If we don’t acknowledge the source of this crisis, how are we effectively going to deal with it?
[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
I must admit I am at a crossroads here today. I work in an industry heavily dependent upon people’s discretionary income (personal trainer).
The months as of late the client pool has been drying up as the people making under 100k per year has been less likely to pay for services. […]
I don’t know what the point of this post really is… just stating where a lot of American’s minds are at right now I guess.[/quote]
Thanks for your contribution - good post. I think this is what needs to sink into the participants in this debate much more is that the world is not split up into thrifty intelligent and stupid people with debts.
Except for the Walden brigade ready to retreat into a barter society consisting of completely independent individuals, most (however prudent with their money) people are affected by the spending habits of their employers, banks, pension funds, insurance companies, business partners, family, etc.
I also don’t think it makes much sense at the moment to focus on who’s responsible, as it’s pretty clear: everyone is. Successive governments passing laws and their successors not rectifying them - it’s really not helpful to point blame at whatever side and concentrate on national unity to solve this.
Under whatever president (even Bush) doesn’t really matter at the moment as every day looses thousands their jobs (worldwide), (company) pensions and houses - just find a compromise to do something sooner rather than later.
Makkun
The Chinese had a new dynasty every few hundred years, after the previous one became corrupt, bloated, and so forth. I suspect all of this is simply a pattern that ALL governments/societies have: vigor, success, ease, bloat, collapse. Why should the USA be any different?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
This bill will be the difference between a correction and a depression.
This bill may in fact make things worse: it does nothing to address the fundamental problem at the heart of the crisis.
And then, what if Czar Paulson spends all this money and the problem isn’t solved?
There are MANY problems with this bill - most of them well known (such as how will Paulson establish fair value, etc - or, what happens if this plan doesn’t work?), some less well known: for example, what is to prevent banks from shifting assets and making creative use of their balance sheets to justify a greater portion of the bailout (leading to a new scandal, a boatload of hearings, etc.)
The fact that so little actual debate of alternatives has been allowed should give you pause. And so should their shameless scare-mongering.
[/quote]
Actually, you’re wrong, this bill goes straight to the heart of the crisis and fixes it. If the govt. buys the troubled assets, there are no longer holes on banks balance sheets. That’s the heart of the problem.
Also, with regards to the fair value thing - read what warren buffet has to say on the matter. He suggested to sell 10% of whatever they are going to sell to the govt. on the open market to get a valuation and sell the rest to the fed. Something of that sort would work beautifully
I recognize many of you are free market libertarians - hell I am too, but how anyone can responsibility not vote yes for this bill is beyond me. Why you would “accept” a huge recession when you could correct the problem is rediculous. Someone enlighten me as to your thinking?
[quote]shookers wrote:
I recognize many of you are free market libertarians - hell I am too, but how anyone can responsibility not vote yes for this bill is beyond me. Why you would “accept” a huge recession when you could correct the problem is rediculous. Someone enlighten me as to your thinking?
[/quote]
This is an outrageously inconsistent and non-sensical paragraph.
[quote]shookers wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
This bill will be the difference between a correction and a depression.
This bill may in fact make things worse: it does nothing to address the fundamental problem at the heart of the crisis.
And then, what if Czar Paulson spends all this money and the problem isn’t solved?
There are MANY problems with this bill - most of them well known (such as how will Paulson establish fair value, etc - or, what happens if this plan doesn’t work?), some less well known: for example, what is to prevent banks from shifting assets and making creative use of their balance sheets to justify a greater portion of the bailout (leading to a new scandal, a boatload of hearings, etc.)
The fact that so little actual debate of alternatives has been allowed should give you pause. And so should their shameless scare-mongering.
Actually, you’re wrong, this bill goes straight to the heart of the crisis and fixes it. If the govt. buys the troubled assets, there are no longer holes on banks balance sheets. That’s the heart of the problem.
Also, with regards to the fair value thing - read what warren buffet has to say on the matter. He suggested to sell 10% of whatever they are going to sell to the govt. on the open market to get a valuation and sell the rest to the fed. Something of that sort would work beautifully
I recognize many of you are free market libertarians - hell I am too, but how anyone can responsibility not vote yes for this bill is beyond me. Why you would “accept” a huge recession when you could correct the problem is rediculous. Someone enlighten me as to your thinking?
[/quote]
I was pretty much glued to the news all day yesterday - and you know what? There was not one person - not one - who said this would fix anything.
The best anyone can say is that it is better than doing nothing. No one is saying what you re saying.
We are going to have a recession, or a depression, regardless of the outcome of this bill.
Government takeover of any industry has always been a failure. Using fear to take over the banking industry is not going unnoticed by those footing the bill.
I wish I had a link, but Newt’s plan is, by far the best plan out there.
The Sec. of Treasury Paulson was the former chairman of Goldman-Sachs. People want his plan to have unchallengeable power passed because someone has told them it will work.
I am not that blind.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
shookers wrote:
I recognize many of you are free market libertarians - hell I am too, but how anyone can responsibility not vote yes for this bill is beyond me. Why you would “accept” a huge recession when you could correct the problem is rediculous. Someone enlighten me as to your thinking?
This is an outrageously inconsistent and non-sensical paragraph.[/quote]
Not really. Sometimes practically has to trump idealism
[quote]shookers wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
shookers wrote:
I recognize many of you are free market libertarians - hell I am too, but how anyone can responsibility not vote yes for this bill is beyond me. Why you would “accept” a huge recession when you could correct the problem is rediculous. Someone enlighten me as to your thinking?
This is an outrageously inconsistent and non-sensical paragraph.
Not really. Sometimes practically has to trump idealism
[/quote]
You seem to forget that practically noone is a libertarian because of idealism.
This is a deeply practical issue.
I learned not to throw good money after bad by doing it a few times. However I learned that on my time, wasting my own money.
I think wanting this to be over in 2 intead of 10 years is a very practical issue.
Bush could, for once, do the right thing and stop this madness.
He has no time or reputation left, so why not do the right thing?
Suspending ‘mark to market’ would free up tons of cash immediately.
even if it were only a temporary measure to give the government more time to figure out a better plan, it would most certainly ease the current tightness of the credit market.
And the Chairman of the SEC could do that immediately - without congressional oversight.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
shookers wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
We are going to have a recession, or a depression, regardless of the outcome of this bill.
[/quote]
A what?
Recession? Depression? The way those Euros, Austrians, Peter Shiff and so on have foretold?
In the exact way they said it would happen?
Never!
RainJack said it could not be and therefore it shall not be.
You know they could go ahead with the 700billion bail out and the markets still crash and burn, I don’t think anyone is confident this cash injection is going to solve the world’s economic problems despite the clauses attached to it.
Best the US government keep the bailout money for better use if and when the meltdown comes.
Saying this is govt. takeover of an industry is showing ignorance of the bill itself.
This bill would actually authorize and finance the Treasury on behalf of the taxpayer to act as a clearing agent and market maker for assets who have no market because a PANIC in the credit markets has seized and the banks have shut down all lending and borrowing.
By allowing the FED and Treasury to step in through a reverse auction to find the lowest price the banks will compete amongst themselves to unload these assets at the cheapest price. This will force the weakest to show themselves and help the taxpayer get the best price.
The taxpayer actually stands to profit from this plan.
I know, it’s not perfect and it has shades of socialism but why anyone would want to commit financial suicide and vote this down is unfathomable.
Here we have Ben Bernanke, chairman of the fed, an acclaimed scholar who earned his PhD by studying the Depression and Treasury Chairman Hank Paulson who lives and breathes the markets coming up with a plan and the American people are telling them to buzz off!
If our country wants to stand back and commit financial suicide so be it but this is one instance that will prove ignorance is not bliss.
[quote]orion wrote:
shookers wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
shookers wrote:
I recognize many of you are free market libertarians - hell I am too, but how anyone can responsibility not vote yes for this bill is beyond me. Why you would “accept” a huge recession when you could correct the problem is rediculous. Someone enlighten me as to your thinking?
This is an outrageously inconsistent and non-sensical paragraph.
Not really. Sometimes practically has to trump idealism
You seem to forget that practically noone is a libertarian because of idealism.
This is a deeply practical issue.
I learned not to throw good money after bad by doing it a few times. However I learned that on my time, wasting my own money.
I think wanting this to be over in 2 intead of 10 years is a very practical issue.
Bush could, for once, do the right thing and stop this madness.
He has no time or reputation left, so why not do the right thing?
[/quote]
How is this about Bush? What could he possibly be doing that he isn’t? He’s been on TV more in the last few days than he has in the last 5 years combined.
You do realize he can’t pass laws on his own, right? You do know that it is the responsibility of Congress to act, right?
I think he is a fucking idiot for wanting this bailout package - but to think he can do any more than he is doing right now is on the same level of idiocy.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
shookers wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
We are going to have a recession, or a depression, regardless of the outcome of this bill.
A what?
Recession? Depression? The way those Euros, Austrians, Peter Shiff and so on have foretold?
In the exact way they said it would happen?
Never!
RainJack said it could not be and therefore it shall not be.
[/quote]
Do you know the difference between a recession and a depression? During a recession the guy next to you looses his job, during a depression you loose your job.
[quote]shookers wrote:
I recognize many of you are free market libertarians - hell I am too, but how anyone can responsibility not vote yes for this bill is beyond me. Why you would “accept” a huge recession when you could correct the problem is rediculous. Someone enlighten me as to your thinking?
[/quote]
Many on here are simply not reading all the posts and are not open to reason.
The free market is ready to gobble these up. There is no need fo gov’t to get involved, pay too much, and fuck things up worse than they arleady are.
Bankruptcy, liquidation, obsorbtion. Not terribly difficult. If those in the free market bid on this junk you can bet they will get the lowest price possible. If gov’t buys it, they will likely overpay. The market is ready to act. Gov’t just needs to get out of the way and let the healing begin.
700 billion may not be enough, but we certainly have seen how this plays out before and we know what will happen if nothing is done. The Great Depression cost our nation trillions in lost GDP and put us back decades. If nothing is done 700 billion will seem like pocket change by the time the printing presses have devalued the dollar out of this mess.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
shookers wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
shookers wrote:
I recognize many of you are free market libertarians - hell I am too, but how anyone can responsibility not vote yes for this bill is beyond me. Why you would “accept” a huge recession when you could correct the problem is rediculous. Someone enlighten me as to your thinking?
This is an outrageously inconsistent and non-sensical paragraph.
Not really. Sometimes practically has to trump idealism
You seem to forget that practically noone is a libertarian because of idealism.
This is a deeply practical issue.
I learned not to throw good money after bad by doing it a few times. However I learned that on my time, wasting my own money.
I think wanting this to be over in 2 intead of 10 years is a very practical issue.
Bush could, for once, do the right thing and stop this madness.
He has no time or reputation left, so why not do the right thing?
How is this about Bush? What could he possibly be doing that he isn’t? He’s been on TV more in the last few days than he has in the last 5 years combined.
You do realize he can’t pass laws on his own, right? You do know that it is the responsibility of Congress to act, right?
I think he is a fucking idiot for wanting this bailout package - but to think he can do any more than he is doing right now is on the same level of idiocy.
[/quote]
He could veto any bail-out bill that comes from congress, instead of actively trying to get one passed?
[quote]bdog527 wrote:
Saying this is govt. takeover of an industry is showing ignorance of the bill itself.
This bill would actually authorize and finance the Treasury on behalf of the taxpayer to act as a clearing agent and market maker for assets who have no market because a PANIC in the credit markets has seized and the banks have shut down all lending and borrowing. By allowing the FED and Treasury to step in through a reverse auction to find the lowest price the banks will compete amongst themselves to unload these assets at the cheapest price. This will force the weakest to show themselves and help the taxpayer get the best price.
The taxpayer actually stands to profit from this plan.
I know, it’s not perfect and it has shades of socialism but why anyone would want to commit financial suicide and vote this down is unfathomable. Here we have Ben Bernanke, chairman of the fed, an acclaimed scholar who earned his PhD by studying the Depression and Treasury Chairman Hank Paulson who lives and breathes the markets coming up with a plan and the American people are telling them to buzz off!
If our country wants to stand back and commit financial suicide so be it but this is one instance that will prove ignorance is not bliss.
[/quote]
They are not making a market for these bad loans. That is just an outright pile of shit.
The government wants to PURCHASE the bad loans. Not help find a market for them - they want to own them.
FYI, sparky - to own something is to take a position in the market. A $700 billion position is taking over.
Suspend mark to market, and let the private sector find a market for the affected paper.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
shookers wrote:
I recognize many of you are free market libertarians - hell I am too, but how anyone can responsibility not vote yes for this bill is beyond me. Why you would “accept” a huge recession when you could correct the problem is rediculous. Someone enlighten me as to your thinking?
Many on here are simply not reading all the posts and are not open to reason.
The free market is ready to gobble these up. There is no need fo gov’t to get involved, pay too much, and fuck things up worse than they arleady are.
Bankruptcy, liquidation, obsorbtion. Not terribly difficult. If those in the free market bid on this junk you can bet they will get the lowest price possible. If gov’t buys it, they will likely overpay. The market is ready to act. Gov’t just needs to get out of the way and let the healing begin.[/quote]
The free market cannot access the necessary capital to buy these assets. This is because lending has essentially come to a standstill. This will trickle down to the average small business owner who lives on his credit lines to fund inventories, research, etc…
There is significant demans for these assets but an inability to raise the funds to buy them. The taxpayer has that ability and stands to make money on this deal.
The free market is frozen solid.
[quote]AynRandLuvr wrote:
The Chinese had a new dynasty every few hundred years, after the previous one became corrupt, bloated, and so forth. I suspect all of this is simply a pattern that ALL governments/societies have: vigor, success, ease, bloat, collapse. Why should the USA be any different?
[/quote]
Exactly. It’s just sad that we’re alive to see the end of America’s bloat and the beginning of its collapse.