Black Monday

[Len Colby]

The Dow was up 3.35% today* and closed 200 points over Monday’s open**. The Market is back where it was a few months ago and parts of 2007 and above where it was anytime before that***. So Chicken Little like predictions of impending economic Armageddon to borrow a line from Mr. Clemens seem to have been greatly exaggerated.

I’m not sure what Mark is going on about declining living conditions most Americans are better off know then they were before Clinton. IIRC be has been predicting a financial China Syndrome for quite a while and each time the market takes a dip (through this was quite big one) thinks his suspicions have been confirmed.

I'm no fan of Bush or his foreign policy but I saw nothing in the article that smacked of extremism, in this case Rice seems to have gotten things pretty much right. Russian armor crossed into S. Osetia the morning BEFORE Georgia 'attacked'. The Russians claim it was peace keepers on rotation. A rather remarkable 'coincidence' eeh?

Now you're really showing your ignorance. If you think Friday's stock market bounce means everything is now fine and dandy, then you're forgetting that the US Government has assumed combined corporate debts of about $700 billion, on top of all the other problems in the US economy. That's a lot of debt for US citizens and their future generations to bear.

The rest of the world has stepped in to save the US economy from collapse. The US is still the world's highest energy consumer but remains a net energy importer. The US outspends the rest of the world combined on the military, including 700 or so foreign military bases, while the country is becoming increasingly foreign owned. Economic commentators are predicting the US dollar will slide. Unemployment is rising alarmingly and many thousands are unable to pay their mortgage and will be evicted. The way I see it, living standards will fall sharply. Gravity always wins in the end.

Where did I indicate I though everything was "fine and dandy" with the US or global economies? You do realize there is a middle ground between Candide and Chicken Little? John summed up the situation pretty well in his recent thread starter about Bush. In other words, I think the economy is in a serious crisis but predictions of an imminent catastrophe are/were premature. Shall we give things a month or two to see what happens? After that one of us will have the right to tell the other "I told you so". My guess is that it will be the one of us who lives in the country more likely to win the World Cup (football NOT rugby).

[Terry Mauro]

I saw a market dealer on TV today who described this week as capitalism's Armageddon.

He's right, imo. The massive debt burden which the US taxpayers have inherited from this and the subsequent lowering of living standards will destroy the US capitalist paradigm once and for all.

But capitalism isn't going down without a fight. It's fanatical wing has just opened a new front targeting 'Soviet aggression' against freedom loving democracy. Connie Rice has come out breathing fire:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ing-itself.html

Great stuff---and right on cue.

This is the same President who was overheard several weeks ago saying "Wall Street got drunk". Despite what President Bush says here , there is a rational alternative under our constittution to this hyperinflationary bail out scheme, and that's the FDR solution. FDR put the banking system into bankruptcy protection and reorganization during the 1930's. He did not bail out Wall Street and London speculators, which is what we are seeing with this Bush/Paulson bailout proposal.

The idea that you only have two alternatives available (bail out or no bail out) to solve the crisis is false.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26803614#26803614

Wall Street got drunk--July 22, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_FDRjluLJQ

Edited September 20, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Mark Stapleton]

I’m not sure what Mark is going on about declining living conditions most Americans are better off know then they were before Clinton. IIRC be has been predicting a financial China Syndrome for quite a while and each time the market takes a dip (through this was quite big one) thinks his suspicions have been confirmed.

That was your provocative, bumbling and ill informed comment to which I responded. I believe the standard of living in the US will fall, as well as other western economies but most notably the US. Terms such as China Syndrome and chicken little are all products of your fertile imagination as I certainly didn't say them.

You were wise to back down.

[Len Colby]

Terms such as China Syndrome and chicken little are all products of your fertile imagination as I certainly didn't say them.

Nor did I ever indicate you had, note the lack of quotation marks. Obviously you wouldn't use the term "chicken little" to refer to your own predictions. But you have repeatedly predicted a coming financial disaster.

You were wise to back down.

I didn't, my position never was what you falsely claimed it to be.

[Terry Mauro]

Terms such as China Syndrome and chicken little are all products of your fertile imagination as I certainly didn't say them.

Nor did I ever indicate you had, note the lack of quotation marks. Obviously you wouldn't use the term "chicken little" to refer to your own predictions. But you have repeatedly predicted a coming financial disaster.

You were wise to back down.

I didn't, my position never was what you falsely claimed it to be.

But you have repeatedly predicted a coming financial disaster

And Mark has been 100% correct. Where have you been? Some people occasionally stick their foot in their mouth but you've managed to shove in your mouth everything but the kitchen sink. You don't have a clear idea of what is going on. Your argument is "I dont believe such a thing possible so therefore it cant happen. Well take another look around because it has happened.

You should stay out of this debate because you're absolutely ignorant of the facts. You didnt even know what a derivative was until you started mis counting the zero's.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Terry Mauro]

http://www.freeople.com/blog/financial-cri...nday-ahead/1483

In Australia, I've read that some churches and charities have exposure to Lehmans' neatly bundled 'assets'. St. Vincent de Paul in particular. A bit surprising for them to have been such eager capitalists, imo.

Goldman Sachs, the Modern Knights Templars

Sept. 20--Goldman Sachs investment bank is "the modern equivalent

of the Knights Templars; they are all powerful in every country.

And they will be just as hard to extirpate," a London financial

analyst said in a discussion yesterday. The Knights Templars were

a military order founded during the 11th century. They were

notorious, during their existence, for their combination of

military success in the Crusades and the power they gained from

their vast financier-banking operations throughout Europe and

Southwest Asia.

The London analyst said that while it is certainly true that

investment banks are now utterly useless, and are being taken

down, Goldman Sachs is "not going to go quietly." It could well

be something like, "we go, and we take everything with us," the

analyst said.

[Len Colby]

Terms such as China Syndrome and chicken little are all products of your fertile imagination as I certainly didn't say them.

Nor did I ever indicate you had, note the lack of quotation marks. Obviously you wouldn't use the term "chicken little" to refer to your own predictions. But you have repeatedly predicted a coming financial disaster.

You were wise to back down.

I didn't, my position never was what you falsely claimed it to be.

But you have repeatedly predicted a coming financial disaster

And Mark has been 100% correct. Where have you been? Some people occasionally stick their foot in their mouth but you've managed to shove in your mouth everything but the kitchen sink. You don't have a clear idea of what is going on. Your argument is "I dont believe such a thing possible so therefore it cant happen. Well take another look around because it has happened.

You should stay out of this debate because you're absolutely ignorant of the facts. You didnt even know what a derivative was until you started mis counting the zero's.

Since no such catastrophe has yet struck you have no way of knowing whether he was correct. Can you point to any economists not tied to Larouche who think a disaster on that scale is coming?

Over the last century the US has experienced a serious economic crisis on average of every dozen years or so which was more or less the rate since the founding of the Republic. So if one preaches doom long enough eventually their “prophesy” will come true. But your messiah has been predicting that collapse on an unprecedented scale was imminent since 1994 (according to you). Mark has been making similar predictions (though for less time). But 14 years later and counting the US has yet to go though a crisis on the scale it had a few earlier (the 1990-2 Recession)

Funny you indicate I’ve made repeated errors but you keep harping on the same one. Yes as I’ve admitted I was wrong about the total amount of outstanding derivatives. I didn’t miscount zeros you supplied a chart sans any indication that it was in $,000.

As for financial literacy I doubt you know anything beyond what your guru tells you. You demonstrated your ignorance when you wrote

“I think the GAO reports the off balance sheet debt of the banks, by quarter.”

In response to my comment that one of your sources indicated total notional value of derivatives was “$25.4 trillion”. The implication of your comment was that the annual value would be around 100 Trillion. I’m sorry but things don’t work that way. If the national debt of the US reached $ 9.7 Trillion in a particular quarter that doesn’t the amount for 1 year is around 40 trillion. Total debt is a cumulative value.

[Terry Mauro]

Terms such as China Syndrome and chicken little are all products of your fertile imagination as I certainly didn't say them.

Nor did I ever indicate you had, note the lack of quotation marks. Obviously you wouldn't use the term "chicken little" to refer to your own predictions. But you have repeatedly predicted a coming financial disaster.

You were wise to back down.

I didn't, my position never was what you falsely claimed it to be.

But you have repeatedly predicted a coming financial disaster

And Mark has been 100% correct. Where have you been? Some people occasionally stick their foot in their mouth but you've managed to shove in your mouth everything but the kitchen sink. You don't have a clear idea of what is going on. Your argument is "I dont believe such a thing possible so therefore it cant happen. Well take another look around because it has happened.

You should stay out of this debate because you're absolutely ignorant of the facts. You didnt even know what a derivative was until you started mis counting the zero's.

Since no such catastrophe has yet struck you have no way of knowing whether he was correct. Can you point to any economists not tied to Larouche who think a disaster on that scale is coming?

Over the last century the US has experienced a serious economic crisis on average of every dozen years or so which was more or less the rate since the founding of the Republic. So if one preaches doom long enough eventually their “prophesy” will come true. But your messiah has been predicting that collapse on an unprecedented scale was imminent since 1994 (according to you). Mark has been making similar predictions (though for less time). But 14 years later and counting the US has yet to go though a crisis on the scale it had a few earlier (the 1990-2 Recession)

Funny you indicate I’ve made repeated errors but you keep harping on the same one. Yes as I’ve admitted I was wrong about the total amount of outstanding derivatives. I didn’t miscount zeros you supplied a chart sans any indication that it was in $,000.

As for financial literacy I doubt you know anything beyond what your guru tells you. You demonstrated your ignorance when you wrote

“I think the GAO reports the off balance sheet debt of the banks, by quarter.”

In response to my comment that one of your sources indicated total notional value of derivatives was “$25.4 trillion”. The implication of your comment was that the annual value would be around 100 Trillion. I’m sorry but things don’t work that way. If the national debt of the US reached $ 9.7 Trillion in a particular quarter that doesn’t the amount for 1 year is around 40 trillion. Total debt is a cumulative value.

I demonstrated my ignorance? How might that be, by identifying the largest financial blow out in all history? Or is it because I also know the solution? You just keep counting things, "homes, cars, money" and that will prove your intelligence. Keep sniffing for those "clues".

Bertrand Russell, why do you think they need a $1 trillion bailout? And I believe the phrase "financial collapse" has been used repeatedly by the media when quoting these expert economists.

Take care Bertie.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Len Colby]

I demonstrated my ignorance?

You seemed to indicate you thought the total of derivative exposure was 4x that reported for one quarter. If that is indeed what you meant than yes you did.

How might that be, by identifying the largest financial blow out in all history?

So did every media outlet in the world, what does that prove? Did mean to say you predicted it?

Or is it because I also know the solution?

All you know is what LaRouche tells you to think.

You just keep counting things, "homes, cars, money"

Your are the one claimed that the US had not seen an increase in "physical wealth" since the 60's but were unable to define the term or offer evidence that the claim were true. I guess it's not easy to explain something when you are repeating what you've been told. I'm not willing to devote an extended amount of time to this, statistics on car and homeownership were easy to come by and contradict your odd claim.

Bertrand Russell, why do you think they need a $1 trillion bailout? And I believe the phrase "financial collapse" has been used repeatedly by the media when quoting these expert economists.

Once again I'm not saying things are going well but Mark and your guru's predictions of some sort of unprecedented collapse have yet to come to fruition. You do realize that the bailout is one of those "robbing Peter to pay Paul" type deals, where Peter in this case is the US taxpayer?. $ 0.7 - $1 trillion in new debt is not something that normally would send the stock market up. If things were as bad as you thought the bailout would not have brought investors back into the market.

As for the terms used by TV pundits I've heard a few from "Depression-lite" to "mini-recession" to those saying they thought it would blow over. The only times I heard the phrase "financial collapse" it was preceded by words like "avert" and "avoid".

Edited September 22, 2008 by Len Colby

[Mark Stapleton]

The great bailout plan:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtm...npaulson122.xml

Financial Crisis: US calls on world to save banking system

By Yvette Essen

Last Updated: 12:04am BST 22/09/2008

The US government last night urged other countries to follow its model of bailing out stricken banks after Treasury secretary Hank Paulson unveiled an unprecedented $700bn (£380bn) rescue plan to prevent a collapse of the financial system.

President Bush with US Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who has announced plans to buy up 'toxic' debts

The proposal would allow the Treasury to buy up "toxic" mortgage-related debts from financial institutions, including US arms of foreign banks, to try to stem the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

With Congress set to vote this week on the emergency legislation, Mr Paulson took to the airwaves, warning that the massive bailout was the only way to avoid catastrophe and that other countries must take similar measure.

"We have a global financial system and we are talking very aggressively with other countries around the world and encouraging them to do similar things and I believe a number of them will," Mr Paulson said.

Dealers doubt market surge will be sustained

More on banking

However, Prime Minister Gordon Brown looks unlikely to follow suit, with a Treasury spokesman saying: "We're not working toward implementing a US-style resolution regime. But the Prime Minister and the Chancellor [Alistair Darling] have made clear that we will take whatever action is necessary in the interest of financial stability."

Mr Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke have taken the drastic measures in an attempt to stem dramatic losses caused on Wall Street by the collapse of investment bank Lehman Brothers and demise of AIG, once the world's largest insurer.

advertisementUnder the US Treasury's bailout proposals, the US government's debt limit would rise to $11.315 trillion from $10.615 trillion. This would fund the acquisition of up to $700bn home and commercial mortgages and related assets from US-based banks and other institutions over the next two years.

A factsheet released by the US Treasury department said in consultation with the Fed, it will have the authority to purchase other assets, "as deemed necessary to effectively stabilise financial markets".

It added the price of these purchases will be set "through market mechanisms where possible, such as reverse auctions". However, market analysts predict it will be able to buy these assets at a "significant discount" to provide US taxpayers who are expected to fund the scheme with the chance of getting a return on the assets in the longer term. A vote on the legislation to enact the scheme could be held as early as today.

Tim Harris, senior portfolio manager at JP Morgan Asset Management, said the bailout cannot afford to fail. "I think it will work - I cannot contemplate what will happen if it does not work," he said. However, Mr Harris added the sudden "flood of liquidity" increases the chances of "a thumping great recession" as the financial system is no longer paralysed.

"The risks move from the financial sector to the retail and service sectors," he explained. "If anything, last week has increased recession risk. Policymakers and politicians have thrown the book to saving the financial system and damn the consequences."

Jeremy Batstone-Carr, equity strategist at Charles Stanley, cautiously welcomed the US Treasury's intervention. "Whilst wholehearted applauding the package, we need to look at the fine print of the publicly-funded lifeboat," he said. "We could see more volatility as the details emerge."

In France, finance minister Christine Lagarde warned: "We have a whole series of obstacles to overcome and difficulties to face." Traders predicted the dollar would come under pressure as Washington raises borrowings. David Woo, London-based global head of foreign exchange strategy at Barclays, said: "The downdraft on the dollar from the hit to the balance sheet of the US government will dwarf the short-term gains from solving the banking crisis."

Liberal Democrat's Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said the Government would be right not to follow the US. "This was a desperate throw by the US authorities to stop what was virtually the meltdown of western capitalism."

[David G. Healy]

The great bailout plan:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtm...npaulson122.xml

Financial Crisis: US calls on world to save banking system

By Yvette Essen

Last Updated: 12:04am BST 22/09/2008

The US government last night urged other countries to follow its model of bailing out stricken banks after Treasury secretary Hank Paulson unveiled an unprecedented $700bn (£380bn) rescue plan to prevent a collapse of the financial system.

President Bush with US Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who has announced plans to buy up 'toxic' debts

The proposal would allow the Treasury to buy up "toxic" mortgage-related debts from financial institutions, including US arms of foreign banks, to try to stem the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

With Congress set to vote this week on the emergency legislation, Mr Paulson took to the airwaves, warning that the massive bailout was the only way to avoid catastrophe and that other countries must take similar measure.

"We have a global financial system and we are talking very aggressively with other countries around the world and encouraging them to do similar things and I believe a number of them will," Mr Paulson said.

Dealers doubt market surge will be sustained

More on banking

However, Prime Minister Gordon Brown looks unlikely to follow suit, with a Treasury spokesman saying: "We're not working toward implementing a US-style resolution regime. But the Prime Minister and the Chancellor [Alistair Darling] have made clear that we will take whatever action is necessary in the interest of financial stability."

Mr Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke have taken the drastic measures in an attempt to stem dramatic losses caused on Wall Street by the collapse of investment bank Lehman Brothers and demise of AIG, once the world's largest insurer.

advertisementUnder the US Treasury's bailout proposals, the US government's debt limit would rise to $11.315 trillion from $10.615 trillion. This would fund the acquisition of up to $700bn home and commercial mortgages and related assets from US-based banks and other institutions over the next two years.

A factsheet released by the US Treasury department said in consultation with the Fed, it will have the authority to purchase other assets, "as deemed necessary to effectively stabilise financial markets".

It added the price of these purchases will be set "through market mechanisms where possible, such as reverse auctions". However, market analysts predict it will be able to buy these assets at a "significant discount" to provide US taxpayers who are expected to fund the scheme with the chance of getting a return on the assets in the longer term. A vote on the legislation to enact the scheme could be held as early as today.

Tim Harris, senior portfolio manager at JP Morgan Asset Management, said the bailout cannot afford to fail. "I think it will work - I cannot contemplate what will happen if it does not work," he said. However, Mr Harris added the sudden "flood of liquidity" increases the chances of "a thumping great recession" as the financial system is no longer paralysed.

"The risks move from the financial sector to the retail and service sectors," he explained. "If anything, last week has increased recession risk. Policymakers and politicians have thrown the book to saving the financial system and damn the consequences."

Jeremy Batstone-Carr, equity strategist at Charles Stanley, cautiously welcomed the US Treasury's intervention. "Whilst wholehearted applauding the package, we need to look at the fine print of the publicly-funded lifeboat," he said. "We could see more volatility as the details emerge."

In France, finance minister Christine Lagarde warned: "We have a whole series of obstacles to overcome and difficulties to face." Traders predicted the dollar would come under pressure as Washington raises borrowings. David Woo, London-based global head of foreign exchange strategy at Barclays, said: "The downdraft on the dollar from the hit to the balance sheet of the US government will dwarf the short-term gains from solving the banking crisis."

Liberal Democrat's Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said the Government would be right not to follow the US. "This was a desperate throw by the US authorities to stop what was virtually the meltdown of western capitalism."

http://courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-fin...rtsep22,0,738...

Paulson And Bailout: Conflicts Of Interest?

By KEVIN G. HALL

McClatchy Newspapers

September 22, 2008

WASHINGTON —

Making the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows, Treasury

Secretary Henry Paulson repeatedly said today's financial problems

were long in the making. He should know. He was part of the Gold Rush

that has brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse.

Paulson presided over one of the most profitable runs on Wall Street

as chairman and chief executive officer of investment banking titan

Goldman Sachs & Co. from 1999 until President Bush nominated him on

May 30, 2006, to take over the Treasury Department.

Back then, Bush saw Paulson's Wall Street experience as a plus.

"Hank will follow in the footsteps of Alexander Hamilton and other

distinguished Treasury secretaries who used their talents and wisdom

to strengthen our financial markets and expand the reach of the

American Dream," Bush said at the time. (emphasis mine)

But with Paulson now seeking virtually unfettered authority to

administer the largest bailout of the financial industry in U.S.

history, many are wondering whether Paulson also doesn't come with

enormous potential conflicts of interest.

That was one reason Democrats on Sunday expressed reluctance to

approve the administration's draft legislation that would leave to

Paulson virtually all authority over the proposed $700 billion

bailout. The legislation would allow him to decide which securities to

buy, from whom to buy them, and which outside companies and people to

hire to help him do so.

"If we grant the Treasury broad authority to address the immediate

crisis, we must insist on independent accountability and oversight,"

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barrack Obama said. "Given the

breach of trust we have seen and the magnitude of the taxpayer money

involved, there can be no blank check."

In recent days, there have been few outward expressions of distrust of

Paulson in particular. In fact, many said his long reign on Wall

Street make him uniquely qualified to deal with today's problems.

"Hank is the right guy," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who made

his millions providing information to Wall Street traders, told NBC's

Meet the Press. "If I had to have one person at the helm today I would

pick Hank Paulson."

But the conflicts are also visible. Paulson has surrounded himself

with former Goldman executives as he tries to navigate the domino-like

collapse of several parts of the global financial market.

And others have gone off to lead companies that could be among those

that receive a bailout.

In late July, Paulson tapped Ken Wilson, one of Goldman's most senior

executives, to join him as an adviser on what to do about problems in

the U.S. and global banking sector.

Paulson's former assistant secretary, Robert Steel, left in July to

become head of Wachovia, the bank based in Charlotte, N.C., that has

hundreds of millions of troubled mortgage loans on its books.

At a minimum, there's irony in Paulson being in charge of so large a

bailout.

In the last annual report at Goldman that Paulson signed off on in

November 2005, a year in which he received $38 million in

compensation, investors were clearly told that the federal government

wouldn't be there to save them from bad investments.

During Paulson's tenure, Goldman was not as big a player in issuing

mortgage bonds as two other investment banks that have gone under this

year, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.

But the 2005 annual report shows that Goldman was still a significant

player.

Its trading division, which included the mortgage bonds and complex

financial instruments called derivatives, reported pre-tax earnings of

more than $6.2 billion, up sharply from $3.5 billion in 2003.

The report also shows that Goldman benefited greatly from the wave

that is now being deemed a wave of excess.

Goldman's pre-tax earnings rose from $4.4 billion in 2003 to almost

$8.3 billion in 2005.

Similarly, its investment banking division had pre-tax earnings leap

from $207 million to $413 million.

Paulson's personal fortunes also zoomed in those years.

In 2002, Paulson received $12.1 million in compensation, including a

$6.3 million bonus — an improvement over the previous three years when

Wall Street accounting scandals unsettled investment banks, including

a $1.5 billion settlement Goldman and other banks paid for issuing

overly bullish research reports that promoted deals the banks

themselves were involved in.

Published reports said Paulson received $30 million in compensation

and salary in 2003.

Edited September 22, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Mark Stapleton]

Steve Keen is Professor of Economics at the University of Western Sydney (UWS).

Steve runs a website called OzDebtwatch with articles and blogs:

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/

He outlines the basic causes of the current dilemma--there's stats and graphs aplenty--and concludes abruptly that we've only just begun. After reading the article then the blog I have to agree. It's much worse than I thought. It's almost unbelievably bad.

The blog is a must read. These are mostly markets professionals and these posts were posted today. The rough consensus is that the bailout plan was mostly aimed at stalling a run on the banks and hopefully pumping some liquidity through the financial system. The banks have been freed from the debt but not the borrowers. The potential downside is horrendous. Massive tax hikes will be required, US assets will be shunned and the massive US debt will cause the dollar to fall, which could send the price of oil and other commodities through the roof. It could be a hyper inflation scenario. This is really bad.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[Mark Stapleton]

Time for some light relief.

A friend of mine told me on the weekend that he had lost $100 K in the current financial debacle.

"Really", I said.

"Yes", he said. "One fifth of my net wealth just got sliced off like salami"

[Christopher Hall]

I believe that the stcok market will come back, as it has always done.

I am not defending what the Fed has done, and I wanted to see it let AIG (and probably Fannie and Freddie) fail.

In fact, I view the Fed as a shadow government of potentially dubious Constitutionality (at least when it acts as a de facto government).

Would someone please explain to me what "China Syndrome" means?

I think I know, but I would like to hear one or more explanations.

Thanks.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I believe that the stcok market will come back, as it has always done.

I am not defending what the Fed has done, and I wanted to see it let AIG (and probably Fannie and Freddie) fail.

In fact, I view the Fed as a shadow government of potentially dubious Constitutionality (at least when it acts as a de facto government).

Would someone please explain to me what "China Syndrome" means?

I think I know, but I would like to hear one or more explanations.

Thanks.

Chris, I believe the term "China syndrome" was coined after the three mile island incident, when the reactor nearly suffered a core meltdown. One of the engineers was supposed to have said. "You Guys nearly got to see China" or words to that effect. Steve.