B of A Forced to Merge with Merrill

Much more than a hat tip to Karl Denninger for this. This is what we get from our leaders, who pretend to be free market capitalists, all the while embracing only the bad parts of Marxist Theory, turning them inside out, and berating those who cry foul. All through the teachings of John Maynard Keynes.

Oh, and for those that are clueless, I am not talking about Democrats!

Bank Of America was forced to merge with Merill Lynch.

"Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke forcefully urged Mr. Lewis not to walk away, praising the bank's earlier cooperation -- but warning that abandoning the deal would be a death sentence for Merrill. They said the move also could undercut confidence in Bank of America, both in the markets and among government officials. Despite the blunt talk, Bank of America executives interpreted the comments as a signal that the government was willing to work out a compromise.'

"Two days later, in a follow-up conference call, federal officials struck a harder tone. Mr. Bernanke said Bank of America had no justification for ditching Merrill, according to people who heard the remarks. A Federal Reserve official warned that if Mr. Lewis did so and needed more government money down the road, Bank of America could expect regulators to think hard about their confidence in management. Mr. Lewis was told that the government would consider ousting executives and directors, people close to the bank say."

"A month later, Mr. Lewis was at the Treasury Department along with eight other chief executives of large U.S. financial institutions, summoned there by Mr. Paulson. The Treasury secretary wanted the executives to accept a round of government capital totaling $125 billion as a way of shoring up confidence in the banking system.'

"Mr. Paulson explained that saying no wasn't an option, according to a person who attended the meeting."

Nice job on reporting WSJ, after the fact. What, did the previous administration threaten you about going public in time to warn the BAC stockholders? Don't get me wrong, I made money on BAC, buying put options when they were at $32. I knew, Karl knew, so did thousands of others.

Not to leave other media out. Where were the pretenders of CNBC? They were too busy lying to us about how "fundamentally sound" the merger was. How about the NYTimes? Or the Charlotte Observer? It is your community that relies on BAC to be around two years from now.

Cowards. All of them.

80% of all national advertising comes from a handful of very powerful global corporations. What media outlets there are that MIGHT have an inkling to print or say something the advertisers do not wish to be aired, run the risk of losing that advertising, thus their ability to be open for business tomorrow. So, for the sake of expediency, and self preservation, they acquiesce.

Liberal media, my ass. It's a phrase that is used beyond abuse. Not that I agreed with their every view, but most liberals I know that worked for large newspapers left years ago. Why? Because they morally and ethically disagreed with marching orders the publishers were handing down. They were less and less able to write their own point of view, and felt FREE SPEECH was being trampled. Now, many of them have fractions of the audience they once reached, being relegated to who may click on the website they now write for.

The people that are left in the editorial departments either cower in their seats or agree that the message needs to be controlled.

The downfall of newspapers is, of course, due to so many alternatives for news. Yet, how can you measure the fact that the decline of editorial intellectualism will force those hungry for REAL stimulation to go elsewhere?

Now, we get Brittany, Paris and Ann Coulter. Yeah, that bastion of deep intellectual discourse Ann Coulter. The Aryans love her, I know that much.

Karl continues;

"What sort of country do we live in here? Is this a capitalist system or is it a communist one? Do we have a rule of law? Are regulations transparent, clean, and above-board, or have we become a command economy worse than the former USSR in which private property is literally destroyed and seized by individual decree without one scintilla of legislative support?"
"Yes, I understand that banking is a regulated industry, as it should be. But since when does that regulation extend to making decisions in secret, screwing shareholders by concealing material information on the firm's (and an acquiree firm's) health and then forcing an apparently-healthy firm (at the time anyway) to acquire one that, it appears, had undisclosed losses at the time the merger was contemplated?"

I'd like an answer to that.

President Obama has quietly realized he has inherited a catastrophe. Yet, the powerful still have his ear, and will effectively diminish any real change. His nominees? Four of them now that illegally avoided paying taxes. One embroiled in a pay to play bond scam, and now this:

"Yesterday, in testimony before the Congress, Mr. Markopolos tore the SEC to pieces, effectively accusing them of being both incompetent and "bought off" at the same time. These are the people who are supposed to look out for the rules - for the investor and the common man - so that swindles and frauds don't go on without detection and punishment. One of the best quotes from that testimony was:

"Asked by a committee member to compare the two agencies failings, Markopolos said, "I never thought the SEC was corrupt... FINRA is definitely in bed with the industry." Asked later by Rep. Kanjorski about those comments as well as which one Markopolos thought was better, "a corrupt regulator or an incompetent one," Markopolos answered, "I'd give the SEC an A+ for incompetence and FINRA an A+ for corruption."

"That's special. Let's not forget that Ms. Shapiro, who ran FINRA, is President Obama's nominee for head of the SEC. We are thus, from Markopolos' point of view, replacing an incompetent regulatory chief with a corrupt one. That's JUST what we need."

And here we are, searching the interwebs for a little honest discussion.