Ass rape the taxpayer bill passes, it sup to the House now.

[Spuzzell]

How can you vote against saving an economy and, oh, by the way, making money? It defies belief. If you don't rescue yourselves from the stupidity of your banks this will be so mindblowingly disastrous I don't even have the words.

I think that you are lacking an understanding exactly what they are asking for. Are they saying that this bill is a good thing in the UK?

Look, no offence, but I have a degree in economics. If I'd been in the house before the vote, I'd have hit Pelosi with a fucking chair the moment the idiot bitch tried to make this political. It's not political, its ESSENTIAL.

So yeah, no-ones saying the bill is a good thing in the UK, we're saying its a VITAL thing. From the BBC website:

Senior Democrats are contemptuous of the idea that senior legislators would plunge their country's financial system into chaos in what would amount to a fit of pique.

The search for a fix is already under way, but you can be sure it will now take place against a backdrop of plunging share prices all around the world.

It is possible that the sense of global crisis may - perversely - offer a way out of this.

American voters simply have not seen this as a crisis that affects their real lives on Main Street - it is seen as a welfare scheme for the humbled plutocrats of Wall Street.

If the problems deepen and people suddenly see unemployment rising because businesses cannot get money from the banks to pay their bills and honour their payrolls, then that sentiment might change.

That is the optimistic assessment - that American lawmakers and voters having registered their pain and anger will eventually fall into line and give the US Treasury the money it wants.

The pessimistic assessment is almost too frightening to contemplate.

[mpjh]

How can you vote against saving an economy and, oh, by the way, making money? It defies belief. If you don't rescue yourselves from the stupidity of your banks this will be so mindblowingly disastrous I don't even have the words.

I think that you are lacking an understanding exactly what they are asking for. Are they saying that this bill is a good thing in the UK?

Look, no offence, but I have a degree in economics. If I'd been in the house before the vote, I'd have hit Pelosi with a fucking chair the moment the idiot bitch tried to make this political. It's not political, its ESSENTIAL.

So yeah, no-ones saying the bill is a good thing in the UK, we're saying its a VITAL thing. From the BBC website:

Senior Democrats are contemptuous of the idea that senior legislators would plunge their country's financial system into chaos in what would amount to a fit of pique.

The search for a fix is already under way, but you can be sure it will now take place against a backdrop of plunging share prices all around the world.

It is possible that the sense of global crisis may - perversely - offer a way out of this.

American voters simply have not seen this as a crisis that affects their real lives on Main Street - it is seen as a welfare scheme for the humbled plutocrats of Wall Street.

If the problems deepen and people suddenly see unemployment rising because businesses cannot get money from the banks to pay their bills and honour their payrolls, then that sentiment might change.

That is the optimistic assessment - that American lawmakers and voters having registered their pain and anger will eventually fall into line and give the US Treasury the money it wants.

The pessimistic assessment is almost too frightening to contemplate.

I too have a degree in economics and this bill is a bad deal. Let the banks fail. It is called capitalism.

[DaGip]

The American People have SPOKEN!

Stock Market fell 800 points today, thanks to all those greedy bankers. They will all have to be put into prison with a cellmate named Bubba.

To Sacrifice your Liberty for Security, you will find that you will have neither!

The vote was the right thing to do, let the market take care of itself. No more nationalizing Wall Street!

[Juan_Bottom]

Stock Market fell 800 points today, thanks to all those greedy bankers.

But gold rose pretty quickly.....

[Frigidus]

Stock Market fell 800 points today, thanks to all those greedy bankers.

But gold rose pretty quickly.....

I knew that throne would come in handy.

[mpjh]

Better check that throne, I heard your wife replaced it with a gold plated lead chair years ago.

[Juan_Bottom]

You've gotten mean since becoming a Lt.

[Spuzzell]

I too have a degree in economics and this bill is a bad deal. Let the banks fail. It is called capitalism.

You must have got yours from a vending machine then.

There's no model for whats going to happen if you don't save yourselves.

There IS a model for what happens if you do. It's called Japan, and they actually saved themselves AND made money, because they were intelligent enough to realise capitalism isn't a suicide pact, and some things are more important than scoring political points.

[mpjh]

Japan protected its ruling class and their economic interests. We don't need to do that. The banks will fail, the assets left over will be brought by new capitalists, housing prices will fall and houses will become affordable again, then capital will begin to flow again. Many, many of those heavily invested in the stock market will have to earn honest livings again. The army will try to keep the working class contained, probably killing many. Ordinary citizens will now understand the social security program was a good idea and will demand single payer health care and a living wage.

Then we will have to decide, "who's side are your on?"

[Dancing Mustard]

Japan protected its ruling class and their economic interests. We don't need to do that. The banks will fail, the assets left over will be brought by new capitalists, housing prices will fall and houses will become affordable again, then capital will begin to flow again. Many, many of those heavily invested in the stock market will have to earn honest livings again. The army will try to keep the working class contained, probably killing many. Ordinary citizens will now understand the social security program was a good idea and will demand single payer health care and a living wage.

Then we will have to decide, "who's side are your on?"

To start with, I was just sceptical that you had a degree in economics.

Now I'm just sceptical that you have a degree.


Seriously, where did you read any of that rubbish? It's so off the mark that I don't even know how to begin explaining why it's wrong... I mean, I don't actually know how much good a counter argument will to you, as your misconceptions must go pretty far back in order for you to believe a word of what you've written there.

[mpjh]

Well if you don't know a counter argument, and you don't know where to start, sit down and listen for a while. Better yet, go hid out in your pub again.

The bailout didn't pass, and the sky didn't fall. Some stockholders lost money, but that is as it should be.

[mpjh]

You've gotten mean since becoming a Lt.

I will not be a LT for long. Too loud, too aggressive, too working class, despite my education.

[black elk speaks]

I too have a degree in economics and this bill is a bad deal. Let the banks fail. It is called capitalism.

You must have got yours from a vending machine then.

There's no model for whats going to happen if you don't save yourselves.

There IS a model for what happens if you do. It's called Japan, and they actually saved themselves AND made money, because they were intelligent enough to realise capitalism isn't a suicide pact, and some things are more important than scoring political points.

The model for what is about to happen is called the great depression. Hoover thought it was prudent to use what they were calling a bail out...

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=7890

By the late 1920s, however, many reputable observers had come to believe that the economy had entered a “new era” in which government and business leaders understood how to counteract any recession that might occur before it became severe. Unfortunately, the knowledge they imagined themselves to possess in this regard was for the most part nothing more than an instance of what F. A. Hayek later called the pretense of knowledge—the conviction that government planners, including the monetary authorities, know how to make the world a better place than it would be if people were simply left to their own devices.

So, although in previous economic downturns hardly anyone had expected the government to take vigorous action to bring about recovery, by 1929 the dominant ideology had changed substantially. Many opinion leaders and large segments of the general public had embraced the Progressive faith in activist government. To make matters worse, the economics profession for the most part had come to believe that the government could and should intervene actively in economic life.

These ideological and intellectual changes came as music to the ears of many politicians, who welcomed a plausible excuse to enlarge their powers and to turn the exercise of those enlarged powers to their own advantage. Organized special interests also seized on the new ideas and attitudes as pretexts for the creation of pensions, subsidies, insurance benefits, bailouts, barriers to competition, and other privileges they sought from government.

[got tonkaed]

While it wouldnt be the first time, i simply responded with a comment on sources instead of adding more of my own...do you think the opinion of the FEE might be a little bit slanted in terms of the regulatory aspect of the bailout? Typically when i read something that says we oppose all forms of collectivism, i tend to think those people might not be the most reliable sources about why or why not the government was the cause of an economic downturn.

Just saying.

[black elk speaks]

While it wouldnt be the first time, i simply responded with a comment on sources instead of adding more of my own...do you think the opinion of the FEE might be a little bit slanted in terms of the regulatory aspect of the bailout? Typically when i read something that says we oppose all forms of collectivism, i tend to think those people might not be the most reliable sources about why or why not the government was the cause of an economic downturn.

Just saying.

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that FEE is opposed to all forms of collectivism. I do some work for the organization and I know that it is primarily a Libertarian organization that believes what it says about free markets, that they should be free to reap what they sow. Government intervention in the case today, as it was in 1929, will only serve as an obstacle to a short term recovery period and drag it out, while passing the national debt, now subject to be raised from 9 to 11 trillion (11,000,000,000,000) dollars.

Hard times are unavoidable. A second great depression isn't.

[mpjh]

I don't usually care for what you say elk. However, as you suggest, if we are a capitalist system then we should let the market work. If we want to be a socialist system, then we should nationalize the aberrant firms and take public ownership and control. I have a real problem with the sunny-day capitalist that "socialize" economic collapse. In reality, that is really textbook fascism.

Mussolini would be very comfortable in the current congress.

[got tonkaed]

While it wouldnt be the first time, i simply responded with a comment on sources instead of adding more of my own...do you think the opinion of the FEE might be a little bit slanted in terms of the regulatory aspect of the bailout? Typically when i read something that says we oppose all forms of collectivism, i tend to think those people might not be the most reliable sources about why or why not the government was the cause of an economic downturn.

Just saying.

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that FEE is opposed to all forms of collectivism. I do some work for the organization and I know that it is primarily a Libertarian organization that believes what it says about free markets, that they should be free to reap what they sow. Government intervention in the case today, as it was in 1929, will only serve as an obstacle to a short term recovery period and drag it out, while passing the national debt, now subject to be raised from 9 to 11 trillion (11,000,000,000,000) dollars.

Hard times are unavoidable. A second great depression isn't.

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), one of the oldest free-market organizations in the United States, was founded in 1946 by Leonard E. Read to study and advance the freedom philosophy. FEE's mission is to offer the most consistent case for the "first principles" of freedom: the sanctity of private property, individual liberty, the rule of law, the free market, and the moral superiority of individual choice and responsibility over coercion.



For decades these ideals have been ignored to an alarming degree. Despite the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Empire, too many Americans do not seem to appreciate the very concept upon which the Founding Fathers established the American Republic.



Our vital task is to counter this trend. To help people rediscover how essential freedom is to human existence and to demonstrate how dangerous it is to move toward any form of collectivism, FEE offers a comprehensive educational program to all students of liberty.



The Foundation's periodicals, The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, Notes from FEE and In Brief (an e-commentary) offer timeless insights on the positive case for human liberty to thousands of people of all ages in America and around the world. Throughout the year FEE's lectures, programs and seminars bring thousands of individuals together to explore the foundations of free enterprise and constitutionally limited government. FEE also plays an important role in publishing and promoting essential books on the freedom philosophy.

specifically from the About Us section of their website.

[black elk speaks]

While it wouldnt be the first time, i simply responded with a comment on sources instead of adding more of my own...do you think the opinion of the FEE might be a little bit slanted in terms of the regulatory aspect of the bailout? Typically when i read something that says we oppose all forms of collectivism, i tend to think those people might not be the most reliable sources about why or why not the government was the cause of an economic downturn.

Just saying.

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that FEE is opposed to all forms of collectivism. I do some work for the organization and I know that it is primarily a Libertarian organization that believes what it says about free markets, that they should be free to reap what they sow. Government intervention in the case today, as it was in 1929, will only serve as an obstacle to a short term recovery period and drag it out, while passing the national debt, now subject to be raised from 9 to 11 trillion (11,000,000,000,000) dollars.

Hard times are unavoidable. A second great depression isn't.

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), one of the oldest free-market organizations in the United States, was founded in 1946 by Leonard E. Read to study and advance the freedom philosophy. FEE's mission is to offer the most consistent case for the "first principles" of freedom: the sanctity of private property, individual liberty, the rule of law, the free market, and the moral superiority of individual choice and responsibility over coercion.



For decades these ideals have been ignored to an alarming degree. Despite the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Empire, too many Americans do not seem to appreciate the very concept upon which the Founding Fathers established the American Republic.



Our vital task is to counter this trend. To help people rediscover how essential freedom is to human existence and to demonstrate how dangerous it is to move toward any form of collectivism, FEE offers a comprehensive educational program to all students of liberty.



The Foundation's periodicals, The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, Notes from FEE and In Brief (an e-commentary) offer timeless insights on the positive case for human liberty to thousands of people of all ages in America and around the world. Throughout the year FEE's lectures, programs and seminars bring thousands of individuals together to explore the foundations of free enterprise and constitutionally limited government. FEE also plays an important role in publishing and promoting essential books on the freedom philosophy.

specifically from the About Us section of their website.

I guess I misunderstood the definition of collectivism. Keeping within the confines of the economic realm, I suppose that I agree if we are using the following definition of collectivism:

The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

It is the principal of a free market.

[got tonkaed]

Yes i dont disagree with you on the basic point. However where i think they miss the mark (and where philosophically i disagree with a lot of libertarian thinking) is in the notion that we oppose all forms of collectivism. I cant think of many observers who would want to live in a purely free market economy. While i suspect they dont quite either, the language they are using suggests they come very close to it, which for me is quite telling.

It was along those lines that led me to make my original remark regrading their bias toward regulation. I think if we agree on their understanding of collectivism, its rather fair to point out they may not be the best observers regarding whether or not gov. regulation is the cause for economic downturn, given their ideological stance on regulation in general.

[mpjh]

Ok, so what do you think is the cause of the current situation?

[got tonkaed]

Well the discussion we were having in some ways doesnt deal with the current situation as much as an historical one.

As far as the current situation goes. I think a relatively minimum bias perspective could argue that we have been approaching a bubble for a long period of time as far as housing was going in the country. Toward the more recent we ended up with the combination of problems related to a little too much optimism as far as home construction was concerned which hurt homeowners, coupled with a set of financial circumstances that ended up putting the viability of the assets in a precarious position. I think given the current context of regulation going back to at least the Clinton administration if not farther back allowed for banks to end up making some pretty lucrative but ultimately unstable decisions regarding lending in a pretty wide open context. While it would have been ok for a little while longer had it not been coupled with the poor decisions in the housing market coupled with an already approaching/continuing downturn, the issue ended up being exacerbated by tough times, creating a bigger problems in terms of the assets. Once you have the bad assets, i think its fairly clear its pretty much too late to entirely stop the problem.

I suppose if you were looking to retroactively place blame you could probably do it in one of two places. 1) the shortsightedness of banks who should have been able to foresee the potential bubble being burst and yet still continued with business as usual (or at an accelerated pace) and 2) however you feel about the regulatory position (either too little or too much) in terms of the gov. response.

Its not a single blame issue imo.

[black elk speaks]

Yes i dont disagree with you on the basic point. However where i think they miss the mark (and where philosophically i disagree with a lot of libertarian thinking) is in the notion that we oppose all forms of collectivism. I cant think of many observers who would want to live in a purely free market economy. While i suspect they dont quite either, the language they are using suggests they come very close to it, which for me is quite telling.

It was along those lines that led me to make my original remark regrading their bias toward regulation. I think if we agree on their understanding of collectivism, its rather fair to point out they may not be the best observers regarding whether or not gov. regulation is the cause for economic downturn, given their ideological stance on regulation in general.

Regulation or not, it was greed that caused the current problem. What I see as a direct link with the immigration problems of our country, our housing market refused to slow down, Continued to out grow the market and employ practically slave labor. This problem is a simple case of supply and demand paired with shenanigans in the sub prime game. The thinking should be, buyer beware and businesses be smart.

For my part, i was raised on welfare. once i left my parents house, i started working. In the hardest of times in my life, i turned to my government for a hand out. I never got it, it was too much of a hassle. I also have come to think that it is not the governments responsibility to feed me, that duty falls on me and me alone. As the old adage goes, "A fool and his money are soon parted." What this "bailout" plan suggests is "A fool and his money are sooner or later parted, in which case, its okay because the Federal Reserve will give you more, or if it doesn't have it, it will print more of it, and charge it to your neighbor's tax bill for next year, but don't worry, you can continue to be a fool." There will be no learning, only the raising of the national deficit which is so far gone out of control, it will never be paid down. Never. And really, why should we pay it down when we can just keep raising the bar?

[Curmudgeonx]

Although I have a number of degrees, I am not formally educated in macro-economics. So for those of you brighter than me, follow this proposal to its logical end and poke holes at will into the reasoning:

Beginning January 1, 2008 - Capital gains taxes on stocks, bonds and funds are abolished. (Presently capital gains taxes are 15%).

This would entice money back into the stock market now so the traders can position themselves to sell after January (if need) . . .
This would provide the grease for the lending wheels as money sitting in money markets gets put back into motion without raising inflation by being the government's money (i.e. straight from the printing plant).

Lending begins, capital is raised, jobs are created with this capital and investment.

People at work begin to look for better housing propping up the falling house prices by buying or remediating their loans.

No bailout necessary, just a simple tax break followed by reduced spending to compensate for that tax break.

Thoughts . . ?

[got tonkaed]

Although I have a number of degrees, I am not formally educated in macro-economics. So for those of you brighter than me, follow this proposal to its logical end and poke holes at will into the reasoning:

Beginning January 1, 2008 - Capital gains taxes on stocks, bonds and funds are abolished. (Presently capital gains taxes are 15%).

This would entice money back into the stock market now so the traders can position themselves to sell after January (if need) . . .
This would provide the grease for the lending wheels as money sitting in money markets gets put back into motion without raising inflation by being the government's money (i.e. straight from the printing plant).

Lending begins, capital is raised, jobs are created with this capital and investment.

People at work begin to look for better housing propping up the falling house prices by buying or remediating their loans.

No bailout necessary, just a simple tax break followed by reduced spending to compensate for that tax break.

Thoughts . . ?

Im no more educated in macro economics than you are but allow me to offer a few thoughts.

1) political feasbility is low - seemingly one of the few things that people can get wrapped around is the idea that "rich greedy individuals" shouldnt get a profit out of this. In this context, passing a bill getting rid of a tax that really only deals with a proportionally smaller percentage of the population, often equated to wealthy individuals would be as the great Angelica Pickles would say "unpossible". Also, as this is the type of tax cut that cant really be permanent, how do you phase this in and out.

2) The assets arent going to recover by January and thats where seemingly a lot of the issue lies in. While people might be able to raise capital and possibly some would be interested in buying low on some securities, how will we be able to prepare for the speculation and the potential reshock come January. It seems like a stock market based solution more than a solution which helps alleviate the asset damage, which doesnt seem to solve a whole lot of the problem for banks in the short to medium term.

3) On that note, i dont think it improves the position of many banks all that much as is, unless there is a larger amount of capital raised than seems feasible. As long as the banks continue to be in great difficulty, i dont see necessarily how a proposal like this ends up improving them to the point that it does more for the banks than a bailout or conslidation of the weak by the strong over time. I think its a bit fallacious to assume also that immediately we are going to get sound lending and a resurgence in the housing market, when some of the issues in the market remain unresolved.

I think while it would probably stimulate some financials and would raise capital, it doesnt seem to me at least to do anything that solves the problems that an attempt to band aid or effort to let bleed out will not accomplish, while at the same time being political ruinious for nearly anyone who would propose it.

[Minister Masket]

This issue really isn't surprising in a world that prints more Monopoly money each year than real money.
But to be perfectly frank, this whole "crisis" hasn't affected me one little bit. Yet.