September 20, 2008
Who Will Finance Paulson's Plan?
The Secretary of the Treasury is asking Congress for a blank check of $700,000,000,000.00 to buy up Residential and Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities of dubious value on whatever terms he wishes.
The biggest obscenity in the presented proposal is this:
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
I will have to more to say about the type of this bailout later on. For now only one point that is independent of the type of bailout.
Who will finance this?
Paulson also wants to lift the US national debt ceiling to $11,315,000,000,000.00. (When Bush took office, the U.S. federal debt was some $5.6 trillion and on a downtrend.) The U.S. GDP is roughly 13.5 trillion so the US government debt at that ceiling will be some 83% of US GDP. In international ranking that puts the U.S. debt to GDP ratio somewhere between Cote d'Ivoire and Sri Lanka. Still excludes from that calculation are several trillions of liabilities of Fannie & Freddie and AIG the U.S. government recently took over.
Japan is of course still worse off with a debt to GDP ratio of nearly 200%. But most of Japan's debt is held at home as Japan is a nation of savers and has a positive currency account. It exports more than it imports. Over the last years the U.S. has imported a lot more than it exported and needs some $500 billion per year from foreigners to finance that habit. The U.S. national saving rate is somewhere near zero. It therefore needs foreigners to lend the money of any deficit.
Now Paulson wants $700 billion in emergency finance from where?
Who in this world can and will lend $700 billion for an emergency plan when the total lending to the U.S. in one year is only about $500 billion?
Did Paulson talk with China, Russia and the Saudis about this?
With this new debt
and debt to GDP ratio the U.S. does no longer deserve an AAA rating. That will have to be cut
down two or three notches.
Any future lenders will therefore ask for higher interest
rates. Will they have additional conditions on top of those?
To create some emergency plan is one effort. To find the money to proceed with it is a different point. I have yet to see the second issue discussed in any serious way. But some thoughts must go into that.
What do you think.
Who will finance Paulson's plan (or any other plan of this size) and under what conditions?
Posted by b on September 20, 2008 at 01:40 PM | Permalink
Who will finance it? That's a good question. One possible answer is the Chinese, along with anyone else. However, what will they want in return? By now they have all the Treasury notes they need. They will want to spend them on something.
Remember China's attempt to buy Unical a few years ago and the severe opposition in return? How about the Dubai Ports world scandal? Well, now there may not be so much shouting. The Chinese will buy the debt on condition they can use it to buy America's valuable assets. In other words, all those treasury notes the U.S. has sent abroad...are coming home to roost. The 5% limit on foreign ownership of "strategic" assets will have to be reviewed. The Chinese may save the banks. As long as they get to keep them.
That will be a bitter pill to swallow. But I don't see Paulson getting a better offer.
Then again, there is always the Gutenberg solution.
Posted by: Lysander | Sep 20, 2008 2:03:47 PM | 2
Who will finance Paulson's plan (or any other plan of this size) and under what conditions?
Now the answer to this one is easy: The printing press, with no strings attached.
... weeeelll ... except that the dollars value will plummet ... except that nobody will lend the US anything at all any more (because the dollar's value goes down) .. and US voters will get pissed because they cannot affort imported goods like about half their gas any more. But with any luck this wil be after the election.
Posted by: No So Ana | Sep 20, 2008 2:05:02 PM | 3
"Who will finance Paulson's plan (or any other plan of this size) and under what conditions?"
That's pretty easy. The Democrats, of course. They control Congress and are as corrupt as any organization in human history. And they are controlled by lawyers which means they will entirely disregard the law. They'll do anything the corporates tell them to do, without any questions. Anyone who's ever taken an American history class knows this.
Posted by: mike | Sep 20, 2008 2:28:21 PM | 4
Though I am no financier, I would have thought the question could do with being more precise. What are the options? Borrowing through the issue of bonds - Lysander @2 asks that one. Printing more money, and devaluing the dollar - No So Ana @3 asks that. Are there others? Not all the 700 billion will be needed at one time, presumably there will be some offsets - recuperation, for example, from assets that didn't prove to be quite so toxic as supposed. After all, the whole point here is that nobody knows quite how toxic the assets are, as a result of bundling up. They must be calculating that a fair proportion of the toxic assets will in fact pay up.
Posted by: Alex | Sep 20, 2008 2:30:25 PM | 5
Not all the 700 billion will be needed at one time, presumably there will be some offsets - recuperation, for example, from assets that didn't prove to be quite so toxic as supposed.
The Paulson plan is different. The ceiling is $700 billion. If stuff is sold off, new stuff can be bought up.
As of toxic - at what price will Paulson by those MBS.
If he buys them at a somewhat realistic price he will pay some 20-40 cent on a nominal dollar of the MBS face value. The Banks will then have to carry those losses and will be bankrupt.
If Paulson buys the stuff for a unrealistic 60-80 cent value, nearly all the losses will have to be carried by the taxpayer WITHOUT any upside. That is, I believe the real plan. The shareholders of those banks would be spared further losses.
The plan is sold as solving a liquidity problem. The problem is not liquidity, the problem is solvency or rather insolvency of the banks.
On could argue for a plan to buy up those MBS at realistic prices and provide fresh capital to the banks which they will need after the write down. The taxpayer would the be getting preferred shares of those banks. That of course would hurt the shareholders of those banks and be fair to taxpayers.
Posted by: b | Sep 20, 2008 2:42:46 PM | 6
Well.....the most obvious solution would be for Bush, with Commissar Paulson's bazooka pointed at his head, to announce, wearing the necessary shit-eating grin as he delivers the news, the repeal of his tax cuts plus whatever additional taxation measures were required to keep the plan revenue neutral. This would be a "reasonable" concession for the Democrats to insist on in exchange for swift passage - after all, the Bush admin-Wall Street combo did just manage to break the $US financial system.
However, First Secretary of the Treasury, Commissar Paulson, has put forth enabling legislation that authorises an increase in the debt limit to cover the cost, which suggests that there's no intention to make anyone actually pay for this; so free money and ponies all round to Wall Street execs! Hooray!
Posted by: dan | Sep 20, 2008 2:47:00 PM | 7
There are a few obvious traps in the legislative proposal. One glaring trap is that it allows for the banks to swap commercial paper for cash. I don't know what the residual value of an untenanted shopping mall is going to be - but my guess would be that there's actually a holding cost to it until the structure decays to the point that all that's left is a tiny land value ( demolition ain't free ).
What will US financial institutions do - well, they're gonna get rid of the most toxic paper first - some of this stuff has either negative or zero value ( ie the underlying assets are actually a cash-drain, or are fated to be ploughed back into the earth with just a marginal - 1/2c on the dollar - land value remaining ).
So the first what, hundred billion dollars, maybe two hundred billion dollars, maybe 500 hundred billion dollars is going to be UTTERLY worthless.
Posted by: dan | Sep 20, 2008 2:55:50 PM | 8
Who will finance Paulson's plan or any other plan of this size
Presumably the same sources who have coughed up the $10 trillion that is currently owed by the US treasury. Keeping in mind that this ridiculous number has accumulated over decades, the main sources are loans from government internal social security trust funds (the funds that are meant to be set aside to finance the retiring baby boomers, and will be sorely missed once the now 50 something age bracket reaches retirement age), or foreign central banks, in particular Japan and China, and better not forget the countries supplying oil to the States, who would also have their fair share of T Bills and bonds.
For years and years the US gov has financed its operations by borrowing left, right and centre, producing one deficit after another. In order to be afforded a huge credit account like that, you gotta be one hell of a big spending customer, and that’s exactly what the US government has become - the biggest global customer with a nearly maxed out credit card. Short sighted in almost every step it does, be that foreign policy or budgetary matters.
Borrowing money so that you can cut taxes and stimulate the economy works for a brief period of time, builds up a bubble which then collapses. In the meantime, the interest payments have risen sharply and creditors start knocking on the door. More debts need to be made, more interest needs to be paid, the vicious circle has started.
The current loss of faith in US financial institutions means the USA’s status of safe haven for surplus funds is kaput. Add to that the fact that more and more creditor nations invest their surplus funds into their own national projects, and its probably fair to make the assumption that in order to attract foreign capital interest rates will have to go up.
Less foreign investment translates to less demand for US dollars, which again implies that the currency will fall. A falling US dollar in turn means even less demand for US treasuries, and on the spiral goes.
You can trust the figures on the liabilities side of the balance sheet, it’s the assets that are overstated. And just by how much asset values are unrealistically inflated is one of the crucial questions any potential investors will ask themselves, and an evaluation done today would produce widely different numbers to one from say as recent as 3 years ago. Since the US treasury has now taken on even the crappiest of securities, its balance sheet looks mighty weak. And also, lets not forget that whilst the US government debt is about $10 trillion, the total US debt of business, households and government combined is $50 trillion, more than three times the GDP.
So, how to pay off this immense sum? Two ways, either earn more or save more. Tax increases or cut in government services. My guess is there will be both.
Posted by: Juan Moment | Sep 20, 2008 3:09:50 PM | 9
b @ 6. The Paulson plan is different. The ceiling is $700 billion. If stuff is sold off, new stuff can be bought up. That's not very different from what I was saying.
The question at what price the toxic assets are bought. I would have thought that if the assets are bought at a low price, the political effect will be lost. If major losses are imposed, we will see more bankrupt banks, and the intention is to avoid that. So the price will be close to the face value.
Posted by: Alex | Sep 20, 2008 3:23:28 PM | 10
Seems to me the money comes from inflation = printing more $$, cheapening every dollar out there by a percentage
Posted by: whenwego | Sep 20, 2008 4:07:22 PM | 11
Our children, and their children, and their children.
Really, compared to this 'plan,' a complete collapse looks like a good deal.
Posted by: Li | Sep 20, 2008 4:26:47 PM | 12
"The problems cannot be resolved by shifting the debts of the banks onto the taxpayer. That's an illusion. By adding another $1 or $2 trillion dollars to the National Debt, Paulson is just ensuring that interest rates will go up, real estate will crash, unemployment will soar, and foreign central banks will abandon the dollar. In truth, there is no fix for a deleveraging market anymore than there is a fix for gravity. The belief that massive debts and insolvency can be erased by increasing liquidity just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. That's why Henry Paulson is the worst possible person to be orchestrating the so called rescue project. Paulson comes from a business culture which rewards deception, personal acquisitiveness, and extreme risk-taking. Paulson is to finance capitalism what Rumsfeld is to military strategy. His leadership, and the congress' pathetic abdication of responsibility, assures disaster. Besides, why should the taxpayers be happy that the stocks of Morgan Stanley, Washington Mutual and Goldman Sachs surged on the news that there would be a government bailout yesterday? These banks are essentially bankrupt and their business models are broken. Keeping insolvent banks on life support is not a rescue plan; it's insanity."
mike whitney - counterpunch
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 20, 2008 5:24:19 PM | 13
"Sadly and unsurprisingly the story is an old an familiar one: Government socializing costs and risk while securing the outlandish private profits of society’s greediest people. There’s nothing new here.
The more interesting question is whether we are at a point in our rather lamentable and bloody history when the usual tricks may no longer work. In a country that no longer manufactures much except weapons of war, or cultural weapons of mass distraction, kept afloat mainly by massive infusions of foreign capital, with a domestic / domesticated population famously dependent on “credit” and buried in personal debt, are we approaching the End of Something"
richard rhames - counterpunch
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 20, 2008 5:29:25 PM | 14
"These billions of dollars were devoted to keeping a dream alive – the accounting fictions written down by companies that had entered an unreal world based on false accounting that nearly everyone in the financial sector knew to be fake. But they played along with buying and selling packaged mortgage junk because that was where the money was. Even after markets collapse, fund managers who steered clear were blamed for not playing the game while it was going. I have friends on Wall Street who were fired for not matching the returns that their compatriots were making. And the biggest returns were to be made in trading in the economy’s largest financial asset – mortgage debt. The mortgages packaged, owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie alone exceeded the entire U.S. national debt – the cumulative deficits run up by the American Government since the nation won the Revolutionary War!
This gives an idea of just how large the bailout has been – and where the government’s (or at least the Republicans’) priorities lie! Instead of waking up the economy to reality, the government has thrown all its resources to promote the unreal dream that debts can be paid – if not by the debtors themselves, then by the government – “taxpayers,” as the euphemism goes.
Overnight, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve have radically changed the character of American capitalism. It is nothing less than a coup d’êtat for the class that FDR called “banksters.” What has happened in the past two weeks threatens to change the coming century – irreversibly, if they can get away with it. This is the largest and most inequitable transfer of wealth since the land giveaways to the railroad barons during the Civil War era."
one of many good pieces at counterpunch
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 20, 2008 5:35:57 PM | 15
Grand theft in plain sight. Jeezus H. Christ.
Is there no voice of clarity?
No sound of alarm?
My god, where are the American voices of reason?
Who will save the republic? Denounce the traitors? Prosecute the criminals?
Posted by: Hamburger | Sep 20, 2008 5:38:27 PM | 16
I don't think Paulson can just ramp up the printing presses. Foreign underwriters have already seen the value of their mostly dollar denominated investments plummet, and they need to avoid a catastrophic loss of face at home, which would happen if they were left holding the bag. That would happen if the US went into a rapid inflation/rapid currency devaluation mode.
Policy prescriptions are relatively few, and the IMF used them savagely against Russia, Venezuela, Thailand, etc. They include depreciation of the currency, which won't be allowed by the creditors; sell off of American industries to shore up the dollar (a 51% share in the top 20 US corporations requires to less than $2 Trillion); cutting expenses ("defense" is at least half of federal operating expenditures), and raising interest rates to cover the additional risk.
Look for dramatic changes--but not until at least after the November election.
Posted by: JohnH | Sep 20, 2008 6:12:06 PM | 17
Oh, I forgot to mention another way. Remember Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security? Kiss all that goodbye. All of a sudden, trillions of dollars just opened up. Problem solved.
But how can it be sold to the public? The thin veil of democracy is coming off now that it's no longer needed. In the new order, the government (federal reserve) does what it pleases. The law is there only to keep the masses in line.
Quod Licit Jovi...Non licit bovi. And we are the bovi, of that you can be sure.
Posted by: Lysander | Sep 20, 2008 6:36:30 PM | 18
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Quotation from a NYTimes article quoted by P Lang. You can read the whole paper in Calculated Risk.
P Lang ponders whether the Supreme Court will take lightly such ukase. Despotism is not around the corner it is facing us. Do you notice that we are never called citizens but merely tax payers. In this manner the notion that citizens have a voice in governing themselves is obliterated.
Posted by: jlcg | Sep 20, 2008 7:55:51 PM | 19
Pull your 401(k)!
[fx: WTC7 falling at gravitas speed]
[sfx: "Oh, the humanity, the humanity!"]
[super: "Big Brother" Apple commercial 1984]
It's been 84 years, and I can still smell the fresh paint.
The china had never been used. The sheets had never been
slept in. Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was.
Posted by: Gee Haw | Sep 20, 2008 8:30:54 PM | 20
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
According to Wikiquote and some others Abraham Lincoln did not write this. This guy says there is a reliable provenance for the quotation.
Either way, it's damn true.
Posted by: Cloud | Sep 20, 2008 9:02:06 PM | 21
Japan is of course still worse off with a debt to GDP ratio of nearly 200%. But most of Japan's debt is held at home as Japan is a nation of savers and has a positive currency account.
There is another aspect to this. Japan's government has enormous assets. I think some of the Japanese government debt is held by the government itself for reasons which I don't understand. The 200% figure is something that free marketers like to quote when trying to paint the Japanese economy as a basket case. The real position should (as always) be based on "net debt" which I think is more like 80-90% of GDP. Figures are hard to come by as western sources tend to be market fundamentalist and don't like quoting a number which makes Japan look good. So the US will probably be worse off than Japan. Also I would rather have lots of assets and lots of debt like the Japanese than lots of debts and no assets like the Americans.
I have heard it reported that Japan's economic numbers are deliberately made to look worse than they are by the Japanese to keep the heat off protectionist sentiment in the US. But if you look at GDP growth per person Japan is still doing fine. More importantly if you speak to peole who have lived in Japan they will tell you that the idea that Japan is in some sort of econmic basket case situation is laughable.
Posted by: swio | Sep 21, 2008 2:07:59 AM | 22
Organized mortgage fraud in Britain - there is still a lot of this that will have to be detected in Britain, the U.S. and Spain: Wall Street worries the crisis is not yet over
As calls intensified for Gordon Brown to follow up on his promise to 'clean up' the City with concrete plans for stricter legislation, details emerged of widespread fraud among some of Britain's biggest lenders. Ten banks and building societies have called in the police to investigate systemic and sophisticated mortgage fraud worth more than £60m, The Observer has discovered.
Bradford & Bingley alone has written off £15m to criminal gangs who organised frauds involving applications from dishonest or bogus borrowers. Police believe a number of shady brokers and solicitors overstated the value of a large number of houses. The disclosure will raise fears that there are other multi-million pound losses from mortgage fraud yet to be declared by banks and building societies which could affect their stability and balance sheets.
A spokesman for the Financial Services Authority, the City's watchdog, confirmed that it is investigating around 300 cases of suspected mortgage fraud. Of those, at least 10, each worth at least £5m, have been referred to the police.
Details of one of the frauds have been leaked to The Observer. Bradford & Bingley was stung by a £15m mortgage fraud centred on newly built properties in Surrey, Hampshire and East Sussex. Hundreds of buy-to-let mortgage applications were submitted by a single gang between 2004 and 2007 from fake borrowers and dishonest appraisers.
A source close to the bank said its executives were horrified to learn of the fraud at the beginning of this year. 'It was well organised and involved a large number of people. The scam involved newly-built estates and multiple applications for mortgages from "straw borrowers". The gang worked with solicitors, surveyors and estate agents who knew exactly what was going on. It slipped through at a time when staff were still being encouraged to sign off buy-to-let mortgages.'
Posted by: b | Sep 21, 2008 4:36:47 AM | 23
#16"Grand theft in plain sight. Jeezus H. Christ.
Is there no voice of clarity? No sound of alarm?
My god, where are the American voices of reason?
Who will save the republic? Denounce the traitors? Prosecute the criminals? I despair."
Don't despair. Support and Vote Obama
Posted by: waldo | Sep 21, 2008 5:24:52 AM | 24
I have heard it reported that Japan's economic numbers are deliberately made to look worse than they are by the Japanese to keep the heat off protectionist sentiment in the US.
swio, meet Elaine
Posted by: DM | Sep 21, 2008 5:33:14 AM | 25
waldo, fuck off.
Posted by: DM | Sep 21, 2008 5:34:12 AM | 26
I think we'll be hearing about Sec.8.review for a while to come.
Posted by: DM | Sep 21, 2008 5:44:22 AM | 27
Where's Billmon on all this???????
Posted by: anna missed | Sep 21, 2008 5:50:32 AM | 28
Krugman provides an answer, sort of, to my question:
Where will the money for the big bailout come from? I keep being asked that. In the long run, of course, it will come from you — the taxpayer. But what about the immediate cash flow?
The answer, if you think it through, is that it doesn’t have to come from anywhere. Ultimately, the Paulson Plan will move money in a circle.
Think about what’s been happening in the markets. The public basically wants out of the private financial system and into Treasuries. But the financial system has been unable to meet that demand, because it can’t sell off toxic paper. Now, under the Paulson plan, the Treasury will buy the toxic paper, which will give the financial sector the funds to pay off debtors, who will use the funds to buy the Treasuries the feds will have to issue to finance the toxic-paper purchases.
Big unanswered question: Who is 'the public' (it's China, and the Gulf) and what are there conditions.
Posted by: b | Sep 21, 2008 6:06:01 AM | 29
DM, what Waldo means is
Swallow your vomit and vote for Obama
Posted by: Tantalus | Sep 21, 2008 8:20:29 AM | 30
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writers
Sat Sep 20, 7:52 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration asked Congress on Saturday for the power to buy $700 billion in toxic assets clogging the financial system and threatening the economy as negotiations began on the largest bailout since the Great Depression.
...The proposal is a mere three pages long, but it gives sweeping powers to the government to dispense gigantic sums of taxpayer dollars in a program that would be sheltered from court review.
...Lawmakers digesting the eye-popping cost and searching for specifics voiced concerns that the proposal offers no help for struggling homeowners or safeguards for taxpayers' money.
...Bush said he worried the financial troubles "could ripple throughout" the economy and affect average citizens. "The risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package. ... Over time, we're going to get a lot of the money back."
He added, "People are beginning to doubt our system, people were losing confidence and I understand it's important to have confidence in our financial system."
...Neither presidential candidate took a position on the proposal. GOP nominee John McCain said he was awaiting specifics and any changes by Congress.
Democratic rival Barack Obama used the party's weekly radio address to call for help for Main Street as well as Wall Street.
...Besides mortgage help and executive compensation limits, Democrats are considering attaching middle-class assistance to the legislation despite a request from Bush to avoid adding items that could delay action. An expansion of jobless benefits was one possibility.
Bush sidestepped questions about the chances of adding such items, saying that now was not the time for posturing. "I think most leaders would understand we need to get this done quickly, and you know, the cleaner the better," he said about legislation being drafted.
...The proposal does not require that the government receive anything from banks in return for unloading their bad assets. But it would allow Treasury to designate financial institutions as "agents of the government," and mandate that they perform any "reasonable duties" that might entail.
Posted by: vbo | Sep 21, 2008 8:32:06 AM | 31
El Presidente Jorge Busche in his element... Fuckin clueless.
Posted by: vbo | Sep 21, 2008 8:35:50 AM | 32
Behind Closed Doors, Warnings of Calamity
...the Congressional leadership had just received the sobering news Thursday night that America’s economy remained in peril despite a series of sudden interventions by the Federal Reserve.
...Then the other shoe dropped. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. told top members of both parties — about to leave Washington to assail one another in a bitter election season — that they had no choice but to pull together and quickly pass legislation providing billions of public dollars to take bad assets off the hands of the nation’s financial institutions.
“Do you know what you are asking me to do?” said Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader who has struggled all year against concerted Republican opposition, according to multiple participants at the Thursday night session. “It takes me 48 hours to get the Republicans to agree to flush the toilets around here.”
...Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat, said that the Thursday-night session contained not a bit of levity and that the description of the financial predicament made him gulp. “When you get 20 politicians together and no one makes a joke, you know something is going on,” he said.
...Some conservatives who had already raised the alarm over federal intervention in the markets remained deeply skeptical of the plan.
...Participants said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, was particularly emphatic, noting that the administration was requesting unprecedented action on short notice, effectively telling Congress, “Trust us.”
Posted by: vbo | Sep 21, 2008 9:15:39 AM | 34
@vbo - as badger points out the same tricks "immediate danger" and "trust us" to get the Iraq war resolution through.
This is the greatest robbery attempt of all times. Introduced this Friday, vote next Friday, $700 billion booty to be distributed by one man without any control.
Posted by: b | Sep 21, 2008 10:52:48 AM | 35
Of course it is! And poor Americans have no idea what is happening...or otherwise somebody / anybody would revolt...I wonder if they will revolt ever? No matter what happens to them...
It's like a curse ...we have seen buildings fall down in dust, cities under the water and bodies floating in it, endless hurricanes, bombs thrown on their embassies ...and now this...If this is to affect just them I wouldn't care (all though I would feel sorry for you guys from MOA that never wanted to serve Empire)...but this shit is going to hit us all...
Posted by: vbo | Sep 21, 2008 11:14:44 AM | 36
And actually I am still amazed that NOBODY is going to be found responsible for mess made that is going to cost America that much in every single sense...for this robbery…
I thought they are going to hang someone...Even Americans are not what they used to be…haha
Posted by: vbo | Sep 21, 2008 11:21:59 AM | 37
Made me look: "Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi." "What is permitted Jupiter is not permitted a cow" (i.e., humans). Double standards. How often have they enraged us?
Posted by: jawbone | Sep 21, 2008 12:37:26 PM | 38
bea! long time no see
Posted by: annie | Sep 23, 2008 10:40:30 AM | 40
hi annie - thanks. no place like Moon at times like these... I've been around but just lurking since I've had no time for any kind of posting and not a whole lot for reading either. this month is quieter thank god.
Posted by: bea | Sep 24, 2008 8:28:27 AM | 41