|
|
|
| Please use the feedback page for all website and agent comments and review the forum rules before posting. |
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
airplanedad
Posts:131
 |
| 10/03/2008 9:25 AM |
 Alert
|
In the NYT today--page C1 Business section:
Floyd Norris avers that the present bail out package seems to be straight out of the playbook of the S and L crisis. Why does this matter? Basically, that rescue worked to restore confidence, but did little to change structural problems with finance and its garnishes. In fact, our elected folks pressured regulators to change accounting rules to make financial systems look better than they did. WTF?
Did that work? Some people think the previous intervention turned a $25 B problem into a $350 B problem in scarely 20-30 years. As we have been discussing here, the problem was just kicked down the road (but wow-- that's some kind of growth figure, isn't it?? Too bad the growth is cancer, but it does seem to some kind of law of the universe that malignancies grow faster than healthy systems...hmm)
That's scary: Think about it: The problem grew more than an order of magnitude in just 20-30 years. I'll bet a lot of you plan on being around for the next 20-30 years: If we don't change course, can we look forward to adding another zero to our problem???
Also in the NYT editorial page, Paul Krugman writes that the current bailout plan is an inexcusable stinker (although he is scared enough that he hopes it passes). That the best plan we get offered is a stinker is BAD news. The players knew this problem was brewing for at least a year. There should have been some drafts of contingency plans for a rescue starting at least then. WHY DID OUR TREASURY SEC, Legislators, etc all wait?? This is a very, very, very important question. I Believe We Should Demand Answers To This Question.
I, too, am scared about what will happen if no bail out is passed. I believe something will be passed soon and I believe it will be a stinker. This is not excusable.
I hope everyone takes time to carefully think about what our representatives are doing as we go into the next election. I do believe that there needs to be some serious purging. I believe we need to look for candidates who have the courage and foresight to took ahead and beyond their own political careers and I believe we need to constantly check in with them to make sure they are not driving us over a cliff. I also believe the average American has gotten lazy and does not demand enough of their representatives (mea culpa). I hope there is still time to turn the ship around. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
kelly564
Posts:59
|
| 10/04/2008 9:33 AM |
Alert
|
| so, we got the stinker, but do you think confidence in the market is really there still? I don't know. I agree with you about getting involved, and letting our representatives constantly know how we think! |
|
|
|
|
jpinpb
Posts:1450
|
| 10/04/2008 9:48 AM |
Alert
|
| Question. Regardless of who wins the next election, how will the taxpayers pay for this 700 billion? I would imagine that taxes will have to be increased, no? |
|
|
|
|
tpc
Posts:498
|
| 10/04/2008 9:53 AM |
Alert
|
[quote]believe we need to look for candidates who have the courage and foresight to took ahead and beyond their own political careers and I believe we need to constantly check in with them to make sure they are not driving us over a cliff. [/quote]
Airplane-how do you propose that we do that. Should be do a brain scan??? Should we do a brain implant???? Should we select religious leaders like ted haggard???? Its time you climbed out of your airplane and come back to earth (wait-come back to earth first and then climb our of your airplane). Your brain is obviously oxygen deprived and it is impairing your thought processes. |
|
|
|
|
ElPato
Posts:351
|
| 10/04/2008 9:54 AM |
Alert
|
Food for thought:
Nouriel Roubini
Roubini's site requires free registration. He's predicted this meltdown precisely. People thought he was nuts. He's been right on the money, even predicting the stages we would go through.. It's well worth the reg, and you can go backward in time to see his predictions. In fact, I would probably do that first, before reading the article link above, as it's so dark you may think he's crazy without some historical perspective.
Hudson makes a very cogent argument why this silly TARP is a waste of money:
Michael Hudson
It certainly looks like we have a kleptocracy in power. |
|
|
|
|
ElPato
Posts:351
|
| 10/04/2008 10:30 AM |
Alert
|
>> I would imagine that taxes will have to be increased, no?
Yes indeed, probably a combination of taxes, including politicians favorite (as they don't have to vote for it), INFLATION!
One last bit of food for thought:
Washington Post
"The unblinkable fact is that Americans own too much house. We overpaid and overborrowed, and many of us are "upside down," as the car dealers say. What to do? Recognize the losses and write them off. What not to do? Inflate the currency and debase accounting standards.
But inflation and debasement are the very policies being put in place." |
|
|
|
|
tpc
Posts:498
|
| 10/04/2008 2:04 PM |
Alert
|
[quote]Hudson makes a very cogent argument why this silly TARP is a waste of money:
Michael Hudson[/quote]
Elpato-Hudson article is good until he gets to the theory of compound interest. Then he turns into some kind of a religious nut job.
He states-that the magic of compounding interest refers to the tendency of savings to double and redouble exponentially, WITH A MATCHING RISE IN WHAT DEBTORS OWE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. NOT TRUE. For example, I buy a home for $500k and take out a mtge for $500k. Two years later i sell the house for 700k or a 200k profit. There is no offsetting 200k rise in my debt. ?????? |
|
|
|
|
tpc
Posts:498
|
| 10/04/2008 4:53 PM |
Alert
|
[quote]Elpato-Hudson article is good until he gets to the theory of compound interest. Then he turns into some kind of a religious nut job.
He states-that the magic of compounding interest refers to the tendency of savings to double and redouble exponentially, WITH A MATCHING RISE IN WHAT DEBTORS OWE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. NOT TRUE. For example, I buy a home for $500k and take out a mtge for $500k. Two years later i sell the house for 700k or a 200k profit. There is no offsetting 200k rise in my debt. ??????[/quote]
Elpato-let me give a better example. I buy an investment property for $500k and get a $500k mtge for 30 years. I keep the property for 30 years, it is now worth $1M and has no mortgage. There is no offsetting $1m debt. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.................
|