Anyone else celebrating our small success? BAILOUT FAILS IN HOUSE.

Bongulator

Well-Known Member
Deregulation (less meddling in the market) is what got us into this mess. When nobody's watching the cash register, people steal from it. Who woulda thunk it.

The solution is working regulation, not letting the market crash and burn and wipe out jobs and savings for millions of people. If we were smart, we would've passed a bill two weeks ago. Had we done that, in five years we might have been sitting pretty like Sweden was after they dealt with a similar crisis: their government stepped in, bought a bunch of assets to keep their economy going, then sold them off as their economy improved. Their taxpayers made 6 dollars for every 1 they put into the bailout, because they acted QUICKLY. Sweden's economy is in excellent shape now because they got their bailout done quickly, before things spiralled out of control. (Might or might not be too late for that for us.)

Or, we can follow the Japan model. Let the markets crash, THEN the government steps in to try to apply a bandaid to a now-gaping wound. Japan was in a massive recession for the bulk of a decade, and they got very little return on their taxpayer dollars. It was pretty much a total loss, because they waited to act. And where is Japan now, 15 years later? They still haven't recovered.

I like Sweden's model best, since the taxpayer kicked ass financially under that scenario. But I suspect we've waited a week or two too long to reap the rewards of acting quickly. Still, every day we do wait to address the problem is going to cost the taxpayer even more.
 

HotNSexyMILF

Well-Known Member
Because now handing the cash register over to the exact people who were just stealing from it is the right answer? LOL. You have to be kidding me right?

The deregulation that helped cause this mess is a lot different than the price fixing they are trying to do by going in and trying to determine the worth of assets.. for example with the mortgages that were worth 100 grand before, and are now worth 60 grand the government wants to regulate the price and keep it at 100 grand- to prop up the market.. that isn't going to fix things, the market needs to readjust so we can see the real price of things at this point.

If someone is deathly sick wouldn't you rather know the extent of how sick they are to then fix things or cover it up every possible symptom with a bunch of small remedies so you can never see the whole illness?

The regulation that needs to be done is on our f*cking money supply- there's ZERO regulation over what the Federal Reserve does..

As far as these Sweden Japan examples you keep throwing around.. um, to compare them and the time it took for them to recover is kind of silly. Japan's economic fall was MUCH harder than Sweden's because they fell from a much much higher pedestal, Japan had much more to lose and a harder fall to take from their economic demise. And if you want to be technical- to this day Japan is wealthier than Sweden per capita.
 

Bongulator

Well-Known Member
Anyone with half a brain could see this coming two years ago. I watched the stock market climbing and climbing...but what were we producing and selling more of to merit that climb in value? Nothing, that's what. Well, bad debt, we did produce a lot of that.

I sat around for six months and did nothing, hoping I'd be able to fill in the gaps in my knowledge that would explain things to my satisfaction. But there was no explanation, so I predicted a major recession, or worse, and began taking steps around 18 months ago to protect myself and my household financially. I'm glad I did too. No matter what happens, short of roving bands of heavily-armed cannibals, I'll be fine.

If they get the credit markets going, we'll have a recession. The $700b is intended to do that. If we don't reignite the credit markets, then it's likely to be more of a 10-year depression. Basically, the $700b is to provide us a financial bungie cord. We're definitely going to experience an economic fall. The only question is how far we will fall and how hard we will hit when we land. The $700b will make things gentler on us all. Without that, it'll be a long, hard fall from which we may never recover. Either way, the common man will experience all the misery. The fat cat CEOs will go home in their limos and live in wealth for the rest of their lives, regardless of what we do or don't do. We can punish ourselves mightily by letting things crash and burn, and people do seem intent on doing that.

I'm kind of a disinterested observer. I see advantages either way for me. If we let the market crash and burn, I'll be buying kickass stuff at firesale prices from desperate poor and middle class folks within a year or two, which I will then resell for profit 5 or 10 years on, once we extricate ourselves from the Depression. If we reinfuse the credit markets with cash and get our economy functioning again, well, I won't benefit quite as much, but I also won't have to see millions of people suffering, and that's worth something to me too.
 

Spitzered

Well-Known Member
Did you not see my earlier posts. Anyone getting something for doing nothing did just that. Nothing. Who may you ask did nothing in 2006? Look and see, it will be obvious.
 

HotNSexyMILF

Well-Known Member
.. part of an article I already posted here..

The Great Bank Robbery of 2008 - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Institute
"But Won't the Credit Markets Collapse?

Some observers would admit the legitimacy of my analysis above. "However," they might say, "the Paulson Plan, or something like it, is necessary to avert a total meltdown of the financial system. We're not trying to boost aggregate investment, so much as clearing out a clogged pipe."
This talk of a breakdown in the financial system is a bogeyman. Steve Landsburg does such a great job of exploding this myth that I will simply quote him:
So what's special about banks [that they deserve a bailout]? According to what I keep reading, it's that without banks, nobody can borrow, and the economy grinds to a halt.
Well, let's think about that. Banks don't lend their own money; they lend other people's (their depositors' and their stockholders'). Just because the banks disappear doesn't mean the lenders will. Borrowers will still want to borrow and lenders will still want to lend. The only question is whether they'll be able to find each other.
… [A]s any user of match.com can tell you, the technology for finding partners has improved since [the 1930s]. When a firm wants to raise capital, why can't it just sell bonds over the web? Or issue new stock? Or approach one of the hedge funds that seem to be swimming in cash? Or borrow abroad?
… I'm not sure these big Wall Street banks are really necessary, and I'm not sure we'd miss them much if they were gone. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but if so, I think it should be incumbent on Messrs. Bernanke, Paulson and above all Bush to explain what it is."

 

Spitzered

Well-Known Member
I agree with you HNS, I am not for any bailouts, and I am not for govt sponsored lending agencies such as Freddie and Frannie. (and who came up with those names I wonder?)

Deregulation is not the problem, Govt involvement by those with vested interests is the problem.
 

HotNSexyMILF

Well-Known Member
I agree with you HNS, I am not for any bailouts, and I am not for govt sponsored lending agencies such as Freddie and Frannie. (and who came up with those names I wonder?)

Deregulation is not the problem, Govt involvement by those with vested interests is the problem.
Exactly, it's all just scare tactics to give the government more and more power- oh and Wallstreet, who're in bed together anyways. This bailout would help perpetrate corporatism as well.

Socialism/communism/fascism.. and more scare tactics to get us to accept it.. I'm sorry, but HELL NO.
 

SomeGuy

Well-Known Member
Exactly, it's all just scare tactics to give the government more and more power- oh and Wallstreet, who're in bed together anyways. This bailout would help perpetrate corporatism as well.

Socialism/communism/fascism.. and more scare tactics to get us to accept it.. I'm sorry, but HELL NO.
X2 I couldnt agree more.
 

wannabe grower

Well-Known Member
Bongulator keeps bringing up Sweden. Like a tiny country with a Universal health care system that was bailed out with 10 billion dollars is even close to the same thing as what we're dealing with. Try again guy, some models just don't work in a different set of circumstances.
 

Roseman

Elite Rolling Society
Hey, Lumberjack,
yea they let me back in.
a year ago, my secretary that worked here came into work and told me that she was buying a new house. She had filed bankruptcy two years earlier, had a new pick up truck recently reposssed and she got phone calls at work everyday from collectors. She had liens, judgments, and was just in financial ruin and I found it so difficult to believe that anyone would loan her $140,000 to buy a house with no down payment. Her credit and her husband's credit was aweful.
When she got the loan approved, i knew we (the country) was in trouble then.
 

ViRedd

New Member
What we are experiencing is a melt-down of another "progressive" level the playing field program. Socialism does not work.

On another note: Need I point out that Sweden has a 60% income tax rate? Interestingly enough, they are reducing their corporate tax rate to 26.3 percent, compared with our corporate tax rate of 35%. Maybe something hasn't been exactly hunky-dory in Sweden?

Vi
 

GoodFriend

Lumberjack
i shudder each time i hear one of these pricks say "we are our brother's keeper"...

thanks obama for spouting off that one today...

ugh
 

Bongulator

Well-Known Member
I also mentioned Japan. I mentioned both of those because the underlying causes (and repercussions) of their problems are very similar to our own. They had home prices zoom, banks over-leveraged, financial institutions began dropping like flies, credit began drying up. The main difference is just scale -- Japan's bailout was 1/3 the size of ours, and Sweden's was obviously much smaller. And the tertiary effects weren't as bad, because the rest of the world isn't as dependent on Sweden or Japan as they are on us. The underlying problem, cause and solution though -- all the same.

Don't trivialize Sweden though. (Not sure what their health care has to do with anything, btw.) The reason why they only spent $10 billion on their bailout is because they didn't wait around until it got so bad that it would have cost them $100 billion. They acted quickly. Had we done the same, our own rescue plan would have been waaay cheaper too. And then our taxpayers would also have had that enormous upside. Too late for that now, for us; I'm just hoping for break-even now.
 

misshestermoffitt

New Member
Raise your hand if you think this dude should be giving some money back. WTF?



When WaMu failed and was seized by government regulators, Fishman had been on the job for just 17 days. However, he was contractually guaranteed $11.6 million in cash severance on top of the $7.5 million signing bonus he got for taking the job.
Basically, Fishman netted just under $20 million for 17 days of work, which is a pretty nice setup for the head of a collapsing corporation. (In Fishman's defense, it's tough to blame WaMu's failure on his leadership alone; it seems highly unlikely that any CEO, however determined, could crash such a large thrift in just two weeks.)


http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/10/01/mf.easy.money/index.html
 
Top