bailout

Post Reply New Topic

i'm in your camp on this one but i'd like to hear your reasoning for it.

I don't agree with any sort of bail out, after all it was the greed of these institutions that caused this market crash, I say let it crash then fix it after, a bailout only amounts to corporate welfare, who's bailing out all the people who have lost their homes and livelihoods?

Well, for this bailout plan, they have to create more money out of thin air. Since this money isn't new wealth, the fiat money will simply take value away from peoples' money over time as the market realizes that there is more money in the economy.

That will happen as the market also realizes the bailed out housing assets aren't worth crap and the stock markets and the economy continue to slide. The inflation caused by the bailouts will only make the economy worse, because it'll greatly lower purchasing power.

I think their plan is to print more money, that should help

Yeah. We've lost about that. This is scary s**t. A little surreal. Good luck all.

Why are so many people against the bailout? Are they so short-sighted as to see that if nothing is done, their livelihood might be at risk? The reckless lenders are bastards who must be punished, but letting the whole financial system collapse - just like that - will have severe implications for low and middle income earners. I doubt the more selfish elites will have the less well-off in mind, but in this case, their interests coincide with the general public interest.

I see other ways around it, but they would take time and require significant legal and structural adjustments. One way would just be to set all debt and lending back to zero, through legal measures. This would give everyone a fresh slate, and also give the economy a massive boost. We also have to cut back on debt. People rely too much on credit and desire instant gratification. If we look to France, however, this is not the case. Individuals only spend what they have, more or less. Slower economic growth is a small price to pay for economic stability. Loans serve a purpose, but when whole nations live in debt, it is more than a little worrying. Debt just piles up, and the more people borrow, the harder it is to pay it all back. We need to put an end to cheap credit.

Its part of why I worry about the fact that the left wants us to be more like world citizens and wants to establish more of the same personal and interpersonal values systems in place in Western Europe. I for one don't believe that morals (or just pure cause and effect ethics) should be owned by religion but, they way a lot of agnostics and atheists dial in on compassion over standards in law and equality over liberty (and in some far out cases human equivalence to animals or even trees), being more anti-anti than being against the threats that are putting our liberties in peril (Monday with the Amadinejad thing - Hilary wouldn't go if Palin did); it seems like there is a lot of religion and illogic on both sides. If the moderates can ultimately rule both parties I think the risk of NWO takeover (if it is in fact a realistic prospect) would be much less significant.

And yes, the thought of us being occupied by the blue helmets and watching them salute Hamas or Hezbollah as they rolled through town; scares the heck out of me.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you that something has to be done - afterall if McDonald's can't even get loans for new machinery you know something's really out of kilter. What the disagreement is on are the pros and cons of what the specific plan of action is. I was just talking to my dad today about this and he's actually for the 700 billion bailout, citing how we actually made a good deal of money off of a large loan to Mexico and going back to the side of 'it would gain equity', so in a way its like them buying low in the stockmarket and watching it appreciate. I just worry too much about Paulson and who he may end up in bed with, particularly where if he starts acting flaky there's nothing we can do about it. To that end, the suggestion that there is a way we could cover these institutions without paying a huge lump sum off the top that the tax payers would shell out for, and particularly when you can bribe a person or decision maker but you can't bribe a process such as issued insurance (which would be full of all kinds of rubrics, checks, and controls); it seems both safer for the capital put in as well as safer for the economy in the meantime.

PROTIP: The NWO will not be a global invasion by the UN. It is these elites who wish to preserve the status quo, especially their economic interests.. as well as another more shady group who wish to expand their control over nations and individuals immensely. The two are not one and the same. Instead, The Illuminati who wish such things are a tiny group of elites. Rockefeller, Murdoch maybe, people who wish to influence, even control, what the masses think, and what governments do. All very secretive, but still technically mortal. Power, money, and influence, is still concentrated at the top, as always. It is more a question of who is at the top, the power distribution ratio, and what they want.

Last edited by Anubis on 26 Sep 2008, 5:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

IMO if it were the right they'd have a lot more work to do than the left would. For the right its miles away, for the left its almost in grasp.

Opposed, it is too much power in too few hands, it is a bail out for failures, in monarchy we kill our failures, in democracy we vote them out, and in capitalism we bankrupt them out. Will this entire thing be a wreck? Yes, but I do not think a lot of good reason to think that this plan will be a great plan. The crap is hitting the fan.

Bailout???? Try band-aide. This country still needs emergency surgery. If we don't get that, all this "bailout" is going to do, is put it off for another President to worry about it, while we, the People, still bleed to death.
The problem is our financial system and credit system, mixed in with "good, old fashion" corruption and greed.
Right now, banks steal money from their customers using a form of legalized theft called, "fees". I'm not referring to the overdraft fees either. Those are, to a degree, "fair". They are fair in the idea they represent, not necessarily in the amount charged.
I am actually referring to the fees they charge to tell people they are not going to pay them money. Dos it really cost a bank $25.00 to tell someone, "Sorry, they don't have the money to cover this."? No. It would be one thing if they would pay it, and charge a fee for that, and some banks do, but not always. And even the bank I am with, doesn't always pay overdrafts. I never know if they will or not, and while I do try not to overdraft my account, it does happen. But I have seen them pay a $73.00 overdraft, (including fee), then refuse later to pay a $2.00 one, and still charge me $25 dollars for saying no. Why charge me for saying no? It doesn't make sense.
Your saying, "Oh, you don't have enough money, I'm so sorry to hear that, lets charge you more for not having money now, and we're gonna do this knowing that, our refusing to pay your $2.00, plus the $25.00 fee, isn't going to cost you $27.00, no, its gonna cost you $57.00 because the people we said no to, are now gonna charge you a $25.00 fee too, of course if they keep asking us for money, its gonna cost you an additional $25.00/request, meaning the $2.00 oversight of your is gonna cost you as much as $127.00 total. But hey, were sure that that Candy bar and soda was worth it, right? but listen, we don't really have time to talk about it, cause we have to talk with our lawyers about the horrible way "payday lenders" are charging as much as 150% interest on their short-term loans". Thanks for all your hard earned cash, and for the mistakes/miscalculations/oversights that put you in this situation. We'll be eagerly standing by hoping for more of those. Oh, btw, though you've proven you can pay back our "loans", we feel we must inform you that we still cant qualify you for a $500.00 line of credit at this time based on your credit history, which is a joke, not because you made it that way, but because we use fraudulent methods of calculating your "credit-worthiness" to better suit our greed, err, i mean needs.
The other part of our problem is, as mentioned above, our, "credit system". As long as our credit system doesn't truly reflect the way a user is with his/her income/debt, it will never be able to be utilized effectively, as it should be.
By this, I mean that everything we do financially needs to be accounted for. If you pay a bill, regardless of whether it is recurring or not, it should be shown on your credit history. At this point in time, only things that you dont pay are really reported. There are far to instances where credit cards, banks or other companies report your "good behavior" to the credit reporting agencies. This leaves a negative "look" to people who, may very well otherwise have a very very good payment history.
You might think I am just ranting over personal issues, but think about this.
The system I just described, is the one we currently have, and what has happened to it? And how did the financial institutions respond when they started realizing they had bleed everyone dry? Well, ask those who had their homes repossessed. So then what?
Well, now the banks are all sitting on the largest collection of repossessed homes in the history of the US.
And they prolly dont even understand why they cant get rid of these homes to get more money coming in.
Duh!! ! If you take all the resources a population has, then take their homes, when they can no longer pay for them, because you've sucked up their resources, who do you expect your going to be able to sell those repossessed homes to? The people you just ripped off??? Come on!
In truth, its the, "Laws of Reality" really. If you have a relationship that is all take, and no give, eventually you consume all the resources, at which point, since you no longer can get the resources from the source you had been receiving them, you must, a) find another source, or b) shrivel up and die.
These aren't the only problems, but they are the root of it.
The war hasn't helped any. It has further bled us of resources that we so desperately need for ourselves.
War typically has always been something that generates income, although not immediately, like it or not, it usually creates jobs, and allows others who, might not have an opportunity to "move up" the work ladder, to do so. Unfortunately, we didn't have the jobs BEFORE we sent the troops away, and it hasn't really created any addition jobs to help boost our economy here. And now, were talking about starting to bring troops home, to a place where there are even fewer jobs than before they left, increasing the unemployment rate nationwide.
I'm sorry, this "bailout", smacks more of a "pass the buck" idea to me.
Also, think about this, this "proposal", really says, "we're broke, our people have no money, so we're gonna pass a bill that allows us to take money, from their future, (money they no longer have), to "fix" a problem were having now, knowing they will have to pay for it later, (with that money they no longer have), recreating the same problem then, that is happening now.
Yeah, I don't understand why anyone thinks this could possible fail. /Sarcasm.

Ironic that your government provides a deposit protection insurance through the FDIC, then. Surely, in your capitalist utopia, all members of society should be fully exposed to the risk? Afterall, the profligacy and greed of your average US citizen has contributed to this mess, so why not let them fully share in the downside, now it's upon us? Is not to do otherwise the grossest of market distortions?

As for the ability of the FDIC to fully meet any liability when the rest of your financial institutions start falling, have you considered that? Any idea where the money will be coming from? All those nearly-worthless securities, will be completely worthless then.

You know, the smug "it's someone elses problem" we've seen in this thread won't be so popular when your bank goes under, and you can't get your hands on your money, FDIC guarantee or not.

You're making one fatal assumption: The assumption of the US being a capitalist system. It's not. The US is, actually, a corporatist system, where nothing can stand in the way of perpetual profit for the larger companies, and screw whoever gets in the way.

Capitalism is based on the concept that companies of equal size and scope should compete with one another to produce the same goods at the same quality, cheaper. Competition in the capitalist system can get ugly some times, but it's still healthy to the continued survival of the capitalist system.

On the other hand, in today's corporatist system, companies are so anti-competitive it sickens me. The largest companies are so afraid of losing the monolithic power they have that upstarts are constantly being bought out by these big companies so that the upstarts don't upset the power these large companies have. It seems to be the standard operating procedure that "If you can't beat 'em , buy em"...

Am I in favor of the bailout?

I'll lose my retirement fund if AIG goes under. Everybody seems to think that we're savin' the big guys, but the little guys will suffer more from an economic depression. Lots of middle-calss Americans are invested in America.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Almost everyone will lose out if more big banks and investors collapse.

And there should be protective measures put into place to secure people's savings. I know that there are some laws in place which give people money back if a bank collapses, but those don't seem to be enough. Actual savings should be completely secure from collapse, and banks should hold capital reserves rather than re-invest it all recklessly. And only lend what they actually have, not what's been borrowed from other banks. That's just BS.