I’m surprised I haven’t yet read any mention this year of Thomas Mann’s novel, The Magic Mountain, which was set in Davos. As Timothy Garton Ash wrote at The Guardian in February 2005: it “shows how the economically interdependent pre-1914 Europe, [...]]]> World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, 28 January – 1 February 2009.

I’m surprised I haven’t yet read any mention this year of Thomas Mann’s novel, The Magic Mountain, which was set in Davos. As Timothy Garton Ash wrote at The Guardian in February 2005: it “shows how the economically interdependent pre-1914 Europe, knitted together by a sophisticated international elite of aristocrats, [and] businesspeople… was torn apart by national prejudices and ideological arguments…”

While Bono’s Davos Men/fat cats in the snow speak volubly of ‘brain trusts’, Global Agenda ‘trustees’, and the ‘talent commons’, I’m simply glad that after this election we didn’t have to call on our European friends “to invade the US to save the country from Christian theocratic fascism,” as humorously suggested by a respondent to Ash’s screed.

I for one shake in my boots when international venture capitalists speak of reforming the global financial architecture– the IMF and the World Bank having done such a splendid job of fomenting hunger and disease.

I have little faith that the elitists-without-borders will tackle first things first and address the staggering inequalities of wealth between the haves and have-nots among nation-states, much less within developed countries like the US or in developing ones like China, Russia, and India.

As Ash so shrewdly made clear, while the political relationship between the US and Western Europe deteriorated under the ruinous policies of the Bush regime, the economic relationship, through cross-ownership and investment, has become stronger than ever.

And need I say, made each of them more vulnerable to economic turbulence and banking crises in the other.

But at the last minute, the Bush administration insisted on a one-sentence change to the provision, congressional aides said. The change [...]]]>

Congress wanted to guarantee that the $700 billion financial bailout would limit the eye-popping pay of Wall Street executives, so lawmakers included a mechanism for reviewing executive compensation and penalizing firms that break the rules.

But at the last minute, the Bush administration insisted on a one-sentence change to the provision, congressional aides said. The change stipulated that the penalty would apply only to firms that received bailout funds by selling troubled assets to the government in an auction, which was the way the Treasury Department had said it planned to use the money.

Now, however, the small change looks more like a giant loophole, according to lawmakers and legal experts. In a reversal, the Bush administration has not used auctions for any of the $335 billion committed so far from the rescue package, nor does it plan to use them in the future. Lawmakers and legal experts say the change has effectively repealed the only enforcement mechanism in the law dealing with lavish pay for top executives.

No wonder the government is no longer interested in using the Troubled Asset Relief Program to buy troubled assets. This is just the latest example of the Bush Administration applying an Orwellian designation to an act of Congress.

“Under normal economic conditions we would prefer that markets determine the ultimate fate [...]]]>

President Bush and the Treasury Department signaled on Friday that they would consider dipping into the $700 billion bailout program for financial institutions to aid the Big Three car companies, after Republican senators refused to support a compromise proposal to rescue the automakers.

“Under normal economic conditions we would prefer that markets determine the ultimate fate of private firms,” Dana Perino, Mr. Bush’s spokeswoman, said in a carefully nuanced statement released minutes before the financial markets opened in New York. “However, given the current weakened state of the U.S. economy, we will consider other options if necessary — including use of the TARP program — to prevent a collapse of troubled automakers.”

The Treasury Department promptly indicated that it would provide short-term relief to the automakers. “Because Congress failed to act, we will stand ready to prevent an imminent failure until Congress reconvenes and acts to address the long-term viability of the industry,” a Treasury spokeswoman, Brookly McLaughlin, said.

For a moment, try to ignore the fact that this money was originally set aside by Congress to aid financial institutions and not automobile manufacturers, what exactly is the point of having Congress debate this bill if its actions (or lack thereof in this instance) are irrelevant? To President Bush, the fact that the required votes in Congress do not exist (from ironically, his own party) is merely a technicality in getting what he wants. The administration will simply divert money previously approved by Congress for other causes where it sees fit. The very concept of checks and balances has been destroyed with this being only the latest example.

What Hank Paulson calls pragmatism, I call making it up as he’s going along. After receiving $700 million for the [...]]]> “By proactively addressing the problems we saw coming and being pragmatic enough to change strategy in the face of changed facts and despite the inevitable criticism — we prevented a far worse financial crisis.”

What Hank Paulson calls pragmatism, I call making it up as he’s going along. After receiving $700 million for the “Troubled Assets” Relief Program, Paulson decided not to buy any troubled assets. After initially wanting to be above the law, he eventually learned the hard way that no one, not even Bush Administration Cabinet Secretaries, can be. After initially requesting $700 billion, Paulson decided to spend half of it. After allowing Lehman Brothers to fail (a Goldman Sachs competitor), he decided to bail out AIG (whose survival helps the bottom line of Goldman).

The cronyism and overconfidence of Hank Paulson has done nothing to relieve the credit crisis as stocks continue their plunge below 8,000. It is unknowable what would have happened had we rode this thing out a couple months and let the incoming administration handle it (a more appropriate course of action). Hank Paulson, who decried government intervention his entire career, should never have been put in charge of this bailout. I’m sure he will be back in an executive suite where he belongs in no time. He is just another emperor without any clothes (as we have learned that most of these alleged Wall Street wizzes are nothing more than lucky betters whose collective luck has all run out).

The Treasury Department said Thursday that the deficit for the first month in the new budget year was the highest monthly imbalance on record. [...]]]>

The federal government began the new budget year with a record deficit of $237.2 billion, reflecting the billions of dollars the government has started to pay out to rescue the financial system.

The Treasury Department said Thursday that the deficit for the first month in the new budget year was the highest monthly imbalance on record. It was far bigger than analysts expected, over four times larger than the October 2007 deficit of $56.8 billion, and more than half the total for all of last year.

The Republican Party used to stand for something. Now, it represents failure in foreign policy, energy policy and fiscal policy – the trifecta! Try not to laugh too hard the next time a Republican accuses the Democrats of being big spending liberals, spreading the wealth and socialism/communism.

When President Bush takes $700 billion in taxpayer dollars to bail out failed financial institutions, it is a patriotic act for the good of [...]]]> When President-elect Obama proposes we spend $75 billion to provide health insurance to almost every American, he is a big spending liberal that wants the government to intrude unnecessarily in our lives.

When President Bush takes $700 billion in taxpayer dollars to bail out failed financial institutions, it is a patriotic act for the good of mankind.

This perfectly illustrates the different priorities of the two major parties. Republicans want to take care of investment bankers while Democrats want poor people to be able to see doctors.