+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Americanbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Kent Rowald Memorial Quad (/forum-660.html)
+------ Thread: OT- the bailout (/thread-316157.html)
OT- the bailout - THRILL - 09-19-2008 02:17 PM
I'm not happy about it, and I knew it was gonna be bad when the Fed kept lowering the rate but I didnt know it would be this bad.
anyhew,, not looking to blame, theres enough of that going around Im more curious about what your solution might be?
GO OWLS beat texas
RE: OT- the bailout - TFW - 09-19-2008 02:49 PM
THRILL Wrote:I'm not happy about it, and I knew it was gonna be bad when the Fed kept lowering the rate but I didnt know it would be this bad.
anyhew,, not looking to blame, theres enough of that going around Im more curious about what your solution might be?
GO OWLS beat texas
I know it wouldn't be a good idea, but half of me wants to just let it go on it's own and see what happens. My question is why does the government need to do anything? I mean, is the fedaral government supposed to be in the banking business? The Libertarian in me says that the government should just stay out of it. That would probably result in a second "Great Depression."
RE: OT- the bailout - gsloth - 09-19-2008 03:01 PM
Not really a great depression, per se, but there would be a great global seizure of the financial markets and the ability of US companies and governments to gain access to credit to fund our desire to spend more than we take in would be severely curtailed. Would that result in a depression? Maybe, but there are other alternatives - none of which are desirable, either.
I'm no economist, but I understand this enough to be really scared. And I don't think this is the end of it. There's a lot more danger to come.
RE: OT- the bailout - THRILL - 09-19-2008 03:01 PM
TFW Wrote:agreed, Im more than a little peeved, whats worse is people will still lose their homes and I doubt many higher ups at these financial institutions will lose any Jobs,$$ or sleep over it.THRILL Wrote:I'm not happy about it, and I knew it was gonna be bad when the Fed kept lowering the rate but I didnt know it would be this bad.
anyhew,, not looking to blame, theres enough of that going around Im more curious about what your solution might be?
GO OWLS beat texas
I know it wouldn't be a good idea, but half of me wants to just let it go on it's own and see what happens. My question is why does the government need to do anything? I mean, is the fedaral government supposed to be in the banking business? The Libertarian in me says that the government should just stay out of it. That would probably result in a second "Great Depression."
RE: OT- the bailout - ColOwl - 09-19-2008 03:23 PM
The only defense against the establishment of an oligarchy of the corporate/industrial/financial elite is a government that has more money than they do.
RE: OT- the bailout - chapel hill owl - 09-19-2008 06:00 PM
I keep wondering how much bailin' out the Fed can do before we start having negative economic consequences from that. That said, there's an article on the Times' website that talks about a meeting that Paulson and Bernanke had with congressional leaders last night. They basically laid out what would happen if they don't have this mega-bailout. The consequences are so bad, no one would even talk about it afterwards. When was the last time you saw a senator at a loss for words?
The link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/washington/19cnd-cong.html?hp
That said, we clearly need to turn our fortunes around. I'm thinking a big fundraiser. We should sell a whole effin' bunch of candy bars to the Chinese. And whoever sells lots of candy bars can earn exciting prizes, like an am/fm radio or a skateboard. Also, the state that sells the most candy bars will earn a pizza party. Minnesota will gain an edge when it asks its mom if it can just leave an order sheet in Canada.
RE: OT- the bailout - amber34 - 09-19-2008 06:00 PM
THRILL Wrote:agreed, Im more than a little peeved, whats worse is people will still lose their homes and I doubt many higher ups at these financial institutions will lose any Jobs,$$ or sleep over it.
Not lose any money? Are you serious? AIG higher-ups have huge equity stakes--I read that someone, forget who it was, had the value of his shares go from billions to $28 million more or less overnight. Granted, they're probably still set for life, but they most certainly have lost a F-ton of money. And their jobs, too--AIG's CEO was replaced, and I'd expect much of management to follow. Same with Fannie and Freddie, for that matter. When massive investment banks go under completely, plenty of higher-ups lose their jobs--it happened at Bear and now at Lehman and AIG, too.
I'm pretty libertarian, but this doesn't bother me because the alternative was worse. The so-called bailout isn't even going to end up costing the taxpayers anything--they're paying cents on the dollar for assets that aren't worthless but rather nobody knows what they're worth right now. The bottom line is that the vast majority of homeowners are paying their mortgages on time--even for sub-prime, last I checked the figure was north of 80 percent. Since the securities are based on these repayments, which are fundamentally okay, the securities will be okay in the end, too--but nobody besides the government had the stomach to wait it out.
RE: OT- the bailout - THRILL - 09-19-2008 07:34 PM
amber34 Wrote:they didnt LOSE money they had,, they lost theoretical dollars,THRILL Wrote:agreed, Im more than a little peeved, whats worse is people will still lose their homes and I doubt many higher ups at these financial institutions will lose any Jobs,$$ or sleep over it.
Not lose any money? Are you serious? AIG higher-ups have huge equity stakes--I read that someone, forget who it was, had the value of his shares go from billions to $28 million more or less overnight. Granted, they're probably still set for life, but they most certainly have lost a F-ton of money. And their jobs, too--AIG's CEO was replaced, and I'd expect much of management to follow. Same with Fannie and Freddie, for that matter. When massive investment banks go under completely, plenty of higher-ups lose their jobs--it happened at Bear and now at Lehman and AIG, too.
I'm pretty libertarian, but this doesn't bother me because the alternative was worse. The so-called bailout isn't even going to end up costing the taxpayers anything--they're paying cents on the dollar for assets that aren't worthless but rather nobody knows what they're worth right now. The bottom line is that the vast majority of homeowners are paying their mortgages on time--even for sub-prime, last I checked the figure was north of 80 percent. Since the securities are based on these repayments, which are fundamentally okay, the securities will be okay in the end, too--but nobody besides the government had the stomach to wait it out.
( dont correct me, you know what I mean) real Money not potential
and youre right about the VAST majority of homeowners are paying on time,, ALOT of this is the result of specualtion or ASSUMPTIONS and we all know what happens when u assume
Anyone else wearing their Tuck Fexas shirt tomorrow?
RE: OT- the bailout - Hambone10 - 09-19-2008 08:39 PM
okay.. I could give a long diatribe about this... but in a nutshell... our financial markets are based on the free flow of credit at a price... when that flow stops... its not just that one business that stops... but a thousand related crashes...
RE: OT- the bailout - WoodlandsOwl - 09-20-2008 01:09 PM
Hambone10 Wrote:okay.. I could give a long diatribe about this... but in a nutshell... our financial markets are based on the free flow of credit at a price... when that flow stops... its not just that one business that stops... but a thousand related crashes...
If these institutional investors are having "liquidity problems" as the news reports, why not do a Chapter 11 and restructure and resolve the matter?
That's why they have Bankruptcy Courts.
RE: OT- the bailout - amber34 - 09-20-2008 01:26 PM
THRILL Wrote:they didnt LOSE money they had,, they lost theoretical dollars,
( dont correct me, you know what I mean) real Money not potential
I honestly have no idea what you mean. I'm not talking about future earnings that won't materialize due to job loss--I'm talking about the value of assets in their portfolios, of which their firms' stock was a significant portion. You're talking 95+% equity losses for some of these firms.
I sure as hell don't think of my investments (indeed, including some company stock) as not "real money" just because it's in equities and not cash...
RE: OT- the bailout - Vegas Owl - 09-20-2008 01:34 PM
Hambone10 Wrote:okay.. I could give a long diatribe about this... but in a nutshell... our financial markets are based on the free flow of credit at a price... when that flow stops... its not just that one business that stops... but a thousand related crashes...
So, the key question I do not see any talking heads asking (not that I would expect them to, they are shills for their masters), "why did the givers of credit stop providing it?"
I feel for any individual who has gone through a corporate bankrupcy. However, there are worse things than bankrupcy. I fear that our current "leaders" are taking us to a place far worse than bankrupcy.
Disclosure: I worked with a company that went through bankrupcy. It was not a happy time, but most survived. A few of the crooks involved with it are still out there, but I feel confident that they will see justice some day.
RE: OT- the bailout - OwlSD - 09-21-2008 02:52 AM
THRILL Wrote:agreed, Im more than a little peeved, whats worse is people will still lose their homes and I doubt many higher ups at these financial institutions will lose any Jobs,$$ or sleep over it.
The feds won't solve the overall problems unless the flow of foreclosures is slowed to a trickle. If the market is flooded with foreclosed homes or houses selling at fire-sale prices to avoid foreclosure, causing the value of all other properties to sink like a stone, then this ain't gonna work.
Unless the "bailout" both stops the erosion of housing prices and frees up plenty of money for willing buyers to buy the homes that are on the market, then this bailout is going to be just a waste of $700 billion, or a $700 billion windfall for a few very lucky and very well connected people.
RE: OT- the bailout - Grungy - 09-21-2008 03:32 AM
amber34 Wrote:THRILL Wrote:they didnt LOSE money they had,, they lost theoretical dollars,
( dont correct me, you know what I mean) real Money not potential
I honestly have no idea what you mean. I'm not talking about future earnings that won't materialize due to job loss--I'm talking about the value of assets in their portfolios, of which their firms' stock was a significant portion. You're talking 95+% equity losses for some of these firms.
I sure as hell don't think of my investments (indeed, including some company stock) as not "real money" just because it's in equities and not cash...
Thrill appears to be looking at it the same way that I do: it's all theoretical except for two times - when the item (whatever - stocks, bonds, mutual funds, '81 Aggie halftime screw-up videotape futures) is purchased and when it is sold. All interim values are theoretical. So, Thrill, I'm not trying to correct you; I hope I know what you mean; you're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.
RE: OT- the bailout - georgewebb - 09-21-2008 06:56 AM
ColOwl Wrote:The only defense against the establishment of an oligarchy of the corporate/industrial/financial elite is a government that has more money than they do.It is hard to believe that INCREASING the concentration of money and power would actually be a good thing.
I am pretty sure that I have never in my life heard anyone argue that giving more money to government is an inherent good. Until now.
RE: OT- the bailout - Fort Bend Owl - 09-21-2008 08:59 AM
I'm going to move this to the new Rice spin room just so people are aware we have another option for now for OT threads.
RE: OT- the bailout - lauramac - 09-21-2008 09:04 AM
chapel hill owl Wrote:[W]e clearly need to turn our fortunes around. I'm thinking a big fundraiser. We should sell a whole effin' bunch of candy bars to the Chinese. And whoever sells lots of candy bars can earn exciting prizes, like an am/fm radio or a skateboard. Also, the state that sells the most candy bars will earn a pizza party. Minnesota will gain an edge when it asks its mom if it can just leave an order sheet in Canada.
Yeah, but poor Oklahoma will get in big trouble when we eat a bunch of the candy bars & then have to pay for them out of our allowance.
RE: OT- the bailout - Owl 69/70/75 - 09-21-2008 10:08 AM
georgewebb Wrote:ColOwl Wrote:The only defense against the establishment of an oligarchy of the corporate/industrial/financial elite is a government that has more money than they do.It is hard to believe that INCREASING the concentration of money and power would actually be a good thing.
I am pretty sure that I have never in my life heard anyone argue that giving more money to government is an inherent good. Until now.
This has always been the most difficult part of the liberal mantra for me to understand. Concentrating power in a few capitalist hands is evil. Concentrating the same power in a smaller number of government hands, hands which are connected to other hands that have powers to do things like put me in jail, is somehow a good thing.
Makes absolutely no sense, unless we assume that somehow people's baser motives turn pure when the source of their paycheck moves from the private sector to the government. Ain't so. Actually, in a career that has been split between government and private sector, I would say that I've seen far more instances of malicious greed from government than private sector personnel.
The profit motive gets a lot of grief. But it is actually an excellent disciplinary tool. Somehow it seems to me that you're more likely to get beneficial results out of a situation where you get more money by giving people a product they want to buy, instead of getting more money by failing to accomplish anything and convincing politicians that you failed only because they didn't give you enough money in the first place.
Question from an engineer... - WeatherfordOwl - 09-21-2008 09:07 PM
Maybe some of you business types can help this old EE. Why do I care if the (paper) value of my house drops, unless I'm trying to sell it right at that time? If I'm still able to make the payments for it, or if it's already paid for, why do I care? Why wouldn't I actually want the paper value to drop so that my property taxes might decrease?
RE: Question from an engineer... - ausowl - 09-21-2008 10:32 PM
WeatherfordOwl Wrote:Maybe some of you business types can help this old EE. Why do I care if the (paper) value of my house drops, unless I'm trying to sell it right at that time? If I'm still able to make the payments for it, or if it's already paid for, why do I care? Why wouldn't I actually want the paper value to drop so that my property taxes might decrease?
NY Times Article - Fair Game - Your Money at Work, Fixing Others' Mistakes
and if you want a populist spin on matters, a friend's blog:
http://foreclosurebuzz.org/