CNN: The worldwide leader in jargon

I am stepping out of character here at the beginning to talk about why articles like the one I deconstruct below are so gosh darn pernicious. It's not just that the article is poorly written. It's not just that it contains a bewildering combination of unsubstantiated statements, oversimplifications, paragraphs packed with jargon that most people won't know, and weird metaphors about salad. It's that articles like this, which doesn't do a good job of explaining anything, leave people with the feeling that this stuff can't be explained. They throw up their hands, panic, or just find someone who seems smart and well informed and follow what he says. This financial crisis is far from simple, but it's not inexplicable. A well-written guide to what's going on is possible, and National Public Radio has done a good job of covering the happenings (in audio format.) But instead of spending the time and money to sit down and hammer out the details CNN, and a lot of other media sources, seem to prefer putting up slapdash articles and video pieces describing a small bit of what's going on, with facts and causality often missing or wrong. It's an approach that fosters panic and confusion. It's irresponsible and lazy. This article is an example of that approach.


David Smick has a beard. He also runs a financial market advisory firm in D.C. Sometimes he writes for CNN. This is his latest column.

-- At this point in the credit crisis, at least one thing is certain: most policymakers lack a clue of what is really at stake.

Bold statement. So what really is at stake?

Those with some knowledge are driving policy looking through the rearview mirror.

It's a nitpick, but do you really look THROUGH a rearview mirror? Don't you look into one? They're not transparent.

Begin with the U.S. Treasury's $700 billion bailout package. This was presented as some magic pill which, if gulped down, would quickly restore financial stability.

Far be it from me to defend the bailout, which is problematic, but I don't remember the term "Magic pill" being bandied about. More like "Extreme but necessary measure so that we don't have complete economic collapse." It was more of a "Take this or you DIE!" situation than "Take one of these and you'll be fine by morning."

The "shock and awe" of the sheer size of the taxpayer-funded bailout would somehow restore confidence.

Shock and awe is in quotation marks here. Nobody ever used that term. Also, once again, a lot of people were talking about how the $700 billion was a relatively small amount given the size of the crisis. I don't recall anyone arguing that this was a giant wave of money that would sweep the crisis away. It was more that the crisis was so huge that to even put a dent in it you needed this unfathomable sum.

The reason I bring this up is that David Smick is clearly building a strawman argument, which he will proceed to tear apart, and he isn't even being subtle about it.

Instead, stock markets collapsed and credit markets remained frozen.

For one week. A week which precedes any of the bailout money actually being spent. It's a bit soon to be calling failure on the thing BEFORE ANY ASSETS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED.

This is because the credit crisis reflects something more fundamental than a serious problem of mortgage defaults. Global investors, now on the sidelines, have declared a buyers' strike against the sophisticated paper assets of securitization that financial institutions use to measure and offload risk.

This is accurate, but is the average CNN reader really going to understand what it means? There has to be a level of sophistication between Tickle Me Elmo metaphors and "Global boycott on sophisticated paper assets of securitization."

In recent years, our banks, borrowing to maximize the leverage of their assets at unheard-of levels, produced mountains of financial paper instruments (called asset-backed securities) with little means of measuring their value. Incredibly, these paper instruments were insured by more dubious paper instruments.

Also accurate (if incredibly non-specific). Also requires enough familiarity with what's been happening and what's going on that if you know what all of this means YOU DON'T NEED THIS COLUMN.


Therefore, the housing crisis was a mere trigger for a collapse of trust in paper, followed by a de-leveraging of the entire global financial system.

"Therefore" implies that you have constructed a logical argument we can follow. You have not. You just have a beard. What you said previously does not necessarily lead to this conclusion without a boatload of outside information. You skipped a few dozen steps.

As a result, we are experiencing the painful downward reappraisal of the value of virtually every asset in the world.

Except for sweet ass beards. That's an asset whose value is never reappraised downwards in the face of a massive worldwide de-leveraging. Am I right? Also, you haven't really explained why the de-leveraging leads to downward reappraisal (Short answer: Less money around means everything is worth less, numerically. Essentially deflation. Longer answer: This might be a part of what's going on, but not even close to the whole story. Some assets are, in fact, increasing in value. There's a lot of other stuff at play.)


So what are these paper instruments, these asset-backed or mortgage-backed securities?

Ooh, ooh, tell me!

I like to use a salad analogy.

My bad metaphor sense is tingling, but give it a shot.

Before the last decade, bankers simply lent in the form of syndicated loans.

Salady!

But with the huge expansion of the global economy in the 1990s, which produced an ocean of new capital, the bankers came up with an idea called securitization.

I like a lemon-vinaigrette dressing.

Instead of making simple loans and holding them until maturity, a bank collected all its loans together, then diced and sliced them up into a big, beautiful tossed salad.

That sounds...a little papery. Smooth transition into the metaphor there.

The idea was to sell (for huge fees) individual servings of diversified financial salad around the world.

Invest Fresh!

The only problem: under an occasional piece of lettuce was a speck of toxic waste in the form of a defaulting subprime mortgage.

Call the FDA! Is it just me or is this metaphor adding absolutely nothing but confusion to this half-assed attempt to explain what happened?

Eat that piece of salad, and you're dead.

Piece of salad? You mean the lettuce? Or the serving? Or the toxic waste? Can we wash it off? Piece of salad? What?

The overall salad looked delicious, but suddenly global investors were no longer ordering salad.

They'll get FAT!

No one knew the location of the toxic waste.

IT'S UNDER THE LETTUCE!

This distrust heightened when global interest rates began to rise.

What distrust? You have yet to use that word, or use any combination of words that would describe that concept.

So what does this salad boycott mean for the future

Fat investors. We've been over this. I like how Smick keeps dropping into and out of the metaphor seemingly at random.

and why have financial markets collapsed so brutally?

Yes. Why?

The markets are telling us the world will face a serious credit crunch in 2009 regardless of how much money government spends to remove the toxic salad from bank balance sheets.

That's a prediction for the future, not an explanation of the collapse. And why can't you just say toxic securities? The salad gambit failed. It failed like a Tickle Me Elmo salesman who overstocked his store based on previous...never mind.

Policymakers have no means of forcing the banks to start lending short of nationalizing the entire financial system. After all, the U.S. banks alone so far during the crisis have lost upwards of $2 trillion from their collective asset base.

"After all" once again implies that the second sentence explains the first, BUT IT DOESN'T. It might provide reason why banks are leery to lend at present, but in what way does it keep policy makers from forcing banks to start lending? Doesn't. They're related situations, but not identical.

Most banks are leveraged by more than 10 to 1. Translation:

Great! You're going to explain what leveraging is!

The U.S. financial system will have a whopping $15 trillion to $20 trillion less credit available next year than was around a year and a half before. The cost of money is rising and the availability shrinking.

You rat bastard! Way to sneak the phrase "Cost of money" in there too. I think you mean the cost of credit (That's what this generally means), but who knows. Maybe you think a dollar now costs $1.25. You are writing for CNN. Anything is possible.
.

True, the banks will still lend -- but the fear is they will do it only to people such as Warren Buffett, who don't need loans. What is uncertain is the amount of lending to borrowers engaged in entrepreneurial risk, the center of business reinvention and job creation.

Way to bring this up NOW. Remember when we were talking about asset evaluation? This is a huge part of it. Dried up credit markets are a huge threat to the short and longterm financial health of a lot of important companies. This is, in part, why the stock market is tanking (Along with good old fashioned panic, partially brought about because nobody knows what's happening, because the media has completely dropped the ball) and why companies are shedding jobs. Even big seemingly solid companies rely on short term loans to smooth out their operations, and without access to these credit markets many face severe liquidity crunches, which could potentially lead to service disruptions etc..etc... All of which will make people even more reluctant to lend, and we're in the midst of a vicious cycle that could do serious damage to parts of the economy that weren't even involved in these shenanigans.

Apart from the economic pain resulting from shrinking credit markets, we are about to see an earthquake in the relationship between government and financial markets.

About to see? WATCH OUT NEW ORLEANS! HURRICANE KATRINA IS GONNA BE A DOOZY! We are in the PROCESS of seeing, and in many cases HAVE ALREADY SEEN.

The great uncertainty is whether government has the power to rescue the financial system in times of crisis. It seems doubtful.

This is what is known as the power of positive thinking. If you're going to scare people you should probably at least do them the favor of explaining what it is you think they should be afraid of.

In the United Kingdom, for example, the collected assets of the major banks are four times the nation's gross domestic product (GDP). A similar situation exists in many Euro zone countries. This means government cannot bail out the system even if it wanted to. Given such massive exposure, government guarantees in a time of crisis become meaningless.

Thanks. Although it's probably WORTH NOTING that not all of those assets are toxic or problematic, and so government might very well have enough money to deal with THOSE assets. The government also, to borrow a phrase, still has a thing called a printing press. Fiat money has many problems, but one of its advantages is that it allow the government to spend as much as it wants. It can be very problematic but it's still meaningful.

Yet because of the interconnected web of global financial relationships, we are all vulnerable to the threat. The collapse of, say, a major European bank would hardly leave American workers immune.


Why is that "Yet" there? That is the most useless "Yet" in the history of mankind. Also, I don't think there are a lot of Americans going "Europe's in trouble, but we seem to be doing just fine over here." Phrases like "Economic death spiral" and "Greatest depression" are being bandied about.


Our policy leaders in Washington are thinking domestically when the solution to the credit crisis will be global. It is not that the world lacks money; it is that the world's money is sitting on the sidelines -- more than $6 trillion in idle global money markets alone.

That's nice. Except that we can't make them lend to us, and also the U.S. government's power in this area is ENTIRELY DOMESTIC. We don't get to go to Belgium and tell them what to do about THEIR banking crisis. Not unless we bring guns. Or at least Jeff Speakman

The challenge will be to reform our financial system quickly to draw that global capital back into more productive uses. The first step should be efforts to make the market for future asset-backed paper more transparent and credible.

Seems sensible. Too bad our government can't do anything to make banks lend. Except, apparently, this.

We need a private/public global bank clearing facility. The bankers don't trust each other. The central banks, working with the private institutions in providing enhanced data, need to begin to refashion the world's financial architecture.

I am not going to unpack this. I will just say that it has disappointingly little to do with delicious salad. Do you think that security salad has radicchio in it? I like that stuff.

And while that is happening, the major governments of the world, including the Chinese, should begin major fiscal efforts to stimulate their weakening economies.

Such as?

Oh wait. We're done.

Thanks for the buck, I'll be sure to pass it.

People are demanding that irresponsible borrowers should shoulder the blame for this financial crisis along with the lenders.

These people are wrong. And they make me very angry.

First of all, lenders must take full responsibility for the people they choose to lend money to. The problem here isn't that a bunch of good bets (People who are statistically likely to pay back their mortgages) didn't pan out for unexpected reasons. It's that mortgages were given to people who they shouldn't have been given to, and then those mortgages were bought and sold with dishonest ratings by people who were making longshot bets to pad their current quarter results and obtain higher bonuses. Furthermore, if it were JUST the mortgages we were talking about then the financial crisis would not be nearly as deep and as wide as it is. There's also the matter of credit default swaps, which nobody seems to understand (I think I have a decent handle on them) but which really didn't have anything to do with the mortgages, except that they made sure that if some banks failed due to buying bad mortgage debt then ALL the banks were going to tumble down with them like a house of cards.

Totally on the shoulders of the fat cats.

Getting back to the people who shouldn't have been getting mortgages, not only were they given mortgages if they asked for them, but frequently they were lied to about the terms of the mortgages and upsold on bigger mortgages than they initially wanted. If you went into a car showroom to buy a used Honda and the salesman told you he could work out financing for you on a new Mercedes, and you end up buying the Mercedes, you are responsible for your pain when the car gets repossessed, but you have zero responsibility towards the showroom or the salesman. They told you this was alright. They tried to take advantage of you.

It has always been the responsibility of a lender to vet the people he is lending to. While people shouldn't take on debt they can't afford, it's not because they have a moral responsibility towards the bank (Though they do in an abstract sense) it's because eventually the debt will come due and you'll be screwed. The responsibility for the bank's money rests on the shoulders of the officers of that bank and they abdicated that responsibility. They couldn't have foreseen that lots of people would lie (especially when explicitly encouraged to do so) on applications for what were known as "Liar's loans?" Really? The Wall Street geniuses couldn't see that coming?

We don't all share in the blame for this financial collapse. The blame rests on two groups. The bankers who utterly failed to act responsibly because of a perverse incentive system (I'll include the creators of that incentive system in this group, because they were mostly goddamned bankers) and the government, which not only failed to properly regulate the situation but exacerbated it through terrible housing policy, encouraging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make bad loans on the theory that it would somehow lead to housing for the poor. It didn't. In fact thanks to the housing bubble it's harder than ever for the poor to find anywhere to live. Pouring money into the housing market perverted it, Wall Street preyed upon this perversion, then created insane insurance schemes to make even more money, and it all eventually blew up in everybody's face like these things always do.

Let's keep the blame where it belongs. On the bad guys. On the irresponsible thieves. On Wall Street.

In The Future Every Writer Will Be Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck is mad that his brilliant Elmo metaphor didn't make the financial crisis clear enough to everyone that it would be solved by now. So, using the magic of his scrambled brains, he's traveled to the future to see what the results of this ignorance will be.

Like, for serious.

Happy 300th Birthday!

Holy crap I'm old!

It's 2076 and we've just invented the time-fax machine.

Congratulations. Though wouldn't time e-mail be a little more useful? Or even just time mail? Do people still use fax machines in 2076? Is this a fax? How am I getting it? If you dial the wrong number on the time fax machine do I pick up the phone and hear that horrible explosion of beeps and boops?

(Actually, "we" didn't invent the time-fax machine,

You liar! Why did you tell me that you did. I have half a mind not to believe that you're actually faxing me from the future.

the State did -- they pretty much control everything now.)

Michael Ian Black and company? Do they rule with an iron fist constructed out of detached hipster irony? No? Oh. Dystopian. Got it. Delicious.

I'm faxing this

Seriously? You're still gonna go with faxing here? Not like projecting a hologram or something? Faxing? Okay. Alright.

back to you in 2008 because that seems to be the year we had the best chance to reverse our course and get back to the vision laid out by our founding fathers

Sweet. Of course, you know, might not have hurt to fax us in, say, 2006 or 2007 and give us a bit of time to prepare for this momentous year. October seems a little late to me. What do I know. Maybe it's really expensive to send a time fax more than 68 years into the past.

-- a vision that didn't include the government being in the insurance business.

Right. Because that was the primary causes belli behind the American revolution. Insurance. Remember the 8th amendment? "The government shall stay out of the insurance business under all circumstances." No wait, that was cruel and unusual punishment. I always get them confused.

I don't have a lot of time (the State only gives us one 30-minute break per day)

How long does it take to send a time fax? Also, I'm sorry, but I keep imagining a world ruled by Michael Ian Black, and it horrifies me.

so let me give you some advice: Stop worrying so much about who runs the country and start worrying about who runs your towns, your states, and your Congress.

Okay. Although, your problem seems to be with centralized government, not some crazy mayor or governor. Also, how is the congress different than who runs the country? Has there been a change in the structure of government. Is it actually a Michael Ian Black tyranny. Does he force you to laugh at his VH1 "I love the 2050's" specials?

I know you're all distracted by the presidential election,

Distracted from what?

but for all the money and time poured into it, the truth is that you're choosing between two roads that will lead you to the same destination.

So not only do you get the sweet time fax machine but you can see into alternate futures as well? Nice. Is there any combinations of possible actions that would end with me having sex with Jessica Biel while Alfred Molina watches? Because I would really like to know if such a combination exists.

Sure, one may be the Autobahn and the other a two-lane highway, but you'll end up at the same place either way.

That seems kind of important actually, how long it will take to get to the place. If it is a good place I want to get there fast. If it is a bad place I'd like to take the scenic route.

Decades of Republicans and Democrats alike have all chipped in to lead you to where you are today.

Inwood?

Believing that one person, from either party, can change that by themselves is a big mistake.

Yeah. If the last 8 years have taught us anything it's that one man cannot make a difference. One man can bring neither glory or disaster.

Presidents are like captains of a large ship: They can map out a course and shout out orders, but without the trust and hard work of the people who actually move the rudders, their commands mean nothing.

Future Glenn Beck you are a master of metaphor. Only, I'm not sure that big ships have actual people moving the rudder at this point. I kind of think most of that stuff is automated. Maybe in the future it's not.

In retrospect, the lack of trust and confidence you now have in your leaders was really the root cause of everything that's happened since.

Do you know David Brooks?

While our founding fathers designed a brilliant system of checks and balances, separation of powers and democratic elections, trust was the one thing they couldn't mandate in the Constitution.

What about love? Could they make us love them?

Looking back now, it's pretty obvious that our trust in government declined at about the same rate as our partisanship increased. People became so concerned about getting their party into power at any cost that the truth didn't even seem to matter anymore.

On the contrary. FAIR AND BALANCED. FAIR AND BALANCED

That's probably one of the reasons why George Washington hated the idea of political parties so much. Here's what he said about them in his 1796 farewell speech:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."

Incredibly prescient! It's almost like George Washington is time faxing us from the past!

I know that George had a habit for using big words, so allow me to translate into 2008 English: Political parties that put their own success over that of the country's will be the death of America.

Sorry Glenn, but your 2008 English translation program must be on the fritz, because what you just said is a vast oversimplification of what George Washington was actually saying. Fortunately for you Washington's statement stands on its own and doesn't need translation.

If you don't believe him yet, just wait a few more years...you're about to see firsthand how right he was.

I hope the answer is "Not very."

After all, if power corrupts, then the kind of absolute power gained by political parties (and feared by Washington) corrupts absolutely.

First of all, "If power corrupts then the kind of absolute power gained by political parties corrupts absolutely" is not a logically sound statement. It's only true if power corrupts in proportion to its absoluteness. Also, umm, the kind of absolute power gained by political parties is not absolute at all. Fortunately we don't need them to have absolute power or be absolutely corrupt to bring ruin on us.

Question: Why the conditional statement? You're from the future. You know what happens.

The best advice I can give you is to stop thinking in terms of left and right and start thinking in terms of right and wrong.

The best advice you can give us is a meaningless platitude? Seriously? Umm can I get a time fax from the future Dear Abbey, because you suck at this whole advice thing.

Demand the best leaders possible, and then demand the best out of them.

Thanks. Is there lead paint in the future or have you eaten it all?

Believe me, when you see what's coming your way, you'll realize how little the donkey and the elephant really ever mattered.

What about the libertarians? The green party? The whigs? Any of them matter? What does matter then, besides the bland "Demand the best of the best" advice?

Oh and while we're on politics, one quick thing that I'm sure you're curious about:

Has there been another world war? How did the whole global warming thing turn out? Who are the major economic and military world powers? Have we reached Mars yet?

Yes, Robert Byrd is still in the Senate. He's 159, but doesn't look a day over 91.

Taking pot shots at Robert Byrd. That's what matters. Not partisan politics. Not who is going to be our next president. Nope. It's all about personal insults against old people. On the plus side, I guess we just learned that life expectancy is much greater (at least for a few) in the future. That's good.

Now, let's talk about the economy.

A'ight

Let me see if I have this right: Money and power made people greedy, so you decided to hand over a bunch of money and power to greedy politicians instead.

No you don't. People are naturally greedy and so they decided to pursue money and power at great risk, failed, were bit in the ass, and we had to surrender money and power to the politicians in a last ditch effort to prevent the rest of us from getting swamped by the tidal wave of bad debt the greedy people created. Also, it wasn't really our decision, 'cause the country's a Republic.

Smart!

Future sarcasm. Nasty.

After using that money to nationalize a bunch of banks, mortgage companies and insurance companies, they moved on to bigger things.

What could be bigger than the insurance companies? The founding fathers specifically warned against the government owning one in the sixth amendment. Oh wait. That's speedy trial. Darn.

The airlines came first -- we just couldn't live without them. Then it was the automakers (Detroit would've died), health care (they said they could manage it better), and eventually, the oil companies (I'm not sure where all of those "windfall profits" have gone).

That's a lot of bang for our 700 billion bucks. Looks like the socialized health care thing worked out well though, since Robert Byrd is over 150 years old and still well enough to be in the senate. Strom Thurmond only made it to 135.

The idea behind it all (an idea that was eventually turned into law with the passage of the Securities Exchange Act of 2011)

How do you turn an idea into a law? Seriously. How? you can base a law on an idea, but you can't take an idea and make it law.

was to "socialize losses" by spreading them out among all taxpayers. The pain, our leaders argued, would be minimal that way.

That seems like a horrible argument? Really. They didn't go with "Socialize profits, we'll all be rich and happy!" They went with "Socialize losses?" We elected some stupid leaders.

They were right.

WOOHOO!


At least until the bills came due.

I see what you did there.

See, we didn't actually have any of the money we were promising everyone; we were borrowing it.

It didn't take long before so many of our tax dollars were going toward interest payments that we couldn't fund even the most basic of government programs without massive tax increases on everyone. People now work most of the year just to pay Uncle Sam (or, as we now call him, "Comrade Sam").

Free health care, free air travel, free cars, it seems like we did okay by this deal.

I hear the State censors coming, so let me leave you with a few other quick things:

You wrote a lot in half an hour. And you got it time faxed. Seems like things are running pretty efficiently

• Good call on not worrying about protecting our borders. That works out really well for you in 2019.

Is that more future sarcasm? Glenn Beck you are keeping me on my toes.

You might want to spend a little less time worrying about carbon and a little more time worrying about Iran. We're now in a new mini-Ice Age but, believe me, Iran isn't using their nukes to warm any homes. (PS The International Atomic Energy Agency just revealed to you that Iran appears to be refitting their long-range missiles to carry nuclear payloads. Did you think they were joking or were you just too busy with lipsticks and pigs to notice?)

Holy shit. The melting of the ice caps disrupted ocean currents enough to put us in an ice age in just 68 years? I'm not sure stopping worrying about carbon is really the best plan here, especially since we have like 68 years of peace with the Iranian menace, which is about how long it's been from the start of the Cold War to now. So how about we worry about carbon AND Iran and stop worrying about Paris Hilton and Brangelina? Deal?

• The currency of the future is energy.

That seems hard to carry around in a wallet, but on the plus side I guess all that dollar denominated debt is pretty meaningless. So, that's nice.

Those who have it are thriving and those who don't -- well, let's just leave it at that. Drill for all the oil you can, but you also better start seriously looking for some other options.

Which other options worked out? How about some advice?

In closing, remember this golden rule and you should be fine: Your Constitution will never fail you, but your leaders will. Be wary of anyone who tries to convince you that it's the other way around.

Right. We should definitely be wary of all those guys who are anti-constitution. Oh wait. A little late for that.

Best wishes (you're going to need them),

Worker 2744A

PS It's not all socialist doom and gloom here in the future. We just thawed Ted Williams' cryogenically frozen body and he hit 87 home runs for the North Team!

Wow. Way to slip that "Oh yeah, we can bring back the dead" thing in there. Why wasn't your advice "Get yourself cryogenically frozen, IN THE FUTURE WE CAN BRING YOU BACK!" Also, what happened to Ted Williams' head?

David Brooks Wants His Daddy

The authors of this blog have our differences, but one thing we can both agree on is that David Brooks is awful. He's awful for a lot of reasons, but in his latest column he does something right, and admirable. He openly admits that he's the kind of beta male who, in tough times, looks for someone, ANYONE, to tell him what to do.

In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt inherited an economic crisis. He understood that his first job was to restore confidence, to give people a sense that somebody was in charge, that something was going to be done.

This is meant to parallel the current situation, except that Roosevelt inherited an economic crisis that had been unfolding over a course of years rather than a couple of weeks. Note that Brooks praises Roosevelt not for actually doing anything to solve the crisis, but instead for making people feel better. The way David Brooks wishes someone would make him feel better. Someone with a strong masculine voice that would tell David Brooks that everything is going to be okay, and strong masculine arms that could wrap David Brooks up and make him feel warm, safe, and secure.

This generation of political leaders is confronting a similar situation,

No. Not at all. It's not just that the causes are somewhat different, but it's also been well under a month since all this really started to unfold. Once again, Roosevelt had years to think about his crisis, and ran on a campaign specifically targeted to deal with it.

and, so far, they have failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed.

David Brooks wants his daddy to make him feel like someone is in charge. David Brooks wants everyone else to know that his daddy is taking care of things. David Brooks isn't that worried that daddy get things right and actually help the crisis, just that he tell everyone he's doing something.

George W. Bush is completely out of juice, having squandered his influence with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Note that his juice was squandered by ramming through legislation that later turned out disastrous to the point where whenever he suggests doing something everyone immediately becomes suspicious of that course of action.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is a smart moneyman, but an inept legislator. He was told time and time again that House Republicans would not support his bill, and his response was to get down on bended knee before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

He proposed to her? That is a rather unexpected negotiating strategy.

House leaders of both parties got wrapped up in their own negotiations, but did it occur to any of them that it might be hard to pass a bill fairly described as a bailout to Wall Street?

Probably. Perhaps they felt pressured by the media to ram something through in order to look authoritative.

Let us recognize above all the 228 [congresspeople] who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed.

WHY WON'T THEY FOLLOW THEIR MASTERS? What do they think, that they're elected representatives of their districts who are responsible both individually and collectively for doing what's in the best interest of the nation and their constituents? That's not the way David Brooks sees it. Their job is to get down on 'bended knee' and lick the boots of their superiors, just like David Brooks does when his mistress tells him he's been bad. Disobedience is very disrespectful.

They did the momentarily popular thing

I.E. what their constituents wanted

and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.

As opposed to if they rammed the bill through, it didn't work, and the country went into recession AND the government was broke.

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame.

Bad boys and girls.

It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party.

Because that's what they're doing. Single mindedly trying to destroy the Republican Party. Not sticking up for their constituents or their beliefs or any of that foolishness. They're trying to take down the G.O.P.

Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support.

To be fair, they were really trying to keep the Hispanic support from getting into the country in the first place.

Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Anxieties like "Will my wife find out that those credit card charges at The Dungeon weren't really just a mixup with Kristoff for one of his sex slavery pieces."

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century.

A) I have a degree in political science with a concentration in American politics, so I vaguely know what the Smooth-Hawley tariff act was, but can you really use this reference with impunity in this day and age? Most Americans can't name the fourth amendment of the constitution, let alone the ninth or the sixteenth. Are we really expecting them to catch this one?

B) The Smoot-Hawley tariff act was an example of overlegislating (Raising tariffs in response to competition from imports) rather than an example of failing to act in crisis. In fact one could argue persuasively that the Smoot-Hawley tariff act is an example of why congress shouldn't always act, and certainly shouldn't act impulsively and without careful consideration.

C) You can't pluralize Smoot-Hawley like that. Smoot-Hawley was not a family name, it was the name of the act sponsored by those two men. You'd have to threaten that the congressmen would look like the Smoots and Hawleys of the 21st century, which wouldn't really work either because there was only one Smoot and one Hawley (for the purposes of this discussion) in the 20th century, but at least it would sort of work. Shouldn't the New York Times be doing a better job of copyediting, especially for a column that presumably has a decent lead time.

With this vote, they’ve taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable.

God, NO! Congress taking responsibility for something and being held ACCOUNTABLE? Won't somebody think of the children? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

I’ve spoken with several House Republicans over the past few days and most admirably believe in free-market principles.

Principles? Among House Republicans? I think we may have a Jayson Blair situation here.

What’s sad is that they still think it’s 1984.

I don't think David Brooks consciously intended to reference Orwell's classic (Though I do think he is waiting for Big Brother to arrive with the fervent hope of an Evangelical waiting for Jesus, except with more erections.) but if not, why choose 1984 specifically, instead of 1983 or 1985? You have to be carefully randomly throwing that year around, just like you can't say "I hate September 11th, because I lost my wallet on that day in 1997." Someone's already called dibs on 1984.

They still think the biggest threat comes from socialism and Walter Mondale liberalism. They seem not to have noticed how global capital flows have transformed our political economy.

Whoops. Neither did anybody else.

We’re living in an age when a vast excess of capital sloshes around the world fueling cycles of bubble and bust.

It's a tsunami of money. And just like a tsunami it can only be described in passive terms because there's no group of people actually in control of this thing!

When the capital floods into a sector or economy, it washes away sober business practices, and habits of discipline and self-denial.

I love the passive language here. This tsunami of cash washes away sober business practices while bankers desperately cling to them, trying to prevent themselves from taking stupid greedy risks. But they can't. The tsunami of money MADE them do it.

Then the money managers panic and it sloshes out, punishing the just and unjust alike.

Not to burst your 'bubble' Mr. Brooks, but ummm...hasn't that been the opposite of the case? Haven't the unjust and irresponsible lost a crapload of money while those who refrained from betting heavily on unsubstantiated securities have stayed in business and in some cases even profited from the situation?

What we need in this situation is authority.

Someone to take control with a firm voice, strong words, and lots of paddlings for naughty boys like David Brooks. Seriously, though, is there a situation where David Brooks doesn't call for the consolidation of power and for someone to tell everyone what to do? Can you imagine one?

Not heavy-handed government regulation,

This is where Brooks remembers that he's supposed to be a principled Republican instead of a worm who wants somebody to order him around.

but the steady and powerful hand of some public institutions that can guard against the corrupting influences of sloppy money and then prevent destructive contagions when the credit dries up.

Heady stuff. Definitely the kind of thing you'd want to organize during a few short weeks of panic and confusion. Because making such decisions based on fear never ever goes wrong.

The Congressional plan was nobody’s darling, but it was an effort to assert some authority

Remember, asserting authority in response to economic crisis ALWAYS ENDS WELL

It was an effort to alter the psychology of the markets. People don’t trust the banks; the bankers don’t trust each other. It was an effort to address the crisis of authority in Washington.

Authority is the official word of the day.

At least it might have stabilized the situation so fundamental reforms of the world’s financial architecture could be undertaken later.

We'll get to the actual change later, now is not the time for trying to fix stuff, it's time to spend $700 billion to buy some peace of mind.

But the 228 House members who voted no have exacerbated the global psychological free fall, and now we have a crisis of political authority on top of the crisis of financial authority.

Two authorities in one sentence. I imagine David Brooks writing that sentence down, quietly high-fiving himself in his cubicle, and then furiously masturbating to the thought of a jackboot stepping softly on his scrotum.

The only thing now is to try again — to rescue the rescue. There’s no time to find a brand-new package, so the Congressional plan should go up for another vote on Thursday, this time with additions that would change its political prospects.

If at first you don't succeed, stuff the bill full of pork until everyone compromises their principles.

If that doesn’t happen, the world could be in for some tough economic times (the Europeans, apparently, have not even begun to acknowledge their toxic debt) — but also tough political times.

The American century was created by American leadership, which is scarcer than credit just about now.

And authority costs $25o an hour or $6oo for a three hour block.

David Brooks needs his credit, people.

Ed "I'm no Henry" Rollins

Ed Rollins is a Republican. Ed Rollins worked for Ronald Reagan. Ed Rollins has some comments on the presidential campaign and the economic crisis. Take it away, big Ed.

In running a campaign, you have controllables, and you have uncontrollables.

Donald Rumsfeld would like a word with you about controllable controllables, uncontrollable controllables, and controllable uncontrollable controllabes.

Controllables are what the candidate says in his speeches; where he appears, who he picks as a running mate, how much money he raises

Isn't raising money kind of an uncontrollable controllable, in that you don't just get to set a figure and say abra cadabra?

In planning your campaign strategy, you must be near perfect in the things you control.

Apparently being 'near perfect' allows for tiny gaffes like suggesting that the Spanish head of state might not be welcome at the White House, because Venezuela is hostile to the U.S. and they speak Spanish there, and they also speak Spanish in Spain, so, well, you do the math.

You also get a free pass if you nominate a religious nut with no foreign policy knowledge or experience, ties to radical separatists, and a history of graft and nepotism as your vice presidential candidate.

Nobody's TOTALLY perfect, right?

But you also must prepare for the things that you don't control.

While campaigning. Once you get elected you can forget all that noise and focus on the fun part of being president, like walking hand in hand with Saudi Princes and congratulating your buddy 'Brownie' on doing a heckuva job (Regardless if said heckuva job was actually done!)

President Bush's administration was mortally damaged by the mishandling of Katrina. It became a symbol of an administration that could do nothing right.

To be fair to the president, it's not like Katrina doesn't have stiff competition in the 'symbols of incompetence' category. This

The financial meltdown last week was the Katrina equivalent in this campaign.

Again, to be fair, I think the president gets credit for this one too. I'm not sure you can blame Barack Obama for not having retroactively solved the financial crisis before he became president, although Rush Limbaugh will try his very best.

And it was more than just an uncontrollable event. It was a game-changer.

We are no longer playing 'elect a president.' The contest will now be decided by sudden death beer pong. Obama's objections that this would be unconstitutional, and that McCain is married to a beer magnate are noted. They are overruled. I believe it is your serve, Johnathan McCain.
Whatever else the campaigns want to talk about, nothing will matter more than the perception of "who gets it."

Nobody gets it yet. That's sort of the problem. Oh. Right. You mean nothing will matter except the ability of one of the candidates to attempt to simplify the problem and frame it in a bullshit way so that the American people will think there's an easy solution, even though there's not. Right.

The winner should be the man who appears to understand these financial problems and can convince the country that he can be the "lifeguard" who can rescue ordinary Americans from drowning in this sea of economic uncertainty.

If it's about who the American people would rather see as a lifeguard, well, easy choice.


Several weeks ago, I wrote in this space that a campaign needs to win most of the remaining weeks in order to be successful in winning an election. I compared it to fighters winning the rounds in order to win the fight.

Saying something more than once doesn't make it more true. Republicans seem to think it does, but it doesn't. There are no points for winning individual weeks. A couple big scandals or great debate/speech performances can change the outcome, regardless of what's come before. Also, you said the game was changed. You lied to me.

In the period since the Republican convention, Gov. Sarah Palin won the "weeks" for her team.

But none of that matters now because all that's important is who 'gets' the financial crisis. Also the game is changed. But we're still boxing. I'm confused.

She dominated the media. She moved poll numbers favorably

Before people got to know who she was, and the poll numbers shot back down, proving that winning individual weeks is irrelevant except in the context of the final outcome, because all that matters is who gets more votes on election day* not who's more popular in September.

In the midst of the financial crisis last week, it was John McCain's turn to pick up the ball and run with it.

Why? Why didn't Obama have a turn to do so? Is this part of how the game has changed?

He didn't do it very well. He used the Bush administration talking points on Monday: The "all the fundamentals are fine" speech! It was perceived as a disaster.

Other things perceived as disasters:
The last Challenger mission.
The maiden voyage of the Titanic.
Bristol Palin's abstinence education.

The word 'perceived' doesn't really have a place here. It can go chill with all the other verbs we don't need right now. Like 'jigger.'

Barack Obama's response wasn't much better. He took no position but jumped on McCain for saying things were OK.

You see, instead of jumping to the wrong conclusion immediately Obama took time to try and think things through, learn what he could about what was happening, and generally act like a thoughtful and responsible person.

Huge mistake. Remember, what's important is to be perceived as understanding things, even if you don't, and to immediately make a read on the situation even if you don't have one. To quote everyone's favorite hockey mom "Don't blink. Ever."

On Tuesday, McCain switched positions from "no bailouts" to "bailouts are needed." Obama still took no position.

McCain took TWO positions (contradictory though they may have been) before Obama even took one. I think we know who's fit to lead here.

His running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said rich Americans should be patriotic and pay more taxes. A more idiotic statement has never been uttered!

"All the fundamentals of our economy are fine."

First of all, we know Joe Biden's said stupider things because he insulted Ohio State, guaranteeing a McCain victory in Ohio. Secondly, just so I am clear here, a patriot shouts drill baby drill and waves little flags around, and talks a blue streak about how great America is, but under no circumstances considers giving more money to the government despite the fact that we have an unfathomably high deficit and are now spending a trillion dollars to bail out the banks?

Patriot: Empty meaningless gestures.
Non-patriot: Sacrificing for the good of the government and the nation
Black: The color of puffy clouds
White: The color of pitch.

But then he also said last week that people in financial trouble should be able to renegotiate their interest and the principal on their housing loans. The idea of renegotiating how much you borrowed is a novel approach that should thrill the banks.

Seriously. You don't renegotiate. You call your lobbyist and demand a trillion tax dollars to cover your mistakes. That's how the banks do it, that's how Joe Mortgage should do it. Get with the program, dudes. (P.S. If the banks actually did renegotiate they might avoid some foreclosures which cost them much more than the renegotiations would, but they can't renegotiate because they've cut up the mortgages and repackaged them so many times that nobody actually owns them anymore. If only there were some new legislation to deal with this issue and open up communication...)

By Friday, McCain was back against bailouts.

THREE positions in a week. SUCK IT OBAMA!

Obama's position was: I think I am going to support Paulson's bailout, but I am going to wait and see what Bush and the Congress propose before I offer my solutions.

Cautious and thoughtful. WHAT A DISASTER.

There were no profiles in courage last week from the political campaigns.

I think it was pretty courageous of McCain to flip flop so nakedly. Also, apparently choosing to reserve judgment and think through a problem when everyone around you is screaming for immediate solutions is uncourageous.


And maybe a rush to judgment wasn't the best course either.

WHAT? How can you possibly justify that statement.


Congratulations Ed Rollins. You've managed to write a column in which you A) Talk about the horse race instead of the issues and B) Give statements that manage to be both contradictory and cynical while offering absolutely nothing in the way of insightful analysis. This is the sort of drunken old man rant I expect from my Grandpa Lester when he's off his medication.

And from CNN.

*As registered by Diebold brand electronic voting machines. Diebold, because accurate vote counts are BORING.

Tickle Me Glenn

We all know somebody like Glenn Beck. He’s the pill-addicted uncle who you have to watch around the wine at Thanksgiving. He’s the school crossing guard who, if you have the misfortune to be waiting for the light with him, regales you with conspiracy theories and alarmingly racist statements about passing Arabs. He’s the mattress salesman who stands a little too close to you, sweats profusely, and makes inappropriate jokes about the things you’ll be doing in the bed he desperately wants to sell you.

But Beck’s not a crossing guard or a mattress salesman. He’s a talk show host for CNN/Headline News. Sometimes he fills in for Larry King on the main channel. And sometimes Glenn Beck pens columns for CNN.com, offering invaluable insight into what the guy at the bus stop who creeps your girlfriend out by staring at her all the time thinks about the issues of the day. In his latest column Beck:

A) Manages to make the recent U.S. financial meltdown even more confusing and
B) Reaffirms his support of torture by torturing a metaphor to the point where it will tell him whatever he wants it to say so long as he promises to stop hurting it.

Let’s have a look:

"Greed is good."

At least, that's what Michael Douglas' character Gordon Gekko claimed in the movie Wall Street.

In case you’re wondering, Glenn Beck isn’t one of those pinko commie fag lovers who’s destroying America. He loves business and the free market and oil companies and apple pie.

But, just like Gekko, the modern-day companies that followed that motto now find themselves wondering how everything could collapse so fast.

Except when things go bad.

Beck goes on to talk about Wall Street for a little while and relate some of its history, as only Glenn Beck can.

Lehman was founded in 1844 when Henry Lehman, a German immigrant, opened a small shop in Montgomery, Alabama. His brothers joined him six years later and, by 1858 they were busy turning cotton provided by local farmers into a cash crop -- a business that didn't have anything to do with helping low-income families afford 27-bedroom McMansions.

That’s true. There weren’t any McMansions in Alabama in the mid-1800s. All the big houses there were in the middle of beautiful fields of flowing cotton, worked by happy singing employees who all shared one thing in common. They were slaves. Glenn Beck is chiding Lehman Brothers for getting out of the lucrative slave-harvested cotton business and into the risky and immoral mortgages for low-income family business.

Bear Stearns' story is eerily similar. Founded in 1923. Survived every crisis. Never posted a quarterly loss until last year. Gone without a trace.

Two companies in the same industry both did well until they both went under during a crisis that rocked that industry. They're also both pretty old. Eerie.

So how did 235 years of rock-solid American finance disappear virtually overnight? Well, it's not as complicated as you think. If you replace all of the acronyms invented by the brainiacs on Wall Street with references to things that Main Street understands, it becomes a lot easier to see how it all happened. Here's a quick story I invented that does just that.

Glenn Beck is going to put this crisis into terms that Main Street understands. And what does Main Street understand?

It's just before Christmas,1996, and as you watch overeager parents trample each other to buy Tickle Me Elmo dolls for their kids, you see an opportunity.

Tickle Me Elmo.

Not the iPhone not the Nintendo Wii not even those commie hybrid cars with the long waiting lists.

Tickle Me Elmo.

Topical, relevant, and a perfect analogy for complex mortgage derivatives laundered through even more complicated ratings procedures and repackaged as...

Tickle Me Elmo.

This isn't a Tickle Me Elmo bubble," you think to yourself, "this is a long-term trend. Every person in America will soon own a Tickle Me Elmo, maybe even two. It's the American dream."

Glenn Beck you have crawled into my brain circa 1996, captured the exact thoughts I had at the time, and now, 12 years later, you’ve put them out there for the world to see. Bravo sir. Bravo.

You approach your local banker about a loan and, naturally, he loves your idea.

This would happen. If you lived on Sesame Street. And your banker was Cookie Monster. C is for cookie. That's good enough for him. Oscar the Grouch would want to see a long term business plan.

In fact, he loves it so much that for every $1 you have in your account, he's willing to lend you $34. Great deal, you think, as you max out your credit line and buy as many Tickle Me Elmos as you possibly can.

Sales are easy at first. People are lining up to buy your dolls and the prices are going far higher than you ever thought. The only person happier than you is your banker.

Because he's high on chocolaty baked goods.

But the following year something unexpected happens: Kids stop asking for Tickle Me Elmos.

Didn't see that coming. It's only happened with every other fad toy in the history of toy sales. What are the chances it would happen again?

You try to cut the price, but no buyers show up. You cut the price more, but your store remains empty.

Okay. Well presumably I’m prepared for this, since I’ve been selling them like crazy for a year now and presumably I’ve noticed the trending down of demand during the Summer and Autumn months, so I’m prepared, right? I'm cool and relaxed 'cause I've got this covered.

Panic sets in.

Oh.

You're pretty sure that this downturn is just temporary (after all, who wouldn't want a Tickle Me Elmo?) but you're quickly running out of cash. Your only option is to buy time and hope that Tickle Me Elmos start flying off your shelves again.

That doesn’t seem like a very good option.

You visit every bank in town and, using your piles of Tickle Me Elmo dolls as collateral (which, of course, you purchased with money you didn't have) you get as much new capital as possible.

So this bank really is on Sesame Street. Now that I have this capital what am I going to do with it? Invest it in a diversified group of new toys so I’m not so dependent on Elmo demand swings? Put it all towards the new hot toy?

Soon that money is also gone. Even your friends and family refuse to give you any more loans.

What about The Count? He's got some swanky digs. Can he spare a few bucks? One? Two? Three?

At the end of your rope, you go to your town council, which gives you a "bridge loan" to get you through the next few months (something that makes your Furby-selling competitors extremely upset).

I used all my new capital to bribe town council members. Nice. But if I get through the next few months won’t I have bypassed the Christmas sales season altogether and still be stuck with all these Elmos?

Unfortunately, no matter how much you borrow, there's still one nagging little problem: No one wants to buy your stupid Tickle Me Elmo dolls anymore.

Stupid Elmo. It's all your fault!

The longer you wait, the less they're worth. You sell some for pennies on the dollar, but pretty soon you can't even do that. Then things get even worse: News breaks that China is poisoning some Tickle Me Elmos before shipping them to the United States. Now your dolls are not just out of favor, they're toxic. You literally can't even give them away.

CHINA! Those red bastards. Fortunately I can sue the Chinese company that’s poisoning my Elmos, thus saving me from bankruptcy. Right?

Now at this point the Elmo metaphor has been waterboarded, beaten with rubber hoses, and had holes drilled in its joints. It is begging for a swift and merciful end. It’s not even clear whether the Elmos are houses or mortgages or mortgage backed securities or whether Glenn Beck has just forgotten the whole ‘metaphor’ thing and is literally telling the sad story of a simple Tickle Me Elmo salesman who fell on hard times and was preyed upon by malignant Chinese Elmo manufacturers. The Metaphor wants to die. But Glenn Beck doesn’t believe in swift and merciful deaths. He believes in torture.

Soon the rest of your money dries up, as do the people who are willing to lend you any more of it. Now you're out of cash; out of a job, and, if not for the pile of poisonous Tickle Me Elmo dolls in your basement, completely alone -- which sounds kind of like the CEOs of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.

Right. Except that the CEOs of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns are still extremely rich men whose basements contain gold bullion and a spanking bench for naughty hookers. Maybe the Elmos represent the gold. Or the spanking bench. Or the hookers?

Believe it or not, this ridiculous story may be far from reality,

Believe it.

but it's not that far off from describing what these financial and mortgage companies did to themselves.

No. It's very far.

just replace the Tickle Me Elmo references with the once popular, then discounted, now completely toxic subprime mortgages and you're pretty much there.

Sir, you are still on Sesame Street. The actual process of the meltdown has been explained excellently in a number of publications, and it has to do a lot more with bad incentives, dishonest ratings on mortgage backed bonds, low rates of returns on government securities, a swollen supply of investment capital, myths about the housing market, and deregulation than it does with making bad bets on trendy products and Chinese malfeasance. Sorry. Let's get back to Mr. Beck.

When you cut through all the noise about "bridge loans" and "discount windows," what you're left with is the fact that too many companies still own way too many Tickle Me Elmos that no one wants to buy.

So the Elmos are the defaulted mortgages? Or the mortgage backed securities that are now worthless?

Giving those companies more money doesn't solve anything, it just buys time. Unless and until the underlying problem is fixed, no real turnaround can happen.

Right. The underlying problem. The public’s cruel spurning of those delightful Tickle Me Elmo toys. I guess the real culprit isn’t China after all. It’s Japan and its goddamned Pokemons.

But we all know that investors (and elected leaders worried about their careers this November) aren't all that patient.

As opposed to Glenn Beck’s readers, who are willing to slog through pages of babble about Tickle Me Elmo to get to something that looks sort of pointish.

That's why the new chorus you're likely to soon hear will be from people arguing that the only way out of this mess is for the federal government to step in and purchase all of the toxic mortgages themselves.

A) This has already begun, with the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
B) I’m not sure what this has to do with impatience. It’s more about aversion to pain. These problems were not going to work themselves out except through the extremely painful collapse of American financial companies, leading to almost certain recession and possible depression.
C) What happened to Elmo? Why are we talking about mortgages all of a sudden? How did the Chinese sneak poison into our mortgages? Those sneaky fucking Asians.

That would allow the companies with eyes bigger than their balance sheets to start over, with barely any repercussions whatsoever and without ever taking responsibility for their mistakes.

Except that all the shareholders have been wiped out and the companies sold off. I guess that doesn’t count as a repercussion on Sesame Street. Perhaps Beck would have preferred a stern lecture from Big Bird?

Come to think of it, maybe greed isn't so bad after all.


Would the government actually consider that idea? They already are.

You know who likes pronoun/noun agreement? Chinese communists. That's whom.

In fact, the only thing stopping politicians from "rewarding" us with a new government agency that will put billions more of our tax dollars at stake is, ironically enough, the election of new politicians.

I don’t understand this sentence. How would our tax dollars be at stake? Isn’t Beck saying they’d just be given away? And how is electing new politicians stopping them from making bad decisions? And why is it ironic?


Disclaimer: Tickle Me Elmo is still an extremely popular, non-toxic product and, to the best of my knowledge, is not responsible for the credit crisis.

Thanks for clearing that up.

(Note to any Wall Street executives who might be reading this: I know this simple little story isn't perfect,

What? Glenn, don’t be so modest.

but let's remember that you're the ones who tried to make everything complicated

Yeah, you TRIED to make everything complicated, but Glenn Beck just cut through all your math and legal verbiage and eggheadedness with a simple, perfect, metaphor. Your turn, Richard Fuld.

and I'm the one who still has a job.)

Burn. Glenn Beck still has his job. So, Richard Fuld, while you’re relaxing in your mansion with your tens of millions of dollars, know that Glenn Beck is still going to work every day, rain or shine, explaining your misdeeds to the masses in bafflingly incoherent ways, and making sure that angry white men have a voice on CNN, now matter how weird or off the mark that voice may be. Tickle that, Mr. Fuld. Tickle that.