That is the part I do not understand.  The "If" implies that there is an option.

The banks will fail short of a bailout from the taxpayers to the bankers (shareholders/bondholders).  And so, he is recommending that we (the taxpayers) bail them out...by giving them lots of money..., because if we don't, then the rich people will lose all their money and the poor people will lose their jobs.

But I would rather just keep the money.  Roubini estimates that it will take 2.5 trillion to rescue the banks.  Generously including every man, woman and child in the US...that amounts to $10,000 per head.  or $40k for a family of 4.  We can afford to have a lot of people go without jobs, and take care of them, at that going rate.

The rich will still be rich.  The poor will still be poor.

Well, so it always will be.

Still, we have seen the gap between Super-rich and the rest of us turn into a chasm.

The concentration of ownership in the hands of so few..Oligarchies are almost always a very deterimental system for everybody except the ruling class.

He's only right about pretty much everything, with mathmatical precision.

Nate Silver supported the Wall Street bailout back in the fall--you know, the one that failed to unlock credit and failed to restore confidence in the markets.

I don't understand why Obama wants to own all of the worst aspects of the Wall Street bailout. I suspect he is mainly listening to the wrong people (Geithner and Summers).  

...I have just as much of a problem with Nate Silver getting into this kind of proselytizing mode about matters non-analytical, such as this, as I do when Krugman starts getting into matters unrelated to his area of expertise, economics, too.

At least, this time, despite his words to the contrary, Silver acknowledges he really doesn't know what he's talking about, other than telling us that we can count on Obama and Geithner to do the right thing.

First off, as much as folks like to bloviate otherwise, economics has almost as much "art" in it as it does "science." That's why there are so many "schools"  of thought in the field, so to speak.

Secondly, with Joseph Stiglitz being, literally, kept out of Obama's earshot (by Summers, since Stiglitz and Summers have had a longstanding feud since Stiglitz was chair of Clinton's Council on Economic Advisors back in the mid-90's), the reality is the leaders of the entire neo-Keynesian school of economic thought (i.e.: Stiglitz, Roubini, Rogoff and many others), who happen to be just about the only ones that have been getting this right for over a decade (i.e.: Stiglitz was vehemently opposed to Glass-Steagall, for instance) aren't even being listented to, as a group, as well.

So, please, don't tell me the "anti-bank-nationalization" crowd is going to get this "right." Because that begs the even bigger question: Right for whom?

Right for Wall Street?

Right for whomever's the incumbent, creating a lameass, patchwork solution led by deniers that somehow manage to make it appear that the economy is struggling along, perhaps slightly upward, but just enough to get re-elected, just like Bush and Co. did for virtually his entire second term? (Up until the the last few months of it, anyhow.)

"They're going to get this right????" Get this right because they want to get re-elected? Get this right because we can't let Wall Street fail? (They've already failed us, massively, looting our future in the process of doing same.) I see little difference between that kind of mentality and folks that disrupt diaries with not a single iota of support for their unsubstantiated arguments that anyone who criticizes anything about the current efforts to fix our economy must be anti-Obama or some sort of PUMA.

You see, I am critical of what I see going on right now. Because they must get this right. It's not an either/or proposition, frankly. And, I say that knowing that "good is good enough," if not necessarily "right;" and that's fine, too!

But TARP certainly isn't even "good" right now, let alone "right." And, it's much more than likely that we're going to need to "stimulate" this economy a hell of a lot more than just this one bill will accomplish now, too. And, as Krugman asked the other day, perhaps not in so many words: Will we be able to go back to the money tree and be enabled to pluck more leaves from it down the road? And, his answer was: More than likely, no.

But, don't tell me "they're going to get this right." (Especially when they're simultaneously acknowledging they really don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the economy.) The reality is that virtually nobody has gotten the economy "right" in this nation's history. Ever.

People are blinded by their pre-conceptions of what is possible.

I'm skeptical of such arguments: "Nobody, absolutely nobody, has more incentive to get this right than the Obama Administration."
How is that an argument for trusting Geithner? No one is suspecting him of wanting to screw up the economy, only of not proposing good policies... After all, nobody, absolutely nobody had more incentive to get Iraq right than Bush did, no?

Well if we do follow Nate's advice the number of diaries around the Progressive blogs are going to dwindle to almost nil.

Now, I tend to fall into the school of knowing just enough to be really dangerous, but there are some diarist that have valid opinions and concerns that  enjoy reading. Do I agree with bobswern all the time, no, but do I still want to hear what he/she has to say? Absolutely. So, Nate love ya man, but this piece of advise I think is asking a bit too much.

"I had a strangely gratified feeling watching the stocks tumble yesterday.  Call me a fringe radical, but I suspect that the insiders aren't so much concerned about the "lack of specificity" in Geithner's plan as they are concerned that they may actually pay for their mistakes.  You have to imagine that the tone struck by Obama on ABC last night was echoed in many backroom discussions throughout the day yesterday."

I agree 100%.

Remember it was smoke and mirrors that gave us the last stock market boom during the housing bubble. The market won't react well to realism, but in the long run, it will be healthier and more stable.

Nobody, absolutely nobody, has more incentive to get this right than the Obama Administration.

Last time I checked, most folks in the Obama Administration still had jobs - could still pay their mortgages - feed their families - etc.