| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
BaldJean 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
 Posted: October 01 2008 at 23:28 |
 IVNORD wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
well, if the whole system can only be saved that way then something is wrong with the system in the first place, so why should we save it then? better an end with terror than a terror without end. |
The system is certainly flawed, but since we don't have a better one, living with no system at all may result in terror with no end in sight. And it stares us in the face already.
BaldJean wrote:
and I totally agree that the financial industry should be regulated somehow. the games they have been playing lately are simply idiotic. stock purchase warrants, for example; a completely nutty idea. they should definitely be forbidden, in my opinion
|
Why did you single oout stock purchase warrants? It's a completely innocent idea (unless it's different in Germany; in the US, a stock warrant allows its holder to purchase a certain number of shares at a set price within a specified period of time). |
that's the point: at a set price. it is mere gambling, since you don't know the actual price of the stocks at the given date. it is not innocent at all. buy the stocks when the price is known. would you go into a shop and say "I want to buy a computer with these features", giving a list of them, "for $1500 in 2 months"? nonsense; you will go and look at the prices of computers in two months, when you actually want to buy it
|
THe warrant is not an obligation but an option to buy and you don't have to pay the exercise price upfront, a warrant usually costs relatively little. It's more like an insurance policy. The exercise price is usually, but not always, set below the current or projected market price. If the exercise price is higher than the market price at the warrant's expiration time you can forfeit it. You may not exercise it at all even if it's in-the-money. The warrant is of the same nature as stock options and futures contracts and can be used for hedging. There's plenty of abuse with warrants when the big guys short the stock to cover thru the exercise but it's a different story. Otherwise the idea isn't that bad at all. If you think that the computer with these features will cost $2000 in 2 months, you'd better buy yourself a warrant with a $1500 strike. |
I know it is not an obligation. but you are missing the point completely. you pay for an option you may not use. that in itself is ludicrous. what's more, these warrants have been the cause of more bankruptcies than any other kind of stocks. it is also remarkable how far we are drifting away from what this is all about here. we are dealing with symbols of symbols of symbols. let me explain: money is a symbol for the value of something. a share is a symbol for the value of a firm in money, hence a symbol of a symbol. yet we are not even dealing with actual shares here, we are dealing with options for buying them. a symbol of a symbol of a symbol. no wonder stock brokers lose the touch for what they are actually dealing with!
|
 A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
 |
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: October 02 2008 at 08:12 |
BaldJean wrote:
I know it is not an obligation. but you are missing the point completely. you pay for an option you may not use. that in itself is ludicrous. |
In essence, a warrant is an insurance. When you buy a car insurance, you hope to never use it, but you pay a risk premium for the luxury of having protection if something bad happens.
BaldJean wrote:
what's more, these warrants have been the cause of more bankruptcies than any other kind of stocks. |
I've never heard of warrants per se being a major cause of bankrupcy. To the contrary, a company benefits from issuing warrants by collecting the premium from the sale of the warrants first, and then collecting the principal from the exercise of the warrants.
BaldJean wrote:
it is also remarkable how far we are drifting away from what this is all about here. we are dealing with symbols of symbols of symbols. let me explain: money is a symbol for the value of something. a share is a symbol for the value of a firm in money, hence a symbol of a symbol. yet we are not even dealing with actual shares here, we are dealing with options for buying them. a symbol of a symbol of a symbol. no wonder stock brokers lose the touch for what they are actually dealing with!
|
If you go to the bottom of it to the fact that money represents goods and how the supply chain works, that symbol will be in the power of 10 or 20. But stock brokers are not privy to such math intricacies. They deal with dollars and cents.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: October 02 2008 at 08:17 |
Wow, 8 pages so far. Will this thread accurately predict by pages the numbers of billions the bailout will ultimately cost? 
Edited by Slartibartfast - October 02 2008 at 08:42
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: October 02 2008 at 09:07 |
IVNORD wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
I know it is not an obligation. but you are missing the point completely. you pay for an option you may not use. that in itself is ludicrous. |
In essence, a warrant is an insurance. When you buy a car insurance, you hope to never use it, but you pay a risk premium for the luxury of having protection if something bad happens.
BaldJean wrote:
what's more, these warrants have been the cause of more bankruptcies than any other kind of stocks. |
I've never heard of warrants per se being a major cause of bankrupcy. To the contrary, a company benefits from issuing warrants by collecting the premium from the sale of the warrants first, and then collecting the principal from the exercise of the warrants.
BaldJean wrote:
it is also remarkable how far we are drifting away from what this is all about here. we are dealing with symbols of symbols of symbols. let me explain: money is a symbol for the value of something. a share is a symbol for the value of a firm in money, hence a symbol of a symbol. yet we are not even dealing with actual shares here, we are dealing with options for buying them. a symbol of a symbol of a symbol. no wonder stock brokers lose the touch for what they are actually dealing with!
|
If you go to the bottom of it to the fact that money represents goods and how the supply chain works, that symbol will be in the power of 10 or 20. But stock brokers are not privy to such math intricacies. They deal with dollars and cents. |
I am no expert on matters like the stock market. however, one thing I do know though is that these warrants are considered to be very risky. I have heard this several times, and the wikipedia entry seems to agree with me: "Da Optionsscheine Derivate
sind und deshalb als besonders risikoreiche Anlageform erachtet werden,
bestehen für die vertreibenden Banken gegenüber ihren Kunden besondere
Informationspflichten (siehe Derivate im deutschen Rechtssystem)." Translation: "Since warrants are derivatives and hence are being considered an especially risky type of investment, there do exist special obligations of information towards their customers for the banks distributing them" (see "derivatives in the German legal system").
Edited by BaldJean - October 02 2008 at 09:26
|
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21174
|
Posted: October 02 2008 at 10:37 |
|
^ you also have to distinguish warrants and futures. Warrants are risky, but the worst that can happen is that you lose your investment (they become worthless). With futures you can actually lose arbitrary amounts of money ... same as when you short sell stocks.
|
|
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: October 02 2008 at 11:43 |
BaldJean wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
I know it is not an obligation. but you are missing the point completely. you pay for an option you may not use. that in itself is ludicrous. |
In essence, a warrant is an insurance. When you buy a car insurance, you hope to never use it, but you pay a risk premium for the luxury of having protection if something bad happens.
BaldJean wrote:
what's more, these warrants have been the cause of more bankruptcies than any other kind of stocks. |
I've never heard of warrants per se being a major cause of bankrupcy. To the contrary, a company benefits from issuing warrants by collecting the premium from the sale of the warrants first, and then collecting the principal from the exercise of the warrants.
BaldJean wrote:
it is also remarkable how far we are drifting away from what this is all about here. we are dealing with symbols of symbols of symbols. let me explain: money is a symbol for the value of something. a share is a symbol for the value of a firm in money, hence a symbol of a symbol. yet we are not even dealing with actual shares here, we are dealing with options for buying them. a symbol of a symbol of a symbol. no wonder stock brokers lose the touch for what they are actually dealing with!
|
If you go to the bottom of it to the fact that money represents goods and how the supply chain works, that symbol will be in the power of 10 or 20. But stock brokers are not privy to such math intricacies. They deal with dollars and cents. |
I am no expert on matters like the stock market. however, one thing I do know though is that these warrants are considered to be very risky. I have heard this several times, and the wikipedia entry seems to agree with me:
"Da Optionsscheine Derivate sind und deshalb als besonders risikoreiche Anlageform erachtet werden, bestehen für die vertreibenden Banken gegenüber ihren Kunden besondere Informationspflichten (siehe Derivate im deutschen Rechtssystem)." Translation: "Since warrants are derivatives and hence are being considered an especially risky type of investment, there do exist special obligations of information towards their customers for the banks distributing them" (see "derivatives in the German legal system").
|
Those are likely some special warrants since they're distributed specifically by banks. In the US any company may issue warrants so the only way it may become especially risky is when you sell them short. Other than that all you can lose is the price of the warrant you pay.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: October 02 2008 at 11:54 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^ you also have to distinguish warrants and futures. Warrants are risky, but the worst that can happen is that you lose your investment (they become worthless). With futures you can actually lose arbitrary amounts of money ... same as when you short sell stocks. |
Futures combine stocks and options features. Since they tied to a commodity their price may fluctuate with the price of the commodity. As a contract they guarantee you a delivery/disposal of the commodity at a set price on a set date. You may lose money if you are long the contract and the underlying commodity goes down (or vice versa short/up), but if you hedge as either producer or user of the commodity and the price is right for you, you don't care.
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: October 02 2008 at 13:22 |
|
IVNORD, they are not special warrants. "Optionsschein" is the literary translation of "stock purchase warrant". there is nothing said about who issues them at all in the statement, only who distributes them. that's a difference
Edited by BaldJean - October 02 2008 at 13:43
|
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: October 02 2008 at 13:38 |
BaldJean wrote:
IVNORD, they are not special warrants. "Optionsschein" is the literary translation of "warrant" there is nothing said about who issues them at all in the statement, only who distributes them. that's a difference
|
Jean, I meant they may not be the same thing as US warrants. Financial instruments vary from country to country. If "distributes" means "sells initially" in the US it's done by stock underwriters usually in connection with an initial public offering (IPO) of a company going public. The warrants are bundled with common stock in so-called units sold to investors. After the IPO the warrants are separated from the units and are trading on various stock exchanges until expiration
Edited by IVNORD - October 02 2008 at 13:45
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: October 02 2008 at 13:44 |
|
it is pretty much the same, as far as I know. but don't quote me; I am definitely not an expert, so I may be totally wrong. I will, however, ask an expert about it
|
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 16:21 |
Quote of
the Day
"The economy has gotten so bad, Cheney
is having his stock broker water-boarded."
-- Letterman
The New York Times has a long story
today about the disastrous 2004 change to the SEC’s “net capital rule.”
The rule change allowed America’s five largest investment banks to
greatly increase their leverage ratios, from 12-1 to as much as 40-1.
All five investment banks have since either collapsed or transformed
themselves into commercial banks.
The Times story mentions
that “The five investment banks led the charge [to change the rule],
including Goldman Sachs, which was headed by Henry M. Paulson Jr. Two
years later, he left to become Treasury secretary.”
However, the story does NOT mention Paulson’s 2000 testimony to the SEC, which I posted yesterday. In it, Paulson specifically lobbied the SEC to make the net capital rule change:
[W]e
and other global firms have, for many years, urged the SEC to reform
its net capital rule to allow for more efficient use of capital.
This is the single most important factor in driving significant parts
of our business offshore, so that our firms can remain competitive with
our foreign competitors risk-based capital standards must become the
norm.
In the same testimony, Paulson also called
on the SEC to change to more “voluntary regulation”—exactly what the
SEC chair Christopher Cox now says “does not work.” (No kidding.)
Here are some relevant sections from today’s Times story, although it’s well worth reading it all:
Many
events in Washington, on Wall Street and elsewhere around the country
have led to what has been called the most serious financial crisis
since the 1930s. But decisions made at a brief meeting on April 28,
2004, explain why the problems could spin out of control…
On
that bright spring afternoon, the five members of the Securities and
Exchange Commission met in a basement hearing room to consider an
urgent plea by the big investment banks.
They wanted an
exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited
the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle
billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on
their investments.
The five investment banks led the charge, including Goldman Sachs, which was headed by Henry M. Paulson Jr…
The
decision, changing what was known as the net capital rule, was
completed and published in The Federal Register a few months later.
With that, the five big independent investment firms were unleashed.
In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times, the agency also decided to rely on the firms’ own computer models for determining the riskiness of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves.
Uncategorized | -->
posted by
Jonathan Schwarz
at 8:04 AM | link
Jonathan Schwarz:
Back in 2000, when Hank Paulson was CEO of Goldman Sachs, he testified
in front of the Security and Exchange Commission. Among other things,
he lobbied the SEC to enact a “change to self-regulation” for Wall
Street. He also urged them to change the “net capital rule” which
governed the amount of leverage investment banks could use. The net
capital rule was indeed changed in 2004, and is now blamed for the
investment banks’ collapse.
PAULSON: The Challenge of Technology and Change to Self-Regulation in the United States
The
third area for re-examination and reform is the structure of
broker/dealer regulation, a function now shared by the SEC and the self
regulatory organizations (”SROs”), principally the New York Stock
Exchange and NASD Regulation Inc.
[W]e and other global firms have, for many years, urged the SEC to reform its net capital rule to allow for more efficient use of capital.
This is the single most important factor in driving significant parts
of our business offshore, so that our firms can remain competitive with
our foreign competitors risk-based capital standards must become the
norm. The SEC has made it clear that risk-based capital rules can be
implemented only when the Commission is confident that firms employing
value-at-risk models have robust credit and risk management policies in
place.
For these reasons we think it is time to seriously consider the creation of a single, independent SRO
to adopt, examine and enforce a core body of financial responsibility,
customer protection and margin rules. We hope and expect that there
would be savings generated by economies of scale.
How did Paulson’s recommendation to let investment banks borrow much, much more work out?
Here’s a story from two weeks ago:
The
Securities and Exchange Commission can blame itself for the current
crisis. That is the allegation being made by a former SEC official, Lee
Pickard, who says a rule change in 2004 led to the failure of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch.
The
SEC allowed five firms — the three that have collapsed plus Goldman
Sachs and Morgan Stanley — to more than double the leverage they were
allowed to keep on their balance sheets and remove discounts that had
been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect
them from defaults…
The so-called net capital rule was
created in 1975 to allow the SEC to oversee broker-dealers…The net
capital rule also requires that broker dealers limit their debt-to-net
capital ratio to 12-to-1…
In 2004, the European Union
passed a rule allowing the SEC’s European counterpart to manage the
risk both of broker dealers and their investment banking holding
companies. In response, the SEC instituted a similar, voluntary program for broker dealers with capital of at least $5 billion, enabling the agency to oversee both the broker dealers and the holding companies.
This
alternative approach, which all five broker-dealers that qualified —
Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan
Stanley — voluntarily joined, altered the way the SEC measured their
capital. Using computerized models, the SEC, under its new
Consolidated Supervised Entities program, allowed the broker dealers to
increase their debt-to-net-capital ratios, sometimes, as in the case of
Merrill Lynch, to as high as 40-to-1. It also removed the method
for applying haircuts, relying instead on another math-based model for
calculating risk that led to a much smaller discount.
Who murdered the American economy? It was the CEO, in the 13th Floor Conference Room, with the Prepared Testimony.
Uncategorized | -->
Edited by Slartibartfast - October 03 2008 at 16:34
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 16:39 |
|
Even in Moscow right now there are a lot of fat cats sitting at home drinking cheap vodka and contemplating suicide.
|
|
Silver Sable
Forum Newbie
Joined: September 25 2008
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 25
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 16:50 |
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.  |
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 16:50 |
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.
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 17:03 |
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.
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 19:52 |
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
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: October 03 2008 at 20:01 |
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.
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: October 04 2008 at 01:12 |
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.
Edited by Henry Plainview - October 04 2008 at 01:15
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10261
|
Posted: October 04 2008 at 06:18 |
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.
|
 BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
|
|
tuxon
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 21 2004
Location: plugged-in
Status: Offline
Points: 5502
|
Posted: October 04 2008 at 08:41 |
I actually think it's quite funny.
sustaining a failing system, what would Darwin have to say about this.
|
|
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
$700 billion from us to save the banks. Good?
