As U.S. financiers scrambled this week over how to deal with possible collapse of major financial institutions, Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan arrived in Washington with a message: To survive the crisis, U.S. equity markets need countries such as China that have massive foreign exchange reserves to jump in a big way.

[snip]

Accompanied by a delegation that includes senior officials from China's central bank and Ministry of Finance, as well as banking, insurance and securities regulators, Wang had originally traveled to the United States on Sept. 14 for trade talks in Los Angeles. But as new shocks hit earlier this week, Wang flew to Washington to meet with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.


Wang sought assurances that if the Chinese government were to encourage its companies to seek investments in the United States, the deals would not face the same political opposition that has undone past Chinese investment proposals.


Andy Xie, an independent economist who was formerly Morgan Stanley's chief Asia economist, said the United States needs to accept that a large amount of U.S. assets must be transferred to other countries' ownership. "If the U.S. is not willing to accept that," Xie said, "they will have to print money and the dollar will fall. And we will be headed toward a global financial meltdown."

"We expect them to hire the right people. Which even doofus Bush seems to have managed to do (as much as anybody can be said to be the right people here), no?"

And I don't know about you all, but really, I sure wish that we had someone like Sarah Palin calling the shots here -- nothing like someone who knows absolutely nothing about the issues to steer us through a potentially planet-wide financial meltdown, eh?

And I don't know about you all, but really, I sure wish that we had someone like Sarah Palin calling the shots here -- nothing like someone who knows absolutely nothing about the issues to steer us through a potentially planet-wide financial meltdown, eh?

7. Treasury sells bonds to the Fed which pays with its magic check book. This is of course money creation.

"The purchase price for the debt should be low enough that some banks will suck it up and hang on to the debt they own, toxic or not."

No blank check. . . . . we must insist on independent accountability and oversight. Given the breach of trust we have seen and the magnitude of the taxpayer money involved, there can be no blank check.

Rescue requires mutual responsibility. . . . We cannot abet and reward the unconscionable practices that triggered this crisis. We have to end them.

Taxpayers should be protected. This should not be a handout to Wall Street. It should be structured in a way that maximizes the ability of taxpayers to recoup their investment. Going forward, we need to make sure that the institutions that benefit from financial insurance also bear the cost of that insurance.

Help homeowners stay in their homes. This crisis started with homeowners and they bear the brunt of the nearly unprecedented collapse in housing prices. We cannot have a plan for Wall Street banks that does not help homeowners stay in their homes and help distressed communities.

A global response. . . . this is a global financial crisis and it requires a global solution. The United States must lead, but we must also insist that other nations, who have a huge stake in the outcome, join us in helping to secure the financial markets.

Main Street, not just Wall Street. . . . [A]n emergency economic plan for working families — a plan that would help folks cope with rising gas and food prices, save one million jobs through rebuilding our schools and roads, help states and cities avoid painful budget cuts and tax increases, help homeowners stay in their homes . . .

Build a regulatory structure for the 21st century. . . . We need new rules of the road for the 21st century economy, together with the means and willingness to enforce them.

The bottom line is that we must change the economic policies that led us down this dangerous path in the first place. . . .

Foreign banks, which were initially excluded from the plan, lobbied successfully over the weekend to be able to sell the toxic American mortgage debt owned by their American units to the Treasury, getting the same treatment as United States banks.

On Sunday, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., indicated in a series of appearances on morning talk shows that an original proposal introduced on Saturday had been widened. “It’s a distinction without a difference whether it’s a foreign or a U.S. one,” he said in an interview with Fox News.

No, it is NOT actually marked to market. There IS no market for it. If they actually marked it to market, it would be worth much, much less than the book value (zero, in some cases).

Jesus, you'd rather put a Burger King Manager in charge of the economy than a magna cum laude Harvard Law graduate who taught law at U of C for ten years and has been in the U.S. Senate for 4?

"a libertarian leaning blog"

"You're a liberal, so you don't get it: nobody can be 'in charge of the economy.'"

Obama seems to have been able to get a number of "people to give him the right advice and make the right decision in a time of crisis".

Assuming you will not vote for a politician possessing these three qualities, can we conclude that you will not vote for Obama?

That's not to say I will vote for Obama

5. Sell government assets. The Feds own most of Nevada and Alaska and other real property.

Obama seems to have been able to get a number of "people to give him the right advice and make the right decision in a time of crisis".

Still others point to Tony Rezko, the Illinois political fix-it man who was recently convicted of bribery. Rezko contributed what amounted to probably hundreds of thousands of dollars toward buying Obama house and raised over $160,000 more toward Obama’s campaigns.

But there is another less noticed problem. Obama doesn’t seem to be able to find employees whom he can trust. The mainstream media has recognized this problem. One article by ABC’s Jake Tapper was entitled "Obama's Inability to Hire Good Help Rears Its Head … Again.” Another by Politico’s Ken Vogel was entitled "Obama vs. his staff.”

-- Among the better known examples, an aide, Austan Goolsbee, told Canadians that Obama didn’t mean his promise made right before the crucial Ohio primary that he would renegotiate NAFTA. Obama disavowed Goolsbee’s claim and said that he had misstated Obama’s position, and Goolsbee denied claims by the Canadians.

-- A 1996 candidate questionnaire form that was answered stating that Obama supported a ban on handguns was explained as a staffer’s mistake. A statement to the Chicago Tribune last fall claiming that Obama supported the DC gun ban was dismissed as a staffer’s mistake.

-- In a 2004 questionnaire, Obama refrained from criticizing Yasir Arafat or strongly supporting Israel’s security force. As ABC noted: “Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight.”

-- Obama was asked this year about funding he got for the University of Chicago while his wife, Michelle, worked there. He claimed that someone on his staff had handled it because neither he nor his wife would have allowed his office to benefit his wife’s work.

-- When the Tony Rezko corruption questions emerged, Obama claimed that he had never done anything to advance Rezko’s business interests. Then a letter Obama signed was discovered supporting a Rezko project to city and state housing officials. Obama said that he wasn’t aware of the letter and he said that staff had mishandled it. When answers to questions about how much money Rezko had raised for Obama campaigns proved to be much too low, the mistake was again blamed on staff.

-- When Sarah Palin’s vice presidential nomination was announced, Obama’s campaign immediately issued a statement that reporters described as "ripping” into her. A few hours later, after the initial public reaction, Obama first supported and then backed away from the statement, saying that his campaign had misrepresented his views.

-- Tim Russert confronted Obama at a Democratic Presidential debate in January about Obama’s campaign claiming that the Clintons were “stoking racial tensions.” Yet again, Obama blamed his "overzealous” staff.

The list goes on, but these cases seem to leave only two options: Either Obama is dishonest and these mistakes were not really mistakes, or he is a very poor judge of people.

Since Obama points to his campaign as proof that he has more executive experience than Palin, these problems also raise questions about how efficiently he runs things. If his own staff keeps on making mistakes in misrepresenting what Obama believes, can Obama clearly tell staff what policies he wants them to implement if he becomes president.