Display:
Nothing much is likely to happen until Obama and the next Senate take office in January. Obama may pull a Roosevelt on the banking system.

So is it good that the crisis has really not come to a head till so late in the Bush presidency, so that him and his cronies havent really had to deal with it? this being as I understand it the last reporting period before the election, if it had happened six weeks further on then it could be sold as response to the election of Obama, if six weeks forward then Bush might have tried for real to fix it, and who knows where that would have lead.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Sep 26th, 2008 at 07:32:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe the crisis was going to come to a head at a quarter end. It started in June last year (2007Q2). The ECB injected lots of money for 2007Q3 while the Anglo chattering classes sniped at it for panicking, but then Northern Rock failed. Then we had 3 quarters of interventions by the Fed: 2007Q4 (end of year bridging loans by all central banks), 2008Q1 (Bear Stearns bailout) and 2008Q2 (admission that Fannie and Freddie might have to be rescued). Paulson and Bernanke were hoping to be able to repeat the operation 5 times (2008Q3 and Q4) to take them over to Obama's inauguration, but unfortunately for them the Fed managed to destroy its balance sheet in just 9 months, and so we had the events of the past 3 weeks.

So, you're right, politically for Bush 2008Q3 is the worst time for things to come to a head. Year-end could have been blamed on Obama being president elect spooking the markets, and Feb/March 2009 would have marred his first 100 days.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 at 05:28:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series