Bailout progress (if it can be called progress)

[Universe Prince]

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/archive/2008/10/31/50-billion-of-bailout-going-to-pay-exec-bonuses.aspx

As if the economic bailout by U.S. taxpayers isn't enough to make you sick to your stomach, new information has come to light that several banks are planning to pay billions of dollars in year-end bonuses from the bailout funds they received.  Investigations are beginning into the nine banks that took in the first $125 billion -- the same $125 billion that was supposed to be used to unclog the credit system which was preventing banks from providing much needed funds for individuals and businesses.

http://www.reason.org/outofcontrol/archives/2008/11/how_much_have_w.html

Lets recap the amount of money spent thus far this year. A word to the wise, get some duck tape to wrap around your head, cause these numbers all together is gonna make it explode… if it hasn’t already: $29 billion for Bear Stearns $143.8 billion for AIG (thus far, it keeps growing) $100 billion for Fannie Mae $100 billion for Freddie Mac $700 billion for Wall Street, including Bank of America (Merrill Lynch), Citigroup, JP Morgan (WaMu), Wells Fargo (Wachovia), Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and a lot more $25 billion for The Big Three in Detroit $8 billion for IndyMac $150 billion stimulus package (from January) $50 billion for money market funds $138 billion for Lehman Bros. (post bankruptcy) through JP Morgan $620 billion for general currency swaps from the Fed Rough total: $2,063,800,000,000

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/129987.html

That's a little over $6,800 for every man, woman, and child, or just under $15,000 for each of America's 140 million taxpayers.

Is anyone else here finding this all despicable? I have to say, this seems like reason #9,358,692,301 why government is not qualified to these kinds of decisions about the economy.

$15,000? Where the frak is my bailout?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9nk8XwHbS4[/youtube]

[Xavier_Onassis]

Is anyone else here finding this all despicable? I have to say, this seems like reason #9,358,692,301 why government is not qualified to these kinds of decisions about the economy.

===========================================================
It is the obligation of government to PREVENT, through regulation, of the sort of messes that got Wall Street into this mess. Credit swaps are not adequate insurance, banks should have at least a dollar in the vault for every $10 in loans, mortgages should not be bundled and sold as some sort of security, because that is not what they are. Regulations in place since 1907 and 1932 were rescinded so that Wall Street could regulate itself. This was insanity.

Still, there is a huge mess. What institution could possibly resolve the mess other than government? Should the entire system be allowed to collapse to the detriment of everyone who has a dollar invested so that some Libertarians can make a point and say ""See? we were right all along! See? We told you so!"

No regulation or government participation is not the solution.

[BT]

Should the entire system be allowed to collapse to the detriment of everyone who has a dollar invested so that some Libertarians can make a point and say ""See? we were right all along! See? We told you so!"

According to the ads run by the democrat candidate for Senator for the State of Georgia, the bailout was a bad thing, horribly crafted with no protections for the peoples money.

The seat won't be decided until after the expected runoff.

[Xavier_Onassis]

According to the ads run by the democrat candidate for Senator for the State of Georgia, the bailout was a bad thing, horribly crafted with no protections for the peoples money.

The seat won't be decided until after the expected runoff.


=============================================================
This may or may not be true. Saxby Chambliss, the Republican in this race, does not seem to be a terribly nice fellow, considering his attacks on his predecessor, a quadriplegic. I don't know enough about his opponent to comment on him, and it is meaningless for me to have a position on who should represent Georgia, since I don;t live there. My daughter does, and she can decide.

My point is that the Libertarians always point their fingers and  claim that the problems are all due to big government, when the truth is that they are due to BAD government, which is not the same thing at all.

Assuming they disagree, there are three possibilities: Chambliss is right, his opponent is right, or they are both wrong.

The Libertarian viewpoint, which is that government has no business regulating much of anything is, in my opinion, bogus and unrelated to the issue of who should represent Georgia, since neither of the candidates is a Libertarian. Of course, the imaginary dolts who send money to Nigerian scammers, the bride who pisses away bazillions on her stupid wedding, and the drunkard who "invests" in a poker scheme deserve nothing from the government. Bailing out Wall Street is a different and more complicated issue and the mention of three imaginary dolts has nothing to do with reality.



Government is not, by automatic definition, the problem, nor is it the enemy. It can be a solution and it can cause problems. But leavign everything up the the market alone is NOT the solution. This has been done, and it just doesn't work.

[BT]

Interestingly enough, the Libertarian candidate garnered enough votes to force the run-off.

I just thought it strange that the dem candidate was against the bailout when his presidential candidate voted for it.

Of course he also said Chambliss wanted to put a 23% sales tax on everything, failing to mention that this is what is known as the Fair Tax proposal and would do away with income tax.

Jim Martin seems to be factually challenged.

[Universe Prince]

It is the obligation of government to PREVENT, through regulation, of the sort of messes that got Wall Street into this mess.

Funny, considering government through regulation was a prime cause of the mess.

Still, there is a huge mess. What institution could possibly resolve the mess other than government?

The market. Let the businesses fail. The problem with your analysis is you're assuming someone needs to Do Something to fix the mess. Part of the problem in the first place is too much Doing Something.

Should the entire system be allowed to collapse to the detriment of everyone who has a dollar invested so that some Libertarians can make a point and say ""See? we were right all along! See? We told you so!"

Should the system be allowed to collapse? No. But we're already at the point of the libertarians saying "I told you so." Maybe you should start paying attention.

No regulation or government participation is not the solution.

On the contrary, the evidence makes quite clear that government participation and regulation is a part of the problem. Seems mighty foolish to insist it must be the only solution. The "just keep on doing what you're doing wrong and it'll all fix itself in the end" isn't really a reasonable approach to the problem.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Should the system be allowed to collapse? No. But we're already at the point of the libertarians saying "I told you so." Maybe you should start paying attention.

=================================
Suppose I believed all that you say and "paid attention to the Libertarians". How would I cause even a teensy change in anything?
================
I do believe that there is a mess, caused by the removal of necessary regulation and the inability of the market to supervise itself.

You appear to think that it was caused by excess regulations: which would those be, specifically?

[Universe Prince]

Suppose I believed all that you say and "paid attention to the Libertarians". How would I cause even a teensy change in anything?
================
I do believe that there is a mess, caused by the removal of necessary regulation and the inability of the market to supervise itself.

The most immediate change would be that you would understand that the mess was not in fact caused by an inability of the market to supervise itself. That there is a mess is, actually, the market trying to make a correction for the mistakes made by individuals, businesses and the government. The government is trying to prevent that correction.

I do believe that there is a mess, caused by the removal of necessary regulation and the inability of the market to supervise itself.

You appear to think that it was caused by excess regulations: which would those be, specifically?

I've been over all this before. The government's contribution included artificially low interest rates, promoting--though legislation and political pressure--subprime lending in the name of "affordable housing", and bailing out businesses rather than letting them fail. As best I can tell, those three are primary causes. Libertarians have been talking about this for years, and there were books written about how all this would lead to an economic crash. Lo and behold, the crash comes and somehow people like you are still trying to argue that the libertarians don't live in reality. It's sort of like someone ignoring warnings about a brick wall, driving his automobile into the wall, and then complaining about the wall being at fault for the crash. And then insisting that those who knew the wall was there are not living in reality.

As I have explained before, I am not saying there is no blame for people in the private sector for the economic crisis. There is plenty. But ignoring the role of government is to ignore at least half the problem.

You said "leavign everything up the the market alone is NOT the solution. This has been done, and it just doesn't work." First of all, no one is arguing we should have no laws that apply to actions in the market. Second, no, we have not ever left everything up to the market. This fantasy that we have some how suffered a disaster because we left the market entirely to its own devices is simply not at all true. I know many people want to blame the crisis on policy that was too libertarian, too unrealistic, but that is dishonest. To quote Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University, "Reasonable people can debate whether consistent pursuit of libertarian policies would have improved U.S. economic performance over the past two centuries. They cannot claim, however, that recent events demonstrate the failure of libertarian policies, since those policies have not been employed."

[Universe Prince]

Transparency? We don't need no stinkin' transparency.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatlky_cH.tY&refer=worldwide

The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return. [...] [House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney] Frank  said the Fed shouldn't reveal the assets it holds or how it values them because of ``delicacy with respect to pricing.'' He said such disclosure would ``give people clues to what your pricing is and what they might be able to sell us and what your estimates are.'' He wouldn't say why he thought that information would be problematic. Revealing how the Fed values collateral could help thaw frozen credit markets, said Ron D'Vari, chief executive officer of NewOak Capital LLC in New York and the former head of structured finance at BlackRock Inc. ``I'd love to hear the methodology, how the Fed priced the assets,'' D'Vari said. ``That would unclog the market very quickly.''

"I do believe that there is a mess, caused by the removal of necessary regulation and the inability of the market to supervise itself." What about the inability of the government to supervise itself?

[Plane]

Transparency? We don't need no stinkin' transparency.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatlky_cH.tY&refer=worldwide

The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Ah Ha!

That is where the Chineese are getting the cash for the stimulus package they are announceing , two years of infrastructure building and government hireing.

We must be paying down our debt.
But shamefaced.

[hnumpah]

Anyone notice that AIG managed to con the gummint out of $150 billion in bailout money today - as the news broke that they had an 'executive retreat' that cost around half a mil at some resort a week or so ago? They tried to keep it hush hush - wouldn't even let the hotel staff mention 'AIG' was hosting the event - but word leaked out.

[Universe Prince]

Yeah, I saw that earlier. They knew the retreat was wrong enough that they wanted to hide it, but not enough to skip it. And still the government is trying to find new reasons to hand them money. And we're supposed to believe Congress is qualified to fix this, the same Congress that votes itself a pay raise every year. I think I have good reason to be skeptical.

[kimba1]

that might explain how aig is able to keep thier office space.
you see my firm is actually growing bigtime due to this situation and is trying to takeover some space from AIG but somehow even now is able to resist our actions.

p.s. Ijust want to know how does all this money translate to jobs or at leasat business growth