Sick of the bailouts.

D

Dogbrain

Well-Known Member
Messages
813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
At first, I thought that sanity had finally insinuated itself into the US government, when it was determined that Lehman Bros. would not be bailed out. Now, it turns out that this was only a temporary moment of lucidity, as AIG is the latest recipient of BILLIONS of dollars of tax monies directed to bailing out irresponsible and downright stupid rich people.

If we are to call ourselves a free market country then we have to give our megacorporations the FREEDOM TO FAIL.
 
Dogbrain said:
At first, I thought that sanity had finally insinuated itself into the US government, when it was determined that Lehman Bros. would not be bailed out. Now, it turns out that this was only a temporary moment of lucidity, as AIG is the latest recipient of BILLIONS of dollars of tax monies directed to bailing out irresponsible and downright stupid rich people.

If we are to call ourselves a free market country then we have to give our megacorporations the FREEDOM TO FAIL.
Click to expand...

You won't get an argument from me in this respect.
 
Financial markets do need to be regulated. The evasion of regulation and actual legal deregulation of these markets are a large part of the current problem. This article frames the situation nicely, I think.

I'm certainly not for bailing out rich *******s who do stupid things with money, who think that they can magically make one dollar into thirty dollars without negative repercussions somewhere along the line, and who spend their days bouncing little bits of electronic 'money' all around the globe in order to turn profits. There's plenty of real work that these people could be doing instead of playing some cartoonish real-life game of Monopoly and Risk with speculative capital.

EDIT: what, we can't type *******s??
 
Like the savings and loans bailouts...they occurred for one reason. We don't want the banking system to collapse. So, yeah many millionaires walk away with millions while screwing up, but we commoners get to still be commoners and not outright paupers. ie no cell phones, no tv's, no homes, no food no nothin...

My understanding is Bernanke cut his teeth studying what happenned in our depresson and Japan's banking system collapse. I don't know why fredddie and fannie were bailed out, somebody would have bought them at a hefty discount, but do understand why he encouraged the AIG 'loan'. They've got two years to sell billions in assetts and pay us off, we've got an 80% stake in the company and bought it at about forty cents on the dollar...they should be able to pull out, unless more big dominoes fall.

I think we'll see plenty more fail, nothing new, anyone remember Merril Lynch or when EF Hutton talks everyone listens? Well you don't hear from either of them anymore....
 
wil said:
Like the savings and loans bailouts...they occurred for one reason. We don't want the banking system to collapse. So, yeah many millionaires walk away with millions while screwing up, but we commoners get to still be commoners and not outright paupers. ie no cell phones, no tv's, no homes, no food no nothin...

My understanding is Bernanke cut his teeth studying what happenned in our depresson and Japan's banking system collapse. I don't know why fredddie and fannie were bailed out, somebody would have bought them at a hefty discount, but do understand why he encouraged the AIG 'loan'. They've got two years to sell billions in assetts and pay us off, we've got an 80% stake in the company and bought it at about forty cents on the dollar...they should be able to pull out, unless more big dominoes fall.

I think we'll see plenty more fail, nothing new, anyone remember Merril Lynch or when EF Hutton talks everyone listens? Well you don't hear from either of them anymore....
Click to expand...
Wil, we used to have some retirement accounts with AIG & you're right: the bailout was more about us peons than the big fish, (too bad the big fish can't feel some "pain" however). earl
 
From what I understand, the government had to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae due to the large number of foreign investments in them that viewed them as backed by the US government (although that was not how it actually was). If they hadn't bailed them out, foreign investors would find the US financial market too shaky to support, and our dollar would be steeply devalued. So the government was backed into bailing them out to avoid a sharp drop in dollar value on the global market.

Overall, I know all these actions are supposed to make sure American lifestyles overall don't plummet, but I still find them stupid in the long run. Our average lifestyle is unsustainable and bound to fail at some point. It is impossible to sustain an economy based on growth indefinitely. It is stupid to feign capitalism when it is socialism that benefits the wealthy.
 
path_of_one said:
From what I understand, the government had to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae due to the large number of foreign investments in them that viewed them as backed by the US government (although that was not how it actually was). If they hadn't bailed them out, foreign investors would find the US financial market too shaky to support, and our dollar would be steeply devalued. So the government was backed into bailing them out to avoid a sharp drop in dollar value on the global market.

Overall, I know all these actions are supposed to make sure American lifestyles overall don't plummet, but I still find them stupid in the long run. Our average lifestyle is unsustainable and bound to fail at some point. It is impossible to sustain an economy based on growth indefinitely. It is stupid to feign capitalism when it is socialism that benefits the wealthy.
Click to expand...
I would have to agree with you there. Corporations ultimately have to answer to their shareholders. Who are those who messed up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ultimately responsible to?
 
The private banks where all the company directors keep their loot are recording record deposits. I say we should raid them to rescue joe public banks.
 
Frankly, the similarity of massive stock market crash and imminent collapse of a number of sizeable financial institutions was way too scarily reminiscent of the same factors involved in the great depression of 1929. Both parties knew such drastic action was necessary to stave off a similar fate. The sad thing, as David Broder pointed out, is, with such a massive outlay of $ simply to keep things from getting worse-forget about getting better-neither candidate can realistically keep their spending-taxation pledges probably. The first presedential debate is to be about foregin policy, ostensibly McCain's strong suit with the public. Look for Obama to remind folks of the interweaving of foreign and domestic-economic policy by reminding folk we now really cannot afford to save the American economy and continue to fund the expensive Iraq war. earl
 
earl said:
Frankly, the similarity of massive stock market crash and imminent collapse of a number of sizeable financial institutions was way too scarily reminiscent of the same factors involved in the great depression of 1929. Both parties knew such drastic action was necessary to stave off a similar fate. The sad thing, as David Broder pointed out, is, with such a massive outlay of $ simply to keep things from getting worse-forget about getting better-neither candidate can realistically keep their spending-taxation pledges probably. The first presedential debate is to be about foregin policy, ostensibly McCain's strong suit with the public. Look for Obama to remind folks of the interweaving of foreign and domestic-economic policy by reminding folk we now really cannot afford to save the American economy and continue to fund the expensive Iraq war. earl
Click to expand...


What is the date of that first debate, BTW? Is it the 26th or 27th?
 
Dogbrain said:
At first, I thought that sanity had finally insinuated itself into the US government, when it was determined that Lehman Bros. would not be bailed out. Now, it turns out that this was only a temporary moment of lucidity, as AIG is the latest recipient of BILLIONS of dollars of tax monies directed to bailing out irresponsible and downright stupid rich people.

If we are to call ourselves a free market country then we have to give our megacorporations the FREEDOM TO FAIL.
Click to expand...
Contrary to popular opinion, the majority of the funds being bailed out, are people's like you and me...

The government has the right and the duty to "oversee" foolish corporate entities who thought ours was "monopoly money".

We're lucky that the government decided to step in...or else a lot of middle class families would be no longer...

Don't blame Uncle Sam for this one. Instead, consider thanking Joe citizen for at least trying to get a few pennies back for their hard earned investments that went sour because of greed.
 
Tao_Equus said:
The private banks where all the company directors keep their loot are recording record deposits. I say we should raid them to rescue joe public banks.
Click to expand...
Why? For being good stewards? (private banks that is)

edit: let the government sort out that crap and recap what belongs to the people. Let the law handle the other part of the asses that thought they could get away with it.
 
lunamoth said:
What is the date of that first debate, BTW? Is it the 26th or 27th?
Click to expand...
It's next Friday. The long-time rap on politicans is that their positions change with the polls. I've never seen a politican change pronouncements in response to public reaction as fast as McCain always seems to do. Almost immediately after making his bone-headed "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" comment, he rushes out his regulatory reform proposals. His attempt to continue to look like a populist here tends, instead, to make him look simply like an opportunist, though there's no reason to assume he doesn't mean what he says now. What he's been doing lately is act like a Democrat.:) earl
 
earl said:
It's next Friday. The long-time rap on politicans is that their positions change with the polls. I've never seen a politican change pronouncements in response to public reaction as fast as McCain always seems to do. Almost immediately after making his bone-headed "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" comment, he rushes out his regulatory reform proposals. His attempt to continue to look like a populist here tends, instead, to make him look simply like an opportunist, though there's no reason to assume he doesn't mean what he says now. What he's been doing lately is act like a Democrat.:) earl
Click to expand...
Maybe because the fundementals of the economy, are sound, else we'd be in a depression at 35% unemployment...(so much for the "bone head" response). :rolleyes:
 
Quahom1 said:
Contrary to popular opinion, the majority of the funds being bailed out, are people's like you and me...

The government has the right and the duty to "oversee" foolish corporate entities who thought ours was "monopoly money".
Click to expand...
So where have they been the last 8 years??

Btw, a bailout is not oversight; it is an attempt to deal with the consequences of a failure of oversight.

We're lucky that the government decided to step in...or else a lot of middle class families would be no longer...

Don't blame Uncle Sam for this one.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that Bush deregulated the morgage industry on the pretext of making homeownership available to those who previously were excluded from the market?

Pathless said:
Financial markets do need to be regulated. The evasion of regulation and actual legal deregulation of these markets are a large part of the current problem. This article frames the situation nicely, I think.
Click to expand...

This fiasco is the administration's creation -- though they did get some help from greedy lenders. The government is to blame and that is why the government is responsible for the cleanup. Sadly, it will be the taxpayers problem for years to come. I assure you, Ben Bernanke will not be taking a paycut to make amends for his handling of the situation, nor will any of the other prestigious members on Bush's economic team whose professional negligence has been thoroughly demonstrated.

As I've noted elsewhere, the Fed chose to ignore all indications of an approaching meltdown for two years. They did nothing and now they presume to come up with a fix over the weekend. The only thing that's more surreal than this is investors' willingness to believe that there is a real solution at hand. It's just a temporary patch.
 
Netti-Netti said:
So where have they been the last 8 years??

Btw, a bailout is not oversight, it is an attempt to deal with the consequences of a failure of oversight.


Are you aware that Bush deregulated the morgage industry on the pretext of making homeownership available to those who previously were excluded from the market?

This fiasco is the administration's creation and that is the reason the government is responsible for cleanup. Sadkly, it will be the taxpayers problem for years to come. I assure you, Ben Bernanke will not be taking a paycut to make amends for his handling of the situation, nor will any of the other prestigious members on Bush's economic team whose professional negligence has been thoroughly demonstrated.

As I've noted elsewhere, the Fed chose to ignore all indications of an approaching meltdown for two years. They did nothing and now they presume to come up with a fix over the weekend. The only thing that's more surreal than this is investors' willingness to believe that there is a real solution at hand.
Click to expand...
Actually you're correct. Oversite was removed in the 70s, dumb dumb dumb. Don't blame Bush for a policy that was in the making twenty eight years prior...(think Carter administration and congress of the time)

Government is like sailing, set the sails and wait for a time before the boat follows course...

Reagan had us grounded, Bush Sr. maintained, the Clintons had fun, and Bush jr. had to pick up the pieces.

You really need to look at the finances of the country for the past 28 years...it might just open your eyes wide in disbelief.

Then again, perhaps not.

v/r

Q
 
path_of_one said:
From what I understand, the government had to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae due to the large number of foreign investments in them that viewed them as backed by the US government (although that was not how it actually was). If they hadn't bailed them out, foreign investors would find the US financial market too shaky to support, and our dollar would be steeply devalued. So the government was backed into bailing them out to avoid a sharp drop in dollar value on the global market.
Click to expand...
The bail out solution is very deceptive with respect to both of these intended goals. The bailout is going to mean a whole lot more government debt. That means the government will come up with more funny money. The effect of that will be a further devaluation of the dollar.

foreign investments in (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) viewed them as backed by the US government
Click to expand...
The bailout does not really help the confidence of foreign investors because it proves that the US financial industry is just a house of cards that can't stand on its own

In short, there are no real solutions here. So far, all that has happened is that investors aren't freaking out as much as before - which of course could change as soon as the next financial company comes forward asking for a government bailout. There have been no real structural changes of any kind and none are in sight.
 
Netti-Netti said:
The bail out solution is very deceptive with respect to both of these intended goals. The bailout is going to mean a whole lot more government debt. That means the government will come up with more funny money. The effect of that will be a further devaluation of the dollar.


The bailout does not really help the confidence of foreign investors because it proves that the US financial industry is just a house of cards that can't stand on its own

In short, there are no real solutions here. So far, all that has happened is that investors aren't freaking out as much as before - which of course could change as soon as the next financial company comes forward asking for a government bailout. There have been no real structural changes of any kind and none are in sight.
Click to expand...
And it is collectively "OUR FAULT".
 
Quahom1 said:
Reagan had us grounded, Bush Sr. maintained, the Clintons had fun, and Bush jr. had to pick up the pieces.
Click to expand...
Bill Clinton had a hand in all this because he signed the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Bush and his experts had a problem with it, they could have done something. They had 8 years.

In 2001 Bush announced his "every American in a home" policy. Nobody was even paying attention when this transpired. Apparently this policy was going to facilitate home ownership even for folks who couldn't afford it.

The Bush administration instituted a highly deregulated approach that created the conditions for predatory loan programs that no responsible government would have tolerated if it was genuinely interested in protecting the nation.

An average kid in junior high could have plotted out the trajectory for how this was going to play out. Where were the Bush economics experts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top