The markets could have changed their name to 'Yo-Yo' today rather than 'Skydiver.' It wasn't the VIX reaching multi-year highs of 40 that ran us up. It wasn't last night's intervention. It was the first overseas curbing of short selling financial stocks in the U.K. and then the word that the government was preparing a new version of the Resolution Trust Corporation.

Dow 11,010.74 +401.08 +3.78%
Nasdaq 2,199.10 +100.25 +4.78%
S&P 500 1,202.86 +46.47 +4.02%
10 Yr Bond(%) 3.432% +0.022%

52-week lows
Top Analyst Upgrades & Downgrades

Washington Mutual Inc. (NYSE: WM) was a huge winner today. Shares were up over 50% at $3.17 right before the close after it has formally put itself up for sale. The rest of the rally came from government hopes of a new RTC.

American International Group (NYSE: AIG) also saw a monster run. Shares rose 20% to $2.45 on more than 200 million shares. Tie that one to a possible RTC as well.

In a way, we are seeing a replay of the 1980s: we are dealing with the consequences of a credit bubble as banks teeter and the economy slows down.

In today's Wall Street Journal [a paid publication], there's a great piece from some of the veterans of that era from former US Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady, former US comptroller of the currency Eugene Ludwig, and former Fed Chairman Paul Volker.

They don't mince words. Simply put, they think the U.S. financial system is on the brink, and if action is not taken, we may see "the mother of all credit contractions."

What can be done? Interesting enough, there is a precedent: the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). This was a strong organization that allowed for the smooth unwinding of the S&L industry during the early 1990s.

Essentially, the RTC had full backing and a clear mandate. And when it completed its job, it actually closed down (yes, that's something that rarely happens with a federal agency).

As for the current situation, an RTC organization would be a buyer of distressed securities. Ultimately, this will encourage more trading, liquidity, and hopefully, more economic activity -- especially in the housing sector.

Unfortunately, policy makers are currently taking an ad-hoc approach, putting out one fire after another. How can this engender confidence? If anything, investors are waiting for the next financial institution to implode, which just becomes a vicious cycle.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including The Complete M&A Handbook and The Edgar Online Guide to Decoding Financial Statements. He is also the founder of BizEquity, a valuation website

Our government has been doing its share of bailouts in the last year. It put $29 billion of taxpayer money at risk to finance the takeover of Bear Stearns. It stands ready to use $800 billion to bailout Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE). And now General Motors (NYSE: GM) wants $50 billion in government guarantees to finance fuel efficient cars. I have been looking into the bailout issue and whether it is beneficial or a misuse of funds - and there is a lot of debate about this issue. These bailouts may make political sense but are they in the long-term economic interests of the country?

A colleague of mine who was a Budget and Cost Analyst for a top government agency has been thinking about the political aspect of bailouts and shared his thoughts with me. As he wrote, "It is a sure thing that either party could get votes from a bailout, but they might loose some as well. Where a party could really improve its position would be to support a bailout, but lose."

He suggests that this outcome would pay off in the short-run but could damage long-term economic outcomes. As he suggested, If the party supported a bailout but lost, "it could claim that it was trying to support the victims, but had been frustrated by the other party. And this could be used to promote the party for many years in efforts to get votes. While maneuvers of this sort may get short run votes, over the long term they might be hurtful of sound economic growth and performance."