I don't get it. How converting to common stock 'allow the government to "shore up the nation's banking system without having to ask Congress for more money any time soon, according to administration officials."'

Converting from preferred shares (which pay dividends at a set rate and which come before common stock for any proceeds should there be liquidation) doesn't do anything to add to a banks capital (other than through the forgoing of dividends on the preferred shares...which is then just a gift to the banks at taxpayer expense), it just moves capital from one ledger entry to another. Sounds like three-card Monte to me, and the taxpayers are the mark.

Krugman has a slightly different take but also makes the point that this does nothing to shore up the banks.

Copy and paste the link...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/preferred-shares-to-common-equity-an-analogy/

...or click my sig for the full post

The closer you look at the numbers, the fuzzier they get.

Copy and paste the link...

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-16-fuzzy-numbers

...or click my sig.

Spitzer was targeted for prosecution because he represented a threat to the very people (banksters, oligarchs) that are raping America at this very moment. That's why they took him down. And that's why I'd vote for Spitzer in a heartbeat if given a chance.

In this article you wrote:

Unlike al-Qaida, the Somali pirates have no grand desire to bring down the United States and the entire Western world.

Well, here's some news for you: Al-Qaeda also has "no grand desire to bring down the United States and the entire Western world." In fact, Al-Qaeda, as we know it, is a myth.

Please find and watch a copy of the BBC program, "The Power of Nightmares." It deals specifically with the lies we have been sold concerning the mysterious (and largely mythical) al-Qaida.

Links to the BBC writeup and to all three parts of the video of "The Power of Nightmares" can be found at this link:

http://tabletalk.salon.com/webx?14@@.773dbcf4/2947

(Or just click my sig)

Little Brother,

If that "I, Troll" letter (link in sig) isn't an editors selection, it should be. Bravo! I believe you've created an instant classic. Back in the heady days of Usenet, I could see that article (as Usenet posts are called) having real staying power. Hope it makes its way around the net.

Kudos!

I tried to take this column seriously the first two or three times out. That was a mistake. It is obviously (bad) satire. Witness the first paragraph this week:

Last week's column provoked a robust debate, and I thought a number of you made some interesting comments. I wish I could answer them all, but there is only so much bandwidth available, you know?

What, is the Wingnut on dialup? Sorry, but the whole point of this satire seems to be nothing more than the generation of clicks. Good satire should expose with wit, not parrot with dimwit. From now on, I take a pass. In a medium where clicks are what counts, my advice to other readers that might hope for better is to also take a pass.

Bull market? What bull market? There's trouble buried in the numbers and you don't have to dig deep to find it. Start with the trading volume. Then look at the next wave of option-ARM resets that's about to hit housing. Next up, take a peak at the unemployment claims which are still in "Oh fudge!" territory. When done there, take a gander at corporate earnings and the P/E ratios on these "bull market" stocks.

People buy because stocks are going up, not because the values are fair. (Sounds like the bubble mania is still there, eh?) And people buy because sloppy journalism/business writing/market cheerleading misleads them with fuzzy numbers.

There's another word for fuzzy number fed bubble mania. That word is bait. And you know what bait is for? Traps. Bear traps. And a bear trap is what this market is. I hope the people jumping in time their exit correctly, because when the leaves fall, the markets will go do likewise. There is no there, there.

On March 18th (see sig for link to read in context) I wrote:

The "Geithner plan" to have AIG "repay" these bonuses does no such thing. The "plan" is to "recover" an amount equal to the bonus money (which despite what is commonly said is closer to 500 million than it is to 165 million) by withholding it from the next 30 billion dollar check.

Bottom line? The AIG bonus "revelation" has been known for a while. Like many other fuzzy numbers, those who took pronouncements at face value without looking deeper may regard the 454 million dollar figure as a "revelation", but more than a few people who are long since tired of trying to choke down fuzz were already well aware.

Fuzzy numbers everywhere...when what we need is reality. See http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-16-fuzzy-numbers for more...

A stall is the lack of sufficient lift.

No. When a lifting airfoil enters a stall situation, lift is lost, but the loss of lift is a result of the stall, not the cause of it.

Stalls occurs when the boundary layer no longer flows smoothly over the airfoil. In effect, there is separation of the boundary layer flow and the result is turbulence and drag instead of lift, or in the case of something like the horizontal stabilizer, control.

I fail to see how a tail could stall. It does not generate lift.

Any airfoil can stall. Whether it generates lift or not is irrelevant. I suggest you review the previous ATP columns where Patrick Smith addresses tail stalls for more info.