Fragen? Antworten! Siehe auch: Alternativlos
“Paulson’s declaration that no government money would be used to save Lehman, both before and during the weekend, also understandably fueled the belief that we chose to let Lehman fail,” Mr. Bernanke writes, recalling the crucial weekend in mid-September 2008 when it became apparent that no one would rescue Lehman. “Hank had various reasons for saying what he said, including his personal and political discomfort with the face of unpopular bailouts of too-big-to-fail institutions.”But crucially, Mr. Bernanke writes: “Hank’s statements were to some extent beside the point, in that the Fed loans were the only government funds available. It would have been the Federal Reserve’s decision — not Hank’s or the Treasury’s — whether to make a loan, had a loan of sufficient size to save the firm been judged feasible.”
Also mit anderen Worten: Er holt hier seinen Kumpel Paulson aus der Schusslinie. Es war die Entscheidung der Federal Reserve, nicht des Finanzministers.“In congressional testimony immediately after Lehman’s collapse, Paulson and I were deliberately quite vague when discussing whether we could have saved Lehman,” Mr. Bernanke writes. “But we had agreed in advance to be vague because we were intensely concerned that acknowledging our inability to save Lehman would hurt market confidence and increase pressure on other vulnerable firms.”
OK, das müsst ihr euch mal durch den Kopf gehen lassen. Die Fed rettet Lehmann nicht, und lässt es dann aber in ihrer Außenkommunikation absichtlich so aussehen, als hätten sie Lehman absichtlich platzen lassen. Und das soll weniger Panik auslösen? o_O