cfa_gremlin Wrote:
——————————————————-
> “Are you dense? The potential buyers *are* buying
> up the assets, note Merril’s sale to Lone Star.
> However, the banks don’t want to sell at such
> reduced prices when they don’t think that’s what
> they are worth in the long-run.”
>
> Uh. No. Read the fine print pal. Merrill
> financed the deal. You do understand what this
> means right?
>
> “Do you even work in banking? Do you know anything
> about capital ratios either in the US or Europe,
> such as BASEL II?”
>
> No, Yes, Yes. Your point?
>
> “Or are you some fricking libertopian fool who
> observes form the sidelines and thinks he knows
> enough to opine?”
>
> I do know enough to opine.
>
> “If you are the sideline quarterback, you’re in
> way above your paygrade and look pretty damn
> stupid. ”
>
> You just criticize people left and right here.
> You have yet to build a strong case as to why this
> bailout needs to pass. I’ve proven with
> mathematics that 700 billion is just a drop in the
> bucket. Also, currently the annual amount of
> interest on outstanding debt is more than annual
> debt growth. With households in debt, how are you
> going to increase debt without triggering yet more
> defaults? Game Over. That’s why banks are not
> lending.
I’m so glad you can tell me why I’m not lending. Do you happen to know my CEO, are you giving him advice too? Perhaps we should just all stop and listen to you, since you know everything about what we’re doing anyway.
I cede all of my lending to you, good sir, because of your superior prognostication ability and omnipotence.
“I’m so glad you can tell me why I’m not lending. Do you happen to know my CEO, are you giving him advice too? Perhaps we should just all stop and listen to you, since you know everything about what we’re doing anyway.
I cede all of my lending to you, good sir, because of your superior prognostication ability and omnipotence.”
Oh please. Let’s not sensationalize what I said. But I’ll be waiting for proof from you that the bailout needs to passed.
” current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street’s hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.”.
I am surprised to find that most of the people on this forum don’t believe in Bailout plan while the CFA members who filled out a recent survey supports the Bailout!
Not only is it necessary for america, its necessary for the global economy.
While it helps that i am not american thus wont suffer the consequences of higher taxes, I do wonder whether the thought of global intervention through the IMF has ever been discussed. Let ,me know if this is as ridiculous an idea as Russell Crowe suggesting to give every american $1million bucks to solve this crisis.
Dsylexic Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Jeff Miron on why the banks wont lend:
>
> ” current credit freeze is likely due to Wall
> Street’s hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell
> their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if
> the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.”.
>
> Hope,change -what freaking audacity.
Here’s an idea. For every person in a house that’s underwater, let’s *FORCE* them to sell, that way we can drop the price of housing and get this problem over with, now.
cfa_gremlin Wrote:
——————————————————-
> “I’m so glad you can tell me why I’m not lending.
> Do you happen to know my CEO, are you giving him
> advice too? Perhaps we should just all stop and
> listen to you, since you know everything about
> what we’re doing anyway.
>
> I cede all of my lending to you, good sir, because
> of your superior prognostication ability and
> omnipotence.”
>
> Oh please. Let’s not sensationalize what I said.
> But I’ll be waiting for proof from you that the
> bailout needs to passed.
I am awaiting proof that it doesn’t. You seem to have the pulse of the credit markets better than I do. Tell me, are all ABCP conduits funding at LIBOR flat? That’s over 700bn in financing. Are those transactions being rolled?
What about term deals? What are they pricing at? Advance rates? Volume?
How about corporate revolvers? Are all of them getting rolled? What about liquidity lines and working capital lines?
Ohhh yes, you know so fucking much about this whole situation you can tell us that everything will be OK. Despite us knowing that almost 80 years ago the same shit happened and it WASN’T OK.
But you’re one for tough love. Only because you lack the brains to figure out how to fix things. Screw it, let’s drive 6bn people into a great depression to satisfy your inability to reason and self-hating desire to see a system you love to hate, transform into something you love, but will collapse the world anyway.
If you truly knew how bad the debt markets were right now you’d be a bit more pragmatic. Yet, you don’t even work anywhere close to them.
I bet your only access to the capital markets comes from your 401k and you ticking and tying the balance sheet at your crappy job.
> You seem to have the pulse of the credit markets better than I
> do. Tell me, are all ABCP conduits funding at
> LIBOR flat?
No.
>That’s over 700bn in financing.
>Are those transactions being rolled?
Some are.
> What about term deals? What are they pricing at?
> Advance rates? Volume?
Term market is non-existant at this juncture.
> How about corporate revolvers? Are all of them
> getting rolled? What about liquidity lines and
> working capital lines?
No.
> Ohhh yes, you know so fucking much about this
> whole situation you can tell us that everything
> will be OK. Despite us knowing that almost 80
> years ago the same shit happened and it WASN’T OK.
>
>
> But you’re one for tough love. Only because you
> lack the brains to figure out how to fix things.
> Screw it, let’s drive 6bn people into a great
> depression to satisfy your inability to reason and
> self-hating desire to see a system you love to
> hate, transform into something you love, but will
> collapse the world anyway.
>
> If you truly knew how bad the debt markets were
> right now you’d be a bit more pragmatic. Yet, you
> don’t even work anywhere close to them.
I know how bad the debt markets are. $700 billion won’t cut it.
> I bet your only access to the capital markets
> comes from your 401k and you ticking and tying the
> balance sheet at your crappy job.
No I actually co-manage a fixed income Emerging Market hedge fund.
Guys, we really should have followed Russell Crowe’s advice. He reckoned that giving every American $1,000,000 would only cost $300 million, which is much lower than the cost of the bailout.
good on ya Rusty for showing us just how smart you really are…
So far, gov’t intervention has been a massive failure. The U.S. put up tens of billions of dollars to the American auto companies and they are going to fail anyway. Banks were strong armed into taking TARP money, are having foolish regulations put on their compensation, and now that they are trying to pay it back, the Obama administration is refusing to accept the money. The Fed purchased $1 trillion in US Treasuries to bring down mortgage rates and as of Friday rates are nearly back to where they were right before the Fed made the purchase.
In addition, these mouth breathing jackasses in Congress are passing legislation that they 1) don’t understand and 2) haven’t read and are now in the business of violating the Constitution by nullifying existing contracts. TARP was such a massive failure that we are now doing TARP 2.
The GSEs–massive, semi-gov’t organizations that are highly regulated by gov’t–are one of the primary reasons we are today where we are. Now, we’ve increased the national debt by 25% and increased gov’t liabilities by 100%. All the while, the gov’t is trying to pass massive carbon taxes, attempting to take over the healthcare system, and passing the largest, most wasteful budget in American history. Now, it appears as though the economy–in SPITE of the gov’t and in contradiction to Obama’s bullsh*t–is showing signs that things maybe weren’t as bad as everyone feared, which–if true–will ultimately lead to hyperinflation caused by gov’t spending and borrowing.
I’d say gov’t intervention is a massive failure.
And let the record state, I opposed TARP from the very beginning. You can search me.
newsuper Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Guys, we really should have followed Russell
> Crowe’s advice. He reckoned that giving every
> American $1,000,000 would only cost $300 million,
> which is much lower than the cost of the bailout.
>
> good on ya Rusty for showing us just how smart you
> really are…
Wait, what? Did he really say that? God, life is so unfair. You can be a complete moron and still have (at least) an eight figure net worth for “acting” in movies.
“I lost my wife to a margin call. Wives get mad when you come home and say, ‘Sweetheart, I lost the house today.’” - Dennis Gartman on trading mistakes
kkent Wrote:
——————————————————-
> So far, gov’t intervention has been a massive
> failure. The U.S. put up tens of billions of
> dollars to the American auto companies and they
> are going to fail anyway. Banks were strong armed
> into taking TARP money, are having foolish
> regulations put on their compensation, and now
> that they are trying to pay it back, the Obama
> administration is refusing to accept the money.
> The Fed purchased $1 trillion in US Treasuries to
> bring down mortgage rates and as of Friday rates
> are nearly back to where they were right before
> the Fed made the purchase.
>
> In addition, these mouth breathing jackasses in
> Congress are passing legislation that they 1)
> don’t understand and 2) haven’t read and are now
> in the business of violating the Constitution by
> nullifying existing contracts. TARP was such a
> massive failure that we are now doing TARP 2.
>
> The GSEs–massive, semi-gov’t organizations that
> are highly regulated by gov’t–are one of the
> primary reasons we are today where we are. Now,
> we’ve increased the national debt by 25% and
> increased gov’t liabilities by 100%. All the
> while, the gov’t is trying to pass massive carbon
> taxes, attempting to take over the healthcare
> system, and passing the largest, most wasteful
> budget in American history. Now, it appears as
> though the economy–in SPITE of the gov’t and in
> contradiction to Obama’s bullsh*t–is showing
> signs that things maybe weren’t as bad as everyone
> feared, which–if true–will ultimately lead to
> hyperinflation caused by gov’t spending and
> borrowing.
>
> I’d say gov’t intervention is a massive failure.
>
> And let the record state, I opposed TARP from the
> very beginning. You can search me.
So the whole world is wrong and kkent is right? In your view, what is the solution?
The whole world? First of all, the whole world has been wrong a lot–that’s why we are in this mess in the first place! Ever heard of the Great Depression? Ever heard of World War II? Slavery? Second of all, A LOT of people opposed government intervention–conservatives opposed TARP 1 and Republicans (notice that conservative and Republican are NOT interchangeable) voted unanimously against a lot of this government intervention (see omnibus bill and “stimulus” bill and see 2010 fiscal budget). It’s not as if I’m one man alone in the wilderness calling out upon deaf ears. In fact, Sweden said flat out that the Swedish government is NOT involved in the Swedish auto industry. Much of Europe–minus Gordon Brown in the UK–has rejected Obama’s plan to deficit spend the world’s way out of recession.
You can ad hominem attack me all you want, but I’ll let the facts speak. Instead of attacking me, attack my assertions. Or are you saying that I’m right and it pisses you off that you have nothing to say about the facts?
What a guy that VIrginCFAHooker was. He sure was a handsome fellow and I heard he was a good cook. I miss his endless wit and his generosity and compassion. RIP virginCFAHooker. RIP.
kkent Wrote:
——————————————————-
> The whole world? First of all, the whole world has
> been wrong a lot–that’s why we are in this mess
> in the first place! Ever heard of the Great
> Depression? Ever heard of World War II? Slavery?
> Second of all, A LOT of people opposed government
> intervention–conservatives opposed TARP 1 and
> Republicans (notice that conservative and
> Republican are NOT interchangeable) voted
> unanimously against a lot of this government
> intervention (see omnibus bill and “stimulus” bill
> and see 2010 fiscal budget). It’s not as if I’m
> one man alone in the wilderness calling out upon
> deaf ears. In fact, Sweden said flat out that the
> Swedish government is NOT involved in the Swedish
> auto industry. Much of Europe–minus Gordon Brown
> in the UK–has rejected Obama’s plan to deficit
> spend the world’s way out of recession.
>
> You can ad hominem attack me all you want, but
> I’ll let the facts speak. Instead of attacking me,
> attack my assertions. Or are you saying that I’m
> right and it pisses you off that you have nothing
> to say about the facts?
I am not at all interested in a fight with kkent, I leave that to people better qualified for that.
My question is, given the circumstances, what do you think is the best way out of this mess? And if this “bailouts” and “stimulus packages” are so out of touch, why is it 85% of the G20 countries have participated in one, one way or another?
First of all, I’m not interested in an internet fight at all–once again, I post FACTUAL commentary and am PERSONALLY attacked. So if you don’t want to fight, stick to the facts.
Second of all, I’m not talking about generic “bailouts.” What I’m talking about in AMERICA is awful legislation that was rushed through, un-read, and has had 1) no positive impact on the situation 2) a lot of cost and 3) numerous unintended consequences. This is the just rewards of government intervention–bureaucrats and politicians are the least qualified people in America to run the financial system and, frankly, to pass laws about anything.
The government should have eliminated mark-to-market, gave a verbal backing of all single family loans issued in 2003, 2004, 2005 and through June 30, 2006 with risk share/loss share with the holder of the loan. The government should have been calm, assessed the situation, and passed targeted regulation to fix the problems for the future, and then they should have let the economy go down, let the bubble deflate, cut taxes, increased infrastucture spending in a targeted, methodical way, and let the economy return (as it appears it is showing signs of doing now). Instead, we are getting miles and miles of bad, ill advised legislation. If you care to hear about it, I’ll give you another long list of moronic housing legislation that will do nothing but harm the situation in the long run. In addition, we are getting trillions of dollars in new hard debt that could have been avoided.
Lower activity leads to lower demand for energy and reduced prices. Everybody saves money on gas and heating oil, shipping goods cost less.
The recession is in itself a bailout if you keep your job. Unless your paid as a percentage of assets then it can suck.
Sure the gov`t can keep rates down, cut some taxes, spend a bit on infrastructure that would be needed anyways and help goods flow.
People spend less… they pad thier bank accounts and pay down a few debts until they feel like there is enough money in the bank account and it looks like they won`t lose their jobs and bada bing they do some discretionairy spending again.
The bailout money was necessary given the situation after Lehman’s failure.
What else could we have done?
Deleted User
bailout money was necessary to stop impending bank runs especially at citi and the wachovias and wamus of the world. but this life support that the govies have the big banks on now is making me nauseous. i seriously think they are hiding the fact that these banks are already bankrupt and that they have been for months. same goes for uk government, i’m sure 4/5s of their banks are done. in fact, i think the uk itself is done. how do you take on the bankruptcy of iceland, have bank issues yourself, are already having trouble selling $1billion in bonds and expect to sell another $340 billion in the next 2 years. somebody is going to sink and if it isn’t ALL the bad banks, it will the be the oldest bad bank in the world, the ‘ol mother country.
You can have the IMF loan you money to fund your bank bailouts, then have a producing economy and repay the IMF back.
Deleted User
ancientmtk Wrote:
——————————————————-
> You can have the IMF loan you money to fund your
> bank bailouts, then have a producing economy and
> repay the IMF back.
so its basically just another tranche effect eh? the commercial banks go down (highest risk tranche) and it brings down the uk govt, which then brings down the IMF.. its not like the IMF has unlimited funds and the funds they hold are just loans from “healthier” economies who won’t have money at one point…
eventually, there’s going to be nobody left to hang onto and everybody slips down the slope because of the first guy who was stupid enough to test the effect of oil on a hill.
i’m tellin ya, if most banks don’t die, then countries will. we’ve already seen some die and we haven’t even experienced any unemployment or reduction in gdp yet.
cfa_gremlin Wrote:
——————————————————-
> “Are you dense? The potential buyers *are* buying
> up the assets, note Merril’s sale to Lone Star.
> However, the banks don’t want to sell at such
> reduced prices when they don’t think that’s what
> they are worth in the long-run.”
>
> Uh. No. Read the fine print pal. Merrill
> financed the deal. You do understand what this
> means right?
>
> “Do you even work in banking? Do you know anything
> about capital ratios either in the US or Europe,
> such as BASEL II?”
>
> No, Yes, Yes. Your point?
>
> “Or are you some fricking libertopian fool who
> observes form the sidelines and thinks he knows
> enough to opine?”
>
> I do know enough to opine.
>
> “If you are the sideline quarterback, you’re in
> way above your paygrade and look pretty damn
> stupid. ”
>
> You just criticize people left and right here.
> You have yet to build a strong case as to why this
> bailout needs to pass. I’ve proven with
> mathematics that 700 billion is just a drop in the
> bucket. Also, currently the annual amount of
> interest on outstanding debt is more than annual
> debt growth. With households in debt, how are you
> going to increase debt without triggering yet more
> defaults? Game Over. That’s why banks are not
> lending.
I’m so glad you can tell me why I’m not lending. Do you happen to know my CEO, are you giving him advice too? Perhaps we should just all stop and listen to you, since you know everything about what we’re doing anyway.
I cede all of my lending to you, good sir, because of your superior prognostication ability and omnipotence.
“I’m so glad you can tell me why I’m not lending. Do you happen to know my CEO, are you giving him advice too? Perhaps we should just all stop and listen to you, since you know everything about what we’re doing anyway.
I cede all of my lending to you, good sir, because of your superior prognostication ability and omnipotence.”
Oh please. Let’s not sensationalize what I said. But I’ll be waiting for proof from you that the bailout needs to passed.
Wowzers! This thread is going to go longer than the thread about the guy who had sexual relations with his boss!
Jeff Miron on why the banks wont lend:
” current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street’s hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.”.
Hope,change -what freaking audacity.
I am surprised to find that most of the people on this forum don’t believe in Bailout plan while the CFA members who filled out a recent survey supports the Bailout!
check out the survey response posted by CFAI:
http://www.cfainstitute.org/memresources/monthlyquestion/2008/september....
Yeah well, you don’t have to be awarded the CFA to post on this forum.
I could be a shelf-stacker at my local five and dime and yet still post my economic ramblings here…
I fully support the bailout 110%.
Not only is it necessary for america, its necessary for the global economy.
While it helps that i am not american thus wont suffer the consequences of higher taxes, I do wonder whether the thought of global intervention through the IMF has ever been discussed. Let ,me know if this is as ridiculous an idea as Russell Crowe suggesting to give every american $1million bucks to solve this crisis.
Dsylexic Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Jeff Miron on why the banks wont lend:
>
> ” current credit freeze is likely due to Wall
> Street’s hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell
> their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if
> the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.”.
>
> Hope,change -what freaking audacity.
Here’s an idea. For every person in a house that’s underwater, let’s *FORCE* them to sell, that way we can drop the price of housing and get this problem over with, now.
Sounds like a great idea, right?
cfa_gremlin Wrote:
——————————————————-
> “I’m so glad you can tell me why I’m not lending.
> Do you happen to know my CEO, are you giving him
> advice too? Perhaps we should just all stop and
> listen to you, since you know everything about
> what we’re doing anyway.
>
> I cede all of my lending to you, good sir, because
> of your superior prognostication ability and
> omnipotence.”
>
> Oh please. Let’s not sensationalize what I said.
> But I’ll be waiting for proof from you that the
> bailout needs to passed.
I am awaiting proof that it doesn’t. You seem to have the pulse of the credit markets better than I do. Tell me, are all ABCP conduits funding at LIBOR flat? That’s over 700bn in financing. Are those transactions being rolled?
What about term deals? What are they pricing at? Advance rates? Volume?
How about corporate revolvers? Are all of them getting rolled? What about liquidity lines and working capital lines?
Ohhh yes, you know so fucking much about this whole situation you can tell us that everything will be OK. Despite us knowing that almost 80 years ago the same shit happened and it WASN’T OK.
But you’re one for tough love. Only because you lack the brains to figure out how to fix things. Screw it, let’s drive 6bn people into a great depression to satisfy your inability to reason and self-hating desire to see a system you love to hate, transform into something you love, but will collapse the world anyway.
If you truly knew how bad the debt markets were right now you’d be a bit more pragmatic. Yet, you don’t even work anywhere close to them.
I bet your only access to the capital markets comes from your 401k and you ticking and tying the balance sheet at your crappy job.
spierce Wrote:
> I am awaiting proof that it doesn’t.
please use search function.
> You seem to have the pulse of the credit markets better than I
> do. Tell me, are all ABCP conduits funding at
> LIBOR flat?
No.
>That’s over 700bn in financing.
>Are those transactions being rolled?
Some are.
> What about term deals? What are they pricing at?
> Advance rates? Volume?
Term market is non-existant at this juncture.
> How about corporate revolvers? Are all of them
> getting rolled? What about liquidity lines and
> working capital lines?
No.
> Ohhh yes, you know so fucking much about this
> whole situation you can tell us that everything
> will be OK. Despite us knowing that almost 80
> years ago the same shit happened and it WASN’T OK.
>
>
> But you’re one for tough love. Only because you
> lack the brains to figure out how to fix things.
> Screw it, let’s drive 6bn people into a great
> depression to satisfy your inability to reason and
> self-hating desire to see a system you love to
> hate, transform into something you love, but will
> collapse the world anyway.
>
> If you truly knew how bad the debt markets were
> right now you’d be a bit more pragmatic. Yet, you
> don’t even work anywhere close to them.
I know how bad the debt markets are. $700 billion won’t cut it.
> I bet your only access to the capital markets
> comes from your 401k and you ticking and tying the
> balance sheet at your crappy job.
No I actually co-manage a fixed income Emerging Market hedge fund.
Guys, we really should have followed Russell Crowe’s advice. He reckoned that giving every American $1,000,000 would only cost $300 million, which is much lower than the cost of the bailout.
good on ya Rusty for showing us just how smart you really are…
I wanted to pull this old thread up to get some more insight.
Specifically the AIG bonus incident and the GM CEO getting fired by Obama has sparked my curiosity about government entering the private sector.
So far, gov’t intervention has been a massive failure. The U.S. put up tens of billions of dollars to the American auto companies and they are going to fail anyway. Banks were strong armed into taking TARP money, are having foolish regulations put on their compensation, and now that they are trying to pay it back, the Obama administration is refusing to accept the money. The Fed purchased $1 trillion in US Treasuries to bring down mortgage rates and as of Friday rates are nearly back to where they were right before the Fed made the purchase.
In addition, these mouth breathing jackasses in Congress are passing legislation that they 1) don’t understand and 2) haven’t read and are now in the business of violating the Constitution by nullifying existing contracts. TARP was such a massive failure that we are now doing TARP 2.
The GSEs–massive, semi-gov’t organizations that are highly regulated by gov’t–are one of the primary reasons we are today where we are. Now, we’ve increased the national debt by 25% and increased gov’t liabilities by 100%. All the while, the gov’t is trying to pass massive carbon taxes, attempting to take over the healthcare system, and passing the largest, most wasteful budget in American history. Now, it appears as though the economy–in SPITE of the gov’t and in contradiction to Obama’s bullsh*t–is showing signs that things maybe weren’t as bad as everyone feared, which–if true–will ultimately lead to hyperinflation caused by gov’t spending and borrowing.
I’d say gov’t intervention is a massive failure.
And let the record state, I opposed TARP from the very beginning. You can search me.
Hokies
newsuper Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Guys, we really should have followed Russell
> Crowe’s advice. He reckoned that giving every
> American $1,000,000 would only cost $300 million,
> which is much lower than the cost of the bailout.
>
> good on ya Rusty for showing us just how smart you
> really are…
Wait, what? Did he really say that? God, life is so unfair. You can be a complete moron and still have (at least) an eight figure net worth for “acting” in movies.
“I lost my wife to a margin call. Wives get mad when you come home and say, ‘Sweetheart, I lost the house today.’” - Dennis Gartman on trading mistakes
kkent Wrote:
——————————————————-
> So far, gov’t intervention has been a massive
> failure. The U.S. put up tens of billions of
> dollars to the American auto companies and they
> are going to fail anyway. Banks were strong armed
> into taking TARP money, are having foolish
> regulations put on their compensation, and now
> that they are trying to pay it back, the Obama
> administration is refusing to accept the money.
> The Fed purchased $1 trillion in US Treasuries to
> bring down mortgage rates and as of Friday rates
> are nearly back to where they were right before
> the Fed made the purchase.
>
> In addition, these mouth breathing jackasses in
> Congress are passing legislation that they 1)
> don’t understand and 2) haven’t read and are now
> in the business of violating the Constitution by
> nullifying existing contracts. TARP was such a
> massive failure that we are now doing TARP 2.
>
> The GSEs–massive, semi-gov’t organizations that
> are highly regulated by gov’t–are one of the
> primary reasons we are today where we are. Now,
> we’ve increased the national debt by 25% and
> increased gov’t liabilities by 100%. All the
> while, the gov’t is trying to pass massive carbon
> taxes, attempting to take over the healthcare
> system, and passing the largest, most wasteful
> budget in American history. Now, it appears as
> though the economy–in SPITE of the gov’t and in
> contradiction to Obama’s bullsh*t–is showing
> signs that things maybe weren’t as bad as everyone
> feared, which–if true–will ultimately lead to
> hyperinflation caused by gov’t spending and
> borrowing.
>
> I’d say gov’t intervention is a massive failure.
>
> And let the record state, I opposed TARP from the
> very beginning. You can search me.
So the whole world is wrong and kkent is right? In your view, what is the solution?
The whole world? First of all, the whole world has been wrong a lot–that’s why we are in this mess in the first place! Ever heard of the Great Depression? Ever heard of World War II? Slavery? Second of all, A LOT of people opposed government intervention–conservatives opposed TARP 1 and Republicans (notice that conservative and Republican are NOT interchangeable) voted unanimously against a lot of this government intervention (see omnibus bill and “stimulus” bill and see 2010 fiscal budget). It’s not as if I’m one man alone in the wilderness calling out upon deaf ears. In fact, Sweden said flat out that the Swedish government is NOT involved in the Swedish auto industry. Much of Europe–minus Gordon Brown in the UK–has rejected Obama’s plan to deficit spend the world’s way out of recession.
You can ad hominem attack me all you want, but I’ll let the facts speak. Instead of attacking me, attack my assertions. Or are you saying that I’m right and it pisses you off that you have nothing to say about the facts?
Hokies
^ kkent is the next Rush Limbaugh, lol
What a guy that VIrginCFAHooker was. He sure was a handsome fellow and I heard he was a good cook. I miss his endless wit and his generosity and compassion. RIP virginCFAHooker. RIP.
"Ask me how to clean the Shewee"
kkent Wrote:
——————————————————-
> The whole world? First of all, the whole world has
> been wrong a lot–that’s why we are in this mess
> in the first place! Ever heard of the Great
> Depression? Ever heard of World War II? Slavery?
> Second of all, A LOT of people opposed government
> intervention–conservatives opposed TARP 1 and
> Republicans (notice that conservative and
> Republican are NOT interchangeable) voted
> unanimously against a lot of this government
> intervention (see omnibus bill and “stimulus” bill
> and see 2010 fiscal budget). It’s not as if I’m
> one man alone in the wilderness calling out upon
> deaf ears. In fact, Sweden said flat out that the
> Swedish government is NOT involved in the Swedish
> auto industry. Much of Europe–minus Gordon Brown
> in the UK–has rejected Obama’s plan to deficit
> spend the world’s way out of recession.
>
> You can ad hominem attack me all you want, but
> I’ll let the facts speak. Instead of attacking me,
> attack my assertions. Or are you saying that I’m
> right and it pisses you off that you have nothing
> to say about the facts?
I am not at all interested in a fight with kkent, I leave that to people better qualified for that.
My question is, given the circumstances, what do you think is the best way out of this mess? And if this “bailouts” and “stimulus packages” are so out of touch, why is it 85% of the G20 countries have participated in one, one way or another?
First of all, I’m not interested in an internet fight at all–once again, I post FACTUAL commentary and am PERSONALLY attacked. So if you don’t want to fight, stick to the facts.
Second of all, I’m not talking about generic “bailouts.” What I’m talking about in AMERICA is awful legislation that was rushed through, un-read, and has had 1) no positive impact on the situation 2) a lot of cost and 3) numerous unintended consequences. This is the just rewards of government intervention–bureaucrats and politicians are the least qualified people in America to run the financial system and, frankly, to pass laws about anything.
The government should have eliminated mark-to-market, gave a verbal backing of all single family loans issued in 2003, 2004, 2005 and through June 30, 2006 with risk share/loss share with the holder of the loan. The government should have been calm, assessed the situation, and passed targeted regulation to fix the problems for the future, and then they should have let the economy go down, let the bubble deflate, cut taxes, increased infrastucture spending in a targeted, methodical way, and let the economy return (as it appears it is showing signs of doing now). Instead, we are getting miles and miles of bad, ill advised legislation. If you care to hear about it, I’ll give you another long list of moronic housing legislation that will do nothing but harm the situation in the long run. In addition, we are getting trillions of dollars in new hard debt that could have been avoided.
Hokies
Economy runs in cycles.
Lower activity leads to lower demand for energy and reduced prices. Everybody saves money on gas and heating oil, shipping goods cost less.
The recession is in itself a bailout if you keep your job. Unless your paid as a percentage of assets then it can suck.
Sure the gov`t can keep rates down, cut some taxes, spend a bit on infrastructure that would be needed anyways and help goods flow.
People spend less… they pad thier bank accounts and pay down a few debts until they feel like there is enough money in the bank account and it looks like they won`t lose their jobs and bada bing they do some discretionairy spending again.
The bailout money was necessary given the situation after Lehman’s failure.
What else could we have done?
bailout money was necessary to stop impending bank runs especially at citi and the wachovias and wamus of the world. but this life support that the govies have the big banks on now is making me nauseous. i seriously think they are hiding the fact that these banks are already bankrupt and that they have been for months. same goes for uk government, i’m sure 4/5s of their banks are done. in fact, i think the uk itself is done. how do you take on the bankruptcy of iceland, have bank issues yourself, are already having trouble selling $1billion in bonds and expect to sell another $340 billion in the next 2 years. somebody is going to sink and if it isn’t ALL the bad banks, it will the be the oldest bad bank in the world, the ‘ol mother country.
You can have the IMF loan you money to fund your bank bailouts, then have a producing economy and repay the IMF back.
ancientmtk Wrote:
——————————————————-
> You can have the IMF loan you money to fund your
> bank bailouts, then have a producing economy and
> repay the IMF back.
so its basically just another tranche effect eh? the commercial banks go down (highest risk tranche) and it brings down the uk govt, which then brings down the IMF.. its not like the IMF has unlimited funds and the funds they hold are just loans from “healthier” economies who won’t have money at one point…
eventually, there’s going to be nobody left to hang onto and everybody slips down the slope because of the first guy who was stupid enough to test the effect of oil on a hill.
i’m tellin ya, if most banks don’t die, then countries will. we’ve already seen some die and we haven’t even experienced any unemployment or reduction in gdp yet.
Pages