You clearly do NOT belong in the financial world. Consider a job teaching elementary school or if you prefer a faster pace maybe you can be an emergency room nurse.
And you go back to working the streets of Brooklyn you hooker and for a faster pace work the streets of Manhattan.
Why should it not be supported?
What is a better option. Or is this in your opinion just like pissing up against a brick wall?
> Why should it not be supported?
> What is a better option. Or is this in your
> opinion just like pissing up against a brick wall?
Agreed- I love people that criticize but never offer a better suggestion. You should be ashamed- your accusations are ridiculous. If someone supports it you don’t belong in the financial world? Let me guess you probably supported the War on Iraq too right? And you probably think that was a great investment. The majority of Wall Street supports the bill…therefore, the majority of people in “the financial world” support the bill…you do not, therefore you don’t belong in the financial world. The credit and money markets are in shambles. Equities are following suit…
You guys who support this bailout need to go sit in a quiet room and think about your existence.
The capital market isn’t simply about liquidity and keeping the money flowing at all costs. If you do something stupid (like most big banks on wall street), you lose your seat at the table to those who were conservative. The system doesn’t work if the government intervenes in this process. Again, balances sheets rule.
ps. no, i didn’t support the war in iraq
What do hookers know about balance sheets?? Anyways you will have to slash your rates to about $1/hr if a Depression hits- the same as a hookers in thailand.
hooker is showing off a little bit of some sexy sarcasm. ya’ll need to chill.
Here here virgin, I read that piece of junk this morning following one of your posts, may-be one or two by JDV but - MY GOD - what a piece of garbage.
I think voting against the bailout was a huge mistake. Bite me.
ok - so
a) You didn’t support the bailout.
b) You didn’t support the war in Iraq.
As much as I love to hear people’s strong opinions on things they don’t support and criticism for those who disagree with them, I would love to hear the possible alternatives to these big general ‘we shouldn’t have done this’ opinions without clear solutions.
I did something like my version of what should be done, but almost nobody commented on it.
Anyway, I think it’s appropriate to say you opposed the thing on the grounds that the bill is inadequately specified. The Secretary has this extraordinary power but nowhere does it mention where he is going to use it or how he is going to buy these securities. So let’s see, I don’t support giving a GWB buddy a blank check….Do I really need to specify what I am going to give them?
I’m Da Church of the faithful, I’m Liao Fengyi, clergywoman mother should have to introduce you to me, I have seen you twice, in which time you are more impressed with everyone I guess in the back of the church at noon to eat noodle face!
I’m not that old but I remember when capital was precious. I would enjoy seeing that again. Wars and bailouts are not good uses of capital.
the only reason why the republicans dint support the bailout;
“House Republicans blamed the failure of the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan Monday on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), saying that Pelosi had been too partisan in a floor speech prior to the vote. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) said that Pelosi’s speech “poisoned” the Republican caucus and “caused a number of members we thought we could get to go south.”
Now this is just plain funny (and sad at the same time)!!
> the only reason why the republicans dint support
> the bailout;
> “House Republicans blamed the failure of the $700
> billion Wall Street rescue plan Monday on House
> Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), saying that
> Pelosi had been too partisan in a floor speech
> prior to the vote. House Minority Leader John
> Boehner (R., Ohio) said that Pelosi’s speech
> “poisoned” the Republican caucus and “caused a
> number of members we thought we could get to go
> Now this is just plain funny (and sad at the same
now those are valid reasons
And if you didn’t like the bailout I hope you, your family, and all of your friends lose their jobs, and wait in soup lines for days to get scraps.
Only then will you dump your utter contempt for people’s success and your foolishness and inability to actually understand how to solve problems.
But you’re the same fool who thought oil wasn’t a bubble and I suspect you didn’t think housing was a bubble. Obviously you have the depth of Paris Hilton.
From reading various articles, I got the feeling that Paulson and company did not do a good job in explaining the terms and conditions of this bailout. The rest is history.
I agree with Joey: How the potential enoromous power, that Paulson inherits, would be handled is not clear.
While I don’t support using taxpayers money for the bailout, am for some kind of government intervention. Read somewhere that the U.S. government is asking other governments to invest in the $700 plus billion hedge fund.
To be sure, this is a crisis of biblical proportions. Since the second coming of Jesus Christ is not merited for this occasion, we have to suffice with uncle Sam.
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"
Perhaps the gov’t should do nothing like the 1920’s. VirginCFAHooker, you shouldn’t be in the CFA program.
The unfortunate thing is that 99% of you and all americans still dont realize what the real problem is. And its not the economic policy.
There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it - Oscar Wilde
> Perhaps the gov’t should do nothing like the
> 1920’s. VirginCFAHooker, you shouldn’t be in the
> CFA program.
Hey, the 1920’s were great. No oversight, rampant greed, “free markets”, and punishment of the guilty when the thing went to sh!t. Then, instead of trying to make sure that 25% of the workforce didn’t become poor, we just let it happen. All in the name of “strong currency” and other such stupidity. Geometrical thinking wasn’t in abundance.
Same thing now. These fools think that “tough love” for the world is the best alternative, so they can satiate their desire to reduce the world to their own sub-par intellectual levels.
No one of any intelligence or experience thinks letting this bailout fail is a good idea. Quite the contrary: Buffett, Gross, Howard Marks (the list goes on until it stops at idiots) all support Paulson and the bill.
I think we have to seperate what the bill was sold to us as by Bernake & Paulson Inc., and what it really was, which was slapstick legislation.
virgin, are you against ANY kind of government action, or are you against this particular plan?
You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???
> No one of any intelligence or experience thinks
> letting this bailout fail is a good idea. Quite
> the contrary: Buffett, Gross, Howard Marks (the
> list goes on until it stops at idiots) all support
> Paulson and the bill.
But, but, but, they are only saying that because they have money invested! Those rich asses are only trying to save their own skins. Nobody owns pension or mutual funds, nobody has a 401k, but those rich jerks. STICK IT TO THEM!
/end class war rant
I am 100% for intelligent, methodical government action that doesn’t cost me higher taxes.
The government’s business is to educate the kids, build some roads and protect the borders… they should start doing that right before they get into the banking biz! OK?! Can I get an AMEN!?!?
And, as I posted last night when I first read the bill, it is a simple taxpayer giveaway. If you read it you’d think the exact same thing. Wall Street is using their BS fear to make us think it’s do or die. This selloff today is BS. Do you think any investor worth his salt sold a single share of stock today? Do you think warren Buffett said, “oh no, the bailout flopped I better sell my Coke stock!” It was a bunch of daytraders and market makers pushing the stock down to accentuate the drama.
> And if you didn’t like the bailout I hope you,
> your family, and all of your friends lose their
> jobs, and wait in soup lines for days to get
sounds exactly like your buddy Dubya said: WMD WMD WMD -imminent danger..freaking scaremongers
> Nike Wrote:
> > Perhaps the gov’t should do nothing like the
> > 1920’s. VirginCFAHooker, you shouldn’t be in
> > CFA program.
> Hey, the 1920’s were great. No oversight, rampant
> greed, “free markets”, and punishment of the
> guilty when the thing went to sh!t.
Ignorant/convenient t lies. The Fed inflated in the 20s to help Britain overcome its problems with going back to the gold stabdard at pre-war exchange rate. This was no free market. A central bank should not or cannot plan the economy in a free market or collude with other banks to try and manipulate interest rates.
By the time the fed tightened in 1928-29 , the bubble was beyond redemption and the depression was inevitable.
Its ridiculous that govt interference in the markets(govt chartering of the fannie and freddie for example and artificial low interest rates by gspan) are ignored and everything is blamed on “speculators” and free markets when in fact it is clearly a regulated economy.Freddie and fannie were some of the most regulated entities on earth.egulations dont equate to safety especially when the busineses have no incentive to heed those regulations.
In an exact parallel to today, FDR blamed the speculators and businesses. More regulations and more taxes were recommended.
The stupid policies and manipulation of rates of the 20s caused the depression and the the excessive regulations and price fixing of the 30s didnt allow it to get over quickly.
There is no reason for the credit markets to “unfreeze” immediately because of any govt injection of money.american businesses will need to cut costs and try to find other ways to survive.bad investments will need to get liquidated and then rebuilding can start. Instead of claiming its a liquidity crisis,please realise that this is a solvency crisis.
are you ignoring that there was cheap credit available for almost a decade?didnt that lead to poor investments?. is it supposed to linger in the system like gangrene?
For those who mention the 1920s, the government did do something. They RAISED TAXES causing further issues.
The real problem is that most American has spent the money they did not have. Wall Streets created delusional assets that has no real value. Now it is the payback time for Wall Street and Main Street. US government needs a bailout. It is broke itself. Surely it feels good when Fed prints trillions of dollar to save the market. . Who is going to bail US out when the dollar becomes toilet paper.
That’s just not true and even if it was true it’s an inappropriate ad hominem argument. If you have something interesting to say about the bailout, have at it. If you just want to call other people inexperienced or unintelligent because they don’t believe what you believe, then grow up.
In fact, nearly everyone has reservations about the bill that was presented. Nobody is even claiming authorship. It’s a foul plan and everyone knows it’s a foul plan. It just might be better than no plan at all or better than the one they will vote on next week because this one is ready and next week’s isn’t.
Read that bill and find five things you think are offensive. That should take 20 minutes. Then think about whether someone of intelligence and experience might find some of those five things offensive enough to vote against the bill.
AnalystForum is an online community designed exclusively for CFA candidates and charterholders to discuss the Chartered Financial Analyst program.