-
you could put an Emfire release on for 2 minutes and you would be a sleep before it finishes - Chunky
it's RA. they'd blow their load all over some stupid 20 minute loop of a snare if it had a quirky flange setting. - Tiddles
Am I somewhere....in the corners of your mind....
----PEACE----- -
....Freak in the morning, Freak in the evening, aint no other Freak like me thats breathing....
Comment
-
-
Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!
the good news is oil went down.. so far so goodComment
-
Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!
FAO members of Congress that voted against this:
no one is happy about this bail out, but this bill was the result of legitimately bipartisan negotiations. The whole point of the negotiations was to have something that we could all (begrudgingly) agree upon so we could pass something and restore some confidence in the American economy, and instead, the opposite has happened. If you had such serious misgivings about this bill, they should have been raised and hashed out before it was brought to the floor.
@ Boehner, Clyburn & Blunt: Do you fucking jobs, and get your parties in line. Also, if you don't have the votes yet, let Pelosi know so she doesn't bring it to the floor prematurely. Bringing it to the floor only to have it fail is far worse than not bringing it today at all.
@ Speaker Pelosi: If the bill isn't ready to be passed, don't fucking bring it to the floor. This helps no one. Also, tone down the rhetoric, which also helps no one right now. There will be plenty of time for finger pointing later.
@ House Republicans that said they'd vote "yes" but voted "no" after hearing Pelosi's speech: Grow a set, or resign your position. "Your feelings being hurt" is not an acceptable reason for me to lose thousands of dollars. This is politics, and people are occasionally going to say things about you that you don't like. Get over yourself.
What a bunch of jackasses...Comment
-
Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!
this just goes to show that people should be in jail for this and everyone of the wallstreet bonuses confiscated.Comment
-
Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!
sure...pm me or find me on here. I'm stuck in the office doing month-end close desk work for most of the afternoon.
I gave the worst-case scenario. I'm not saying that it is a certainty that it will play out this way, and I'm not saying that civilization will simply cease to exist tomorrow; there is no need to grab the shotgun and run for the hills just yet (even during the Great Depression, a good 3/4ths of the population was still employed in some form or another). But we should acknowledge that such an outcome is feasible. Think I'm alone in thinking that? Look at the markets; they're clearly voting with their feet. If you've studied your history, you'll know that such things have happened before. And what would give you confidence that such economic difficulties won't happen? So far, all the people who have been saying "oh, don't worry guys...this is just a flash in the pan...just a small bump...we can bail out Bear Stearns and it's over" have been dead wrong.
As Mariner88 aptly put it, what we've been deliberating is the difference between a high-speed crash and a low-speed crash. Looks like we've opted for the high-speed crash, which means that more of us passengers likely will die and be injured in the process. But this bus is broken and has to crash one way or another; the basic principles of economics will see to that.
/metaphormixes: www.waxdj.com/miroslavComment
-
Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!
what is the point of Obama and McCain speaking after this? its obvious they dont know jack shit about economics... such a waste of time.
i am just getting so sick and tired of politics lately."pics or stfu" - R.I.P. Steve "Jibgolly" JamesComment
-
you could put an Emfire release on for 2 minutes and you would be a sleep before it finishes - Chunky
it's RA. they'd blow their load all over some stupid 20 minute loop of a snare if it had a quirky flange setting. - Tiddles
Am I somewhere....in the corners of your mind....
----PEACE-----Comment
-
Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!
Thank you.. now I don't know my history and finance..
Miro let me tell you no matter what the government does it's going to bad.. If they bail them out it will get bad in 8 months because of Hyperinflation.. if they don't it will get bad in 1 month. I say lets get this over with already. A correction needs to be made and sometimes corrections are tough. Now you don't change the system because of some idiots. You hold the idiots accountable. Well at least you used to hold them accountable. But it just goes to show how corrupt the US system really is.Comment
-
Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!
I didn't say whether you do or don't know your history and finance. All I said was that if you do, then you know about what happened in the 1930s.
And I don't disagree with you that it's going to get bad either way. As I said, the bus is broken and has to crash either way. And the idiots should be held accountable to whatever extent we can hold them so. I would only offer the viewpoint one last time that more of us "good guys" suffer when you crash at higher speed rather than at lower speed. Much of this mess is pschologically driven; there is such a complexity of feedback effects in markets that a snowball effect can be created - and then it's like a runaway train where we end up with worse economic results than we otherwise would have, because whatever little leverage we have over the situation is that much less effective.
In other words, if you apply your one working brake at 100mph, it's a lot less effective than at 50mph. And even though the bus will crash, it doesn't have to be totalled - it's one thing to go through a severe recession; it's another to have the world-wide financial markets simply collapse entirely. The former is highly preferable to the latter.
There. I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself over and over; I'll stop now.
But boy, this bus crash analogy sure works great for this situation...mixes: www.waxdj.com/miroslavComment
-
Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!
good article here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...out/index.html
makes some good points against the bailout.
Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.
Economist Jeffrey Miron says the bailout plan presented to Congress was the wrong solution to the crisis
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.
This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.
The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.
Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.
This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.
Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.
The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.
Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.
In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.
Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.
Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.
Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.
The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.
If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.
The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.
Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.
So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.
The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer."pics or stfu" - R.I.P. Steve "Jibgolly" JamesComment
-
Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!
i am saying that, RIGHT NOW, AS OF 6PM on monday the 29th, it isnt, but if congress does not act, and get it in gear, we stand a HEAVY HEAVY CHANCE of a complete global market. think about this. every market, except the one that was closed before the bill was denied (frankfurt's index), lost at least 5%, monetarily valued higher than both the 82 and 29 losses.
if this continues, and it will, barring a miracle realization of the investing public at large, the tanking will lead to the following.(in as close of an order as possible)
a. complete freeze of lending and major defaulting of the overnight loans (which is what makes the world go round)
b. large scale failures of financial institutions
c. with above failure, the liquidity of the public industry as a whole will shrink to near fatal limits
d. which lead to any of, or a combination of, -- large business layoffs, small business loans disappearing, the utter gutting of the backbone manufacturing and industrial activities of not just america, but every devoleped nation with a strong core of labor intensive goods. which in turn..
e. layoffs. at a scale of anywhere from 5-25% of (1) developed nations, (2) emerging nation, and trickle down effects to small business shutdowns when the money dries up and people stop spending.
f. once the layoffs ensue, think about the outside results beyond the markets -- crime, poverty, fighting for vital resources beginning with oil, then foodstuffs, and metals.
g. massive deflationary actions by the worlds powers, to the effect of what happened prior to roosevelts new deal policies. (the true begining of the US national debt).
h. war, if neccessary to stimulate the masses. (every war in history has MAJOR dominant roots in the economic factors of the regions affected. from napolean to saddam)
this is, as miro said b4, the fire and brinstone stuff, and it isnt occuring now, however, and a HUGE however, it can easily happen if the governments and world bank, along with IMF, and the public at large, do not act to bring back the required liquidity of cash assests and freedom of secure lending to the markets as whole.
breif, uncomplicated example, ignoring certain outside factors. lets just say that BP and exxon come up with a new form of refining oil and/or engine technology , to the point where said product is viable within a short frame. understanding that thier per widget profit is at its all time lowest (which it is), where are they coming up with the capitol to push prodcut A into the marketplace? they used to be able to get a multi billion dollar credit line from a variety or sources, from private banking all the way up to the world bank governing body. this has effectively disappeared as of this afteroon.
for the economy to work and grow, there needs to be access to this money. the overnight rate, and bank to bank lending is a neccesary component to the fiscal operations of our planet. on any given day, banks and large corporations can carry a negative balance from expenditures of capital during normal operations. from Chase, to british pertroleom, they float massive(hundreds of million to billions) loans that literallty are paid back within a day or two when the cash is re-processed from the retail operations levels. now that they are disappearing, the basic function of the central banking systems are suspect to nothing short of failure. once they fail, thier primary function goes with them ---- CURRENCY CONTROL AND VALUATION-- remeber what they were planning in fight club at the end... this is it if doomsday is allowed to happen and proceed without intervention. i AM NOT SAYING it would even happen within a few months, or years, but its inevitablilty is there unless a group (gov't or public citizen) acts and puts the cash back into the market. this can be examined by thinking about the 1929 crisis. in reailty, the US didnt actually lose money if you were to account for all bank acocunts and cash on hand of every single person, it was just removed from the market systems of the time (savings and loan) and put into pockets.
the major issue with the congressional veto isnt that they have to correct doomsday, they have to PREVENT IT. and they arent, over bi-partisan bullshit due to ammendments of the bill. there shouldnt be any ammendments, and frankly, we need to media to get the FINANCIERS on TV, not politicians whom have no backround on the subject. put warren buffet, steven a. cohen, george soros, alan greenspan, the head of the NIKKEI index, the SEC chariman, dick grasso, etc right front and center and allow them to explain, to both the people and leaders, what needs to be done, from both ends, my pockets and the central banks/governments. you literally had warren buffet, in the simplest of terms, begging congress to handle this quickly and effectivly. they ignored him becasue certain congressional members wanted to tack on some spending and regulatory ideas to it.
yet again, the typical bullshit of our two party, 50/50 system is killing us, cutting off our nose to spite our face. again i apologize if my wording was off and insinuated a doomsday tomorrow scenario, it is not intended. but lets just say, you can see the iceberg on the horizon, and the ships captain doesnt wanna change his course because he wants to stick his course, thinking the iceberg is merely a shadow and thinking his way is the quickest........your life is an occasion, rise to it.
Join My Chant. new mix. april 09. dirty fuck house.
download that. deep shit listed there
my dick is its own superhero.Comment
-
Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!
@ miron's article.
i would compare it to saying that a tourniquet + amputation isnt worth it to save your life because you'll lose an arm.
he is neglecting one major idea to prove his point. he wants the banks to produce profitbale loans to help us out of a potential failure, he is lacking to mention that outside of 3 major banks who sit on thier own old money cash assets, nearly every bank relies on outside money, which, is being pulled right out of thier balance sheets. when you sell a stock, the company loses the amount of money you sold for. i.e. if i sell my stock in compA, say for 100K, and thier woth 1 mill, they lose 10% of thier operating revenue until the stock is picked back up, usually for a lower price.your life is an occasion, rise to it.
Join My Chant. new mix. april 09. dirty fuck house.
download that. deep shit listed there
my dick is its own superhero.Comment
Tweet
MercuryServer, MercuryServer Logo and all uniquely developed images are the sole property of MercuryServer.com. Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.
Comment