Wallstreet bail out poll

[WARPIG]

Vote for or against the bail out. I'd be interested to hear reasons why of course. Keep the partisan hack bull**** to a minimum. It's understood a little bit of party bias factors into opinions of the bail out. Just don't use this thread as a dump for partisan sewage. Plenty of threads already running for that stuff.

[Skyline On Fire]

for.

because anything that isnt national will always be done for profit rather than the greater good.

nowhere near any decent level of nationalization, but its better than nothing, and also neccessary to keep the sham of capitalism going for a few more years.

[Stainless Steel Rat]

Against--but with an equivocation.

I don't think the plan as stated will do what is being claimed; it will simply postpone problems down the road while setting a precedent of the US Government throwing money at organizations "too big to fail" as consolidation continues in the Money Market.

I think there are other options that need to be implemented; I am the first to admit my ignorance of which of them is best (calling Flagg to this thread) but this rush to rescue a system seems like a $700B finger in the dike--and what do we do when the next, larger leak breaks out?

We shall see.

[WARPIG]

I voted against. I've got the impression that pulling any amount of money out of thin air to give to anyone will only weaken the dollar. "Golden Parachutes" for the very people who screwed this up is absolutely ridiculous. Yet, there are supposed to be provisions to not reward them. How about letting them die on the vine? I mean, even the Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac leadership get out of jail free. They take all the profits, but if they fail, taxpayers are footing the bill. WTF? This just stinks of the same. I say let the whole house of cards crash. It will do so anyway. If the Fed is so eager to magic $700 billion and give it out. Give it to taxpayers. Infuse the system from the bottom up instead of top loading it. Let taxpayers reap those temporary benefits before it all collapses again.

[BugHunt]

For.

You resuscitate the dying patient with a bailout first THEN treat the symptoms and causes of the problems.

The carnage without a bailout would hit too many well run businesses and banks and indeed the ordinary public too hard.

The bailout with correct clauses neednt be a net loss to the tax payer - look to the Swedish example.

Go after those abusing or openly bending the rules - including executives, companies/individuals who did the most damage short selling.

Most of all strengthen oversight bodies like the SEC. Enforce transparency back into funding and leverage.

[Holycrusader]

I voted against. I've got the impression that pulling any amount of money out of thin air to give to anyone will only weaken the dollar. "Golden Parachutes" for the very people who screwed this up is absolutely ridiculous. Yet, there are supposed to be provisions to not reward them. How about letting them die on the vine? I mean, even the Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac leadership get out of jail free. They take all the profits, but if they fail, taxpayers are footing the bill. WTF? This just stinks of the same. I say let the whole house of cards crash. It will do so anyway. If the Fed is so eager to magic $700 billion and give it out. Give it to taxpayers. Infuse the system from the bottom up instead of top loading it. Let taxpayers reap those temporary benefits before it all collapses again.

I voted against. For similar reasons...

Pumping money in the system with so many holes its not the smart move... First fix it, than pump the money.

[Bitogno]

I vote for because we need to buy some time to fix the system. However I am not sure it will be enough, since 700 billion $ is a drop in the sea compared to the CDS 62000 billions $ ( even if not all of them are crap ).

[Hollis]

I am mixed at this point. As more information is coming out as with other options, the plan does not seem to be the only way to go.

[Firefly26]

I voted against, because I just don't know which will be worse. Add debt, or let these companies crash and reconsolidate and learn their lesson. Investor confidence does seem to go up at the whisper that they are considering the bill, but I know it's just going to go down again. I could change my mind still, but as for now, I think these harvard trained geniuses can figure out a way to save themselves without the government's help.

[socom6]

I am for a bail out as its the thing to do in a situation like this. Its not like the bail out is going to give money as pay out to irresponsible speculators, this thing will be managed and time based. Hoover didnt do squat in 1928 and it cost the world dearly then till 1945. The markets need some breathing space and the US some time to realign the economy from being a credit addict service based economy.

[seraosha]

I voted against, as it is currently.

Despite the panic, we need to weigh our options on this and look at the long view and impact.

[Jobu]

Against.


I mean, even the Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac leadership get out of jail free.

Not only do they get out of jail free, they are Obama advisors. Franklin Raines, former CEo of Freddie Mac was teh head of Obama's Vice Presidential selection committee.

Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank were the lead blockers for these two companies over the last decade, the two companies that are most responsible for the mess we are in. Now the lead negotiators for the bailout are guess who? Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

Are you ****ing kidding me?
Not only do I vote against the bill on principal (government bailouts of failing companies is a no-no) but I vote against it on "WTF ARE YOU KIDDING ME, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO CREATED THE MESS ARE TELLING US THEY NEED $700BILLION TO FIX IT" grounds.

Paulson should be fired immediately.

[danielc]

I am all for it. It's not about bailing out the fatcats, it's about keeping the economy afloat for all the people out there that are going about their daily lives in honest, productive ways. Credit is needed to keep commerce going as is, and the vast majority of people that keep the economy going by buying houses, cars, tvs, vacations, clothes, etc, also pay their bills, therefore they should not be punished because of losers that abuse the system.

But do find a way to punish the people responsible for this mess.

[Polygon]

I am all for it. It's not about bailing out the fatcats, it's about keeping the economy afloat for all the people out there that are going about their daily lives in honest, productive ways. Credit is needed to keep commerce going as is, and the vast majority of people that keep the economy going by buying houses, cars, tvs, vacations, clothes, etc, also pay their bills, therefore they should not be punished because of losers that abuse the system.

But do find a way to punish the people responsible for this mess.

I agree, unfortunately, a lot of these companies are too intertwined within the U.S. economy to just sit back and let them fail. Credit is nearly frozen right now and banks are charging each other exorbitant fees just for moving cash between each other. If we don't have credit, average Americans won't be able to take loans for school, homes, cars, etc.

I'd say we should try to get this measure passed in addition to looking into some serious oversight and regulation to prevent this situation from reoccuring.

[mcgn21]

Against. I don't want my tax money being spent on businesses that are poorly managed. Especially seeing that a lot of the managers of these big banks get huge salary's and bonuses. I need to find out if they would bail my business out if I run it into the ground. Then I would be for it.

[Steaks]

Not this particular bailout bill which rewards years of greed, criminality, and government collusion in private banking fraud.
The closest analogy I can think of would be to give the Mafia free reign to start a new crime wave "in the taxpayers' interest" so as to raise enough money to pay its fines to the Justice Department. Imagine how our world would look like if the economy had been turned over to Al Capone as head political capo and to Mafia financial manager Meyer Lansky as Treasury Secretary in the 1930s, with the Carlo Ponzi heading the Federal Reserve and bank robber Willie Sutton as Attorney General.

[gilgoul]

Considering a big part of my income is in USD, I'd hate to see a major recession in the US, so my self interest would be for a bail out.
But on principles, I'm totally against, there is not a single justification to see those big economic actors being saved by the tax payers they so despise, and see those "free market" multimillionaires gurus who became too big get themselves a free ride.
Plus, a bail out would be too much of a federal buy in of unsolvable companies.

[WARPIG]

I get that the bail out is a stop gap measure. My beef here is, where is the $700 bil coming from? Fed reserve simply magics more money out of thin air and it's going to help? A weak dollar is likely going to cause worse issues than hurt our banking system. Still, if infusing the system with money is the fix.. why not from the bottom up?

[hank]

I get that the bail out is a stop gap measure. My beef here is, where is the $700 bil coming from? Fed reserve simply magics more money out of thin air and it's going to help? A weak dollar is likely going to cause worse issues than hurt our banking system. Still, if infusing the system with money is the fix.. why not from the bottom up?

Most of the money will come from the budget and yes it will involve the treasury making more money. But like the debt the govt will be buying and insuring, the govt will turn around and "sell" treasury notes and bills to get the money to apy for hte debt its buying and guaranteeing. So its a little misleading to say tax payers will pay it. The reality is that the people that will pay the $700 mil are those that buy treasuries and they are mostly large investment funds and other governments.

The bailout is an absolute necessity. If the liquidity and balance sheet problems don't get fixed (and IMO this is the only way) there won't be anybody left who holds real estate assets.

hank

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Basically for it, with certain stipulations.

[gaijinsamurai]

I am mixed at this point. As more information is coming out as with other options, the plan does not seem to be the only way to go.

X2. I agree with Warpig, but have to admit that I really do not have all the info necessary to make an educated vote on the issue.

Also, I'm trying to avoid the temptation to let my emotions overrule what is best for everyone. Like most people, I have ZERO sympathy for the people who let this happen, and it would be just fine with me if we let them sink. I just wonder if not bailing them out will ultimately hurt all of us.

[hank]

I just wonder if not bailing them out will ultimately hurt all of us.

This is the only reason to vote for it. If it were only to protect teh guys who run the banks, mortgage companies, etc. then its an easy "no." But a no vote will continue the sprial and make credit essentially unavailable for lots of purposes that we don't even realize its used for. Businesses can't borrow to operate. Banks can't borrow to lend. The people who get hurt are us and that's why we need it.

But I agree with Tack. There should bea price. And the price should involve more accountability for public companies that have done some of this stuff. But the balance that needs to be struck is delicate. Too much regulation and the markets won't flow, too little and this happens. Its no an easy question or answer.

But the bailout is a necessity IMO. Credit markets in Atlanta (and elsewhere) are so tight right now. If you need money as a small business owner it simply is not available. And a real estate mortgage that isn't your typical 30 year fixed loan? Forget that outright.

hank

[danielc]

I get that the bail out is a stop gap measure. My beef here is, where is the $700 bil coming from? Fed reserve simply magics more money out of thin air and it's going to help? A weak dollar is likely going to cause worse issues than hurt our banking system. Still, if infusing the system with money is the fix.. why not from the bottom up?

The Federal Reserve gets the money by borrowing U.S. currency from other central banks around the world (China, Japan, EU central bank, etc), and of course, from digging into their own reserves.

A weak dollar is not necessarily a bad thing, it can help increase exports, and decrease imports, and reduce a negative trade deficit, which the US already has. However, this is really not that important.

Why not infuse the money from the bottom up? IMO, because it would amount to debt cancellation, which would unfairly reward people with bad credit habits, create a very bad precedent, and compound the problem because you'd also have all the people with good credit habits, that are paying their bills, clamoring to have their debt canceled as well. Just imagine what that could do to the economy.

[hank]

The Federal Reserve gets the money by borrowing U.S. currency from other central banks around the world (China, Japan, EU central bank, etc), and of course, from digging into their own reserves.

And ultimately from issuing bonds and notes which are bought by the entities you mention as well as American funds and even joes like me.

hank

[Lee]

voted against. why should the American taxpayer pay for the troubles caused by big bankers. I have a better solution. Confiscate all property of bigwig bankers and put them up for auction. that would be a good start.

[Thor]

I voted yes since that's what's best for my country.

[brainplay]

For for a bailout.

Not exactly the one they are proposing as I want someone to consider the Swedish thing first. However, if no bailout happens you'll probably see alot of companies going under and alot of people suddenly out of "secure" jobs. It is amazing how quickly people will change their minds when it affects them.

This isn't just about punishing some bankers or sticking it to the man. We're all going to feel this one.

[Winger]

This is the only reason to vote for it. If it were only to protect teh guys who run the banks, mortgage companies, etc. then its an easy "no." But a no vote will continue the sprial and make credit essentially unavailable for lots of purposes that we don't even realize its used for. Businesses can't borrow to operate. Banks can't borrow to lend. The people who get hurt are us and that's why we need it.

But I agree with Tack. There should bea price. And the price should involve more accountability for public companies that have done some of this stuff. But the balance that needs to be struck is delicate. Too much regulation and the markets won't flow, too little and this happens. Its no an easy question or answer.

But the bailout is a necessity IMO. Credit markets in Atlanta (and elsewhere) are so tight right now. If you need money as a small business owner it simply is not available. And a real estate mortgage that isn't your typical 30 year fixed loan? Forget that outright.

hank

In its current state I'm against it. If they can get some ironclad pro business legislation in it like repealing Sarbanes, reducing Corp. Tax and Capital Gains, I would be for it.

FYI, I just got my loan for a house, its VA though so it doesn't apply.

[gayarabianman]

It's just a stop gap for a major blow-out in the world economy in the future.
As all this does is add to the debt therefore, postponing the major crash for so long making this just a stop gap to get the current administration out of this mess.
The next administration will foot the bill.
Might as well get it over and done with now as it will be only around the corner in future.
I'm against it.

[Yeti2424]

Against. Let the economy do its thing and run its course. Will it be tough? Yes. However it wont be nearly as prolonged as it will be if the bailout passes. Too much government intervention kept us in the Great Depression of 1929 longer than we should have and I fear the same here.

[hank]

In its current state I'm against it. If they can get some ironclad pro business legislation in it like repealing Sarbanes, reducing Corp. Tax and Capital Gains, I would be for it.

FYI, I just got my loan for a house, its VA though so it doesn't apply.

Why do you want Sarbanes Oxley out? It didn't contribute to this. To the contrary it may have helped prevent a lot of this.

hank

[Martial]

for.

because anything that isnt national will always be done for profit rather than the greater good.

nowhere near any decent level of nationalization, but its better than nothing, and also neccessary to keep the sham of capitalism going for a few more years.

The sham of capitalism? WTF are you talking about?

[WARPIG]

The sham of capitalism? WTF are you talking about?

Quickly.. put your tinfoil hat on before you get the answer. Obviously some socialist, off the reservation type point of view... which is why most of us simply ignored the response.

[clean]

Everyone votes against the bailout because they think it just screws the rich white dudes in the Greenwich CT castles. But it screws us all if it doesn't happen. The credit market tightens up, so no more credit for buying homes, or for small businesses getting loans to get products.
The people who got us into this mess, need to pay. But we're f*cked right now. Half of us on here are dumb-ass kids who even financed our own computers. That'll go away, no cars, nothing. And if business can't get loans to help their business, people get fired. You people.

[Bombtrack]

Pay off those credit cards.

[clean]

Pay off those credit cards.

Different kind of credit, smart-ass.

[Euroamerican]

AGAINST.

Sorry, but nobody wants to say "no" anymore. That's part of the reason why we're in this. All kinds of people financing stuff they shouldn't be and the financiers figured out ways to say "yes" even when they shouldn't, or they said yes because they were told by the PC government they HAD TO make questionable loans available to people.

Credit needs to go back to being made available only for legitmate reasons. Stop building a house of cards that IS going to fall down. Be responsible, you financier! Get back to basics. Stop giving out 400,000 dollar mortgages to people who only can afford 150,000. Stop giving them home equity loans on that 400,000 dollar house to buy stupid stuff like four wheelers and flat screen TVs and the latest, greatest toys that will be worn out before they're paid off!

Maybe we need it to go boom. The problem is, will the "boom" take out the good with the bad? My guess is that it won't, unless that's the plan.

[lightcav]

As much as I want the wall street bankers that all went to ivy league schools and think they know everything to suffer and stew in their own juices, I still think that something has to be done to stave of a severe recession.

I think any bailout plan should include a plan to help struggling home owners renegotiate their mortgages. Why should only the bankers get bailed out and everyone else screwed?

I think the US government will ultimately come out ahead becuase for the most part the majority of mortgages are secure and will be paid off its just that they are sliced up and mashed up with the subprime mortgages.

I also think that the financial firms that get bailed out should have to pay back every single cent we give them later on.

the bail out still won't change the fact that there are no real growth opportunities in this economy to invest money in. There hasn't been for the last 6 years except that people thought real-estate was growing, we all know that was an illusion. There needs to be some sustainable growth opportunities like alternative energy technology. That seems like the most obvious direction to move it right now. Computer technology is not advancing as much as it did and may have peaked. I heard a disturbing porgram that said much of the economic growth realized in the past 20-30 years was from the developement of microchips and now the technology has pretty much been maxed out, they can make microchips any smaller and more powerful. Nano technology is another growth opportunity that could be more explored and developed. Also there needs to be more acceptance of genetically modified agricultural goods.

[clean]

Maybe we need it to go boom. The problem is, will the "boom" take out the good with the bad? My guess is that it won't, unless that's the plan.

Yeah, it'll take out the good.

I agree with what you're thinking. All this "wealth" was created by the people who could gain the most of it. But the "boom" will kill off small businesses and destroy growth of any kind. And this has nothing to do with Joe Shirley over extending himself on a house he cannot afford.

700 billion, is too much. 250 to 300 billion is a much better figure.

[Laworkerbee]

If Flagg and He219 are against them so am I as I hate thinking for myself and prefer following people smarter than I.

[clean]

If Flagg and He219 are against them so am I as I hate thinking for myself and prefer following people smarter than I.

How awesome is that fence pole feeling in your ass right now?

[hank]

700 billion, is too much. 250 to 300 billion is a much better figure.

Only 250 to 300 is guaranteed. There are performance requirements for the rest.

hank

[clean]

Only 250 to 300 is guaranteed. There are performance requirements for the rest.

hank

And that makes sense to me. What do you think?

[Laworkerbee]

How awesome is that fence pole feeling in your ass right now?

One gets used to it after a while.

[BugHunt]

Seems to be a bit of a flaw in the reasoning "let the fat cats burn and go down".....


As afterall your talking about multimillionares - and frankly the worst thats gonna happen is there bonuses get cut for this year - and maybe, maybe there wages.

At the end of the day there still multimillionares many times over.

And they aint really going to be feeling your pain as potentially your jobs go, inflation skyrockets, your pensions become worthless and the world slips into a recession.


Its a little bit like every1 destorying all there computers and the internet just to "get at" Bill Gates. Yeah that might hurt Microsoft (which has ordinary people working there too).....but billyboys still going to be a Billionare and weve just made our lives alot harder without computers....


Chopping off the nose to spite the face. It sounds "right" sticking it to those fat cats - but is it really much more then a pointless gesture.

Indeed WITH a bailout package and the right clauses the top players might find there bonuses none exsistent. Without its business as usual and even though there firms get wasted each one of them has some sort of golden parachute.

So frankly they might even BE worse off with a well thoughtout bailout.

[WARPIG]

One gets used to it after a while.
TMI buddy.. TMI.

[clean]

Seems to be a bit of a flaw in the reasoning "let the fat cats burn and go down".....


As afterall your talking about multimillionares - and frankly the worst thats gonna happen is there bonuses get cut for this year - and maybe, maybe there wages.

At the end of the day there still multimillionares many times over.

And they aint really going to be feeling your pain as potentially your jobs go, inflation skyrockets, your pensions become worthless and the world slips into a recession.


Its a little bit like every1 destorying all there computers and the internet just to "get at" Bill Gates. Yeah that might hurt Microsoft (which has ordinary people working there too).....but billyboys still going to be a Billionare and weve just made our lives alot harder without computers....


Chopping off the nose to spite the face. It sounds "right" sticking it to those fat cats - but is it really much more then a pointless gesture.

Indeed WITH a bailout package and the right clauses the top players might find there bonuses none exsistent. Without its business as usual and even though there firms get wasted each one of them has some sort of golden parachute.

So frankly they might even BE worse off with a well thoughtout bailout.

Well said....

[WARPIG]

Seems to be a bit of a flaw in the reasoning "let the fat cats burn and go down".....


As afterall your talking about multimillionares - and frankly the worst thats gonna happen is there bonuses get cut for this year - and maybe, maybe there wages.

At the end of the day there still multimillionares many times over.

And they aint really going to be feeling your pain as potentially your jobs go, inflation skyrockets, your pensions become worthless and the world slips into a recession.


Its a little bit like every1 destorying all there computers and the internet just to "get at" Bill Gates. Yeah that might hurt Microsoft (which has ordinary people working there too).....but billyboys still going to be a Billionare and weve just made our lives alot harder without computers....


Chopping off the nose to spite the face. It sounds "right" sticking it to those fat cats - but is it really much more then a pointless gesture.

Indeed WITH a bailout package and the right clauses the top players might find there bonuses none exsistent. Without its business as usual and each one of them has some sort of golden parachute.

So frankly they might even BE worse off with a well thoughtout bailout.
I guess it makes sense. Still, most of us uneducated schlubs can't get past the feeling that the fat cats need to be hammered for this. Bailing banks out just feels wrong. Same said about where the bail out money comes from. I just can't see how a week dollar is anything but bad JuJu.

I guess it will at least buy me enough time to stock up on canned food, guns and ammo. ;)

[BugHunt]

I guess it makes sense. Still, most of us uneducated schlubs can't get past the feeling that the fat cats need to be hammered for this. Bailing banks out just feels wrong. Same said about where the bail out money comes from. I just can't see how a week dollar is anything but bad JuJu.

I guess it will at least buy me enough time to stock up on canned food, guns and ammo. ;)

Heh ;)

Bail out THEN go after the fukkers is what id do....

[danielc]

Seems to be a bit of a flaw in the reasoning "let the fat cats burn and go down".....


As afterall your talking about multimillionares - and frankly the worst thats gonna happen is there bonuses get cut for this year - and maybe, maybe there wages.

At the end of the day there still multimillionares many times over.

And they aint really going to be feeling your pain as potentially your jobs go, inflation skyrockets, your pensions become worthless and the world slips into a recession.


Its a little bit like every1 destorying all there computers and the internet just to "get at" Bill Gates. Yeah that might hurt Microsoft (which has ordinary people working there too).....but billyboys still going to be a Billionare and weve just made our lives alot harder without computers....


Chopping off the nose to spite the face. It sounds "right" sticking it to those fat cats - but is it really much more then a pointless gesture.

Indeed WITH a bailout package and the right clauses the top players might find there bonuses none exsistent. Without its business as usual and even though there firms get wasted each one of them has some sort of golden parachute.

So frankly they might even BE worse off with a well thoughtout bailout.


Indeed! It's surreal to see the "average Joe" being against a bailout because it will "stick it" to the fatcats, when "average joe" is the one that stands to benefit the most from the bailout. My friends, the fatcats already took their payout long-ago. They're seating in the Bahamas sipping pina coladas, or whatever, and they are worth millions, so much so that it makes no difference to them whether there's a recession or a depression, they're still making money, because they already have money, gold, jewlery, works of art, mortgage free million dollars houses, offshore accounts, etc, etc. Unless you're in that ballpark, you'll feel the pain should there be a major contraction in the economy.

[wotsnext]

I've just had a great idea, why not divide the 700 billion between every last man woman and child in the whole United States, thats like what? ......
Millions of Dollars each right?

[clean]

I've just had a great idea, why not divide the 700 billion between every last man woman and child in the whole United States, thats like what? ......
Millions of Dollars each right?
It'd be like 2.3 million per person. Or 23 million. Not sure. Regardless. How would that help?

[clean]

Indeed! It's surreal to see the "average Joe" being against a bailout because it will "stick it" to the fatcats, when "average joe" is the one that stands to benefit the most from the bailout.

There's a reason they're called "average joe..

[wotsnext]

It'd be like 2.3 million per person. Or 23 million. Not sure. Regardless. How would that help?
It would sure help me buddy p-)

[clean]

It would sure help me buddy p-)

I know, right?

[Yeti2424]

$700 billion divided by 200 million taxpayers is $3500 per person.

[clean]

$700 billion divided by 200 million taxpayers is $3500 per person.

Guess you're kinda right. Might as well bail out the banks.

[wotsnext]

$700 billion divided by 200 million taxpayers is $3500 per person.
Are you sure?

[clean]

Yeah, he's right. I was going off 300 million people and added too many zeros. But 100 million of them don't count because they're kids or my cleaning lady. So it come to 200 million.

No way to win Wots. The man's got it all bundled up.

[Euroamerican]

Yeah, he's right. I was going off 300 million people and added too many zeros. But 100 million of them don't count because they're kids or my cleaning lady. So it come to 200 million.

That's what I was going to say. Only the people who actually PAY income tax should be getting anything back!!!

[Laworkerbee]

That's what I was going to say. Only the people who actually PAY income tax should be getting anything back!!!

This is all mute since none of us will be seeing a dime.

[seraosha]

"moot"

123456

[Euroamerican]

This is all mute since none of us will be seeing a dime.


I know, its moot, but we were having fun with the poll.......

So whatever bailout is going to get done or not done, it'll hurt joe six pack. BOHICA....

I'm going back to the "beer, what I am I drinking right now" forum.

[wotsnext]

O/k so maths was never my strong suit :)
I guess in % terms will end up doing just the same over here, at least you guys are able to have some sort of say in the matter, I doubt we will.

[Umbro2914]

are we really in a capatalistic economy anymore.... i mean it used to be that actions have consequences... if a person gets in debt they get bad credit... if a small buisness owner does not manage money properly his business goes bankrupt... if a restaurant sells bad food, people will no longer go there and it will go out of business... therefore if these banks and coorporations did not manage money properly, and did bad economic choices, then the consequence is going out of business! Besides, if this bailout goes through, it will only devalue the dollar even more and push the recession back a few months / years...

[Yeti2424]

are we really in a capatalistic economy anymore.... i mean it used to be that actions have consequences... if a person gets in debt they get bad credit... if a small buisness owner does not manage money properly his business goes bankrupt... if a restaurant sells bad food, people will no longer go there and it will go out of business... therefore if these banks and coorporations did not manage money properly, and did bad economic choices, then the consequence is going out of business! Besides, if this bailout goes through, it will only devalue the dollar even more and push the recession back a few months / years...

Agreed. Let the economy run its course. If congress feels the need to do anything they should cut taxes across the board to free up money for private businesses and the regular citizens and force a balanced budget(and all the cutbacks that it would take to achieve this).

[BugHunt]

are we really in a capatalistic economy anymore.... i mean it used to be that actions have consequences... if a person gets in debt they get bad credit... if a small buisness owner does not manage money properly his business goes bankrupt... if a restaurant sells bad food, people will no longer go there and it will go out of business... therefore if these banks and coorporations did not manage money properly, and did bad economic choices, then the consequence is going out of business! Besides, if this bailout goes through, it will only devalue the dollar even more and push the recession back a few months / years...

Uh huh.... and what if that bank that goes bankrupt causes in effect almost every other bank to go with it? The good ones the bad ones etc.

Might sound good saying "let them burn" but what happens when there are in effect NO safe banks zero confidence and you and every other "joe six packs" savings go up in smoke? What happens if your mortage payment, doubles or trebbles or is called in NOW - the full sum as your bank struggles to gain assets?

The "them" in let them burn might well be YOU, your family your parents, your children for the next few decades.


The effect of these "bad banks" going might be like a war between two dumb neighboruing states who use dirty nukes on each other. Maybe that war has nothing to do with you....maybe you wont be directly effected - but the fallout doesnt give a ****e about lines on a map. Might be "fun" tittering about how your neighbours are stupid and have blown themselves away - but if you and your family are sitting under a layer of radioactive dust your superior moral stance doesnt mean a whole heck of alot.

The financial fallout isnt confined "to a few fat cats". Fat cats who at the end of the day are a damn sight wealthier then you and are insulated from a collapse in ANY case.

Our world seems to be so interconnected that some experts are warning a worst case collapse might actually be worse then 1920's....possibly hyperbole - but lets not test the theory.

[Nobi]

are we really in a capatalistic economy anymore.... i mean it used to be that actions have consequences... if a person gets in debt they get bad credit... if a small buisness owner does not manage money properly his business goes bankrupt... if a restaurant sells bad food, people will no longer go there and it will go out of business... therefore if these banks and coorporations did not manage money properly, and did bad economic choices, then the consequence is going out of business! Besides, if this bailout goes through, it will only devalue the dollar even more and push the recession back a few months / years...



Congrats to your conclusion. But it's too late. :roll::)
A really cheap and criminal idea to earn the money from taxpayers.

[shocker1]

I am against this bill, it should be scraped totally. There must be some type of reform of the system. When the President and the Sec of the Treasury suddenly come out and say pass this now or face doom I must take a second look. When people in such high office say such things it causes a snowball effect that ripples through the market. Totally irresponsible.

We as a people are going to hurt, either way. Question is how much. Do we cut the dollar into smaller fractional parts to increase the money supply for credit? We all know this means inflation. Bottom line of my opinion is this issue is so complicated there is no way the Administration or Congress has had the time to really look at this problem and find common sense solutions. Handing unchecked power to the Sec of Treasury to buy up any asset, any company without review by courts or Congress is just ridiculious. Write your elected officials, let them know you disapprove of this haste and waste. Tell them to do their job, regulate the market. Protect the system of checks and balances. Endless unchecked growth breeds bubbles.

I am not an economist nor claim to fully understand the problem. However common sense tells me the inept government we have had this decade is not capable of dealing with this in a manner that is geared to help the country. There must be some kind of measure to stop a collapse. This bill is not it. Hopefully with the House voting no we can get something a little more rational. I voted no in the poll, that may change with a better solution. As a country we must find a solution to the greatest challenge of our time. Energy, if we lick that issue we can have a better future.

[PVJ]

Against. What kinda message will this send to the banks and lenders? If you become so huge and important to the economy, then you can take all the risks you want, keep the profits, but if you fail, the gov will bail you out with taxpayer money. Let the banks crash, they should fail and fail hard. It should be so horrible that all the people responsible for the sub prime mortgage crisis will have chills run down their spine every time they think about it. Their anuses should clench so hard, they could crush a walnut every time they think about pulling any kinda greedy crap like the sub prime mortgages in the future.

[Flagg]

Here's my thoughts:

We are completely screwed if we do

We are completely screwed if we don't


The sun will come up tomorrow, kids will still laugh and smile, but we can no longer lie to ourselves that things are going to be OK.

We've had(at least the majority of people in the western world) a bloody good run over the last 25 years with one or two big hiccups along the way.....

We've also become fat, lazy, and complacent(both literally and figuratively) in regards to our own personal finances, as well as that of our collective state finances.

If you think this mother of all bailouts is the end and we ride off into the sunset from here...you are wrong.

I'm a glass half full kind of guy....but I've been preparing for this Poop tornado for a couple of years now.

WE HAVE NOT HIT BOTTOM YET.........WE ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE <----in my opinion

Corporate, local government, and state government pensions haven't made the news YET.....the corruption, greed, and lies there are quite significant.......PBGC...Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation...it could become a household name in a couple years.....it's like a sponge in a tsunami

1600+ banks are at serious risk of failure according to the latest Weiss report......the FDIC is so underfunded it is embarrassing

And we have YET to face the brunt of unwinding derivatives.......an orderly unwinding is like herding a bunch of cats in the dark...possible, but approaching maximum score on the impossibility scale

This.........................cannot..............................continue

Our western economies need to come back to reality.

It will require us focusing on the critical basics......everything else will be a gift.

Most people will be going to financial boot camp over the coming years.........being dragged into fat camp kicking and screaming is not going to make the experience any more pleasant........only worse.

Approaching it with the right attitude........that at the end of this, things will get better, we will be fitter, we will be happier...as well as once again teach us how to appropriately value people, relationships......and most importantly STUFF(real estate, investments, and consumer cr@p)

It's time to step away form the all you can eat buffett and start shedding some pounds

[hank]

WE HAVE NOT HIT BOTTOM YET.........WE ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE <----in my opinion

To be sure.

hank

[CG51]

I thank God that I am a government pleb during this sh!t.

[Flagg]

To be sure.

hank

The implications:

personal

family

community

state

national

international

global security

are too IMMENSE to continue lying to ourselves that everything is going to be OK.

This is the part where a Marine Corps DI should come into the living room of every American to give them the hard word and get them on the bus to fat camp.....while a forced entry is made on the Fed.

FIGURATIVELY speaking on the second part, of course :)

[Nobi]

This guys vote again & again until they have the correct solution, right? p-)

[clean]

There must be some type of reform of the system.

.
We're beyond that point. The ship is sinking, time to patch the holes. We'll upgrade our ship building skills next year. Now we just need to stay afloat. Get back to land.

How sweet is my nautical reference?

[CG51]

We're beyond that point. The ship is sinking, time to patch the holes. We'll upgrade our ship building skills next year. Now we just need to stay afloat. Get back to land.

How sweet is my nautical reference?

Good enough for government work.

[shocker1]

We're beyond that point. The ship is sinking, time to patch the holes. We'll upgrade our ship building skills next year. Now we just need to stay afloat. Get back to land.

How sweet is my nautical reference?
Fail, what makes you think the Captains of this ship holding the hole saws have the integrity to fix the holes while they board the Captain's Yacht?

[clean]

Fail, what makes you think the Captains of this ship holding the hole saws have the integrity to fix the holes while they board the Captain's Yacht?

At this point, we can only hope.

[shocker1]

At this point, we can only hope.
Hope is all we got, we have no promise to see tomorrow.

hey on a happy note, have you noticed the decline in junk mail?

[Winger]

Hope is all we got, we have no promise to see tomorrow.

hey on a happy note, have you noticed the decline in junk mail?

Apparently, a lot of people are buying the "hope" thing.

No, I'm still getting plenty of junk mail and plenty of spam.

[shocker1]

Apparently, a lot of people are buying the "hope" thing.

No, I'm still getting plenty of junk mail and plenty of spam.
Ahh, so you have no hope and a garbage can full of credit card offers. You should shred them, I HOPE you do.

[CG51]

Plan to buy $700B in troubled assets wins OK. Backers hope add-ons will yield more yes-votes in House.



NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Senate on Wednesday night passed a sweeping and controversial financial bailout similar in key ways to one rejected by the House just two days earlier.

The measure was passed by a vote of 74 to 25 after more than three hours of floor debate in the Senate. Presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and John McCain, R-Arizona, voted in favor.
Like the bill the House rejected, the core of the Senate bill is the Bush administration's plan to buy up to $700 billion of troubled assets from financial institutions.

Those assets, mostly mortgage-related, have caused a crisis of confidence in the credit markets. A major aim of the plan is to free up banks to start lending again once their balance sheets are cleared of toxic holdings.

But the Senate legislation also includes a number of new provisions aimed at Main Street.

The changes are intended to attract more votes in the House, in particular from House Republicans, two-thirds of whom voted against the bailout plan.

The House is expected to take up the Senate measure for a vote on Friday, according to aides to Democratic leaders.
The legislation, if passed by the House, would usher in one of the most far-reaching interventions in the economy since the Great Depression.

Advocates say the plan is crucial to government efforts to attack a credit crisis that threatens the economy and would free up banks to lend more. Opponents say it rewards bad decisions by Wall Street, puts taxpayers at risk and fails to address the real economic problems facing Americans.

"If we do not act responsibly today, we risk a crisis in which senior citizens across America will lose their retirement savings, small businesses won't make payroll ... and families won't be able to obtain mortgages for their homes or cars," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., moments before the vote.

In a press briefing after the vote, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. R-Ky., said, "This is a measure for Main Street, not Wall Street. [It will help] to unfreeze our credit markets and get the American economy working again."

Because of Senate add-ons, the bill's initial price tag will be higher than the $700 billion that the Treasury would use to buy troubled assets. But over time, supporters say, taxpayers are likely to make back much if not all of the money the Treasury uses because it will be investing in assets with underlying value.

How the Senate bill differs

The package adds provisions to the House version - including temporarily raising the FDIC insurance cap to $250,000 from $100,000. It says the FDIC may not charge member banks more to cover the increase in coverage. But that doesn't prevent the agency from raising premiums to cover existing concerns with the insurance fund, according to Jaret Seiberg, a financial services analyst at the Stanford Group, a policy research firm.

Instead, the bill allows the FDIC to borrow from the Treasury to cover any losses that might occur as a result of the higher insurance limit
The bill also adds in three key elements designed to attract House Republican votes - particularly popular tax measures that have garnered bipartisan support.

It would extend a number of renewable energy tax breaks for individuals and businesses, including a deduction for the purchase of solar panels.

The Senate bill would also continue a host of other expiring tax breaks. Among them: the research and development credit for businesses and the credit that allows individuals to deduct state and local sales taxes on their federal returns.
In addition, the bill includes relief for another year from the Alternative Minimum Tax, without which millions of Americans would have to pay the so-called "income tax for the wealthy."

The debate over extending AMT relief is an annual political ritual. It enjoys bipartisan support but deficit hawks on both sides of the aisle contend the cost of providing that relief should be paid for. Others argue it shouldn't be paid for because the AMT was never intended to hit the people the relief provisions would protect. Nevertheless, lawmakers pass the measure every year or two.

How Senate bill mimics House version

For all the sweeteners added to the Senate bill, however, it is similar to the House bill in many key ways.
The core is the Treasury's proposal to let financial institutions sell to the government their troubled assets, mostly mortgage-related. And as in the House bill, the Senate would only allow the Treasury access to the $700 billion in stages, with $250 billion being made available immediately.

The Senate bill is also similar in that it includes a number of provisions that supporters say would protect taxpayers. One would direct the president to propose a bill requiring the financial industry to reimburse taxpayers for any net losses from the program after five years. And the Treasury would be allowed to take ownership stakes in participating companies.

Like the House version, the Senate bill includes a stipulation that the Treasury set up an insurance program - to be funded with risk-based premiums paid by the industry - to guarantee companies' troubled assets, including mortgage-backed securities, purchased before March 14, 2008.

And it would place curbs on executive pay for companies selling assets or buying insurance from Uncle Sam. One provision: Any bonus or incentive paid to a senior executive officer for targets met would have to be repaid if it's later proven that earnings or profit statements were inaccurate.

Lastly, the Senate version would set up two oversight committees. A Financial Stability Board would include the Federal Reserve chairman, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, the Federal Home Finance Agency director, the Housing and Urban Development secretary and the Treasury secretary.
A congressional oversight panel, to which the Financial Stability Board would report, would have five members appointed by House and Senate leadership from both parties.

Differing views

Despite the Senate bill's sweeteners, the bill did not garner unanimous support because those who oppose the Treasury plan felt passionately it was the wrong approach.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a champion of the energy tax breaks in the bill, said on Wednesday afternoon she nevertheless would vote against the bill because she opposes "giving the keys to the Treasury over to the private sector."
Opponents of the bill have said they resented being given a "my way or the highway" choice to address what they acknowledge is a very serious economic threat.

During the Senate debate on Wednesday, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., characterized the administration's request to lawmakers 12 days ago as "crying 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, then claiming the only [way out] is to tear down the walls when there are many exit doors."

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said the Senate will have "failed the American people" by acting hastily. "I agree we need to do something. ... we haven't spent any time figuring out whether we've picked the best choice."
Supporters of the bill say they hate the position they are in and are angry, too, but say it's better to do something now than to let the credit crunch persist.

"There's no doubt that there may be other plans out there that, had we had two or three or six months to develop ... might serve our purposes better," said Obama during the floor debate. "But we don't have that kind of time. And we can't afford to take a risk that the economy of the United States of America and, as a consequence, the worldwide economy could be plunged into a very, very deep hole."

[B]Potential costs

The tax provisions of the Senate bill - the bulk of which come from the addition of tax breaks from other legislation - may reduce federal tax revenue by $110 billion over 10 years, according to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation. More than half of that is due to the 1-year extension of AMT relief.

The Congressional Budget Office said it cannot estimate the net budget effects of the troubled asset program because of the many unknowns about that piece of the bill.

However, the agency noted in a letter to lawmakers on Wednesday, it expects the program "would entail some net budget cost" but that it would be "substantially smaller than $700 billion."

Overall, the CBO said, "the bill as a whole would increase the budget deficit over the next decade."

All eyes on House

Now the fate of the bailout rests with the House.

"The reality has hit some members," said House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., late Wednesday on CNN. "The main change is reality - it's not possible now to scoff at the predictions of doom if we don't do anything."

The lead House Republican, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, was consulted on the Senate's plans and gave his "green light," spokesman Kevin Smith said. "We believe we'll have a better chance to pass this bill than the one that failed [Monday]," he added.

The plan could attract House Republicans while simultaneously alienating bailout supporters among the Democrats because the tax cuts in the revenue bill aren't offset by spending cuts or increased revenues.

President Bush, following the Senate vote, said the bill was central to the "financial security" of the nation. "The American people expect - and our economy demands - that the House pass this good bill this week and send it to my desk." The article here (http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/01/news/economy/senate_rescuebill2/index.htm?cnn=yes)

[Rictor]

It frightens and delights me to know that the people who are actually voting on the bill know as much about the complex finances behind it as I do, which is next to nothing. Some 400-odd people hold the fate of the global economy in their confused hands.

[seraosha]

It frightens and delights me to know that the people who are actually voting on the bill know as much about the complex finances behind it as I do, which is next to nothing. Some 400-odd people hold the fate of the global economy in their confused hands.

Republics, love them.

[Flagg]

It frightens and delights me to know that the people who are actually voting on the bill know as much about the complex finances behind it as I do, which is next to nothing. Some 400-odd people hold the fate of the global economy in their confused hands.

Yes......sort of like a bunch of 2 year olds locked in a room with an on/off switch connected to a nuke

[Andreas]

So will the bill pass this time?

A friend of mine who is a macroeconomics wizkid says, that we have not seen the worst yet but, after the bailout there will be a period of 3-9 months with some relief and more calm markets and then we will see more trouble, much more trouble...

He is the same guy who predicted the exact top of the oil price at 140--something..

[Andreas]

Oh and I found this pretty interesting.. 55 Trillion wat!
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/magazines/fortune/varchaver_derivatives.fortune/index.htm

[Gat0r]

Nay Nay Nay. I'll go out on a limb and say that this will make things worse in the long run for us. We supposivly live in a Capitalistic free market society, not now. The market is working the way it should by getting rid of all the bad credit and the businesses all of the inefficiancies. Face it our monetary and financial system are broken, we need to suck it up and start from scratch. It all starts with the federal reserve and their never ending supply of credit and paper money, which adds fuel to the fire, spend spend spend, print print print, ooopps now we need $700 billion on top of that please.

What the market is doing is actually preparing us for a fresh start, its the boom bust cycle, granted the federal reserve and their fiat currency causes a vastly more destructive bust, it is a myth to believe that we can have perpetual growth, that the economy cannot falter, after years of artificial distortion of the market, it is now showing its true face, people here are advocating more money and more credit which seems absurd to me because that is the reason why we are here in the first place, more resistance to market forces the harder we will fall. The market will prevail sooner or later.

[Flagg]

So will the bill pass this time?

A friend of mine who is a macroeconomics wizkid says, that we have not seen the worst yet but, after the bailout there will be a period of 3-9 months with some relief and more calm markets and then we will see more trouble, much more trouble...

He is the same guy who predicted the exact top of the oil price at 140--something..

In a word....................yep

[xav]

http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm

With word out today that the FDIC wants to temporarily boost bank deposit insurance limits over $100,000 up to $250,000, I find myself asking two very disturbing questions:

1) How are they planning to pay for it?

2) What do they know that we don't? Devaluation of the dollar, maybe? So that if the dollar's purchasing power falls in half and prices double, the insurance would still cover folks with $100,000 in an account? Sheesh!

Wouldn't be all bad - such a money-printing binge would cause gold and commodities to double overnight, but there's be force majeures on everything paper, I'm sure, so no sure win there except owning physical.

[Fargin]

A bail out will be cheaper for the tax payers,than a complete collapse.

[Holycrusader]

I get that the bail out is a stop gap measure. My beef here is, where is the $700 bil coming from?


They will print it... :)

[Policía Loco]

I My beef here is, where is the $700 bil coming from?

Where Will the Money Come From? - NY TIMES Opinion Section (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/where-will-the-money-come-from/)

[hank]

The problem with all this talk about not bailing out is that I don't think you guys are considering the consequences. If AIG, Freddie, Fannie, and others in their position don't have the cash to continue buying debt the result will be the stoppage of consumer credit on many levels ya'll aren't considering.

Clean's example is valid. Without a bailout expect all credit from Dell and the like to stop. So how will a lot of Americans and smaller business get leases for computers they need.

Where will American businesses get the financing they need to operate? The ATL paper today had an article about a business that closed bc it lost its credit facilities. Our financial system runs on the premise that a $200 billion dollar bank can make $180 billion in loans, sell the debt through securities, then loan the $180 billion out again. And the people that buy banks' debt are AIG, Freddie, and Fannie, etc. So its really as simple as do we need credit to sustain out economy. And everyone agrees the answer is yes.

As for punishing the heads of these companies, I say go for it. Do whatever you want, but don't let your feelings for them cloud your judgment. Punish them while we bail out the companies. And enact regs/laws to try and make sure it doesn't happen again.

One last point I have seen little about. If the bailout takes place what will essentiall happen is teh govt will buy or guarantee a bunch of debt that is not considered a good risk becasue the asset iw right now worth less than the amoun owed. And the asset at issue is mostly real estate. Well, when that real estate rebounds (and it always has and will this time bc its scarce) the govt will have an asset that is worth more than the debt. That may actually be good in the longterm for the govt.

And in the short term the govt will sell more bonds and notes to finance it so we won't feel it as much as we will feel banks not being able to lend. Now that trend needs to stop to be sure btu short term it won't feel that different. And the govt could correct by spending less but who really thinks that will happen? Point being we've got lots of problems on this issue that aren't related to the bailout.

hank

[domokun]

I'm in for bailout as it's something that must be done. If it's not done, results for financial system can be lot more severe and it can drag rest of economy down in to something lot worse.

[Winger]

http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm

With word out today that the FDIC wants to temporarily boost bank deposit insurance limits over $100,000 up to $250,000, I find myself asking two very disturbing questions:

1) How are they planning to pay for it?

2) What do they know that we don't? Devaluation of the dollar, maybe? So that if the dollar's purchasing power falls in half and prices double, the insurance would still cover folks with $100,000 in an account? Sheesh!

Wouldn't be all bad - such a money-printing binge would cause gold and commodities to double overnight, but there's be force majeures on everything paper, I'm sure, so no sure win there except owning physical.

The FDIC increase had to do with inflation. The 100K assurance hasn't kept up with inflation, it has stayed flat.

[hank]

The FDIC increase had to do with inflation. The 100K assurance hasn't kept up with inflation, it has stayed flat.

Its been $100,000 since the 1990's I think.

Hey man, I read an article last night about Sarbanes Oxley that explained why you want it repealed. I didn't realize that the asset value problem came from that bill. I agree that needs to change but the rest of Sarbanes need to stay in place. I can't remember where were we talked about that but I see your point.

hank

[SBL]

^Since 1980.

[Winger]

Its been $100,000 since the 1990's I think.

Hey man, I read an article last night about Sarbanes Oxley that explained why you want it repealed. I didn't realize that the asset value problem came from that bill. I agree that needs to change but the rest of Sarbanes need to stay in place. I can't remember where were we talked about that but I see your point.

hank

There are other aspects in there that do more harm than good. Some of it can stay in place but it needs to be tweeked.

I also heard Kucinich today talking about his view on what should be done. I think a combination of his views, Gingrich's views, and credit expansion would make a more pallatable bill.

No one individual seems to hold the true answer.

[annihilation]

I have to say for this but not because I want the government to bail out the banks or the american car industry (who is that again toyota or gm?) but because they have too. Its either a mild recession or a much bigger recession. The problem is that all these banks are refusing to loan money to themselves or to anyone else. McDonalds is having trouble in getting a loan. Sirius and many other companies debt comes due soon and no one wants to lean them the cash. Its even worried that farmers mght not get the loans to plant their crops. Sure alot say let the banks fall, but when they fall they will bring alot of other companies and people down with them This country runs on credit and the ability of credit to move freely. When that stops, its going to be very difficult for everyone. So we have no choice but to bail them out. But its not like they are getting out of this a free deal. Its not like the government will pay dollar for dollar on these things. The will pay 30, 50, 70 cents on the dollar (what ever they decide). If done right, warren buffet says, they could make 10 to 20% profit on it. They made money when they did a similiar thing in the great depression.

Also on another note, wasn't the government that pushed freddie, fanny, and the other banks to make loans available to lower income familes to push for that "american dream" of owning the house. People that didn't meet the old requirement to get a proper loan? People who took out equity from their home to buy that nice new car, or go on that vacation. How much debt does an average person hold? Who here has debt? I'm not blaming them for trying to live the dream alone, the banks are at fault too. Everyone got what they wanted, and while everyone made money and got what they wanted, everyone looked a blind eye while the good times rolled.

[annihilation]

http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm

With word out today that the FDIC wants to temporarily boost bank deposit insurance limits over $100,000 up to $250,000, I find myself asking two very disturbing questions:

1) How are they planning to pay for it?

2) What do they know that we don't? Devaluation of the dollar, maybe? So that if the dollar's purchasing power falls in half and prices double, the insurance would still cover folks with $100,000 in an account? Sheesh!

Wouldn't be all bad - such a money-printing binge would cause gold and commodities to double overnight, but there's be force majeures on everything paper, I'm sure, so no sure win there except owning physical.


Increasing it to 250k is not going to cost the government anymore than insuring it 100k. This only comes about when the banks fail. As long as they don't then the government doesn't have to cover anyone. Anyway all a person has to do is have accounts under 100k in multiple banks and they are covered fully. But it makes people feel better.

[T3ngu]

My $0.02.

The US economy virtually act as a stabiliser for the world economy. Thus, the bail out will stabilise the greater part of the world offering benefits to all. Yes this sounds selfish, but the "sure thing" loans pushed by the US instituations into Australia (as an example) mean that most other economies will be sucked down by the american failures.

Its not the US governments role to bail the companies out, but in a round about way it is because they let the "business" end of town go too far.

However, and a bit however, all retards to caused this problem should be ro sham bo'd.

[deagle]

i just don't want ceo's to have golden parachutes no more. merit pay i say.

[mcgn21]

Yes......sort of like a bunch of 2 year olds locked in a room with an on/off switch connected to a nuke
LOL, I think a pile of 2 year olds could come up with better solutions than congress

[T3ngu]

LOL, I think a pile of 2 year olds could come up with better solutions than congress
Possibly, and they would all involve a playground and cool toys that go beep. Sounds good to me.

[Flagg]

http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm

With word out today that the FDIC wants to temporarily boost bank deposit insurance limits over $100,000 up to $250,000, I find myself asking two very disturbing questions:

1) How are they planning to pay for it?

2) What do they know that we don't? Devaluation of the dollar, maybe? So that if the dollar's purchasing power falls in half and prices double, the insurance would still cover folks with $100,000 in an account? Sheesh!

Wouldn't be all bad - such a money-printing binge would cause gold and commodities to double overnight, but there's be force majeures on everything paper, I'm sure, so no sure win there except owning physical.

A bit of a warning in regards to this:

I posted here a bit ago about Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway comglomerate....one of it's subsidiaries is a specialist insurance company.

This insurance company provides insurance cover for banks to insure deposits over and above the FDIC $100k coverage.

This Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary was immediately cancelling not just all new coverage, but closing on EXISTING deposit insurance coverage.

So on the one hand Warren Buffett was saying everyone is super...on the other, his company was eliminating all insurance risk in case sh!tloads of banks start falling over in the next few years.

What's that tell ya?

Besides Warren Buffett talking out his @ss.....

[LRPV]

I just voted for the bailout. Philosophically I am against using public funds (taxes) to put private sector for-profit organisations on financial life support. However in this case my limited understanding of economics is that to not issue the bail-out would be worse. A local commentator put a choice between recession or depression, the bail-out helps avoid depression. Let's hope so....

[Flagg]

I just voted for the bailout. Philosophically I am against using public funds (taxes) to put private sector for-profit organisations on financial life support. However in this case my limited understanding of economics is that to not issue the bail-out would be worse. A local commentator put a choice between recession or depression, the bail-out helps avoid depression. Let's hope so....

It's a choice:

a single kick to the cahones tomorrow

OR

a series of kicks to the cahones next week



Too many people are living in a fantasy world believing we can avoid our testicular fate.

[LRPV]

So does that mean you agree that its a choice of recession or depression and that the bailout will ease us away from depression?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Let the whole dam banking system collapse.

Disadvantages.

1. Millions lose jobs
2. Millions will be going to soup kitchens
3. Governments will fall
4. World economy will collapse

In comes the new world order. Lets get one thing clear. Whilst the bailout will provide some short term stability it is not going to fix anything.

We should be rewriting the books now so when the collapse comes a new system can take it's place. The underlining cause of all this is globalism and capitalism. We have not learn't anything from previous depressions, recessions and boom and bust cycles and nations now have become to dependent on one another for goods. I look at my desk and the only thing on it that was made in Australia is the dam ashtray. An ashtray I made myself back in Primary School out of clay.

Why has this dependency on other nations occurred? Because people who were already rich wanted to become richer. And it's these people who are getting bailed out. For everyone else they are still going to be at risk in being foreclosed.

I say let the system collapse. Use them money for welfare programs for the affected people. The big collapse is going to come and using money as a temporary relief is stupid. When the collapse does happen where is the money going to come from for the soup kitchens?

[Flagg]

So does that mean you agree that its a choice of recession or depression and that the bailout will ease us away from depression?



I think both the words recession and depression will be inappropriate to define what happens.

Recession is an understatement

Depression is not necessarily an overstatement........but different...both better and worse....we are a different economy today....so I don't think the old rules(at least not all of them) apply in the current environment

a bailout will only delay and magnify the pain

a failure to bailout will see pain immediately

Either way, it's pain.

WITH the bailout I think we will be lucky to have bought ourselves another 3 months.....the speed and scale of these financial shockwaves are accelerating.....while the time BETWEEN each crisis series is dropping.

[Bushranger]

You & your new world order Min, love your passion but never going to happen. I agree that things need to chance but it aint going to change that much.

[LRPV]

So buy gold, guns and food? Geez....from soup kitchens to ...well whatever disaster happens when our money is unstable.:-(

[Flagg]

Let the whole dam banking system collapse.

Millions will die both directly and indirectly related

Disadvantages.

1. Millions lose jobs
2. Millions will be going to soup kitchens
3. Governments will fall
4. World economy will collapse

In comes the new world order. Lets get one thing clear. Whilst the bailout will provide some short term stability it is not going to fix anything.

We should be rewriting the books now so when the collapse comes a new system can take it's place. The underlining cause of all this is globalism and capitalism.

No it clearly is not......but you continue to post biased gibberish

We have not learn't anything from previous depressions, recessions and boom and bust cycles and nations now have become to dependent on one another for goods.


This makes NO sense whatsoever.......individuals, communities, states, nations, and international trade are all the same........you can't buy more than you sell forever...it's quite simple really

I look at my desk and the only thing on it that was made in Australia is the dam ashtray. An ashtray I made myself back in Primary School out of clay.

Who cares about what's on a desk? MOst stuff foudn on a desk is commoditized cr@p that adds little value


Why has this dependency on other nations occurred?

If you used the same arugment WITHIN Australia, you shuld be complaining why South Australias and NSW are so sacky......when WA and Queensland are punching far above their weight

Because people who were already rich wanted to become richer.

Oh that's right.....the evil factory owners brainwashed the poor workers with their capitalist witchcraft and MADE them buying foreign made sh!t........if you're going to point a finger at the easy to blame rich, point it at yourself as well mate...otherwise you are a hypocrite

And it's these people who are getting bailed out. For everyone else they are still going to be at risk in being foreclosed.

Do you know that MANY US States allow people to walk away form their homes...in Oz and NZ you are on the hook....you ain't getting out of the debt...in some US States....hand over the keys and you can walk away laughing.......yeah the "fat cats" are really sticking it to the little guy there....

I say let the system collapse. Use them money for welfare programs for the affected people. The big collapse is going to come and using money as a temporary relief is stupid. When the collapse does happen where is the money going to come from for the soup kitchens?

A collapsed financial system will see probably tens of millions dead directly and/or indirectly in the 3rd world within 5 years of hitting bottom.

You are simply pushing your dusty old agenda using information of questionable veracity.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

You still never said anything that can improve the situation. Yeah sure what I wrote and have always and often very passionately advocated do have some inherent problems. But nothing that can not be overcome.

Every single thing yourself and every other capitalist fanboy proposes are either so flawed it's laughable or like everything else with capitalism and globalism do not actually fix anything.

We need revolutionary reforms now. Completely change everything from top to bottom. Time and time again this system is failing. Time and time again the fatcs cry to the government to bail em out and time and time again the governments do just that. It's not fair on the lower and middle class who make up the majority of the population and who are the ones that are always affected when the capitalist system gets into ****.

[Flagg]

You still never said anything that can improve the situation. Yeah sure what I wrote and have always and often very passionately advocated do have some inherent problems. But nothing that can not be overcome.

Every single thing yourself and every other capitalist fanboy proposes are either so flawed it's laughable or like everything else with capitalism and globalism do not actually fix anything.

We need revolutionary reforms now. Completely change everything from top to bottom. Time and time again this system is failing. Time and time again the fatcs cry to the government to bail em out and time and time again the governments do just that. It's not fair on the lower and middle class who make up the majority of the population and who are the ones that are always affected when the capitalist system gets into ****.


Facts:

Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao

More Facts:

Most poor people will always be poor......no matter how much money you throw at them

Even more facts:

Everyone who buys sh!t from China is culpable...not just the "fat cats"...you neglect to mention this fact every time

Even more facts:

Don't forget personal responsibility of individuals in borrowing far,far,far more than anyone could ever hope to repay..........blame the state for the poor public school financial education...if people overate to the point of vomiting is it the buffet restaurant's fault?

Even more facts:

For someone who chooses NOT to follow the path of the lemmings, you watch the lemmings go off the cliff of self inflicted consumer debt...and you blame "fat cats".....don't insult our intelligence...we know, YOU know better

Even more facts:

As I've stated before, and again for the last time.....it is not capitalism or globalism's fault......

Fault lies in:

corrupt political lobbying undermining democracy itself

oversight/enforcement failures..these problems have been known for years and were not addressed

Capitalism and TRADE(which has been mutated into the evil globalism) are themselves neither good nor bad.

Capitalism is the least flawed system with the best track record in human history for providing the greatest improvements to standard of living and quality of life period.


The end

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Facts:

Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao

You know as well as I do these guys had nothing to do with the ideals that I stand for.

More Facts:

Most poor people will always be poor......no matter how much money you throw at them

I agree. People need to take responsibility for their situation. But many times they are not in the situation they find themselves through their own actions but by outside forces. (IE fat cats)

Even more facts:

Everyone who buys sh!t from China is culpable...not just the "fat cats"...you neglect to mention this fact every time

You wont here me disputing this fact. Hell I own a Japanese car, buy imported leather from Spain, and rubber from Papua. Problem is if it was so simple we could stop it overnight.

Say something costs 5,000 here in Australia to make. It sells for 7,000. In China it costs 2,000. It's still going to be sold for 7,000. But the local manufacturer who makes the same product eventually goes out of business since whilst they can compete price wise they lack the funds to invest in new machinery and so forth.

Even more facts:

Don't forget personal responsibility of individuals in borrowing far,far,far more than anyone could ever hope to repay..........blame the state for the poor public school financial education...if people overate to the point of vomiting is it the buffet restaurant's fault?

This is why the system is failing. Banks and to a lesser extent governments have and will continue to give credit to people who can not afford make the payments. Yeah sure many people do in fact deserve to be in the ****. But for the average person it's just not fair that a bank collapse 10 time zones away can affect their ability to pay.

Even more facts:

For someone who chooses NOT to follow the path of the lemmings, you watch the lemmings go off the cliff of self inflicted consumer debt...and you blame "fat cats".....don't insult our intelligence...we know, YOU know better

Answered with my previous comment

Even more facts:

As I've stated before, and again for the last time.....it is not capitalism or globalism's fault......

Fault lies in:

corrupt political lobbying undermining democracy itself

oversight/enforcement failures..these problems have been known for years and were not addressed

Hence my current tirade against the current system.

Capitalism and TRADE(which has been mutated into the evil globalism) are themselves neither good nor bad.

Whilst I agree that trade is important. It always has been the fact that with it come major social and economic upheaval. This is where trade protections and tariffs are such a good thing. Though such measures can impact foreign trade negatively the benefits of such systems outweigh the negatives

Capitalism is the least flawed system with the best track record in human history for providing the greatest improvements to standard of living and quality of life period.

The end

Actually it's been war and secondly the freedom of the masses that has given us this growth in living standards. War gives us the technologies that improve our lives and the removal of feudal system to democracy allows people to vote for the person that they believe will improve their situation. In theory anyway.

[xav]

Bailout in the Checkbook Republic

Several people have written asking if the passage today of the House version of the Senate bailout ( http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081003/financial_meltdown.htm l) bill changes any of my expectations that we will begin an emotional release period of 5-6 months next week - sometime around October 7th.

I'm sorry to say that it doesn't change a thing. Rememb er that we have a Fannie and Fredie settlement coming up next week, and my understanding is that the way many credit default swaps work, there could be a lot of players who think they have a good solid book next week who could get calls saying something like "The first party defaulted but could only pay us x, and the second party then defaulted but could only pay us z - so now you're on the hook for z many dollars.

The raising of z many dollars should begin any time now, although likely late Monday if my sense of things is right.

So, write down where you heard it first: I think we'll live to regret bailing out the Banksters instead of putting them in jail, and we'd have been better off saving the money to put it into soup kitchens than race tracks and rum and wooden arrows. But, then again, if I'm wrong in the outlook, I just won't have to go grocery shopping for a good long while.


Oh, and as we go to press here on this update, it looks like the market has called 'time out' on the partying, too.

If you ever thought that CONgress would vote the Will of the People, what better proof could you ask to establish the whereabouts of the Checkbook Republic?

[SBL]

You still never said anything that can improve the situation. Yeah sure what I wrote and have always and often very passionately advocated do have some inherent problems. But nothing that can not be overcome.


You mean like, human nature?

[clean]

You mean like, human nature?

Why do you hate communism?

[Macs.]

Capitalism is the least flawed system with the best track record in human history for providing the greatest improvements to standard of living and quality of life period.


Couldn't agree more.

And that exactly on the 3rd October, 18 years since the socialist German Democratic Republic has been abolished by it's very people in a demand for a better life and freedom.

[danielc]

Communism can work only up to a certain point, and then it fails.

It's most likely to be embraced by societies where people have a low degree of development, and where there are large social inequalities between the population. Communism will address these inequalities by providing people with food, shelter, health-care, education, and a job, however, and over the long-run, people will want more, and that's where communism will fail.

It's human nature to want more, and to have different wants and needs, and that's something that only a capitalistic system can provide. Perhaps in the future, if nanotech develops into what's envisioned by some, will capitalism cease to be the system to use.

[drunken sailor]

What the congress did today was treasonous. 100 billion in Pork spending and CEOs will still get rich off of this. This bail-out is the raping of American and it needs to stop now!!! The majority of Americans did not want the bill and they ignored us. They work for us and now its time to refuse to pay them.

Everyone should get out and protest. If they do not repeal it then everyone should refuse to pay their taxes in mass. Better yet why don't everyone just go on strike for a few days and put an end to the crooks in D.C.

[domokun]

Now that Communism has been taken as part of this conversation...

It's nice utopia, but it has never been tried in true sense and it will probably never work in reality due to apparent flaws in human nature, mostly greed and selfishness. The brand of communism that has been tried is very far from theoretical communism, it was simple socialist dictatorship. As such theoretical communism is just an more advanced form of democracy. Current capitalism even with it's apparent flaws is best economical system yet developed.

[Flagg]

You wont here me disputing this fact. Hell I own a Japanese car, buy imported leather from Spain, and rubber from Papua. Problem is if it was so simple we could stop it overnight.

Say something costs 5,000 here in Australia to make. It sells for 7,000. In China it costs 2,000. It's still going to be sold for 7,000.

According to whom?

Apparantly just you.

You have no data to substantiate this.

The comparable cost of consumer electronics, computers, durable goods like appliances and furniture, processed foods, etc have ALL dropped significantly in price in the last 10 years.

You are simply making sh!t up.

But the local manufacturer who makes the same product eventually goes out of business since whilst they can compete price wise they lack the funds to invest in new machinery and so forth.



This is why the system is failing. Banks and to a lesser extent governments have and will continue to give credit to people who can not afford make the payments.

If you eat too much and get fat and die, it's YOUR fault

If you fcuk everything that moves without protection and get and STD or pregnant....it's YOUR fault

If you borrow more money than you can afford to pay back, it's YOUR fault.

Government cannot stop people from over-eating, fcuking like rabbits, or making incredibly stupid financial decisions......that's why we've got so many obese people, so many unwanted babies and single parents, and why we HAVE ALWAYS HAD loansharks and pawnshops and casinos...both legal and illegal


Yeah sure many people do in fact deserve to be in the ****. But for the average person it's just not fair that a bank collapse 10 time zones away can affect their ability to pay.

This is another example of where you are in completely out of your depth.

If I have a mortgage and I'm making my payments because I did my own due diligence and made sure not to overpay or overborrow the bank can fall over and I'm OK....Why? Because the mortgage loanbook is an asset and will simply change ownership if the failed bank is absorbed, or the loan book is auctioned off.......people that actually PAY their mortgages are treasured by banks.

I had a mortgage...it was sold, resold, and onsold repeatedly over just a couple years....I didn't care who owned it........because I paid it.


Whilst I agree that trade is important. It always has been the fact that with it come major social and economic upheaval. This is where trade protections and tariffs are such a good thing. Though such measures can impact foreign trade negatively the benefits of such systems outweigh the negatives


Again you are completely out of your depth.......

Read up on how the Great Depression REALLY got rolling.........it wasn't a one/several day event.....it was a series of cascading events that took years to cause such massive destruction......

One of the most destructive events of the Great Depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act.

I suggest you look it up.......

As we discussed years ago when you posted with pride at the prowess of the Aussie auto industry and the "benefits" of Aussie tarriffs for the industry....I told you it would only delay the inevitable....well how's things going in Aussie auto manufacturing?

You were wrong then...you continue to be wrong now.

[California Joe]

Min should shack up with Barney Frank.

[Wall]

Let the whole dam banking system collapse.
The underlining cause of all this is globalism and capitalism.
http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displayblog&month=9&year=2008#2868
http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displayblog&month=9&year=2008#2871

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Again you are completely out of your depth.......

Read up on how the Great Depression REALLY got rolling.........it wasn't a one/several day event.....it was a series of cascading events that took years to cause such massive destruction......

One of the most destructive events of the Great Depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act.

I suggest you look it up.......

As we discussed years ago when you posted with pride at the prowess of the Aussie auto industry and the "benefits" of Aussie tarriffs for the industry....I told you it would only delay the inevitable....well how's things going in Aussie auto manufacturing?

You were wrong then...you continue to be wrong now.

Yet our car exports are continuing to grow with South Korea recently added to the list of countries we export to. p-)

Just so you know my last employer was in the outsourcing business. (even communists need a roof over their head) and I know full well that outsourcing is not about making **** cheaper for the consumer.

[Flagg]

Yet our car exports are continuing to grow with South Korea recently added to the list of countries we export to. p-)

275,000 Australian made vehicles were sold in 2004, in 2007 only 200,000...........yeah lots of progress being made......in completely the wrong direction

Just so you know my last employer was in the outsourcing business. (even communists need a roof over their head) and I know full well that outsourcing is not about making **** cheaper for the consumer.

Your evidence is anecdotal....and worthless in light of the big picture.

Comparing today with say 30 years ago:

What is the cost of the average television in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average dishwasher in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average clothes dryer in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average clothing wardrobe in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average fridge/freezer in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average winter jacket in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average lounge suite in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average laptop in % terms of the average wage?

ALL lower on average, compared to the average wage today than yesterday.....your personal experience is both biased and misleading.

If you were willing to work as many hours as your co-workers you would have likely learned a bit more about the facts of outsourcing over the last few decades.....instead of just clinging to your inaccurate and oversimplistic socialist agenda that the big "fat cats" benefitted.

Consumers have voted with their dollars.......consistently choosing to buy CHEAPER foreign made stuff......the business community gives consumers what they want or they go out of business.

If you ever went into business for yourself you would see, and more importantly, UNDERSTAND that......and you would quickly shed your ridiculous socialist agenda.

[Kaplanr]

......
Read up on how the Great Depression REALLY got rolling.........it wasn't a one/several day event.....it was a series of cascading events that took years to cause such massive destruction......

One of the most destructive events of the Great Depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act.
Add to that the reparations imposed on Germany as a result of Versailles, and the overall inability of the US and European central bankers or treasuries to agree on coordinated efforts at currency stabilization and the gold question.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Of course **** is cheaper as a % of the average wage. I never said it wasn't. But we are no longer in a situation where the average person earns just enough to put a roof over his head and to put food on the table which is what most people were earning less then 100 years ago.

The other thing you failed to mention is the role in technology has had in lowering costs. We are now in a situation where to make for example a TV requires very little human resources.

So your argument is flawed.

As for my experience. Well the x% lower operating costs did not give a consumer x% lower price for the goods that they sold. I should know I was a also a customer of said company.

Take the rise of the Australian Dollar for example. In theory the Australian should have been better off. Yet a computer game still costs $100.00 despite the dollar going from $.50 US to $.90

[Flagg]

Of course **** is cheaper as a % of the average wage. I never said it wasn't.

What you said was:

"Say something costs 5,000 here in Australia to make. It sells for 7,000. In China it costs 2,000. It's still going to be sold for 7,000."

You are just plain wrong




But we are no longer in a situation where the average person earns just enough to put a roof over his head and to put food on the table which is what most people were earning less then 100 years ago.


What does 100 years ago have to do with today?

Other than to further destroy your poorly constructed argument that somehow capitalism/free market/global trade systems have "failed" in your mind.....when they actually have created more wealth and expanded the middle class faster and more effectively than any other time in recorded history.

The other thing you failed to mention is the role in technology has had in lowering costs.

You are on the back foot and trying to redirect the thread...I'm not going to bite.

"Role in technology" is actually lumped in with productivity gains we have seen since man discovered fire and invented the wheel......you cannot use "technology" as somehow being an unfair advantage for capitalism/free trade/ global trade.

People, capital, and the innovation the two combined create occurs where it is most appreciated and nurtured.

That is why the USA you continually insult develops more patents than pretty much the rest of the world combined......and North Korean's eat dirt

We are now in a situation where to make for example a TV requires very little human resources.

Wrong again........you keep pulling sh!t out of your @ss

Do you have ANY idea how many people are required to CONSTRUCT a 300mm wafer fab?

Do you have any idea how many people are required to OPERATE a 300mm wafer fab?

I do...same goes for the large scale LCD and Plasma screen manufacturers.....billions of capital investment.....thousands employed.....if they were fully or near fully automated and labour as % of total costs was low they would be made in Europe/US/Oz......they're not.......FOR A REASON.


So your argument is flawed.


You REALLY need to learn how business works

As for my experience. Well the x% lower operating costs did not give a consumer x% lower price for the goods that they sold. I should know I was a also a customer of said company.

You are oversimplifying outsourcing based on your quite limited sample size.

Take the rise of the Australian Dollar for example. In theory the Australian should have been better off. Yet a computer game still costs $100.00 despite the dollar going from $.50 US to $.90

Maybe if you had experience in distributing product internationally in volume, experience in currency hedging, experience in marketing/advertising, experience in consumer theory, and experience in price elasticity you would better understand.

If you actually held a reasonable viewpoint or even just simply attempted to take an impartial perspective I'd be happy to share more, but debating with you on this topic is absolutely pointless.........your inflexibility on this topic is similiar to your self-admitted inflexibility with your last employer.

To be absolutely blunt, I'm beginning to think you are a square peg in a round hole world.

[LRPV]

[September 27, 2008]

'Great Depression' closer than U.S. admits, report finds

(The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) Sep. 27--Today's debt crisis is much worse than thought, as more than 1,600 banks and thrifts -- with assets totaling $3.2 trillion -- could fail, a research firm said Friday.

If approved, the $700 billion bailout proposed by the Bush administration would be too little, too late to end the nation's debt crisis -- but too much, too soon for the bond market to handle, according to researchers Martin D. Weiss and Michael Larson.

"The $700 billion bailout is like a dike that's already overflowing, but people still are trying to plug leaks," said Weiss, founder and CEO of Weiss Research Inc. of Jupiter, Fla. Larson follows the mortgage, interest and real estate markets for Weiss.

Weiss and Larson co-authored a paper that they submitted Friday to the Senate Banking Committee and to the House Financial Services Committee. The paper explains in depth their analysis of what Weiss called during a conference call "a debt crisis so severe, there's risk of a Great Depression."

The Weiss-Larson report greatly expands what has been released publicly regarding the debt crisis.

For example, Weiss found the number of banks in need of assistance is 1,637 -- nearly 20 percent of the 8,451 such institutions nationwide. Those banks and thrifts have assets totaling $3.2 trillion -- 41 times the $78 billion in assets held by the 117 financial institutions recognized as needing assistance by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Weiss Research bases its analysis on financial reports filed by all banks and thrifts with federal regulators every three months.



Safe as a bank huh?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

What does 100 years ago have to do with today?

Other than to further destroy your poorly constructed argument that somehow capitalism/free market/global trade systems have "failed" in your mind.....when they actually have created more wealth and expanded the middle class faster and more effectively than any other time in recorded history.

These were the ones that caught me eye.

Point 1. What was going on 100 years ago is very relevant. Who pushed for pay raises, greater employment flexibility, government housing, health care, holidays, sickness leave, workers compensation? Unions and socialists. Governments and business always battled against these changes. Especially 100 years ago.

Which brings us to point 2.

It's the above reasons more then anything that has lead to a growing middle class, political freedoms and rising living standards. Do not even say business would openly do this out of the kindness of their heart. Let alone governments for that matter.

It's all fine and dandy to say it was capitalism that has given us these living standards. Might be a little truth in it. But who was the driving force behind it? Definetly not the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford types. Fords attitude to his workers is a good case in point.

the was a series of revolutions by the working class in most of the then developed wold in the 19th century that directly resulted in improvements that lead to the modern democracies of today. If capitalism was the true answer then these events and every other major social upheaval surely would not be happening?

History plays a part and always will. It's just a shame many forget to look it to learn from mistakes that were made.

[Flagg]

[September 27, 2008]

'Great Depression' closer than U.S. admits, report finds

(The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) Sep. 27--Today's debt crisis is much worse than thought, as more than 1,600 banks and thrifts -- with assets totaling $3.2 trillion -- could fail, a research firm said Friday.

If approved, the $700 billion bailout proposed by the Bush administration would be too little, too late to end the nation's debt crisis -- but too much, too soon for the bond market to handle, according to researchers Martin D. Weiss and Michael Larson.

"The $700 billion bailout is like a dike that's already overflowing, but people still are trying to plug leaks," said Weiss, founder and CEO of Weiss Research Inc. of Jupiter, Fla. Larson follows the mortgage, interest and real estate markets for Weiss.

Weiss and Larson co-authored a paper that they submitted Friday to the Senate Banking Committee and to the House Financial Services Committee. The paper explains in depth their analysis of what Weiss called during a conference call "a debt crisis so severe, there's risk of a Great Depression."

The Weiss-Larson report greatly expands what has been released publicly regarding the debt crisis.

For example, Weiss found the number of banks in need of assistance is 1,637 -- nearly 20 percent of the 8,451 such institutions nationwide. Those banks and thrifts have assets totaling $3.2 trillion -- 41 times the $78 billion in assets held by the 117 financial institutions recognized as needing assistance by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Weiss Research bases its analysis on financial reports filed by all banks and thrifts with federal regulators every three months.



Safe as a bank huh?

Good call.......the Weiss report has been circulating like quicksilver.

It's report on banks is but ONE more layer to be affected.

There are quite a few more layers to the onion.

[LRPV]

Ok, I'm going go thinking on-line here...

Until recently, good financial management said that if you had a mortgage (private owner-occupier) and you had a cash surplus, you fed it into your mortgage to save many thousands of dollars in interest over the life of the loan.

Is this thinking still valid in this current situation? A few days ago I was blase about the scaremongers who mentioned words like depression. Heck to me depression was something you took a pill for and it went away. Now even conservative commentators are using the "D' word.

My city Mint has put on a third shift to cope with gold bullion and coin orders from the USA and Asia.

My concern is that this might unravel faster than politicians and central bankers can understand it.

[Flagg]

Ok, I'm going go thinking on-line here...

Until recently, good financial management said that if you had a mortgage (private owner-occupier) and you had a cash surplus, you fed it into your mortgage to save many thousands of dollars in interest over the life of the loan.

Is this thinking still valid in this current situation? A few days ago I was blase about the scaremongers who mentioned words like depression. Heck to me depression was something you took a pill for and it went away. Now even conservative commentators are using the "D' word.

My city Mint has put on a third shift to cope with gold bullion and coin orders from the USA and Asia.

My concern is that this might unravel faster than politicians and central bankers can understand it.


You are correct.

Conventional financial doctrine dictates that for Oz/NZ excess cash used to pay down a mortgage is appropriate if the likely "guranteed" POST TAX investment return of the free cash EXCEEDS the mortgage % rate.

Example:

If you have a mortgage at 7.5%

Interest earned on cash taxed at income level is say 20%

You need a "guaranteed" return exceeding 9.375%, if less, pay down mortgage

BUT, here's the big BUT:

IF available credit gets sucked up like a sponge and becomes increasingly scarce, and IF after you have paid down your mortgage you are UNABLE to reborrow against the asset you paid down, and IF you may have a need for available cash, you MAY want to sit on the cash accepting the higher cost of doing so, but keeping some "powder" not just dry, but available and accessible.

Just one possible choice of many.

We live in interesting times and conventional doctrine(other than traditional financial discipline and austerity) may have to be temporarily displaced.

Reducing personal financial debt should be a critical priority........but maintaining sufficient personal LIQUIDITY should also be a serious consideration

[ren0312]

Your evidence is anecdotal....and worthless in light of the big picture.

Comparing today with say 30 years ago:

What is the cost of the average television in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average dishwasher in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average clothes dryer in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average clothing wardrobe in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average fridge/freezer in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average winter jacket in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average lounge suite in % terms of the average wage?

What is the cost of the average laptop in % terms of the average wage?

ALL lower on average, compared to the average wage today than yesterday.....your personal experience is both biased and misleading.

If you were willing to work as many hours as your co-workers you would have likely learned a bit more about the facts of outsourcing over the last few decades.....instead of just clinging to your inaccurate and oversimplistic socialist agenda that the big "fat cats" benefitted.

Consumers have voted with their dollars.......consistently choosing to buy CHEAPER foreign made stuff......the business community gives consumers what they want or they go out of business.

If you ever went into business for yourself you would see, and more importantly, UNDERSTAND that......and you would quickly shed your ridiculous socialist agenda.

Why is it that Japan has a relatively thriving auto manufacturing industry and Australia does not, considering that the both of them have about the same standard of living.

[LRPV]

Huh? Japanese live like Australians? Don't confuse a financial indice with real lifestyles...

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Of course they have different lifestyles. What he is saying is that nations with similar standard of living, human development index and so forth.

[Flagg]

It's all fine and dandy to say it was capitalism that has given us these living standards. Might be a little truth in it. But who was the driving force behind it? Definetly not the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford types. Fords attitude to his workers is a good case in point.



Now you are just making sh!t up.

Apparantly you've never heard of what happened on January 5, 1914?

You never heard that Ford unilaterally offered his workers $5 a day....more than DOUBLE the average pay of his competitors?

You never heard that Ford thought it would not only offer a competitive advantage over his competitors by attracting the best workers, but it would increase sales as his employees could now afford the product he sold?

Ford was many things........some quite bad....but he "got" the fact his greatest asset was walking in and out of the building each day.

I'm done with you and am not interested in further derailing this topic.

Your credibility on this thread is fast approaching absolute zero

[Flagg]

Why is it that Japan has a relatively thriving auto manufacturing industry and Australia does not, considering that the both of them have about the same standard of living.

Japan has ZERO natural resources.

Australia possesses some of the broadest and deepest natural resource gifts on the planetdue to geography and geology.

Japan's economy has a FAR greater reliance on manufacturing than Australia's partly due to that fact.

While both Japan and Australia both possess quite restrictive import tarriff programs to promote domestic production and hinder international imports...Japan is on a whole other level.

Having some experience with Japan, beyond the tarriffs, Japan also possesses an impossible maze of ways to hinder successful import/distribution/retail of international product competitive to Japanese industry.

If Japan has an industry that it considers strategic....take semiconductor manufacturing equipment for example........good luck importing anything into Japan........even though it's legal to do so....your grandchildren will be dust before the gear makes it through impossible hurdles that BEYOND import duty and customs exist only to exhaust potential international competitor resources.

Specifically in regards to Japan's domestic auto production......if you buy a new car in Japan....the older it gets the much mroe expensive it becomes to keep the vehicle on the road....by doing so it strongly encourages turnover and MORE new car sales by hurting used car owners in the pocketbook and forcing them to continuously buy new.

A secondary market in vehicles is created......and used cars are exported to New Zealand and Russia for example to get rid of massive volume of still perfectly good cars.

Basically, Japan throws away millions of perfectly good cars each year to artificially sustain it's domestic vehicle market.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Henry Ford had said he would never cave in to the unions. He didn't like their politics and he wanted total control over his company and his workers. He had run the company paternalistically and many workers still had his picture over their mantles. He also ruled by fear: Harry Bennett, his right hand man, hired spies and thugs (many were ex-cons), 2,000 of them, to man his "Service Department." He ran the Rouge Plant like a Central European police state. Anti-union groups were encouraged, workers were urged to spy on each other and feared losing their jobs if they participated in any union discussions.

http://info.detnews.com/redesign/history/story/historytemplate.cfm?id=172&CFID=21591092&CFTOKEN=52068626

[Flagg]

http://info.detnews.com/redesign/history/story/historytemplate.cfm?id=172&CFID=21591092&CFTOKEN=52068626

Have you lived through a Depression? Not yet...maybe reserve judgement until you have.....there is a rising chance that could be soon.

For every action of business fcuking over workers I could give you one in opposition......I have personal experience with how your poor defenseless union organizers have threatened, intimidated, and injured many of my staff who opposed their failed activities. The brass ring for the unions was collecting the juicy stock options of my staff that were skyrocketing in price......funny how the unions quit after the share price faded....yeah...unions are out to "help"...themselves.

THOSE examples were in the boom times...with lots to spread around.....imagine how ruthless ALL sides would have acted in the 30's Depression.

Once again you are in over your head.............You have stated here before your desire to see workers being able to afford the products they produce, right?

It's safe to say you have never heard of Fordism.

Fordism: "....high corporate profits can be achieved by high wages that allow the workers to purchase the output they produce."

The ironic thing is that the only thing you spout which makes ANY sense at all.......that workers should be able to afford what they produce.....is the philosophy that Ford developed.

So you hate the guy who invented your only generally accepted opinion?!?!?!?!

If you need to post your poorly argued socialist drivel, please do so in a dedicated thread.

Get back on topic.

[T3ngu]

For every action of business fcuking over workers I could give you one in opposition......I have personal experience with how your poor defenseless union organizers have threatened, intimidated, and injured many of my staff who opposed their failed activities. The brass ring for the unions was collecting the juicy stock options of my staff that were skyrocketing in price......funny how the unions quit after the share price faded....yeah...unions are out to "help"...themselves.


I was a union rep for a numer of years at a supermarket i worked at, primarily as i was voted in when i was not there, and i got free beer at the end of each year.

You are right Flagg, the unions are there to help themselves. The union i was with never turned up unless it was the yearly "hi", and when people called them, they made themselves scarce.

Recent example of the joys of unions, was of a guy that got killed on a worksite near here (RIP). The relevant union was going round all job site saying "this is what happens when you work on a non union site, safety goes out the window".

Problem was, the site was a union site where the guy died, they were using him to boost numbers. A relation of mine works there and was disgusted by the actions of the unions.

Sorry about the O/T.

[Kilgor]

Problem was, the site was a union site where the guy died, they were using him to boost numbers. A relation of mine works there and was disgusted by the actions of the unions.

Sorry about the O/T.

My father was a boilermaker, same thing... Disgusted by unions.

[Hollis]

Unions have the same failing of democracies/republics. Apathy among members to exercise their power over elected "leadership".

[T3ngu]

Unions have the same failing of democracies/republics. Apathy among members to exercise their power over "elected leadership".

Fixed to include "elected" within the inverted commas to give the impression that you can actually choose who runs your union.

/facetious

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Ok then we will go back to a time when workers got no sick leave, no holidays, no pensions, no workers compensation, no right to vote, get paid 50 cents an hour and zero job security.

For every single one of you how dislike the union movement. Give up your holidays. Give up your pension. Give up your workers compensation.

Ah it's different now aye.

Wankers.

[Kilgor]

Ok then we will go back to a time when workers got no sick leave, no holidays, no pensions, no workers compensation, no right to vote, get paid 50 cents an hour and zero job security.

For every single one of you how dislike the union movement. Give up your holidays. Give up your pension. Give up your workers compensation.

Ah it's different now aye.

Wankers.

No one denies what they did in the past, but they are only good as their current performance.

[T3ngu]

Oh cmon Min, i have had two weeks holiday per year for the last three years, do you hear me crying?

As for pension, what pension, the use of the sharemarket to for "superannuation", will, IMO, stuff us all.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

That is correct. Not denying that. But without the union presence everything we take for granted will quickly go. We already seen that last year did we not?

[Hollis]

Fixed to include "elected" within the inverted commas to give the impression that you can actually choose who runs your union.

/facetious


from a single person's voice, yeah.

But same as the statement, People get the government they deserve, so does union members get the unions hey deserve. The collective responsibility of the people to manage their leaders seems to not happen.

[Kilgor]

That is correct. Not denying that. But without the union presence everything we take for granted will quickly go. We already seen that last year did we not?

we saw the removal of the government who did that.

[CG51]

Unions are a two edge sword. Raised the quality of life for the worker but raised the cost of business for the company.

Look at the American car manufactures. Drowning in high wages and pensions. Japanese auto makers are beating us at our own game. Twenty years from now there will only be Japanese and Chinese cars available to choose from. Maybe German cars as the elite can afford the quality that they produce.

[T3ngu]

from a single person's voice, yeah.

But same as the statement, People get the government they deserve, so does union members get the unions hey deserve. The collective responsibility of the people to manage their leaders seems to not happen.

I accept your point hollis. I should have clarified it by saying here that the unions give the impression that they are a "business" rather than being elected officials.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

The collapse of the US car industry is not because of the unions. They simply are not selling the number of cars they once did nor are they producing cars the consumer wants.

Simple.

It's the same in Australia. Our industry is heavily unionised but Toyota is killing our traditional Ford/Holden mob due to better quality product, cheaper product and more fuel efficient.

Oh Toyota is unionised here.

[Kilgor]

Unions are a two edge sword. Raised the quality of life for the worker but raised the cost of business for the company.

Look at the American car manufactures. Drowning in high wages and pensions. Japanese auto makers are beating us at our own game. Twenty years from now there will only be Japanese and Chinese cars available to choose from. Maybe German cars as the elite can afford the quality that they produce.

I would say its more a result of very poor product choices.

[Macs.]

I believe that Unions do have reasons and good ones to exist. However, just with alot of other things, it all is a question of how far/how big that involvement goes. I see the problem with alot of Unions, just like with Goverment Organisations for example, that such a organisation will at some point get "too fat" and have too much power. And just like other examples, they will either demand "more and more" or create their own problems just to fire up the own reason of existance. If there are no problems, there is no Union.



And as a good example for how Unions loose their ground, I would like to show you a picture of the biggest German Union "Ver.di".

That's their new palace in Berlin:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l314/Macs3000/68768678verdi.jpg


I don't have to tell anyone that even if tomorrow there was heaven on earth, the guys and gals in this glass-temple will find a reason to keep up their existance and excuse their extreme big budget and growth.

[LRPV]

The collapse of the US car industry is not because of the unions. They simply are not selling the number of cars they once did nor are they producing cars the consumer wants.

Simple.



Import deregulation versus tarrifs and import inspections on cars going into Japan? Local industry can't compete on that field. The consumer might prefer US built but will they pay the premium? Same for here.

[Flagg]

Ok then we will go back to a time when workers got no sick leave, no holidays, no pensions, no workers compensation, no right to vote, get paid 50 cents an hour and zero job security.

What? Have you got a frickin time machine?

Yeah, let's uninvent the wheel and democracy.

Next you'll tell us it wasn't Al Gore that invented the internet...but the unions.


For every single one of you how dislike the union movement. Give up your holidays. Give up your pension. Give up your workers compensation.


I guess the unions are responsible for making the sun come up every day.

You are completed blinded by your failure/anger/oversimplistic & wrong: good(unions) vs evil(business) ignorant view of the world.

Business, unions, and government are neither good nor bad........they are a platform used by people to achieve objectives.

Greedy, incompetent, or occasionally evil people are kept in check by those who elect them into power or choose not to give them their money.

Failure to keep greedy, incompetent, or occasionally evil people in check requires occasional regulatory, legislative, or legal change.





Ah it's different now aye.

Unfortunately no........it's still the SAME stale cr@p you're selling that no one's buying

Wankers.

Don't get aggro at us for your failure............let's get back on topic.

[LRPV]

Flagg, responding to Minnie is like feeding chips to seagulls at the beach...it just encourages them.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Don't get aggro at us for your failure............let's get back on topic.

My failure?

The failure I see in this thread is from you. Once again you fail to prove anything other then your own issues with unionism and socialism.

[T3ngu]

*grabs popcorn and sits back*

[INAT]

*grabs popcorn and sits back*



Don't be stingy with the popcorn.I brought the beer.

[Flagg]

The collapse of the US car industry is not because of the unions. They simply are not selling the number of cars they once did nor are they producing cars the consumer wants.

Simple.

Wrong again sunshine

If you had ANY understanding of the motor industry, attempted to keep control of your anti-US opinions, or tried to take an impartial snapshop of the current industry environment you'd learn that the oversaturation of franchised dealer networks in the US have resulted in cannibalized sales WITHIN brands. Toyota's success in the US market is as much due to it's far smaller in total number, but much more profitable in size and scope dealerships compared to it's US branded competition than it is to it's product.

Having a good product is important.......being able to sell and support the product is twice as important.



It's the same in Australia. Our industry is heavily unionised but Toyota is killing our traditional Ford/Holden mob due to better quality product, cheaper product and more fuel efficient.

Oh Toyota is unionised here.

Once again you're displaying your ignorance.........

Union or non-union doesn't matter...if you opened your eyes you might understand that someday.

[LRPV]

*passes t3ngu a beer and grabs a handful of popcorn*

[T3ngu]

* enjoys the show *

[Flagg]

My failure?


Yes your failure.

You have provided numerous examples and comments of how you jumped voluntarily and seemingly involuntarily from position to position to position over your years here.......unrelated to your health care issues.

You are a square socialist peg in a round free market part of the world.

That's OK....everybody has to make their own choices...you have shared some of yours with glee here.

I respect your choice to vote with your feet....repeatedly

But your poorly constructed arguments screaming for a system that would clearly benefit yourself if implemented, without clinically looking at or even acknowledging the clear success of capitalism/free trade/global trade is ignorant.

Not everyone "wins" at capitalism.........and I suspect that may be where your anger lies....................but far more would "lose" long term from socialism.


The failure I see in this thread is from you. Once again you fail to prove anything other then your own issues with unionism and socialism.

What "issues"?

I find unionism obsolete due to longstanding and robust legal and regulatory oversight.

Unions are like buggy whip businesses.......businesses who's expiry date has lapsed.

Maybe if horse and buggies make a reappearance we will need unions again....until then I will cal them as I see them:

parasitic businesses feasting off of real businesses

I find socialism to be the Miss Congeniality 3rd place winner for good reason............as mentioned and agreed with by members here on the forum that capitalism/free trade/global trade has increased standard of living and quality of life higher and farther than any other system thus far implemented.

Outside of some horrible union organizers that I despise for good reason, my feelings for unionism/socialism are entirely benign......

Being angry at unionism or socialism is a waste of time

I'm pretty cruisy...I go with what WORKS, rather than wasting my life selling a failed perpetual motion machine.

[Flagg]

I believe that Unions do have reasons and good ones to exist. However, just with alot of other things, it all is a question of how far/how big that involvement goes. I see the problem with alot of Unions, just like with Goverment Organisations for example, that such a organisation will at some point get "too fat" and have too much power. And just like other examples, they will either demand "more and more" or create their own problems just to fire up the own reason of existance. If there are no problems, there is no Union.



And as a good example for how Unions loose their ground, I would like to show you a picture of the biggest German Union "Ver.di".

That's their new palace in Berlin:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l314/Macs3000/68768678verdi.jpg


I don't have to tell anyone that even if tomorrow there was heaven on earth, the guys and gals in this glass-temple will find a reason to keep up their existance and excuse their extreme big budget and growth.

CRaZy!

There should have been a union.com in the dot.com boom.......an outfit that could be a one stop shop for insanely low union dues cost collective bargaining expertise, advice, support, etc.

That could be a huge winner......if ingrained and vested union interests didn't smash such an effort at every opportunity.

[clean]

Wait for it. Big ole rally coming on Wall Street. Down 500 now, but I bet we'll be up 100 by the time the day is done.

[Laworkerbee]

Wait for it. Big ole rally coming on Wall Street. Down 500 now, but I bet we'll be up 100 by the time the day is done.

That's not how they are calling it here at work, I think they bolted the access to the roof even though I top investor guy predicted the Dow below 10,000 this past Friday.

[clean]

Mark my words. The rally is a-coming. Just like that big rain storm they predicted in LA on Saturday.

EDIT Seems the market hasn't gotten my "rally" memo.


MORE EDIT Perhaps there will be no rally.

[shocker1]

Mark my words. The rally is a-coming. Just like that big rain storm they predicted in LA on Saturday.

EDIT Seems the market hasn't gotten my "rally" memo.


MORE EDIT Perhaps there will be no rally.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/06/news/economy/treasury_hiring_guidelines/index.htm
Paulson named his bailout chief, Neel Kashkari . One of his pals from Goldman Sachs, conflicts of interest all over the place. Great way to instill confidence. There needs to be arrests, court hearings, outcry ect.....

On a positive note what you say has merit. Wait a bit though, soon the money masters will swoop in to buy up the pieces. This will bring that rally you are looking for.

[Laworkerbee]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/06/news/economy/treasury_hiring_guidelines/index.htm
Paulson named his bailout chief, Neel Kashkari . One of his pals from Goldman Sachs, conflicts of interest all over the place. Great way to instill confidence. There needs to be arrests, court hearings, outcry ect.....

Neel Kashkari is 35 years old, practically a kid :|

[clean]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/06/news/economy/treasury_hiring_guidelines/index.htm
Paulson named his bailout chief, Neel Kashkari . One of his pals from Goldman Sachs, conflicts of interest all over the place. Great way to instill confidence. There needs to be arrests, court hearings, outcry ect.....

On a positive note what you say has merit. Wait a bit though, soon the money masters will swoop in to buy up the pieces. This will bring that rally you are looking for.

52 minutes for the big rally. Already gained back 150. It's on, gentlemen.

[shocker1]

Neel Kashkari is 35 years old, practically a kid :|
What can I say, we passed a bill to give billions to the same people causing the problem. High officials coming out everyday for 2 weeks saying depression, bottomless pit, fear ect. What did they expect? What do we expect from a fraternity of money men playing games. In the end we will bailout the market, the Treasury will sell those assets at bargain prices to their frat boys and still own the real estate. Damn brilliant really.

Oh but we get a carbon tax audit and various confusing tax deductions for so called "green energy".

[Macs.]

Prior to joining the Treasury Department, Mr. Kashkari was a Vice President at Goldman, Sachs & Co. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman,_Sachs_%26_Co.), where he headed Goldman's information technology security investment banking practice in San Francisco.

Hey, that's like Hannibal investigating Red Dragon.

[Flagg]

Mark my words. The rally is a-coming. Just like that big rain storm they predicted in LA on Saturday.

EDIT Seems the market hasn't gotten my "rally" memo.


MORE EDIT Perhaps there will be no rally.


A Rally isn't always a good thing.

Have a look at one of the "best performing" sharemarkets in the world:

Zimbabawe


Any boost we see to the US markets going forward is quite likely to be the almost exclusive result of monetary inflation.

If you print enough paper, you can make anything move up in "value"....some things faster than others.

Watching CNBC as I write this.......they are dragging everyone with any credibility on screen to say we are at the bottom........and they will keep doing so until the effects of the printing presses visibly kick in.

Turning off the volume on CNBC, the body language displayed by pretty much everyone on the show is quite negative......the talking heads are scared.

[clean]

Oil's down to 87 bucks a barrel. (Struggling to find a silver lining).

[clean]

A Rally isn't always a good thing.



I have to pull out a bunch of money this week for school tuition. So I need one.

[Macs.]

What does rally in this context mean ?

[clean]

What does rally in this context mean ?

At this point, losing 500 on the dow at closing would be a rally.

[Macs.]

At this point, losing 500 on the dow at closing would be a rally.

Well ? I love rallys ?

http://politikpest.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/rally-1.jpg

[Flagg]

52 minutes for the big rally. Already gained back 150. It's on, gentlemen.


That could possibly be the Plunge Protection Team or Presidential Working Group on Financial Markets, or whatever it's called now.

Acting on behalf of government to stabilize the market.

The inflation being pumped into the system isn't as responsive as stepping on the throttle in the car and receiving an immediate response.

Think of it like a car with massive turbo lag......step on the gas hard..........and waiting a seemingly long period of time before you get an increase in power .

[Flagg]

I have to pull out a bunch of money this week for school tuition. So I need one.


Sorry mate :(

[clean]

The dow, specifically, has been over-inflated for quite some time. I'm good with it settling at 9000 or even 8500. Just not in one day.

[clean]

Think of it like a car with massive turbo lag......step on the gas hard..........and waiting a seemingly long period of time before you get an increase in power .

I have a turbo. This makes sense to me.

[Flagg]

Oil's down to 87 bucks a barrel. (Struggling to find a silver lining).

Good news!

In my opinion, when the inflation kicks in to give the sharemarket a boost........the samewill apply to "stuff", but more so in my opinion.....which will mean higer energy prices again :(

Hopefully I'm wrong....

[clean]

Like you said Flagg. I went to cnnmoney.com and it is actually full of good news. But it will, like the turbo, take a bit to kick in.

[Kilgor]

At this point, losing 500 on the dow at closing would be a rally.

lol, though it really inst funny.

[shocker1]

Like you said Flagg. I went to cnnmoney.com and it is actually full of good news. But it will, like the turbo, take a bit to kick in.
It kicked in at McDonalds, #2 QP w/cheese large fry, lrg Dr Pepper is over $6 after tax. That is the last #2 I will be eating.

[clean]

It kicked in at McDonalds, #2 QP w/cheese large fry, lrg Dr Pepper is over $6 after tax. That is the last #2 I will be eating.
With times as bad as they are, maybe make an effort to eat healthy.

[clean]

-384!!!!!! We're almost there!!!!!!

[shocker1]

With times as bad as they are, maybe make an effort to eat healthy.
I hardly ever eat Mickey D's or any other fast food. Last time I bought that you could get a super sized #2 and 2 apple pies for $6. I eat sandwiches from home and salads for lunch most days, Blimpie once and a while and Los Palos next door to the shop. Once a week at the Mexican place.p-)

[clean]

Closed down under -400. Good times are here again.

[LRPV]

The Australian Reserve Bank dropped its rate by an incredable 1% yesterday. Up to 0.8% is being passed onto mortgagees. Some small news for home-owners. The real estate market in my state is stagnant.

The ASX (stock exchange) is way down. No good news happening there for self-funded retirees.

[Flagg]

The Australian Reserve Bank dropped its rate by an incredable 1% yesterday. Up to 0.8% is being passed onto mortgagees. Some small news for home-owners. The real estate market in my state is stagnant.

The ASX (stock exchange) is way down. No good news happening there for self-funded retirees.

That's the biggest single central bank interest rate move I've ever heard of in a 1st world country.

NZ is pretty much guaranteed for a .5, .75, or possibly even a copycat 1% move later in the month.

It's all to prop up the real estate rot.......

It's going to be harder for the savers as well.................

No where to hide

[LRPV]

The real estate prices had to take a hit at least locally, as they are truly over-inflated. Once standards 700square metre blocks were $50 000 5 years ago. In the same area 500 sqm blocks are $250 000+

It's a bit hard to justify such a rise in such a time.

If it doesn't get resolved our kids will not have 25 year mortgages but hereditary mortgages...

[Flagg]

The real estate prices had to take a hit at least locally, as they are truly over-inflated. Once standards 700square metre blocks were $50 000 5 years ago. In the same area 500 sqm blocks are $250 000+

It's a bit hard to justify such a rise in such a time.

If it doesn't get resolved our kids will not have 25 year mortgages but hereditary mortgages...

In Japan, just prior to their real estate bubble getting popped in 90-91 mortgage products were approaching 40+ years...and children being interveiwed WITH parents taking the mortgages.

Japanese real estate prices STILL haven't fully recovered 15+ years later :(

Mort gage = death pledge

[clean]

I made money today!!!!!!!!

[Hollis]

I made money today!!!!!!!!


Me too, these color printers are great. Now to go to town and get some beer.

[hank]

This is an excellent article that talks about the consequences of no bailout. And its one I've not mentioned before. Municipal bonds will become worthelss if the securites taht back mortgages lose the value they've currently lost and aren't being sold any more which is likely without a change.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/13/news/economy/Birmingham_brink_Whitford.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008101504

hank