Decius wrote:
If the Democrats win, all of that money, unfortunately, will have to be spent on bad debt which won't be worth anything in the end. Obama will not be able to make progress on any of his social programs because the national debt and plummeting US dollar will be in an untenable situation. If the Republicans win, however, it will turn out that only 100 billion was needed. Things weren't so bad after all...

Unfortunately, I don't think it matters. This isn't about who gets elected next, because that's irrelevant. It's about which lobby has enough presence to get what they want. Right now, it's the banking and financial system lobby. The price is $700B. That includes cleaning up all the bad debt, making sure my firm survives and has liquidity, and oh, I get to keep my bonus as well. This deal stinks. Period.

flynn23 wrote:

Decius wrote:
If the Democrats win, all of that money, unfortunately, will have to be spent on bad debt which won't be worth anything in the end. Obama will not be able to make progress on any of his social programs because the national debt and plummeting US dollar will be in an untenable situation. If the Republicans win, however, it will turn out that only 100 billion was needed. Things weren't so bad after all...

Unfortunately, I don't think it matters. This isn't about who gets elected next, because that's irrelevant. It's about which lobby has enough presence to get what they want. Right now, it's the banking and financial system lobby. The price is $700B. That includes cleaning up all the bad debt, making sure my firm survives and has liquidity, and oh, I get to keep my bonus as well. This deal stinks. Period.

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but...

The banks don't need the government to sell these assets at market value, but they don't want to do that, because if they do, they have to mark all of their other assets to that market price, which will screw their balance sheets (reasonably or not). Hence, the liquidity problem - no one wants to sell anything. In some respect the point of the bailout is to buy the assets above market rates, which keeps the bank's balance sheets from deflating.

Now, I'm quite sure we end up eating the difference. It boils down to whether or not you think the market price is actually reasonable. I'd say if that was in dispute the government's assistance wouldn't be required either.

Regardless of how you slice it, the tax payer is being asked to eat all of the financial losses incurred from the go-go days of the housing boom, while all of the people who generated those losses go home with 6 figure bonuses.

flynn23 wrote:

Decius wrote:
If the Democrats win, all of that money, unfortunately, will have to be spent on bad debt which won't be worth anything in the end. Obama will not be able to make progress on any of his social programs because the national debt and plummeting US dollar will be in an untenable situation. If the Republicans win, however, it will turn out that only 100 billion was needed. Things weren't so bad after all...

Unfortunately, I don't think it matters. This isn't about who gets elected next, because that's irrelevant. It's about which lobby has enough presence to get what they want. Right now, it's the banking and financial system lobby. The price is $700B. That includes cleaning up all the bad debt, making sure my firm survives and has liquidity, and oh, I get to keep my bonus as well. This deal stinks. Period.

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but...

The banks don't need the government to sell these assets at market value, but they don't want to do that, because if they do, they have to mark all of their other assets to that market price, which will screw their balance sheets (reasonably or not). Hence, the liquidity problem - no one wants to sell anything. In some respect the point of the bailout is to buy the assets above market rates, which keeps the bank's balance sheets from deflating.

Now, I'm quite sure we end up eating the difference. It boils down to whether or not you think the market price is actually reasonable. I'd say if that was in dispute the government's assistance wouldn't be required either.

Regardless of how you slice it, the tax payer is being asked to eat all of the financial losses incurred from the go-go days of the housing boom, while all of the people who generated those losses go home with 6 figure bonuses.

ubernoir wrote:

flynn23 wrote:

Decius wrote:
If the Democrats win, all of that money, unfortunately, will have to be spent on bad debt which won't be worth anything in the end. Obama will not be able to make progress on any of his social programs because the national debt and plummeting US dollar will be in an untenable situation. If the Republicans win, however, it will turn out that only 100 billion was needed. Things weren't so bad after all...

Unfortunately, I don't think it matters. This isn't about who gets elected next, because that's irrelevant. It's about which lobby has enough presence to get what they want. Right now, it's the banking and financial system lobby. The price is $700B. That includes cleaning up all the bad debt, making sure my firm survives and has liquidity, and oh, I get to keep my bonus as well. This deal stinks. Period.

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but...

The banks don't need the government to sell these assets at market value, but they don't want to do that, because if they do, they have to mark all of their other assets to that market price, which will screw their balance sheets (reasonably or not). Hence, the liquidity problem - no one wants to sell anything. In some respect the point of the bailout is to buy the assets above market rates, which keeps the bank's balance sheets from deflating.

Now, I'm quite sure we end up eating the difference. It boils down to whether or not you think the market price is actually reasonable. I'd say if that was in dispute the government's assistance wouldn't be required either.

Regardless of how you slice it, the tax payer is being asked to eat all of the financial losses incurred from the go-go days of the housing boom, while all of the people who generated those losses go home with 6 figure bonuses.

Why can't we let the big banks fail? Clearly they were diseased and deserve to die. The smaller, regional banks were not so afflicted by the sub-prime fraud disease, and they are still sound financially. They're still writing loans to good credited, hard working people.

So fuck big banks. Let them fail. Eat shit and die big banks.

Jello wrote:

ubernoir wrote:

flynn23 wrote:

Decius wrote:
If the Democrats win, all of that money, unfortunately, will have to be spent on bad debt which won't be worth anything in the end. Obama will not be able to make progress on any of his social programs because the national debt and plummeting US dollar will be in an untenable situation. If the Republicans win, however, it will turn out that only 100 billion was needed. Things weren't so bad after all...

Unfortunately, I don't think it matters. This isn't about who gets elected next, because that's irrelevant. It's about which lobby has enough presence to get what they want. Right now, it's the banking and financial system lobby. The price is $700B. That includes cleaning up all the bad debt, making sure my firm survives and has liquidity, and oh, I get to keep my bonus as well. This deal stinks. Period.

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but...

The banks don't need the government to sell these assets at market value, but they don't want to do that, because if they do, they have to mark all of their other assets to that market price, which will screw their balance sheets (reasonably or not). Hence, the liquidity problem - no one wants to sell anything. In some respect the point of the bailout is to buy the assets above market rates, which keeps the bank's balance sheets from deflating.

Now, I'm quite sure we end up eating the difference. It boils down to whether or not you think the market price is actually reasonable. I'd say if that was in dispute the government's assistance wouldn't be required either.

Regardless of how you slice it, the tax payer is being asked to eat all of the financial losses incurred from the go-go days of the housing boom, while all of the people who generated those losses go home with 6 figure bonuses.

Why can't we let the big banks fail? Clearly they were diseased and deserve to die. The smaller, regional banks were not so afflicted by the sub-prime fraud disease, and they are still sound financially.

So fuck big banks. Let them fail. Eat shit and die big banks.

i didn't actually write that but due to the quirks of the recommendation system it looks like i did however that aside i did recommend it because i do agree with it -- clearly the plans as i understand them, as so far set forward are terrible -- the details and enactment of the scheme is lousy but I think saving the big banks and taking these mortgages out of the global market is essential. This is a liquidity crisis of banks and institutions globally, and I believe has a very real potential to take down major parts of the global economy and cause a 1930s style recession. This is a liquidity crisis just as the Wall Street Crash was a liquidity crisis. I don't fear the economic hardship to America of a deep recession, of a depth unknown for years. I fear a global recession will lead to wars, poverty and death across the globe. A recession would mean tough times for Americans but because the American economy plays such a crucial role in the global economy the knock on effects are appalling for humanity as a whole. I would simply point out that one direct consequence of the Wall Street Crash was WW2.

I agree fuck the big banks: they were greedy, but when they all start to fall there is a domino effect, they crush Main Street USA and Main Street Moscow will have Nazis marching down it that make Putin and Co look like Dwight Eisenhower.