Crazy Libertarians, What Do They Know About Economics?

[hblask 1]

How To Rescue Billionaires on The Backs Of the Poor 101http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/markets/oi...dex.htm?cnn=yesYes, they are related. By increasing deficit spending, the value of the dollar in world markets is eroding rapidly. This shows up in the cost of trade goods, in this case, oil. So when gas goes back above $4, rest assured that at least billionaire mortgage executives can retire comfortably.

[Loismustdie 0]

This isn't a ban on naked short selling...which as you said is already illegal. It's a ban on regular LEGAL short selling for specific companies (30 more added to the list today). Very few people actually think this is a good idea. In fact, in the UK (where they did a similar thing) they're a little more than pissed off - many hedge funds are threatening to sue the FSA over this.

I know that, and it was 40 companies. Whether or not it's a good idea remains to be seen. If you go to ShortSqueeze.com you can put in a symbol, and it will give you the percentage short, days to cover, etc., and it's not like shorts have given up. If you can take the volatility- which you should be able to if you are capitalized right- you can ride it out. I guess you could liken it to anything that needs a moratorium. Hell, they can legally stop trading altogether if the right things happen.

[Loismustdie 0]

Excuse me? Is this a death threat? Are you really this mad over an online message board?But really, are you threating me?

Officially ignored, have a nice life.

[Kenny Banya 0]

Officially ignored, have a nice life.

LOL you threaten to kill me and now you're going to ignore me?How is this guy still posting? I didn't know death threats were allowed on this board

[Nimue1995 1]

LOL you threaten to kill me and now you're going to ignore me?How is this guy still posting? I didn't know death threats were allowed on this board

You take anything posted here seriously? You're an idiot!

[Kenny Banya 0]

You take anything posted here seriously? You're an idiot!

I take a threat on my life serious in any medium...don't you?

[Nimue1995 1]

I take a threat on my life serious in any medium...don't you?

1. I don't consider what he said a threat.2. I don't take much of anything said on here seriously. 3. In the words of Harry Truman, if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[Kenny Banya 0]

1. I don't consider what he said a threat.2. I don't take much of anything said on here seriously. 3. In the words of Harry Truman, if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

What would you consider it? Maybe if it was aimed at you you would feel different.Ironic that you use a kitchen reference. I'll get out, when you get back in.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Ironic that you use a kitchen reference. I'll get out, when you get back in.

um

[Kenny Banya 0]

um

1. I don't consider what I said sexist.2. I don't take much of anything said on here seriously.3. In the words of Harry Truman, if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

1. I don't consider what I said sexist.2. I don't take much of anything said on here seriously.3. In the words of Harry Truman, if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

That's GOLD, Jerry, GOLD!

[Zealous Donkey 0]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDNkO...Tk5ZjZmZDkxY2U=Some of you may find this worth reading.

[hblask 1]

<a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDNkOTc5ZTY4YTlkMDkyMDY3MmI1NTk5ZjZmZDkxY2U=" target="_blank">http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDNkO...Tk5ZjZmZDkxY2U=</a>Some of you may find this worth reading.

I know most of congress can't read, so they should have to have somebody read this article to them before they vote on this bailout.

[Nimue1995 1]

I read it and I still don't agree with the bailout. And I'm proud that first U.S. Senator, John Tester,whose campaign I contributed to was smart enough and bold enough to stand up to not only his own party's weasels but also to Paulson, Bernanke and Co. to ask why and how we got into the position of only having a few days to act on a piece of legislation that puts $700 billion dollars into the hands of one man to disperse as he sees fit. This is nuts in my opinion. It's my opinion that taking on more bailouts is only going to make the eventual crash worse. I see no reason to have much confidence in the guy. Apparently, you all want to give him too much credit for the controlled crash of Goldman. (The had to merge, as I recall, with some other mortgage bank at the beginning of this crisis). He then escapes to government work, after collecting tens of millions in severence. I can him some credit for being a successful thief or con-man,, and if we wanted someone to rip off shareholders, he'd probably be a good candidate. When the guy assures us that the market is "strong and resilliant" one WEEK before announcing his $700 billion plan to "rescue" it, it would require some extreme faith in his sudden omniscence to give him the checkbook. Screw him. He's a pretty good poster boy for the problem, but that doesn't translate to solutions. I'd have more confidence in putting $700 billion in a game of three card monte, or a ponzi scheme. Ask him what he hopes to accomplish by dumping this money: 1. it MAY delay the tightening of credit. Great. Seems like overextended credit kind of caused the problem in the first place. Seems like it's kind of perpetuating the problem, rather than addressing it. 2. It MAY delay or soften the market crash. So what? Who says that market should not depreciate, to reflect the actual value of equity? Again, he's pretty careful to say that there's no guarentees, and the market may crash, anyway. Is it unreasonable to ask for a guarantee when you fork over $700 billion? I suspect the real "plan" is to simply forestall the inevitable, and defer the crash to the next president. From one perspective, this amounts to a $700 billion contribution to McCain's election campaign. Goldman, incidentally, will be one of the principal beneficiaries of this deal, which alone should make anyone skeptical. I have no idea if this "plan" is really necessary or wise. Clearly, this dipshit won't be able to convince anyone, save many of the same dem and gop congressmen who were similarly convinced to dump a like amount into addressing the "imminent threat" posed by Iraq.

[hblask 1]

1. it MAY delay the tightening of credit. Great. Seems like overextended credit kind of caused the problem in the first place. Seems like it's kind of perpetuating the problem, rather than addressing it. 2. It MAY delay or soften the market crash. So what? Who says that market should not depreciate, to reflect the actual value of equity? Again, he's pretty careful to say that there's no guarentees, and the market may crash, anyway. Is it unreasonable to ask for a guarantee when you fork over $700 billion? I suspect the real plan is to simply forestall the inevitable, and defer the crash to the next president. From one perspective, this amounts to a $700 billion contribution to McCain's election campaign.

Free minds, free markets? Welcome, make yourself at home.

[Loismustdie 0]

I read it and I still don't agree with the bailout. And I'm proud that first U.S. Senator, John Tester,whose campaign I contributed to was smart enough and bold enough to stand up to not only his own party's weasels but also to Paulson, Bernanke and Co. to ask why and how we got into the position of only having a few days to act on a piece of legislation that puts $700 billion dollars into the hands of one man to disperse as he sees fit. This is nuts in my opinion. It's my opinion that taking on more bailouts is only going to make the eventual crash worse. I see no reason to have much confidence in the guy. Apparently, you all want to give him too much credit for the controlled crash of Goldman. (The had to merge, as I recall, with some other mortgage bank at the beginning of this crisis). He then escapes to government work, after collecting tens of millions in severence. I can him some credit for being a successful thief or con-man,, and if we wanted someone to rip off shareholders, he'd probably be a good candidate. When the guy assures us that the market is "strong and resilliant" one WEEK before announcing his $700 billion plan to "rescue" it, it would require some extreme faith in his sudden omniscence to give him the checkbook. Screw him. He's a pretty good poster boy for the problem, but that doesn't translate to solutions. I'd have more confidence in putting $700 billion in a game of three card monte, or a ponzi scheme. Ask him what he hopes to accomplish by dumping this money: 1. it MAY delay the tightening of credit. Great. Seems like overextended credit kind of caused the problem in the first place. Seems like it's kind of perpetuating the problem, rather than addressing it. 2. It MAY delay or soften the market crash. So what? Who says that market should not depreciate, to reflect the actual value of equity? Again, he's pretty careful to say that there's no guarentees, and the market may crash, anyway. Is it unreasonable to ask for a guarantee when you fork over $700 billion? I suspect the real "plan" is to simply forestall the inevitable, and defer the crash to the next president. From one perspective, this amounts to a $700 billion contribution to McCain's election campaign. Goldman, incidentally, will be one of the principal beneficiaries of this deal, which alone should make anyone skeptical. I have no idea if this "plan" is really necessary or wise. Clearly, this dipshit won't be able to convince anyone, save many of the same dem and gop congressmen who were similarly convinced to dump a like amount into addressing the "imminent threat" posed by Iraq.

That 700 billion could end up being quite the investment in the U.S. , if done right. Anyone want to venture a guess why?

[Balloon guy 158]

That 700 billion could end up being quite the investment in the U.S. , if done right. Anyone want to venture a guess why?

Skymiles?

[Nimue1995 1]

That 700 billion could end up being quite the investment in the U.S. , if done right. Anyone want to venture a guess why?

"Could" being the operative word here and even Paulson says that it's a very slim, marginally possible "could". Sorry but I don't see expanding the government's role in the financial markets, forking over $700 billion of the taxpayer's money, having it only possibly helping the situation, bailing out the people that caused the crisis in the first place, having all that money in the hands on one man who until recently was CEO of one of the firms in trouble, and only having a marginally slim chance of ever seeing that money again as being any kind of investment that I'd want to be involved with. NO THANKS!

[Loismustdie 0]

"Could" being the operative word here and even Paulson says that it's a very slim, marginally possible "could". Sorry but I don't see expanding the government's role in the financial markets, forking over $700 billion of the taxpayer's money, having it only possibly helping the situation, bailing out the people that caused the crisis in the first place, having all that money in the hands on one man who until recently was CEO of one of the firms in trouble, and only having a marginally slim chance of ever seeing that money again as being any kind of investment that I'd want to be involved with. NO THANKS!

Could be, if done right. Settle down and see if you can figure out why. If you can't then you literally have no business having an opinion. I mean, go right ahead but it's worthless,more so than I usually find it to be. So, settle your pretty little head down and see if you can think of ways this could be profitable over time, and reasonable ways to help that goal. Let's see if you can think for yourself.

[Loismustdie 0]

Skymiles?

Lol.

[Nimue1995 1]

Could be, if done right. Settle down and see if you can figure out why. If you can't then you literally have no business having an opinion. I mean, go right ahead but it's worthless,more so than I usually find it to be. So, settle your pretty little head down and see if you can think of ways this could be profitable over time, and reasonable ways to help that goal. Let's see if you can think for yourself.

Well in listening to paulson and Bernanke, they THINK they will buy up these credit swap paper assets (as I understand them to be), hopefully at firesale prices, giving capital to the financial institutions so that they will start loaning money out again. No one apparently really KNOWS what these supposed assets are really worth so it's only a HOPE that they being bought at fire sale prices and a HOPE that they might at SOME time in the future be able to be sold at more than what they were bought for or at least AT what they were bought for at SOME time in the future when things get better. The only problem I see is that if the financial institutions themselves have no idea what these assets are worth and their creditors don't believe that they're worth what's listed on the balance sheets then how do you set a fire sale price? How do you set ANY price. I've done some reading LMD and I admit that it's so friggin' complicated how these assets even came into being, I don't see how anyone can figure out a price for them. But I guess there might be an off chance that they could be profitable in the long run for the taxpayer. But like in 1988 I could get a new car for $5000 and now $5000 only gives me a downpayment on a car, how can we really say that we'll get any kind of return on our money if inflation makes it worth a whole lot less at "maturity". That's the problem I see. Even if those assets end up getting sold at a "profit" that profit had better be better than 2 or 3% per year or you'd be better off putting the money in a CD. So now tell me where I've got it wrong or don't get it. Because I have to say that I don't get it. I don't understand these companies not seeing the how much fire risk there was before the whole financial house burned down.

[Loismustdie 0]

Well in listening to paulson and Bernanke, they THINK they will buy up these credit swap paper assets (as I understand them to be), hopefully at firesale prices, giving capital to the financial institutions so that they will start loaning money out again. No one apparently really KNOWS what these supposed assets are really worth so it's only a HOPE that they being bought at fire sale prices and a HOPE that they might at SOME time in the future be able to be sold at more than what they were bought for or at least AT what they were bought for at SOME time in the future when things get better. The only problem I see is that if the financial institutions themselves have no idea what these assets are worth and their creditors don't believe that they're worth what's listed on the balance sheets then how do you set a fire sale price? How do you set ANY price. I've done some reading LMD and I admit that it's so friggin' complicated how these assets even came into being, I don't see how anyone can figure out a price for them. But I guess there might be an off chance that they could be profitable in the long run for the taxpayer. But like in 1988 I could get a new car for $5000 and now $5000 only gives me a downpayment on a car, how can we really say that we'll get any kind of return on our money if inflation makes it worth a whole lot less at "maturity". That's the problem I see. Even if those assets end up getting sold at a "profit" that profit had better be better than 2 or 3% per year or you'd be better off putting the money in a CD. So now tell me where I've got it wrong or don't get it. Because I have to say that I don't get it. I don't understand these companies not seeing the how much fire risk there was before the whole financial house burned down.

No, they know what they are worth to a certain extent, enough to guage a cents on the dollar number. And, you have the basic idea right. Now, if it's done right, say by CAREFULLY examining each debt instrument, what it's compromised of, etc.(IE, you would not pay the same for something backed by loans made in 2005 as much as you would for loans made in 2007) you could make this profitable. I imagine these banks are pissed that this even ahs to be done, because they know how this works- if you do it right, and credit flows freely as its supposed to, then by extension the real estate market will start to move, upwards. What happens then? Those investments start gaining in value. The only reason this has to be done is Institutions grossly overleveraged themselves to buy mostly risky investments, it's exactly what we tell clients NOT to do and they did it anyway. You could even get creative and sell a bond fund that is predicated off those investments. As the market turns and the yields go up money would flock to it, thus earning the investment back, over time. Even if over time we just break even that would be fine. I think breaking even should be the goal, it's how whoever runs it should approach it, it will temper that urge to take on to much risk. You ran the numbers yourself in another thread- it's not that much in the scheme of things. What was the credit debt market, 45 trillion? Now, on the flip side we could just say F it and let the system fail. Not a 401k in the entire world would be untouched. The global ramifications are very real. But, we could go that direction. I don't think it's the way to go, I don't think it has to be.

[Nimue1995 1]

I guess what I basically see is (and H is going to hate me for saying this) a whole bunch of free market supporters that were happy when the free market was up and took on a great number of overly risky investments that in the end went south when the housing market fell in a hole. Now these same people who were enthusiastic free market supporters when the market was profitable are crying disaster because it's in the minus column. Either you support the free markets to do what they are supposed to do and have a rollercoaster economy or you don't. Unfortunately these idiots don't just hurt themselves but take even the people who weren't involved down with them. It pisses me off to even consider bailing these fools out of their folly. But I don't see that there's much choice. I do wonder why we have to put out the whole $700 billion all at once instead of doling it out as needed. Some of these guys need to crash for the mess they've put us into. I'd like to see congress approve say $200 billion to start and see if this idea is even going to work before we pour everything into it.

[Loismustdie 0]

I guess what I basically see is (and H is going to hate me for saying this) a whole bunch of free market supporters that were happy when the free market was up and took on a great number of overly risky investments that in the end went south when the housing market fell in a hole. Now these same people who were enthusiastic free market supporters when the market was profitable are crying disaster because it's in the minus column. Either you support the free markets to do what they are supposed to do and have a rollercoaster economy or you don't. Unfortunately these idiots don't just hurt themselves but take even the people who weren't involved down with them. It pisses me off to even consider bailing these fools out of their folly. But I don't see that there's much choice. I do wonder why we have to put out the whole $700 billion all at once instead of doling it out as needed. Some of these guys need to crash for the mess they've put us into. I'd like to see congress approve say $200 billion to start and see if this idea is even going to work before we pour everything into it.

It's not really all that much of a bailout when the plan is to buy you out at cents on the dollar. If you owned 700 Dodge pickups at 30,000 a piece and things went south and someone offered you 3000 a piece, would you consider yourself bailed out? The answer of course is no. So, when you look at this plan think about it as an investment in the U.S. economy, look at it is an investment in your 401K, your home value, your bank balance... this is serious stuff. It is so intertwined that any move to the good or bad effects it, simple as that. Also, the 700 billion wouldn't happen all at once, it would happen over time if they do it right. They will, or I will say SHOULD, look at each and every situation on it's own merits, and I will tell you this, some banks will want no part of it, what for? If it works there investments go up. The ones that can take the hit will stand pat. I want a free market- I also don't want to kill a man, but I think I am smart enough to know when both of those ideals need to sacrificed for the greater good. A position is worthless if the only defense is the position itself.

[hblask 1]

I guess what I basically see is (and H is going to hate me for saying this) a whole bunch of free market supporters that were happy when the free market was up and took on a great number of overly risky investments that in the end went south when the housing market fell in a hole. Now these same people who were enthusiastic free market supporters when the market was profitable are crying disaster because it's in the minus column. Either you support the free markets to do what they are supposed to do and have a rollercoaster economy or you don't.

Why would I hate you for saying this? I've been one of the most outspoken opponents of corporate welfare on these boards, and that's pretty much what this is. You've pretty much nailed my sentiment here.The only caveat I'd add is that this is corporate welfare that was promised to them when they did their planning, so pulling the rug now is mildly unfair. But it's unfair to the taxpayers to go through with it. The problem is the system -- get rid of corporate welfare and semi-regulated industries (with the regulations that exist being written by those industries), and then I'd be happy to let them sink for their mistakes. As written, hmm, close call.