I was very dismayed upon hearing this. Keeping info from the public out of national security concerns is one thing. This does not seem to rise to that level and is prone to corruption. Everyone should speak out about this. Hopefully the President-elect and the new Congress will have something to say.

How do you respond to their argument that releasing the details about who got the money and who didn't would lead to runs on the banks that didn't get the money thereby sealing their precarious fate? That sounded reasonable to me - although I think they can tell us the who-gots w/o telling us the who-didn'ts.

I also heard a Treasury spokesperson say that they can't release the criteria they use to determine who gets what b/c it would let people game the process (or something). I didn't understand that so much - but I've never had a criminal mind.

At the very least aren't the taxpaying public entitled to know the salary and bonus structures of these institutions we now reluctantly own a piece
of ?

Dean,

Isn't the entire Federal government a classic example of crony capitalism?

The financial system bailout (including its faux attack on executive compensation and under-the-counter tax break) is the best example of crony capitalism I can imagine.

Defense contracting (and GSA contracting for that matter) is a prime example of day-to-day crony capitalism.

The revolving doors between the congressional office buildings and K Street lobbying firms and the practice of "earmarks" insure that crony capitalism is self-perpetuating.

Your observation is correct, but like the lookout on the Titanic, you have spotted only the tip of the iceberg.

Those high finance and banking people look to me like members of a secret brotherhood helping each other with the omerta as a rule.

But they do it with money that are not theirs.

I don't think this will change with Obama new financial team.

Why do economists and economic columnists speak as though honor and a sense of noblesse oblige were the driving forces behind our political leaders? That may have been true when the nation was run by the old-money nobility, but that era is long past.

I do not know Mr. Bernanke or Secretary Paulson. I have no reason to malign their characters. But personal control of hundreds of billions of taxpayer is a great temptation. I have no reason, either, to expect them to resist helping their friends. That they would prefer to do so outside the glare of publicity should hardly surprise us.

Why, too, do economists and their media cousins speak as though economic incentives work at the institutional level? That may have been true when the institutions were run by those who actually owned them, but that era, too, is long past. Like evolutionary survival, economic incentives work at the individual level.

Can you name a single executive who personally lost everything when the plane he or she was piloting hit the ground? I doubt even that their reputations were much harmed among their peers. Yet the media seem shocked, shocked I tell you, that there was gambling going on.

bill turner: Hopefully the President-elect and the new Congress will have something to say.

"Thank you sir, may I have another."

Mr. Baker,

I'd like to hear your thoughts on Neel Kashkari's talk at the Wharton Finance Conference (http://www.inpaulsonwetrust.com/2008/11/neel-kashkari-wharton-finance-conference/)

Thanks

Talk about cronism! Dean's about to go on the Diane Rehm show for the fifth time this year? Or the second?

It is always fun to hear him rip into whichever institution crosses his mind at the moment, one of NPR's most interesting guests. (Disraeli was pretty good back when he talked to Ms. Rehm in 1871 as well.)

Anyway, give 'em damnation, Dean.

I forget how this dot com internet craziness works...
ah, yes...

www.drshow.org

Everyone drink some Ale every time Dean says, "I saw this coming way back in 1968!"

"The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return."

Dean, why is the figure suddenly 2 trillion? Was the Congress act, restricted to $700B, a sham from the beginning? Are they printing money by the trillions without needing approval, and without anybody even asking questions? The failure of oversight (both political and media wise) is breathtaking. That Bernanke and Paulson are crony capitalists should surprise no one but what is going on here is far more profound than that.

All of these noises are misplaced including Dean (I think and hope). So stop screaming unless you know more specific details.

Regulators have written selection criteria (though not shared with public--true). Their decisions and the whole program will be scrutinized by a separate dept., Inspector General, and GAO.

I forgot--sometime people including folks in this blog (like Baker) love to scream first.

Do you have the articles when IMF & economists actually criticized the East Asians? Thank you.

A parallel concern is that AIG now seems like it is primarily a pass-thru for federal aid money. Not enough questions are being asked about where the money is ending up. While it is important to honor insurance contracts, to mindlessly pour public money into these assurances without determining the value to the boarder good seems like a rip-off of the Treasury.

It is disconcerting that one of the primary agents making AIG collateral calls is Goldman Sacks. It is troubling that Secretary Paulsen allows Lehman to fail, and yet then allows Goldman to receive backdoor assets through AIG. Not only is the whole affair not benefiting Main street, it seems to be playing favorites among Wall street?

You can't have crony capitalism, only crony statism.

Late as usual, but John Henson said something that needs to be repeated a lot.

"Why, too, do economists and their media cousins speak as though economic incentives work at the institutional level? That may have been true when the institutions were run by those who actually owned them, but that era, too, is long past. Like evolutionary survival, economic incentives work at the individual level."