RE: $700 Billion Bailout
I'm not an economist, and won't attempt to try to influence your opinion on the Wall Street meltdown, or the bailout proposal presently in the news. I'm simply not qualified to comment meaningfully on the subject in any way, shape, or form.
What I will suggest is that readers go to Memeorandum.com, and follow the economic stories being posted there, and carefully read related blog posts. Most of the bloggers, of course, don't have any more expertise on economic policy than I, and all they are doing is echoing "fears and peers;" reacting to their own biases and prejudices and echoing the blog posts of like-minded pundits. That said, there are some ideas and reservations worth considering come from both sides of the aisle when people stop pointing fingers long enough. Good luck, folks. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:18 AM
Comments
Posted by: Dan Irving at September 22, 2008 09:41 AM (zw8QA)
2
On the squawk shows EVERYone is pro-bailout. When they do the man-on-the-street they are ALL dubious at least. Even Kudlow is for it and that surprises me pretty seriously. It seems that the wisdom, nay the inevitability of the bailout is one of those things that now everyone knows, like global warming. I find myself shockingly on the side of some leading Dems who say that bailout money should be tied to bigwig bonuses in some way, inversely obviously. The important thing though is that talkie talk about the '30s is ignorant in the extreme and has a negative effect of its own. Buy the dips.
Posted by: megapotamus at September 22, 2008 11:09 AM (LF+qW)
3
I don't understand how much of this panic is due to the bad mortgage paper accepted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Is this paper plus leverage the reason that so many banks are failing? That sounds plausible from what I have read so far: banks like Lehman had 14% of their assets with a real value -the value at which a hedge firm would purchase the asset-about 20-30% less than the book value. Which would mean, given the 30:1 leverage, that the bank was illiquid (bankrupt).
But even the crappy assets have value. Even though a house was foolishly sold to some schmuck who cannot pay, there still is a house underlying that paper. Probably at least 25% less in value on average, but still worth 75% as a group of the book value. So why does Paulson appear to be getting ready to purchase all this paper at book value? Do we, the taxpayer, really give a hoot if a player at Lehman gets stomped?
So what is going on here? Is the taxpayer just bailing out a bunch of financial types to protect them from both their own decisions and the decisions forced upon them via things like the Community Reinvestment Act? So is the Bush administration just covering (again) for Democrats?
I don't understand how much of this panic is due to the bad mortgage paper accepted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Is this paper plus leverage the reason that so many banks are failing? That sounds plausible from what I have read so far: banks like Lehman had 14% of their assets with a real value -the value at which a hedge firm would purchase the asset-about 20-30% less than the book value. Which would mean, given the 30:1 leverage, that the bank was illiquid (bankrupt).
But even the crappy assets have value. Even though a house was foolishly sold to some schmuck who cannot pay, there still is a house underlying that paper. Probably at least 25% less in value on average, but still worth 75% as a group of the book value. So why does Paulson appear to be getting ready to purchase all this paper at book value? Do we, the taxpayer, really give a hoot if a player at Lehman gets stomped?
So what is going on here? Is the taxpayer just bailing out a bunch of financial types to protect them from both their own decisions and the decisions forced upon them via things like the Community Reinvestment Act? So is the Bush administration just covering (again) for Democrats?
Posted by: iconoclast at September 22, 2008 12:08 PM (ex0JG)
4
It's not so difficult to understand what's going on, it's just the logical consequence of what has been going on for years:
Pretending to advocate free markets the neocons and their government have been stealing from the middle class and the workers of your country to feed the wealthy, laundering money to oil profiteers, arms dealers, war contractors, utility giants ...
Now, as greed and fixation on the shareholders' value have run this barracuda-capitalism into collapse, the American (and many European) taxpayers have to pay the bill. The profiteers, whose taxes were minimized by Bush, have got what they wanted. - Not only this administration's foreign policy but also its handling of the economy turn out to be disastrous.
Pretending to advocate free markets the neocons and their government have been stealing from the middle class and the workers of your country to feed the wealthy, laundering money to oil profiteers, arms dealers, war contractors, utility giants ...
Now, as greed and fixation on the shareholders' value have run this barracuda-capitalism into collapse, the American (and many European) taxpayers have to pay the bill. The profiteers, whose taxes were minimized by Bush, have got what they wanted. - Not only this administration's foreign policy but also its handling of the economy turn out to be disastrous.
Posted by: he at September 22, 2008 01:02 PM (xjL3g)
5
he - quit shilling for "anti-Bush" entities.
The Bush administration, with respect to their spending habits, has been anything BUT conservative in action. Their foreign policy has been sufficient (and excellent in some) in most areas.
The Bush administration, with respect to their spending habits, has been anything BUT conservative in action. Their foreign policy has been sufficient (and excellent in some) in most areas.
Posted by: Mark at September 22, 2008 01:22 PM (4od5C)
6
Now that the last two remaining investment banks are becoming commercial banks subject to regulatory requirements/oversight by the Federal Reserve why do we need to hand a blank check to the Treasury Secretary whose decisions will be final and unreviewable to bail out bondholders and bankers who knew they were buying CRAp?
Posted by: crazy at September 22, 2008 02:30 PM (uTxK0)
7
Now that the last two remaining investment banks are becoming commercial banks subject to regulatory requirements/oversight by the Federal Reserve why do we need to hand a blank check to the Treasury Secretary whose decisions will be final and unreviewable to bail out bondholders and bankers who knew they were trading CRAp?
Posted by: crazy at September 22, 2008 02:31 PM (uTxK0)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.006 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.004 seconds, 15 records returned.
Page size 8 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.