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

How the hell is pumping all that cash into the existing banking system supposed to re-instate public confidence in banks?

Edited by npjnpj - October 07 2008 at 06:47

NaturalScience wrote: IVNORD wrote: NaturalScience wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Unfortunately, the only homes that they seem to build around here are the mansions that go for $250,000 and up.  error:  could not correlate "mansions" with "$250,000".  You live too close to NYC man (or Phila?) Philly, and before that Washington DC, where I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the price escalation (well, I laughed when we sold our townhouse in 2005).

That figures. The prices here are insane

IVNORD wrote: NaturalScience wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Unfortunately, the only homes that they seem to build around here are the mansions that go for $250,000 and up.  error:  could not correlate "mansions" with "$250,000".  You live too close to NYC man (or Phila?)

Philly, and before that Washington DC, where I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the price escalation (well, I laughed when we sold our townhouse in 2005).

limeyrob wrote: IVNORD wrote: limeyrob wrote: crimhead wrote: I heard someone say that it would cost us 144B to save all the homes in foreclosure and pre-foreclosure. Wouldn't it make more sense to save all these people instead of Banks that caused this by giving out bad loans to people that couldn't pay them in the first place?   In which case, why did they take out the loan when they knew they couldn't pay for it in the first place? This sets a brilliant example to the next generation doesn't it? I have vivid memories of my Mum doing everything in her power to ensure that any debts were paid off - usually furniture on the HP. The sacrifices she made just to get a bit of furniture still are fresh in my mind. Which is why I don't owe anyone any money - apart from my CD purchases of course, which are paid off when the statement arrives.   If you can't afford it - don't buy it.   Thanks Mum. Most people in this country live beyond their means. But as if it's not bad enough this life style is encouraged. THe last president who tried to rein it in was Jimmi Carter.    Many apologies but my knowledge of US politics is about as much as I can write on the back of a stamp. You imply that something happened to Jimmy Carter - presumably he was voted out of office by an electorate wanting the highlife on credit.

I didn't imply that. Carter had the hostage crisis on top of the economy in recession with inflation out of control. I don't know  if it was Carter himself or Paul Volcker (the Fed Chairman) who implemented that policy as the Fed was more independent back then. I didn't follow the economy closely at the time. But the prevailing idea was to fight inflation by shrinking credit, not expanding it; and subdued inflation was the Fed's goal, not eternal economis expansion at all costs

NaturalScience wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Unfortunately, the only homes that they seem to build around here are the mansions that go for $250,000 and up.  error:  could not correlate "mansions" with "$250,000".

Unfortunately, the only homes that they seem to build around here are the mansions that go for $250,000 and up.  Which was nice because if I had been so inclined I could have sold my 3 bedroom ranch for about $200,000.  With the housing market today, I'd probably be lucky to get $150,000 for it today.   But luckily for me I'm not in the market to sell it.   Not too many people can easily afford these $250,000+ homes, but that is where the money was for construction firms so that is what they were building.  There isn't much money to be had in building a home and selling it for under $100,000 these days.

I can't imagine what family (parents, kid(s)) might feel or want, but I can't see myself living in even a modest house for many many years. My friends and I are getting an apartment next year, and at 300/mo for each (so I guess 1200/mo per apt.) it seems reasonable, especially when utilities except electricity are paid for. I can't agree with the American home we've all thought of for the past half-century; it's just too much, not spatially efficient, and usually in suburbs far from interesting happenings. Couple that with the rising cost of gas, and it's just not a good idea to live outside of or very far from a city whenever the choice arrives.

In general, I think and hope that Americans are in for a very rude awakening, hopefully bringing this country back down to reality, values (none of that religious blindness though), and humbleness.

IVNORD wrote: limeyrob wrote: crimhead wrote: I heard someone say that it would cost us 144B to save all the homes in foreclosure and pre-foreclosure. Wouldn't it make more sense to save all these people instead of Banks that caused this by giving out bad loans to people that couldn't pay them in the first place?   In which case, why did they take out the loan when they knew they couldn't pay for it in the first place? This sets a brilliant example to the next generation doesn't it? I have vivid memories of my Mum doing everything in her power to ensure that any debts were paid off - usually furniture on the HP. The sacrifices she made just to get a bit of furniture still are fresh in my mind. Which is why I don't owe anyone any money - apart from my CD purchases of course, which are paid off when the statement arrives.   If you can't afford it - don't buy it.   Thanks Mum. Most people in this country live beyond their means. But as if it's not bad enough this life style is encouraged. THe last president who tried to rein it in was Jimmi Carter.

It should be noted that in many of the cases they gave the loans out to people that could not qualify. I was one of those people. They based my loan of my gross earnings. My loan was for 115K, my payments were for $1100 a month and I was taking home about $1600 a month. If you take in everything that it takes to live, food,water,electricity,gas,gasoline I had very little room for error. In the end I did not make it.

debrewguy wrote: 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.

What do you expect him to say? That your economy is in a sh*thole? That it's commodity driven and 80%-dependent  on our economy? Why scare the sh*t out of yoiu? I don't mean you per se but an average person may simply panic if they know how dire the situation is.