antiquary

The Fine Line Between Profits and Theft

This line looks about as fine as a two-by-four. It's more like "The Intentionally, Profitably Blurred Line Between Profits and Theft."

Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

Doubleguns, contracts have been breakable for centuries, contrary to your statement, and many economists argue that they should be if that's the economically sensible thing to do. Our bankruptcy laws have reflected that for centuries, too. It's neither anyone's business nor their duty to validate or even respect anyone else's unilateral expectations, in or out of business. You pays your money and you takes your chances. The old fishing adage comes to mind-- "that's why it's called fishing, not catching."

The Virtue of the Republic

"So essentially, by artificially lowering the price of capital (interest rates) supply dries up, as it does in every market where price fixing is allowed. If you can't earn a decent return on your money, why would you take it out of your wallet?"

The posit you take as granted is that the ceiling set by the Fed is below a decent return. This is not necessarily true; what a "decent return" is will depend on what the alternatives are in the current economy. The general level of paranoia is not a legitimate factor. I think the way you get banks to lend is by showing them that they're being outcompeted by other people or entities who are lending, even if that has to be the Federal government for a time to prime the pump.

Sorkin's Questions to Bank CEOs, Answered

"Pandit has no moral obligation to buy stock in an insolvent bank just because he's its CEO."

And it shouldn't raise eyebrows if a newly hired chef is never seen eating his own cooking.