“Some said we should just stick capital in the banks, take preferred stock in the banks. That’s what you do when you have failure,” Mr. Paulson told the Senate Banking Committee on Sept. 23. “This is about success.”http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/business/12imf.html
But on Friday, Mr. Paulson not only confirmed his intention to buy stakes in banks but gave the idea central billing. “We can use the taxpayer’s money more effectively and efficiently, get more for the taxpayer’s dollar, if we develop a standardized program to buy equity in financial institutions,” Mr. Paulson said.
Вот так. И месяца не прошло.
Кстати, экономисты удивляются, чего это был принят самый рисковый и сомнительный план. Вот один интересный факт, который, конечно, никакой роли не играл
...the financial benefit to Paulson of accepting the call of duty is surely greater than that enjoyed by any other public servant in U.S. history. Goldman Sachs has long had a policy that all deferred compensation becomes payable promptly to any partner who accepts a senior position in the federal government. ... If Paulson took advantage of these provisions, they enabled him to sell his shares in Goldman Sachs without raising any public questions without tax and to diversity his large personal invetments in a single stroke. For just over two years' service, the saings in Paulson's personal income taxes could have been as large as $200 million. Paulson had no interest in diversifying his investments and had never sold a share of Goldman Sachs stock.Via Marginal Revolution
И о "цвете экономической науки", поддержавшей план
Ordinarily, I don't dwell on the fact that these people who were no smarter than me back-scratched each other into the best journals, the prestigious professorships, the important conferences, etc. But sometimes, especially now, I think about how badly they have failed intellectually. They are the precise academic equivalent of Wall Street executives who enjoyed golden parachutes while bankrupting their firms.From EconLog
My view of the crisis is that every sector of the establishment has been discredited. The financial establishment has been discredited. Government policymakers and regulators have been discredited. And academic economics has been discredited. The fact that we now have all three on the same page about policy going forward is hardly comforting.