ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Less than the Least

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Academic

: Less than the Least

A Too-Transparent Treasury--Skeel

By David Skeel and Bill Stuntz

ADVERTISEMENTS

In their handling of the credit crisis, the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve have repeatedly been criticized for their lack of transparency. The decisions as to which financial institutions to bail out have been made behind closed doors, the complaint goes, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's original plan for the $700 billion bailout was only three vaguely-worded pages long. But I wonder if this criticism isn't exactly backwards. It seems to me that the Fed and Treasury have been too transparent, and that this could be contributing to the crisis.

Take the bailout of Bear Stearns in March and the decision not to bail out Lehman Brothers six months later.

The decision to let Lehman fail is now widely criticized, and a standard criticism is that the Fed and Treasury sent mixed signals about what they were going to do- that is, they weren't transparent enough. But it seems to me more accurate to say that the Treasury and Fed had sent very clear signals- they had signaled that they would bail out major investment banks that threatened to fail. The biggest problem was that they made the implicit promise, then violated it, taking everyone by surprise.

The $700 billion bailout is a still more troubling illustration. Initially, the Treasury very clearly announced that the government would spend the money buying mortgage related securities from banks and other financial institutions. Treasury then changed its mind and decided to invest directly in banks, and this week has proposed to support consumer borrowing. With each shift, investors have panicked, concluding that each of the Treasury's plans has been a failure and that the shifts mean that Treasury is going back to the drawing board.

If the Treasury didn't feel the need to announce in advance precisely what it planned to do, there might be more flexibility and less of a sense that each shift in focus reflects a failure of the earlier plan. The markets might not be quite so volatile, in other words, and the government might be making more progress on addressing the crisis, if it weren't forced to be quite so transparent.

Full post as published by Less than the Least on November 14, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 10/31/26 08:37:57)