I have just read the bill, trying to find out how the assets are priced.
It seems to me the pricing will be at the sole discretion of the treasury. “make such purchase at the lowest price the secretary determines to be consistent with the purpose of the act”, “maximize efficiency of the taxpayer’s resources by using market mechanism such as auction or reverse auction”, direct purchase allowed if market mechanism not feasible.
so it comes down to whether you believe the treasury can protect the taxpayers or not. I agree that the bill more or less give the Treasury a blank check. But I have more faith that the treasury will be careful to write an appropriate number on that check. Whatever number they write, it will be scrutinize afterwards, so the treasury officials are likely to behave themselves.
We are now on a boat that is leaking profusely. Some say we need to let the boat sink in order to punish those who did not maintain it properly. Some do not believe the leak is significant enough to sink the boat. I would rather not wait and found out that the boat did sink.
Okay I haven’t read this bill, won’t read the next and therefore won’t get into details.
All I know is that the US government comes with a plan, works on a plan, gives the market and people hope, aims for a bi-partisan approach and then votes AGAINST the plan.
That’s just WRONG. You can’t give people hope that you’re helping them and then do nothing. Both accepting the plan and never even having come up with a plan would have been better. This is the worst thing that could have happened.
DonYuan Wrote:
——————————————————-
> 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.
Please, the hyperbole is so thick in there.
1. Americans may have put on too much debt, but it’s not really debt that’s killing the banks, but mark to market.
2. The assets do have value, future cashflows that are contractual. It is no different than valuing companies using DCF.
3. Check again, the dollar is going UP. Perhaps you should think about the ramifications of people checking against the dollar globally.
As far as people asking for a definition of how much they will pay for the assets, how fricking stupid are you?
Do you contract with your broker, years ahead of time, to buy 2,000 different stocks, with a time horizon and price? Or do you call him up when the market is moving and tell him to buy?
I really wonder how low the standards for the program have gotten that we have people on this board with this type of mentality.
spierce Wrote:
——————————————————-
> As far as people asking for a definition of how
> much they will pay for the assets, how fricking
> stupid are you?
>
> Do you contract with your broker, years ahead of
> time, to buy APPL at a specific price?
Well, people do things like that all the time. It’s called the futures market. But your first point is correct, it’s a dumb question.
NakedPuts Wrote:
——————————————————-
> spierce Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > As far as people asking for a definition of how
> > much they will pay for the assets, how fricking
> > stupid are you?
> >
> > Do you contract with your broker, years ahead
> of
> > time, to buy APPL at a specific price?
>
> Well, people do things like that all the time.
> It’s called the futures market. But your first
> point is correct, it’s a dumb question.
you know dang well I wasn’t talking about futures.
virginCFAhooker Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Good try Hank. So much for the end of the world.
>
> The more I think about the crap they tried to pull
> over on us the more I think they (hank & ben)
> should be given the boot.
have you looked at the credit market’s reaction, even through today? Libor at 7%, ABCP at 9%. Where do you think those costs are going? You just saved on tax and layered on another.
Tell me, did Devry put your diploma in lamination or a plastic frame?
sure, you think these assets are impossible to price, so whoever ask the question must be stupid. yet the very government is seeking to purchase these assets. They are to pay a price that has some potential reward for the taxpayer and attractive enough for the financial institutions to participate. just auction it, you may say, let the market decide. If that worked, we would not be in this mess. How would Pauson’s reverse auction help? Bernanke mentioned about discounted cash flow, but was critisized as too lenient. The bill is supposed to provide some assurance to the taxpayer that they are protected. Without more specifics to the pricing question, the bill will always be regarded as a blank check.
twdavid Wrote:
——————————————————-
> spierce
>
> sure, you think these assets are impossible to
> price, so whoever ask the question must be stupid.
> yet the very government is seeking to purchase
> these assets. They are to pay a price that has
> some potential reward for the taxpayer and
> attractive enough for the financial institutions
> to participate. just auction it, you may say, let
> the market decide. If that worked, we would not be
> in this mess. How would Pauson’s reverse auction
> help? Bernanke mentioned about discounted cash
> flow, but was critisized as too lenient. The bill
> is supposed to provide some assurance to the
> taxpayer that they are protected. Without more
> specifics to the pricing question, the bill will
> always be regarded as a blank check.
You have to look at each situation individually. Looking at the assets underneath the bond, the current performance of those assets, the structure of the bond, both original and current pricing.
You can’t put guidelines on these things. You’re looking for specific when only vagueness can happen.
Losses are already included in equity in the bank.
Letting the market decide the price is what got us into this situation in the first place. Using market pricing during massively illiquid markets, resulting in huge mark to market losses, is part of the problem.
You should be formally stripped of your CFA charter and flogged in the street until you confess that in fact you’re really an anti-capitalist spy trying to spread communism.
If you think those bonds are so great, why don’t you buy some? Why doesn’t Buffett buy them? Are all those value investors just not smart enough?
virginCFAhooker Wrote:
——————————————————-
> What you write is a travesty!
>
> You should be formally stripped of your CFA
> charter and flogged in the street until you
> confess that in fact you’re really an
> anti-capitalist spy trying to spread communism.
>
> If you think those bonds are so great, why don’t
> you buy some? Why doesn’t Buffett buy them? Are
> all those value investors just not smart enough?
This just keeps getting better and better.
Next thing I know you’ll be talking about the Ron Paul Revolution and gold backed currency.
Grow up.
The rest of the world has…
Europe is already responding to the crisis by nationalizing banks.
The point is, that the problem is not even about the plan itself anymore, but the inaction of the entities who should already be doing something about this crisis.
As Joey said, this plan may not be the best, but next week’s plan isn’t drafted as we speak.
There needs to be actions to get the financial system out of this mess…
Grow up.
The rest of the world has…
Europe is already responding to the crisis by nationalizing banks.
The point is, that the problem is not even about the plan itself anymore, but the inaction of the entities who should already be doing something about this crisis.
As Joey said, this plan may not be the best, but next week’s plan isn’t drafted as we speak.
There needs to be actions to get the financial system out of this mess…
I like how you say consider being an elementary school teacher. I would bet none of us (myself included) would survive a day in front of some elementary school classrooms nowadays.
virginCFAhooker Wrote:
——————————————————-
> It sure makes those nerdy academics look awful
> silly when they discount everything Ron Paul says
> as garbage but he keeps being right!
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut eventually. Nostradamus might be proven right a couple times too.
Anybody can make extreme prognostications of impending doom without a time horizon or reason for the problem and be right eventually. He’s been saying the same sh!t for the last 30 years.
However, all of his underlying reasons, and stupid libertopian policies, have been proven wrong time and again.
Deleted User
I hear you jb.
I look like Waldo from Where’s Waldo without the cool shirt or toque.
Spiere, you are more delusional than Bill O’Reilly and Sarah Palin adding up together. Keep playing the Wall Streets games. Let us all do nothing but trading useless derivatives. Why do you think people in the world will keep take garbage from US? Dollar goes up? Are you serious. Last time I checked, It is down against every currency for the last 2 years.
Dollar collapse is a bad thing for the world. But the day will come if US keep printing money. You are just like rest of so called analysts on TV saying “fundamental of the economy is strong”.
spierce Wrote:
——————————————————-
> virginCFAhooker Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > It sure makes those nerdy academics look awful
> > silly when they discount everything Ron Paul
> says
> > as garbage but he keeps being right!
>
>
> Even a blind squirrel finds a nut eventually.
> Nostradamus might be proven right a couple times
> too.
>
> Anybody can make extreme prognostications of
> impending doom without a time horizon or reason
> for the problem and be right eventually. He’s
> been saying the same sh!t for the last 30 years.
>
> However, all of his underlying reasons, and stupid
> libertopian policies, have been proven wrong time
> and again.
Well, it’s been proven right again…
“Once a fool, always a fool”
….and I’m not referring to Nostradamus, Ron Paul, the squirrel or the hooker.
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks"
I did read it and of course I do not completely agree with it. But to get the bill through they had to tag some ornaments to the tree. I didn’t say it was the best possible plan – simply that letting it fail was a poor idea. (The best plan would be just to give Hank “the Hammer” Paulson the ball and let him run with it.)
The bill didn’t fail because of congressmen’s intellectual reservations. It failed because congressmen (or their constituents) from the flyover states didn’t understand that it wasn’t just a bailout for “Wall Street”; it’s a bailout for anyone who depends on the financial system – i.e., everyone – save a lucky few on this board.
JoeyDVivre Wrote:
——————————————————-
> gideon Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > 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.
>
>
> 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.
gideon Wrote:
——————————————————-
> I did read it and of course I do not completely
> agree with it. But to get the bill through they
> had to tag some ornaments to the tree. I didn’t
> say it was the best possible plan – simply that
> letting it fail was a poor idea.
No you said ” No one of any intelligence or experience thinks letting this bailout fail is a good idea.” That’s the ad hominem part.
> (The best plan
> would be just to give Hank “the Hammer” Paulson
> the ball and let him run with it.)
>
Well, that’s just not what we’re gonna do because we think giving a $700B ball to one guy with no oversight just isn’t a good idea. Among other things, it creates these really thorny Constitutional issues.
> The bill didn’t fail because of congressmen’s
> intellectual reservations. It failed because
> congressmen (or their constituents) from the
> flyover states didn’t understand that it wasn’t
> just a bailout for “Wall Street”; it’s a bailout
> for anyone who depends on the financial system –
> i.e., everyone – save a lucky few on this board.
>
Silly. It failed for all the reasons the representatives who voted against it gave, largely that it was too expensive, inappropriately inserted gov’t into private enterprise, omitted key features desired by both parties. Pelosi’s idiotic partisan speech irritating a bunch of Republicans on the fence threw it off the cliff.
> JoeyDVivre Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > gideon Wrote:
> >
> ————————————————–
>
> > —–
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > 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.
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!
Fair point on the “ad hominem” part. If Pelosi had put the markets (and the economy) before her political agenda and ego the bill would have passed. Will pass tomorrow night.
“Letting the market decide the price is what got us into this situation in the first place.”
Well when the price of collateral started to fall, market participants saw the model had unconscionable assumptions just like the fraud that permeated the marketplace during the tech bubble. Back then we had phantom corporate profits now we have phantom wealth. The market is always right pal.
“Using market pricing during massively illiquid markets, resulting in huge mark to market losses, is part of the problem.”
No. The problem is a massive credit bubble that has popped. No buyers no bid. You’re going to argue with that?
I keep on hearing people say that there is huge piles of cash on the sidelines ready to buy up all these assets that have no bid. Where are they? Oh, you mean to tell me those huge piles of cash were supposed to be financed. LOL.
cfa_gremlin Wrote:
——————————————————-
> “Letting the market decide the price is what got
> us into this situation in the first place.”
>
> Well when the price of collateral started to fall,
> market participants saw the model had
> unconscionable assumptions just like the fraud
> that permeated the marketplace during the tech
> bubble. Back then we had phantom corporate
> profits now we have phantom wealth. The market is
> always right pal.
>
>
> “Using market pricing during massively illiquid
> markets, resulting in huge mark to market losses,
> is part of the problem.”
>
> No. The problem is a massive credit bubble that
> has popped. No buyers no bid. You’re going to
> argue with that?
>
> I keep on hearing people say that there is huge
> piles of cash on the sidelines ready to buy up all
> these assets that have no bid. Where are they?
> Oh, you mean to tell me those huge piles of cash
> were supposed to be financed. LOL.
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.
It’s a game of chicken.
It’s clogged up the system and has stopped everybody else from getting money, mainly because even if the banks sold the assets their capital positions would be so depleted that they wouldn’t be able to lend much anyway.
Do you even work in banking? Do you know anything about capital ratios either in the US or Europe, such as BASEL II?
Or are you some fricking libertopian fool who observes form the sidelines and thinks he knows enough to opine?
If you are the sideline quarterback, you’re in way above your paygrade and look pretty damn stupid.
Take your ridiculous Austrian economics and fly a kite. They don’t work, never have, never will.
nobody is saying that the assets are worth zero(it may be in some cases). there would have to be more Lonestars to prove your point. the burden of proof is with YOU Mr banking- insider- with- lots -of grand -plans- involving -inveigling -your- neighbors -money.
your pompous ignorance is pathetic. Basel 2?. you cuckoo,the europeans are nationalising like there is no tomorow. a buncha bureaucrats in basel arent going to do anything to help.
“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 have just read the bill, trying to find out how the assets are priced.
It seems to me the pricing will be at the sole discretion of the treasury. “make such purchase at the lowest price the secretary determines to be consistent with the purpose of the act”, “maximize efficiency of the taxpayer’s resources by using market mechanism such as auction or reverse auction”, direct purchase allowed if market mechanism not feasible.
so it comes down to whether you believe the treasury can protect the taxpayers or not. I agree that the bill more or less give the Treasury a blank check. But I have more faith that the treasury will be careful to write an appropriate number on that check. Whatever number they write, it will be scrutinize afterwards, so the treasury officials are likely to behave themselves.
We are now on a boat that is leaking profusely. Some say we need to let the boat sink in order to punish those who did not maintain it properly. Some do not believe the leak is significant enough to sink the boat. I would rather not wait and found out that the boat did sink.
Okay I haven’t read this bill, won’t read the next and therefore won’t get into details.
All I know is that the US government comes with a plan, works on a plan, gives the market and people hope, aims for a bi-partisan approach and then votes AGAINST the plan.
That’s just WRONG. You can’t give people hope that you’re helping them and then do nothing. Both accepting the plan and never even having come up with a plan would have been better. This is the worst thing that could have happened.
I think it’s important to come up with some kind of plan. Maybe this wasn’t the right one.
You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???
DonYuan Wrote:
——————————————————-
> 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.
Please, the hyperbole is so thick in there.
1. Americans may have put on too much debt, but it’s not really debt that’s killing the banks, but mark to market.
2. The assets do have value, future cashflows that are contractual. It is no different than valuing companies using DCF.
3. Check again, the dollar is going UP. Perhaps you should think about the ramifications of people checking against the dollar globally.
As far as people asking for a definition of how much they will pay for the assets, how fricking stupid are you?
Do you contract with your broker, years ahead of time, to buy 2,000 different stocks, with a time horizon and price? Or do you call him up when the market is moving and tell him to buy?
I really wonder how low the standards for the program have gotten that we have people on this board with this type of mentality.
spierce Wrote:
——————————————————-
> As far as people asking for a definition of how
> much they will pay for the assets, how fricking
> stupid are you?
>
> Do you contract with your broker, years ahead of
> time, to buy APPL at a specific price?
Well, people do things like that all the time. It’s called the futures market. But your first point is correct, it’s a dumb question.
NakedPuts Wrote:
——————————————————-
> spierce Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > As far as people asking for a definition of how
> > much they will pay for the assets, how fricking
> > stupid are you?
> >
> > Do you contract with your broker, years ahead
> of
> > time, to buy APPL at a specific price?
>
> Well, people do things like that all the time.
> It’s called the futures market. But your first
> point is correct, it’s a dumb question.
you know dang well I wasn’t talking about futures.
Good try Hank. So much for the end of the world.
The more I think about the crap they tried to pull over on us the more I think they (hank & ben) should be given the boot.
virginCFAhooker Wrote:
——————————————————-
> Good try Hank. So much for the end of the world.
>
> The more I think about the crap they tried to pull
> over on us the more I think they (hank & ben)
> should be given the boot.
have you looked at the credit market’s reaction, even through today? Libor at 7%, ABCP at 9%. Where do you think those costs are going? You just saved on tax and layered on another.
Tell me, did Devry put your diploma in lamination or a plastic frame?
spierce
sure, you think these assets are impossible to price, so whoever ask the question must be stupid. yet the very government is seeking to purchase these assets. They are to pay a price that has some potential reward for the taxpayer and attractive enough for the financial institutions to participate. just auction it, you may say, let the market decide. If that worked, we would not be in this mess. How would Pauson’s reverse auction help? Bernanke mentioned about discounted cash flow, but was critisized as too lenient. The bill is supposed to provide some assurance to the taxpayer that they are protected. Without more specifics to the pricing question, the bill will always be regarded as a blank check.
Spierce, yahoo says the ytm on 2 year a-rated bonds is 13%… I think I’ll buy some of those! got any pointers for me?
Stalla/Devry rocks!
twdavid Wrote:
——————————————————-
> spierce
>
> sure, you think these assets are impossible to
> price, so whoever ask the question must be stupid.
> yet the very government is seeking to purchase
> these assets. They are to pay a price that has
> some potential reward for the taxpayer and
> attractive enough for the financial institutions
> to participate. just auction it, you may say, let
> the market decide. If that worked, we would not be
> in this mess. How would Pauson’s reverse auction
> help? Bernanke mentioned about discounted cash
> flow, but was critisized as too lenient. The bill
> is supposed to provide some assurance to the
> taxpayer that they are protected. Without more
> specifics to the pricing question, the bill will
> always be regarded as a blank check.
You have to look at each situation individually. Looking at the assets underneath the bond, the current performance of those assets, the structure of the bond, both original and current pricing.
You can’t put guidelines on these things. You’re looking for specific when only vagueness can happen.
Losses are already included in equity in the bank.
Letting the market decide the price is what got us into this situation in the first place. Using market pricing during massively illiquid markets, resulting in huge mark to market losses, is part of the problem.
What you write is a travesty!
You should be formally stripped of your CFA charter and flogged in the street until you confess that in fact you’re really an anti-capitalist spy trying to spread communism.
If you think those bonds are so great, why don’t you buy some? Why doesn’t Buffett buy them? Are all those value investors just not smart enough?
virginCFAhooker Wrote:
——————————————————-
> What you write is a travesty!
>
> You should be formally stripped of your CFA
> charter and flogged in the street until you
> confess that in fact you’re really an
> anti-capitalist spy trying to spread communism.
>
> If you think those bonds are so great, why don’t
> you buy some? Why doesn’t Buffett buy them? Are
> all those value investors just not smart enough?
This just keeps getting better and better.
Next thing I know you’ll be talking about the Ron Paul Revolution and gold backed currency.
Funny how americans are so scared of communism.
Grow up.
The rest of the world has…
Europe is already responding to the crisis by nationalizing banks.
The point is, that the problem is not even about the plan itself anymore, but the inaction of the entities who should already be doing something about this crisis.
As Joey said, this plan may not be the best, but next week’s plan isn’t drafted as we speak.
There needs to be actions to get the financial system out of this mess…
That’s my 2 cents…
J.
Funny how americans are so scared of communism.
Grow up.
The rest of the world has…
Europe is already responding to the crisis by nationalizing banks.
The point is, that the problem is not even about the plan itself anymore, but the inaction of the entities who should already be doing something about this crisis.
As Joey said, this plan may not be the best, but next week’s plan isn’t drafted as we speak.
There needs to be actions to get the financial system out of this mess…
That’s my 2 cents…
J.
It sure makes those nerdy academics look awful silly when they discount everything Ron Paul says as garbage but he keeps being right!
I like how you say consider being an elementary school teacher. I would bet none of us (myself included) would survive a day in front of some elementary school classrooms nowadays.
Joshua Brough
virginCFAhooker Wrote:
——————————————————-
> It sure makes those nerdy academics look awful
> silly when they discount everything Ron Paul says
> as garbage but he keeps being right!
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut eventually. Nostradamus might be proven right a couple times too.
Anybody can make extreme prognostications of impending doom without a time horizon or reason for the problem and be right eventually. He’s been saying the same sh!t for the last 30 years.
However, all of his underlying reasons, and stupid libertopian policies, have been proven wrong time and again.
I hear you jb.
I look like Waldo from Where’s Waldo without the cool shirt or toque.
Me: “The world is coming to an end children!”
Hopeless Child: “Double-U Tee Eff, Teacher! “
Spiere, you are more delusional than Bill O’Reilly and Sarah Palin adding up together. Keep playing the Wall Streets games. Let us all do nothing but trading useless derivatives. Why do you think people in the world will keep take garbage from US? Dollar goes up? Are you serious. Last time I checked, It is down against every currency for the last 2 years.
Dollar collapse is a bad thing for the world. But the day will come if US keep printing money. You are just like rest of so called analysts on TV saying “fundamental of the economy is strong”.
spierce Wrote:
——————————————————-
> virginCFAhooker Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > It sure makes those nerdy academics look awful
> > silly when they discount everything Ron Paul
> says
> > as garbage but he keeps being right!
>
>
> Even a blind squirrel finds a nut eventually.
> Nostradamus might be proven right a couple times
> too.
>
> Anybody can make extreme prognostications of
> impending doom without a time horizon or reason
> for the problem and be right eventually. He’s
> been saying the same sh!t for the last 30 years.
>
> However, all of his underlying reasons, and stupid
> libertopian policies, have been proven wrong time
> and again.
Well, it’s been proven right again…
“Once a fool, always a fool”
….and I’m not referring to Nostradamus, Ron Paul, the squirrel or the hooker.
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks"
- John Muir -
I did read it and of course I do not completely agree with it. But to get the bill through they had to tag some ornaments to the tree. I didn’t say it was the best possible plan – simply that letting it fail was a poor idea. (The best plan would be just to give Hank “the Hammer” Paulson the ball and let him run with it.)
The bill didn’t fail because of congressmen’s intellectual reservations. It failed because congressmen (or their constituents) from the flyover states didn’t understand that it wasn’t just a bailout for “Wall Street”; it’s a bailout for anyone who depends on the financial system – i.e., everyone – save a lucky few on this board.
JoeyDVivre Wrote:
——————————————————-
> gideon Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > 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.
>
>
> 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.
gideon Wrote:
——————————————————-
> I did read it and of course I do not completely
> agree with it. But to get the bill through they
> had to tag some ornaments to the tree. I didn’t
> say it was the best possible plan – simply that
> letting it fail was a poor idea.
No you said ” No one of any intelligence or experience thinks letting this bailout fail is a good idea.” That’s the ad hominem part.
> (The best plan
> would be just to give Hank “the Hammer” Paulson
> the ball and let him run with it.)
>
Well, that’s just not what we’re gonna do because we think giving a $700B ball to one guy with no oversight just isn’t a good idea. Among other things, it creates these really thorny Constitutional issues.
> The bill didn’t fail because of congressmen’s
> intellectual reservations. It failed because
> congressmen (or their constituents) from the
> flyover states didn’t understand that it wasn’t
> just a bailout for “Wall Street”; it’s a bailout
> for anyone who depends on the financial system –
> i.e., everyone – save a lucky few on this board.
>
Silly. It failed for all the reasons the representatives who voted against it gave, largely that it was too expensive, inappropriately inserted gov’t into private enterprise, omitted key features desired by both parties. Pelosi’s idiotic partisan speech irritating a bunch of Republicans on the fence threw it off the cliff.
> JoeyDVivre Wrote:
> ————————————————–
> —–
> > gideon Wrote:
> >
> ————————————————–
>
> > —–
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > 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.
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!
Fair point on the “ad hominem” part. If Pelosi had put the markets (and the economy) before her political agenda and ego the bill would have passed. Will pass tomorrow night.
“Letting the market decide the price is what got us into this situation in the first place.”
Well when the price of collateral started to fall, market participants saw the model had unconscionable assumptions just like the fraud that permeated the marketplace during the tech bubble. Back then we had phantom corporate profits now we have phantom wealth. The market is always right pal.
“Using market pricing during massively illiquid markets, resulting in huge mark to market losses, is part of the problem.”
No. The problem is a massive credit bubble that has popped. No buyers no bid. You’re going to argue with that?
I keep on hearing people say that there is huge piles of cash on the sidelines ready to buy up all these assets that have no bid. Where are they? Oh, you mean to tell me those huge piles of cash were supposed to be financed. LOL.
cfa_gremlin Wrote:
——————————————————-
> “Letting the market decide the price is what got
> us into this situation in the first place.”
>
> Well when the price of collateral started to fall,
> market participants saw the model had
> unconscionable assumptions just like the fraud
> that permeated the marketplace during the tech
> bubble. Back then we had phantom corporate
> profits now we have phantom wealth. The market is
> always right pal.
>
>
> “Using market pricing during massively illiquid
> markets, resulting in huge mark to market losses,
> is part of the problem.”
>
> No. The problem is a massive credit bubble that
> has popped. No buyers no bid. You’re going to
> argue with that?
>
> I keep on hearing people say that there is huge
> piles of cash on the sidelines ready to buy up all
> these assets that have no bid. Where are they?
> Oh, you mean to tell me those huge piles of cash
> were supposed to be financed. LOL.
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.
It’s a game of chicken.
It’s clogged up the system and has stopped everybody else from getting money, mainly because even if the banks sold the assets their capital positions would be so depleted that they wouldn’t be able to lend much anyway.
Do you even work in banking? Do you know anything about capital ratios either in the US or Europe, such as BASEL II?
Or are you some fricking libertopian fool who observes form the sidelines and thinks he knows enough to opine?
If you are the sideline quarterback, you’re in way above your paygrade and look pretty damn stupid.
Take your ridiculous Austrian economics and fly a kite. They don’t work, never have, never will.
nobody is saying that the assets are worth zero(it may be in some cases). there would have to be more Lonestars to prove your point. the burden of proof is with YOU Mr banking- insider- with- lots -of grand -plans- involving -inveigling -your- neighbors -money.
your pompous ignorance is pathetic. Basel 2?. you cuckoo,the europeans are nationalising like there is no tomorow. a buncha bureaucrats in basel arent going to do anything to help.
“It was a bunch of daytraders and market makers pushing the stock down to accentuate the drama.”
And lets not forget that with short-selling basically banned…you didn’t have the floor of short covering to help.
Willy
“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.
Pages