Comments
Headline skimmers would get a very different picture of what happened yesterday depending on what paper they happen to pick up:
WaPo is the major outlier here and probably gets it closest to right.
Categories
Tags
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.
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.
