Stress Test


STRESS TEST….Matt Yglesias comments on today’s Nick Kristof column on the economic meltdown:

As he says “the larger conundrum is that a bailout is both: A) urgent and essential; and B) unfair and unpopular.” Thus far, officials have attempted to resolve that conundrum with timidity, but ultimately that results in measures that fail on both counts. What’s needed is more boldness — really decisive action to clean up the financial sector combined with measures that are tough enough on CEOs and shareholders to give the effort political legitimacy.

OK, but here’s the problem: you also have to do this in a way that’s at least nominally fair.  And the process has to be fairly transparent.  If you ask Vikram Pandit right now if Citigroup is solvent, he’ll tell you it is — and he’ll then haul out a detailed PowerPoint presentation to prove it.  Citigroup’s internal numbers suggest that they’re well capitalized and in no need of being taken over.

Now, those numbers are almost certainly hooey.  Certainly investors don’t believe them, and to register their disbelief they’ve driven Citigroup stock down to almost nothing.  Nonetheless, the numbers are there, and the government can’t be in the business of taking over banks that swear on a stack of Bibles that they’re perfectly healthy.  This, I assume, is the point of Tim Geithner’s stress test.  In the same way that the Swedes set up a transparent process to evaluate their banking sector in the early 90s and ended up nationalizing two banks but not the others, Geithner needs to set up a process that does the same here.  If the process is seen as fair, there will be way less political blowback when some of the big banks are taken over and others aren’t.

This, anyway, is the optimistic point of view: that Geithner and Obama, far from being unwilling to nationalize insolvent banks, are merely setting up the political and financial process to make it tolerable in the near future.  The pessimistic view is that they’re just screwing around and don’t really have any plan at all.  For the moment, then, I plan to take the optimistic point of view just for the sake of my own mental health.  Your mileage may vary, of course.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.