What if no bailout happens?

You don't understand. RJ is one of those who WANTS a economic meltdown "to teach us a lesson".
Although when it comes to basic economics RJ could use a few lessons themsleves, then just mouth stuff that sounds as if it came from a Ron Paul website.
Come on now. I would have preferred this never happened, but the fact is that Greenspan wasn't the God everyone was making him out to be. He turned on the faucet in 2001 with 1% interest and left it on instead of letting the market work properly. I don't want to see anyone hurt here (its costing me too, although I took precaution a little over a year ago), but this was inevitable.
 
The ad hominem insults are hurtful, small minded, but hurtful.....Again, I'll forgive you as its reasonably clear you're simply young and immature.

I'm sorry about you being hurt, but the fact remains: now is not the time to entertain the same pet theories about banking, and argue about basic concepts you can research by your own any time your want. We're facing a crisis (or if you don't like that word, a very significant event), and it's perfectly normal that people address it beyond macro-economics 101. I have a problem with people "polluting" important discussions with concerns and comments that are simply not recognized by the vast majority of experts in economy and finance, especially when they claim they actually know what they are talking about. This is not the time for free-wheeling discussions.
 
Well, it seems a majority of congress agrees with what I've said.

Incidentally, I never said I was hurt, I said the comments were hurtful.....Theres a difference.
 
Last edited:
For those of you who want to know what you're seeing in the stock market right now. Its an adjustment. The overinflated stocks are coming back to reality and a more honest valuation. Had the bailout been approved, we would most likely be faced with hyperinflation.
 
Last edited:

Unless I've completely misunderstood the point of The Onion, yes.:)

One good thing about the bursting housing bubble is I no longer have to deal with Mortgage companies. You see starting in about 2004 my house was suddenly valued at four times what I had mortgaged it for in 1999. By 2005 it was supposedly worth five times that mortgage and I had these companies calling me about 4-5 times a day during the week and sometimes on the weekend too.

However I knew my house was not intrinsically worth this supposed new amount and steadfastly refused to do a new mortgage. Now my house is only worth about 1.75 times that 1999 mortgage and those callers......have disappeared.
 
This article was from this morning before the vote took place. Its clear to many people that the 700B wasn't enough anyway.

And this from after the vote.

Congress did the right thing.
 
And sink the economy. But maybe that is what you want.

I hate using the catch-phrases from the pundits, but until I'm assured that there are no golden parachutes in this thing I'd prefer it keep failing to get passed. It rankles me beyond measure to see such epic failure rewarded. We're already essentially going to be paying many of these guys in contracts to manage the investments that they couldn't manage when they were public (provided this or a version of this proposal goes through). It's literally like having your cousin crash his auto in your front yard, then offering to buy the car from him and pay him to fix it in your garage (under the auspices of selling it back to him). Sure, that's oversimplification, but I think the analogy is close.
 
I hate using the catch-phrases from the pundits, but until I'm assured that there are no golden parachutes in this thing I'd prefer it keep failing to get passed. It rankles me beyond measure to see such epic failure rewarded. We're already essentially going to be paying many of these guys in contracts to manage the investments that they couldn't manage when they were public (provided this or a version of this proposal goes through). It's literally like having your cousin crash his auto in your front yard, then offering to buy the car from him and pay him to fix it in your garage (under the auspices of selling it back to him). Sure, that's oversimplification, but I think the analogy is close.

I understand your anger, and share it, but having a lot of innocent people be badly hurt is a high price to pay for a few inept managers to get punished.
 
More Libertarian crap.
Yeah, no government regulation whatsoever is the answer.

I didn't see where he was arguing for no government regulation whatsoever.

So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.
 
More Libertarian crap.
Yeah, no government regulation whatsoever is the answer.
Not at all what the article is about. In fact, it's much as I've said all along - that the current problems were caused by the government actually encouraging and in many cases (the Community reinvestment Act) even requiring banks make loans to people who really shouldn't have got them.

Hardly "deregulation" as many here have claimed, but mindless regulaton that caused the problems.
 
Bailout happened anyway.

Fed Pumps Further $630 Billion Into Financial System

Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.

The Fed increased its existing currency swaps with foreign central banks by $330 billion to $620 billion to make more dollars available worldwide. The Term Auction Facility, the Fed's emergency loan program, will expand by $300 billion to $450 billion. The European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan are among the participating authorities.

The Fed's expansion of liquidity, the biggest since credit markets seized up last year, came hours before the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. The crisis is reverberating through the global economy, causing stocks to plunge and forcing European governments to rescue four banks over the past two days alone.

-snip-
 
I think the harm is less if we allow the crash to proceed.

I believe all we will do with a bailout is enrich people who ought not be enriched, and postpone the crash while at the same time increasing its magnitude.

Agreed. History dictates, experience dictates on both large and small scales.

Suggested readings: places like Cato.org.
 
If bank bailouts don't happen, then due to fractional reserve banking they will become insolvent, and their depositors and counter-parties will also become insolvent. This means the "savings" of people like you will vanish into thin-air, like what happened in the great depression. Now, you may be wondering how all of this could happen with FDIC, however, FDIC only has roughly $45B in funding to cover $1T (or possibly much more) in at-risk deposits. The men behind the curtain have decided to bail out the banks before bailing out FDIC, as presumably this would be less catastrophic.

Of course, the real question that isn't being answered, at least by the media or other pundits, is how did we get into this mess in the first place? The answer, of course, is that it was inevitable given the system. We have a system of endless inflation and monetization of debt, coupled with fractional reserve banking, which is inherently unstable. No one typically complains during the boom phase, when money is cheap and prosperity in the form of ever-rising real estate prices seems limitless. But like every great party, the hangover can be brutal. It will take years to reconcile all of the mismanagement and malinvestment that has occurred due to the Federal Reserve, and it will be painful.

FDIC promises your money back within 99 years. Already, some people that lost money here in the states have stated they've received only 50% of their money back through FDIC with no clear payment for the remaining 50% in sight...
 
FDIC promises your money back within 99 years. Already, some people that lost money here in the states have stated they've received only 50% of their money back through FDIC with no clear payment for the remaining 50% in sight...

That's quite a claim, you are going to need to back that up.
 

Back
Top Bottom