I’m reserving judgment until this week when the full details of the plan emerge.
In the meantime- you can check out Brad DeLong’s blog for a question and answer on the plan. (h/t Huffington Post)
Ultimately, DeLong markets the plan as the treasury’s attempt to combat unemployment.
“Q: How does having the U.S. government invest $1 trillion in the world’s largest hedge fund operations reduce unemployment?
A: At the moment, those businesses that ought to be expanding and hiring cannot profitably expand and hire because the terms on which they can finance expansion are so lousy. The terms on which they can finance expansion are so lazy because existing financial asset prices are so low. Existing financial asset prices are so low because risk and information discounts have soared. Risk and information discounts have collapsed because the supply of assets is high and the tolerance of financial intermediaries for holding assets that are risky or that might have information-revelation problems are low.
Q: So?
A: So if we are going to boost asset prices to levels at which those firms that ought to be expanding can get finance, we are going to have to shrink the supply of risky assets that our private-sector financial intermediaries have to hold. The government buys up $1 trillion of financial assets, and lo and behold the private sector has to hold $1 trillion less of risky and information-impacted assets. Their price goes up. Supply and demand.”
[...] sara placed an observative post today on More on the Banking Proposal | Sara Haile-MariamHere’s a quick excerptA: At the moment, those businesses that ought to be expanding and hiring cannot profitably expand and hire because the terms on which they can finance expansion are so lousy. The terms on which they can finance expansion are so lazy … [...]