Like Brad Delong's site, but with more liberal use of the F-word and less about the New York Times.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Oh goody, a Krugmalanche
err umm, err, let's keep this under our hats, shall we lads? The Paul Krugman clickstream is a bit notorious for containing quite a few people with rage issues. Don't be surprised if comments temporarily disappear.
can't speak for US law but such clauses in the UK have been treated with extreme scepticism by UK courts in the past 30 years. However...on a matter of 'economic policy' I would suspect that courts would stay the hell away. They would only get involved if there were some procedural problems, eg., blatant bias etc.
OT, but apropos the earlier reference to a 'A few Good Men':
"Son, we live in a world that has bonds and those bonds need to be bought by men with balance sheets. Who's gonna do it? You, you Lieutenant Fuld? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Bear Sterns and curse the short sellers; you have that luxury. You have that luxury of not knowing what I know: that Lehman's death, while tragic, probably saved firms and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves markets. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about it at parties. You want me buying bonds, you need me buying bonds. We use words like TSLF, PDLF, Super SIV. We use them as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick a sub-prime option arm bond and pay par. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
"Would it be legal" is a funny question. It wouldn't be enforced as written -- for an easy example, if the bill passed, and Paulson stood up and said "You know who I hate? Armenians. And you know what I'm really going to enjoy? Not bailing out the First National Armenian-American Credit Union. Those bastards are going down. Look, here's their request for bailout money, and I'm going to rip it up without reading it," he'd be in court for violation of the Equal Protection Clause in thirty seconds, and the quoted language in the bill wouldn't give any court pause about finding against him.
But the presence of the language about unreviewability wouldn't by itself invalidate the rest of the bill, and it would have some effect in increasing judicial deference for the Secretary's decisions.
Fuck. Quite an endorsement.
ReplyDeleteBlimey, this blog really isn't as good as it used to be, is it? Never mind, age of diminished expectations an' all that.
ReplyDeleteDecisions by the Secretary.... may not be reviewed by any court of law
ReplyDeleteAh, I'm not a lawyer, still less someone intimately acquainted with US law, but would such a provision actually be legal?
Cool; will this get you into one of those 'best of the blogs' stocking-fillers?
ReplyDeletecan't speak for US law but such clauses in the UK have been treated with extreme scepticism by UK courts in the past 30 years. However...on a matter of 'economic policy' I would suspect that courts would stay the hell away. They would only get involved if there were some procedural problems, eg., blatant bias etc.
ReplyDeleteOT, but apropos the earlier reference to a 'A few Good Men':
ReplyDelete"Son, we live in a world that has bonds and those bonds need to be bought by men with balance sheets. Who's gonna do it? You, you Lieutenant Fuld? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Bear Sterns and curse the short sellers; you have that luxury. You have that luxury of not knowing what I know: that Lehman's death, while tragic, probably saved firms and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves markets. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about it at parties. You want me buying bonds, you need me buying bonds. We use words like TSLF, PDLF, Super SIV. We use them as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick a sub-prime option arm bond and pay par. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
http://dealbreaker.com/2008/09/still-waiting-for-bud-foxs-two.php
would such a provision actually be legal?
ReplyDelete"Would it be legal" is a funny question. It wouldn't be enforced as written -- for an easy example, if the bill passed, and Paulson stood up and said "You know who I hate? Armenians. And you know what I'm really going to enjoy? Not bailing out the First National Armenian-American Credit Union. Those bastards are going down. Look, here's their request for bailout money, and I'm going to rip it up without reading it," he'd be in court for violation of the Equal Protection Clause in thirty seconds, and the quoted language in the bill wouldn't give any court pause about finding against him.
But the presence of the language about unreviewability wouldn't by itself invalidate the rest of the bill, and it would have some effect in increasing judicial deference for the Secretary's decisions.
Rage issues? What do you mean! You bastard! I'll kill you! I'll kill you filthy!
ReplyDeleteAnd the winner is....
ReplyDelete