Continuation of the previous economy/hell/handbasket thread

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/539911-economy-hell-handbasket-part-iv.html

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/09/26/the-calm-before-the-storm?tid=true

possible that now we won't need a bailout, bad part is a lot of banks will fail

Whaaa???

Other thread not closed?

Preemptive strike?

Bush doctrine?

:lol: executive authority.

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/09/26/the-calm-before-the-storm?tid=true

possible that now we won't need a bailout, bad part is a lot of banks will failThat's not what that article says at all. It says we still need a bailout, but there's a possibility that the economy won't collapse if we don't get one in the next few days.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26904496?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS

farmers are having trouble getting loans

Giving 20% to ACORN?

...Why not just give that to the People for the American Way? or the NRA? or the Teamsters? or why not just line it up for a big statue of Vladamir Lenin overlooking Washington.

Giving 20% to ACORN?

...Why not just give that to the People for the American Way? or the NRA? or the Teamsters? or why not just line it up for a big statue of Vladamir Lenin overlooking Washington.

See the last thread. ACORN doesn't get 20% of the bailout. ACORN once got a grant from a government agency that could stand to get 13% (65% of 20%) of any profits, after the $700BN is paid back. If the agency decided to give another grant to ACORN, I guess ACORN would stand to gain a little.

See the last thread. ACORN doesn't get 20% of the bailout. ACORN once got a grant from a government agency that could stand to get 13% (65% of 20%) of any profits, after the $700BN is paid back. If the agency decided to give another grant to ACORN, I guess ACORN would stand to gain a little.Why should ACORN get diddly-squat? They saved the financial system?

Now if they want to invest their already government-granted money and base the results of that investment on whether the financial system makes it, I could see giving them their appropriate amount of profit.

But they're not exactly capitalist, are they?

No they didn't save the finanacial system, they are being looked at again for corruption.

In fact ACORN was very big in pushing for and lobbying for the 'new' higher risk homes loans that got us into this mess.

They were one of the most vocal groups saying the loans only to those who had good credit was 'discrimination' against the poor.

Why should ACORN get diddly-squat? They saved the financial system?

In the other thread, I agreed with you that ALL the profits should go toward the deficit.

However, that doesn't mean I support people claiming this bill sucks due to some Democratic conspiracy where ACORN is getting 20% of the bailout. It just isn't true.

Why they want to give the National Housing Trust (not ACORN) 13% of any profits? No idea. Subsidized apartments are important, but I'm not sure where they fit into the bailout.

I'm not sure why ACORN is even being discussed. Just because they got a grant from the NHT, doesn't mean they'll get any of these profits. An analogy: I've received funding from the NIH for my laboratory. It doesn't mean that increasing the NIH funding means I will get any more.

So apparently the CEO of WaMu has only been CEO for 2 weeks but stands to gain up to $16M in severence. -ohbfrank-

I'm not sure why ACORN is even being discussed. Just because they got a grant from the NHT, doesn't mean they'll get any of these profits. An analogy: I've received funding from the NIH for my laboratory. It doesn't mean that increasing the NIH funding means I will get any more.I think ACORN is being discussed because they are beneficiaries of this from the Dodd proposal:

TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.
DEPOSITS.Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).
USE OF DEPOSITS.Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)
65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and
35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).
REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY.All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.

I think ACORN is being discussed because they are beneficiaries of this from the Dodd proposal:

Where does it list ACORN? Maybe I'm missing something.

Looks like Wachoivia is the next bank.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/wachovia-begins-early-deal-talks-with-citi/index.html?hp

So apparently the CEO of WaMu has only been CEO for 2 weeks but stands to gain up to $16M in severence. -ohbfrank-
I think that's mainly because he's just the fall guy for the previous CEO (and board?) who turned down Chase's offer earlier this year.

Looks like Wachoivia is the next bank.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/wachovia-begins-early-deal-talks-with-citi/index.html?hp

National City will follow closely.

Where does it list ACORN? Maybe I'm missing something.I think you have to look into who get the money out of the HTF (Housing Trust Fund) and you can add La Raza to the list.

I think that's mainly because he's just the fall guy for the previous CEO (and board?) who turned down Chase's offer earlier this year.


At least the AIG guy did the right thing.

The CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were refused the generous golden parachutes they'd been counting on when their respective enterprises were taken over by federal regulators, and most recently the replaced CEO of American International Group (AIG) voluntarily abandoned his $22 million severance package.

Robert Willumstad served as CEO to insurance giant AIG and could have taken his $22 million into a slightly early retirement at the age of 63, but he stated, "I prefer not to receive severance payments while shareholders and employees have lost considerable value in their AIG shares." What would you do in his position — would you walk away from this kind of package or take the money and move on?

So apparently the CEO of WaMu has only been CEO for 2 weeks but stands to gain up to $16M in severence. -ohbfrank-

I normally recoil from reifying explanations for complex problems, but simple corruption and greed is indeed at the core of the crisis we're witnessing. I believe it is a symptom of a breaking down of American ethics.

How many CBs will cut ahead of scheduled meetings in a concerted effort? My guess is less than seven some have speculated, and more likely around three, maybe four tops.

What are "CBs"? Central Banks?

Yes.

What would you do in his position — would you walk away from this kind of package or take the money and move on?


I would've taken the $22 million, given $20 million away to employees who lost their jobs and kept $2m for myself. I'd make sure I got a waiver from Uncle Sam.

By the way, did you catch Mr. Brown's comments this evening? Folks there are not happy with the PM.

I assume Wachovia is just getting an early start on takeover talks in case Congress can't agree on a bailout plan by Monday morning. Wachovia (and National City) can survive if we get a bailout soon. If not, Wachovia will be taken over by the closing bell Monday and we'll start hearing about National City being involved in a takeover by Tuesday at the latest.

So apparently the CEO of WaMu has only been CEO for 2 weeks but stands to gain up to $16M in severence. -ohbfrank-

Shit, I knew I should have taken that "WaMu CEO Fall Guy" position when they offered it to me. Is it too late to be the CEO of Wachovia?

By the way, did you catch Mr. Brown's comments this evening? Folks there are not happy with the PM.

missed it. what did he say?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26904496?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS

farmers are having trouble getting loans

So - what's new?

except food prices are at historic highs

except food prices are at historic highs

Most farms don't operate in a way that the food prices are going to keep them from needing loans. Most take out substantial loans each year, which pay for seed, feed, fertilizer, fuel, etc. After harvest it gets paid back. It is backed by crop insurance, etc., which is generally required to get the loan. So for the typical family farmer, even if they doubled their actual income in a year, it still wouldn't be enough to take half of it and pay for all the stuff they will need in the next year.

And most took the extra money and finally bought newer equipment, I would bet.

Hmm - Farmer Kvrdave :)

Have you got your overalls on? ;)

I assume Wachovia is just getting an early start on takeover talks in case Congress can't agree on a bailout plan by Monday morning. Wachovia (and National City) can survive if we get a bailout soon. If not, Wachovia will be taken over by the closing bell Monday and we'll start hearing about National City being involved in a takeover by Tuesday at the latest.


I was in a Wachovia today just before closing. An elderly lady, 70 or so, was trying to close her account. Her daughter was there to. The person was telling them they could not close it because she had free safe deposit box at another branch where the account was opened. The daughter kept telling the person she had her money in Washington Mutual and how upset her mother has been all week. I was standing there like 10 minutes and I think they were going to close the account and the keys would be returned monday to the bank.

I took about half of what I had Wachovia out back when Indy/whatever takeover happened. Wachovia was mentioned in alot of articles back then. I'am okay with the takeover if it does happen but I wonder if I will be one of the people waiting outside the bank the next day?

This same shopping center kicked out a gas station and restrauant to build banks. I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

This same shopping center kicked out a gas station and restrauant to build banks. I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

The ironic thing is......all the restaurant and gas station owners around here complain constantly how their profit margins are razor thin.

Congressman Ron Paul says that the bailout bill is likely to pass, heralding a 10-year plus economic depression for America and the potential for martial law should civil unrest arise as the financial meltdown worsens.

Speaking on The Alex Jones Show, Paul said of the bailout, "They want dictatorship, they want to pass all the penalties and suffering on to the average person on Main Street," adding, "We will have a depression or recession, it's locked in place due to previous Federal Reserve actions."

"When they say that if we don't do exactly as they say and turn over more of our money and more of our liberties and exempt themselves from any court in the whole nation, they're trying to intimidate us and lead us into doing the wrong thing," said Paul.

The Congressman added that serious problems would arise if nothing was done to address the problem, but that more serious consequences would follow should the bailout be passed.

Paul warned that the only question was whether the meltdown would last one year or ten years and how much liberty would be lost in that time frame.

"It looks like from I see in Congress, that they're opting for a decade plus of depression rather than saying let's correct our ways, let's balance the budget, let's bring our troops home," said Paul, adding that the same course of printing money would continue - prolonging the agony and preventing a necessary correction.


http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/september2008/092608_opted_depression.htm

Most farms don't operate in a way that the food prices are going to keep them from needing loans. Most take out substantial loans each year, which pay for seed, feed, fertilizer, fuel, etc. After harvest it gets paid back. It is backed by crop insurance, etc., which is generally required to get the loan. So for the typical family farmer, even if they doubled their actual income in a year, it still wouldn't be enough to take half of it and pay for all the stuff they will need in the next year.

And most took the extra money and finally bought newer equipment, I would bet.



I think you misunderstood his point, which was that food prices are high due to the fact that farmers are having a very hard time getting loans. A symptom of which is the poor performance of agro stocks such as fertilizer companies.

Correct me if I misread the original post, Mr. Bundy.

I seriously doubt it's the farmers who are responsible for higher prices just because they can't get loans. Not to mention, a bank loaning them cash is using the logic these guys are the same as no income verify homeowners? Nonsense. These banks have dealt with their farmers for years. Decades. They certainly know whether they will get their money back and interest.

Food manufacturers are decreasing their products sizes left and right, and still charging the same price for the product...even more. This problem started with extremely high gas prices, the Bush Administration did absolutely nothing during this period, and here we are today.

Thanky, Mr. Bush. :up:

I seriously doubt it's the farmers who are responsible for higher prices just because they can't get loans. Not to mention, a bank loaning them cash is using the logic these guys are the same as no income verify homeowners? Nonsense. These banks have dealt with their farmers for years. Decades. They certainly know whether they will get their money back and interest.

Food manufacturers are decreasing their products sizes left and right, and still charging the same price for the product...even more. This problem started with extremely high gas prices, the Bush Administration did absolutely nothing during this period, and here we are today.

Thanky, Mr. Bush. :up:

farmers borrow working capital just like wal mart and now it's hard to get so less crops this year

excerpts from financial news media for the week

http://www.safehaven.com/article-11382.htm

Well, we need to take Ethanol off the market completely. It was a bad idea, and farmers certainly are not complaining, including additional guaranteed payments from the Fed.

And the next big toll on American taxpayers are now the ones who want to have a shitload of babies in this crazy economic period. What I'm talking about is a food drain on your local community stores. As I've said several years ago, you can't simply have a shitload of babies and not think about the consequences. It appears as if the consequences are here sooner than predicted. Food banks are being hit by large families with no concept of the word CONTRACEPTION or CLOWN CAR.

Until I see the average American weight go down, I'm not going to get too excited about there not being enough food.

Hmm - Farmer Kvrdave :)

Have you got your overalls on? ;)

:lol: no, but I did get a letter letting me know there are two vacancies on the Barley Board.

I didn't even get to do any harvesting this year. My sister keeps trying to get me to help (and I would love it), but I've been too busy. XM radio and A/C in the tractor made it sound like something I could handle. :lol:

Until I see the average American weight go down, I'm not going to get too excited about there not being enough food.

Ok, I'll give you that one. That big, fat, juicy, double-cheese one.

Wachovia is my primary bank. I moved a large chunk out last week.

My bank account: Wachovia formerly First Union formerly Corestates formerly Meridian. :) I wonder what my new bank will be called?

Why did you move your money. Was it non-savings and non-checking?

Shit, I knew I should have taken that "WaMu CEO Fall Guy" position when they offered it to me. Is it too late to be the CEO of Wachovia?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news/companies/fishman_wamu/index.htm?postversion=2008092615

Also, if Fishman has to pay taxes because of any severance he receives as a result of the takeover, then the company would cover those taxes. That would potentially give Fishman millions of dollars more.

WHAT!!!!! :mad: You've got to be [censored] kidding me.....this is [censored] [censored]!!!!! I had to pay taxes on my severance! :mad:

He also got a $7.5M sign-on bonus!!!!! And this was 3 weeks ago when everybody knew shit was hitting the fan! Screw capitalism.

At least the AIG guy did the right thing.

The CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were refused the generous golden parachutes they'd been counting on when their respective enterprises were taken over by federal regulators, and most recently the replaced CEO of American International Group (AIG) voluntarily abandoned his $22 million severance package.

Robert Willumstad served as CEO to insurance giant AIG and could have taken his $22 million into a slightly early retirement at the age of 63, but he stated, "I prefer not to receive severance payments while shareholders and employees have lost considerable value in their AIG shares." What would you do in his position — would you walk away from this kind of package or take the money and move on?
Hmm, I don't know if I'd give it up, but at 63, I'm sure he had a great career and didn't need the money anyway. Good for him though.

What is Ron Paul doing on Alex Jones' show? I expect better from Paul.

He also got a $7.5M sign-on bonus!!!!! And this was 3 weeks ago when everybody knew shit was hitting the fan! Screw capitalism.
It is puzzling how these bonuses are approved. I doubt WaMu shareholders would have approved.

It was said that the WaMu board was shocked about the FDIC takeover - Fishman had led them to expect otherwise, I guess.

edit: And I forgot that WAMU probably will be filing for BK so I'd expect the judge to cut out those bonuses.

Why did you move your money. Was it non-savings and non-checking?

So we didn't get caught with over the FDIC limits.

XM radio and A/C in the tractor made it sound like something I could handle. :lol:Get yourself some of those spinning rims, too.

:up:

Everybody here who has to worry about $100K FDIC insurance not covering their cash deposits, raise your hand!

:sad:

Election game changer.

(probably already posted but too lazy to go through thread)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

More like a forum moment changer.

Cheery article just posted on Drudge...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3094318/Bailout-failure-will-cause-US-crash.html

“What’s being put around behind the scenes is that we’re looking at 1930s stuff. We’re looking at catastrophe, huge, amazing catastrophe. Everybody is extraordinarily scared. It’s going to be really, really nasty.”

Cheery article just posted on Drudge...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3094318/Bailout-failure-will-cause-US-crash.html

They're speculating stocks could lose 1/3 of their value in a week. I'd imagine most everyday Americans could care less. They would still be opposed to a $700B taxpayer bailout. Wall Street doesn't affect them the same way it affects the affluent who rely almost solely on investments as their source of income. Of course there will be a ripple effect down the road....but the hardest hit will be the top of the spectrum.


<i>Edited for grammar</i>

Breaking news from the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. lawmakers said a tentative deal to bailout the financial system had been reached. Full article to come shortly.

They're speculating stocks could lose 1/3 of their value in a week. I'd imagine most everyday Americans could care less. They would still be opposed to a $700B taxpayer bailout. Wall Street doesn't affect them the same way it affect the affluent who really almost solely on investments as their a source of income. Of course there will be a ripple effect down the road....but the hardest hit will be the top of the spectrum.

Pretty much nailed it there. Which is why the economy would have gone on just fine without a bailout. Sad thing is, we'll still see layoffs, downsizing, and whatever else, even though we have this bailout. So, once again, who really benefits.

He also got a $7.5M sign-on bonus!!!!! And this was 3 weeks ago when everybody knew shit was hitting the fan! Screw capitalism.:lol:

They're speculating stocks could lose 1/3 of their value in a week. I'd imagine most everyday Americans could care less. They would still be opposed to a $700B taxpayer bailout. Wall Street doesn't affect them the same way it affect the affluent who really almost solely on investments as their a source of income. Of course there will be a ripple effect down the road....but the hardest hit will be the top of the spectrum.Um, retirement? Mutual funds?

Um, retirement? Mutual funds?

Still won't sway many people IMO because it doesn't affect their income. The only people that might support the bailout are seniors nearing retirement who actually have money invested. Scary, but many don't. Younger people probably won't care as much since it will be 20 or 30 years before they retire so there's a good chance there not as concerned. Most average workers don't save squat, so they probably don't care so long as it doesn't affect their paycheck. For the few who do invest, I'd imagine many have moved to cash or believe they should just continue dollar cost averaging. Good chance that many retirees have moved to cash too. The affluent who make most of their income from dividends, interest, and capital gains are shaking in their boots.

Sad thing is, we'll still see layoffs, downsizing, and whatever else, even though we have this bailout.


Absolutely. Things aren't going to be good-o-plenty even with a bailout. Washington just wants you to think the bailout is "necessary" to pass their initiative. Persuade by fear, just like with the "stimulus checks". Chances are the economy is still going to suffer, unemployment will continue increasing, inflation will pick up speed, and people will cut back on spending. Why? Because the banks are still going to be super stingy with their money, and the root problem still hasn't been addressed......people living in houses with mortgages they cannot afford and worth 75% of what it was 2 years ago.

In the long run, it might actually be worse. No accountability or regulation to prevent future dirty laundry. If you're a CEO of a bank, you're happier than flies on poop right now. You know that no matter what happens, you will still get paid, the bank will get bailed out if you do screw up, and nobody will ever be held accountable. It's like going to Vegas with other people's money. The future is brighter than it's ever been!

As I heard someone else say earlier in the week.....Private profits. Public losses.

By the way, I read that we could end up with around US$1 quadrillion (e.g., US$1,000 trillion) unservicable debt around the world by the time this mess finally sorts itself out. -eek- Welcome to a repeat of the 1930's ending with another World War--and this time nobody will be safe, since we now have missiles that could hit amost any target on Earth within 30 minutes of launch. :(

Unfortunately, I don't have XM radio or AC on my old Kubota, 3 cyl., 17 hp, diesel tractor.

I've got a big straw hat and a baseball cap that I sometimes wear.

:)

My local paper dug up a guy (Gerald Celente) from upstate NY who's business (Trends Research Institute) is predicting economies. I guess big businesses pay this guy's firm to predict which direction they should be going. The funny thing is he's been correct very often. Last year 12/07 in our paper he predicted that "all this fake money" would begin to collapse at about 09/11/08. Not far off.


Q: Should we do the bailout?

A: Absolutely not. What is bad for Wall Street is good for Main Street. "¦ This is Wall Street robbery with the Wall Street gang hijacking Washington. "¦ I had rough years. These outfits are not too big to fail. They are too greedy to save.

Q: Can the politicians in Washington handle this?

A: There is not one congressman, one senator, that is more accurate than I am. Their program only bails out their friends. I say put it on the ballot and let the people vote.

Q: What happens next?

A: My business is to see the future. What is so heart-breaking is to see where we are headed. We are heading into an economic depression the likes of which no one alive has ever seen.

Q: Can we dodge this bullet?

A: It is unavoidable. We need to have a retraction. You cannot have continued growth this inflated with fake money. "¦ There is a bright side to this. Something terrible and destructive is dying and something can grow from this.

Q: Why won't the election make a difference?

A: How can it? They are the same people. Who has the intelligence? Show me their accomplishment. Show me one.

Q: What are you doing in response?

A: I tried to get my money out of the "¦ bank. I just don't want to keep my money in a bank.

Q: Any other advice?

A: Don't back off. People have to stand up and be counted.

The administration says that the deal is almost made. There's just a few details left.

We've heard that before, haven't we?

Draft proposal of the deal that may be voted on tomorrow:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429343,00.html

If there is anything good that will come out of this, we may see the following:

1) A return to paper money backed by precious metals (gold, silver, platinum and possibly some nickel and copper).

2) No derivatives trading unless you can put up 30% to 50% margin requirements. At that level, few money managers will be willing to risk their money on such trades.

3) Strong incentives for the majority of energy production not tied to a few places like petroleum is now. This means massive increases in wind, solar, geothermal, tidal power and biofuel production from oil-laden algae.

4) Like it or not, we'll have to live in more compact-sized cities in order to cut down on commuter-related energy consumption.

The administration says that the deal is almost made. There's just a few details left.

We've heard that before, haven't we?

Draft proposal of the deal that may be voted on tomorrow:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429343,00.html
Ugh. That thing is a farce.

All this talk of "protect the taxpayer". "Ensure that the taxpayer shares in any profit". "Puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if participating company fails"

Who believes this stuff?!


"• The government can use its power as the owner of mortgages and mortgage backed securities to facilitate loan modifications (such as, reduced principal or interest rate, lengthened time to pay back the mortgage) to help reduce the 2 million projected foreclosures in the next year"
Oh, maybe the government can modify my mortgage to have a negative interest percentage. I'd like THAT.

So Ron Paul's secret name is RayChuang?

On Monday, I predict a lot of Costco-sized KY jelly purchases by typical Americans.

On Monday, I predict a lot of Costco-sized KY jelly purchases by typical Americans.


Don't you think there will be a pump before the dump? Wallstreet will use the $700B to pump the market while the big guys start selling their personal investments. Eventually some middleman will notice he's been lied to by his boss who's selling, and the massive dump will begin.

So Ron Paul's secret name is RayChuang?



:lol:

B&B getting nationalised. Assets to be sold off, likely to HSBC.

Despite all the Ron Paul jokes, going back to precious-metals based money isn't such a bad idea--we do remember from US history what happened during the Revolutionary War when the Continental currency was issued with no real backing and it lost its value in no time flat. After all, by definition most of the world's currencies now are based on the idea of fiat money, money that the government claims has intrinsic value.

Despite all the Ron Paul jokes, going back to precious-metals based money isn't such a bad idea--we do remember from US history what happened during the Revolutionary War when the Continental currency was issued with no real backing and it lost its value in no time flat. After all, by definition most of the world's currencies now are based on the idea of fiat money, money that the government claims has intrinsic value.


It was a compliment.

It was a compliment.I thought you were making fun of him :shrug:

It's not just a bad idea - it's a terrible idea. ;)

I thought he was making fun of him also.

Despite all the Ron Paul jokes, going back to precious-metals based money isn't such a bad idea--we do remember from US history what happened during the Revolutionary War when the Continental currency was issued with no real backing and it lost its value in no time flat. After all, by definition most of the world's currencies now are based on the idea of fiat money, money that the government claims has intrinsic value.


gold backed money doesn't mean no risks. we had a lot of depressions when the dollar was backed by gold. and when WW1 started the british pound shot up in value and the US supply of gold was almost exhausted. it was so bad they had to close the NYSE for a few months because there was a risk the US economy was going to collapse

If there is anything good that will come out of this, we may see the following:

1) A return to paper money backed by precious metals (gold, silver, platinum and possibly some nickel and copper).

2) No derivatives trading unless you can put up 30% to 50% margin requirements. At that level, few money managers will be willing to risk their money on such trades.

3) Strong incentives for the majority of energy production not tied to a few places like petroleum is now. This means massive increases in wind, solar, geothermal, tidal power and biofuel production from oil-laden algae.

4) Like it or not, we'll have to live in more compact-sized cities in order to cut down on commuter-related energy consumption.

#2 will never happen

most derivatives trading is legitimate hedging and exists in every financial market

When was the last time that our currency has been backed (100%) by gold?

They're speculating stocks could lose 1/3 of their value in a week. I'd imagine most everyday Americans could care less. They would still be opposed to a $700B taxpayer bailout. Wall Street doesn't affect them the same way it affects the affluent who rely almost solely on investments as their source of income. Of course there will be a ripple effect down the road....but the hardest hit will be the top of the spectrum.


<i>Edited for grammar</i>

the weathy would be wiped out unless they pulled out of all bond investments and put all their money into gold or t-bills. the stock market isn't the leader in this. the debt markets have been pretty bad lately and if the bailout didn't happen most bonds including those in money markets would lose most of their value.

this is why the last week short term t-bills are seeing negative yields on some days. FDIC said most of the people that pulled money out of WAMU did so because they were over the FDIC limit. pretty much everyone is scared about having money in any bank except BofA, Chase and Wells Fargo.

it's so bad now that most Asian banks and other banks around the world are refusing to lend money to US banks because after Lehman no one trusts anyone

When was the last time that our currency has been backed (100%) by gold?


you don't remember?

...

it's so bad now that most Asian banks and other banks around the world are refusing to lend money to US banks because after Lehman no one trusts anyone


This isn't true, outside of the fact that few banks are lending anything to anybody.

that's what the financial news reported this week

i posted a link to safehaven.com on page 2 of the thread. even read a story where the the chineese government told banks not to do any business with US banks until this thing is resolved

Despite all the Ron Paul jokes, going back to precious-metals based money isn't such a bad idea--we do remember from US history what happened during the Revolutionary War when the Continental currency was issued with no real backing and it lost its value in no time flat. After all, by definition most of the world's currencies now are based on the idea of fiat money, money that the government claims has intrinsic value.
Good stuff man.

This is why precious metal coinage was in the constitution. Paper money was anathema to the Founders when they were designing this nation.

In fact the motion to ban bills, paper money, carried with a vote of 8-2 at the Constitutional Convention, and the vote to hold only gold and silver as our coinage passed unanimously.

Paper money is BANNED, made illegal by our Constitution. I wonder how many know that. I also wonder of those that know that, how many are able to see the timeless wisdom if it.

"Most unquestionably there is no legal tender, and there can be no legal tender in this country, under the authority of this government or any other, but gold and silver-either the coinage of our own mints or of foreign coins, at rates regulated by Congress. This is a constitutional principle perfectly plain, and of the very highest importance. The States are expressly prohibited from making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, and, although no such express prohibition is applied to Congress, yet, as Congress has no power granted to it in this respect but to coin money, and to regulate the value of foreign coins, it clearly has no power to substitute paper, or anything else, for coin as a tender in payment of debts and in discharge of contracts." - Daniel Webster

Paper money means bankers have taken over. And they warned us about the headlines right now, and back in 1929, in the late 1700's. The Founders meant for us to keep precious metal coinage, so that bankers' tool like inflation and deflation were a non-issue. Gold and silver have held intrinsic value for thousands of years.

Roger Sherman was chosen to write that part of the constitution, and for good reason. Though few remember him today, he knew what he was talking about, and if we had followed the Constitution on coinage and banking we would be a stronger nation today.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

Thomas Jefferson made the issue well known, He wasn't guessing, they had studied the effects of banks in history and what they do. He gave us direct and specific warning and we, as a nation, decided to ignore him.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson

The 'issuing power' here is the currency, the ability to issue money. The National Bank was already in place within a few years to the horror of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance". - James Madison

The one thing Ron Paul is completely right on is the currency. And the fact that the largest tragedy, in a legislative sense, in the history of our country happened in 1913.
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." - James A. Garfield

"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." - President Woodrow Wilson

It took the international bankers 16 years to create the first Great Depression after they gained control of our currency and took over this nation. Plain as day. The first thing they did was set about, in increments of course, removing precious metals from the currency of the US. They also set about inflation and deflation of the currency by printing imaginary money. Which caused the greatest period of building, actually making buildings and bridges and the like, in our nation's history. Also a 'boom' in the stock market as the 'free' money flowed into the corporations. It spawned an artificial exuberance that caused the 20's to be the first great 'stock market' era where people besides the very rich got involved in investing. All of which caused the Depression.

When Clinton removed the regulation on the banks in 1999. It only took 9 years this time for us to be at a precipice of peril as an economy. The lack of ANY precious metal backing of the currency would easily explain the shorter time length. I don't see any way we can avoid a Depression now. Bailout or no bailout.

But this newest bailout will prop up the rich enough that they can ride out this depression like the did the last one. There was no 'Great Depression' for the rich in the 30's.

RayChuang and Dr. Mabuse,

Two of the best posts of 2008, my friends. :up:

that's what the financial news reported this week

i posted a link to safehaven.com on page 2 of the thread. even read a story where the the chineese government told banks not to do any business with US banks until this thing is resolved

Which has been denied.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/china-bank-regulator-denies-report/story.aspx?guid={1F3681AC-2953-4963-99EC-57BECF1E9291}&dist=msr_8

China did the right thing. Of course, if they say they didn't, then hey, I believe them.

rotfl YEAH, RIGHT! rotfl

RayChuang and Dr. Mabuse,

Two of the best posts of 2008, my friends. :up:


Taken from his "Testament"

My father forwarded this to me, I thought it was pretty good:

Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 2:49 PM
Subject: Nigerian scam


Dear Sirs,
Please do not be alarmed at the way I am contacting you, and I trust God you will see your way to assisting me. I am Mr. Henry Paulson, and I currently serve as Secretary of Treasury in a North American country, the US of A. I am due to be receiving the sum of USD700 billion (seven hundred billions), only the money seems to be held up. I got your name from the girl who runs the computer. This is where I need your help. As soon as you can, God willing, I will need you to give me the number of your American account where I can wire this sum. For your trouble, as part of the settlement, I will give you the sum of exactly nothing. Please be well, and I trust in God you will assist me honestly and without delay.

Yours, truly,
Mr. Henry Paulson
USA Secretary of Treasure

New draft of the legislation is up, if you need some Sunday afternoon light-reading:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news/pdf/index.htm

I really can't believe this is even close to being passed. Let these banks fail. Let the more prosperous banks who didn't lend money to every schmuck who couldn't afford it take them over. New banks will open when the markets restabilize. If this passes the House, hopefully the Senate will be a little more rational about the matter. I already wrote my Representative, and have no problem writing my Senator.

wtf anyone reading this? p14, the Financial Stability Oversight Board - what a joke. That's the checks they put into this, that Paulson and Bernanke Co. will be the oversight of themselves?

I really can't believe this is even close to being passed. Let these banks fail. Let the more prosperous banks who didn't lend money to every schmuck who couldn't afford it take them over. New banks will open when the markets restabilize. If this passes the House, hopefully the Senate will be a little more rational about the matter. I already wrote my Representative, and have no problem writing my Senator.

this already has around 90 votes in the Senate, it was the House Republicans that were blocking it. I bet Buffet fixed things

wtf anyone reading this? p14, the Financial Stability Oversight Board - what a joke. That's the checks they put into this, that Paulson and Bernanke Co. will be the oversight of themselves?

Paulson is out come next year. this mess will be the next secretary's problem. Bernanke will probably be there as long as Greenspan was.

this already has around 90 votes in the Senate, it was the House Republicans that were blocking it. I bet Buffet fixed things

I generally don't say things like this, but I will vote against my current Representatives and Senators if they vote for this whenever they're up for re-election. It's incredibly irresponsible to let this bill go through.

When was the last time that our currency has been backed (100%) by gold?

Ostensibly it was backed by gold until 1970, but I don't think we had enough gold in reserve to pay for every dollar in circulation since before Bretton Woods.

I generally don't say things like this, but I will vote against my current Representatives and Senators if they vote for this whenever they're up for re-election. It's incredibly irresponsible to let this bill go through.

I hope many other people take the same approach.

Financial Security Oversight Board members:

The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
The Secretary
The Director of the Federal Home Finance Agency
Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Apparently, we also have cities and counties of state governments who will apply for this fund as well. It's not just lending firms.

The Secretary can also waive parts or all of the Federal Acquisition Regulation to "streamline" the "process".

Anyone get Ron Paul's letter? Here it is:

“Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."

That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.

Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be. (emphasis added)

In liberty,

Ron Paul
September 24, 2008"

I generally don't say things like this, but I will vote against my current Representatives and Senators if they vote for this whenever they're up for re-election. It's incredibly irresponsible to let this bill go through.

I'll do the same for the Democrats. Can we get a list of who voted for what? This bill is atrocious! These Democrats need to learn to grow a pair.....even Pelosi! :mad:

Here's an excellent read from CNN. It's 3 pages so I won't post the transcript. It's slightly liberal but still an excellent editorial given the situation on Wall St.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news/economy/easton_backlash.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092811

I'm telling ya! Ron Paul should look for allies (maybe Lou Dobbs?) and some others from both parties and form a Populist party. The climate is ripe.

Financial Security Oversight Board members:

The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
The Secretary
The Director of the Federal Home Finance Agency
Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development



letting the inmates run the asylum

No kidding. Also, from reading p. 51-51, it appears as if no more than $700B can be outstanding but not a $700B spending limit on totality. In other words, technically, the US Gov't could be buying and selling much more than $700B worth of "assets", only later to be realized of their real worth. Not sure I'm right on this interpretation as this draft is more wordy than almost any court case I've read. Which should say something.

p.54 - Debate and motions shall take no longer than...10 hours (5 hours for consenting, 5 hours for dissenting parties).

Also, from reading this document, it seems a lot of more people are going to be recruited on panels, oversight committees, special inspectors, etc. Nice.

I really can't believe this is even close to being passed. Let these banks fail. Let the more prosperous banks who didn't lend money to every schmuck who couldn't afford it take them over. New banks will open when the markets restabilize. If this passes the House, hopefully the Senate will be a little more rational about the matter. I already wrote my Representative, and have no problem writing my Senator.

I agree.

And at first I didn't, until I became aware of the actual details of this 'bailout'.

I would add undo the law passed by Clinton in 1999, and reinstate the Glass-Steagall act, or legislation that is an exact copy.

And to think that Obama's campaign is full of advisers who were high up in these sleazy banks, and heavily funded by CEO's of the same. Oh and McCain, one of the dolts who authored the bill in 1999 is one of his advisers.

No matter who wins this next election NOTHING will change as to the rich and their fleecing of America.

The scary thing is Obama will not have the 'Republican Revolution' congress curtailing his wild spending proposals like Clinton did, that was the best congress, arguably I suppose, in history. People commonly call it the "Clinton Surplus" because a President gets the credit and the blame, but it was a freshman congress 'Contract With America' surplus in actual fact.

If Obama makes it in with a Democratic congress, one of the lousiest btw, we are done for. The spending will continue at insane levels, like it has been with Bush and this crap Republican congress he had, one of the worst also. We can't take 4 more years of that. Period.

Something has to change significantly. Maybe a depression will be enough to wake the lazy, apathetic, useless American people up and get them back into their role in the government. OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. Like the Celtic taking of Rome in ~390 BC woke them up as a nation, and they did great things, maybe a depression will have the same effect for us.

i wonder how many of the anti-bailout people will be against it if they lose their jobs because their employer had to do mass layoffs or go bankrupt because they couldn't pay off their short term bonds.

a good number of corporations in the US if not most don't have the cash on hand to pay off their short term debt. they simply renew it every few months when it matures. kind of like a refi. but if all the ibanks go belly up there won't be anyone left to handle the process and no investors left to fund it.

most companies in existence use the short term bond markets for working capital just so they can pay salaries and conduct business.

I also wonder about senators like ron paul and the like that cry for freedom and liberty and yet offer no other tangible and real alternative solution to the crisis ?

if you are so against it what else are you proposing?

and don't give me the "let it burn" response because then YOU will suffer too in the end.

Dukemstr

I also wonder about senators like ron paul and the like that cry for freedom and liberty and yet offer no other tangible and real alternative solution to the crisis ?

if you are so against it what else are you proposing?

and don't give me the "let it burn" response because then YOU will suffer too in the end.

Dukemstr


I can't speak for Ron Paul, but the idea is to let the failing banks go under. Stronger banks (who were less exposed) will then come in acquire their assets and use them potentially for profit. Eventually liquidity and faith is restored in the system. The question is.....how long?

I think many people are pissed that the fov't only seems to focus on corporate giants like GM, Ford, AIG, etc. Small business owners who've seen their revenue dwindle from a dropoff in spending might be wondering where their bailout is......especially since most of this mess was created by big business and Washington in the first place.

i wonder how many of the anti-bailout people will be against it if they lose their jobs because their employer had to do mass layoffs or go bankrupt because they couldn't pay off their short term bonds.

a good number of corporations in the US if not most don't have the cash on hand to pay off their short term debt. they simply renew it every few months when it matures. kind of like a refi. but if all the ibanks go belly up there won't be anyone left to handle the process and no investors left to fund it.

most companies in existence use the short term bond markets for working capital just so they can pay salaries and conduct business.



Perhaps it was already stated here, but did you see the last OIS spread? It was 200 on Friday. I do suspect it will lower this evening though, what with the deal announced.

I can't speak for Ron Paul, but the idea is to let the failing banks go under. Stronger banks (who were less exposed) will then come in acquire their assets and use them potentially for profit. Eventually liquidity and faith is restored in the system. The question is.....how long?

I think many people are pissed that the fov't only seems to focus on corporate giants like GM, Ford, AIG, etc. Small business owners who've seen their revenue dwindle from a dropoff in spending might be wondering where their bailout is......especially since most of this mess was created by big business and Washington in the first place.



Let me start by saying that I am against the agreement as currently constituted, but want to ask, are you in favor of letting this happen knowing what would happen? Are you in favor of watching what would happen to money market funds? Pensions and 401ks of baby boomers?

I can't speak for Ron Paul, but the idea is to let the failing banks go under. Stronger banks (who were less exposed) will then come in acquire their assets and use them potentially for profit. Eventually liquidity and faith is restored in the system. The question is.....how long?

I think many people are pissed that the fov't only seems to focus on corporate giants like GM, Ford, AIG, etc. Small business owners who've seen their revenue dwindle from a dropoff in spending might be wondering where their bailout is......especially since most of this mess was created by big business and Washington in the first place.


a bank failing is not the issue, the problem is the collateral damage like thousands of US companies not being able to borrow money to meet payroll

I also wonder about senators like ron paul and the like that cry for freedom and liberty and yet offer no other tangible and real alternative solution to the crisis ?

if you are so against it what else are you proposing?

and don't give me the "let it burn" response because then YOU will suffer too in the end.

Dukemstr

There are very few in Congress who can fully understand and grasp the situation we are in. However, some detractors do offer up alternatives, such as the injection of capital as opposed to liquidity, warrants, and the selling of MBS for the held to maturity price are some of the more reasoned suggestions.

Let me start by saying that I am against the agreement as currently constituted, but want to ask, are you in favor of letting this happen knowing what would happen? Are you in favor of watching what would happen to money market funds? Pensions and 401ks of baby boomers?


it will be the republicans fault if CALPERS and all the union funds had imploded

SEC. 135. PRESERVATION OF AUTHORITY.
With the exception of section 131, nothing in this Act
may be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary or the Board under any other provision of law.

a bank failing is not the issue, the problem is the collateral damage like thousands of US companies not being able to borrow money to meet payroll

That wasn't the question I was trying to answer.

nobody cares about mom and pop stores since they aren't going to lay off millions of people because they can't renew their commercial paper or they have to pay much higher rates for their short term loans

nobody really cares about the bad debt treasury is going to buy either. there are bank runs in progress right now and the bad debt is scaring investors from investing in money markets and commercial paper markets

in fact it wouldn't surprise me if the stock market is lower next year than it is today

it will be the republicans fault if CALPERS and all the union funds had imploded

Your belief?

if the republicans still manage to block the bailout and the money markets along with the bond markets implode than pretty much every pension fund in the US in big trouble

nobody cares about mom and pop stores since they aren't going to lay off millions of people because they can't renew their commercial paper or they have to pay much higher rates for their short term loans

nobody really cares about the bad debt treasury is going to buy either. there are bank runs in progress right now and the bad debt is scaring investors from investing in money markets and commercial paper markets

I was merely trying to argue against the notion of the bailout having to happen or an apocalypse will occur. $700B with limited oversight is unbelievable. I'm aware the bailout infusion will help in restoring "confidence", but does it address the problem? And what are the consequences? Who benefits and who loses? I'm guessing layoffs and economic pullback will continue even after the bailout. Also, I was always under the assumption small businesses were the backbone of America.

pretty sure we'll have a recession

my guess if no bailout better than 50% of another Great Depression. Almost every US business needs short term financing to stay afloat and every business funds every other business that uses short term financing.

if there is no bailout and the markets don't come back on their own then in the next few months almost every business in the US will have to pay off their short term debt if they can't refi it like they always do.

and since every balance sheet i've ever read says cash and cash equivelants it's everyone clearing out their bank accounts at once. you can have hundreds of companies go into BK just because they can't renew their loans and their balance sheets will be wiped out as the money markets implode

I was merely trying to argue against the notion of the bailout having to happen or an apocalypse will occur. $700B with limited oversight is unbelievable. I'm aware the bailout infusion will help in restoring "confidence", but does it address the problem? And what are the consequences? Who benefits and who loses? I'm guessing layoffs and economic pullback will continue even after the bailout. Also, I was always under the assumption small businesses were the backbone of America.

They will be screwed far worse if nothing happens.

if the republicans still manage to block the bailout and the money markets along with the bond markets implode than pretty much every pension fund in the US in big trouble


Yet the American public, not to mention the forum, seem to overwhelmingly agree with them. Would they really be blamed?

On second thought, you don't have to answer that.

my guess if no bailout better than 50% of another Great Depression.

A little exaggeration sometimes helps in an argument.

But the above................... :)

Or, are you also predicting another dust bowl if the bailout isn't passed?

I can't believe people are still debating whether there's going to be a fucking recession or not lol

nevermind, it isn't even funny, just pathetic

Credit, credit, credit....What's wrong with actually being able to pay a significant portion of the purchase price for the things you want to buy? It's time people realized exactly the situation they are in. Yes, wages suck. Yes, they're not going to be getting any better so quit trying to live the high life because it's never going to be yours. Accept the new reality and stop trying to bankroll an illusion. Put down the video games and remote and welcome to the first day of the rest of your life.

And as far as the boomers retiring? The people who gave us globalization, saw their kids wages drop through the floor so they could finance their lifestyle? Their kids and grandkids are going to end up living in cars up on concrete blocks when this is all done. And we're supposed to feel bad for them or care that they have a cushy pension or 401k for their retirement (a word that will probably be out of the English language by the time I'm elderly).

I agree with DrMabuse and others. No pain, no gain.

From the sound of things......the fov't is essentially bankrolling our economy. Here's another question I've yet to hear anyone mention. How long will $700B last? 3 months? Will liquidity be restored within that timeframe? What happens after that? Is the Bush administration merely trying to postpone doom until after Jan. 20th?

And as far as the boomers retiring? The people who gave us globalization, saw their kids wages drop through the floor so they could finance their lifestyle? Their kids and grandkids are going to end up living in cars up on concrete blocks when this is all done. And we're supposed to feel bad for them or care that they have a cushy pension or 401k for their retirement (a word that will probably be out of the English language by the time I'm elderly).God I really hope that this isn't the overwhelming belief of the American public. Your failure to understand the potential implications of what could happen without a bailout is pretty shocking to me.

The major objection most people have is the simple fact that taxpayers are on the rope for potentially huge losses. If liquidity is the issue at hand, I don't understand why the gov't couldn't just loan the money to the banks. Or how about temporarily buying the toxic assests from the firms with the understanding that the firms are still obligated to repurchase them from the gov't at face value when conditions have improved. The fact that each taxpayer could possibly be responsible for $5,000 because of corporate malfeasance is inexcusable.

Everybody here who has to worry about $100K FDIC insurance not covering their cash deposits, raise your hand!

:sad:Me too, but the amount currently uninsured? 2.1 trillion.

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/09/26/the-2-trillion-in-uninsured-bank-deposits

Well. When you're a billionaire, whats another million missing between the couch cushions. ;)

I have a question. It's reported WaMu has $300 Billion in assets, yet $8 Billion in debt caused them to be taken over and considered a "failed bank". Why. Why not sell your fucking assets to pay the bills? That's what normal people do? No?

"This detail could allow JPMorgan Chase & Co. to sell toxic mortgages and other assets it gained control of last week when it purchased Washington Mutual Inc. for a higher price than the failed thrift paid for them."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_bi_ge/rescue_package_details;_ylt=AggvXbN.rI9VFcRhL725ggWs0NUE

No wonder Wells Fargo and Citibank are in a bidding war for Wachovia. It's like exercising options on a corporate level.

#2 will never happen

most derivatives trading is legitimate hedging and exists in every financial market

Alas, it's that very trading in derivatives that got us into this pickle in the first place. Especially with something like US$1,000 trillion in derivatives at risk right now worldwide, which will essentially destroy the entire world's economy if this collapses. -eek-

Credit, credit, credit....What's wrong with actually being able to pay a significant portion of the purchase price for the things you want to buy? It's time people realized exactly the situation they are in. Yes, wages suck. Yes, they're not going to be getting any better so quit trying to live the high life because it's never going to be yours. Accept the new reality and stop trying to bankroll an illusion. Put down the video games and remote and welcome to the first day of the rest of your life.

I agree with DrMabuse and others. No pain, no gain.

I don't have kids. I keep up with all of my bills. I have $30k-or-so in debt (for a $20k car and some credit/loans ... some comfort ... mostly from when I started by own business when I was 19). If there were some huge (HUGE) problem, I don't think I'd have any problem continuing to keep up with my bills. Hell, I could probably consolidate and support my entire immediate family.

I really have no problem with what is or isn't happening. If it means I have to eat less, camp under the stars (or live with family ... for fucks sake) and ride my bike - that doesn't sound so bad. I dunno. I'm just not feeling the 'pressure' of this 'crisis'. Maybe it's because I'm 24 and have been working since I was twelve, 40-75hr weeks since I was 16.

Handing out credit to lesser-qualified folks seemed like a nobel thing to do. To be fair to the banks, they were only financing what these bankrupt fucktards really should have been able to pay. But I guess this mess proves that some people just don't deserve these comforts. I grew up, live and work with the working class. We've never had to worry about bills and stuff because we work a lot. We never had problems money because we focused on going to work and never overstepped our bounds. I don't get why everyone is being a bunch of crybabies about this. Let the banks deal with these issues themselves and get what's coming to them (and me, as a bystander to their ignorance).

I guess I'm just old-school. But when did not paying your bills become OK? This sort of thing has never been OK with our family. If the mortgage was due, or something bad happend, my parents fed us Ramen noodles everyday for supper and worked tons of overtime. When did "fuck it, lets call the bankrupcty lawyer" become the norm? I'm not THAT old, am I?

It's a shame that the lazy (the poor and the hot-air, phoney rich) fucked up the US' economy. If we do make it through this without too much trouble, remember this next time you call into work 'sick', or whine about not gettin' paid enough for your bullshit, do-nothing position, for your bullshit, do-nothing work ethic.

Whichever way this deal goes, I hope that it changes American's attitudes towards work and all around 'life effort'.

Anyways, that's my point of view. I probably won't say anything more about it.

The credit crunch had been happening for some time, doesn't anyone suspect that Wall Street is forcing their mess on Washington mainly because the timing is extrememly convenient?

I have a question. It's reported WaMu has $300 Billion in assets, yet $8 Billion in debt caused them to be taken over and considered a "failed bank". Why. Why not sell your fucking assets to pay the bills? That's what normal people do? No?

I'm guessing it's because a lot of those assets are illiquid mortgages that everyone is calling "toxic" these days. Nobody wants to buy it. Once you add that in with them having no cash or liquid assets, you end up where they are.

I have a question. It's reported WaMu has $300 Billion in assets, yet $8 Billion in debt caused them to be taken over and considered a "failed bank". Why. Why not sell your fucking assets to pay the bills? That's what normal people do? No?

Probably because many of their "assets" are overvalued homes and mortgages that were defaulted on. In other words, bad assets.

And this is what I was afraid of. If WaMu doesn't have $300 Billion in assets, but merely $300B worth of worthless paper, this is just one bank. How about these other banks and lending institutions. We're talking about a lot more money here, and I have to wonder if the US Gov't is just politely overlooking this fact, making consumers think $700B is going to do the job. I think it's far from. We could be looking at trillions of dollars burned up in the matter of weeks.

Looks like! 700 Billion is nothing. It's going to do nothing, and it's going to solve nothing. Franny and Freddie had trillions in holdings.

I don't have kids. I keep up with all of my bills. I have $30k-or-so in debt (for a $20k car and some credit/loans ... some comfort ... mostly from when I started by own business when I was 19). If there were some huge (HUGE) problem, I don't think I'd have any problem continuing to keep up with my bills. Hell, I could probably consolidate and support my entire immediate family.

I really have no problem with what is or isn't happening. If it means I have to eat less, camp under the stars (or live with family ... for fucks sake) and ride my bike - that doesn't sound so bad. I dunno. I'm just not feeling the 'pressure' of this 'crisis'. Maybe it's because I'm 24 and have been working since I was twelve, 40-75hr weeks since I was 16.

Handing out credit to lesser-qualified folks seemed like a nobel thing to do. To be fair to the banks, they were only financing what these bankrupt fucktards really should have been able to pay. But I guess this mess proves that some people just don't deserve these comforts. I grew up, live and work with the working class. We've never had to worry about bills and stuff because we work a lot. We never had problems money because we focused on going to work and never overstepped our bounds. I don't get why everyone is being a bunch of crybabies about this. Let the banks deal with these issues themselves and get what's coming to them (and me, as a bystander to their ignorance).

I guess I'm just old-school. But when did not paying your bills become OK? This sort of thing has never been OK with our family. If the mortgage was due, or something bad happend, my parents fed us Ramen noodles everyday for supper and worked tons of overtime. When did "fuck it, lets call the bankrupcty lawyer" become the norm? I'm not THAT old, am I?

It's a shame that the lazy (the poor and the hot-air, phoney rich) fucked up the US' economy. If we do make it through this without too much trouble, remember this next time you call into work 'sick', or whine about not gettin' paid enough for your bullshit, do-nothing position, for your bullshit, do-nothing work ethic.

Whichever way this deal goes, I hope that it changes American's attitudes towards work and all around 'life effort'.

Anyways, that's my point of view. I probably won't say anything more about it.

Poetic, but we're looking at the end of institutions that keep our society running. No more businesses or schools. An almost total welfare state. A society run amok. Martial law.

Even if that doesn't happen, we're looking at long-term problems - consistently high tax rates in the future, which would lead to the inevitable decline of the strength of our economy. The decay of our infrastructure and social institutions such as education and law enforcement.

When the rest of the world has been rioting due to high food prices and there's chaos run amok, it was only a matter of time before that bled into our relatively isolated society.

Ok, so here's an idea I had. These banks going under have a lot of toxic assets, most of which are in the form of homes that have been defaulted on, yes? So why doesn't the government, instead of spending at minimum $700 billion on attempted liquidity (which, according to the terms of this bailout, could be anything and everything the people making the decisions want it to be, with little to no oversight), buy these specific property assets from the banks, demolish the houses on the sites, and sell the raw property? Rezone them for business, or open them up to public works. This not only alleviates the pressure on the banks, but stimulates the economy as the need for jobs and materials opens up. Granted, the government would have to sell the lots at a loss to get corporations to bite on an expansion while we're in a recession, but it would at least be constructive and the American public could see where the money is going. Maybe they could give incentives to start-up businesses who want to purchase the lots.

Just a thought.

Ok, so here's an idea I had. These banks going under have a lot of toxic assets, most of which are in the form of homes that have been defaulted on, yes? So why doesn't the government, instead of spending at minimum $700 billion on attempted liquidity (which, according to the terms of this bailout, could be anything and everything the people making the decisions want it to be, with little to no oversight), buy these specific property assets from the banks, demolish the houses on the sites, and sell the raw property? Rezone them for business, or open them up to public works. This not only alleviates the pressure on the banks, but stimulates the economy as the need for jobs and materials opens up. Granted, the government would have to sell the lots at a loss to get corporations to bite on an expansion while we're in a recession, but it would at least be constructive and the American public could see where the money is going. Maybe they could give incentives to start-up businesses who want to purchase the lots.

Just a thought.

...why not just use the money for the bailout to go around and break everyone's windows?

Something has to change significantly. Maybe a depression will be enough to wake the lazy, apathetic, useless American people up and get them back into their role in the government. OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. Like the Celtic taking of Rome in ~390 BC woke them up as a nation, and they did great things, maybe a depression will have the same effect for us.

I doubt it. The people in my generation are nothing but sheltered and spoiled beyond belief. None of them even understand what is going on, and they don't even care.

...why not just use the money for the bailout to go around and break everyone's windows?

As someone who knows how to glaze windows, I approve this message.

I don't understand why there is even a discussion in Congress in regards to executive compensation w/ the supposed bailouts.

Compensation for what!?!

Running their firms into the ground?

Committing fraud?

Ruining the fucking economy?

Throw the no-good, greedy, incompetent, fraudulent bastards out on the street. They shouldn't get a dime of our money.

I don't understand why there is even a discussion in Congress in regards to executive compensation w/ the supposed bailouts.

Compensation for what!?!

Running their firms into the ground?

Committing fraud?

Ruining the fucking economy?

Throw the no-good, greedy, incompetent, fraudulent bastards out on the street. They shouldn't get a dime of our money.


Seriously. Where's the FBI in all this? Maybe the SEC should be given prosecution rights (aka more teeth).

Looks like! 700 Billion is nothing. It's going to do nothing, and it's going to solve nothing. Franny and Freddie had trillions in holdings.


Let's not forget, we're not even sure if sub-prime foreclosures have peaked yet. If the economy continues to turn south, we might also see an increase in a new type of defaults. Creditworthy borrowers out of work.

So it looks like the resolution doesn't contain any provisions allowing judges to revise loans for struggling homeowners.

Ok, so here's an idea I had. These banks going under have a lot of toxic assets, most of which are in the form of homes that have been defaulted on, yes? So why doesn't the government, instead of spending at minimum $700 billion on attempted liquidity (which, according to the terms of this bailout, could be anything and everything the people making the decisions want it to be, with little to no oversight), buy these specific property assets from the banks, demolish the houses on the sites, and sell the raw property? Rezone them for business, or open them up to public works. This not only alleviates the pressure on the banks, but stimulates the economy as the need for jobs and materials opens up. Granted, the government would have to sell the lots at a loss to get corporations to bite on an expansion while we're in a recession, but it would at least be constructive and the American public could see where the money is going. Maybe they could give incentives to start-up businesses who want to purchase the lots.

Just a thought.


Because their toxic assets aren't in the form of homes that have been defaulted on.

Throw the no-good, greedy, incompetent, fraudulent bastards out on the street. They shouldn't get a dime of our money.

:up:

And this is what I was afraid of. If WaMu doesn't have $300 Billion in assets, but merely $300B worth of worthless paper, this is just one bank. How about these other banks and lending institutions. We're talking about a lot more money here, and I have to wonder if the US Gov't is just politely overlooking this fact, making consumers think $700B is going to do the job. I think it's far from. We could be looking at trillions of dollars burned up in the matter of weeks.

Or not.

They don't possess worthless paper.

I don't understand why there is even a discussion in Congress in regards to executive compensation w/ the supposed bailouts.

Compensation for what!?!

Running their firms into the ground?

Committing fraud?

Ruining the fucking economy?

Throw the no-good, greedy, incompetent, fraudulent bastards out on the street. They shouldn't get a dime of our money.

It's probably due to the massive consolidation of power in the finance world due to unparalleled de-regulation that hasn't been effect since before the great depression, an ignorant and apathetic public, a corrupt government that has been officially bought out, cronyism in the highest levels of government and banking, the inability of the government's three branches to mitigate each other's actions anymore, and good old fashioned greed that has created a culture of entitlement and unscrupulous behavior that has completely saturated the corporate world.

Fortis nationalised. ABN to be sold off, likely to ING. RBS takes hit as result.

It's probably due to the massive consolidation of power in the finance world due to unparalleled de-regulation that hasn't been effect since before the great depression, an ignorant and apathetic public, a corrupt government that has been officially bought out, cronyism in the highest levels of government and banking, the inability of the government's three branches to mitigate each other's actions anymore, and good old fashioned greed that has created a culture of entitlement and unscrupulous behavior that has completely saturated the corporate world.

I've always wondered, at what point do wealthy individuals say......"I've made it, I've got all I need, what can I do to help those less fortunate and make the world a better place"?

Altruism is dead, and greed has killed it. Maybe the rock stars and Hollywood actors aren't as shortsighted as they seem.

I've always wondered, at what point do wealthy individuals say......"I've made it, I've got all I need, what can I do to help those less fortunate and make the world a better place"?

Altruism is dead, and greed has killed it. Maybe the rock stars and Hollywood actors aren't as shortsighted as they seem.

This is not about altruism. This is about honesty.

This is not about altruism. This is about honesty.


Different side of the same coin. Greed spawns corruption and dishonesty.

I have a question. It's reported WaMu has $300 Billion in assets, yet $8 Billion in debt caused them to be taken over and considered a "failed bank". Why. Why not sell your fucking assets to pay the bills? That's what normal people do? No?


everyone knows the banks that are having problems and FDIC is already taking bids before they fail to make the process very fast.

Unless WaMu agreed to be sold for less than$1.9 billion there was no reason to buy them.

A little exaggeration sometimes helps in an argument.

But the above................... :)

Or, are you also predicting another dust bowl if the bailout isn't passed?

not a dust bowl but a pretty good percentage of companies either defaulting on their short term bonds or having to lay off a lot of people because their money costs skyrocketed.

look at Wal Mart's Q2 2008 balance sheet as an example. $6.9 billion in cash and short term investments and $6.8 billion