sid3699 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why should the government rescue or bail out wall > street by using taxpayers money? > > The common man did not profit when wall street > guys were making tons of money. Wait a minute, I also am upset that a bunch of Wall Street execs made a ton of money doing things that put our economy in the toilet and it looks like they get to keep their spoils… BUT… The common man did get some benefits too. They got credit cards and home mortgages and business loans, and cheap goods from China that was made possible by the low credit terms. The real problem was that the common people that were sensible enough to use credit sensibly are likely to go down with the ship too. In fact, the set of incentives made it VERY difficult for even normally sensible folks not to jump in where ordinary financial fools had rushed in earlier. This is the main problem in all bubbles… unless you are completely independent of everyone else, you can get whacked and put out of business by NOT getting caught up in the insanity. > > Where was the government when these crappy > products were being packaged and sold? It was telling us to go out and shop to keep the economy going. Remember, the common man REELECTED these guys. > > The government wants to bail out these wall street > firms–fine. Every wall street executive must be > forced to return their last three years bonuses. > If not, then don’t expect the common man to be an > investor in the $700 billion plus hedge fund. Someone else said “no bailout, even if it means depression.” Really, you don’t want to wish a depression on anyone. OK, a recession - a slap in the face to wake people up - maybe that… but you don’t want 10-15 years of economic hell, particularly in a geopolitically unstable world.
bigwilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 799 firms were added via SIC codes and not > political connections. I dont think you guys > realize how close we were on Thursday to a > complete melt down. I have talked to a couple of > people who have been directly involved in these > discussions for the past week or so, and trust me > we were/are damn close to a deep > recession/depression. tell me - does a depression happen in 1 day? is it cliff you fall off? is there no reaction time or feedback mechanisms in the process? can the govt not take other steps like pass laws that impose criminal penalties on bank officers found to be ‘hoarding credit’, or any number of other measures to deal with a credit freeze. the fed funds rate can be lowered another 2%. “this close” to a depression just sounds like irresponsible scare tactics to me. make a reasoned argument and we’ll consider it. in any case, this bailout will get passed - if there’s anyone who doubts that, you’re a hypochondriac. the lawmakers have made that pretty clear. whats worth discussing now is the implications of the bailout, not its passage.
reading the tea leaves and hints, it looks like senator john s mccain may just have tried to grandstand in this little white house meeting. looking at the noises he’s been making, it looks like he wants to be seen as the guy who ‘saved america’. it just looks like this was a done deal until this meeting happened, and some new republicans came up with a totally new proposal. dodd seemed to hint it was supported by mccain, who anyway has been blabbing incoherently against the surprisingly cohesive bipartisan efforts so far. this is a risky gambit by mccain - he risks his entire reputation if this blows up. oops, sorry, he has already lost it during this election.
bchadwick Wrote: > The common man did get some benefits too. They > got credit cards and home mortgages and business > loans, and cheap goods from China that was made > possible by the low credit terms. > > The real problem was that the common people that > were sensible enough to use credit sensibly are > likely to go down with the ship too. In fact, the > set of incentives made it VERY difficult for even > normally sensible folks not to jump in where > ordinary financial fools had rushed in earlier. > This is the main problem in all bubbles… unless > you are completely independent of everyone else, > you can get whacked and put out of business by NOT > getting caught up in the insanity. The fools who tried to make money by flipping real estate properties are now on the street. Am curious to know how many Wall street executives who got fired or left their firms in the last three years are even living below their “normal” standard of living? > It was telling us to go out and shop to keep the > economy going. Remember, the common man REELECTED > these guys. The common man elected this government the second time cause the choice was between an idiot and a bigger idiot. Am neither a democrat or a republican, but with all fairness to Bush, he had a lot of bad luck in addition to his lunacy. >> Someone else said “no bailout, even if it means > depression.” Really, you don’t want to wish a > depression on anyone. OK, a recession - a slap in > the face to wake people up - maybe that… but you > don’t want 10-15 years of economic hell, > particularly in a geopolitically unstable world. Let the government punish everyone in this country by printing more notes to “bailout the firms” and then let the currency be devalued? If everyone is to be blamed, at some level, why not punish everyone in this manner? Am getting more radical day by day. I think I will become a communist soon:)
sid3699 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The fools who tried to make money by flipping real > estate properties are now on the street. Am > curious to know how many Wall street executives > who got fired or left their firms in the last > three years are even living below their “normal” > standard of living? > You cut out the part of my quote that said: “I also am upset that a bunch of Wall Street execs made a ton of money doing things that put our economy in the toilet and it looks like they get to keep their spoils…” Not that I’m upset about it or anything… just wanted to point out where we seem to agree…
F*ck that I’m for the bailout…799 of the companies do not have political connections- I work for one and know for sure we don’t. This is a f*cking disaster, a panic, a depression and crash are guaranteed if there was no gov intervention. I happen to like my little 401k, IRA…I also like my parents’ investment which one day I hope to inherit. F’ that…BAILOUT.
rohufish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > tell me - does a depression happen in 1 day? is it > cliff you fall off? is there no reaction time or > feedback mechanisms in the process? can the govt > not take other steps like pass laws that impose > criminal penalties on bank officers found to be > ‘hoarding credit’, or any number of other measures > to deal with a credit freeze. the fed funds rate > can be lowered another 2%. > > “this close” to a depression just sounds like > irresponsible scare tactics to me. make a reasoned > argument and we’ll consider it. > > in any case, this bailout will get passed - if > there’s anyone who doubts that, you’re a > hypochondriac. the lawmakers have made that pretty > clear. > > whats worth discussing now is the implications of > the bailout, not its passage. No a depression doesn’t happen in a day but I’m damn sure a crash does. A recession is unavoidable at this point we all know that…but a depression we can avoid with the bailout. Also about the FF’s rate that’s just the target rate- fed funds effective has been going down to 0% at the end of the day for the past few days. But the Fed has taken some liquidity out of the market and now it goes down to about 1/5-1% at the end of the day.
TPain88 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > F*ck that I’m for the bailout…799 of the > companies do not have political connections- I > work for one and know for sure we don’t. This is a > f*cking disaster, a panic, a depression and crash > are guaranteed if there was no gov intervention. I > happen to like my little 401k, IRA…I also like > my parents’ investment which one day I hope to > inherit. > > F’ that…BAILOUT. Same here. I am surprised and dismayed that people on here are against the facility. Why? Because we, of all people, should see that stopping the financial market isn’t beneficial to anybody, and detrimental to the whole world.
I think a lot of people will feel way better about a ‘bail out’ if there was some up front accountability and ongoing transparency. I for one would like to see the executives at some of these banks investigated and their future remuneration severely restricted. Their retirement subsidies should be revoked etc. A lot more will sign up if we can actually see some form of up front, immediate brutal accountability.
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TPain88 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > F*ck that I’m for the bailout…799 of the > > companies do not have political connections- I > > work for one and know for sure we don’t. This is > a > > f*cking disaster, a panic, a depression and > crash > > are guaranteed if there was no gov intervention. > I > > happen to like my little 401k, IRA…I also > like > > my parents’ investment which one day I hope to > > inherit. > > > > F’ that…BAILOUT. > > Same here. > > I am surprised and dismayed that people on here > are against the facility. Why? Because we, of > all people, should see that stopping the financial > market isn’t beneficial to anybody, and > detrimental to the whole world. Who thinks this is “stopping the financial markets”? Nobody is against some plan for fixing this problem. I am wildly against giving the Treasury Secretary extraordinary powers and spending lots of taxpayer dollars on idiotic projects. As I posted the other day, we need a much broader and more integrated plan. Oh, and a tax on security trades is the dumbest thing I can possibly imagine. That is gov’t deadweight loss at it’s worst. Nothing like penalizing people for providing liquidity in capital markets.
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TPain88 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > F*ck that I’m for the bailout…799 of the > > companies do not have political connections- I > > work for one and know for sure we don’t. This is > a > > f*cking disaster, a panic, a depression and > crash > > are guaranteed if there was no gov intervention. > I > > happen to like my little 401k, IRA…I also > like > > my parents’ investment which one day I hope to > > inherit. > > > > F’ that…BAILOUT. > > Same here. > > I am surprised and dismayed that people on here > are against the facility. Why? Because we, of > all people, should see that stopping the financial > market isn’t beneficial to anybody, and > detrimental to the whole world. YOU HAVE OVER 190 ECONOMISTS IN THE COUNTRY AGAINST THIS BILL, AND YOU’RE GOING TO ARGUE THAT THE BAILOUT MAKES SENSE? PAULSON AND BERNANKE HAVE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND/OR SHOWN THEIR INCOMPETENCY THROUGHOUT THIS CRISIS AND YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PLAN THEY ARE PUTTING FORTH WILL SOLVE IT? WHAT A JOKE!!!
Did you forget to take your medication today?
Yes - thanks - ooohh lookie here, xanax, and a heineken light, gulp…
Bernanke and Paulson are going to go down in history as the worst at their positions, rightly, or, wrongly.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > spierce Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TPain88 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > F*ck that I’m for the bailout…799 of the > > > companies do not have political connections- > I > > > work for one and know for sure we don’t. This > is > > a > > > f*cking disaster, a panic, a depression and > > crash > > > are guaranteed if there was no gov > intervention. > > I > > > happen to like my little 401k, IRA…I also > > like > > > my parents’ investment which one day I hope > to > > > inherit. > > > > > > F’ that…BAILOUT. > > > > Same here. > > > > I am surprised and dismayed that people on here > > are against the facility. Why? Because we, of > > all people, should see that stopping the > financial > > market isn’t beneficial to anybody, and > > detrimental to the whole world. > > Who thinks this is “stopping the financial > markets”? Nobody is against some plan for fixing > this problem. I am wildly against giving the > Treasury Secretary extraordinary powers and > spending lots of taxpayer dollars on idiotic > projects. > > As I posted the other day, we need a much broader > and more integrated plan. > > Oh, and a tax on security trades is the dumbest > thing I can possibly imagine. That is gov’t > deadweight loss at it’s worst. Nothing like > penalizing people for providing liquidity in > capital markets. The powers thing is already gone. Lame excuse. It’s pretty broad and would seem to work quite well. Dechert had a great overview of the plan, you should find it. Agreed on taxing.
cfa_gremlin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > spierce Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TPain88 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > F*ck that I’m for the bailout…799 of the > > > companies do not have political connections- > I > > > work for one and know for sure we don’t. This > is > > a > > > f*cking disaster, a panic, a depression and > > crash > > > are guaranteed if there was no gov > intervention. > > I > > > happen to like my little 401k, IRA…I also > > like > > > my parents’ investment which one day I hope > to > > > inherit. > > > > > > F’ that…BAILOUT. > > > > Same here. > > > > I am surprised and dismayed that people on here > > are against the facility. Why? Because we, of > > all people, should see that stopping the > financial > > market isn’t beneficial to anybody, and > > detrimental to the whole world. > > YOU HAVE OVER 190 ECONOMISTS IN THE COUNTRY > AGAINST THIS BILL, AND YOU’RE GOING TO ARGUE THAT > THE BAILOUT MAKES SENSE? PAULSON AND BERNANKE > HAVE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND/OR SHOWN > THEIR INCOMPETENCY THROUGHOUT THIS CRISIS AND YOU > BELIEVE THAT THE PLAN THEY ARE PUTTING FORTH WILL > SOLVE IT? WHAT A JOKE!!! How many economists are for it? You only look at one side.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sid3699 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > The fools who tried to make money by flipping > real > > estate properties are now on the street. Am > > curious to know how many Wall street executives > > who got fired or left their firms in the last > > three years are even living below their > “normal” > > standard of living? > > > > You cut out the part of my quote that said: > > “I also am upset that a bunch of Wall Street execs > made a ton of money doing things that put our > economy in the toilet and it looks like they get > to keep their spoils…” > > Not that I’m upset about it or anything… just > wanted to point out where we seem to agree… Nothing personal my friend. Come by the nyc LEH, oops, BARCAP office and we’ll have drinks. This Bailout fiasco is a BITC* Pualson you Goldman MOFO !!!
I was on the NKE conference call yesterday when this transpired: Question-and-Answer Session Operator (Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from the line of Robert Drbul with Lehman Brothers. Robert Drbul - Barclay’s Capital It’s actually Barclay’s Capital now, but thank you. Congratulations on a very good result, you guys.
Barclays, not Barclay’s… gosh…
“How many economists are for it? You only look at one side.” No I don’t look at one side. If you look at the list of economists that are on the list, I’ll take that crowd over anyone on wall street.