Bank Rescue: Dueling Headlines
 |
James Joyner | Tuesday, October 14, 2008 |
Headline skimmers would get a very different picture of what happened yesterday depending on what paper they happen to pick up:
- U.S. Investing $250 Billion in Banks – NYT
- U.S. Forces Nine Major Banks To Accept Partial Nationalization – WaPo
- Bush: Treasury will take $250 billion stake in banks – USA Today
- U.S. to pump $250 billion directly into banks – LA Times
- Bush Announces Plan to Buy Stakes in Largest Banks- WSJ
WaPo is the major outlier here and probably gets it closest to right.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- Bank Rescue: Dueling Headlines
- Pick A Number, Any Number. Okay $700 Billion
- Fannie Wants More Tax Dollars
- Fact-Checking Zakaria
- Chinese Money
- A Possibly Dangerously Naive Question About the Financial Crisis
- The Paulson Plan May Be In Jeopardy
- More of Why the Paulson Plan is Bad
- The Dodd Proposal
- Attack of the Zombie Policy
- Berlin Wall Fall: 20 Years Later
- Oklahoma High Schoolers Are Very Familiar With George Washington, Thanks
- Was Fort Hood Massacre ‘Terrorism’?
- Making Jobs More Expensive
- House Trades Freedom for Health Coverage, Senate’s Move
- Hasan a Muslim First, American Second?
- OTB Caption JamTM
- Taking “No” As Iran’s Answer
- Update on the Fort Hood Massacre
- OTB Latenight – Soft Cell
Do they? As I read the most recent proposals they were completely voluntary.
I suppose it depends on what is meant by “force”. In my view a course of actions having consequences and being forced to do something are two different things. We must eat otherwise we will die. However, we aren't forced to do so unless there's a tube shoved down our throats or something similar.
Headline skimmers would get a very different picture of what happened yesterday depending on what paper they happen to pick up:
Yeah, I concur with Schuler--what do you mean?
In pressing the bank executives to accept partial government ownership, Paulson's message was clear: Though officially the program was voluntary, the banks had little choice in the matter.
If the government is going to pour tens of billions into your competitors' coffers and you can take it or leave it, it's very much an offer you can't refuse.
Nonetheless “force” is a poor choice of words by the Post editor. As details emerge on the various bailouts that have occurred over the last several months, I'm seeing less and less force and more and more rent-seeking.
Deciding that the government offered the most favorable available terms isn't force by any stretch of the imagination.
If the government is going to pour tens of billions into your competitors' coffers and you can take it or leave it, it's very much an offer you can't refuse.
Yeah, I'm with Dave and Triumph, the banks still have the option to not take the deal and fail. The fact that they have to choose between 2 unpleasant options doesn't mean they are being forced into either one specifically, especially when at least one of the unpleasant options is the consequence of their own actions.
