OT: Banking Crisis/Politics
by Black Francis on Sep 23, 2008 3:17 PM CDT
Email
PrintYou all knew this was coming. Another politics thread. I'd really like it to be just an economics thread but am realistic and know that politics plays a role and will be brought up.
To start off I thought I would ask some questions of the group:
1. $700 billion dollars requested by Treasury to bail out struggling banks. Good idea or bad?
2. How bad could this get? If the bailout package is passed, the dollar will fall. Oil prices will rise. There will be inflation.
3. At this point I don't think anyone can make a reasonable argument that our regulatory structure needs changing. What types of regulations should be sought, and which should be avoided?
4. Lastly, how might the crisis ultimately affect you?
Try to be as civil as possible.
276 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well...
money market instruments are vital short-term debt instruments. Failure of the money market would be catastrophic. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of companies basically being able to off-load bad debt on the government. Just because the market on a security has dried up, making their effective liquidating value $0, doesn’t mean that they have a value of $0 held to maturity, so it’s not like $700 billion spent in the now would be a $700 billion sunk cost, but I don’t like the idea of the government making a market on any security.
As I see it, a government action like this just makes it much harder to effectively price risk. On top of that, much of the current problems exist because apparently the “experts” can’t price risk accurately anyway.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
risk
Not sure if you’re familiar with Fooled By Randomness, it’s a fascinating book by Nassim Taleb – published in the early 00’s. He skewers the so-called Wall Street “experts” and their false confidence in unknowable risk assessment. It really is the underlying issure with the current situation. These guys weren’t any greedier or more incompetent than normal. They just happened to be falsely betting their businesses on ridiculous risk management that was the prevailing conventional wisdom.
by Randy Richardson on Sep 23, 2008 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions
I think it...
all comes back to an artificially low interest rate. If the cost of financing is extremely low, high leverage bets make a lot of sense… that is, until you find out that the risk premium isn’t accurate.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
What I wanna learn is whether there are other facets of the markets
that could be subject to panics like this. Are we gonna have to bail out something else?
So, there’s been a financial stimulus for consumers, previous bailouts that I can’t even remember, and now a bailout of the money market panic. Anything else we might wanna think about?
Go Rangers!
Well...
liquidity for debt markets is pretty important to the function of the financial markets. I can’t really think of anything comparable.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
This bailout seems more critical than others, though I still hate the idea
of not letting those who have behaved irresponsibly to sink away. I think the political backlash has more to do with the number of bailouts that have occurred. If this had been the first, I’m not sure there would be this much uproar.
So, if it is difficult to accurately price risk and maybe even more difficult now with a bailout, is oversight even possible?
Go Rangers!
Well...
the bailout doesn’t actually bail out the money market fund which broke the buck, which I find interesting.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
1st time in history.
That was significant.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Do you know about credit default swaps?
Credit default swaps described by Reuters.
They are derivatives designed to protect banks and other lending institutions from large default rates. However, some of them were making contracts without having the cash available should a call be made on the contract.
In one notorious case, a small hedge fund agreed to insure UBS AG (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), the Swiss banking giant, from losses related to defaults on $1.3 billion of subprime mortgages for an annual premium of about $2 million.
The trouble was, the hedge fund set up a subsidiary to stand behind the guarantee — and capitalized it with just $4.6 million. As long as the loans performed, the fund made a killing, raking in an annualized return of nearly 44 percent.
But in the summer of 2007, as home owners began to default, things got ugly. UBS demanded the hedge fund put up additional collateral. The fund balked. UBS sued.
Not anything like a money market, but it seems to have played a role. It seems this sort of thing could be one reason the Fed has made some emergency cash loans.
Go Rangers!
it played a HUGE role...
you could buy a credit default swap and short a company and make a killing if the company did poorly…
"He wont have anything. 1 man, 0 tools."~ hiafex bout longhorn...
My input
I live 10 min. from NYC and I’m a trader so I have a good handle on the market. I don’t think we should’ve ever pumped $$$$ to the mortgage companies and I was pissed that we gave something like 80B in August 2007. We are just throwing money away and the problem doesn’t get solved. We should’ve let these companies go under and let economy over time fix itself.
We have a serious recession in where we are. My g/f’s parents own a limo company and had to close. My Dad owns a construction company (one of the biggest in NJ) and can’t get any work. A bunch of my friends are laid off of work and are jobless. You’re having financial companies firing people left and right in NYC.
This 700B will not fix anything and in about 1 year (especially in my region), we will be in a DEPRESSION (that’s right, a depression!).
Instead of letting one area die (Mortgage), we tried to fix a losing battle. Now we have more problems and holes than swiss cheese.
if a company is so big that the government needs to bail them out
then they should be broken up via anti-trust legislation.
Companies should be capable of failing without the entire market failing.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
Yep,
any business “too big to fail” either needs to be cut down to size via anti-trust regulation, regulated, or nationalized. The silliness of deregulating an industry, only to have to bail it out, is just absurd.
Any industry where the Executives can give themselves Billions in bonuses, and need Trillion dollar government bailouts have something inherently wrong with them. If the Government takes the downside, they need to participate in the upside.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
That's all well and good...
and I suppose it would make sense if this bailout were targeted to a specific company. But it’s not.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
The bailout is to an industry
that needs heavy reregulation.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
AMEN!
The silliness of deregulating an industry, only to have to bail it out, is just absurd.
though, the problem is we let it happen. i don’t want to have to bail out these companies. especially the ones that got rich off of the practices that created the problem. but the truth is, they are to big to let fail and its too late now to let help them with the modifier “okay but seriously, this is your last warning….”
letting investment banks over leverage in all the ways a holding company can’t was ludacris but its happened and we have to do something. francis asked “how bad could this get?”… the answer is scary bad. we haven’t technically been in a recession yet, and its been rough. take what its like now, increase unemployment dramatically, increase already runaway inflation, and throw in a complete and udder in ability to lend/borrow money for anyone…. now, do all that, and lose 15% value on your home and 30% of your 401k… yeah, not a lot of fun…
the really upsetting part is that wall st reacted poorly today because capitol hill replied to their request for a $700bil blank check with a “um, you’re gonna have to tell us more”… did the larger investment firms really think they were going to get to wipe away all their screw ups without ANY consequences… that takes HUGE balls…
"He wont have anything. 1 man, 0 tools."~ hiafex bout longhorn...
Deregulation and bailouts
I agree completely. You can’t have deregulation and free markets if there is an implicit guarantee that the government will keep you from going out of business. It throws off all the valuations of risk – basically allowing companies to offset their risk to the government, which encourages risky behavior.
The idea behind deregulation is that the market will regulate itself. But having any government interference will only benefit the very nefarious companies that regulation is supposed to protect against. That is why Enron could take advantage of a half-deregulated energy industry. That is why these companies took advantage of a high risk housing market with an administration that take care of them. Deregulation is okay – I’d argue even ideal – but it has to be real.
Bailout
1. A necessary idea. A huge bailout of some form will have to happen or the markets will be unsustainable. I hope they are able to construct it in such a way that the financial institutions who were conservitive in their approach will come out as real winners ready to reap the rewards of the “new” financial system.
2. I don’t know.
3. Better regulation is needed. The Dems need to be careful not to swing the pendulum drastically the other way and stifle future growth.
4. I don’t know.
by Randy Richardson on Sep 23, 2008 3:51 PM CDT reply actions
My takes
1. Horrible idea. Bad investments should be coupled to bad losses. If banks are over-exposed and end up failing because of this, then other banks will emerge that don’t foolishly invest in high risk securities/bonds/etc.. If the government bails out now, nothing will stop these people from investing in foolish investments in the future, knowing that any risk is offset by the precedent of government bailout.
As for money markets, people should read their prospectus’s. Its not insured, which is part of the reason you are getting that 2% a year more than that dope with the savings accounts.
2. If passed, I think the dollar will be worthless, oil will be 30% more expensive, and these companies will not learn their lessons. Long term the market will still suffer.
If not passed, the dollar will be stronger, but at least one major bank (like Goldman or Citi) may fail. That will dry up money supply considerably, and the economy will grind to a halt. Mortgages will be near impossible to get, making housing prices fall to WHERE THEY SHOULD BE faster. But the economy will be able to recover
3. The problem has been too much regulation. The government’s hands are dirty in this industry. Freddie and Fannie should never have been government backed, and their function should never have been regulated by congress. This discouraged competition, allowing them to balloon in size. Had their function been distributed across many companies, some may have failed, but others would have survived, minimizing the damage.
What should be done is increased transparency in accounting rules. For people to not know who owns what is ridiculous. Didn’t we learn all of this from Enron? I guess not.
4. My stocks have gone to hell, and I want to buy a house within the year. On the latter issue, I’m divided. Obviously I want to be able to get a mortgage, but I also want prices to fall sooner rather than later. I’m in San Diego, where housing is still 30% higher than it should be.
Perfect
So anyone wanna help me with my homework? I need an example of liberal and conservative bias from recent papers or TV reports. If not i know y’all know of some sites that have those… If you can give the link (s) It’d be appreciated and I will drink a Sprite in your honor tonight. :)
"Mr. Hicks, you watch, I'm going to be a leader on this team." Kinsler
Not really bias
but this TNR blurb talks about a couple of places where media is backlashing against Palin.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/23/even-cnn-is-getting-snarky.aspx
Amusing at the very least. But if you use it, drink a Dr Pepper for me instead…
Yeah
it has to be biased. Thanks anyways though.
"Mr. Hicks, you watch, I'm going to be a leader on this team." Kinsler
This isn't a thread for that, really.
Advice would be to go to a conservative blog and look at what they complain about. Then go to a liberal blog and look at what they complain about. There ya go.
by Black Francis on Sep 23, 2008 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry
I just read Banking Crisis/Politics and posted the question, didn’t read that you wanted to leave politics out of it if possible. My bad. But thanks, that’s what I’m probably gonna end up doing.
"Mr. Hicks, you watch, I'm going to be a leader on this team." Kinsler
It's cool.
That’s a topic that once it gets brought up it just overwhelms everything else, though.
by Black Francis on Sep 23, 2008 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Serious question
Since the root of this problem is the risk of mortgage defaults on homes, wouldn’t it be smarter to just give money to taxpayers to refinance? They keep their homes, the banks don’t lose their money, the credit swap dominos don’t fall, and you aren’t just bailing out huge companies, you’re directly helping people keep their homes.
Isn’t that a better idea than buying up bad debt and somehow hoping it will not completely deflate in value?
The bailout is terrible, and I can’t believe that some are actually suggesting that congress should not be asking all kinds of questions and attaching provisos before handing out such a colossal sum of money.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
Only if you give it to every taxpayer
and not to the morons who signed mortgages they couldn’t afford (and if anyone of you guys reading this did that, then, yes, I’m talking about you).
I moved to Cali 6 years ago, and everyone and their dog told me to buy something, even though I was making $37K/year. “You don’t need a down payment – you can finance with 0% equity!” “Don’t worry about it going down, real estate always goes up!” “There is no more land, only more buyers!” “You can get away with paying only interest for the first 5 years!” Blah, blah, blah. I looked at a market that was obviously overpriced, and looked at my obviously too small income, and said “Hell No.” Everyone thought I was stupid. And for a few years there, I actually began to worry. But I was right – it was a bubble.
It is completely ridiculous, unfair, communistic, and every other word I can’t say for the government to bail out individuals who went against basic home finance logic and reason and bought something they couldn’t afford. Bail them out with MY TAX MONEY!!! No way.
Not to mention that if the government gives a $10,000 check to everyone today, they’ll need to tax that back from us tomorrow. That doesn’t work.
maybe
But how is that any worse than forking over hundreds of billions to the companies that took on those terrible loans? They are at least as responsible for this mess, if not more so.
"You’re the only here who contributes schtick only." - brettgardner
It's everyone's fault
People that kept refinancing to increase their loan amounts against the equity in their homes to cover other debt eventually tapped themselves out, which is dumb. But then again, you had the companies that would bend rules (i.e. only including one borrower’s credit scores) to get people loans they shouldn’t get. The companies were trying to screw the borrowers and now the borrowers have collectively screwed the lenders.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
I'm saying don't give it to any of them
I prefer to let them all lose their shirts.
But you absolutely cannot pick and choose taxpayers to benefit. As for companies, you can pay them pennies on the dollar for what their losses are – just enough to keep them in business (but not enough to allow them to profit by it.
Of course, if you give it to the companies, you do it methodically and with a lot of strings
1. One time offer of 40% face value of mortgage payments – something obviously under market value, but they get a take it or leave it option. Long term, this gives the government an asset that is probably worth 60% of face value – it will actually be a net positive to the government coffers.
2. To accept, companies have to voluntarily negate any payments to their current Board or executives in excess of $100K (extreme? yes. But you’re getting a deal that lets you stay in business)
3. Company goes into probationary period, which involves complete disclosure of ALL positions and will face very stiff penalties for any SEC violation.
I’m sure others can think of additional regulations.
Basically, the idea will be to remove any assets off the books that have high risk associated. The companies cannot make money off of it, but they can gain stability. This keeps these companies in business, while putting assets in the hand of the government that probably have more long-term value that we realize right now.
SEC is outta the pic-
The firms that are really hurting have just been recertified as Commercial Banks, as an emergency measure. This allows them to function as depositories, i.e., accept deposits to raise much needed capital.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
you absolutely cannot pick and choose taxpayers to benefit
that’s a nice idea but not the way the US works. I have friends who tried to get tarps for their roofs in Houston after Ike from FEMA and were told they made too much money. Of course they are the people with high income jobs that pay for all the disaster relief with their taxes.
by thedudeabides on Sep 24, 2008 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions
couldn't agree more
let the banks fail, and FDIC will protect accounts under $100K (anyone with more than that in a single account is an idiot since you can structure around it), SIPC will protect securities accounts up to $500K (same point).
let the idiots lose their houses, I’ll buy a house and some rental property during the fire sale.
the economy will contract, people will lose jobs. bring it on, we need to put our fiscal house in order in this country
by thedudeabides on Sep 24, 2008 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Warren Buffett has been talking about this for years, people that pay attention are prepared. Buy BRK, take physical delivery, relax with a cocktail.
private profits followed by public risk is pure bs
by thedudeabides on Sep 24, 2008 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah,
He long ago had Berkshire Hathaway get out of the derivatives market, since its the models that a lot of the derivative trading are based on have ridiculous assumptions..
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Yup, BRK was never in the market but after they acquired GenRe in 1998 he unwound the positions that they inherited in the acquisition. He has always called derivatives “financial weapons of mass destruction” because ultimately you can’t effectively hedge counterparty risk.
by thedudeabides on Sep 25, 2008 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Bill already passed:
This page is located on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Homes and Communities Web site at http://www.hud.gov/news/recoveryactfaq.cfm.
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 FAQ
Q: How will the law help struggling homeowners keep their homes?
A: Through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), an estimated 400,000 borrowers in danger of losing their homes will be able to refinance into more affordable government-insured mortgages. The program offers government insurance to lenders who voluntarily reduce mortgages for at-risk homeowners to at least 90% of the property’s current value.
Q: When will the program begin?
A: The program will begin on October 1, 2008 and sunset on September 30, 2011. Homeowners in danger of losing their homes before October 1, however, should not wait to contact their loan servicers and should begin applying for federally insured mortgages now.
Q: Who is eligible?
A: To be eligible to participate in this program, a borrower must:
Have a loan on an owner-occupied principal residence. Investors, speculators, or borrowers who own second homes cannot participate in this program.
Have a monthly mortgage payment greater than at least 31 percent of the borrower’s total monthly income, as of March 1, 2008.
Certify that he or she has not intentionally defaulted on an existing mortgage, and did not obtain the existing loan fraudulently.
Not have been convicted of fraud.
Q: How can a homeowner access this new program?
A: Homeowners or a servicer of an existing eligible loan need to contact an FHA-approved lender. The FHA-approved lender will determine the size of a loan that a borrower can reasonably repay and that meets the requirements of the program. If the current lender or mortgage holder agrees to write-down the amount of the existing mortgage and make the new loan affordable, the FHA lender will pay off the discounted existing mortgage. Loans provided under this program must be 30-year fixed rate loans.
Q: How does this law help neighborhoods that have been hit by the foreclosure crisis?
A: The impact of the current crisis has not been isolated to individual borrowers or investors, but has been felt broadly by neighbors, communities, and governments across the nation. The law strengthens neighborhoods hit hardest by the foreclosure crisis by providing $3.9 billion in Community Development Block Grants to states and localities to buy foreclosed homes standing empty, rehabilitate foreclosed properties, and stabilize the housing market.
Content updated August 5, 2008
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Bottom of post
This is already something that has been in place.
I doubt we get word on the $700B proposal until Thursday.
"But the major difference is where Showalter tried to overthink everything Washington at times seems like he isn't thinking at all. " - rentz
Exactly
That’s the most straightforward way to do it. I’m not crazy about bailing out people who took out the bad loans, but if it’s a choice between them and the firms that got us into this mess, I say help the homeowners. I think this solution along with new regs to make sure this doesn’t happen again would be the best way to get us out of the current crisis and keep the coming recession as shallow as possible.
"You’re the only here who contributes schtick only." - brettgardner
I've thought of that too
I’m more of a bottom up guy than a top down guy, and such a plan has intrinsic appeal to me. The problem is that it would be difficult to implement, and what do you do about all the liabilities that have already been foreclosed upon?
Plus, this may have started with mortgages, but it’s now gone far beyond just that. Maybe shoring up some of these loans would provide a needed injection of capital into the market, but it doesn’t really fix anything. Plus, if that guy down the street is gonna get a bunch of money, where’s mine? You’ll have a lot of that.
The whole thing is just fucked up. Every solution has big problems attached to it. I don’t think we do nothing, though, because capitalism needs liquidity to function. Whatever is done, I hope it’s thought through very thoroughly and if it doesn’t work then we are smart enough to pull the plug and change directions.
If the dollar wasn’t already so weak I could stomach something like this a little better. The $700B wouldn’t be spent all at once. But when you’re starting with a weak currency this approach has trouble written all over it. The effects could be just as bad as doing nothing about the problem.
by Black Francis on Sep 23, 2008 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Global Liquidity Crisis-
The US is not the only country getting F’ed by the current situation. If this is not contained, the entire world will be plunged into a massive recession.
If Mr. Joe who owns a small company cannot access capital, he fires employees to balance the budget. Then bigger companies follow suit, and then large companies, and then multi-national companies…you get it…
That’s my $.02…as per my policy, I will now vacate this politico thread.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Well
Thankfully it has not become political just yet. I’m sure it will at some point but I’ve been pleasantly surprised so far. Lots of thoughtful, reasonable responses.
by Black Francis on Sep 23, 2008 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions
True...that's nice!
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
I guess
I still need to be educated. The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should. I’ve got Greenspan’s book.
This is interesting...
not endorsing it either way, but it was passed on to me…
http://townhall.com/Columnists/NealBoortz/2008/09/19/the_rest_of_the_meltdown_story
I'd love for part of the "new look" to be a return to the red uniforms of the 1990s. - Ian Kinsler
I think we can say there is enough blame to go around
I don’t fully buy the “we were told we had to make these loans!” arguments – because many of the banks that are failing are not the ones who wrote the mortgages, but big investment banks that failed to properly assess the cost to the risk associated when they invested in big bundles of the loans. Maybe the banks didn’t want to write sub-prime loans, but they did, charged more money for them to offset that risk, and soon realized that they could make a lot of money off of them.
Now, I’d argue that banks were more eager to venture into these dangerous waters because there was an implicit government backing to many of those loans.
wow...
…i finally got a second to read a bit on the AIG loan is at 11% interest… thats awesome… the more i read about paulson the more i think the bailout not be a bad plan, especially if we are buying SIVs and MSBs at 35-40 estimated value… if we can hold those for a couple years and sell them for 60% value this might not be such a bad idea…
though i think to make it palatable there is going to have to be a) extreme oversight b) restrictions on the reinvestment plans of any company who sells c) cutoff of golden parachute paid to all outgoing CEOs of 400K (yearly salary of US president)
"He wont have anything. 1 man, 0 tools."~ hiafex bout longhorn...
Heh, AIG took it in the keyster...
From an email I sent to a friend last week:
24 month term-
The interest rate is set at three month LIBOR plus 850 basis points. Three month LIBOR is a variable rate that resets weekly. The current weekly rate is 2.81, so the current interest rate on this loan is 11.31 — pretty hefty. Just keep in mind that annual (simple) interest of 11.31% on $1 billion is $113.1 million. On $10 billion it is $1.131 billion. And on $85 billion it is $9.61 billion.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
That is the good side to this
The government is better able to assume risk than even the largest banks – because they can print money they can hold these loans without much concern.
It really comes down to what the value of those bad mortgages are. I suspect that their true value is well over the rate the government would buy them at – think about it – for a mortgage bundle to only be worth 60% of its face value implies that 40% of mortgages will be lost due to forclosure… Which is odd, considering that even in a forclosure, the bank is still left with the property. Even if all mortgages went bad, I’d still say the properties associated with them are worth 60% of that value (note: this is entering areas I don’t understand too well).
You’re right, when you look at it from the perspective of “this is a good way for the federal government to chew down some of that debt”. I just don’t know how I feel about the fed making that type of investment…
My worry is something I read elsewhere – these companies aren’t going to sell the fed loans for under market value – because in that case they’d sell to the market. So the gov’t would have to over-pay. Which bothers me…
though...
…i share your concerns, but i think the point is no firm has the liquidity necessary to buy any of these MBSs at any level… and you don’t trade away a useful asset for one that is under preforming… the 60% value, thought of as partial, is probably the more accurate value as a mortgage bundle of subprime notes should never be taken at full value… its credit grade shouldn’t allow it… thats a big part of what got us in to this mess and a source for a lot of the write downs over the last year and a half…
"He wont have anything. 1 man, 0 tools."~ hiafex bout longhorn...
those estimated values
are still based on mythical models created by math geeks who assumed they could predict future market activity within a few standard deviations based on prior market results. this new RTC is a desperate attempt to consolidate derivatives in one location to eliminate counter party risk and bankrupting countless entities. To me, the thought that they can buy theirselves out of this with $700 billion is a joke.
Moral Hazard
I feel like Senator Dobbs amendments are vast improvements to the current proposal by Paulson. Take equity back from companies in return for cash. The government can then sell them later to offset the cost to taxpayers. He also proposes to take away the CEO’s golden parachutes if they want cash, which is something that should be regulated in all companies that are overseen by the SEC. As long as the CEOs have golden parachutes there will be moral hazard issues. I also think Mark Cuban does a pretty good job of explaining things in layman’s terms.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
Dodd's amendments wouldn't be taking equity
from the companies, they would be taking equity from the shareholders.
by Randy Richardson on Sep 23, 2008 5:30 PM CDT up reply actions
ahh
Thanks for the correction. Either way, getting something now that can be sold later would be a must have for me were I a congressman.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
by DerekSTheRed on Sep 23, 2008 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions
I started
a diary about this a few days ago and it got deleted…
WTF?
Today is the youngest you will ever be. Act like it.
z hates you
you should know that by now…
"Popularity is fleeting. Principles are forever."
"Maybe congress should take more vacations, whenever these people leave town, things just seem to get better..." - Jay Leno
Thats unfair...
He can’t just be a dictator against someone he is jelous of…
I’ll give him a few knuckle sandwiches…
Today is the youngest you will ever be. Act like it.
you're a jackass.
"Popularity is fleeting. Principles are forever."
"Maybe congress should take more vacations, whenever these people leave town, things just seem to get better..." - Jay Leno
Now THAT is
Did Ben survive the hurricane?
by inactive lsb user on Sep 23, 2008 7:47 PM CDT up reply actions
ironic.
Did Ben survive the hurricane?
by inactive lsb user on Sep 23, 2008 7:47 PM CDT up reply actions
What about
his dumb? His dumb what?
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
Slowly scroll to the top of the page...
See those words up there? Crisis, Banking, Politics….yep.
No room for logic here, good sir!
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
He doesn't hate him
He just thinks he’s a tool.
I know someone like that.
Last week I took a pleasure trip. I drove my wife to the airport.
by Brian Thomas on Sep 24, 2008 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions
btw
if you want to learn of the origin of the idea to not regulate the OTC derivative market…well, it’s another feather in Greenspan’s cap:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2000/20000210.htm
OTC transactions in financial derivatives are not susceptible to—that is, easily influenced by—manipulation. The vast majority of contracts are settled in cash, based on a rate or price determined in a separate highly liquid market with a very large or virtually unlimited deliverable supply. Furthermore, prices established in OTC transactions do not serve a price-discovery function. Thus, even if the price of an OTC contract were somehow manipulated, the adverse effects on the economy would be quite limited.
Hey, Steve...
which is worse… the OTC derivatives market or pitchers throwing footballs?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
OT: What! This is shocking stuff....
Hit the Breaking News sounder:-
Clay Aiken is Gay!
I did not see that coming! I mean some people you have a hunch about but he seemed totally straight to me. Totally.
Hmm .. ?
Clay Aiken is finally confirming what many people suspected: He’s gay.
Not sure how this is left field material for you.
Did Ben survive the hurricane?
by inactive lsb user on Sep 23, 2008 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Fair enough
but why post something so irrelevant, if not obvious?
Did Ben survive the hurricane?
by inactive lsb user on Sep 23, 2008 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Because...
it’s funny.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Asphalt!
Did Ben survive the hurricane?
by inactive lsb user on Sep 23, 2008 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions
But you know what the beauty of asphalt is?
I don’t have to read any Brett Gardner responses anymore.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
somewhere a law school professor is waiting for the right moment
to hurl his textbook at the young BG
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Ben...
I want to talk to you. I NEED to talk to you.
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Also
I love that you would take credit for me not posting on here very much lately.
Truth is, I’ve been busier of late. Now, I know it’s all but a full-time job mooching off a more successful brother, but sadly I don’t have that luxury.
Asphalt me, ben. Asphalt me good and hard.
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions
3 responses...
in the span of an hour. Your mancrush is cute, Brett, but I’m spoken for.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I won't
Stop till your mine, ben. You know I’m hot for fellow ugly, fat guys.
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Picturing you pounding away...
at your keyboard, faced screwed up in a rictus of smug satisfaction as show me what a smart boy you are brings me no end of joy. “Take that!” says Brett…
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I
Actually just wanted to show you that you’re fat and ugly, just like me.
But don’t get me wrong—I do love entertaining the great one.
Kinda like I’m one of that green slave woman dancing for the mighty Jabba.
TAKE THAT, SAYS ME!
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Goddamnit.
You know when you’re so eager to impress that grammar just fails you?
Well that’s me. I needed to show ben how witty I was, and, well, I failed.
I will take my asphalting now, sir.
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions
HaHa...
“Lastly, how might the crisis ultimately affect you?”
I will probably lose my job sometime in the next year. I need to get into a different field.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Financial Market Illiterate
I can’t add anything intelligent to the discussion. But I did find some comfort in hearing the FBI is investigating some companies and CEOs that started this mess…
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/23/news/companies/fbi_finance/index.htm?cnn=yes
I
Politics and Finance a bad combonation
1) The $700B is both a good idea and bad idea. More on this later.
2) this could get extremely bad
3) Above my pay grade, But you can’t be a little pregnant. We either are capitalists and have a free market or we are socialists and the governement is here to help us.
4) Affect me, not much. Affect my employees (as a small business owner) my LOC could be affected if the credit market crashes. The company will continue but will not grow and some employees would be laid off.
Now back to question #1. A good idea… the fact that the market is run by emotional people (I know emotional people is redundant) we are in a panic based on a key market factor is being questioned. Mortgage backed securities are one of the most liquid and actively traded commodity in the market. Because of the foreclosure rate of subprime mortgages the confidence in these securities/derivatives is being questioned. That combined with highly leveraged positions taken by some bank executives is the sum total of the problem. A short term infusion of $700B could return a nice return to the government and therefore the tax payers. It almost certainly would calm the nerves of the emotional people making trading and credit decisions. It also would stabilize the world wide credit market and therefore the global economies.
On the other hand it is a BAD idea. It is not constitutional and therefore should NOT be the federal government responsibility to save failing businesses. There are other sources of $700B who would eventually jump in and buy these assets at a very discounted price and make even more money (see W Buffet this AM.) You are essentially rewarding bad judgement by executives/managers and not holding these people responsible. A typical stockholder would become more vigilant in there investments, executives would be more focussed on long term success over short term gains. The market would be less aggresive, or have more stringent risk assessments.
Paulson claims there are as many as 400,000 mortages in jeapardy of default. Check the math out. 700,000,000,000 (yeah thats what 700 billion looks like) divided by the number of mortages in jeopardy, 400,000 = $1,750,000. THATS RIGHT $1,75M per margage in jeoaprdy. Does that sound like a good idea to anyone???
we are quickly becoming
one of the most socialist economies in the world. I do believe there’s a spectrum of socialism, btw.
Utter
nonsense.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Dude
when the hell did you get all socialist?
I’m not running a bit, but correct me if I’m wrong, if you (and your posts) weren’t more conservative, previously.
Did Ben survive the hurricane?
by inactive lsb user on Sep 24, 2008 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions
I've always been fairly libertarian.
But to say the US is one of the most socialst economies in the world shows a profound misunderstanding of the world around us. The statement has little to do with the world around us. I will call bullshit when I hear bullshit.
Nonsense is nonsense.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
and elimination of free markets
results in central planning. I honestly don’t think people grasp what is going on right now.
By no means
are we the freest country, economically.
According to Dr. Barry Asmus, Senior Economist at the National Center for Policy Analysis, these countries are ahead of us in terms of percentage freedom:
1. Hong Kong 90.3%
2. Singapore 87.4%
3. Ireland 82.4%
4. Australia 82.0%
5. U.S. 80.6%
Then, you’ve got a whole host of countries who are classified as “mostfly free”(70%+):
6. New Zealand 80.2%
7. Canada 80.2%
8. Chile 79.8%
9. Switzerland 79.7%
10. United Kingdom 79.5%
11. Denmark 79.2%
12. Estonia 77.8%
13. Netherlands 76.8%
14. Iceland 76.5%
15. Luxembourg 75.2%
15 more countries over 70.0%.
Not heading in the right direction.
"Asphalt me, ben. Asphalt me good and hard." - brettgardner
by inactive lsb user on Sep 24, 2008 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions
What does "percentage freedom" mean?
I don’t know that I buy that the UK is only 1% less free than the US. Maybe dealing with bank transactions or something like that. But left-wing groups (and by left wing, I mean LEFT WING) have far, far more regulatory power in European countries than here (try to do pharmaceutical experiments on animals in Britain sometime – you talk about jumping through hoops….).
We are the 5th highest rank
How in the fuck does that make us “one of the most socialist economies” when there is something like 200-250 countries out there?
Your stats argue for me, not against me.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
I'm just saying
the world around us is probably much closer than you thought, with juggernauts ahead.
"Asphalt me, ben. Asphalt me good and hard." - brettgardner
by inactive lsb user on Sep 24, 2008 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Dan
I said we are becoming one of the most socialistic economies. That is where we are headed. I see these recent actions as merely first steps of many to come.
Nonsense.
You fundamentally don’t understand how socialist the current world is if you are making that assertion.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
How can you contextualize these actions so soon, Dan?
This is unprecedented bullshit, at that.
"Asphalt me, ben. Asphalt me good and hard." - brettgardner
by inactive lsb user on Sep 24, 2008 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions
it's hard to overstate was has occured
so let me say that the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie is the largest financial engineering in the history of civiliazation. Agency debt and mortgage backed securities are now interchangeable with treasuries. We will have a government monopoly on mortgages. The risk in the housing market is now on the taxpayers’ shoulders. This enormous social program implemented at a time when we already push half a trillion dollar budget deficit. Let’s not even mention what’s going on now in congress.
I’m just connecting dots.
Fannie and Freddie
They always were part of our government. It was just jerry-rigged to allow stockholders to take the profits from them in some weird, utterly unconstitutional structure. But the Fed taking them over is no real change – they always were implicitly backed by our tax dollars. The implicit is just explicit now.
Now, everything else is a step towards having a more Washington-centric economy, which is very bad. But that doesn’t put us anywhere near a super-socialist country like Sweden or Finland.
yield premiums
for GSE debt showed that the implicit guarantee was far from explicit. Now that agency debt and GSE mortgage backed securities are ‘risk free’, the private sector will be crowded out.
Actually
16. Finland 74.8%
27. Sweden 70.4%
For context …
155. Zimbabwe 29.8%
156. Cuba 27.5%
157. North Korea 3.0%
50.3% = investment freedom; impose few or no restrictions on foreign investment, which promotes economic expansion and enhances overall economic freedom.
45.6% = Property Rights
51.7% = financial freedom; the more the banks are controlled by the government, the less free they are to engage in essential financial activities that facilitate private sector-led economic growth.
62.1% = labor freedom; labor market flexibility is essential to enhancing employment opportunities and overall productivity growth. The rigidity of hiring and firing a worker creates a risk aversion for companies that would otherwise employ more people and grow.
62.8% = Business freedom; measures how free entrepreneurs are to start business, how easy it is to obtain licenses, and the ease of closing a business. Impediments to any of these three activities are deterrents to business and therefore to job creation. Globally, starting a business takes an average of 43 days, while getting necessary licenses takes an average of 19 procedures and 234 days. Bankruptcy proceedings take an average of three years. (The globlal average is based on data for 146 countries that are graded by both the Index of Economic Freedom and the World Bank’s Doing Business 2008.)
67.7% =Government size; defined to include all government expenditures, including consumption and transfers. Ideally, the state will provide only true public goods with an absolute minimum of expenditure.
72% = trade freedom; tariffs are the primary obstacle to free trade among nations, but non-tariff barriers (NTBs) such as quotas and bureaucratic delays are also significant impediments. The overall trade freedom score is composed of these two elements. The mean worldwide tariff rate is 11.1. The global average trade freedom score is 72.
74.9% = fiscal freedom; the top tax rate on individual income averages 31% and the top tax rate on corporate income averages 26. There are also many other types of taxes that governments use to raise revenue, and total tax revenue from all forms of taxation averages 21 of country GDP. Mix the three scores together with a quadratic cost function that penalizes higher taxes with a higher penalty and the average score was 74.9%.
74.4% = monetary freedom; the worldwide average of the weighted average inflation rates per country from 2004 to 2006 is 10.6, an increase over last year’s weighted average of 7.9 reflects in part Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation, which climbed to over 1,000 (LOL). Price stability explains most of the monetary freedom score, although theire is a penalty of up to 20% for countries that use price controls. The average price control penalty was 10.3 points this year.
80-100% = mostly free.
"Asphalt me, ben. Asphalt me good and hard." - brettgardner
by inactive lsb user on Sep 24, 2008 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions
most socialistic economies?
One can say we are becoming a more regulated, less free market economy. But by no
Now, if healthcare gets nationalized – and by nationalized, I mean insurance companies cease to exist – and the government starts making a habit of owning stock in companies (ie., privatizing social security), then I may say “yes, we are becoming more socialist”.
But other countries guarantee their citizens 6 weeks of paid vacation a year, will subsidize the salaries of women on pregnancy leave for 12 months, and automatically pay for all health care. We’re far, far from that.
Even if healthcare was nationalized
and I wouldn’t bet on it happening, unless businesses start screaming more to get the cost of insurance off their books, that would still put us on par with most of the world, not more socialist than most of the world.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Oh I agree with you completely
We’re not even close to being half as socialist as the most liberal economies in Europe. I don’t know where these guys are coming from.
I keep my money in my mattress
damnit, i just let out the secret. now i have to find a new hiding spot, maybe a shoe box.
seriously though, i don’t know if the money is going to do much other than bring the country into more debt.
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
I've found
that socks work really well, also.
Now I just have to find a different spot to hide my socks.
he’s still hitting better than Saltalasuckia—while playing vastly superior defense...Athos
Our country could really stand to get out
of it’s debt addiction, both publicly and privately.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
If only
Alan Greenspan had scap loaded.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
White House yields on chiefs' pay
More here.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Weird quote
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson agreed to demands from critics in both parties to limit the pay packages of Wall Street executives whose companies would benefit from the proposed bailout.
“The American people are angry about executive compensation and rightfully so,” Paulson told the House Financial Services Committee. “We must find a way to address this in the legislation without undermining the effectiveness of the program.”
How would limiting executive compensation “undermine the effectiveness of the program”?
Bush is a moron for letting the Democrats get such an easy high ground. Limiting executive payouts that result from the bailout is not a liberal cause, its just a common sense cause. Wow.
I'm not sure how it would work, legally.
If their exit packages were negotiated prior to this deal, how could a Congressional bailout void a private contract after the fact?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I don't know
I’ve wondered that myself. I would imagine that prior to getting their bailout, companies would have to renegotiate with their executives.
Frankly, it isn’t that much different from a regular buyout to save a company – if the executives in place want to keep their jobs, they have to renegotiate their terms with the entity coming in and investing in the company. The only difference is that the entity happens to be the federal government.
This isn’t a hostile takeover – these companies don’t have to accept the government’s terms.
According to Paulson, limiting compensation would make heads of struggling firms more hesitant to ask for help
I think that’s the gist of what I heard this morning.
Last week I took a pleasure trip. I drove my wife to the airport.
by Brian Thomas on Sep 24, 2008 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions
yeah
…in the theory of protecting me before others, there are few exec’s who would take the bailout money and not just push a sale/merger to another company and still get their parachute.
"He wont have anything. 1 man, 0 tools."~ hiafex bout longhorn...
Pandering by McCain
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
It's a typical
Politician move. Guy’s down in the polls, getting hammered daily for the last week, and it would really hit the fan on Friday. So if he says now that he wants to “address” or “fix” the problem by suspending his campaign and postponing the debate, he comes off like a real hero, and if Obama declines, then
he’s
the heel.
I think most people can see through this bullshit though. There’s nothing McCain or Obama can do right now to address anything. They can get some excellent posing done, though.
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Heh.
Wrong button, or linguistic innovation?
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Most people see through it?
Have you seen the incredibly dumb things that capture the attention of people in this country? The pandering works, otherwise Obama wouldn’t be equating McCain to Bush (obviously not true) or McCain painting Obama as an elitist snob. It doesn’t work on highly educated individuals like yourself, but if you are some almost-laid off auto worker in Detroit, McCain “going back to Washington to keep the economy from collapsing” seems like a good move, considering he is a Senator.
And if Obama is smart, he’ll go along with it. Because if McCain goes, and he is key to working something out (a long shot, but a possibility, since the word is the bailout is dependent upon his support), it’ll dramatically shift this election. Obama’s claim that being a Senator is experience will be shot if he doesn’t act like a Senator in a crisis.
Fair or not – I have no clue. But its politics, and it is cynical, and it works.
It would
Be ironic if your claim is correct, because those are the same almost-laid off auto workers from Detroit who have been spoon-fed the rhetoric that “Washington is the problem” from the beginning of this election cycle, if not from the beginning of their lives.
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions
This is funny.
A Democrat tells ABC News that, in a phone call late this afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that it would NOT be helpful for him to come back to Washington, D.C., to work on the Wall Street bailout bill.
In other news, Reid also called the other 48 Republicans in the Senate and told them that things would be better off if they didn’t show up either.
McCain’s actions may be petty pandering, but its just silly for the Senate Majority Leader to be saying that a Senator shouldn’t be attending debates on the topic. Best to just keep his mouth shut
I disagree
I think having McCain and Obama show up would just increase the circus atmosphere and make things even crazier than they are. Not having the debate or campaign ads is not going to change things one bit, it’s a stunt. I’d rather these two stay away instead of showing up trying too hard to look presidential and suddenlty bipartisan.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
I don't know
…if it could possibly get crazier than it already is. Plus, they are Senators and it’s important stuff. Neither of them can afford to look like they’re not attending to it. This whole series of events has “historic” written all over it.
by Black Francis on Sep 24, 2008 5:57 PM CDT up reply actions
"historic"
… like the next president … i mean i know its important, but they are far behind in financial debate, would have to be caught up, and by all accounts something should be completed by Friday… what good could they add except more focus on it…
"He wont have anything. 1 man, 0 tools."~ hiafex bout longhorn...
I just think
it’s pointless to cancel the debate and suspend the campaigns. It looks like they’re both going to a meeting today at the White House and the bill looks like it will be passed soon. Suspending the campaign and not debating won’t change or help anything. Yes, they should go vote, attend the meeting, and probably issue a joint statement supporting the bill when it’s passed. Beyond that not debating won’t help at all.
McCain is desparate. He has a VP candidate he is afraid to let talk to the press and a sagging campaign. This is a desperation move.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
Agree
He’s just getting some shots in, though.
I was listening to the news in the car earlier when I heard that McCain was “suspending” his campaign. My eyes literally rolled. It’ll resonate with some people, though. Not enough. The polls for Obama have been looking very favorable as Palin’s star has dimmed and the attention of the press has been focused on issues. He’ll widen the gap even more if they ever get around to a debate. In times like this, people will actually pay attention to the debates and I can’t see McCain winning on these kinds of issues.
Back to topic. Yeah, Reid should keep his mouth shut. Obama doesn’t need his help and clearly a Senator has the right to be a Senator. Even though it was a joke, it was a stupid one.
by Black Francis on Sep 24, 2008 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions
The last week...
or so has been very bad for McCain. As you mention Palin’s push is now done and he’s sliding quickly. I think Obama smells blood. McCain’s position on the economy keeps changing and it’s pretty clear he doesn’t have a good feel for what’s going on. He’s trying to delay the inevitable by putting off the debate, but I don’t think it will help much. The economy isn’t going away and whether the debate is Friday or a week from Friday won’t matter much. He is going to get slammed on that issue.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
re Obama
I agree he smells blood. But I think he is doing exactly what McCain wants by refusing to postpone the debate. McCain’s people knew that Obama would refuse – it may be a cheap political ploy, but it doesn’t mean that they didn’t think it through.
McCain is behind – its in his interest to take risky moves. Will it work – most likely not, but there is an ever so slight chance that McCain helps author some compromise bailout deal in the Senate that could never have gotten done without him. He’s trying to win the election, while Obama is trying not to lose it. Doesn’t mean it will work, but its an entirely rational move by McCain – he was losing the economy issue anyway, this can only help.
I think Obama should have accepted McCain’s offer – it’d have caught McCain’s team by surprise and any “time out” can only help Obama.
Obama is playing too conservative…
Meh.
I think Obama’s rationale will play better. People want to hear from the guys who can hopefully unfuck this situation. Most people have an incredible distrust of Washington, and I’m not sure that retreating to the inner confines of a place where many think these problems started is the best way to score political points.
Plus Obama said he thought it’d probably be necessary for both of them to vote on the issue, anyway, so I think that really takes the wind out of that sail.
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe
but I’m not convinced in the whole “stay out of the way” argument – when it is their job to be there working on it. And as for trying to dissociate yourself from Washington, Obama is running on the idea that his 4 years in the Senate is sufficient experience, and McCain is running on a career in the Senate. And you can’t very well say “I want to go to Washington and change things” when you don’t act when you have that opportunity. You and I cannot walk into the Senate and demand “change” – Barack Obama can. He’s the most powerful man in his party, If he knows how to fix this problem, then he needs to go there and do it.
Now, if you ascribe to the idea that no one knows what to do, so standing on the sidelines is best – then yeah, I can see why Obama wants to stay away. But I’m just saying that Obama should see this as an opportunity to put the final nail in the coffin of this election. instead, he’s giving McCain a chance to come back.
Mmm.
I completely understand your point, but I just disagree with your conclusion.
This election clearly isn’t about who’s spent the most years in the Senate. If it were, it’d be over already. So it’s got to be about something else. I happen to think the critical issue in this election is judgment. Obama and McCain are showing theirs. Just up to the voters to decide whose is better.
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Pandering by McCain
It’s perfect because he did it first. If Obama agrees, then he agrees with McCain and his views on the economy. If Obama refuses, then McCain can say McCain doesn’t care about the economy. Again, perfect maneuvering by the Publicans.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
Obama doesn't have to agree with McCain on the economy
to agree that it is worth going back to the Senate to work on this.
There are 100 Senators total. Its a very partisan group, a 49/48/2 split. If the situation is so dire as to need to write a $700 BILLION check, I’d want every Senator to be involved in that discussion, particularly the two men that will be inheriting that debt.
Yeah...
saying, in effect, “I’m not going to do my present job because I’m busy applying for another job” just doesn’t look good.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Go play with your toys.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Ooh.
Witty and hurtful at the same time. Double threat guy!
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't respond to me.
I have no interest in discussing anything with you, and that’s not going to change. Go play somewhere else.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
So
Don’t respond to me.
I’ll respond to anything I like.
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions
"You're not the boss of me!"
About the maturity level of response I expected.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Heh.
What can I say—nothing can top “‘Asphalt!’ as a response to everything” in terms of maturity.
You’ve got those 8 precious years on me. In time, I will learn.
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Eye roll...
I’ll go back to ignoring this bullshit.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Oh no.
I love this, ben. I love being the JD to your Josey Wales.
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions
You Too!
Don’t make me take off my belt.
by Black Francis on Sep 24, 2008 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions
TWO
Dammit! Right there in the subject line. The world truly is ending.
by Black Francis on Sep 24, 2008 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Is being in the Senate just casting votes?
If the nation considers Obama to be the most qualified man for President, shouldn’t he be in there giving input to how to deal with this problem? He’s the guy who is going to be saddled with this gigantic bill anyway…
Saying “I’m doing my job by going in there and casting my vote” is dismissive of that position.
I really also want to make the joke
that Obama will probably vote “Present” on the bailout bill… but I don’t want to lower myself to that level…
God
Don’t make me explain what voting “present” in the Illinois legislature means again.
by Black Francis on Sep 24, 2008 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Well
He is giving input on how to deal with the problem by giving a checklist of what he thinks the provisions should include, but your point is taken that it rings a little hollow since he’s not actually advocating that in the chamber deciding the matter.
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Well obviously
McCain is so old and senile that he can only deal with one issue at a time, but Obama realizes that in the real world, the President has to multitask.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Very interesting.
A second link to a joint statement by both campaigns:
http://www.wnbc.com/politics/17551529/detail.html
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
I haven't
Seen that reported anywhere else. Weird.
by brettgardner on Sep 24, 2008 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Fucking Dems
Trying to grandstand and cut the dollar amount down to $150-200 mil. My gosh, can intelligent people not grasp the urgency of the matter?
You know, a bank run was what brought down Indy…and now the 3rd largest bank in Hong Kong is experiencing the same thing…
A ton of this has to deal with consumer confidence, dummies. Stalling the process only grants the Lemmings more time to find a cliff…
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
You think
spending $700 billion should be done without much forethought or discussion? I think you’re crazy. I’m not even convinced the idea will work, and I’m sure as hell not ready to give the executive branch that much power with no oversight. I am glad they are taking a couple of days to work on the plan.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
I'm apolitical, first off.
Paulson & Bernake know far more about the issues than some morons in congress. Elected officials being held up as some “enlightened scholars” is the biggest farce going. They are mostly rich, connected persons who grew up extremely affluent, and didn’t have to do a whole lot on their own.
Kinda like the popular jock being elected class president, or the popular ex-jock or coach being elected to congress. It has little to do with merit or abilities.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Paulson is just like
the guys who got us into this.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Paulson & Bernanke
are no smarter than the “experts” who created this mess. And I don’t care how smart Paulson is, you do not give that kind of power to one man without oversight. Absolute insanity.
I’m not holding up congress as some bastion of financial wisdom, but debate on this kind of massive government expenditure is necessary. Even if only to keep the Bush administration from once again hoarding power and laughing at the idea of checks and balances. I don’t EVER want our government giving “emergency powers” to any one person for any reason.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
Hong Kong
That bank isn’t experiencing anything but rumors.
They’re not grandstanding. To give out a $700 billion debit card to the Treasury Secretary with no oversight isn’t the brightest idea. $150-200B will do for now, and if they need to appropriate more later there’s nothing stopping them.
by Black Francis on Sep 24, 2008 5:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Right, nothing but rumors
has lead to the dramatic scene of thousands queueing up in the streets, waiting to withdraw their entire life savings.
Panic+rumors=lemmings, and it is not at all good for stability, which is what the markets thrive on.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Panic+politicians=trouble
I want them to do something soon, but it has to be the right something if at all possible. Paulson’s original plan is just a blank check, insane.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
Paulson...
especially considering how his position has changed suddenly and his previous company Goldman Sachs not doing so great now.
Giving him a blank check is just a bad idea.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Goldman...
they’re 50% off their 52 week high, but still have a pretty large market cap.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
and with...
…the collapse or sale of most other large firms, and their new granted ability to be a holding company i’m with buffett on goldman… they’re gonna recover well…
"He wont have anything. 1 man, 0 tools."~ hiafex bout longhorn...
the failure of Lehman
has created the urgency. Having it’s assets valued in bankruptcy puts even more pressure for all other fiancial entities to value their assets similarly. Fair value accounting for deriviatives has been shelved for at least another year due to wall street pressure. The $700 billion buys time. That’s it. We’re talking about a $600 trillion notional value market.
Great read, from William H. Gross,
Chief Investment Officer of PIMCO, the largest muni in the US, controlling $830B of assets.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Time for the scary shit
Okay. Hope to refocus the discussion here at least for some.
Again, how bad could this get? How many quarters of negative growth? Unemployment in double digits? Bread lines? Are we talking about a Not So Great Depression or “just” a severe recession?
My main concern is that the bottom falls out on the dollar and we wind up with enormous fuel costs and stagflation as a result. That’s like economic quicksand.
This:
"There will definitely be a prolonged period of either slow growth or recession for 12 to 18 to 24 months,"
Click on page two of the above NYT story for more, Gross is one smart MF.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
slow growth
we’ve already had that for quite a while, but I think it’s likely to get worse.
The bailout seems like it would, at least for a while, deflate the dollar’s value and help continue to drive up oil and everything else. It will be interesting to see how the markets react to the plan once enacted and details come out. I am preparing for a year or more severe recession. What’s scarier, is that it won’t take much for the price of oil to skyrocket. A war, coup, or bombing in the right place would dramatically worsen the recession. If something untoward happens in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq…the list goes on…I could see oil jumping over $150 pretty fast. Maybe $200 a barrel with a weakened dollar.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
Historically
Wars are very good for the economy. Not advocating…just stating fact.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
I'm talking about
conflicts not directly involving the U.S. above, and I think there’s a very good chance of that in several places. An even greater chance of terrorist/extremist activity around pipelines, refineries, etc.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
I'm more worried about the bailout situation
about which I generally agree with you.
My brother, an economist, was adamant though that the no bailout alternative would be far worse – basically if liquidity dries up and short-term loans are unavailable, the economy could literally grind to a halt (as in, trucking companies can’t borrow money on a monthly basis to buy gas to get goods across the country halt).
I think the no bailout future is bleaker, but the recovery would be far quicker. The dollar will gain some strength in the process, fuel will be more affordable (crappy economy helps fuel prices), and the real estate prices will get to their bottom sooner, which will allow proper valuation of those mortgages.
I'll stand by my original thoughts,
which you now seemingly agree with:
If this is not contained, the entire world will be plunged into a massive recession.
If Mr. Joe who owns a small company cannot access capital, he fires employees to balance the budget. Then bigger companies follow suit, and then large companies, and then multi-national companies…you get it…
However, I disagree that the result of no action would be a quicker recovery. If a machine in perpetual motion slows, it is not impossible to regather previous momentum. If a machine in perpetual motion stops, it’s a mama bear to kick start that thing…
I think some are being myopic about this. This planet truly has a global economy, and the liquidity crisis is affecting all sectors of the world economy. This could not only cripple the US, it could literally affect every country that has any semblance of a modern economy.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
?
“which you now seemingly agree with” – am I missing something, but when did I say you were wrong before? I haven’t been changing my mind here…
Oh, I never intended that inference.
Apologize…
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
That seems highly unlikely
I think there is a far greater chance of some kind of announcement that Clinton might get a cabinet post or something. Great rumor, though, since it has the allure of tactical ingenuity. The part about the Obama campaign needing a boost is out of date, though. The Palin bounce is gone and it now seems like the McCain campaign is in need of a tactic like that. You could easily come up with a very similar rumor for her.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
That's some hilarious stuff.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
The top 10 list
is pretty funny.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
More ridiculousness from the government.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/83bfe68c-8a8f-11dd-a76a-0000779fd18c.html
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Election year crap
Lots of votes up for grabs in Michigan.
Now McCain wants to postpone the VP debate, too. Smells of desperation to me.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/25/mccain-camp-to-propose-postponing-vp-debate-2/
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
Maybe if he's president
he can postpone the Iraq war while he deals with other issues.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
As if
Palin hasn’t been shielded from the press enough, now they want to postpone one of the only chances that we have to hear her answer questions. Why are they keeping this woman under wraps? Didn’t she call herself a pit bull with lipstick? I thought pit bulls were supposed to attack — but you can’t attack if you are sequestered to a separate part of the kennel and not allowed to play with the other dogs.
Failed Bit
Warning!
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Failed bit
you mean the bit about the GOP demonizing Hillary at every opportunity for 15 years and then crying foul when the press actually wants to be allowed to speak to Palin? Those horrible, sexist media types.
Palin=not ready for prime time.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
Yeah, that part.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Failed bit
my ass. The only failure here is for McCain to choose a running mate who doesn’t need to be treated with kid gloves, and realized that being able to actually see Russia from some obscure island in Alaska makes her a foreign policy expert. Thousands of people have ocean front property .. they can actually see the ocean from their backyard! That doesn’t make the oceanographers.
That's what I said:
Palin is a failed bit.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
All politicians are.
"Asphalt me, ben. Asphalt me good and hard." - brettgardner
by inactive lsb user on Sep 25, 2008 6:54 PM CDT up reply actions
can we just take Iraq's oil reserves and end this babble immediately?
Maybe we can pull the old switcheroo like in the old Scooby Doo cartoons and leave them with 100 billion barrels of Coca Cola or something.
Of course, it would finally validate all of the paranoid ramblings about “Blood for Oil” from our recent past, but it would allow us to keep trucking along as a super-economy and focus on baseball talk again.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
Oil for Scooby snacks
doesn’t seem like a good long term solution…making Velma wear a veil is probably good in any case, though.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
Warren Buffet and market manipulation
This is kind of crazy think, but isn’t what he’s done over the past few days basically unethical? Berkshire invests $5 BILLION in Goldman Sachs, all while he’s actively calling for the government to bail out that very company among others?
Generally, I’d say this is just any investor trying to encourage something that helps his investments, but this is Warren Buffet. His making public statements saying that these companies must be bailed out carries a lot of clout in a freaked out market and with politicians on both sides of the aisle.
I doubt its illegal, but it seems wrong and certainly calls into question the validity of his claims that this will be an “economic Pearl Harbor” if there is bailout. Well, it obviously would be for him, now wouldn’t it?
Nah
The investment in Goldman isn’t dependent upon the bailout. Frankly, Warren probably hopes there isn’t one. BRK is still sitting on $31BB of cash and would love to invest it in distressed assets, Goldman is raising cash to do the same thing and they don’t have the subprime and mortgage exposure of other banks because their CEO kept them out of it.
quote
The only copy I found of WEB’s quote was on a link from drudge:
``It’s not like Pearl Harbor where you could look at what happened with your own eyes and decide you had to do something that day,‘’ Buffett said on the cable channel. ``This is sort of an economic Pearl Harbor we’re going through.’’
I think he is referring to the shock and surprise of some at the events, and he is saying that pearl harbor has happened, not that it will happen if there is no bailout
just my $0.02
I thought he meant
it was the fault of the Japanese.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
the sad thing is
some people WILL blame our problems on “furigners” like soverign wealth funds, the chineese etc.
but it’s all our fault
by thedudeabides on Sep 25, 2008 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Wow...
you’re a big fan of Warren Buffett.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Who else would you call to if you wanted to contextualize this situation?
DJCahill is not an option.
"Asphalt me, ben. Asphalt me good and hard." - brettgardner
by inactive lsb user on Sep 25, 2008 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Lawmakers Agree on Outline of Bailout
Emerging from a nearly three-hour meeting in the Capitol, Republicans and Democrats said the legislation would include limits on the pay packages for executives of firms that seek assistance and a mechanism for the government to take an equity stake in some firms, so taxpayers have a chance to profit if the bailout plan works.
More here:
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
I guess
that’s about as much as you can hope for from a mess like that.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Did you read the article from
William H. Gross, linked above? He thinks the Feds can make money in this deal.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Possible
in a reverse auction, remember they made big money on the chrysler bailout in ‘86. They need preferred debt which can’t be called for a fixed period from the companies in exchange for taking the toxic debt off their books and equity warrants, and lots of them.
by thedudeabides on Sep 25, 2008 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions
They might make money,
but in the case of the Resolution Trust Corporation, we didn’t.
There are no guarantees. Gross has a vested interest in the Fed committing to this course of action.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Well...
one would assume that they aren’t buying the assets at whatever price the company pulls out of its ass. I’d assume that they’re buying them priced according to some kind of discounted cash flow analysis. If they were to do so, they’d come out ahead. Just because the assets are illiquid doesn’t mean they’re not paying.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
60-65%
is a number being bandied about.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
60 - 65%
of what?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Of booked value
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
However, there is
risk, and there are no guaranteed profits here. The underlying assets may end up with more than projected defaults.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
The point is...
that it’s not a guaranteed $700 billion loss, either.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
But it's also an all-or-nothing gamble.
"Asphalt me, ben. Asphalt me good and hard." - brettgardner
by inactive lsb user on Sep 25, 2008 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions
No, it's not.
I don’t see how it can be seen as an all or nothing gamble.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
If this fails?
You haven’t considered that?
"Asphalt me, ben. Asphalt me good and hard." - brettgardner
by inactive lsb user on Sep 25, 2008 7:56 PM CDT up reply actions
If they don't try to fix this mess?
You haven’t considered that?
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
If it fails, how?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
It can't really be...
…because the plan absolutely isn’t to let loose on $700 billion. It will go a little at a time.
And I don’t think the Franks contributions should be overlooked. Some pretty good stuff was added.
I’m still not crazy about this plan, but can understand the principles behind it and if it’s implemented well I don’t see a reason why it won’t help a lot. It’s not going to fix the whole problem by itself and I hope that’s not what the public expects from it because then it’s always going to be seen as a failure.
Then again I still have this part of me that says instead of bailing out these banks, why don’t we give a huge rebate check to everyone who makes under $200k a year? Certainly it’s a less direct approach, but some liquidity would trickle up to the financial giants particularly from those who are right at the top of the range that would receive the benefit. Problem is, doing such a thing would result in some inflationary pressure. I don’t know.
I’m not an expert like some of you, but I had somewhere around 30 hours of ECON in college and I’m frustrated that I can’t form a solid opinion about this. I guess what I want is really the Paulson plan because it’s pragmatic and flexible. However, I don’t know that I trust them enough to implement it well.
Complicated problem.
by Black Francis on Sep 25, 2008 9:15 PM CDT up reply actions
it's not important to form
a judgement on whether it’s good or bad, but to understand the consequences and protect yourself from them. ignore the deflationary talk and buy hard assets.
WAMU
largest bank failure in US history on a thursday? this is a clear negotiating ploy for the now stalled bailout plan.
Huh? Ploy?
WaMu brought the option arm into vogue…they are extremely toxic.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
so.
we leave work yesterday and there is a deal. wake up and the deal is completely dead thanks to house repubs wanting no limits on exec pay, ease of tax burdens on corporations and refuse to sign anything otherwise…
mccain is definitelty helping the situation, thanks john.
"He wont have anything. 1 man, 0 tools."~ hiafex bout longhorn...
I think there is no chance
that either party in either house is going to give this White House a blank check after the White House screwed them on Iraq. Bush and his people can’t really use the “trust us, we know what we are doing” line.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Crying wolf
I think there is a bit of the Bush who cried wolf here. Every time he says his administration urgently needs extraordinary powers we’re sorry for it afterward.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
Yep.
I think after the Patriot Act and the Iraqi War, the Legislature learned that when the President says “There is an emergency, and we have to act now”, the best course of action is to blow him off, and do an independant study of the situation.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Okay...
enough with the “Rah! Rah!” dem talking points. This is what I found when I searched for reasoning behind the Reps reluctance…
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/9/26/note-to-paulson-the-key-to-passing-the-700-billion-bailout-is-insurance.html
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I can't blame the house Repubs
for wanting to take another look. I am not convinced that A.) a plan absolutely needs to be done this minute or the entire U.S. financial system will collapse and the earth will go hurtling into the sun; or B.) Paulson’s plan will work.
I am not a fan of this sky is falling mentality. A few days to talk about $700 billion or more seems entirely sensible to me and I applaud the House Republicans for actually being conservative for once.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
"You've got to act now!" = used car dealership
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I agree 100%
Its stupid to think that they needed to drop everything, and solve a trillion dollar crisis in a couple days. Its the kind of stupidity this White House is famous for.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
God ben
The depth of your knowledge amazes me. A true fiscal expert. I say vote ben!
by brettgardner on Sep 26, 2008 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Look...
I know that you’re incredibly insecure, and that you carry a grudge because I exposed your lie about your resume when you first started posting here. However, you need to get past your insecurities and leave me alone. I’m not going to engage you in any substantive conversation, no matter how much you want me to.
I would send you an email privately asking you to leave me alone, but you’ve shown that, if you get worked up enough, you’ll just make a public issue of that, anyway. So, here I am, asking you to pretty please don’t talk to me. I don’t have any interest in it.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
So
What do you care if I respond to something you write? You don’t have to do anything in response.
I also carry no grudge. I just don’t think much of you, and I wouldn’t if you hadn’t “exposed” me. Let’s not forget that before the wonders of “Asphalt!” it was you who dropped himself into every other conversation I was having here to remind me how little you thought of me, and to give yourself a few strokes for good measure. That’s to say nothing of the creepiness of having you loathe me so much yet consistently have a quote by me branded onto every post. So your calls for maturity ring a bit hollow.
But that you think so highly of yourself and so lowly of me is pretty amusing, and I do enjoy being amused, so my advice is “get over it,” because I’m not violating any tenets of this site by responding to you with sarcasm or criticism.
by brettgardner on Sep 26, 2008 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions
Didn't...
you say in your email that you wouldn’t respond to me anymore?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Yeah
But you didn’t respond, so I assumed you didn’t want that. It’s lapsed now.
by brettgardner on Sep 26, 2008 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Uh huh...
So, should I assume that, from your earlier comment about my financial expertise, that you think that you, as a poli-sci grad, have more extensive knowledge about financial markets than me, a licensee in the securities industry?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
No...
Where did I imply anything like that? What a dumb assumption. I was just poking fun at your arrogance.
by brettgardner on Sep 26, 2008 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Well,
I am pretty awesome.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Indeed.
I need no more proof of that proposition.
by brettgardner on Sep 26, 2008 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Check out tonight's game day thread 9/26
for more evidence.
"Asphalt me, ben. Asphalt me good and hard." - brettgardner
by inactive lsb user on Sep 26, 2008 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions
The smoking gun
from the 9/30/1999 edition of the New York Times. This article predicted it all, but you certainly won’t see or hear any coverage from the MSM, as it would greatly damage the Democrats some six weeks before the election.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
The media has sought to fix the blame for the financial meltdown on the anti-regulatory zeal of the Republican Party. Though Republicans certainly shoulder responsibility for this mess, little has been said about why bad loans were issued in the first place. Carter and Clinton-era policies pressured lenders to make risky loans to people who couldn’t afford to repay them.
In 2005, Sen. John McCain (along with three other Republicans) attempted to put constraints on this promiscuous lending behavior, but Senate Democrats blocked their efforts.
Of course, the MSM won’t shine the light on something like this which would be quite devastating for Democrats. At least not while they continue their infatuation with Sen. Barack Obama and remain the mouthpiece of the Democratic party. As a result, reform of Wall Street will remain elusive, and taxpayers will remain the victims.
Proof on McCain's support of Fannie/Freddie reform
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2084424/posts
“Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs—and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 1 90, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."
The link to the bill he was speaking about is http://www.alta.org/govt/issues/05/S-190_0126.pdf
Just food for thought.
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
How Ironic
Considering that McCain has advisors from those same firms WHO WERE THE LOBBYISTS:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9663_mccain_fannie_freddie.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/politics/10fannie.html?_r=1&oref=login
For years McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits. According to Politico, the organization opposed congressional attempts at regulation of Fannie and Freddie, along the lines of what John McCain is currently proposing. In his capacity of president of the group, Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary, in contradiction to his current boss’s sentiments. “[Fannie and Freddie] are subject to an innovative and stringent risk-based capital stress test,” Davis wrote. “The toughest in the financial services industry.”
Aquiles Suarez, listed as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign in a July 2007 McCain press release, was formerly the director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae. The Senate Lobbying Database says Suarez oversaw the lending giant’s $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.
And other current McCain campaign staffers were the lobbyists receiving shares of that money. According to the Senate Lobbying Database, the lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain’s top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004. The McCain campaign’s vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O’Melveny & Myers LLP. In addition, Politico reports that at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years.
For years McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits. According to Politico, the organization opposed congressional attempts at regulation of Fannie and Freddie, along the lines of what John McCain is currently proposing. In his capacity of president of the group, Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary, in contradiction to his current boss’s sentiments. “[Fannie and Freddie] are subject to an innovative and stringent risk-based capital stress test,” Davis wrote. “The toughest in the financial services industry.”
Of course, Obama hasn’t been clean himself, but what with so many lobbyists as McCain’s advisors, it’s kind of interesting that now McCain says the industry needs reform AFTER the sh!t hits the fan.
More food for thought
R
Actually
I take that back. It wasn’t after the sh!t hits the fan. Apologies for the misstatement
Still, not exactly the best of times to have financial lobbyists as your advisors.
And it looks like McCain wanted to privitize Freddie and Fannie Mac. That’s been great for Bear Stearns, AIG, Wamu Merrill Lynch, hasn’t it?
R
Yeah the real thing to chew on
is how bassackwards politics is.
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Sep 26, 2008 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh, and FYI the bill in my above post
was blocked by Dems so it was never actually put to a vote. .
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
McCain not co-sponsor of "Freddie Mac" bill until
well after it had “died” in committee.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2005 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 5/25/2006
Seems like more of a political stunt than anything.
Also, not sure how much the Democrats killed it since it was proposed during a REPUBLICAN-majority congress. Of course, that doesn’t eliminate the possibility that Democrats did kill it, but since the Republicans had a majority, it’s not unlikely that if the Republicans had REALLY wanted it, they could have pushed it through.
That doesn’t disavow any opposition that Democrats had (if they had significant ones), but it’s not a black and white world here where you can blame Democrats for everything.
R
I'm not sure
where you get the idea that I was blaming Dems for everything. In fact I didn’t even give any commentary on the link.
Congrats on making a leap though. I just thought it was an interesting link that was pertinent to the current situation.
Apparently not.
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Sep 26, 2008 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Bailout plan
finalized, passage expected Wednesday.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
No Doubt!
From a blog I frequent, and a writer I respect:
No one knows the implications. But THE MARKETS VOTED TODAY! And they voted that the opponents of the bailout PERHAPS are not considering “something” with respect to the interconnected fragility of our capital markets. The MARKETS VOTED for the 2nd worse decline in the S and P EVER! Do those figureheads chasing soundbytes on the congressional stage know just how bad things would get if the markets lost all hope that SOMETHING could be achieved? Do they want to run the risk of finding out? Despite the ostensibly romantic ideals of advocating for the “little guy,” let today serve as a bone-chilling and sobering wake up call to those who would presume they are in control.
Really glad I’m not 70 and retired…
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Nate Silver
posted on fivethirtyeight.com that a much, much higher percentage of those congressman up for reelection voted no if they were in close races. They fear voter anger on this and think their constituents are against it. If this bill comes up Nov. 5 it gets passed.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
Markets
They reacted totally irrationally today. I know Ben won’t like this, but it’s like a bunch of scared kids out there. I mean, a deal is coming. There’s a bit of delay. No reason to totally freak out.
That’s what markets in times of crises do, though. They cease to function and dig their own grave. What they ought to do during an obvious panic like this is just shut it all down. I don’t know who’d be the judge of what’s a “panic” and what’s rational selling, but damn, you’d think somebody could step in and say, “hey!!!! Okay quit freaking out! Go home and come back tomorrow.”
by Black Francis on Sep 29, 2008 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
