Had we followed the original bank bailout...

[Joe Miner]

Where would we be now? Would we be better off, or would we not be able to tell a difference yet?

 

If instead of approving the money and then changing the plan to whatever it is now, we had stuck with the original idea.

 

I thought their original idea several months ago definitely had potential, but I'm not even sure what their plan is now, but I'm certainly a lot less confident in it.

 

Would one of you financial guys mind chiming in and enlightening me? I'm really looking for actual facts and knowledge, not a lot of partisan crap, so let's try to keep that to a minimum...pretty please...with sugar on top.

[Alaska Darin]

This is a really interesting question. I'm curious to see what people think. I've really been unable to follow this stuff because work is getting in the way.

[StupidNation]

Where would we be now? Would we be better off, or would we not be able to tell a difference yet?

 

If instead of approving the money and then changing the plan to whatever it is now, we had stuck with the original idea.

 

I thought their original idea several months ago definitely had potential, but I'm not even sure what their plan is now, but I'm certainly a lot less confident in it.

 

Would one of you financial guys mind chiming in and enlightening me? I'm really looking for actual facts and knowledge, not a lot of partisan crap, so let's try to keep that to a minimum...pretty please...with sugar on top.

 

The original idea was horrible. Bad debts are bad debts and giving more money, and not nearly enough money to fix the problem (through their eyes), is not going to fix the problem but drag it out. Look at Japan, they tried this and instead of letting the bad debts become bad debts they have screwed up their economy for almost 19 years.

 

If you want to see anyone honest look up Ron Paul on youtube. Type in Ron Paul bailouts and watch some videos. There's a politician who called what was going to happen in 1999.

 

The problem is people rarely believe in freedom anymore. They expect the gov't to fix the problem when they help cause it. They expect a pro-active solution when only the market itself is the cure. They expect the regulate the market with crazy ideas, but blame the free-market when it's convenient.

 

Honestly, we aren't looking at ourselves as part of the problem, but only the gov't. The gov't cannot create jobs or prosperity, they can only hinder it. Only production and savings spur the economy to greater bounds. We haven't tried that in a long time. This is the inevitable conclusion of an anti-freedom campaign against the free-market.

 

Bush said he had to turn against the free-market for the sake of the free-market. My question is when have we had a free market? Rates are forced on investors to prop up markets and tear down others without any input of the market, we have a system which penalizes people that make things and sell them, and give benefits to people for bad behavior. How long could this last?

 

We are watching the end of the country as you know it in the next 10 years or less. It just won't exist.

[DC Tom]

The original idea was horrible. Bad debts are bad debts and giving more money, and not nearly enough money to fix the problem (through their eyes), is not going to fix the problem but drag it out. Look at Japan, they tried this and instead of letting the bad debts become bad debts they have screwed up their economy for almost 19 years.

 

If you want to see anyone honest look up Ron Paul on youtube. Type in Ron Paul bailouts and watch some videos. There's a politician who called what was going to happen in 1999.

 

The problem is people rarely believe in freedom anymore. They expect the gov't to fix the problem when they help cause it. They expect a pro-active solution when only the market itself is the cure. They expect the regulate the market with crazy ideas, but blame the free-market when it's convenient.

 

Honestly, we aren't looking at ourselves as part of the problem, but only the gov't. The gov't cannot create jobs or prosperity, they can only hinder it. Only production and savings spur the economy to greater bounds. We haven't tried that in a long time. This is the inevitable conclusion of an anti-freedom campaign against the free-market.

 

Bush said he had to turn against the free-market for the sake of the free-market. My question is when have we had a free market? Rates are forced on investors to prop up markets and tear down others without any input of the market, we have a system which penalizes people that make things and sell them, and give benefits to people for bad behavior. How long could this last?

 

We are watching the end of the country as you know it in the next 10 years or less. It just won't exist.

 

 

The original bailout plan wasn't to bail out bad debts. It was to purchase "liquid" assets that were no longer liquid.

 

Good job. Way to have even LESS understanding of a topic than you normally do. Even by the low standards we hold you to, this post was blithering. You managed to be completely wrong from your second sentence, and then somehow manage to go downhill from there. That's got to be some sort of record.

[StupidNation]

The original bailout plan wasn't to bail out bad debts. It was to purchase "liquid" assets that were no longer liquid.

 

Good job. Way to have even LESS understanding of a topic than you normally do. Even by the low standards we hold you to, this post was blithering. You managed to be completely wrong from your second sentence, and then somehow manage to go downhill from there. That's got to be some sort of record.

 

Are you honestly that stupid? So according to you the bailout wasn't to bail out bad debts the banks had on the books but it was purchase illiquid assets that weren't liquid and that's not bailing out bad debts? If the debt was good and liquid they wouldn't need money, but somehow you can twist that in your mind to pretend you know something no one else does. When a loan goes bad the bank can fund the deal without

 

If your claim is on the basis of asset definition or bad debt a bad debt is defined as "In financial accounting and finance, bad debt is the portion of receivables that can no longer be collected, typically from accounts receivable or loans."

 

Your second sentence is a tautology and doesn't clarify anything.

 

Let's take your 2nd sentence: "It was to purchase "liquid" assets that were no longer liquid." Either you mean they were to purchase non-liquid assets that aren't liquid, which is simply repeating your sorry ass and doesn't say anything of substance; or you think that by repeating yourself you are making a point unknown to anyone. Why not say the point of defining things is for the sake of definitions. Real deep Jack Handy.

 

You can also refrase that to mean "It was to purchase "liquid" assets that were illiquid." Or funnier yet since you used quotes to show flippancy to the word liquid you could also infer the following meaning: "It was to purchase illiquid assets that were illiquid." So purchasing illiquid debt because they were illiquid really clarifies things doesn't it genius?

 

Next thing you know you might say, "The point of studying history is the intent to know more about history in the event of a historical moment. In this case I studied the French Revolution because it had to do with France and a Revolution." Anyone who calls into question someone's intelligence by defining their rebuttal by repeating ideas really is a 3 legged ballerina in the world of intellectual endeavors, and then pretending I'm at fault without refuting anything and only make pretentious idiotic statements.

 

Toxic debt is not liquid Einstein, and it's bad debt. You want to play semantics and be witty, I mean you obviously have more time on your hands than I do with your waste of a life 17k posts and probably miss a normal life, but that's ok, pretend that by mentally masturbating yourself into legendary status you are accomplishing something.

[Booster4324]

Toxic debt is not liquid Einstein, and it's bad debt. You want to play semantics and be witty, I mean you obviously have more time on your hands than I do with your waste of a life 17k posts and probably miss a normal life, but that's ok, pretend that by mentally masturbating yourself into legendary status you are accomplishing something.

 

Damn, I have clashed with Tom on a couple of occasions, never got on his bad side though, you my friend are !@#$ed.

[GG]

I got my money on Tom being right. Any takers on the other side?

[erynthered]

Damn, I have clashed with Tom on a couple of occasions, never got on his bad side though, you my friend are !@#$ed.

 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Bad side?? Its a !@#$ing message board!! Whats he going to do? Beat you up with words typed on a !@#$ing message board?

 

You're a moron.

[Booster4324]

I got my money on Tom being right. Any takers on the other side?

 

It is more than just this thread.

 

*grabs popcorn and pulls up a chair

[VABills]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Bad side?? Its a !@#$ing message board!! Whats he going to do? Beat you up with words typed on a !@#$ing message board?

 

You're a moron.

Didn't you read? He'll be masturbating.

 

Now that is a scary image.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

The bailout was bad. But the baliout without regulation was WORSE.

 

At least the second portion has limitations on Salaires and Bonuses.

 

How can one even think you hand out Billions in Bonuses when your company is SINKING?

[Joe Miner]

This is a really interesting question. I'm curious to see what people think. I've really been unable to follow this stuff because work is getting in the way.

 

I'm hoping guys like GG and bills_fan have time to give their input on this. They seem to have an excellent understanding of financial matters without being incredibly partisan about their opinions.

[OCinBuffalo]

The bailout without regulation, huh? I will do you one better, the bail out, without regulation, and no f'ing clue as to how to perform that regulation properly even if there was some, is bad.

 

You can't use the word "Should", as in: "There should be some regulation here!" unless you also provide a viable "How". Otherwise people can run wild saying things like: "There should not be any poverty in this country", or "Health care should be free" and never actually have to be accountable for ideas, and worse, get to pretend that anybody that doesn't agree with their "How", actually disagrees with their "Should".

 

Oh, wait, kinda like what it going on right now, huh?

 

I have new bumper sticker: No "Shoulds" without "Hows"! Idiots going against this concept is precisely where the dreaded "Unfunded Mandate" comes from. It is the ultimate "because I said so".

 

Unfunded Mandates are the opposite extreme of Unregulated Handouts. Clearly both are equally bad, and both are spawned directly from people using the word SHOULD without providing a viable HOW.

[VABills]

The bailout without regulation, huh? I will do you one better, the bail out, without regulation, and no f'ing clue as to how to perform that regulation properly even if there was some, is bad.

 

You can't use the word "Should", as in: "There should be some regulation here!" unless you also provide a viable "How". Otherwise people can run wild saying things like: "There should not be any poverty in this country", or "Health care should be free" and never actually have to be accountable for ideas, and worse, get to pretend that anybody that doesn't agree with their "How", actually disagrees with their "Should".

 

Oh, wait, kinda like what it going on right now, huh?

 

I have new bumper sticker: No "Shoulds" without "Hows"! Idiots going against this concept is precisely where the dreaded "Unfunded Mandate" comes from. It is the ultimate "because I said so".

 

Unfunded Mandates are the opposite extreme of Unregulated Handouts. Clearly both are equally bad, and both are spawned directly from people using the word SHOULD without providing a viable HOW.

When do we start impeachment proceeding on the current congress and administration on the trillions of dollars them and their PACS are stealing from the American people under the guise of TARP and stimulus.

[bills_fan]

This is a really interesting question. I'm curious to see what people think. I've really been unable to follow this stuff because work is getting in the way.

 

 

The original idea, purchasing the illiquid assets of the bank, was a good one, in theory. There were only two big problems with it...

 

1- $350 billion was nowhere near enough money, you'd need over $3 trillion to clear the system.

 

2- What price do you pay for the asset? If you pay the bank's marks (typically $0.90-$0.95 on the dollar), you are overpaying for the asset, by a signifcant amount, relative to market price. This would not play well politically. If you pay market (at the time, $0.40-$0.50 on the dollar, now much less), you will bankrupt the bank. Basically, the bank can hold the asset as a "Level 3" asset and mark it to a model on their books. Cutting the assets in half would have left many banks (including the big 4 of C, BAC, JPM and WFC) completely bankrupt.

[Joe Miner]

The original idea, purchasing the illiquid assets of the bank, was a good one, in theory. There were only two big problems with it...

 

1- $350 billion was nowhere near enough money, you'd need over $3 trillion to accomplish this.

 

2- What price do you pay for the asset? If you pay the bank's marks (typically $0.90-$0.95 on the dollar), you are overpaying for the asset, by a signifcant amount. This would not play well politically. If you pay market (at the time, $0.40-$0.50 on the dollar, now much less), you will bankrupt the bank. Basically, the bank can hold the asset as a "Level 3" asset and mark it to a model on their books. Cutting the assets in half would have left many banks (including the big 4 of C, BAC, JPM and WFC) completely bankrupt.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

So how would you have dealt with these two problems?

 

And

 

Assuming those 2 problems could have been overcome, how would our situation be different today?

[OCinBuffalo]

When do we start impeachment proceeding on the current congress and administration on the trillions of dollars them and their PACS are stealing from the American people under the guise of TARP and stimulus.

I believe there is an election in 2010.... And seriously, the contrapositive of my should/how argument, no "should not without a why" is also true, which is how you know both are true!

 

Specifically people can't run around saying "should not" without giving a viable "why". For example, you can't tell me we should not spend some cash on fixing health care informatics, unless you can give me a viable why that addresses all the facts/concerns.

 

We have 60,000 people dying a year from medication errors directly due to bad paper(literally)work, never mind the massive amount of cost that is generated by highly inefficient use of resources. It is the ultimate defense of the insurance company = "This stuff is so unmanageable, you NEED us to deal with it". No, it's unmanageable because you make it that way, jerky, and I have seen that with my own two eyes, in the design of your data models and business processes/rules.

 

Suffice it to say, you can't reject a progressive idea just because it's a progressive idea, as many Conservatives are fond of doing, without speaking to its merits. Disclaimer: um, it is important to note that I am only referring to progressive ideas that actually possess some merits here.

[VABills]

The original idea, purchasing the illiquid assets of the bank, was a good one, in theory. There were only two big problems with it...

 

1- $350 billion was nowhere near enough money, you'd need over $3 trillion to clear the system.

 

2- What price do you pay for the asset? If you pay the bank's marks (typically $0.90-$0.95 on the dollar), you are overpaying for the asset, by a signifcant amount, relative to market price. This would not play well politically. If you pay market (at the time, $0.40-$0.50 on the dollar, now much less), you will bankrupt the bank. Basically, the bank can hold the asset as a "Level 3" asset and mark it to a model on their books. Cutting the assets in half would have left many banks (including the big 4 of C, BAC, JPM and WFC) completely bankrupt.

But weren't they in effect bankrupting the banks by forcing them to revalue using mark to market values?

[VABills]

I believe there is an election in 2010.... And seriously, the contrapositive of my should/how argument, no "should not without a why" is also true, which is how you know both are true!

 

Specifically people can't run around saying "should not" without giving a viable "why". For example, you can't tell me we should not spend some cash on fixing health care informatics, unless you can give me a viable why that addresses all the facts/concerns.

 

We have 60,000 people dying a year from medication errors directly due to bad paper(literally)work, never mind the massive amount of cost that is generated by highly inefficient use of resources. It is the ultimate defense of the insurance company = "This stuff is so unmanageable, you NEED us to deal with it". No, it's unmanageable because you make it that way, jerky, and I have seen that with my own two eyes, in the design of your data models and business processes/rules.

Suffice it to say, you can't reject a progressive idea just because it's a progressive idea, as many Conservatives are fond of doing, without speaking to its merits. Disclaimer: um, it is important to note that I am only referring to progressive ideas that actually possess some merits here.

What do you do for a living?

[Booster4324]

Didn't you read? He'll be masturbating.

 

Now that is a scary image.

 

 

Aww and I sat down so you wouldn't have to stand on your tippy toes to suck me off.