I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that the cause of the Great Depression was not Black Thursday, October 24, 1929, the stock market crash, it was caused by the collapse of Creditanstalt, Austria-Hungary's largest bank, in May, 1931. After that failure, other banks reduced their interbank lending and reduced their lending to the businesses that were their customers. Sound familiar?That's why we need to feed the banks... I understand that a lot of people are against it, and, in principal, I am too. However, this time the stakes are too high.Just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of it and this is why both Presidential candidates are supporting it.-_- Alex -_-
I agree with your thoughts.I too was against the rescue in the beginning.Then I became wishy washy as certain public figures I trusted announced their support of it.Then when the Republicans voted against it, I started thinking I therefore must be wrong if they and I are in agreement. But seriously, now I realize the restoration of confidence is perhaps more important than the exact nature of the rescue.The system is clearly broke and it needs to be fixed. At this point, not doing anything is worse than doing something not quite right. Also, it needs to be fixed NOW, so that the next President isn't blamed for the need of a massive bailout (and let's hope another one isn't needed) or financial meltdown.They apparently have limited golden parachutes and are adding in some protections and new oversights, so as a result, I am reluctantly on board despite my suspicions that better economists than Paulson could have created a superior plan.For those complaining about page bloat--from 3 to over 450--remember that Paulson's initial plan omitted restrictions on parachutes and protections and was clearly a blank check for $700 billion. If anyone is to blame for page bloat, it is Paulson for initially proposing something obviously out of whack and unrealistic.
We Americans do not like being held up by the throat by people that do not produce tangible real world things. And then proceed to make it harder for us to do so. I think we have taken a full circle from free market excess to socialism. That is what the Regan grandfathered and inspired deregulation movements achieved in the end. A collapse upon collapse. Kingdoms with in kingdoms of financial obfuscation. All extreme movements from the right or left end this way. Guess what happens when you peal back FDR era regulations and get to push people (strong ARM sales) into stupid mortgage agreements? Buyer be wear, Darwin trickle down economics, are not functional nor or they ethical. Ethics being a big word these days it seems. The free market corrections are not palatable when they are this sever. No libertarians in the poor house and none on Wall Street. Where did all you smart guys go? I hope some of you fellow fools correct your off the hook free market thinking after this. You need to pay for other kid's schools and you should know why. Try to imagine that you get really sick in this country . . . do you not also see your financial ruin? Really? Must be nice being in THAT minority.Someone please answer to me this - If we get to assume free market failures, can we not also assume success to balance it out? If not, then why? Creative people in the room see that Exxon Mobile could as easily be nationalized to provide a counter weight. Energy belongs to us all, it is only because they say they "do it better" in the commercial market that we allow it to be there. . . let us motivate these players to return the money we just lent on the condition that we hold the energy sector as collateral (or hostage) every year until they do. . . I would like to see wall street and big oil in a divide an conquer scenario with the tax payers being the ones doing the conquering for once. So, what I propose is we take the hand of Wall street that is around our throats and we clasp it firmly on to the throat of big oil. Let them all sort it out, and when they do, and the House of Representatives'-defined-metrics will be the judge , they can have their markets back with a modernized set of FDR styled regulations. Argue that Fools!Capitalistically yours,
i agree with what you have just said and i agree that if Warren Buffett thought it was completely necessary, then it was! Period. Now lets be part of the recovery, do our due diligence in investing and believe in the free market. Nothing in life is without some price and also compromise. I would not have to agree with the thing itself in total, to accept it in part.
...hmm Exxon/M n Chevron are valued at 600bn. Should Uncle Sam borrow another trillion to pull that off?Nah. Enough big corrupt government. Gets us into more trouble as a few countries I lived in that had that and the companies were inefficient. RGds, CG
Well, well, a day (or 2) after the wonderful $850 BILLION bailout is forced thru the House (hey, if you don't get the answer you want the 1st time, just ask the same question again and again until the arm twisting pays off - that's democracy, you know) we see the stock market nosedive: as I write, the Dow is down 4.51% and the S&P 5.04%.yup, that really worked!Sure glad we listened to the "experts". They know what's good for us. Never mind WHO caused this mess, just believe whatever they say! They're from Harvard, after all.Yes, the stakes are high. So what? Do we believe the crooks who got us here to get us out? The stakes are high, therefore, someone ELSE should receive the $850 billion, not the corrupt sector!Some are saying it must be fine because Buffet said it was necessary. Buffet is looking after his shareholders!!! wake up, people. Of course he wants free cash into the banks - his stake in BAC is high. He doesn't care about the travesty of justice to the Amercian taxpayer - he only cares about maximum returns to his shareholders. Better a depression with $700 billion into companies in his portfolio than a depression without it. His position is obvious. Though not moral.Yes, TMFTomG, I agree there should be regulations in the financial sector. Regulations can (and should) be imposed by governments - that's what they do - they govern. They DO NOT need to purchase authrority to establish regulations. (i.e. that has NOTHING to do with the bailout)America, its time to vote your "yes-bailout" congressman and senators out of office.Unfortunately, both presidential candidates are blind invertebrates.
I have to agree with you Larry. All I was made to believe from news and even posts on these boards is the end of the world is upon us if we don't pass this bill a modern day economic apocalypse. We will all be homeless and our children will starve. So when the bill passed I said great now the streets will be lined with gold and new jobs shall fall from the sky, huh no such luck. Like most thing panic sets in and action preceeds proper assesment and judgement. Now the world markets are suffering so I am sure the government will work on a 100 trillion dollar bailout of the entire world so it doesn't self-implode.
Creative people in the room see that Exxon Mobile could as easily be nationalized to provide a counter weight. Energy belongs to us all, it is only because they say they "do it better" in the commercial market that we allow it to be there. . . let us motivate these players to return the money we just lent on the condition that we hold the energy sector as collateral (or hostage) every year until they doWhat on earth makes you think that this thinking is anything new or hasn't been tried before, and in fact, the very policies of OPEC and Russia?Have they given their people "free energy", cut them in the profits, or even built up an industrial base for "their people" to be gainfully employed?No, in reality, they don't want to develop their own country's economy because they believe it would take away from their "quality of life".At the same time, they are always competing with each other to sell to the United States, and if we favor one over the other they scream bloody murder and/or try to conspire with one another to control production to keep prices high.No, no, your idea as only about as creative as the wild eyed dream of an up and coming dictator.
Have they given their people "free energy", cut them in the profits, or even built up an industrial base for "their people" to be gainfully employed?No, in reality, they don't want to develop their own country's economy because they believe it would take away from their "quality of life".You might wanna check n see what oil rich countries are doing before makin statements...7 new ultra modern cities under construction in the middle east whoes purpose is to be financail and manufacturing centers. Russia just finished a highway that spans the country to promote economic growth. In the US..we just worry bout the Rich losing money on their stupidity.
Is this bogus?http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1954933468700958565&...
Sorry for posting the last video............I didn't realize this guy was a racist
IMHO, this is just a slight variation of the normal "It's the end of the world as we know it." type of rant that is further exacerbated by our current financial plight.Plus, Ameros are worthless, what we really want is Clam Shells, the only real currency. ;-)-_- Alex -_-
I found out that, there was a delay in sending out the rebate cheques. The reason was, the US did not have the money, they had to go to China and borrow 800 Million, that is probably where this guy grabbed that and twisted it all around to suit him.
They should have just asked for it to be sent Western Union or Paypal. :-)-_- Alex -_-
I'm pretty ticked off, after listening to a conversation on CNBC last night, where there was a lawyer representing the interests of the poor Wall Street Gamblers telling the panel that it was legal for the Wall Street Gamblers to get ginormous bonuses paid to them out of the "injected capital" from the plan.And, if that weren't bad enough, it was clear by the end of the discussion that there was nothing in the final version of TARP to limit these bonuses.Andrea
Andrea,I agree, our government is incompetent. However, what other country is better off? England, Iran, Japan, Taiwan, France? Higher taxes, imho, are of little concern if the services that are provided are better and the spending is managed by individuals you find competent, however, their society have very few things that are marginally better because of these higher taxes. Plus, from what I have been able to arrive at, they are in a much larger, leveraged financial pickle than we are. Some English banks, I believe, are leveraged as high as 400% to these illiquid Mortgage Backed Securities. For example, the lines to get into a hospital in England, aka Patient Stacking, where you can die at the hospital, in an ambulance, while being forced to wait for your turn to enter a hospital? That doesn't seem much better to me.Our society is far from perfect but there are others that are far worse than we are.-_- Alex -_-
Alex,Sorry, but what does the state of the rest of the world have to do with money being basically stolen from us taxpayers to keep paying huge bonuses to the guys who effed up our money?They goofed, they don't get the big bonuses.Why on earth should they be rewarded? WITH OUR MONEY?!
We were lied to. Are we supposed to just lay down and take it because the rest of the world has bigger problems?
Andrea,I am in total agreement with you that this "bail out" is very distasteful and too large a portion of it going towards bonuses for heads of corporations that F'd up is totally wrong; however, imho, it is required. It was not structured in such a manner as to be 100% in the tax payers favor, as it should have been, but the consequences, to the world, of taking no action is even worse.If the U.S. was to default on these obligations, something the U.S. has never done, that would send absolute shock waves through the market that makes the market volatility we have now look like a calm before the storm.I agree with you, they shouldn't be rewarded for their F-ups but neither should we punish the world financial markets by taking no action.-_- Alex -_-
Andrea,I am in total agreement with you that this "bail out" is very distasteful and too large a portion of it going towards bonuses for heads of corporations that F'd up is totally wrong; however, imho, it is required. It was not structured in such a manner as to be 100% in the tax payers favor, as it should have been, but the consequences, to the world, of taking no action is even worse.If the U.S. was to default on these obligations, something the U.S. has never done, that would send absolute shock waves through the market that makes the market volatility we have now look like a calm before the storm.I agree with you, they shouldn't be rewarded for their F-ups but neither should we punish the world financial markets by taking no action.-_- Alex -_-Default on an obligation to pay these people huge bonuses?You're losing me here, Alex.I don't know how I feel about the rest of it since we don't even know how it's going to work yet. Things are suspiciously mirky.Andrea
Default on an obligation to pay these people huge bonuses?Andrea,This is a bit complicated, way above my head at least, but I'll do my best to explain what I know.Not default on bonuses but default on these mortgages. A big number of mortgages were repackaged and securitised, sold as Mortgage Baked Securities, and then redistributed to the whole world with promises that houses always go up in value.As the housing bubble cooled and burst and the income stream slowed down as the cost of these homes were under water but many of them were still receiving partial income coming in from the mortgages in the securities, although, many were at a lesser rate because of people beginning to lose their jobs and such.When these mortgage companies started going under, countries the world over now have securities that are, according to Mark to Market accounting, worthless.If it says anything, Mark to Market accounting was championed by Enron.So, unless the U.S. does something to settle these obligations, our image to the world would be tarnished and maybe even destroyed since the U.S. is the only country in history to never have defaulted on their obligations. Since the U.S. Government has some of these loans in their possession, when they picked Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they are pretty much obligated to the world to resolve this issue.What sucks is that we had to pay this much for them and that so much of the money used to purchase it is going to individuals that belong in jail but I digress.Dispicable but the only option left, imho.-_- Alex -_-
Alex,I think I do understand what happened a bit better than the average Joe (and that in itself is kind of scary), but there's no way anyone can say that the individuals who packaged and sold these MBSs, while no one was paying attention to the ramifications, deserve to receive salaries, much less huge bonuses paid for by the taxpayers. You screw up like that in any other job you don't get a bonus, you get canned. Dispicable but the only option left, imho.The bailout maybe, but you can't possibly mean the bonuses. The financial system isn't going to come to a grinding halt because these guys don't get bonuses.So no, it's not the only option.
Andrea,I agree with you that these wallstreet bastards do not deserve to be paid, also consider that it was ACORN, and other community organization groups like ACORN, that were putting lots of pressure on organizations to loan money to people that had less than stellar credit histories, as well as, the government under President Clinton that wanted to push legislation that allowed this along with the FED and Alan Greenspan that further exacerbated this whole situation by lowering the FED funds rate to such a low level. Building up to the perfect storm took something like 10 years and we're the ones that were doing the rain dance...Again, 1% is low as heck but we see that if banks aren't willing to be pushed around, abstain from lending to anyone and everyone, and rebuild their balance sheets. If so, then this Market pain has been worth it.-_- Alex -_-
I agree with you that these wallstreet bastards do not deserve to be paid, also consider that it was ACORN, and other community organization groups like ACORN, that were putting lots of pressure on organizations to loan money to people that had less than stellar credit histories, as well as, the government under President Clinton that wanted to push legislation that allowed this along with the FED and Alan Greenspan that further exacerbated this whole situation by lowering the FED funds rate to such a low level. Sorry, I'm not changing my vote.AndreaP.S. I'm tired of people blaming other people for their screw-ups.
Sorry, I'm not changing my vote.Huh? I wasn't trying to get you to vote one way or another, I'm just pointing out what I felt was for the reasoning of our fiscal woes. Greenspan served under Presidents Regan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush so I was just trying to point out that blaming just one person or President is naive, that's all.I'm tired of people blaming other people for their screw-ups.I'm not saying it was one person's faults, it's a multi-faceted problem that grew over time that led to a "big bang".-_- Alex -_-
Alex,Since you don't seem to understand where I'm coming from, maybe you'll get this.Sure, there's a lot of blame to go around, but this is outrageous and was certainly NOT what the taxpayers were led to believe would happen with THEIR MONEY. This use of TARP money in no way, shape, or form will contribute to saving the world from financial collapse. There are plenty of bright people looking for work.Throw the bums out.http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=27147842&sort=who...
Oh, I am in full agreement with you that the manner in which TARP was structured means the Taxpayers will continue to get screwed. We just disagree on whether or not it is necessary, I think, correct?I think it is, you do not.-_- Alex -_-
Oh, I am in full agreement with you that the manner in which TARP was structured means the Taxpayers will continue to get screwed. We just disagree on whether or not it is necessary, I think, correct?I think it is, you do not.You think it is necessary to give humongous bonuses to people who mismanaged billions of dollars?Why on earth would you think so?
P.S. Nothing you have told me so far has indicated that this is necessary.
Huh?I'm agreeing that these bonuses for failure is outrageous but firmly believe that TARP, at least it's intention, is necessary but the way the funds are being doled out is an outrage.-_- Alex -_-
Start from the beginning of the thread. I reference the unwillingness of banks to lend to each other further strengthening our dilemma. This freezing of inter-bank lending only exacerbating the problem.-_- Alex -_-
I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall.I told you what I was outraged about. You then proceeded to educate me about the necessity of TARP (I wasn't debating the necessity or not of TARP) as you see it.I am going to stop beating my head against the brick wall now.Andrea
One more try.http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE49U4J920081031
I disagree that Frank's proposal is the best way to go about this.
Andrea, I know that you think too much of this is going to help the undeserving bastards on Wallstreet and I am agreeing with you on that.-_- Alex -_-
Pulled from the article, A "no strings attached" policy by the government would be smart, because it allows banks to operate in areas they have the most expertise, one banking analyst said."I just don't think the public gets it, and certainly Congress doesn't get it," said Anton Schutz, president of money managers Mendon Capital Advisors Corp in Rochester, New York.For example, a bank that receives $25 billion through the bailout program could buy $250 billion in asset-backed securities from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, Schutz said. "That lending may not be direct, it may be in purchasing securities, but that's helping to unfreeze the market," he said. "You got to let those companies do what is economically sound."Exactly! If you're going to comment on this situation you should at least understand how banking works. Most people fail to understand the inner-workings of this. Scum-bag politicians like Frank should stick to what he knows, nothing.-_- Alex -_-
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |