cicerone imposter
 
  4  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 10:11 am
@revel,
To apportion out the $700 in reasonable increments is being challenged by Paulson and Bernanke. Why?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 10:12 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

To apportion out the $700 in reasonable increments is being challenged by Paulson and Bernanke. Why?


Because the number is a joke. It's meaningless. They just wanted a big number with which to reassure Wall Street.

Cycloptichorn
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  3  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 10:23 am
@cicerone imposter,
2009 models are coming out....need cash.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 10:27 am
@Bi-Polar Bear,
What's scary part is the simple fact that these dummies think they deserve to control that much money. All they want is "power" and nothing more, and be written in the history books. They still haven't provided an end game, and how this money will affect the short-term and long-term on our economy.
hamburger
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 12:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
cyclo wrote :

Quote:
Because the number is a joke. It's meaningless. They just wanted a big number with which to reassure Wall Street.


this morning on CNBC : an analyst for one of the economic think-tanks appeared this morning .
the CNBC anchor asked : "how was the $700 billion number arrived at ?" .
analyst's reply : " no one has the foggiest idea what the real number might be .
might be less , might be much more ; the people struggling with this problem just thought that they had to give SOME NUMBER , ANY NUMBER ! " .

just sit back , relax , have a couple of stiff drinks - or two valium .
imagine you are a kid again and it is christmas eve : tomorrow morning you will find out what the presents will be . try shaking the boxes - they won't give up their secrets - you'll have to wait until the gifts are unwrapped .
hope you all feel like a kid again !
hbg
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 12:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
This thread is a joke. You might as well abandon Economics as a subject if this is a fair cross-section of what it has taught people who own computers after 15 years of full-time education.

Everybody who is anybody has known what's been going on for years. And none of them are going to warn you for the simple reason that they'll be accused of talking the economy down and being unAmerican and the folks on the splurge will readily believe the accusations. And Media would have found the words for them to parrot just like they are doing now in order to sidestep any blame. Where else have you got the ideas from that you're all putting on here but Media.

They would crucify a serious warning voice who they thought was trying to spoil the party.

Just look at the insults I got for saying that continental and inter-continental travel just to have A2K meets for a day or two was a madness. Wall to wall villification is what I got. As long as I was a prick the meetings were not a madness you see. That's why they called me one. (I paraphrase of course.)I've been on about "spend now and let the grandkids pay" since I started on here. And I'm on "Ignore" all round the room.

None of you have Media in the frame which suggests you might as well abandon psychology as a subject as well. They sold the urge to borrow. Whipped it into a frenzy one might say without undue exaggeration. They had your tongues hanging out. Paying 10%, or more, with money borrowed from the Fed. at 4%.
A diamond studded trough.

When the decision to allow advertising on TV was taken it was said that the public would not be overly influenced by ads. "Just you watch", somebody might have said, " but keep them thinking that way as it's easier to **** their heads up anywhichway if they think a silly self-reassuring like that. Have you never noticed that the people who claim not to be influenced by "advertising" (the bit between the weather forecasts) are the very most suckered gumps you could ever wish to meet.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 12:47 pm
@hamburger,
And yet I have been listening to commentary on the radio and television for the last three days that very clearly states that the $700 billion was arrived at by adding up the 5% of loans/mortgages that were in danger of default. 5% doesn't sound like much until you realize that it adds up to $700 billion, a sum that the financial institutions could not eat and remain solvent.

There is a high expectation that not forcing those loan/mortgages to default now will improve the economic climate to the point that they will no longer be in danger of default. Most people do pay their debts when they can. As the debts are repaid, that $700 billion outlay begins to shrink as the repayment flows back into the treasury.

And THAT is why the $700 billion is most likely the most prudent path out of the mess. The trick now is to keep it at that $700 billion with full accountability and transparency in force, and not allow opportunisitic politicians to add a whole bunch of other stuff onto the bill.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 01:10 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
And THAT is why the $700 billion is most likely the most prudent path out of the mess. The trick now is to keep it at that $700 billion with full accountability and transparency in force, and not allow opportunisitic politicians to add a whole bunch of other stuff onto the bill.


Look Foxy-- we thought we had accountability and transparency before didn't we? I knew what was happening. Were not Media watching them like hawks on our behalf? And the main point about "opportunistic politicians" is that you don't see them coming. What good would it do them if we could see them coming, no matter how opportunistic they are?

If they can sell Americans nationalisation of the financial system they should be able to sell them anything.

That's why they want the Christian message out of the way. It's too inflexible for the modern age. Love thy neighbour my arse. It's soppy.
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 01:18 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
And THAT is why the $700 billion is most likely the most prudent path out of the mess. The trick now is to keep it at that $700 billion with full accountability and transparency in force, and not allow opportunisitic politicians to add a whole bunch of other stuff onto the bill.


Look Foxy-- we thought we had accountability and transparency before didn't we? I knew what was happening. Were not Media watching them like hawks on our behalf? And the main point about "opportunistic politicians" is that you don't see them coming. What good would it do them if we could see them coming, no matter how opportunistic they are?

If they can sell Americans nationalisation of the financial system they should be able to sell them anything.

That's why they want the Christian message out of the way. It's too inflexible for the modern age. Love thy neighbour my arse. It's soppy.


Yes. As I have previously posted, they knew it was happening. So we had transparency before--they knew--but we did NOT have responsibility and now they are trying to avoid accountability like crazy. So long as the bubble was expanding, those bad loans were not a problem--the assets were appreciating and everybody was making money. But they were irresponsible in not warning everybody that the bubble could not be sustained without a solid underpinning. The first defaults on those bad loans started a leak and a stalling of the process. When credit of necessity began drying up as a result, the bubble burst and suddenly billions in liabilities exceeded existing assets that could not be sold to cover the liabilities.

So here we are. Dereliction of duty on the part of many, but it is too late. We can't unring the bell. So we have to cut our losses and try to turn the sows ear into a silk purse.
spendius
 
  3  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 01:36 pm
@Foxfyre,
We all know that Foxy. I was saying about the period when the bubble was expanding and you were all dancing the night away. (that's a metaphor btw).

They knew then. After the first defaults Forest Gump knew.

You loved it on the way up. You said the warning voices were Jonahs. Jobs even.

I don't even think it was dereliction of duty either. I could make a case that it wasn't quite easily with Marx as my guiding light.

There's no way any of us can know whether $700 billion is enough or not enough nor whether it will work or not and who for. I'm not sure anybody does.

Still- it's good fun eh?

If Mr Bush could have heard three guys in the pub last night sort it all out he would have an easy job wouldn't he?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 01:44 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

We all know that Foxy. I was saying about the period when the bubble was expanding and you were all dancing the night away. (that's a metaphor btw).

They knew then. After the first defaults Forest Gump knew.

You loved it on the way up. You said the warning voices were Jonahs. Jobs even.

I don't even think it was dereliction of duty either. I could make a case that it wasn't quite easily with Marx as my guiding light.

There's no way any of us can know whether $700 billion is enough or not enough nor whether it will work or not and who for. I'm not sure anybody does.

Still- it's good fun eh?

If Mr Bush could have heard three guys in the pub last night sort it all out he would have an easy job wouldn't he?


No, I didn't know. The transparency was obvious to those in charge. They knew. But they didn't tell the rest of us lest they hasten the deflation of the bubble. It was obvious to Alan Greenspan and to those who tried to put the brakes on it three years ago. But they were outnumbered by those in denial who refused to act.

John McCain has been all over the block on this which is trypical of strongly extraverted people who think outloud as they work through aspects of a problem. That is okay in some setting; not cool for a politican; but to his credit he does seem to have it right now. One of the components he is demanding this time is that the process, whatever it ultimately is, be 100% transparent to all of us. We won't allow the fox to guard the henhouse any more.

There is no excuse for our elected leaders to have allowed this to happen. But they did and, as I said, you can't unring the bell. All we can do is the best we can do with the situation as it exists now. We don't have the luxury of dealing what what should have been.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 02:01 pm
@spendius,
fox wrote :

Quote:
There's no way any of us can know whether $700 billion is enough or not enough nor whether it will work or not and who for. I'm not sure anybody does.


of course , you are right . i doubt that anybody can state with any degree of confidence what the REAL number will be .
as i stated earlier , even those used to deal with large economic guesswork/estimates seem to think that "it's just a number" .
i doubt that anything can be done now to reduce the true losses - whatever they might be .

(it's a bit like leaving a box of candies with the kids - or a case of beer with a 'drunk' - and say : "don't touch ! " . you know very well that your words are meaningless . )

as is usual in this world , some people will get hurt , others may get rich .
i've been around the block often enough to know that these things happen .
it's like trying to tell people not to start a fight/a war/don't drink and drive ... ... there are always enough people who'll do it anyway .
i'm too old to really worry about it - try to ride it out as best as we can .
what else is there to do ?
hbg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:wjalxx2T3bem1M:http://cockingasnook.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/what-me-worry-715603.jpg

Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 02:14 pm
@hamburger,
No, it isn't 'just a number' as I posted subsequent to the earlier post. The $700 is the total of the 5% of loans/mortages in imminent danger of default. But after earlier defaults, that was more than financial institutions could absorb. There is an excellent chance most of those won't default given a bit of time, however, and there is an excellent chance that the government will recoup a lot or most of those 'investments' within the next two or three years. It is quite possible, the government will lose nothing at all in the long run.

The trick will be to forge a plan to make this process focused on the immediate problem and not try to do a whole lot of other stuff 'while they are at it.'
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 02:34 pm
@Foxfyre,
Won't there be social costs as well as accountancy "fees"? It's more than just an accountancy problem I think.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  3  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 02:39 pm
Good afternoon. We have been focusing on the Wall Street bailout this week, but now...
IT'S ALMOST FRIDAY. DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR BANK IS?
Specifically, I am thinking about Washington Mutual (WAMU). I think that there is a likelihood that something will happen this weekend regarding the nation's largest but very troubled S&L.
---No fewer then 4 banks, domestic and foreign, have reportedly looked at WAMU's portfolio of loans and have found them too toxic to touch. They are now talking to private investment groups for an infusion of cash.
---WAMU's west coast network of branches has a good deal of value, but only if it could be spun off, and the proceeds would not be all that great in the grand scheme of things.
---WAMU on Wednesday took the time to tell its deposit account holders ($140B in deposits) that their accounts are insured up to $100,000. That certainly must have been reassuring.
---WAMU is offering a 4% interest rate on new on-line deposits. That is about twice what other institutions are offering.

I may be wrong, but I would suggest watching WAMU this weekend.
hamburger
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 02:54 pm
@realjohnboy,
just out of curiosity i checked myrtle beach real estate prices .
i was a bit shocked : 2 bed/2bath - 1,250 sqare feet : take your pick - $120,000 to $150,000 !
those prices are about 50% below recent highs and about 30 % lower than a few years ago - good thing we didn't buy .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNBC commentators stated this morning that it is important to have a "settlement" by sunday afternoon/evening BEFORE the stock markets open in asia .
they said that if there is no settlement by then , the money/credit flow from asian investors would "negatively" effect the U.S. economy (meaning : no more investment money from china/japan/korea ... ...) .
hbg


Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 03:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I made my my point clear about this subject with relevant CUT and Paste with relevant Americn intellectul views.
I feel extremely sorry for my critical views which is not the way of American language..
I am not with u nor any one of you are brave enough to repect the views of Non-Americans.
The fact is your country's dream is hollywood or bolywood dream.
Reality sucks.
Ask Bush who with to save the banal, pathetic state of affairs..
And go to to him texas were the people who had earned some puny toilet dollar to buy some silly existential needs..
The whole world will never uphold the so called AMERICAN NIGHTMARES.
I am ready to deviate from the subject of this thread and expose your hypocracy with my faulty english.
Rama fuchs
56 Josef stresse
Köln
Germany
If i had diverted with my banal barbaric blasphemous views then I beg your pardon..
Let me attract the attention of the despired disilluned demotivated old members.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH start with civic, civil ,moral ,ethithcal courage.
hamburger
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 03:07 pm
@Foxfyre,
fox wrote :

Quote:
No, it isn't 'just a number' as I posted subsequent to the earlier post. The $700 is the total of the 5% of loans/mortages in imminent danger of default. But after earlier defaults, that was more than financial institutions could absorb. There is an excellent chance most of those won't default given a bit of time, however, and there is an excellent chance that the government will recoup a lot or most of those 'investments' within the next two or three years. It is quite possible, the government will lose nothing at all in the long run.

The trick will be to forge a plan to make this process focused on the immediate problem and not try to do a whole lot of other stuff 'while they are at it.'


at least a/t the "numbers people" appearing on CNBC , the 5% number is NOT based on anything tangible , but a guess at best .

"It is quite possible, the government will lose nothing at all in the long run." - that's what i heard often enough fromfriends going to las vegas or the racetrack : "in the long run i'll make up the losses" (sure) .

the asian investors are watching ! i can't remember the number that is expected on a daily basis to flow in from asian investors - hope they won't get cold feet !
hbg

better be in chicago on oct. 3 , 2008 :



Quote:
7:30 am to 9:15 am

The Standard Club, Chicago

Driven in large part by a historical weakness in the US dollar and rapid growth of foreign private equity and sovereign investment funds, inbound investing in the U.S. has become increasingly important to deal flow during these challenging times. The International Network of ACG Chicago has put together a first class panel of experts to give you both an overview of how this trend is taking shape and some of the finer points of how it is impacting the American M&A market.


see you in chicago !
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 03:10 pm
@Ramafuchs,
Moreover my Karl Marx , Mahathma Gandhi Nelson mandela, MLK, Mother Theresa will shake or shape your future world.
Whereever you live or vegitate or exist the future is with US and not with you( Ehither you are with us or against US- BUSH( two time Resident of the nasty toilet which is branded as White house)
roger
 
  3  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 03:16 pm
@hamburger,
hamburger wrote:

just out of curiosity i checked myrtle beach real estate prices .
i was a bit shocked : 2 bed/2bath - 1,250 sqare feet : take your pick - $120,000 to $150,000 !
those prices are about 50% below recent highs and about 30 % lower than a few years ago - good thing we didn't buy .

hbg


Nevertheless, $120,000 for a two bedroom cottage is screaming outrageous, or so it seems to me.
 

Related Topics

Who or What is Responsible? - Discussion by Merry Andrew
Debt ceiling? - Question by Buffalo
More Proof that HPQ SUCKS! - Discussion by hawkeye10
The Legacy of the Reagan Revolution - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The Bush/Obunga Dark Age - Discussion by gungasnake
No real limits to growth - Discussion by gungasnake
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
Wage discrimination - Question by zewittykitty
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Let it crash
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/16/2022 at 03:50:16