dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:20 pm
@squinney,
squinney wrote:

I don't, so why do should I care?


Erm...because if enough people do then the entire economy suffers, I believe....and also I would imagine many more folk become dependent upon welfare.

I'm just watching and listening here, generally...but I think this needs somewhat better thinking than "I'm ok, Jack." I am nt sure what the right thing to do is, though, of course.

Of course, wise investors have their investments spread widely...

I am wondering how different our two countries are in terms of exposure to the stock market?

Anyone working in Australia (almost) has money in the market, because we have legislated national superannuation payment put in by employers (this was in lieu of a national pay rise a couple of decades ago)....and one can top this up oneself. One can choose which company one wishes this paid into, but most of us use an industry fund.

Therefore, we almost all have superannuation savings which are, of course, plummeting right now.

Our banks and such are fine (at least so far) because we haven't had them involved in sub-prime mortgages, and they generally haven't behaved as irresponsibly as US banks...but of course we have been in a real-estate and investment bubble.


So...we are all losing a lot of our savings right now, and I feel very sad for folk retiring right now.





JPB
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:22 pm
@Ramafuchs,
Quote:
Virginia Republican Tom Davis, who supports the administration's program, said Paulson ``had a tough audience'' because ``there is a huge credibility problem with this administration.''


no kidding! Maybe Bush's speech tonight will regain his credibility. I'm skeptical.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:25 pm
@JPB,
You "still" trust Bush and his rhetoric?
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:26 pm
@JPB,
It will never my intention to laugh while a country like USA is struggling to find out the real cause.
But as a Karlmarx rational I am dead against the American tax- payer's money being squandered, wasted like this quick "FREEDOM FRY with tomatoo sauce.

Extending the Bailout: It's Simple, Sell Us the Company and You're In

The WSJ discusses the puzzling issue of how far the bailout should go. Should it cover auto loan debt, student loan debt, construction loans?

If the bailout were structured correctly, this wouldn't be a problem. The bailout has to be painful, it is not supposed to be a reward for ridiculously overpaid executives who pushed their companies to the edge of bankruptcy. If the government's purchases of bad debt were tied to serious restrictions on executive compensation and the forced sale of equity to the government, then only banks that really needed the money would line up for the bailout. Under these terms, we could include whatever assets the Wall Street boys and girls want to sell.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=extending_the_bailout_its_simp
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:28 pm
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

So...we are all losing a lot of our savings right now, and I feel very sad for folk retiring right now.


Me too.

I also agree with p_dog about folks in the middle who have done it by the book their entire lives getting it in the chops at the expense of social programs gone wild on one end and incessant greed on the other.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
you missed my sarcasm, ci. One can't "still" trust him if one never held that trust to begin with.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
McDonald's Corp., the world's largest restaurant company,
told some U.S. franchisees to seek other ways to finance store improvements after Bank of America Corp. declined to increase lending

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/39e13070-8995-11dd-8371-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:31 pm
@Ramafuchs,
Rama, that may be your best post to date...

(the previous one, up above a ways ^^^^)
cjhsa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:38 pm
@Rockhead,
The reason the market is crashing is simple. Leading edge baby boomers rejected everything their parents taught them. That and the fact we have a Dem-led congress filled with the dumbest bunch of loons that ever walked the earth. Hippies are knee-jerk loving douchebags. Welcome to the world I've been warning you about.
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:40 pm
@Rockhead,
I am not here to score a point or get any unworthy compliments. I am here to expose the system's weakness.
Thro this thread i try my level best about the so called holy market economy.
Anyway how about this kind of thought?

"If Congress insists on passing something like the Paulson plan, it should have the following feature: The Secretary of the Treasury will no longer get a salary. Instead, he will be paid entirely in the form of a performance bonus. If the TARP makes a loss, he gets nothing. If it makes a profit, he gets a percentage of the profit.
http://knzn.blogspot.com/2008/09/incentives-for-dictator.html
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:44 pm
I see this as the death of some reasonable base of health care for all: a function of all the money gone to war power and war industry and various speculation balloons, at the cost of basic infrastructure (in contrast to pork), basic health and welfare. Further, I doubt there will be any rescue for those in real trouble, such as the off the book unemployed, many of those folks among our most creative and thoughtful, if not re money production.

I'm learning a lot in this thread, thanks to all for comments so far.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:45 pm
@cjhsa,
cjhsa wrote:

The reason the market is crashing is simple. Leading edge baby boomers rejected everything their parents taught them. That and the fact we have a Dem-led congress filled with the dumbest bunch of loons that ever walked the earth. Hippies are knee-jerk loving douchebags. Welcome to the world I've been warning you about.


I love you too, cj. Gotta any trees I can hug?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:48 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

applicable regulatory agencies


who would that be? My understanding is that there are no regulatory agencies charged with the oversight you're talking about for this industry.


The short answer noting that people didn't do their jobs on almost every level. (Not mentioned here but both the House and Senate have banking committees charged to be the watchdogs over this industry):

Quote:
BANKS
The United States banking environment is subject to a host of rules and regulations issued by variousregulatory and enforcement agencies. US Federal bank regulatory agencies include the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Fed), the US Treasury Department’’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). In addition, regulation comes from states themselves - with emphasis on the four states with the largest number of foreign bank offices: New York, California, Illinois and Florida.

US regulation impacting banks is complex and far-reaching - a sample includes The International Banking Act of 1978; The Foreign Bank Supervision Enhancement Act of 1991; The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994; The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999; The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001; the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) of 1970, and The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Organizations find it a challenge to avoid US regulatory issues within the banking sector. The best way to prevent issues is through: (1) instituting an effective top-down, risk-based program to ensure compliance with BSA/AML/OFAC/Other US regulation; (2) be aware and adequately respond to current issues within the banking sector; and (3) properly investigate and remediate identified deficiencies in your organization.
https://www.10ainvestigation.com/sites/detail.asp?market=91&id=42


Quote:
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STOCK MARKET & INSTITUTIONS THAT RUN IT

Congress
Congress is the top dog when it comes to who is regulating the US stock markets. Congress has passed most major laws associated with US stock exchanges; such as the Securities Act of 1933 and, more recently, the Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (more commonly known as the ‘‘Sarbanes-Oxley’’ Act after the Congressmen who sponsored the act).

In addition to setting the laws by which the US stock exchanges are regulated, Congress also has overall control of the budget of Securities and Exchange Commission and other federal and other associated agencies.

The Securities and Exchange Commission
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is the top regulatory body overseeing the US stock markets. The SEC registers all new securities being listed on US stock markets and manages, ensures, and enforces that US listed corporations submit their filings in a timely manner.

The SEC can also veto any application submitted to issue securities on the US stock markets.

National Association of Securities Dealers
Following the SEC in the regulatory pecking order is the National Association of Securities Dealers. The National Association of Securities Dealers is a self-regulatory body that oversees the practices of securities dealers. In the event that any securities dealer passes the National Association’’s examination, they’’ll be issued a license to sell securities. Conversely, if any securities dealer is seen to have acted improperly, the National Association can revoke or suspend the dealer’’s license.

State Legislators
Although they may not feel that they are so low down in the pecking order of who regulates US stock markets, it is a commonly held belief that State legislators are next in line. In most cases, state legislators regulate how securities may be sold in their state "" and this is especially true if the issuing entity is registered in that State.
Brokerage Houses

Last in the long line of authorities who regulate the US stock markets are the brokerage houses themselves. Most brokerage houses have a good reputation that they need to keep of they want to stay in business. As such, many have in place internal regulations and rules that are as strict, if not stricter, than the rules set by all of the above regulators.
http://www.a-z-stock-brokers.com/regulators.html
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:54 pm
@Foxfyre,
Again, I could be wrong but my understanding is that investment banks are not regulated as "banks" nor are they dealing in securities that fall under the SEC. At least this is what the men at the table told the Senators at yesterday's hearing. Apparently, there is a "voluntary" program that allows investment banks to participate in sharing their info with the SEC but few chose to do so.
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 05:55 pm
@ossobuco,
I respect your above observation.
I am, like you seek new critical knowledge thro discussion.
But rarely I am motivated to participate and thereby I open a thread and answer myself to console my soul.
One guy ask this question and he is an American

"Why isn't the way Buffett invested in Goldman exactly what the governmnet should do if it does something regarding a given bank? Why should a taxpayer get any less?
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/my-life-gets-cr.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 06:01 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Again, I could be wrong but my understanding is that investment banks are not regulated as "banks" nor are they dealing in securities that fall under the SEC. At least this is what the men at the table told the Senators at yesterday's hearing. Apparently, there is a "voluntary" program that allows investment banks to participate in sharing their info with the SEC but few chose to do so.


I didn't get to hear all the hearings today JPB, but I can't imagine they said that the SEC does not regulate investment banks. They very well have said that the SEC DIDN'T regulate them, but I do believe it has responsibility to do so. If they did say that, that would fly in the face of everything I've ever been taught.

Here's a bit more--as condensed as I could find it:

Quote:
Investment bank: Investment banks help companies and governments raise money by issuing and selling securities in the capital markets (both equity and debt securities) and provide advice on transactions such as mergers and acquisitions. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch were investment banks. Recent market turmoil has heightened fears investment banks, which rely heavily on short-term borrowing to finance their trading and lending businesses, need to find a more stable base of funds to ride out market volatility.

Thrift: Savings banks and savings and loan associations (S&Ls
) are known as thrift institutions. Like commercial banks, thrifts are depository institutions, meaning they accept customer deposits. Thrifts traditionally have taken savings, time and demand deposits as their primary liability, and made most of their income from loaning deposits out as mortgages. Seattle-based Washington Mutual, which has lost billions and seen its shares plummet due to subprime mortgage exposure, is the largest savings and loan in the country.

Banking regulators: Different kinds of banks are regulated by different agencies.


The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency regulates banks that have the word "National" in their name or the letters "N.A."


The Federal Reserve oversees large bank holding companies and some state-chartered banks.


The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. regulates most small, state-chartered community banks with assets and deposits less than $1 billion.


The Office of Thrift Supervision oversees federal savings and loans and federal savings banks.


The Securities and Exchange Commission regulates investment banks.

Consumer protections: Bank deposits are protected, up to a point, by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC); brokerage accounts are protected by the Securities Investor Protection Corp. (SIPC).

FDIC: Insures checking, savings and certificates of deposit, or CD's, up to $100,000 for regular accounts and up to $250,000 for retirement accounts. The insurance applies to accounts in FDIC member banks, including commercial banks and thrifts. The FDIC does not protect stocks, bonds or mutual funds, even if they were sold by an FDIC insured institution.

SIPC: A nonprofit organization whose members consist of brokerage firms, the SIPC's goal is to provide protection against loss to customers resulting from the failure of broker-dealers. It does not, however, insure against decreases in value of a particular stock or investment.
http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-10/1221798386111660.xml&coll=1




spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 06:06 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
If they did say that, that would fly in the face of everything I've ever been taught.


Nothing unusual there Foxy. The times they are a changin'.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 06:12 pm
@Ramafuchs,
[L]et’s talk about how governments normally respond to financial crisis: namely, they rescue the failing financial institutions, taking temporary ownership while keeping them running. If they don’t want to keep the institutions public, they eventually dispose of bad assets and pay off enough debt to make the institutions viable again, then sell them back to the private sector. But the first step is rescue with ownership.

That’s what we did in the S&L crisis; that’s what Sweden did in the early 90s; that’s what was just done with Fannie and Freddie; it’s even what was done just last week with AIG. It’s more or less what would happen with the Dodd plan, which would buy bad debt but get equity warrants that depend on the later losses on that debt.

From Professor Krugman NYT
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 07:09 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

Good point.

Latest proposals seem to be $150 billion rather than $700 billion, meanwhile -- still a hefty chunk of change but a little less staggering.


I caught some of the hearing on cspan on Tuesday. I think it was Schumer that first suggested 150, but that was with the expectation that Paulson (or whoever was then Secretary) would come back for the rest later. His question was, why do you need it all right now, with no strings attached? It was a good point, I think.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 07:14 pm
@Ramafuchs,
If this subsidy is large enough, it will succeed in
stopping the crisis. But, again, at what price? The answer: Billions of dollars in taxpayer
money and, even worse, the violation of the fundamental capitalist principle that she who
reaps the gains also bears the losses
. Remember that in the Savings and Loan crisis, the
government had to bail out those institutions because the deposits were federally insured.
But in this case the government does not have do bail out the debtholders of Bear Sterns,
AIG, or any of the other financial institutions that will benefit from the Paulson RTC.
It is much more appealing for the
financial industry to be bailed out at taxpayers’ expense than to bear their share of pain.
Forcing a debt-for-equity swap or a debt forgiveness would be no greater a violation of
private property rights than a massive bailout, but it faces much stronger political
opposition. The appeal of the Paulson solution is that it taxes the many and benefits the
few. Since the many (we, the taxpayers) are dispersed, we cannot put up a good fight in
Capitol Hill; while the financial industry is well represented at all the levels. It is enough
to say that for 6 of the last 13 years, the Secretary of Treasury was a Goldman Sachs
alumnus. But, as financial experts, this silence is also our responsibility. Just as it is
difficult to find a doctor willing to testify against another doctor in a malpractice suit, no
matter how egregious the case, finance experts in both political parties are too friendly to
the industry they study and work in.
The decisions that will be made this weekend matter not just to the prospects of the U.S.
economy in the year to come; they will shape the type of capitalism we will live in for the
next fifty years. Do we want to live in a system where profits are private, but losses are
socialized? Where taxpayer money is used to prop up failed firms? Or do we want to live
in a system where people are held responsible for their decisions, where imprudent
behavior is penalized and prudent behavior rewarded? For somebody like me who
believes strongly in the free market system, the most serious risk of the current situation
is that the interest of few financiers will undermine the fundamental workings of the
capitalist system. The time has come to save capitalism from the capitalists
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi.zingales/Why_Paulson_is_wrong.pdf
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Who or What is Responsible? - Discussion by Merry Andrew
Debt ceiling? - Question by Buffalo
The Legacy of the Reagan Revolution - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
No real limits to growth - Discussion by gungasnake
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
Wage discrimination - Question by zewittykitty
Central Bank Operations? - Question by NewToEcons
Frictional unemployment vs structural - Question by MateuszJanczura
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Let it crash
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 11:47:42