MrDonadei Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Barclays, not Barclay’s… gosh… Take that up with the transcriber.
cfa_gremlin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “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. Yeah, because in 1920s, when they kept telling Coolidge to stay out of the economy, not contract credit, and keep the dollar strong, they were so right. Then, when they told Hoover in 1929 to not worry, contract credit, keep the dollar strong, they were so right. Your lack of historical knowledge is staggering. Not only do you have any idea what happened in the past, but you fail to recognize that the same crappy advice is being whispered. Those economists probably know as much about this situation as Sarah Palin.
Well no one believes the real bills doctrine anymore. And the problem with the 1929 crash was keeping prices high and not letting them adjust. So our solution now is to keep MBS prices high.
jmh530 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well no one believes the real bills doctrine > anymore. And the problem with the 1929 crash was > keeping prices high and not letting them adjust. > So our solution now is to keep MBS prices high. No, the problem with 29 was to not put liquidity into the banks, allowing them to fail, causing more panic, throwing the system into rapid credit contraction, cutting off all cashflows to businesses. Only until fools finally realized that a strong dollar is worthless when nobody can *MAKE MONEY* did they start to try and provide liquidity. By that time nobody trusted the banking system, causing runs on the banks and eventual collapse of all lending. Had they provided liquidity and allowed the system to absorb the losses, the panic wouldn’t have contracted things so rapidly. But Americans are never ones to allow time for anything. Nor are we big on learning from history.
We are going to bailout out these banks one way or another. Either through TARP or FDIC. This whole delay is because of tonight’s presidential debate. A deal will be finialized Sunday with Bush signing before the Asian markets open. Let Volcker run the damn thing and move on.
“In a survey of CFA Institute members, 39 percent (4,650 total respondents) said the bailout plan was reasonable, and necessary. Another 19 percent said government officials should go further to prevent collapse of the capital markets. By comparison, a total of 34 percent said the plan was either excessive, inappropriate, that taxpayers should not assume losses of the financial sector, or that the government was wrong to launch the bailout and that it should go no further.” “The results of this survey confirm that the majority of our members believe that the absolute primary objective of global regulators must be to coordinate their efforts to protect the integrity of financial markets and to restore confidence in the functioning of our global financial system. Initial temporary measures are needed to deal with the crisis at hand. After the dust has settled I encourage all major markets to work together to address the underlying issues and to consider revisions of capital markets regulation. If that process takes a year or two of study to address our long-term needs, so be it.” Source: The Investor Perspective on Bailouts – A Statement from CFA Institute President and CEO, Jeff Diermeier, CFA NEW YORK, September 23, 2008 – Today Jeff Diermeier, president and CEO of CFA Institute, made the following statement on the recent financial market turmoil: http://www.cfainstitute.org/aboutus/press/release/08releases/20080922_01.html
this bailout might not go through just yet. . .
> Yeah, because in 1920s, when they kept telling > Coolidge to stay out of the economy, not contract > credit, and keep the dollar strong, they were so > right. > > Then, when they told Hoover in 1929 to not worry, > contract credit, keep the dollar strong, they were > so right. Credit needs to contract. My case is presented in my posts on other threads on this forum. > Your lack of historical knowledge is staggering. The audacity on show here. I mentioned nothing about history in my post. > Not only do you have any idea what happened in the > past How are you coming to this conclusion? I’m very well versed as to what happened during the Great Depression. > Those economists probably know as much about this > situation as Sarah Palin. For sexy sarcasm you get an “F” Let me guess, you also think bailing out FNM and FRE is beneficial to Americans?
I don’t like the idea of bailing out Wall Street with taxpayer dollars. However, when Warren Buffet is telling the media that we need this package to avoid a depression (and he has said just that), I can’t help but listen.
ksjhawk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t like the idea of bailing out Wall Street > with taxpayer dollars. However, when Warren > Buffet is telling the media that we need this > package to avoid a depression (and he has said > just that), I can’t help but listen. link?
I didn’t listen to that whole interview, but Warren sure thinks that we’re going off a cliff if we don’t do something drastic. He’s usually right and I think nearly everyone thinks we have to do something big. Even those 190 economists lined up against the plan think we need to do something; it’s just that what we do ought to be well-thought out so we don’'t trade one problem for a worse one. WAMU going under is a big deal. I still think of Continental Illinois as a giant bank failure and this is 10 times bigger.
Ohh, you guys and gals!!! Please, we need the Bailout. I was wrong. This news article below paints the sad picture why we need a bailout. Stop bitchi*g and contribute to the bail out. Poor guy. New CEO Fishman could exit WaMu with $11.6M Mr. Fishman appears set to collect a payout worth $11.62 million if he leaves the company “with cause” or because of “constructive termination." With J.P. Morgan’s takeover of Washington Mutual, it’s unclear what role Alan Fishman—who was hired only 18 days ago as WaMu’s new CEO—will play in the combined company. But if Mr. Fishman leaves the thrift, it’s pretty clear that he would be well-compensated for his short stint on the job. Mr. Fishman appears set to collect a payout worth $11.62 million if he leaves the company “with cause” or because of “constructive termination,” according to a copy of his employment agreement, which was disclosed un a regulatory filing on Sept. 11. The agreement calls for Mr. Fishman to earn 2.5 times his base salary of $1 million, or $2.5 million, plus another payment that is 2.5 times his annual bonus. He has earned no bonus in his brief tenure, but the agreement states that if Mr. Fishman is terminated in 2008 or 2009, he should receive 2.5 times 365% of his annual salary, which would add up to $9.12 million. This $11.62 million, of course, would be in addition to the $7.5 million signing bonus he was awarded when he joined WaMu earlier this month. Derek Aney, a WaMu spokesman, was not immediately available to discuss Mr. Fishman’s new role in the merged company or whether Mr. Fishman will be eligible to retain all of these payouts. David Schmidt, a senior consultant at compensation firm James F. Reda, noted that AIG’s former CEO Robert Willumstad rejected his $22 million severance package earlier this week after the firm was bailed out by the government. Mr. Schmidt said he wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Fishman forfeited some or all of his compensation if he doesn’t join J.P. Morgan. “It’s entirely possible,” he said. “That’s a significant payment for an incredibly short period of time on the job.”