$700 billion from us to save the banks. Good?

Henry Plainview wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: From what I understand, the Democrats weren't protesting subprimes or Fannie/Freddie, either. But of course, everybody needs someone to blame.

protesting subprimes?!?!  the Democrats ?!?! You must be kidding! THey are the ones who created the mess. Now these unethical pigs resort to finger pointing when it comes home to roost. That Pelosi speech was a real gem. Probably she remembered suddenly that she was a Democrat although she acts more and more like a republican. So she decided she had to do something. Or Barney Frank. What a nice, uncharacteristically friendly guy 

My prime minister little Stevie Harper, Bush's buddy, says that Canada won't be affect because our fundamentals are sound. Like the 80% of our trade that is with y'all won't be affected by your economy's recession. I think he got this positive thinking bug from Dubya's mantra that the U.S. economy is still strong. Begging the question of the need to throw $700 billion (for starters) at the bankers (not to mention the attached pork feed).
All bow to common sense and its' attendant economic logic that makes the free market capitalist the man to heed.

Slartibartfast wrote:

From what I understand, the Democrats weren't protesting subprimes or Fannie/Freddie, either.

But of course, everybody needs someone to blame.

BaldFriede wrote: IVNORD wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Not true; it has to go somewhere. The circulation of money is a zero sum game. Not necessarily so. Every penny should have gone somewhere if the money was real. Since it's an inflated credit, either electronic money or some knd of paper IOY's, some of it may be simply disappearing from the system, which is a good thing. We're deflating the credit bubble by withdrawing some phoney money out of circulation. But the bulk of it stays in. THe one who sold at the higher price keeps the profit. Re-allocation of capital occurs all the time. Nope. Where there's a creditor there must be a debitor.and vice versa. You can't pull it out of a hat. The only way more money can get into the circulation is if the state issues some, in which case you get an inflation.

  That's what books on accounting say. When you deal with central banks their ways are not that clearly defined. Your second statement partially explains this mystery. When the Fed Reserve manipulates the stock market for example, they pour phoney money into it first, and then let it grow on margin (i.e. more phoney money yet) and then withdraw it along with the excess of  real capital when the market falls apart. I would say they did that in 1998-2000. Maybe in 1987-1990 too. So in this case there is a semblance of a credit-debit equation, but it's not exactly what you're talking about as the money is taken out of circulation

---

The Real Great Depression
Another panic like 1873 is what we should be afraid of

 Link

 Excerpt:
As continental banks tumbled, British banks held back their capital, unsure of which institutions were 
most involved in the mortgage crisis. The cost to borrow money from another bank — the interbank 
lending rate — reached impossibly high rates. This banking crisis hit the United States in the fall of 1873. 
Railroad companies tumbled first. They had crafted complex financial instruments that promised a fixed 
return, though few understood the underlying object that was guaranteed to investors in case of default. 
(Answer: nothing). The bonds had sold well at first, but they had tumbled after 1871 as investors began 
to doubt their value, prices weakened, and many railroads took on short-term bank loans to continue 
laying track. Then, as short-term lending rates skyrocketed across the Atlantic in 1873, the railroads 
were in trouble. When the railroad financier Jay Cooke proved unable to pay off his debts, the stock 
market crashed in September, closing hundreds of banks over the next three years. The panic 
continued for more than four years in the United States and for nearly six years in Europe.
 

---

Edited by Slartibartfast - October 04 2008 at 11:28

BaldFriede wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: The Doctor wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: The Doctor wrote: Silver Sable wrote: So the darn thing passed.  Sadly they are already saying that it won't keep us from a recession.  So why the hell did we just pass it?    If you actually skimmed through the proposal you'd see that it is about 150 pages of real bailout relief and 300 pages of additional tacked on stuff that has nothing to do with wall street or mortgages.  Kinda makes me think the economy isn't as bad as they say and/or nothing in that bill is gonna fix it so they just threw in a bunch of other crap.    It's a short term bandaid on a sucking chest wound.  The blood will keep flowing and because we've only put a bandaid on the problem it will become infected.  Makes me wonder if coming back to the states is such a good idea.  Not that the rest of the world will be safe, but maybe a little less harder hit.  With any luck.  Guaranteed though that the rich fat cats who caused the problems to begin with will be sitting out any recession in the lap of luxury.   Our esteemed Congress didn't pass this bill to save the economy or protect the middle class, they passed this bill so the wealthy can continue to buy Mercedes and BMWs.    While there is the possibility for abuse, this money isn't going to the CEOs. People just hear "Wall Street Bailout" and scream. Rupert Murdoch is losing 4,000 dollars per second, rich people are the ones most susceptible to tehse losses.   And my heart is bleeding for Rupert Murdoch and all the other rich people who are losing so much money.  They will lose more money than most people will ever have.  And where do you think this 700 billion is going?  It's not going into my pocket. Did I say you should feel sorry for him? I'm just saying that you shouldn't be so blase about the immunity of evil rich people from suffering any harm. You do realize that this has ruined some people, right?   It's not going in your pocket (because that would be the worst idea ever), but it's not going in anyone's pocket. The government is buying bad loans, this isn't a handout. Not true; it has to go somewhere. The circulation of money is a zero sum game.

Not necessarily so. Every penny should have gone somewhere if the money was real. Since it's an inflated credit, either electronic money or some knd of paper IOY's, some of it may be simply disappearing from the system, which is a good thing. We're deflating the credit bubble by withdrawing some phoney money out of circulation. But the bulk of it stays in. THe one who sold at the higher price keeps the profit. Re-allocation of capital occurs all the time.

I actually think it's quite funny.

The Doctor wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: The Doctor wrote: Silver Sable wrote: So the darn thing passed.  Sadly they are already saying that it won't keep us from a recession.  So why the hell did we just pass it?    If you actually skimmed through the proposal you'd see that it is about 150 pages of real bailout relief and 300 pages of additional tacked on stuff that has nothing to do with wall street or mortgages.  Kinda makes me think the economy isn't as bad as they say and/or nothing in that bill is gonna fix it so they just threw in a bunch of other crap.    It's a short term bandaid on a sucking chest wound.  The blood will keep flowing and because we've only put a bandaid on the problem it will become infected.  Makes me wonder if coming back to the states is such a good idea.  Not that the rest of the world will be safe, but maybe a little less harder hit.  With any luck.  Guaranteed though that the rich fat cats who caused the problems to begin with will be sitting out any recession in the lap of luxury.   Our esteemed Congress didn't pass this bill to save the economy or protect the middle class, they passed this bill so the wealthy can continue to buy Mercedes and BMWs.    While there is the possibility for abuse, this money isn't going to the CEOs. People just hear "Wall Street Bailout" and scream. Rupert Murdoch is losing 4,000 dollars per second, rich people are the ones most susceptible to tehse losses.   And my heart is bleeding for Rupert Murdoch and all the other rich people who are losing so much money.  They will lose more money than most people will ever have.  And where do you think this 700 billion is going?  It's not going into my pocket.

Edited by Henry Plainview - October 04 2008 at 01:15

The Doctor wrote: Silver Sable wrote: So the darn thing passed.  Sadly they are already saying that it won't keep us from a recession.  So why the hell did we just pass it?    If you actually skimmed through the proposal you'd see that it is about 150 pages of real bailout relief and 300 pages of additional tacked on stuff that has nothing to do with wall street or mortgages.  Kinda makes me think the economy isn't as bad as they say and/or nothing in that bill is gonna fix it so they just threw in a bunch of other crap.    It's a short term bandaid on a sucking chest wound.  The blood will keep flowing and because we've only put a bandaid on the problem it will become infected.  Makes me wonder if coming back to the states is such a good idea.  Not that the rest of the world will be safe, but maybe a little less harder hit.  With any luck.  Guaranteed though that the rich fat cats who caused the problems to begin with will be sitting out any recession in the lap of luxury.   Our esteemed Congress didn't pass this bill to save the economy or protect the middle class, they passed this bill so the wealthy can continue to buy Mercedes and BMWs.

While there is the possibility for abuse, this money isn't going to the CEOs. People just hear "Wall Street Bailout" and scream.

Rupert Murdoch is losing 4,000 dollars per second, rich people are the ones most susceptible to tehse losses.

Edited by Henry Plainview - October 03 2008 at 19:52

Vibrationbaby wrote: Even in Moscow right now there are a lot of fat cats sitting at home drinking cheap vodka and contemplating suicide.

Well they can give up their money before doing so. We the people can do far better with the money than the governments.