[lbo-talk] Staunch the rhetorical bleeding

[John Thornton]

C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> A remarkable characteristic of financial discussion, perhaps 
> particularly in the last weeks, is the use of metaphor. What's to be 
> done? "Staunch the bleeding!" What's needed? "A credit thaw!"   What's 
> to be stopped? "Golden parachutes!" (That one had a hint of poetry, 
> before it became cliche.)  What shall we do? "Lamborghinize the 
> banking system!" (OK, I made that one up.)
>
> The crisis (literally, a separation) seems to consist of the refusal 
> of those who own or control money to lend it (it's useless to point 
> out that "loan" is not a verb) unless they're paid more.  They surely 
> have the money: e.g., the WSJ pointed out the other day that "Exxon 
> has $39 billion in cash and has been buying back shares at an $8 
> billion-a-quarter clip; the value of the stock it has repurchased is 
> about $218 billion, a shade less than the current value of General 
> Electric Co."
>
> The result seems to be a prudery worthy of a Victorian novelist, an 
> unwillingness to call things by their right names.  And I wonder if 
> the causes are similar?  Victorian sexual euphemism seems to have been 
> prompted by a bad conscience over established sexual exploitation (of 
> women, children and the poor).  Is metaphor now protecting established 
> financial exploitation?  The situations seem equally disgusting. (But 
> I suppose your retch should exceed your gasp, or what's a metaphor?)  
> --CGE 

How much cash Exxon has won't have any effect on inter-bank lending.

Euphemisms have always been rife through the financial sectors exploitation.

I'm not sure projective vomiting will help but your retch should at 
least exceed your shoes simply to avoid a messier cleanup.  : )

John Thornton