Bank Rescue: Dueling Headlines
·
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 James Joyner
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.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Yeah, I concur with Schuler–what do you mean?
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
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.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
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.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
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.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0