowardice. That's hyperbole, and it damages your credibility. You should resist that tendency (Glenn), as you already tend to write rather provocative things ;].

You're totally wrong about the odds of the market vs indian casinos.. in the latter you're guaranteed to lose, in the former money is just lying on the sidewalk to be taken. Honestly, I hate the notion that so many people have been thrown out of work. I wish that would end, and this wonderfully irrational market would continue FOREVER. Naturally, neither of those things will happen. Fortes fortuna adiuvat, etc.

I'd really love to play poker with you. With your level of understanding of investment (and speculation), I agree that the market is a losing proposition. For you.

On a more serious note, I *hate* the fact that all this volatility is caused by people losing their retirement savings and pensions. Is it unethical to participate in speculation on those losses? I think about it. Maybe it is. On the other hand, the opportunity cost of not acting unethically, if that's what it is, in this case is just too great.

I agree. It may be that they're trying to force Congress to actually do its job by redefining their authority along proper lines. We'll see though..

word. :]

If they're contractually obligated to pay money out to their people, then they have to do so. I'm also not real keen on just lumping all the investment bankers into a big "you people" group, and shipping them off to Guantanamo.

Undoubtedly there are a large number of scumbags in that group. There are probably also lots of decent human beings. I'd rather let the guilty go free than punish the innocent. I'd also rather reform the system so that systemic abuse of this kind is precluded.

"In fact, as Think Progress documents, many of the very same Republicans who emphatically imposed any executive compensation limits are now leading the way in protesting the AIG bonus payments."

The word imposed, I do not think it means what you think it means. ;]

Your post "This is starting to smell like Writs of Attainder" reminds me of another Article 1 question that occurred to me: Was immunizing the telecoms not an example of an ex post facto law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

*I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to be.

But seriously, did Congress violate article 1 when it granted amnesty to the telcos?

I don't quite know whether to call em good or not ;], but poker did pay my bills for a few years.

I read the situation as a call, both on the odds (3:1 if you're up against a set and have a nut flush draw, a reasonable assumption-- the odds are a rough wash), and because you don't want to back down all the time. But then, I am willing to flip coins for fun to maintain my image as a loose cannon. Not all players will agree with that notion.

I'd call it a fundamental design flaw. At some point, a consensus decision (or lack of one) allowed multinational corporations to come into existence. I think that was a mistake.. there is no fundamental need to allow imaginary entities that span countries to exist. I don't buy the argument that the fact that a real human being can have dual citizenship automatically implies corporations ought to be allowed to do business in multiple countries.

From a software design point of view, if someone asked me if I thought having one module access the data owned by another was a good idea, I'd laugh them out of the room. But in high finance, when literally world prosperity is at stake, we should err (in system design) on the side of caution, not efficiency.

Really interesting question. I'd like to break it into multiple questions/points though, if you don't mind:

A. Should (the US) government guarantee (aka insure) the debts of other countries?

B. Should private entities be allowed to guarantee the debts of private entities in other countries?

C. Should either of the above two cases be allowed automatically, or should they require legislative/regulatory approval on a case-by-case basis?

I think I lean toward:

A. yes

B. no (generally, and certainly not automatically

C. case-by-case (legislative/formal debate prior to authorization) is better than letting the bureaucrats decide.

Exactly. Why the threat of a filibuster is enough to dramatically alter the choices Democrats make is a total mystery to me. We should be forcing Republicans to show themselves as the real impediment to progress they are, not fleeing in terror at the notion of a real fight. *disgust*