Today is a GREAT day to be an American!

[travesty]

For once our political and legislative system worked like it is supposed to. Congress, on both sides of the aisle, listened to the overwhelming voice of their constituents against this bailout and voted accordingly. Those who chose to ignore the 80% (polls vary) of Americans who were opposed to this legislation should be very wary of the next election. Earmarks and secret deals be damned, some of our leaders actually have a back bone and are willing to stand up to their parties leaders when their constituents tell them to. I could not be more proud of our Congress than I am right now.

This just goes to show that when the American people take action like flooding their legislators with e-mails and phone calls, thaings CAN and DO change. Sitting around and hoping for change doesn't do shit!

[roosta]

i heard one congressman say this bill was the first step to socialism.

what a fucking idiot.

[DroppinScience]

But apparently the Dow (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?cnn=yes) had the biggest drop in history, not that I'm sure what that really means. But the mainstream media seems paniced.

If any "bailout" relating to this does manage to pass -- whenever that would be -- how do you think it'll look since this latest one dropped like a fly?

[yeahwho]

I'm willing to sacrifice if your willing, I do not like the look of this bailout. Also the banking structure is now down to 3 banks handle 30% of all of our money. This just happening in a few weeks.

Here is a quick view of my fucked up street level take on this, people buy a house that's over-inflated, then get a second mortgage, to keep up with the overall price of foreign made crap and energy prices for the auto theyt must have to get to work they max out they're credit. Now to keep food on the table they get involved with payday loans and check cashing franchises until the 300% + interest eats them alive and then they default, not just a few, but a few million. This threatens those who perpetuated this ideology.

The bubble has now burst, millions have nothing and those who are losing at an unprecedented rate (extremely rich corporate FDIC institutions) want you and me to bail them out.

Pretty sound economical policy if you don't mind paying to keep those who screwed you.

Alan Greenspan's bubble theory has hit home and is roosting, the only solution Bush has is to continue on with this policy on an unwilling populance who is saying, "enough is enough".

Sort of rudimentary and I welcome discussion on my screwy point of view.

[Laver1969]

I'm putting every penny I own under my mattress.

So Pelosi delivers a "This whole thing is Bush's fault" speech right before this goes to vote. It pisses a lot of people off and Barney come out and says he'll be extra nice if the people change their mind since some folks got their feelings hurt by Pelosi. This is all political theater.

I don't really know if this bailout is the right solution or if there's a better idea. But this whole thing sucks.

[travesty]

I say fuck it. Let the cards fall where they may. The House of cards that was our financial system had to be re-made at some point. Letting it all fall apart will hasten the reconstruction instead of dragging it out for years or even generations by continuing to prop up a flawed system. A complete collapse will let us start fairly fresh. Frankly, those of us who live within their means and do not carry a ton of debt from chasing the Jonses will be best situated to come out ahead on this. Hopefully wall street and the fed will learn a HARD fucking lesson from this.

Yes lots of hardworking people are going to get hurt, and badly, maybe even me. But I'd rather rip the band-aid off quickly than slowly pull at it.

[RobMoney$]

Good thing they got that debate in. Who says they couldn't multi-task?

[travesty]

If any "bailout" relating to this does manage to pass -- whenever that would be -- how do you think it'll look since this latest one dropped like a fly?

I personally hope there is none. If the market is given an opportunity correct itself it will. The biggest problem is that everyone is panicking because A) no one knows how many of these bad securites there are and B) because of A it is almost impossible to valuate them. Given time, with a bailout or without it, the market will get a handle on both problems. Once correctly valuated by the open market, another market for these instruments will develop. JPMorgan was already able to put a value on WaMu's exposure and paid accordingly. This will continue to happen. The strong will survive and also new players will fill in the gaps, that's capitalism and this hiccup ain't going to stop it no matter what the Treasury does.

What the American people do NOT want is for the government to buy up these instruments at arbitrary prices and then try and make the market accept that price, which it undoubtedly won't. That is an unsound policy for any business, let alone the US Government.

[RobMoney$]

So Pelosi delivers a "This whole thing is Bush's fault" speech right before this goes to vote. It pisses a lot of people off and Barney come out and says he'll be extra nice if the people change their mind since some folks got their feelings hurt by Pelosi. This is all political theater.

So the Dems are blaming Bush, and the GOP is blaming the Dems because of a partisan speech...political theater indeed, Lave.

I mean everyone knows the Jews and their holidays are the ones to blame for it being rushed through and now failing.

[kaiser soze]

And the mccain camp claims credit for the bailout!!

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihnXjIANkLl4MJzeQD3MTpBUyZrQ

CHICAGO (AFP) — John McCain's presidential campaign claimed credit as Congress readied Monday to vote on an emergency economic package, but Democrats said the Republican's last-ditch intervention had been no help.

Mitt Romney, McCain's erstwhile rival for the Republican nomination, said the deal on a Wall Street bailout worth up to 700 billion dollars would never have happened without the Arizona senator.

Speaking on NBC television, the former Massachusetts governor said "this bill would not have been agreed to had it not been for John McCain."

oh wait....

he blames it on Obama for failing!!!

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hShKYdJ4cp-nC99ZBCXe1yCypUXgD93GKLH80

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain says Barack Obama and his allies have injected unnecessary partisanship into efforts to pass bailout legislation for the financial industry.

oh pmpfh!!!

mccain politicizes this more than obama...but yet it was mccain who called for campaign suspensions and dropping all the bipartisanship!

the man needs his meds

[HAL 9000]

Has anyone seen the costs to the taxpayer of not passing this bill? I have not seen any figures/estimates (and I suppose it is very hard to predict) but would not be surprised if it is in the trillions.

I would guess that things will get tough now (assuming a revised bill is not passed). It is undoubtedly good in the long term for banks to know that they have to pay for their mistakes, but this way, everyone will pay for them - a lot more (I would imagine) than under the proposed bail out.

I dont think it is a good idea for politicians to listen too closely to the public on this, we elect officials to make difficult decisions for us based on core values. The public does not understand this issue and I dont think they understand the costs of ongoing liquidity problems.

I am a bit mixed about this whole thing, I hate the Moral Hazard of the bailout but I am concerned about what will happen now.

[alien autopsy]

Has anyone seen the costs to the taxpayer of not passing this bill? I have not seen any figures/estimates (and I suppose it is very hard to predict) but would not be surprised if it is in the trillions.

I would guess that things will get tough now (assuming a revised bill is not passed). It is undoubtedly good in the long term for banks to know that they have to pay for their mistakes, but this way, everyone will pay for them - a lot more (I would imagine) than under the proposed bail out.

I dont think it is a good idea for politicians to listen too closely to the public on this, we elect officials to make difficult decisions for us based on core values. The public does not understand this issue and I dont think they understand the costs of ongoing liquidity problems.

I am a bit mixed about this whole thing, I hate the Moral Hazard of the bailout but I am concerned about what will happen now.

you said:
I dont think it is a good idea for politicians to listen too closely to the public on this, we elect officials to make difficult decisions for us based on core values. The public does not understand this issue and I dont think they understand the costs of ongoing liquidity problems.


thats part of the issue, us, the average tax payer has absolutely no idea what is really going on. its all behind close doors, and paulsen has been given total authority for the matter.

We should all be made aware of every aspect of this. we should have a say in it, we should be aware of the risks, the benefits, the problem. we have seen nothing of this. and its been 700 bill of our dollars. FUCK THAT> they should be consulting every university professor, professional and intelligent person on this problem to come up with the best answer for america. it should not be held behind close doors.

i wouldnt be suprised if they suspended the elections due to the financial crisis

[kaiser soze]

Now how much will foreign investors gain or lose with a bail out or fail out?

anyone care to explain because I don't wanna wonder where this will take us on the international financial rollercoaster

[Bob]

I dont think it is a good idea for politicians to listen too closely to the public on this, we elect officials to make difficult decisions for us based on core values. The public does not understand this issue and I dont think they understand the costs of ongoing liquidity problems.


i agree with you wholeheartedly on that, but one of my gnawing problems with this whole thing is that if i'm observing things correctly, the only people who do seem to be able to understand this damn thing are the people that are responsible for it and would benefit the most from the bailout (to the extent that anyone "benefits" from this). congress is supposed to base its decision off of their expert opinions? it just feels fucked up to me.

plus, bush and cheney are in favor of it, so it must be bad. that's always been a reliable way for me to calibrate my moral compass in the past, so i'm only sort of half being sarcastic about that.

in other news, i was researching something related to the sarbanes-oxley act today (i get paid to do such fancy sounding things sometimes but really i was scratching my head through most of it) and i noticed it led off with this bit of expert commentary:

Financial and corporate crises bring regulation; the bigger the crisis, the more the regulation. One forgets that, only about a year ago all the talk in financial and business circles focused on the need to roll back Sarbanes-Oxley, which was allegedly proving to be too burdensome for U.S. business. Regulation, or at least constraining regulation, tends to disappear only in the good times

enron only fucked over its shareholders, our new villains fucked over the whole country. i wonder what kind of laws we're going to get out of this one?

[travesty]

I dont think it is a good idea for politicians to listen too closely to the public on this, we elect officials to make difficult decisions for us based on core values. The public does not understand this issue and I dont think they understand the costs of ongoing liquidity problems.
.

What a load! This is exactly the problem I have with some of the American public. Some would rather say "fuck it, they know how to do it better than me" than to do a little research and formulate an educated opinion. The problem is big and it is multi-faceted and yes the full scope of all of the minutiae is probably a bit out of my grasp, but I do read what more educated people have to say and evaluate whether it makes sense to me or not. And when I have formulated an educated opinion, I want my legislators to hear it and vote accordingly. I hate it when people try and tell me that the government is better suited to tell me what I should think. That drives me fucking nuts!!!! This is America, only YOU should be telling YOU what to think or you are already lost within the machine. Please don't surrender your mind that easily. Having Paulson and Bernanke (both previous Wall Street hotshots and multi-multi-millionaires) tell us how they are going to fix everything up for their personal portfolios and their buddies on Wall Street at our expense is insane. A significant number of very educated economists think this plan is absurd, and yes, some don't. The biggest problem I have is that there is nowhere near a consensus amongst them that it will even help.

A Smarter Person's Opinion (http://mises.org/story/3131)

[RobMoney$]

I think no matter how this shakes out, this probably puts a fork in McCain's campaign.
I don't see how the majority of American's can live with the state of their 401k balances and home equities and decide to vote for McCain in this situation.
Honestly, things couldn't line up better for Barry here.

[RobMoney$]

And the mccain camp claims credit for the bailout!!
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihnXjIANkLl4MJzeQD3MTpBUyZrQ
oh wait....
he blames it on Obama for failing!!!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hShKYdJ4cp-nC99ZBCXe1yCypUXgD93GKLH80
oh pmpfh!!!
mccain politicizes this more than obama...but yet it was mccain who called for campaign suspensions and dropping all the bipartisanship!
the man needs his meds

The thing that's pissing me off the most while I watch the coverage of this is how all they seem to want to worry about is who to blame.
This isn't a matter of who to blame, it's a matter of who to trust.
The public doesn't know who to trust.
We were all told Bush/ Paulson/ Bernanke/ Reid/ Pelosi/ McCain/ Obama, all as unified in getting the bailout deal passed.
But they ALL failed to get it done, which breaks trust in ALL of their leadership.
You can attack the Republicans who voted no, or McCain because he tried to use it for political gain, but that's doesn't build trust in anything.
In fact just deepens the psychological crisis.

[kaiser soze]

I think it's time for congressional deathmatches

Flash Gordon style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FmyK-ips2g&feature=related)

[travesty]

The thing that's pissing me off the most while I watch the coverage of this is how all they seem to want to worry about is who to blame.
This isn't a matter of who to blame, it's a matter of who to trust.
The public doesn't know who to trust.
We were all told Bush/ Paulson/ Bernanke/ Reid/ Pelosi/ McCain/ Obama, all as unified in getting the bailout deal passed.
But they ALL failed to get it done, which breaks trust in ALL of their leadership.
You can attack the Republicans who voted no, or McCain because he tried to use it for political gain, but that's doesn't build trust in anything.
In fact just deepens the psychological crisis.

(y)(y)(y)

[chromium05]

I think no matter how this shakes out, this probably puts a fork in McCain's campaign.
I don't see how the majority of American's can live with the state of their 401k balances and home equities and decide to vote for McCain in this situation.
Honestly, things couldn't line up better for Barry here.

Funny that...I thought the same, except I still believe that Hilary Clinton will be the next president - so much so that I put another £25 ( $50 ) on her at 500/1.

Obama's campaign is about to fall apart over his birth certificate and lack of ability to provide it. The Supreme court will announce his eligibility void paving the way for another clinton powergrab. Where is she in all this financial "crisis"? I am willing to guarantee she is off getting training, ready for the very swift placement into Democrat leadership. Palin vs Clinton - that's your election.

Just watching BBC breakfast news ( it's 07:30 ) here and the bankers are all off to work early. They are shitting bricks. Today is going to be interesting...

Someone above posted asking what would happen now...Bush and his buddies lost out big time. They have no option now except force. Today, people will be confused = the news networks will tell them that thier pensions and savings are fucked. People will need assurances that government is trying to help them.

The ideal time for a false flag attack???

[HAL 9000]

i agree with you wholeheartedly on that, but one of my gnawing problems with this whole thing is that if i'm observing things correctly, the only people who do seem to be able to understand this damn thing are the people that are responsible for it and would benefit the most from the bailout (to the extent that anyone "benefits" from this). congress is supposed to base its decision off of their expert opinions? it just feels fucked up to me.

plus, bush and cheney are in favor of it, so it must be bad. that's always been a reliable way for me to calibrate my moral compass in the past, so i'm only sort of half being sarcastic about that.




I think it is perfectly valid to be concerned about who is making this decision. My view as someone who works in the UK financial public sector is that this decision is is not taken in isolation by high ranking officials but is the results of the efforts of a lot of hard working civil servants who are dedicated to the ‘public good’. It seems to me that this bail out is against everything Bush etc stands for – we are talking about the emergency nationalisation of huge chunks of the financial sector – this is practically socialism. So if Bush is prepared to sacrifice his most fundamental principles to support this deal then it seems to me that a pretty convincing case must have been put to him. On the other hand it may well be true that Bush is more interested in rescuing his cronies than sticking to his capitalist principles – who knows.


The part of the story that seems to be missing from the press coverage is what it means to not have the bailout. I think it very likely that everyone in this and coming generations will foot a heavy bill for this, in the trillions – this is still going to be the tax payers burden and it will, likely, be bigger than the bailout. The question is – is this price worth it to teach the banking sector a lesson – could they not be taught a lesson in a cheaper way – perhaps through tighter regulation to control remuneration structures?

[HAL 9000]

What a load! This is exactly the problem I have with some of the American public. Some would rather say "fuck it, they know how to do it better than me" than to do a little research and formulate an educated opinion. The problem is big and it is multi-faceted and yes the full scope of all of the minutiae is probably a bit out of my grasp, but I do read what more educated people have to say and evaluate whether it makes sense to me or not. And when I have formulated an educated opinion, I want my legislators to hear it and vote accordingly. I hate it when people try and tell me that the government is better suited to tell me what I should think. That drives me fucking nuts!!!! This is America, only YOU should be telling YOU what to think or you are already lost within the machine. Please don't surrender your mind that easily. Having Paulson and Bernanke (both previous Wall Street hotshots and multi-multi-millionaires) tell us how they are going to fix everything up for their personal portfolios and their buddies on Wall Street at our expense is insane. A significant number of very educated economists think this plan is absurd, and yes, some don't. The biggest problem I have is that there is nowhere near a consensus amongst them that it will even help.

A Smarter Person's Opinion (http://mises.org/story/3131)

It would be lovely if the American public did have a good grasp of this issue but they do not. This is why it is a bad idea for our politicians to vote according to the whims of the ignorant masses. You should be voting for the governance arrangements and ethical principles that you value in a leader of course. I cannot help but feel that this is one for the experts.

With the best will in the world, you can find blogs from commentators arguing anything, and chances are (because you are human) you are going to agree with the ones that are inline with your preconceived ideas (please forgive me if this seems harsh but it is the way most people work, including myself).

The blog you posted makes a good case for allowing the cards fall where they may and letting the market solve the problem. The issue I have is that this idea of the invisible hand of capitalism fixing problems and creating optimal solutions is rubbish – it never happens. Unregulated markets always always fail because they are full of people trying to ‘cheat’ the system to improve their share – unregulated markets are opaque and riddled with cartels. The root of our present problem (in my view) is that remuneration structures have rewarded volume of business rather than return and this is a result of a ‘principal-agent’ problem where by bank senior managers and shareholders are both working to their own short term ends – the present predicament is the market solution to these problems.

The fact is the treasury officials (in every country that I have heard comment on this) seem to think this deal is important so the question is whether this is an elaborate conspiracy to protect fat cats or if there is a genuine belief amongst those who have their hands on the macroeconomic controls that this is the best damage limitation measure. For me the latter option seems far more likely (but then I am not a big fan of conspiracy theories).

[100% ILL]

I personally hope there is none. If the market is given an opportunity correct itself it will.

I agree wholeheartedly on this. I believe the failure of this bailout will "force" the market to completley re-evaluate the way it conducts buisness. Hell, every other market has had to adjust in the last decade; from the "Bullet proof" IBM High tech industry, to the construction industry. It's time for the finacial institutions to get a reality check, instead of a blank check!

The biggest problem is that everyone is panicking because A) no one knows how many of these bad securites there are and B) because of A it is almost impossible to valuate them. Given time, with a bailout or without it, the market will get a handle on both problems.

I feel that Wall Street as well as Congress are all yelling "The sky is falling" and hoping that the American people will say, "Oh my! please do something anything save us!" In a way it's almost like they're targeting us with our own greed. Agree or disagree, just my opinion. I mean really, didn't we already fall for this same type of thing after 9/11? We've been attacked so let's start a war. I fell for it, and I think the majority of people did. But we've learned since then, and a quick fix is not the answer. Sometimes you have to remove a foot if it's gangrenous to keep it from spreading throughout the entire body. Painful but necessary.

A complete collapse will let us start fairly fresh. Frankly, those of us who live within their means and do not carry a ton of debt from chasing the Jonses will be best situated to come out ahead on this. Hopefully wall street and the fed will learn a HARD fucking lesson from this.

(y)

[yeahwho]

Let's demand something for this bailout, I don't understand the fundamentals of giving major corporations our money without having something serious in return. All along this has been on the backs of US citizens, why not get something in return as in a real debate about reform and universal health care. Lets make the government give us something in return. (if not health care pick another policy, something, anything is better than just getting reamed)

Without definitive returns for US citizens and actual reform for the banking industry all we're doing as citizens is encouraging the failed policies of Greenspan.

I can't help but think this bailout will define a double class in the US. The people willing to take our money and the fines on those who do not give their hard earned cash, because we'll have less money. Guaranteed. They may say your wages will not be hurt, but the US dollar is going to be de-valued.

This is serious business and we at this time have slight leverage to make our representatives work for us. Once the bailout is agreed to, "We the People" will have lost our leverage in everything obtain with money.

I'm admittedly frightened by this power grab. It's here and the uber rich are not going to let go of their wealth.

As far as "the sky is falling", that is happening. How we act is crucial.

Great discussion.

[kaiser soze]

pssst...I think they did, it was called the stimulus package

But seriously, why not raise minimum wage about 3 dollars and give everyone a free ride to Disney World

[100% ILL]

But seriously, why not raise minimum wage about 3 dollars and give everyone a free ride to Disney World


No offense but,I've never understood why people think raising the minimum wage is really going to help anything. Mabey I'm ignorant on this but here goes.

It seems to me, raising the minimum wage would also raise inflation. If a guy flipping burgers is making $10/hr, how much are those burgers gonna cost? Then everybody else will demand a wage increase which will raise the cost of production, which equals higher prices. I personally don't think there should be a minimum wage. I think it would increase competion among employers.


As far as the free ride to Disney world? Mabey they can put something in the stimulus package.

[kaiser soze]

Yes everything would become more expensive....but things are already becoming more expensive

wages are down while prices are up. Gas, milk, corn, beef....

[yeahwho]

Legalize weed, there's an easy trade off. Have a three part phase where all weed if free and legal. Then set up licensed weed shops with officially sanctioned distributors and licensed outlets such as in Amsterdam. But make our shops much nicer and professional.

The weed could be sold in cafes, record stores, fairs, events and at all hotels and cocktail lounges.

This start up operation will be taxed and 90% of operating costs will be used to bailout corporate entities, who promise to give consumers a grace period on debt incurred while "Not High".

[travesty]

It would be lovely if the American public did have a good grasp of this issue but they do not.This is why it is a bad idea for our politicians to vote according to the whims of the ignorant masses.

That's what politicians are SUPPOSED to do. And to call the masses ignorant is incredibly elitist. There is always an ignorant percentage, but there is also a very smart and well educated percentage. However, when close to 80% of the "masses" agree on something, the the politicians better fucking listen!

With the best will in the world, you can find blogs from commentators arguing anything, and chances are (because you are human) you are going to agree with the ones that are inline with your preconceived ideas (please forgive me if this seems harsh but it is the way most people work, including myself

Agreed. While I have read many others with opposing views, I posted that particular one just for the reason you stated.

The blog you posted makes a good case for allowing the cards fall where they may and letting the market solve the problem. The issue I have is that this idea of the invisible hand of capitalism fixing problems and creating optimal solutions is rubbish – it never happens. Unregulated markets always always fail because they are full of people trying to ‘cheat’ the system to improve their share – unregulated markets are opaque and riddled with cartels.

If there has ever been a true "unregulated" market I have never seen it. If there are truly no regulations, then what is there to cheat?

The root of our present problem (in my view) is that remuneration structures have rewarded volume of business rather than return and this is a result of a ‘principal-agent’ problem where by bank senior managers and shareholders are both working to their own short term ends – the present predicament is the market solution to these problems.

Right over my head, gonna have to try and look into that.

The fact is the treasury officials (in every country that I have heard comment on this) seem to think this deal is important

Who do you think they are looking out for? Me, Average Joe American or themselves?

so the question is whether this is an elaborate conspiracy to protect fat cats or if there is a genuine belief amongst those who have their hands on the macroeconomic controls that this is the best damage limitation measure. For me the latter option seems far more likely (but then I am not a big fan of conspiracy theories

Look, I am not opposed to some sort of solution, just not the one they have proposed to this point. Given the choise of the current plan, or no plan, I choose no plan. That does not mean that a better, more agreeable solution is not possible.

[HAL 9000]

No offense but,I've never understood why people think raising the minimum wage is really going to help anything. Mabey I'm ignorant on this but here goes.

It seems to me, raising the minimum wage would also raise inflation. If a guy flipping burgers is making $10/hr, how much are those burgers gonna cost? Then everybody else will demand a wage increase which will raise the cost of production, which equals higher prices. I personally don't think there should be a minimum wage. I think it would increase competion among employers.



Strangely, it seems that in practice a minimum wage is not that inflationary. I suspect the reason for this is that generally the price of a good is not based on the cost of production. Typically a good is sold at the price that will generate maximum profit regardless of what it cost to make – if this price is greater than the production cost then the product is successful (profitable) but if it is less than production cost it fails. The optimal price of a product is not impacted by the cost of producing it.

Of course if you raise production costs, then you decrease the number of viable products in the market place and you redistribute profit from the shareholders (providers of capital) to the workers (providers of labour).

The inflation that you do get is a product of the redistribution of wealth from shareholders to workers – so demand for products enjoyed by minimum wage earners (lets stereotype and say beer and cigarettes) goes up so prices may go up while the demand for products that capital providers want may go down.

That’s is just conjecture really but from what I have read minimum wages do not cause much inflation.

[QueenAdrock]

Funny that...I thought the same, except I still believe that Hilary Clinton will be the next president - so much so that I put another £25 ( $50 ) on her at 500/1.

Obama's campaign is about to fall apart over his birth certificate and lack of ability to provide it. The Supreme court will announce his eligibility void paving the way for another clinton powergrab. Where is she in all this financial "crisis"? I am willing to guarantee she is off getting training, ready for the very swift placement into Democrat leadership. Palin vs Clinton - that's your election.


Clinton won't be the next president, period.

Obama has provided his birth certificate, which was confirmed authentic by Hawaiian Department of Health. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/) This whole BS about his birth certificate is almost as bad as the "OMG HE'S A SECRET MUSLIM!" crap. It's confirmed he's American.

[HAL 9000]

That's what politicians are SUPPOSED to do. And to call the masses ignorant is incredibly elitist.

Yes it is – by ignorant I meant with regards to this particular issue (rather than generally) and not in an offensive way – I just meant that average Joe does not have the information required to make a fully informed decision on this issue – I could have phrased it better!


If there has ever been a true "unregulated" market I have never seen it. If there are truly no regulations, then what is there to cheat?

...


Right over my head, gonna have to try and look into that.




By cheat I am referring to the attempt to manipulate the market to exploit a market imperfection to improve ones own shares of the spoils. The international market for oil is fairly unregulated and indeed the member states of OPEC have openly formed a cartel to limit production and drive up prices. This is the sort of thing I mean. It is a fair question – how can you cheat when there are no rules – and here by cheat I mean deliberately profit from the failings of the market (failings such as limited source of supply and asymmetric information).

The reason I mentioned this is that my next point (which I explained badly) is that the current problem is ultimately (in my opinion) the result of the ‘market solution’ to the problem of the differing objectives of company employees and shareholders.


Shareholders want long term returns on their capital – employees want to be paid as much as possible. The challenge is for the shareholders to reward employees so that the best way for them to maximise their salary is to take actions which produce long term returns on the shareholders capital. What seems to have happened is that the market solution to this problem is for shareholders to reward senior managers (who in turn reward the rest of their employees) for market share and business volume. The reason for this is that companies that fail to adopt this approach get driven out of business by aggressive rivals (It is a bit like Darwinian evolution where the fittest firms are those adopting the suicidal long term strategy).

So if everyone in a company is being told to ‘sell as much as possible’ and is not penalised for selling bad business then the result can be a bubble. In this case in the property market, this has driven the property bubble and led to the current situation.

So the question is, would a market adjustment fix this? If the companies that adopted the strategy of pursuing market share above all else go bust – will we be left with the ‘sensible companies’? To a certain extent yes (except a lot of the sensible companies have already been driven bust by the aggressive ones) but there is nothing in place to stop those companies being out competed again by companies pursuing market share once the dust settles – except tighter regulation. But we could have the regulation (I think) without the market adjustment, so maybe we can skip the punishment and go straight to the cure on this one?



Who do you think they are looking out for? Me, Average Joe American or themselves?

Where I work, people take genuine pride in sticking up for the little guy and dislike the concept of 'fat cats' as much as everyone else. We care mostly about our own friends annd family of course.


I don’t think it is true that high ranking treasury officials (around the world) are looking out for their cronies in big business. I could imagine Bush doing something like that but Bush does not come up with a rescue deal like this by himself – a lot of civil servants will have worked very hard modelling different economic scenarios, stress testing equity markets and forecasting macroeconomic performance. I am guessing that they have worked out that the cost of no bailout is pretty huge. But then again if they have, they have done an awful job of communicating it to the public (and maybe they don’t want to cause a panic).

[travesty]

so maybe we can skip the punishment and go straight to the cure on this one?

That would be nice.Though a little punishment seems in order, but I am of the more vendictive type.

I don’t think it is true that high ranking treasury officials (around the world) are looking out for their cronies in big business.

I mean more along the lines of they are looking out for their own economies and countrymen, and they should, that's their job. But it also means they are not necessarily looking out for the American public on this one.

[HAL 9000]

I mean more along the lines of they are looking out for their own economies and countrymen, and they should, that's their job. But it also means they are not necessarily looking out for the American public on this one.


Thats true - perhaps the rest of the world should chip in a bit I would support that. As long as it was on the same terms as the US government gets.

[AceFace]

mccain politicizes this more than obama...but yet it was mccain who called for campaign suspensions and dropping all the bipartisanship!

the man needs his meds

i tell you what, he may have said that he suspended his campaign, but his commercials still played on in Virginia. i wonder if he suspended all his commercials except in battleground states....

[b i o n i c]

they also played in ny. lying fucking liar

[King PSYZ]

they played in Nevada the whole time too.

[yeahwho]

pssst...I think they did, it was called the stimulus package

But seriously, why not raise minimum wage about 3 dollars and give everyone a free ride to Disney World

If you gave everyone a free ride to Disney World you would be cheating the American people, we should be getting that 18 times over it's more like Disney tickets – 18 (3-day) passes to Disney for the entire U.S. population from What can $700 billion buy (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/lifestyle/sfl-700-billion,0,2436619.photogallery)? South Floridas Sun-Sentinel newspaper.

[yeahwho]

I am actually surprised at how easily and readily the American people are willing to bailout the very folks who presented you this fiscal nightmare. Especially when the return to the average citizen is going to be minimal.

I'm looking at this bailout package from every angle and what I see is a power grab from those who created it, the credit and banking industry, without any sort of gain to those of us who will be bailing them out.

This word bailout is the wrong verbiage, it is propaganda, we all know that. Let's just call it what it is, a bribe. This is street level political maneuvering with the big money calling the shots.

Am I wrong?

[HAL 9000]

I am actually surprised at how easily and readily the American people are willing to bailout the very folks who presented you this fiscal nightmare. Especially when the return to the average citizen is going to be minimal.

I'm looking at this bailout package from every angle and what I see is a power grab from those who created it, the credit and banking industry, without any sort of gain to those of us who will be bailing them out.

This word bailout is the wrong verbiage, it is propaganda, we all know that. Let's just call it what it is, a bribe. This is street level political maneuvering with the big money calling the shots.

Am I wrong?

Do you not think that the restoration of liquidity to credit markets is going to be a benefit to taxpayers? Or do you just think that the 'bailout' will have no impact on these markets. I am still a bit confused as to why people are so sure this will not work?

[GlobemalloSpike]

No offense but,I've never understood why people think raising the minimum wage is really going to help anything. Mabey I'm ignorant on this but here goes.
It seems to me, raising the minimum wage would also raise inflation. If a guy flipping burgers is making $10/hr, how much are those burgers gonna cost? Then everybody else will demand a wage increase which will raise the cost of production, which equals higher prices. I personally don't think there should be a minimum wage. I think it would increase competion among employers.

I don't mean to single you out, Ill. But this is an opinion I've heard repeatedly, and it is 100% wrong.

Instead of going into a lengthy philosophical discussion, which would include phrases like "market can bear", "plentitude of the dollar", "GDP", "definition of wealth", "import tariffs", "serfdom"

I'll just cite one fact:

-If the minimum wage increased at the same rate as CEO pay since 1990,
the minimum wage would be $23.03/hr by 2005.

[GlobemalloSpike]

-

[travesty]

Do you not think that the restoration of liquidity to credit markets is going to be a benefit to taxpayers? Or do you just think that the 'bailout' will have no impact on these markets. I am still a bit confused as to why people are so sure this will not work?

On the other hand, I am just as confused as to why people are so sure that this WILL work.

Banks have already started writing off losses on these investments which has tighetened the lending markets. If the Treasury comes in and sets arbitrary pricing on them, especially if they use Paulson's reverse auction method, the banks are likely going to have to write down ANOTHER round of losses, making their integrity even more fragile. I don't understand how that is going to help "free up lending" any sooner than waiting for the market to set real pricing for these instruments.

[yeahwho]

Do you not think that the restoration of liquidity to credit markets is going to be a benefit to taxpayers? Or do you just think that the 'bailout' will have no impact on these markets. I am still a bit confused as to why people are so sure this will not work?

I'm only confused that what our own lawmakers call a "bribery and extortion" can be legal if it's just changed to a "bailout".

In order to function Wall Street and the Banking Industry are telling us, pay, then pay again. Or else. Just get honest with the the American people and quit calling this a bailout.

[travesty]

I heard a great quote on the radio today. They were interviewing your average Joes about the crisis and one said something like this;

"I know putting your money in Wall Street is a gamble. It's no different than going to Las Vegas but right now I just want a hot a chick to bring me a free drink."

Classic. I just about sprayed soda all over the inside of my windshield.

[yeahwho]

I heard a great quote on the radio today. They were interviewing your average Joes about the crisis and one said something like this;

"I know putting your money in Wall Street is a gamble. It's no different than going to Las Vegas but right now I just want a hot a chick to bring me a free drink."

Classic. I just about sprayed soda all over the inside of my windshield.

At least the casino's have the decency to keep the playing field honest. House odds are easy to understand. It doesn't take an attorney, broker, escrow agent, IRS, insurance agent, compound interest tables cooked against variable rates and multiple mailing lists with your equity in sight to split a pair of 10's.

This is like a China Clock going backwards. Up is down, down is up and we had better decide what's behind door #3 before the end of next week.

Or Else.

[100% ILL]

I don't mean to single you out, Ill. But this is an opinion I've heard repeatedly, and it is 100% wrong.

How exactly is it 100% wrong? Upon reviewing the subject I have found several articles to suggest the contrary. Of course I'll be the first to admit that I have no degree in economics, however, There are sources that suggest raising the minimum wage would actually cost jobs in some cases. Case in point:

http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_224213102.html?keyword=topstory

For example, retail stores must choose between hiring clerks and installing self-checkout systems as they do at Wal-Mart and other stores. With a higher minimum wage, the cost of hiring clerks increases making the self-checkout systems more appealing. In other words, if the minimum wage increases, you can expect to see more of those self-checkout lanes at Wal-Mart — and see them more quickly.

Instead of going into a lengthy philosophical discussion, which would include phrases like "market can bear", "plentitude of the dollar", "GDP", "definition of wealth", "import tariffs", "serfdom"

Hey, if you've got the info I ready to hear it. If you can provide a solid argument for raising the minimum wage I certainly would not casually dismiss it. I personally feel the market should dictate wages. In the late nineties employers wee paying mor than the minimum wage, because the demand for unskilled labor was high.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap9.htm


In 1999, it stood at $5.15 per hour, although the demand for workers was so great at the time that many employers -- even those who hired low-skilled workers -- were paying wages above the minimum.

I'll just cite one fact:

-If the minimum wage increased at the same rate as CEO pay since 1990,
the minimum wage would be $23.03/hr by 2005.

I don't see this as relative. This almost sounds like an argument for socialism, not to use a "buzz word" but seriously, If pay raises were equal across the board would it not defeat the whole point of free market capitalism?

Also, not to be a stickler, but could you provide a link for this information?

[DroppinScience]

Michael Moore seems to have an interesting take on why the left-wing of the Democratic Party and the right-wing of the Republican party got together and defeated the bailout bill.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/30-1

Published on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Congratulations, Corporate Crime Fighters! Coup Averted for Three Days! ...From Michael Moore

by Michael Moore

Friends,

Everyone said the bill would pass. The masters of the universe were already making celebratory dinner reservations at Manhattan's finest restaurants. Personal shoppers in Dallas and Atlanta were dispatched to do the early Christmas gifting. Mad Men of Chicago and Miami were popping corks and toasting each other long before the morning latte run.

But what they didn't know was that hundreds of thousands of Americans woke up yesterday morning and decided it was time for revolt. The politicians never saw it coming. Millions of phone calls and emails hit Congress so hard it was as if Marshall Dillon, Elliot Ness and Dog the Bounty Hunter had descended on D.C. to stop the looting and arrest the thieves.

The Corporate Crime of the Century was halted by a vote of 228 to 205. It was rare and historic; no one could remember a time when a bill supported by the president and the leadership of both parties went down in defeat. That just never happens.

A lot of people are wondering why the right wing of the Republican Party joined with the left wing of the Democratic Party in voting down the thievery. Forty percent of Democrats and two-thirds of Republicans voted against the bill.

Here's what happened:

The presidential race may still be close in the polls, but the Congressional races are pointing toward a landslide for the Democrats. Few dispute the prediction that the Republicans are in for a whoopin' on November 4th. Up to 30 Republican House seats could be lost in what would be a stunning repudiation of their agenda.

The Republican reps are so scared of losing their seats, when this "financial crisis" reared its head two weeks ago, they realized they had just been handed their one and only chance to separate themselves from Bush before the election, while doing something that would make them look like they were on the side of "the people."

Watching C-Span yesterday morning was one of the best comedy shows I'd seen in ages. There they were, one Republican after another who had backed the war and sunk the country into record debt, who had voted to kill every regulation that would have kept Wall Street in check -- there they were, now crying foul and standing up for the little guy! One after another, they stood at the microphone on the House floor and threw Bush under the bus, under the train (even though they had voted to kill off our nation's trains, too), heck, they would've thrown him under the rising waters of the Lower Ninth Ward if they could've conjured up another hurricane. You know how your dog acts when sprayed by a skunk? He howls and runs around trying to shake it off, rubbing and rolling himself on every piece of your carpet, trying to get rid of the stench. That's what it looked like on the Republican side of the aisle yesterday, and it was a sight to behold.

The 95 brave Dems who broke with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were the real heroes, just like those few who stood up and voted against the war in October of 2002. Watch the remarks from yesterday of Reps. Marcy Kaptur, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Dennis Kucinich. They spoke the truth.

The Dems who voted for the giveaway did so mostly because they were scared by the threats of Wall Street, that if the rich didn't get their handout, the market would go nuts and then it's bye-bye stock-based pension and retirement funds.

And guess what? That's exactly what Wall Street did! The largest, single-day drop in the Dow in the history of the New York Stock exchange. The news anchors last night screamed it out: Americans just lost 1.2 trillion dollars in the stock market!! It's a financial Pearl Harbor! The sky is falling! Bird flu! Killer Bees!

Of course, sane people know that nobody "lost" anything yesterday, that stocks go up and down and this too shall pass because the rich will now buy low, hold, then sell off, then buy low again.

But for now, Wall Street and its propaganda arm (the networks and media it owns) will continue to try and scare the bejesus out of you. It will be harder to get a loan. Some people will lose their jobs. A weak nation of wimps won't last long under this torture. Or will we? Is this our line in the sand?

Here's my guess: The Democratic leadership in the House secretly hoped all along that this lousy bill would go down. With Bush's proposals shredded, the Dems knew they could then write their own bill that favors the average American, not the upper 10% who were hoping for another kegger of gold.

So the ball is in the Democrats' hands. The gun from Wall Street remains at their head. Before they make their next move, let me tell you what the media kept silent about while this bill was being debated:

1. The bailout bill had NO enforcement provisions for the so-called oversight group that was going to monitor Wall Street's spending of the $700 billion;

2. It had NO penalties, fines or imprisonment for any executive who might steal any of the people's money;

3. It did NOTHING to force banks and lenders to rewrite people's mortgages to avoid foreclosures -- this bill would not have stopped ONE foreclosure!;

4. It had NO teeth anywhere in the entire piece of legislation, using words like "suggested" when referring to the government being paid back for the bailout;

5. Over 200 economists wrote to Congress and said this bill might actually WORSEN the "financial crisis" and cause even MORE of a meltdown.

Put a fork in this slab of pork. It's over. Now it is time for our side to state very clearly the laws WE want passed. I will send you my proposals later today. We've bought ourselves less than 72 hours.
Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

[travesty]

So the Republicans who voted against it were self-serving preservationsists who are just try to get through their elections but the Democrats who voted against are "brave". No to mention that the Dems who voted for it only did it because they are scared of Wall Street? What a fucking tool. I am sorry but Michael Moore is a fucking moron.

And to say the Republicans were the ones who let regulations run unchecked is simply false. It was the Republicans who wanted more regulation on Fannie and Freddie (remember the two companies whose sly securitizing of sub prime mortgages started this whole thing) but the Democratic leadership stonewalled the attempt for more oversight and transparency as "unnecessary". I am sorry but I can not let the Dems off the hook for this, Barney Frank needs to resign. I want accountability on both sides of the aisle and on Wall Street. I want some fat cats swinging from the lamp posts during a ticker tape parade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

[GlobemalloSpike]

I don't mean to single you out, Ill. But this is an opinion I've heard repeatedly, and it is 100% wrong.
How exactly is it 100% wrong? Upon reviewing the subject I have found several articles to suggest the contrary.

Sorry, I overspoke, "100%" was a lame (and buzzed) attempt at a pun on your username. But, what you described, possible inflation as a result of a hike in the minimum wage, is generally referenced as a part of "cost-push inflation", which confuses a shift in the structure of relative prices with a general rise in the level of prices. If the labor costs of businesses are increased and they succeed in passing on the costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, they will have managed to change the structure of relative prices at the expense of businesses that are unable to raise their prices because of more-intense competition. This is quite distinct from a general increase in the level of prices, which would be possible only if the real supply of money was increased. The "real supply of money" is controlled by the Fed which constantly walks the inflationary tight rope, balancing much bigger issues than a minimum wage increase, which really only directly affects about 3% of the workforce. And, keep in mind your example assumes an increased cost in production is directly passed on to the consumer. Market prices are in fact determined by competition. Not solely production costs. Which is in part why I brought up...

-If the minimum wage increased at the same rate as CEO pay since 1990,
the minimum wage would be $23.03/hr by 2005.
cite (http://www.faireconomy.org/resources/research_library/reports/executive_excess_2005)
Meaning, wage gap is growing. If companies like WalMart, want to replace workers with self-check lanes it's to protect their executive's pay, not because they're threatened with going out of business.
If WalMart raised prices by 1/2 cent per dollar, they could afford to pay every employee $1 more/hr.

But, I'm not arguing for a minimum wage hike. The data that it increases unemployment at the lowest, unskilled worker level is definetely around, although under some contention, the data that it decreases government assistance is around, it certainly doesn't raise anyone above the poverty line. It's a mixed bag.
I was just trying to point out that a hike doesn't cause inflation.

And I don't really want to get into a socialism v free market discussion centered around minimum wage. There are much bigger fish in the water right now, as we all know.
Maybe we need a "Socialist Bailout of the Free Market" thread.

as for minimum wage, let's put that aside til 2009 when it will go up to $7.25

[Burnout18]

Senate passed bailout