Who is to blame for the economic crisis?

[Don]

There's plenty of expert opinion that are against the bill.

The average person probably has no idea what's going on in Iraq either. I mean most of us sure aren't fighting there so by that logic we shouldn't listen to popular opinion in Iraq either? Granted that's sort of what ended up happening anyway.

[SineSwiper]

What expert opinions? I would like to see their explanations.

What's Next? Congress Mulls Four Options

Everyone knew it was going to be a close vote, but we've never seen anything like this.

There was a Republican president, a Democratic Speaker of the House, a Democratic majority leader, the entire Republican and Democratic leadership from both sides of Congress and both presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain arguing for this package.

[Don]

Something like 200 big name economists signed against it. I'm sure you can find 200 big name economist that endorsed this too, but the opposition is out there.

[SineSwiper]

Well, I was looking more for a news article, but I guess the one I linked detailed at least some of the potential faults.

[Zeus]

Something like 200 big name economists signed against it. I'm sure you can find 200 big name economist that endorsed this too, but the opposition is out there.

What was the major reasons for opposition?

[Kupek]

I particularly liked this NY Times column: Lesson From a Crisis: When Trust Vanishes, Worry

Could the current crisis lift — could banks decide they really are missing out on profitable investing opportunities — without a $700 billion government fund to relieve Wall Street of its scariest holdings? Sure. And is Congress right to fight for a workable program that’s as inexpensive and as tough on Wall Street as possible? Absolutely.

But in the end, this really isn’t about Wall Street. It’s about reducing the risk that something really bad happens. It’s about limiting the damage from the past decade’s financial excesses. Unfortunately, there is no way to accomplish that without also extending a helping hand to Wall Street. That is where our credit markets are, and we need them to start working again.

“We are facing a major national crisis,” as Meyer Mishkin’s grandson says. “To do nothing right now is to do what was done during the Great Depression.”

[Don]

Something like 200 big name economists signed against it. I'm sure you can find 200 big name economist that endorsed this too, but the opposition is out there.

What was the major reasons for opposition?

I think it's mostly due to vague terms of buying up anything at some bogus prices. I don't think anyone's actually opposed to government stepping in but people have a real problem paying for above what the worthless junk is currently worth. I believe right now they're selling 22 cents on the dollar and the government wants to pay 60 cents on the dollar for the same thing. If government is paying market price for these, you'd have a lot less objection to the bill.

[Kupek]

There are plenty of hard-core libertarian, free-market is king types who are opposed to the government stepping in.

[Zeus]

Again, you don't do what's popular you do what's necessary. You're buying at more than market price to inject money back into these businesses so they don't die. I just hope they at least have some severe restrictions/conditions with them

Is the problem that the parties are trying to use it for their political gain right now? Politicians are famous for including riders on bills for their own needs. Maybe the crisis ain't big enough yet for everyone to say "fuck everything else let's just save the country's economy already"? If not yet it should be soon enough I would hope.

[Zeus]

There are plenty of hard-core libertarian, free-market is king types who are opposed to the government stepping in.

And their lack of education shouldn't sway the politicians either.

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

There are plenty of hard-core libertarian, free-market is king types who are opposed to the government stepping in.

I'm not a hard-core libertarian and I'm not opposed to government intervention in the market by default, but I don't think it's unreasonable to be wary of the bailout.

The Great Depression keeps getting trotted out as an example of how terribly things can go when the government takes a hands-off approach to the economy. It is true that the government didn't do much to prevent the Great Depression from happening, but that's because they didn't see it coming. The government did take a hands-on approach during the Depression, though: The National Recovery Act, for example, saw loosening of antitrust laws that allowed producers to collude to fix prices, and forced wage rises above levels the market could healthily sustain. <a href="http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucl ... 409">There are arguments</a> that this government involvement actually prolonged the Depression by not allowing the market to self-correct.

I'm wary of the bailout for the same reason: I think the market may need to self-correct, and trying to avoid that correction may cause more misery than just trying to live through it.

[Don]

You don't get to save and load in real life. You can't say well if we did X instead then maybe Y would not have occured. It is entirely possible doing X makes things worse than not doing anything at all and you can't even verify this, and I find it irresponsible to say 'hey look, they screwed up there so it must be the wrong thing to do!' Maybe it was the least worst outcome that could've happened.

[Kupek]

I agree it's not certain, and anyone who claims to know what the outcome of either option will be is, at best, a charlatan. I just think it's more risky to do nothing. The arguments I've read from people opposed to intervention boil down to "I don't think it's going to be that bad", which is what everyone says right before it gets that bad.

Right now, I think the biggest problem is that most people don't understand how far-reaching the effects can be. Also, when I said "the government stepping in," I was being more general than this particular bill.

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

Yeah, like I said, I'm not against government intervention generally. I think that the free market can only exist given government intervention. I'm just apprehensive about the bailout specifically.

I do also think that without the bailout, odds are that things are going to get very bad. I guess the difference is that I think that things are going to get very bad even with the bailout, and that the bailout could actually make things worse.

[Don]

The biggest problem I have is how the government was going to overpay for a bunch of illquid assets and just say trust us, it'll make money. There's a reason no one wants to buy this stuff right now and it seems like the government doesn't really even acknowledge that it could just be throwing money away for nothing. Worse yet if they actually think they're supposed to get most of this money back buying junk assets, then what happens when they do not? A lot of people are saying they need to have a way to reasonably guaranteed that they get *something* back for buying this junk.

[Tessian]

I have heard that (the price the gov't would pay for the bogus assets) is still something of contention... nobody can tell how much they really ARE worth, so nobody can decide what the gov't would pay for them.

I HATE the idea of a bailout-- HATE HATE HATE... we already are going to bail out the US auto makers cause they don't know how to make a quality product and now we get to bail out the greedy ass financial market? The sad fact of the matter is you have option a) let them twist in the wind, financial market collapses and we have The Great Depression II, or b) you bail out the sorry assholes and MAYBE option A won't end up happening anyway.

What I can't stand is that Congress isn't working on this right now because of Rush Hushanah?? I don't care if it's Thanksgiving, Christmas or the Fourth of July-- get your asses back to work and DO SOMETHING

[Tessian]

The biggest problem I have is how the government was going to overpay for a bunch of illquid assets and just say trust us, it'll make money.

LoL I love that, because that's basically what happened in the housing market. Prices inflated well beyond their actual value, but people still bought them under sub-primes because "trust us, it'll make money"

[Lox]

Again, you don't do what's popular you do what's necessary.

But who determines what's necessary? I'm sure you can find intelligent, valid views for and against the bailout. Some of you guys talk with this elitist attitude like you're somehow more intelligent than everyone else. Sometimes what's popular IS what's necessary. The general population isn't as stupid as you guys think.

[Kupek]

What I can't stand is that Congress isn't working on this right now because of Rush Hushanah?? I don't care if it's Thanksgiving, Christmas or the Fourth of July-- get your asses back to work and DO SOMETHING

See: http://tows.cc/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=13283

[SineSwiper]

The government actually made their money back with some profit from the bailouts they had with the Great Depression.

Also, I love just how many people buy into this "we shouldn't bailout at all" garbage. His "Common Sense Fix" does nothing for the actual problem of the huge debt. It sounds more like a longer-term plan.

Let me put it to you this way: When you have a rotting dead moose in your house, your first step shouldn't be figuring out how to keep other moose from invading and dying in your house. Your first step should be removing the fucking moose.

Also, this little gem:

a. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in
the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.

b. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement
investments that go up instead of down.

Yeah, nice try, asshole. You bastards have been trying to get rid of the capital gains tax for years.

[Zeus]

Again, you don't do what's popular you do what's necessary.

But who determines what's necessary? I'm sure you can find intelligent, valid views for and against the bailout. Some of you guys talk with this elitist attitude like you're somehow more intelligent than everyone else. Sometimes what's popular IS what's necessary. The general population isn't as stupid as you guys think.

It's not whether or not there needs to be a bailout but how it has to happen. You have banks and lending institutions going down, there's no economist in his right mind who won't say "shit, that ain't good". It's kinda like trying to find a scientist who will say there isn't global warming, it's very difficult. What they argue on is how severe it is and what caused it not whether or not it exists. Same with this bailout. It's how much and how it has to happen not whether or not it needs to happen. You're talking about the foundation of an economy here not some stupid company that tricked people and is cheating them out of their money (Enron). This is how our economies are structured you have to keep the foundation sound or the whole house collapses.

I used to think exactly the same as you that people actually know even though they don't say it. But after taking economics at school and actually listening to business people talk - I was working in the middle of Canada's equivalent of Wall Street for 3 years - I can truly say that VERY few people truly understand the economy as a whole. They understand enough to get what they want out of it but don't truly understand what it means on an overall societal scale. Hell, it took me until the end of my 3rd year as an econ major to really start to get it. See, people THINK they know how the economy works but most really don't. You see that after studying it for a while.

And because of that you can't just make the popular decision, it's not always the one that's in the best interest of the people. You're SUPPOSED to elect these people to do what's best for society not what you want them to do. I hate to use this analogy but it's the best one: if your kid wants to do something you know is bad for him, do you let him do it? Of course not, you're looking out for their best interest. It's the same basic concept with us as the kids and the politicians as the parents.

The problem is we're not 8 anymore, most of us are 14. We know the parents ain't always right, are very flawed, and are selfish and looking out for themselves. But as 14 year-olds we also think we know everything whereas in a few years, we'll realize how wrong we really were.

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

Congratulations taxpayers! Your senators have ridden to the rescue and approved a piece of legislation that should ungum the credit crunch. You'll now be able to buy that car. In the process, your lawmakers also approved extended tax breaks for the film industry in Puerto Rico, and for the makers of "certain wooden arrows designed for use by children."

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/1 ... ses-b.html

[SineSwiper]

Congratulations taxpayers! Your senators have ridden to the rescue and approved a piece of legislation that should ungum the credit crunch. You'll now be able to buy that car. In the process, your lawmakers also approved extended tax breaks for the film industry in Puerto Rico, and for the makers of "certain wooden arrows designed for use by children."

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/1 ... ses-b.html

WTF? This thing started out as a 3-page document. I can't even write 400-pages in a week. Even when Congress is working together, they still can't resist the addiction to sneak shit in.

[SineSwiper]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/161936/

Veeeery interesting article that actually explains things much better than my initial post. I guess I was dead wrong about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

[Imakeholesinu]

Congratulations taxpayers! Your senators have ridden to the rescue and approved a piece of legislation that should ungum the credit crunch. You'll now be able to buy that car. In the process, your lawmakers also approved extended tax breaks for the film industry in Puerto Rico, and for the makers of "certain wooden arrows designed for use by children."

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/1 ... ses-b.html

WTF? This thing started out as a 3-page document. I can't even write 400-pages in a week. Even when Congress is working together, they still can't resist the addiction to sneak shit in.

Yeah I know. Now Ron Bacardi is getting 128 Million in tax cuts. And some wooden arrow maker is getting a tax break also.

Seriously?

[Zeus]

I like this article. They take a "let's see if this bullshit is real" approach, does research, then rightfully says "both stupid-ass parties fucked things up". It's nice to occasionally see a bipartisan approach to analyzing things.

[SineSwiper]

This is typically the style of FactCheck.org. Check out their site. If you don't like reading the articles, they have their video episodes that are in a nice, bite-sized format.

[Imakeholesinu]

Ok, answer me this...

Fed convinces the house, senate and president bush II to pass $700 Billion bailout package.

All of these fucks get on TV and say this will help the economic crisis.

Now, Ben Bernanke says the economy looks 'weak' into next year.

Dow now down close to 300 pts today.

So this Bailout package which also tacked on a bunch of bullshit with it just like the Patriot Act, now does absolutely nothing but handcuff the American Public.

So I thought this Bailout was supposed to save wall st, keep the banks afloat and avoid any further damage.

Apparently we've all just been taken to the cleaners and no matter how much cash the fed wants to pump into buying up bad debt, we will never see an end to this crisis.

We were better off letting wall st. hang itself and become middle class.

If the fed approved the bailout package why are investors so fearful still? Why are foreign governments upset about us not acting quickly enough just to follow suit?

Seriously, what has this government gotten all of us into? That includes you people in foreign lands.

[Zeus]

Maybe I'm missing out on something: where is the $700B going? Is it only lending institutions? There's a major difference between those and other types of companies.

[Kupek]

We were better off letting wall st. hang itself and become middle class.

It doesn't work that way. The purpose of the bailout is not to make everything swell, but to prevent things from becoming catastrophic. Further, you can't just let "wall st. hang itself." Our economy doesn't work that way.

If I could draw, I would make this political cartoon: Everyone is in a boat. Wall St. people are holding a drill, while looking at an obvious leak, looking puzzled. The public, all 300 million of them, on the other side of the boat are looking at the Wall St. people and saying "Let 'em drown." The point of the setup is that if Wall St. goes down, so does everyone.

Our economy runs on credit. Right now, no one trusts anyone. No one can get credit. So our economy is in dire straits. In this context, "our economy" does not mean traders on Wall St. It means the system by which we all get paychecks, and are able to use that to buy food, clothing and shelter. If no one can get credit, your grocery store can't get credit. If they don't get credit, they don't get food. That's what the bailout is trying to prevent: our economy as a whole grinding to a halt.

[Imakeholesinu]

We were better off letting wall st. hang itself and become middle class.

It doesn't work that way. The purpose of the bailout is not to make everything swell, but to prevent things from becoming catastrophic. Further, you can't just let "wall st. hang itself." Our economy doesn't work that way.

If I could draw, I would make this political cartoon: Everyone is in a boat. Wall St. people are holding a drill, while looking at an obvious leak, looking puzzled. The public, all 300 million of them, on the other side of the boat are looking at the Wall St. people and saying "Let 'em drown." The point of the setup is that if Wall St. goes down, so does everyone.

The problem is though, if Wall Street is holding a drill in a leaking boat and 300million mid/low class citizens are in the same boat. They would toss the Wall Street people out. Problem solved.

[Zeus]

We were better off letting wall st. hang itself and become middle class.

It doesn't work that way. The purpose of the bailout is not to make everything swell, but to prevent things from becoming catastrophic. Further, you can't just let "wall st. hang itself." Our economy doesn't work that way.

If I could draw, I would make this political cartoon: Everyone is in a boat. Wall St. people are holding a drill, while looking at an obvious leak, looking puzzled. The public, all 300 million of them, on the other side of the boat are looking at the Wall St. people and saying "Let 'em drown." The point of the setup is that if Wall St. goes down, so does everyone.

The problem is though, if Wall Street is holding a drill in a leaking boat and 300million mid/low class citizens are in the same boat. They would toss the Wall Street people out. Problem solved.

No, man. Listen to the scientist, his analogy is sound.

Look, I wanna punish these rich, greedy fucks as much as you do, but like it or not, the economy is dependant on them, particularly the way our economies are set up right now (which, in turn, you can blame on the gov't, but that's another conversation/bitchfest). If you expect God to shit on them while they're standing on the top of the hill, remember one thing: shit rolls downhill and they're gonna dodge most of it.

[SineSwiper]

Also, if I may, passing a bill that AUTHORIZES use of $700B for bailout out the banks doesn't magically fix things. It gives the Treasury the authority they need to bailout the major businesses that need bailing out.

BTW, historically, bailouts do make the government a profit. The bailouts aren't "free money". It's essentially a high interest loan, and the company will need to pay it back.

So, in a roundabout way, the govt is doing to them what the banks did to some people with their loans: raping them with interest for a high-risk loan.

Don't blame just Congress or just Wall St. EVERYBODY is to blame, including the morons that bought houses that they couldn't afford. Read that Newsweek article a few posts back:

So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

* The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
* Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
* Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
* Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
* The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
* Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
* Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
* Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
* The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
* An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
* Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

[Imakeholesinu]

Also, if I may, passing a bill that AUTHORIZES use of $700B for bailout out the banks doesn't magically fix things. It gives the Treasury the authority they need to bailout the major businesses that need bailing out.

BTW, historically, bailouts do make the government a profit. The bailouts aren't "free money". It's essentially a high interest loan, and the company will need to pay it back.

So, in a roundabout way, the govt is doing to them what the banks did to some people with their loans: raping them with interest for a high-risk loan.

Don't blame just Congress or just Wall St. EVERYBODY is to blame, including the morons that bought houses that they couldn't afford. Read that Newsweek article a few posts back:

So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

* The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
* Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
* Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
* Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
* The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
* Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
* Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
* Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
* The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
* An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
* Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

I did read the newsweek article a few posts back, but I do not believe that most of the blame goes on to the home owner who is now or was in foreclosure. Someone had to say "Hey, I've got this money at this interest rate so you can buy that big house." first before their was a bum-rush to the banks of every citizen who had a dollar to put down towards their house. Not only that but the banks who made these loans using an ARM could have easily avoided this had they cared to do so. How might you ask? It is simple. The typical ARM loan was an interest rate that was 3-5 years long at that low low interest rate then it would have reset to the higher prime rate. Now, dumb homeowners saw that low low rate and not the * or the fine print and took the bait. The Bank's could have forced the homeowner to easily refinance the house to a 15 or 30 fixed rate at 10% of the home's value and avoided the whole mess. This meant that housing prices would have stayed relatively stable as that the bank person who refinanced the house would get 10% of the value if the owner decided to sell prior to paying off the house. This not only would entice the homeowner to make home improvements to the house but kept the homeowner in the house because they knew if they sold the amount they would get in return would be 10% less than list. This is a little risky for the banks because they are betting that housing values would continue to appreciate thus when the owner goes to sell they (the bank) receive basically a 10% commission on the price of the house. After all, most of the people who were forced into foreclosure NEVER missed a payment on the ARM until the interest rate was reset. So while they would have been paying more in-line with the market had they refinanced, the never would have seen their payment balloon to almost 3 times what they were paying the year before and been foreclosed on.

To use a funny analogy, it is the predatory lenders who dangled a nice ripe part of a carrot out there to see without letting the ass know it would spoil before they finished eating.

[Imakeholesinu]

PS: http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf2ijxsBcz0

Look at the trends. Market was not up because they were expecting the bill to pass, they were expecting the bill to fail also.

JP Morgan can now buy a bond from china and sell that to the Treasury as part of the bailout.

Congradulations Congress in taking part in the largest fleecing of Americans in history.

[Zeus]

JP Morgan can now buy a bond from china and sell that to the Treasury as part of the bailout.

Congradulations Congress in taking part in the largest fleecing of Americans in history.

That's where the oversight (ie. government regulation) was supposed to come into play. We all knew that there was gonna be more cash flow towards the rich, it's not surprising. There always is. But they still had to do it to avoid the economy from collapsing. Just 'cause they put a shitload into their pockets (politicians and businessmen alike) don't mean they shoudn't have done it.

You don't like it? Start a revolution to overthrow your government and change the system to include real accountability. Otherwise you'll just have to sit back and take it. After many, MANY years of bitching, complaining, and trying to get people to think the former was necessary, I've realized that the latter is the only thing that's gonna happen.

[Zeus]

FYI for everyone: there was a co-ordinated effort by Canada, US, England, Swiss, Sweden, and Europe banks to cut interest rates by 0.5% today

long URLS are long

This goes along with other changes (bailout in US, widening of collateral by Canada) to help shore up the banking institutions so people stop freaking out about the economy. Maybe we can get it stabalized finally.

[Imakeholesinu]

FYI for everyone: there was a co-ordinated effort by Canada, US, England, Swiss, Sweden, and Europe banks to cut interest rates by 0.5% today

quoted long URLs are still long

This goes along with other changes (bailout in US, widening of collateral by Canada) to help shore up the banking institutions so people stop freaking out about the economy. Maybe we can get it stabalized finally.

...and the market was doing just fine until Paulson got up to speak...then the dow plummeted yet again.

Huh...everytime the fed chair or treasury secretary opens their mouths the dow falls...someone want to gag them? Chris, we could put your cock to good use right now.

Oh and the Fed just gave AIG more money after their little half a million resort trip.

Nice to see the bailout is working. http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/08/news/co ... tm?cnn=yes

[Zeus]

See, this is where taking off your heavily-tinted glasses will help:

They (the Feds) instilled their own CEO after they gave the loan and took 79.9% of the company. They're forcing them to sell off everything but what is (was) their core business, property and casualty insurance. Basically, they're doing to them what Richard Gere did in Pretty Woman: buy up companies in trouble, take them apart piece by piece, and turn a nice profit...in this case, on the loan repayment and interest (very heavy, if you read the article) in the meantime all the while keep faith in the economy. This is one of the few times I've seen the gov't actually do something properly.

Look, man, no one has bitched more on this board or any other forum about our (yours and ours) governments and the lack of accountabilty and, often, sheer common sense in their actions. It's always been short-sighted, make-as-much-money-for-myself actions every dumbass politician with any power makes (leading back to the parties, but that's another bitchfest).

But like I joked above, the real people to blame is the public. We actually have the power to change our system if we want to. The problem is you and I are in the minority and standing up on that hill screaming at the top of our lungs with damning evidence to support us ain't helping, it just makes people think you're a freak for not going along with popular opinion. If you want to blame anyone, blame the people sitting next to you at work. They're the real problem.

[SineSwiper]

PS: http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf2ijxsBcz0

Look at the trends. Market was not up because they were expecting the bill to pass, they were expecting the bill to fail also.

JP Morgan can now buy a bond from china and sell that to the Treasury as part of the bailout.

Congradulations Congress in taking part in the largest fleecing of Americans in history.

You do realize who owns our national debt, right? China. What's the difference if it goes their to China via the debt or a bond? China owns our money; there's no getting around that.

Besides, the US govt will just say "Fine, you can sell your bonds and have your spa vacations, but you're going to have to pay it back with interest in a few years."

I did read the newsweek article a few posts back, but I do not believe that most of the blame goes on to the home owner who is now or was in foreclosure.

Do you even know somebody who got foreclosed on a house? I don't. I own a house, and it's still here. My parents own a house, and it's still there. Everybody that I know at work who owns a house are still owning it.

The only thing this is doing is rising apartment rates, because they should have stuck with the apartment in the first place. (Which means that my sister is having a harder time moving out.) I know you've been through your stint with rental woes, but I would expect you, just like everybody else, to be able to afford a house before you buy it.

It's not supposed to be the banker's responsibility to manage your money and tell you when the time is right. If more than half of your paycheck is going toward a house payment, maybe that's not such a good idea. And for the public that fell for interest-only loans and ARMs, congratuations, you're a moron!

[Zeus]

It's not supposed to be the banker's responsibility to manage your money and tell you when the time is right. If more than half of your paycheck is going toward a house payment, maybe that's not such a good idea. And for the public that fell for interest-only loans and ARMs, congratuations, you're a moron!

Hold on, man. How DARE you blame the people for the mess they're in? Don't you know it's ALWAYS the fault of someone else? It's not their fault that they have dreams of owning a home well beyond their means and then having "experts", those they rely on for advice, strongly encouraging short-term, unsustainable behaviour, is it? What, you think we live in a society where responsibility and dealing with the consequences of your actions is commonplace? Isn't that why we elect public officials, to do the thinking for us so we don't have to 'cause we're so busy with our lives?

[Julius Seeker]

This is the time when I like Christians best, they're more than willing to blame themselves; whereas all the other bastard heathens are always blaming others while they worship their golden rams.

[Imakeholesinu]

It's not supposed to be the banker's responsibility to manage your money and tell you when the time is right. If more than half of your paycheck is going toward a house payment, maybe that's not such a good idea. And for the public that fell for interest-only loans and ARMs, congratuations, you're a moron!

Hold on, man. How DARE you blame the people for the mess they're in? Don't you know it's ALWAYS the fault of someone else? It's not their fault that they have dreams of owning a home well beyond their means and then having "experts", those they rely on for advice, strongly encouraging short-term, unsustainable behaviour, is it? What, you think we live in a society where responsibility and dealing with the consequences of your actions is commonplace? Isn't that why we elect public officials, to do the thinking for us so we don't have to 'cause we're so busy with our lives?

You guys are both missing the big picture. We're all paying for it because a few of the rich wanted to get richer.

[Zeus]

And I think you're missing the bigger picture:

The only reason the rich have the ability to do all this and keep getting rich - and reward themselves when they fuck up - is because us as the public allow them to. We have the power to change it we just don't want to.

[Don]

The rich loses plenty of money but I think what bothers people is the whole golden parachute thing where you can lose billions of money as a CEO and get a $50 million severance package. I mean there are clauses like a non compete agreement bonus for not aiding rivals after you're dead (that'd be pretty hard to do indeed). Curbing on executive pay is a huge factor in the backlash against the bailout plan.

There's a quote that say the fastest way to become a millionaire is to start out as a billionaire and then try to run an airline. Plenty of people with a ton of money lose a ton of money. Just because what they have left is still a ton of money to you or me, doesn't mean going from $1 billion to $10 million networth is not a price to pay. Even the CEOs of the big financials lose a lot of money, but it's hard to feel sorry for them when their golden parachutes cover for all these things.

[Imakeholesinu]

The rich loses plenty of money but I think what bothers people is the whole golden parachute thing where you can lose billions of money as a CEO and get a $50 million severance package. I mean there are clauses like a non compete agreement bonus for not aiding rivals after you're dead (that'd be pretty hard to do indeed). Curbing on executive pay is a huge factor in the backlash against the bailout plan.

There's a quote that say the fastest way to become a millionaire is to start out as a billionaire and then try to run an airline. Plenty of people with a ton of money lose a ton of money. Just because what they have left is still a ton of money to you or me, doesn't mean going from $1 billion to $10 million networth is not a price to pay. Even the CEOs of the big financials lose a lot of money, but it's hard to feel sorry for them when their golden parachutes cover for all these things.

http://consumerist.com/5060063/lehman-b ... n-the-face

Everyone should get to punch these guys in the face.

[Kupek]

People are scared, confused and desperate for someone to direct their anger to. I have to wonder if the people surrounding him in that picture actually understand the current situation and what his role was. He probably fucked up, and fucked up bad, but even if he hadn't, we'd still be in trouble.

[Zeus]

People are scared, confused and desperate for someone to direct their anger to. I have to wonder if the people surrounding him in that picture actually understand the current situation and what his role was. He probably fucked up, and fucked up bad, but even if he hadn't, we'd still be in trouble.

And maybe people wouldn't resort to physical violence if these types of people actually had some consequences to their actions

[Don]

I like this picture from TIME:



Caption: A broker on ICAP's dealing floor calls for prices on October 9, 2008 in London, England.

[SineSwiper]

AP has a bunch of good images of Wall Street freaking out.