Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - $700 billion from us to save the banks. Good?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed$700 billion from us to save the banks. Good?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 25 2008 at 08:53
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

The bail out funds come from the American public, or rather that we borrow the money and need to pay it back.

No one is happy about the proposed plan, but almost every economist agrees that failure to act and shore up the financial/credit system will hurt so much more - the most pain going to the "little guy" if businesses start failing.
THat's the unfortunate thruth
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 25 2008 at 08:50
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by crimhead crimhead wrote:

Where are we to stop at these bailouts? I think that any executive compensation should be taken off of the table as well. When was the last time that anyone walked into a Bankruptcy hearing to have the judge say that your debts are wiped out and by the way here's a couple million dollars for a job well done? Never. If these companies are bailed out the the execs at the top should get nothing. 


agree completely!  most of them should consider themselves lucky to avoid a prison sentence!
Most likely they are under contracts. A good contract spells out all contingencies, bakrupcy inclusive. Criminal intent or activity constitute a breach, and only that may result in a prison sentence. Bad decision making does not constitute a crime. So they will get their paychecks. Besides their collective take won't solve the problem, it's a drop in the bucket
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 25 2008 at 08:43
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:



You might be interested in this:
http://www.gata.org/node/6469

"William Greider: The Fed is the problem, not the solution

Submitted by cpowell on Mon, 2008-08-04 18:36. Section: Daily Dispatches

Economic Free-Fall?

By William Greider
The Nation magazine, New York
Wednesday, July 30, 2008



Very good article, agreed with a lot of the suggestions.
He doesn't really spell it out. Half way thru. The Fed is the culprit. The monetary policies for the last 15 years completely irresponsible. Strangely, Clinton is mentioned but again, just a hint. To be fair, it started gatherung speed under Reagan with the balooning deficits, but the Fed tried to contain inflation at the time.  Government intervention was the last resort. I t all changed when Clinton nominated Robert Rubin as the Treasury secretary. The unnecessary pumping of the economy took us from crisis to crisis. We cover one bubble with another. It's like putting out a fire with gasoline. High grade. Nobody knows how much money has been created to stave off the Asian crisis in 97, the LTCM in '98, the bubble burst in 2000, 9/11. Now they have to buy real assets, that's why they need an approval from congress. Otherwise it would have been primed quietly the way the Bear Sterns deal was. The Fed and the government are fully responsible for the calamity. The banks did just what anyone would do under the circumstances. If one is given a lot of money he spends it.
Back to Top
BaldFriede View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10261 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 25 2008 at 06:30
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

The bail out funds come from the American public, or rather that we borrow the money and need to pay it back.

No one is happy about the proposed plan, but almost every economist agrees that failure to act and shore up the financial/credit system will hurt so much more - the most pain going to the "little guy" if businesses start failing.

And in the future, you don't need to be so condescending.  I was making a good faith effort for debrewguy to clarify his post.  I assure you I'm not as stupid as you think I am.

So what? These "experts" know which side their toast is buttered on. "Whose bread I eat, whose song I sing", as a German proverb says.
No, there will be no real harm done if these banks collapse, even if a lot of firms collapse in their wake. The means of production are still there; they only have to be given to someone else. They are the real wealth, not stocks and money.


BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Back to Top
BaldFriede View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10261 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 25 2008 at 06:17
I say "Let them banks rot"! They take all the profits when playing hazard at the stock market without giving any of the money back to the community but want the state, which of course means the community, to take the risk. No way! One should not fear an economy crisis; there is no such thing as long as there is an abundance of goods around. Now when the means of production all broke down for some reason, that would be a crisis! But money can't be eaten; it is just an easy way of evaluating goods.


BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 25 2008 at 05:19
This from the Daily Mash:

Lehman chief executive Dick Fuld said: "Be in no doubt, the long term effects of this collapse are going to be awful. For you.

"You're going to lose your job, your dignity and possibly your home. I don't need a job - per se - but I will miss accumulating more money than I and all my descendants could ever reasonably spend.

"I don't know what I'd do if I hadn't spent my career paying myself millions of dollars and accruing a vast personal fortune while taking pointless risks with people's hard earned savings.

"But I hope my unimaginable wealth and wide ranging property portfolio will make your extreme hardship that bit easier to bear.

"Would you be happier if I sat out the recession in Acapulco or Martha's Vineyard? Please do let me know."
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 25 2008 at 03:10
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

It is necessary, unless you libertarian people want another Great Depression.
Originally posted by npjnpj npjnpj wrote:

I'm not really a great believer in conspiracies (apart from 9/11, say)

Did I just read that? Please tell me I didn't just read that correctly.
Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

They also said that the bailout amounts to $10,000 per household. Personally, instead of giving $700 billion to Wall Street I would prefer that they write me a check for $10,000. I suspect I could do some pretty good damage with $10,000.

But what good is $10,000 if you have nothing to spend it on? I don't think you people understand the magnitude of all our banks collapsing when you so cavalierly say NO MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE!

But that doesn't mean I think they're doing a good job, that quote from the spokesperson is unbelievable.
 
NO MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE! Angry
 
Tongue
 
Seriously,  I think the first thing the government should do is seize all of the assets of the directors and managers of the banks and use that money as part of the bailout.  No, it probably won't amount to $700 billion or enough to save the banks, but maybe the people who run banks in the future will be a bit more responsible with the way they run them, if they know they will be held personally liable for failure.  Why should everyone else be responsible for bailing out the banks and not those who had a direct hand in the banks' failures.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 25 2008 at 02:51
It is necessary, unless you libertarian people want another Great Depression.
Originally posted by npjnpj npjnpj wrote:

I'm not really a great believer in conspiracies (apart from 9/11, say)

Did I just read that? Please tell me I didn't just read that correctly.
Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

They also said that the bailout amounts to $10,000 per household. Personally, instead of giving $700 billion to Wall Street I would prefer that they write me a check for $10,000. I suspect I could do some pretty good damage with $10,000.

But what good is $10,000 if you have nothing to spend it on? I don't think you people understand the magnitude of all our banks collapsing when you so cavalierly say NO MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE!

But that doesn't mean I think they're doing a good job, that quote from the spokesperson is unbelievable.
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
laplace View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 06 2005
Location: popupControl();
Status: Offline
Points: 7606 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 25 2008 at 02:13
pick a hundred of the most visible complicit people and have them burned at the stake. between this and the farcical election run-up, the onlooker concludes that the US way of living is insane and unsustainable and its morals shallow

Edited by laplace - September 25 2008 at 02:15
Back to Top
BroSpence View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 25 2008 at 01:25
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:


Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:


The bail out funds come from the American public, or rather that we borrow the money and need to pay it back.DB asks - if it comes from them, why shouldn't they get it back right away ? No one is happy about the proposed plan, but almost every economist agrees that failure to act and shore up the financial/credit system will hurt so much more - the most pain going to the "little guy" if businesses start failing.DB - many economists work for the financial industry. self-interest, anybody. Plus, the little guy is going to foot the bill, not the financial industry. Given the track history, wouldn't you feel more comfortable giving the money to anyone else BUT the financial industry. Plus, if you give to the general public , their borrowing/credit needs will decline, won't it ? Think of it, poor people paying off credit cards. Lower Middle Class renovating aging homes. Middle class folks paying down debts. All classes likely spending the money given. If the U.S. government believed that $200 per middle class tax-payer was going to prevent the economy going into a recession, then $10000 should really super-charge things.And in the future, you don't need to be so condescending.  I was making a good faith effort for debrewguy to clarify his post.  I assure you I'm not as stupid as you think I am.
DB - the point is that if you're big enough, you get bailed out time & again. Yet, there was no emergency when the actual home buyers, borrowers, were defaulting on mortgages that no financial expert can defend as being "credit-worthy. Where was the bail-out plan for them ? Oh, they were individuals. Not corporations. And as this situation seems to happen every 10-20 years (S & L, Long Term Hedge Fund et al), is it possible that bail-outs don't work. Could it be that the government does better by applying socialist policies towards the citizenship rather than the miilionaires ? Bush had Congress tighten bankruptcy laws at the Credit Card companies behest, because it was felt that it was too easy for people to get away with not paying their debts. Where is that logic now ? And finally - the cliche investment concept - take on higher risk in return for the possibility of a higher gain. If there is no real risk, why the higher return > And if there was really no profit, why wouldn't the resulting dividends, bonuses and other subsequent rewards be taken back. If it is said to be a very complex undertaking, well, hey, here's $700 billion they're ready to spend covering up the mistakes. It's time to say enough. The top 5% income brackets do not need financial subsidies. Indeed, you could even argue that the top third aren't really needy when it comes to money. So why do they get the biggest breaks ? Universal Health Care is too expensive. Care to calculate how many years of basic universal health care $700 billion might cover ? Would you believe that this is a better investment in America, than saving Bankers' skin? Wouldn't you know that this could actually contribute more to productivity and economic superiority than corporate welfare schemes that protect MBA Ponzi artists from their  themselves ?Bu, no, that socialism. Giving to the poor, to those who aren't in the higher income brackets is bad for business. It is time to say enough. The same old same old didn't work before, and it won't work any better now. So why have the american taxpayer repeatedly keep footing the bill for business' greed ?WHY ??????


Great post, sir. In my letters to various congressmen the other day, I mentioned how irresponsible it would be if hand over $700 dollars to people that didn't want anything to do with the government until they had themselves a dirty diaper. However, the diaper was dirty before, just not completely full of s***.   

I'd certainly invest that money if it was given to me.   OR maybe I could just go get a bunch of credit cards and use them on some ridiculous purchases and see if the government will hand me a big check.

Bush and Bernanke sure like using scare tactics to get this bailout in motion. I haven't seen anyone else talk about it though. No one from congress has even mentioned possible other plans except to get some small protections included to the already recommended one.
Back to Top
jammun View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 24 2008 at 21:10

What was the name of Metallica's first album?Angry
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 24 2008 at 20:43
Maybe we need to take up a bake sale for all these poor corporate executives?  LOL

You know what?  They need to fail so maybe they can learn a little responsibility.

Is their failure going to savage the economy?  Their misdeeds already have...
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 24 2008 at 20:21
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

The bail out funds come from the American public, or rather that we borrow the money and need to pay it back.

DB asks - if it comes from them, why shouldn't they get it back right away ?

No one is happy about the proposed plan, but almost every economist agrees that failure to act and shore up the financial/credit system will hurt so much more - the most pain going to the "little guy" if businesses start failing.

DB - many economists work for the financial industry. self-interest, anybody. Plus, the little guy is going to foot the bill, not the financial industry. Given the track history, wouldn't you feel more comfortable giving the money to anyone else BUT the financial industry. Plus, if you give to the general public , their borrowing/credit needs will decline, won't it ? Think of it, poor people paying off credit cards. Lower Middle Class renovating aging homes. Middle class folks paying down debts. All classes likely spending the money given. If the U.S. government believed that $200 per middle class tax-payer was going to prevent the economy going into a recession, then $10000 should really super-charge things.

And in the future, you don't need to be so condescending.  I was making a good faith effort for debrewguy to clarify his post.  I assure you I'm not as stupid as you think I am.


DB - the point is that if you're big enough, you get bailed out time & again. Yet, there was no emergency when the actual home buyers, borrowers, were defaulting on mortgages that no financial expert can defend as being "credit-worthy. Where was the bail-out plan for them ? Oh, they were individuals. Not corporations.
And as this situation seems to happen every 10-20 years (S & L, Long Term Hedge Fund et al), is it possible that bail-outs don't work. Could it be that the government does better by applying socialist policies towards the citizenship rather than the miilionaires ? Bush had Congress tighten bankruptcy laws at the Credit Card companies behest, because it was felt that it was too easy for people to get away with not paying their debts. Where is that logic now ?
And finally - the cliche investment concept - take on higher risk in return for the possibility of a higher gain. If there is no real risk, why the higher return > And if there was really no profit, why wouldn't the resulting dividends, bonuses and other subsequent rewards be taken back. If it is said to be a very complex undertaking, well, hey, here's $700 billion they're ready to spend covering up the mistakes.

It's time to say enough. The top 5% income brackets do not need financial subsidies. Indeed, you could even argue that the top third aren't really needy when it comes to money. So why do they get the biggest breaks ?
Universal Health Care is too expensive. Care to calculate how many years of basic universal health care $700 billion might cover ? Would you believe that this is a better investment in America, than saving Bankers' skin? Wouldn't you know that this could actually contribute more to productivity and economic superiority than corporate welfare schemes that protect MBA Ponzi artists from their  themselves ?
Bu, no, that socialism. Giving to the poor, to those who aren't in the higher income brackets is bad for business.
It is time to say enough. The same old same old didn't work before, and it won't work any better now. So why have the american taxpayer repeatedly keep footing the bill for business' greed ?

WHY ??????
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 24 2008 at 19:29
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

The bail out funds come from the American public, or rather that we borrow the money and need to pay it back.

No one is happy about the proposed plan, but almost every economist agrees that failure to act and shore up the financial/credit system will hurt so much more - the most pain going to the "little guy" if businesses start failing.

And in the future, you don't need to be so condescending.  I was making a good faith effort for debrewguy to clarify his post.  I assure you I'm not as stupid as you think I am.


Sincere apologies if I came across as condescending.  Was not my intent.  OK maybe just a little.  You obviously take this as seriously as I do.  Unfortunately, I feel we sometimes live in the United States of Amnesia.  But, we really do need to look hard before we let them leap.  The consequences of taking rash action can be just as bad doing nothing. 

The consequences of letting them get away with it again (S&L, anyone?) and sticking the common taxpayer with the bill is really unacceptable to me.  The executives will not likely have their unearned takings taken away.  They'll probably be punished with more tax breaks. LOL


Edited by Slartibartfast - September 24 2008 at 19:37
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 24 2008 at 18:56
The bail out funds come from the American public, or rather that we borrow the money and need to pay it back.

No one is happy about the proposed plan, but almost every economist agrees that failure to act and shore up the financial/credit system will hurt so much more - the most pain going to the "little guy" if businesses start failing.

And in the future, you don't need to be so condescending.  I was making a good faith effort for debrewguy to clarify his post.  I assure you I'm not as stupid as you think I am.


Edited by NaturalScience - September 24 2008 at 18:58
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 24 2008 at 16:05
Give it a moment, we're talking about the bail out funds here.  If you put the funds in the pockets of the wealthy people responsible for this mess, you'll not only reward them for bad behavior and poor investment decisions, but you won't be putting money in the pockets of those who would use it most to benefit the economy: people who've seen their wages decline or jobs shipped abroad.  There's always going to be rich folks in any economy and I can even buy into the argument that they are necessary.  Unfortunately they've been allowed to become parasitical and will kill the host if not reigned in.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 24 2008 at 15:24
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

I'm still saying give it directly to the American Public


Give what?  I don't understand what you're talking about. 
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 24 2008 at 15:12
I'm still saying give it directly to the American Public on a declining income curve. But use about 1 billion to go after the execs, CEOs, and investment denizens who sold investors a bill of goods (guaranteed, no risk); along with re-stating the books to show the REAL profit; then re-claiming any phony performance bonuses, along with any dividends paid out on non-existent profits.
And as far as this last little bit hurting the investors, well, there is supposed to be a correlation between risk & return. SO if you took a risk to hopefully get a higher return, should you not be open to the downside ? Oh, wait, that would wreck the American economy, by penalizing those that had the money to invest. No mention need be made to those who don't have the means to invest and did not profit from the Ponzi scheme, but will shoulder their share of the burden for the bailout.
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 24 2008 at 07:36
Originally posted by BroSpence BroSpence wrote:


Per person in the US I think its something around $2333. Which isn't much if you're buying a car, however that check isn't going to pay your own bills. Its going to someone who f***ed up.

Both are quite interesting. Thank you. I assume you are aware of the conspiracy theories that are related to the Fed as well?

Not too well. LOL




Edited by Slartibartfast - September 24 2008 at 07:41
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
BroSpence View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 24 2008 at 01:09

Per person in the US I think its something around $2333. Which isn't much if you're buying a car, however that check isn't going to pay your own bills. Its going to someone who f***ed up.

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:



Originally posted by BroSpence BroSpence wrote:

Isn't it interesting that the Fed. Reserve was partially created to help prevent our banks from failing and all that, then the great depression happened a few years later.


Anyways, I just sent a bunch of Emails to representatives.
You might be interested in this:http://www.gata.org/node/6469<h1>"William Greider: The Fed is the problem, not the solution</h1>
       
                        <!-- begin -->
            <span>Submitted by cpowell on Mon, 2008-08-04 18:36.</span><span> Section: Daily Dispatches</span>    

Economic Free-Fall?


By William Greider
The Nation magazine, New York
Wednesday, July 30, 2008


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080818/greider


Washington can act with breathtaking urgency when the right people
want something done. In this case, the people are Wall Street's titans,
who are scared witless at the prospect of their historic implosion.
Congress quickly agreed to enact a gargantuan bailout, with more to
come, to calm the anxieties and halt the deflation of Wall Street
giants. Put aside partisan bickering, no time for hearings, no need to
think through the deeper implications. We haven't seen "bipartisan
cooperation" like this since Washington decided to invade Iraq.


In their haste to do anything the financial guys seem to want,
Congress and the lame-duck President are, I fear, sowing far more
profound troubles for the country. First, while throwing our money at
Wall Street, government is neglecting the grave risk of a deeper
catastrophe for the real economy of producers and consumers. Second,
Washington's selective generosity for influential financial losers is
deforming democracy and opening the path to an awesomely powerful
corporate state. Third, the rescue has not succeeded, not yet. Banking
faces huge losses ahead, and informed insiders assume a far larger
federal bailout will be needed -- after the election. No one wants to
upset voters by talking about it now. The next President, once in
office, can break the bad news..."

and this:

"

<h1><span id="btAsinTitle" style="">Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (Paperback)</span></h1>







<span>

by William Greider (Author)

<span>
"In the American system, citizens were taught that the transfer of
political power accompanied elections, formal events when citizens made
orderly choices about who shall..." (more)"</span></span>It's a book that's been out for a while and really really long read.  I'm not sure if I ever finished it.



Both are quite interesting. Thank you. I assume you are aware of the conspiracy theories that are related to the Fed as well?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.333 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.