LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Kavar's Corner (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=698)
-   -   Bank bailout and US economic woes (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192298)

Jae Onasi 09-19-2008 09:25 AM

Bank bailout and US economic woes
 
This morning I heard that Congressional leaders got together with Ben Bernanke (Fed Chairman) and the Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson to discuss the bank/financial institution bailout. They want a systemic plan in place instead of having to deal with this issue on a case by case basis and have the market go crazy every time.

The upshot of the plan: US taxpayers are going to bail out the financial institutions by taking all their bad debt, while they get to keep their good debt to stay in business.

Do I like this? Absolutely not. I'm going to be stuck paying the taxes to pay for this bad debt, caused by nothing more than pure, unadulterated greed on the part of both lenders and borrowers. The lenders gave loans they shouldn't have given to people who couldn't afford to pay them back. Borrowers took on debt they knew they couldn't really afford. I'm stuck paying it back for them now, however indirectly, while the banks get off scott-free to give their CEOs even more massive salaries.

I also blame Congress and both Bush's and Clinton's administration for allowing the changes in banking laws that allowed this disaster to happen. Clinton made some of the changes to make it easier for lower-income people to get loans, but there should have been better oversight of that so they would only take on people who had a reasonable chance of actually paying it back. Bush didn't do anything to change it, even when we had warning signs at least a year ago that things were falling apart. Congress could have moved sooner--God forbid we do any kind of bi-partisan actions in this Congress, however. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good--as long as you're not the one having to pay it back.

Achilles 09-19-2008 11:07 AM

The crux of capitalism is risk. If you take a risk and succeed, you profit and that's a good thing. If you risk and fail, then you lose and hey, better luck next time.

On one hand, I recognize that due to a lack of sufficient oversight, many of these companies are key to continued solvency of our economy (and I don't just mean the U.S. economy either), therefore I think we're going to have to choke down that bitter pill regardless of whether we want to or not.

On the other, I am at the same time deeply resentful that this has been allowed to happen. This is precisely what free markets are supposed to do and this is precisely what you risk when you sneer at oversight and regulation and tout "free markets". But now the time has come to pay the piper and some people want to be able to eat their cake and eat it too.

El Sitherino 09-19-2008 11:52 AM

How about they drop the companies and open the mortgages and properties to sell-offs?
Eminent domain and what not.

Naturally not take people out of their houses, however open proprety and mortgages can be met with some sort of agreement to allow financial gain for economic growth. It's better than when they use it to take someones house to open an IRS building.

Achilles 09-19-2008 11:58 AM

Not sure I follow. Open up private citizen mortgages and properties? Sell them to who?

If I'm reading this right, it sounds like you're suggesting that the gov't should seize homes and then sell them off (at a discounted rate due to current interest rates/state of the economy) to people that can afford them (i.e. the wealthy). You don't seem to be the type to promote class warfare, so I'm sure I have to be missing something.

KinchyB 09-19-2008 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi (Post 2526806)
Do I like this? Absolutely not. I'm going to be stuck paying the taxes to pay for this bad debt, caused by nothing more than pure, unadulterated greed on the part of both lenders and borrowers. The lenders gave loans they shouldn't have given to people who couldn't afford to pay them back. Borrowers took on debt they knew they couldn't really afford. I'm stuck paying it back for them now, however indirectly, while the banks get off scott-free to give their CEOs even more massive salaries.

QFT

And another upside...for those that actually took the risk (although I don't see much risk in it as this was the most logical outcome for everything) if you bought any stock in Fannie May, Freddie Mac, or ...what was the other one... can't remember, oh well...anyway you could have double or tripled your money in a matter of weeks (All were trading at about or over 100% gains when the market opened today). So I guess at least some people made some money... wish I were one of them. :(

El Sitherino 09-19-2008 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2526840)
Not sure I follow. Open up private citizen mortgages and properties? Sell them to who?

If I'm reading this right, it sounds like you're suggesting that the gov't should seize homes and then sell them off (at a discounted rate due to current interest rates/state of the economy) to people that can afford them (i.e. the wealthy). You don't seem to be the type to promote class warfare, so I'm sure I have to be missing something.

I mean the bank owned properties. Probably not the best idea, but it may be worth a look into alternatives than taxing to bail out.

Quanon 09-19-2008 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2526840)
Sell them to who?

Us the europeans :p

This week there was an item in the news about folks around here that go and buy large mega delux houses in Miami and other southern states.

EDIT: ahum fixed the € , I was thinking in Belgian Cents again :lol:
Because for a 10.000 to 50.000 € you can buy some nice estate in the US, though I find it kind of sick to do it... but on the other prices around here are getting rediculus high for very small house.

I just hope the USA can prevent any further decline of this, cause I don't think the world can spend another 180 billion to feed a "dying" AEG.

Litofsky 09-19-2008 05:19 PM

This is crazy. I was watching the news this morning (the Today show, to be specific), and in the beginning minutes, they mentioned that the Government has given over $1,100,000,000,000 ($1.1 trillion) over the past few weeks to affected companies (linky linky).*

Not only that, but if you divide that amount by the people in the US (304,000,000, approx.), each person will end up having to pay $3,600.

Sure, we had a choice, but I don't think that standing by and letting the companies collapse would have been a better choice. As Achilles said, it's just another event that shouldn't have happened- but did.

We could sit here and point fingers, but at this point, it's probably better to accept it and move on. By "accept it and move on," I mean analyze the crud out of Obama and McCain, and find out which one will end up doing more good than harm. That's for the campaign thread, though.

Either way, we're in trouble. The debt keeps climbing, and Congress and the President seem to be doing nothing to help. Perhaps this explains there >20% approval ratings?

*NOTE: The article only mentions $500,000,000,000 in aid, so the calculations may be off by half. However, $1,800 is still a lot to pay.

Achilles 09-19-2008 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Sitherino (Post 2526851)
I mean the bank owned properties. Probably not the best idea, but it may be worth a look into alternatives than taxing to bail out.

Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, the question remains: who's going to buy? Other companies? Then you have to worry about regulation, etc. Not a game stopper, but certainly something that will ensure that the fix will take a very long time to implement. Foreign investors? Assuming that they are willing to buy, would we want the cornerstones of our economy owned by people in other countries? Domestic investors? Now we're just taking companies, discounting them, and then selling them to the already wealthy. If there are other options that I'm missing here, please feel free to point them out.

Rev7 09-19-2008 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Litofsky (Post 2526944)
This is crazy. I was watching the news this morning (the Today show, to be specific), and in the beginning minutes, they mentioned that the Government has given over $1,100,000,000,000 ($1.1 trillion) over the past few weeks to affected companies (linky linky).*

That is absolutely crazy if you ask me. That is coming out of our pockets, really. America is going downhill.

El Sitherino 09-19-2008 08:57 PM

I suppose there are worse tax investments we've made with worse pre-planning.

Count this as another reason outward capitalistic greed ruins the country. Should've been taxing those corps and kept them in line.

Litofsky 09-19-2008 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Sitherino (Post 2527063)
Count this as another reason outward capitalistic greed ruins the country. Should've been taxing those corps and kept them in line.

I do. I'm getting sick of giving these companies billions of dollars and footing the bill (completely ignoring the fact that most of 'em make billions of dollars a year).

mimartin 09-19-2008 09:58 PM

I thought we settle this with the bailouts of the Savings and Loans industry in the 1980s. We deregulated the Banking Industry allowing them to branch out into more risky endeavors such as the stock market and the Insurance Industry and we could not foresee this happening? Those markets breed the mentality of being risk takers and getting higher returns on your investments. Higher returns mean more risk! This type of mentality does not mix well with the banking industry. With this country’s common practice of living paycheck to paycheck, the Banking Industry is what kept us grounded, but over the past 10 to 15 years, the Banking Industry became just as spend happy as the rest of America. Giving 100% principle variable rate loans to someone that can barely afford the current interest rate is not only irresponsible, but it is unethical.

The only option is to bail out the banks, but I believe the bailout should be depended on the banks being under new management with more regulation.

Achilles 09-19-2008 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2527097)
I thought we settle this with the bailouts of the Savings and Loans industry in the 1980s.

I suppose that McCain just happens to be running for office right now is some sort of cosmic convergence or something (Keating Savings and Loan scandal)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2527097)
The only option is to bail out the banks, but I believe the bailout should be depended on the banks being under new management with more regulation.

QFT

Litofsky 09-19-2008 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2527106)
I suppose that McCain just happens to be running for office right now is some sort of cosmic convergence or something (Keating Savings and Loan scandal)

-10 respect points for John McCain. *Calculates current respect points for Senator McCain*

I've got -9 respect points for Mr. McCain.

However, the topic is about the Federal Government bailing out these banks, spending our money when we won't see a penny of it returned (although, its positive effects have yet to be seen).

Does anyone have a count on our debt, currently?

mimartin 09-19-2008 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Litofsky (Post 2527107)
Does anyone have a count on our debt, currently?

U.S. National Debt

What is another Trillion dollars or two?

Achilles 09-19-2008 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Litofsky (Post 2527107)
Does anyone have a count on our debt, currently?

Brace yourself before clicking

EDIT: Nice link, mimartin. :rolleyes:

Litofsky 09-19-2008 10:44 PM

Thanks, mimartin and Achilles, for the link. I nearly cried when I refreshed the page three times to see that the debt had increased ten thousand dollars.

Rev7 09-19-2008 10:51 PM

Outrageous :disaprove

Det. Bart Lasiter 09-19-2008 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Litofsky (Post 2527116)
Thanks (?) mimartin and Achilles. I nearly cried when I refreshed the page three times to see that the debt had increased one thousand dollars.

fun game: see if you can refresh fast enough so that the amount the number increases is equal to or less than how much you have your bank account keeping in mind that it will increase roughly $21,296.30 per second based on the figures on that page

Arcesious 09-20-2008 10:00 AM

More proof that the government is stupid, lol.

They pay these banks to get them going again, but of course, the government loves its temporary solutions.

I feel sorry for everyone who now has defaulted morgages...

In a month of two, I'd expect them to crash again... They pay more money to these banks, and that means they need more taxes from us now. And these CEOs and rich people are getting all the benefit. What about the American people, huh?

A capitalist economy is a tricky thing. It's going to have its ups and downs.
The problem is, whenn you try to keep it level, that makes it more unstable, since by printing and investing more money lowers the value of the dollar yet again...

They have to let a capitalist economy have its ups and downs, but not too big of ones. I bet all this extra spending for war and all the other rediculous stuff is one big source of it. China's going to buy us out if we don't get back on our feet soon. But then again, the people in China are people too, just like us, fellow humans. And the Americans do have it better than most of the Chinese...

We can't just let it run its course though, we have to get things more under control.

Jae Onasi 09-24-2008 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
therefore I think we're going to have to choke down that bitter pill regardless of whether we want to or not.

I agree--I don't like this bailout one bit, but the alternative might be worse.
Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin
The only option is to bail out the banks, but I believe the bailout should be depended on the banks being under new management with more regulation.

Totally agree. If we're going to take over some failing banks, we should get rid of the leadership that caused such spectacular failures.

Anyone appreciate the irony of a Republican trying to implement a plan that's the complete antithesis of all Republican principles?

mimartin 09-24-2008 12:26 PM

:firemad: I almost threw the remote through the Television screen watching the news last night. When Mr. Bush’s appointee U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson balked at the bipartisan plan to restrict golden parachutes for CEO subject to the bailout, I almost came unglued. Only in America can you run a company into the ground and then expect a golden parachute.:fist:

SD Nihil 09-24-2008 01:18 PM

Here's my take on the bailout. It's because of our overspending on roads to nowhere, green bean museums, ear marks, companies taking loans for more than they can pay back. You go into debt. Your business suffers. We are not sure how big the debt is.

I believe it's in the trillions. Not Billions. If you spend more than you take in you go into debt.We outsource like crazy. Too many things in my opinion are made in China. A country I think we should stop trading with.

Toys with the date rape drug, dog food contaminated,and just recently baby milk in China being poisoned I don't want to buy from someone who has products that can hurt us.

Also our energy crisis is costing the market heavy too. Solutions need to be made now. Bailouts is just throwing money at the problem. At the most it's a stale. We need to change how much we are spending.

Natural gas, drilling here, I don't care about the caribou. Find other alternatives too. Do what will cost us less in the long run.

The bailout won't fix it. Other countries see us and we are barrowing more than we can pay back. Our dollar's worth goes down.

You may be able to make and print more money, but that money in the world market is worth as much as what you can pay back. If you say you'll pay it back, but never do and owe so much your word means less to others.

We sell out all to the Europeans. America is for sale it's like. Companies outsourcing all because it's cheaper than to keep jobs here. Before you know it we won't be able to remember how to make a sock because it will be made in China.

Our economy needs fixing and we need to change the amount we are spending on frivolous stuff.

El Sitherino 09-24-2008 01:36 PM

That doesn't really address the bankers improperly salvaging funds.

Astor 09-24-2008 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil
We sell out all to the Europeans. America is for sale it's like. Companies outsourcing all because it's cheaper than to keep jobs here. Before you know it we won't be able to remember how to make a sock because it will be made in China.

Our economy needs fixing and we need to change the amount we are spending on frivolous stuff.

Outsourcing isn't solely an American problem - it's happening all across the western world.

But I do hope the US can sort out this before it gets worse - what happens on Wall Street affects most of the world.

SD Nihil 09-24-2008 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astor_Kaine
Outsourcing isn't solely an American problem - it's happening all across the western world.

I never said it was. I said it's one of our problems though that is contributing to the problem. It's one of the factors.

Yes I hope we can fix it too. I agree with you Astor.

Web Rider 09-24-2008 05:06 PM

Honestly, I think this bailout should operate in the same manner that happens when any other company buys a failing company. Because thats what we should be doing, we shouldn't just give the money, we should BUY them.

Any company who can't make it and needs the government to help(not minor help, but massive help like this) should become property of the government. The people who ruined it would be fired and prohibited from working in the new business, it would be set up so it could NEVER be deregulated. And the government would fix it.

Look at Japan, why can they undercut our prices? Because the government subsidizes everything they produce, and in turn, the government has a say in how they operate. if you need government money, then just like if a private person/company gave you money, they now will have a say in how you operate that company. And the first thing they will tell you is to stop being stupid.

Yar-El 09-24-2008 05:16 PM

Obama rejects McCain call to delay debate
Republican plans to return to Washington to help deal with credit crisis.

What is more important? The race to become president? Or, the financial crisis that will affect our very existance?

What would you have done?

-------------

I believe McCain is dead on this issue. He is making his way to Washington, and Obama is sitting pretty on the campeign trail. We don't have 40 days. We need to act quick, responsible, and now!

Web Rider 09-24-2008 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yar-El (Post 2529034)
I believe McCain is dead on this issue. He is making his way to Washington, and Obama is sitting pretty on the campeign trail. We don't have 40 days. We need to act quick, responsible, and now!

We need to be responsible, yes, and responsibility does not happen on a 3 page plan that says "Give us ur monies and wez be breaking teh lawz and not having teh oversite."

Giving them the money on the terms they want is everything BUT responsible.

Yar-El 09-24-2008 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Web Rider (Post 2529043)
We need to be responsible, yes, and responsibility does not happen on a 3 page plan that says "Give us ur monies and wez be breaking teh lawz and not having teh oversite."

Giving them the money on the terms they want is everything BUT responsible.

I agree with that. Caution is definitely required.

My extension (not Web Rider's) --
Heading back to Washington would be a wise move for two reasons. 1 - To show everyone that Democrats and Republicans can join together in a crisis. 2 - To get the details of what is going down. Why? If there is a piece of legistlation that is shortsighted and faulty, we have to stop it before anything happens.

Web Rider 09-24-2008 05:43 PM

Yeah, in that respect I do agree that Obama should join in 'cause ever democrat needs to fill his seat and grill the Secretary of the Treasury on this fail-full plan. I dunno what Obama gains except maybe for saying that he's not complicit in giving out the money.

mimartin 09-24-2008 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yar-El (Post 2529034)
What is more important? The race to become president? Or, the financial crisis that will affect our very existance?

The next president without a doubt is more important than anything one senator can do to affect this crisis. 50 years ago I'd agree with you, but with today's communication technology I don't see it is important to be in Washington except when it is time to vote. Can’t a senator go out drinking with lobbyist in Dallas just as easy as Washington?

SD Nihil 09-24-2008 06:27 PM

It kinda is both. We are wanting to elect a president to help us get out of our problems with the economy. It's really up to the person who thinks which will be best.

But if you are voting for a president mirely on say race or that he looks good and care more about that rather than getting us out of our mess in my opinion your decision making process is flawed.

Astor 09-25-2008 07:07 AM

Okay, I saw this this morning, and I think it sums things up pretty well -

The State of the Economy...


:)

Lance Monance 09-25-2008 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2528919)
Only in America can you run a company into the ground and then expect a golden parachute.:fist:

You can take solace in the fact that this is common practise over here too (Austria). :D

Web Rider 09-26-2008 01:33 AM

I've got a general question for you all: You all have savings of some kind I assume and some of you probably have investments, are you planning to pull out your money before the "crash" or do you think that it will get fixed soon enough to not make that necessary.

I just got my paycheck for the mid-month and I'm tempted to just cash it. Yeah, that's a lot of money to have on my person at one time, but I don't want to suddenly find that all the money I've saved is gone come monday.

Achilles 09-26-2008 02:43 AM

I don't have enough in any one account to exceed what's covered by FDIC, therefore I'm not too worried. What will absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt sink us would be if everyone made a run on the bank (i.e. withdrew all savings and took their money out of circulation). The economy is the free flow of cash and credit. If that stops, the economy stops.

Web Rider 09-26-2008 03:00 AM

of course, running and taking it all out is bad, and that's not something I intend to do, even though something is "covered" by the FDIC, that's sorta like Katrina checks, in the 5 years it takes for it to get to me, I am long since screwed.

Achilles 09-26-2008 06:43 AM

Since you have it all figured out, why did you bother to ask?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.