Kudos to Bloomberg for keeping their description of Buffett versus Paulson (as it relates to comparative return on investment) rotating - it's been up for a couple news cycles now.
Took a peek however at the video of apologist Robert Altman of Evercore Partners (formerly a deputy secretary at Treasury) entitled 'Roger Altman says comparing Paulson, Buffett isn't fair.'
Isn't fair? Is this the Code Duello for Nancy Capitalism of which he speaks?
His thesis is that Buffett's only goal was a good return on his investment whilst Paulson's was to stabilize the system and that more onerous terms that were more difficult would be detrimental to forestalling a systemic shutdown.
How exactly are fair market terms onerous and difficult?
How exactly are methods of remediation received far into the future germane to imminent systemic shutdown?
There was clearly a difference between Buffett and Paulson's investment terms however, with Paulson the insolvent banksters had no choice; they were in no position to negotiate.
The mind-blogging bankrupt ideology that parrots 'it was different this time' fails to recognize that future historians can always provide the proper context.
The opinion coming in is that the Obama stimulus program won't be sufficient. My thoughts are that they fear losing control of their monetary policy.
Sure would of been nice if we could have kept some powder dry, eh?
Policy of, for and by the banksters though necessitates proclaiming liquidity duress instead of insolvency. By the time we get around to exorcising toxic securities the only way we'll be able to ascribe value to them is nominally.
Hard to value is simply hard to accept the real price (I'm sure folks would like to sell their 2000-circa Cisco stock also) - such nonsense becomes harder to swallow with each passing day.