|
|
Is the goverment bailout of the banking industry going to be enough to avoid a prolonged recession? Should the auto industry - or any other sector - get a goverment bailout as well?
|
Posts:
1,888
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1083 of 1128)
Nov 10, 2009 10:23 PM
|
JaredP,
Let's face it, the fix has LONG been in. Trouble is, YOU and I didn't know it. Silly us!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
3,308
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1082 of 1128)
Nov 10, 2009 1:52 PM
|
> Chris Dodd's Proposed
> Financial Overhaul Bill
>
> Well somebody is working on it.
>
> --
> "9-11 Truthers" are imbeciles!
Dodd's 1,100 page-draft would strip the Federal Reserve and other regulators of their powers to regulate banks and hand that job to a single agency. The bill also would take away the Fed's ability to monitor credit cards and mortgages and establish a new "Consumer Financial Protection Agency."
Booyah! 
Of course, the article then goes on to tell how republicans are sharpening their knives to butcher the bill.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,629
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
|
Posts:
3,308
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1080 of 1128)
Nov 10, 2009 1:11 PM
|
> When I mentioned unfettered free trade it, was in the context of the argument for NAFTA. Both parties use the same argument to defend the treaty. They argue unfettered free trade produces the most good for the most people. They get the argument form the study of economics, where it is practically gospel. And, if you ignore the social and moral aspects of capitalism, it is true. Free trade between counties will ultimately raise the standard of living for the majority of the people of the earth. But, at the expense of the livelihoods of those people living in counties whose standard of living is already high above the average, i.e. us.
The economic "gospel" is Keynesian theory. Which disagrees strongly with "the invisible hand" theory of unregulated free trade.
I certainly agree though that this is a bipartisan issue of destructive legislation/ deregulation.
--
Edited by JaredP at 11/10/2009 10:23 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
7,629
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(1079 of 1128)
Nov 10, 2009 2:41 AM
|
> >
> > If we had had ?effective oversight?, those
> > people who bought houses they could not
> > afford would simply have been homeless
> > sooner.
>
> They never would have bought the houses or
> refinanced, and no credit bubble. The Wall Street
> thugs never would have walked away with the bonuses
> from fraudulent financial transactions.
But that's only one aspect of what went wrong
in the market. The lack of regulation of derivatives,
or I should say that the deregulation of derivatives
which happened during the Clinton administration
as a result of Brooksley Born's attempt to enforce
the regulations in place was critical in bringing on
the market meltdown.
Our problems were caused by Washington as
always and many of the people responsible
are still in Obama's administration and will
probably forestall any attempt to regulate
derivatives.
Free marketeering does NOT work in the stock
market but dumb asses who counsel leaving
the market alone are the same assholes who
counsel bailing banks out when they fail due
to those policies.....all of these assholes who
didn't know what the hell they were doing and
caused the damned crash in the first place are
still in charge !
--
"9-11 Truthers" are imbeciles!
|
|
|
Posts:
101
Registered:
6/21/09
|
|
(1078 of 1128)
Nov 10, 2009 2:04 AM
|
>
> If we had had ?effective oversight?, those people who
> bought houses they could not afford would simply have
> been homeless sooner.
They never would have bought the houses or refinanced, and no credit bubble. The Wall Street thugs never would have walked away with the bonuses from fraudulent financial transactions.
|
|
|
Posts:
13,094
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(1077 of 1128)
Nov 9, 2009 11:45 PM
|
People, go after the source please. The Federal Reserve is the origin of loose $$$ that allowed the financiers to profit from any living body who wishes to flip anything under the disguise of productivity.
The culprit that evaporated this nation's wealth is the Federal Reserve.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,987
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(1076 of 1128)
Nov 9, 2009 11:25 PM
|
> "Since the politicians are doing the bidding of
> the corporatocracy I will continue to keep blaming
> them for the mess. Securatizing subprime loans was
> the direct cause of the meltdown. Without it the
> subprime market never would have had the funding to
> over sell such a dangerous product. You don't need to
> micromanage private corporations to have effective
> oversight."
>
>
> ?corporatocracy?? Really?
>
> The loan meltdown was a symptom of America?s
> inability to compete, not the cause. The inability
> of a lot of Americans to pay their mortgages was the
> result of a lot of Americans out of work or working
> at low paying jobs service industry jobs.
>
> If we had had ?effective oversight?, those people who
> bought houses they could not afford would simply have
> been homeless sooner.
But they never would have bought the houses. Not because they never would have qualified for the loans, but because there would have been no secondary market for selling the bad loans.
The reason they got those loans, was because there was a market generated for "CDO's" (collateralized debt obligations) and CDS's (Credit Default Swaps). They discovered how to bundle a bunch of mostly bad loans together and get them rated AAA, the financial equivalent of sandwiching a 90 pieces of cut up newspaper with five hundred dollar bills top and bottom, and passing it off as a $10K stack.
The regulations were the only reason anybody was counting it. Nobody wanted to waste their time counting it, since they were just going to resell it to somebody else. So they got rid of the regulations, and then nobody counted anything. They sold shit and called it chocolate, but took their commissions in real money.
Eventually, they couldn't mask the stench anymore...
|
|
|
Posts:
7,629
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
(1075 of 1128)
Nov 9, 2009 10:59 PM
|
I notice with interest the debate going on about
causes for the current financial crises which I'm
seeing as a direct result of free marketeers screwing
around and getting rid of critical legislation that my
parents always relied on as market safeguards in
keeping our savings where they were rather than
bailing out at the first sign of trouble.
One of the last things that my dad told me was to
hang tight during bear markets because safeguards
are in place to keep it from getting out of hand
and, with those safeguards in place, there can be no
repeat of the crash of '29.
Well the safeguards are no longer in place because
free marketeers who have proven and have admitted
that they don't know what the hell they are doing
have conned congress into getting rid of them.
I'm certainly no economist but have gotten a better
understanding of what caused the meltdown from
watching "Frontline" documentaries on the subject.
Here is a very good one to start with.
And until we re-regulate the stock market, we'll
continue to see turmoil in the financial sector.
That should, in fact, be our priority
--
"9-11 Truthers" are imbeciles!
|
|
|
Posts:
13
Registered:
11/5/09
|
|
(1074 of 1128)
Nov 9, 2009 9:12 PM
|
"Since the politicians are doing the bidding of the corporatocracy I will continue to keep blaming them for the mess. Securatizing subprime loans was the direct cause of the meltdown. Without it the subprime market never would have had the funding to over sell such a dangerous product. You don't need to micromanage private corporations to have effective oversight."
?corporatocracy?? Really?
The loan meltdown was a symptom of America?s inability to compete, not the cause. The inability of a lot of Americans to pay their mortgages was the result of a lot of Americans out of work or working at low paying jobs service industry jobs.
If we had had ?effective oversight?, those people who bought houses they could not afford would simply have been homeless sooner.
|
|
|
Posts:
13
Registered:
11/5/09
|
|
(1073 of 1128)
Nov 9, 2009 8:51 PM
|
> "Unfettered free trade?" There is no such thing in
> America. Take away the subsidies and complex tax
> incentives, then go on a massive monopoly busting
> campaign. Throw in some anti-trust laws and simple
> common sense regulation along with transparency and
> an open-books regulatory police. Then get back to me.
> That is nothing like what we have now.
>
> --
> Edited by JaredP at 11/08/2009 10:10 AM PST
When I mentioned unfettered free trade it, was in the context of the argument for NAFTA. Both parties use the same argument to defend the treaty. They argue unfettered free trade produces the most good for the most people. They get the argument form the study of economics, where it is practically gospel. And, if you ignore the social and moral aspects of capitalism, it is true. Free trade between counties will ultimately raise the standard of living for the majority of the people of the earth. But, at the expense of the livelihoods of those people living in counties whose standard of living is already high above the average, i.e. us.
I was also talking about foreign trade. Products imported from counties like Mexico bear very little of the regulatory burden placed on American products. It is one of the reasons we need to reevaluate our trade agreements with countries that, unlike us, do not protect their own citizens from the consequences of unchecked greed.
--
Edited by Teaser47401 at 11/09/2009 5:53 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
1,888
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1072 of 1128)
Nov 8, 2009 9:41 PM
|
The good news is that the "financial crisis" wasn't really a "crisis" at all, but rather, a much needed periodic "correction," wherein the many (mostly) US east coast financial wizards reassessed their many options, and capitalized on those they found most beneficial.
When it was (unfortunately) found that said "capitalization" came up a bit short in the personal cash department, the government stepped in and said, "Hey, No problem! We're good for it!"
Of course we (the public) know full well who the government meant when they said "We're good for it."
Umm, that would be us, theoretically at least. To the degree that we ever intend to actually make good on our tax "obligations" at least. We'll see...
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
13
Registered:
11/5/09
|
|
(1071 of 1128)
Nov 8, 2009 9:21 PM
|
I don't know who Ron Paul is, but I'll google him latter.
I disagree with you on every point you made except the last one.
I'm not sure how you got there, but the need to create new trade agreements that address the social and moral irresponcibility of out trading partners is the only way the American economy can be saved. I would add only that we also need to address in these agreements the tax inequities as well.
--
Edited by Teaser47401 at 11/09/2009 6:15 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
101
Registered:
6/21/09
|
|
(1070 of 1128)
Nov 8, 2009 1:11 PM
|
> My point is that assigning blame to politicians,
> corporate executives, or the American people does
> nothing to solve the problem. If you accept the
> proposition that the Financial Crisis is the result
> of corrupt people, then what is the solution? Pass
> laws that micromanage private corporations? Arrest
> people that make business decisions that turn out
> badly?
Since the politicians are doing the bidding of the corporatocracy I will continue to keep blaming them for the mess. Securatizing subprime loans was the direct cause of the meltdown. Without it the subprime market never would have had the funding to over sell such a dangerous product. You don't need to micromanage private corporations to have effective oversight.
>
> My point is that assigning blame and expending
> resources to try to get people to act responsibly in
> positions of power does nothing to address the
> underlying causes for the Financial Crisis. It is a
> Red Herring.
Dude, pass the shrooms!
>
> America?s inability to compete with foreign goods and
> services is the direct cause of the Financial Crisis.
HUH? Never mind.
> NAFTA is indeed part of the problem. But NAFTA was
> as passed by both parties in the mistaken belief that
> unfettered free trade is good for America. That
> belief must be challenged in order to save the
> American economy and its people?s standard of living.
>
> --
Spoken like a true Ron Paul believer. But the real problem is the lack of power labor has globally. Imagine if part of trade agreements we had enforceable worker protection, the right to organize unions, and yes wage protection, to provide a standard of living in developing markets, and slow the erosion of wages. Child labor protections, working conditions that don't jeopardize the lives and health of the worker, otherwise we don't import their goods, or we add tariffs that make their lead based products even less attractive than they already are. In other words make it harder to export jobs so easily. Help them develop agriculture and local industries, instead of coralling every available body and shipping them off to the newest factory to work for the benefit of some anonymous multi-national.
The fact that wages are seen as harmful to the market, i.e. inflationary, is the real red herring and the reason it is so easy to continue the attack on labor and wages. Add to this IMF and Worldbank rules that just accelerate downward wage pressures and we don't stand a chance to regain an industrial sector.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,308
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1069 of 1128)
Nov 8, 2009 1:08 PM
|
"Unfettered free trade?" There is no such thing in America. Take away the subsidies and complex tax incentives, then go on a massive monopoly busting campaign. Throw in some anti-trust laws and simple common sense regulation along with transparency and an open-books regulatory police. Then get back to me. That is nothing like what we have now.
--
Edited by JaredP at 11/08/2009 10:10 AM PST
|
|
|
|
|
