posted
KoM: every exchange involves at least one purchase (not all purchases are with money), and every purchase involves at least one exchange (at least in non-command economies). I was using the language of purchase to contrast with the language of savings, but there's no big reason to use exchange over purchase, given even a moderately free economy. No exchange necessarily involves saving.
Creating wealth does require work, but I'm not sure we're using that the same.
Imagine two people, one with a lot of cereal but no milk, and one with a lot of milk but no cereal. Assuming both like to eat cereal with milk, an exchange between them creates value. Note that if they do not exchange, this value is not created, even if the exact same amounts of cereal and milk are in play. Of course, some work goes into this exchange, and the production of some goods of interest is a necessary condition for the exchange, but it is not the production itself that created the value in the exchange.
There can easily be two economies with similar quantities of all things, but one having much more wealth (and presumably huge barriers to exchange in the other). We've actually see phenomena like that in some areas in Africa, I think.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: the foreign investors rumor, the same rumor was going around about the FMs. I doubt either is true, though I have no doubt there were worried calls about the situation from foreign gov'ts to the US gov't. I do not think any specific action was compelled, though, at least by foreign gov'ts. There were more than enough very worried people in the US to go around.
As for the CEO of AIG not thinking it necessary, AIG proposed a federal deal in the first place, which was initially rejected. He definitely thought it was necessary, and almost certainly helped craft it.
kq: I'm not sure what you mean by this:
quote:I heard AIG backed bonds and sold them with other securities packages. Not sure of the veracity, though, but that's what I've heard along those lines.
Of course they backed bonds and sold them with other securities packages, that's one of the many things financial institutions do.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I guess all of us in the U.S. are now part owners of $700 billion worth of "toxic assets", i.e. debt that's never going to be repaid? Wonderful.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, I think what I meant was that the bonds were packaged TOGETHER, meaning instead of the risk being spread around they were all lumped together and other countries bought them.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bonds are commonly sold in groups of the same general type; there were no doubt practices at AIG that have turned out not to be wise, but I haven't heard of anything unusual, and that one doesn't seem unwise, either, excepting possibly some additional information.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stray: So I guess all of us in the U.S. are now part owners of $700 billion worth of "toxic assets", i.e. debt that's never going to be repaid? Wonderful.
Whether or not it's actually it's as bad as you say, at least now the US has so much debt accrued that they got a donald trump effect going on.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This $700 billion bailout is a terrible idea, and all I keep reading in the news is that Bush wants it immediately pushed through Congress, basically saying that the taxpayers taking on a $700 billion mountain of debt is not worthy of second thoughts or further consideration on whether this is the best plan of action. I agree that the financial market is in upheaval right now, but seriously, that is the fault of all those companies who were making idiotic moves since all they cared about was maximizing the amount of money going to executives and shareholders, and years and years of deregulation (backed by McCain, as a side note). Of course, now McCain says that the financial market should be regulated. What hasn't he flip-flopped on? Bush's idea right now is to toss a bunch of money at the financial companies holding the bad debt which is at the expense of the taxpayers - so does that mean we get a say in how the banks are spending that money? What assurance do we have that the banks aren't going to make the same or other dumb decisions, dig themselves a bigger hole, and the taxpayers having to bail them out again in a few years? Or, in a couple of years? Are additional regulatory rules going to be put in place to prevent this kind of disaster? The financial companies who have survived are those who saw where the wind was blowing and got rid of their businesses which were the most risky. Exactly how does giving a lot of money to banks who will be controlled by the top executives help the common people? Not that the ones who did this to themselves deserve it - it is ridiculous how much a consumer society we have become where it's all about who has the bigger house, the nicer car, the newest Apple gadget and people begin making purchases who are way outside their means. If you can only afford Target, don't buy at Gucci.
It's the same with the Big Three - I say no government bailout for them either. They were the ones who spent years building clunk SUVs and pick-ups, and didn't see that building fuel-efficient cars was the way to go. They deserve to go out of business for making dumb business decisions - in business, those who make stupid decisions don't deserve bailouts at the taxpayers expense.
Sometimes I think this country is run by a bunch of idiots.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only sometimes? I'm starting to think that's the rule and not the exception.
I think a better statement would be "sometimes I think this country is run by a bunch of competent people," except I rarely have that thought.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, I greatly appreciate it.
Its a little unexpected and refreshing having Americans stepping up to the plate and doing making wrongs right without being asked. Also a little indiscriminately targeted in taking the responsibility across your entire population rather than trying to focus it on the bank executives and investment bankers that caused the problem, but its a start.
On behalf of at least Canadian banks (and I guess banks from Europe and Asia), here's my thanks for stepping up to the plate and buying back the mis-rated and mislabeled sub-prime mortgages that your banks sold us.
Maybe there is room for a bit of collective responsibility and socialism in your economy after all
But seriously, it is appreciated.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to know why the children of all those CEOs who allowed all this still get to have their trust funds. Why can't they work in a call center, or flip burgers, or work at Barnes and Noble, or some other crappy-and/or/low-paying position? What value are they adding? Seriously, we're talking about trust funds in the tens of millions in some cases. I really doubt that such is all that helpful to society. I went to college with kids like that, really rich ones. Some are dumb, ignorant, and mean, and will probably stay so. Why are we footing the bill so they can play Nintendo, get high, and screw all night? Into their 30s, for heaven's sake, and dumbly, too. sheesh.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
It is being reported that the above language is included in the bailout plan. Is this true? Am I understanding correctly? If so, what could possibly justify it?
quote:On behalf of at least Canadian banks (and I guess banks from Europe and Asia), here's my thanks for stepping up to the plate and buying back the mis-rated and mislabeled sub-prime mortgages that your banks sold us.
Do you think your banks didn't know how bad the debts were?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this true? Am I understanding correctly? If so, what could possibly justify it?
I don't know - what is your understanding of it?
Section 701 of the Administrative Procedure Act which dates back to at least 1966) allows judicial review of agency decisions
quote:except to the extent that--
(1) statutes preclude judicial review; or
(2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.
The scope of judicial review under the APA is governed by section 706:
quote:To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall--
(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be--
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.
In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.
There are numerous statutes that commit specific agency decisions to agency discretion by law. Such decisions are not reviewable under the substantial evidence/ arbitrary and capricious standards of the APA. Courts still have jurisdiction for reviewing decisions for constitutional error and possibly error under other statutes.
So, if your understanding was "the law prevents courts from ever examining Secretary decisions made pursuant to this law," then it was incorrect. If your understanding was "the law prevents courts from reviewing the decision under the APA," then it is correct.
As to "what could possibly justify it," there are many possible reasons. I don't know which ones actually apply here. But the concept of committing decisions to agency discretion is a very old one and is not novel.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A large proportion of these mortgages were packaged into dubious investment vehicles and sold to foreigners, including Canadians, backed by triple A ratings from U.S. rating agencies. This meant, says Stephen King, chief economist of HSBC, that "the rest of the world has funded the expansion of the U.S. housing market through increased purchase of assets that are, in many cases, now seen to be not much more than toxic waste."
I guess its all forgiven, after all it seems like you'll be buying them back anyways.
Edit to add: IIRC, there was only one bank, TD Bank, that didn't get hit by the subprime debacle and that was because they literally didn't understand what they were asked to buy.
quote:Toronto-Dominion Bank Chief Executive Officer Edmund Clark's decision three years ago to dump subprime debt ''that didn't make common sense'' may pay dividends again this week. ... ''I'm an old-school banker,'' Clark told reporters last month in Calgary after the annual shareholder meeting. ''I don't think you should do something you don't understand, hoping there's somebody at the bottom of the organization who does.'' ...
posted
I assume you mean only one large bank. Most banks in the US weren't holding any subprime securities, so I assume most banks in Canada weren't, either. Smaller banks generally don't traffic in that sort of thing.
And the banks buying such things almost certainly did have some whiff of the problems involved. That it would get this bad? No, but it was common knowledge in the mortgage and banking industries that the situation wasn't sustainable. Either bankers in Canada were somewhat aware of potential problems, or they were ignorant and incompetent. They believed the fall would come after they had harvested more profits (and wouldn't be so bad), and are conveniently forgetting any discussions they had about how the situation wasn't going to keep going forever.
The rating agency system does need reform, though. Right now ratings are funded by the institution offering the securities, and that's a very bad thing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, its a Canadian thing. I was actually surprised when I looked at a recent chart of America's banks by capitalizations. You have a few major players and a huge number of medium and small sized banks. We're pretty different, we have five big banks (you can literally google Big Five(or Six) banks) and then only a handful of tiny banks. It is often called an oligopoly here and when most people say "banks" here, they mean one of them, not say Canadian Tire financial services or something.
As for the rest, maybe they suspected, but thats different from knowing. If the rating is wrong and if the equivalent of a prospectus that they were given was fraudulently incomplete (and currently under investigation), then thats pretty messed up.
And its not just a Canadian thing, here's an American professor on the subject:
quote: Charles Geisst, professor of finance at Manhattan College, said in an interview yesterday that he thinks foreign governments have good reason to resist stepping up to the plate.
"It's an American problem," he said of the financial crisis. U.S. subprime mortgages wound up in a number of complicated financial instruments that banks around the globe were holding. "The U.K. was the closest to it, simply because of the interbank connection," Mr. Geisst said. But "the German banks who bought these mortgage-backed securities just as investments have got to be wondering what the hell they were sold, as would the Chinese and folks in Singapore. And I think they're right."
But hey, I'm not saying that they're *entitled* to compensation. It is not quite the same as say a warranty repair.
Thats why I think you're (as in Americans) definitely stepping up to the plate and being generous, and I think thats worth a thanks.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should have seen the hearings from the last couple days. From the looks of things, Bernanke and Paulson don't really have much of an idea as to what they're doing. They just want a really big blank check and no restrictions so they can run off and figure it out.
Listening to Bush tonight made it all sound pretty simple. Listening to the hearings was a little scary.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It is currently harder for students to get student loans than it has been for probably a decade. Even after Congress raised the annual maximums for Stafford loans, many students are finding it difficult or impossible to get enough funding to continue in school. Still anecdotes, but I personally know quite a few students who are putting off starting or continuing their degree (or shifting from full-time to part-time), and I hear similar stories from many of my colleagues.
Great. What a great time I picked to start school again, huh?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. But I think you'll be ok, since you're starting a relatively cheap program. Plus you have good credit, which is not something your average college student has. It makes a big difference when trying to secure a private loan.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Bush made a really interesting point last night in his address. If the government buys up these mortgage backed securities really cheap and keeps them for thirty years while most people pay them off, they're going to make a stupid-huge profit on them.
What's going to happen to that money? Would it be part of the general budget and could go to things like infastructure, social security, and the debt? Or would it be held in some seperate Treaury account where it wouldn't necessarily help the tax payers that made the purchase possible?
Congress might want to specify now in the bill before there's giant piles of cash at stake.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I thought Bush made a really interesting point last night in his address. If the government buys up these mortgage backed securities really cheap and keeps them for thirty years while most people pay them off, they're going to make a stupid-huge profit on them.
Isn't that the kind of logic that got us in this mess in the first place?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. It's actually exactly the logic. There is of course a point at which a given bundle of securities is cheap enough that, even with the risk, it will still be profitable. I'm uncomfortable with letting the current administration decide with my money where that point is.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kinda seems better than the logic that came before. Individual houseowners can default much easier than the US government can default. The securities seem a lot more secure this way.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Kinda seems better than the logic that came before. Individual houseowners can default much easier than the US government can default. The securities seem a lot more secure this way.
And if I were the CEO of a bank trying to unload these bad securities, that kind of logic would make this deal seem very attractive to me.
As a taxpayer whose money is the only resource the US government can draw on to make these deals, it doesn't look so good.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, and if the plan passes homeowners get to default on the US gov't, which can't foreclose on numerous people without seeming like a villain, and pass their debts on to the taxpayer.
Also, the logic previously was not that people were going to default, but that they weren't, and that if they did the risk was in someone else's hands in the form of securities. Coincidentally, that's what the plan perpetuates.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the government buys up these mortgage backed securities really cheap and keeps them for thirty years while most people pay them off, they're going to make a stupid-huge profit on them.
There are two really huge ifs there. Right now, the plan doesn't seem to be buying them really cheap and, without changing the terms drastically, many, many people are going to be defaulting on these loans.
Think about it, if these were a really amazing investment, the government wouldn't need to step in at all. There are plenty of people with a lot of money who would be clamoring to be making stupid huge profits.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been trying to keep up on the hearings, but really I've only gotten snippets. From them, I've gotten the impression that the people doing this don't really know what they are doing and haven't adequately considered other options. You know, the Bush doctrine.
Someone who has been following more closely, please tell me that this isn't the case. Please?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: And if I were the CEO of a bank trying to unload these bad securities, that kind of logic would make this deal seem very attractive to me.
Not just a bank trying to unload bad securities, all banks. For example, Warren Buffet cited it as part of his reason for heavily investing in Goldman Sachs. Mitsubishi probably had it in mind when it purchased 20% of Morgan Stanley. Manulife of Canada and Munich Re of Germany probably have it in mind when bidding on parts of AIG. Same with Britain's Barclays bidding on parts of Lehman Brothers.
When the US government demonstrates that it is willing to protect investment, its good for all investors, not just the ones trying to unload securities. This kind of thing encourages foreign investment which is a very good thing when attempting to avoid having more banks collapse.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: ... There are plenty of people with a lot of money who would be clamoring to be making stupid huge profits.
In this interview with Buffet, he does mention that if he could borrow the amount of money that the US government can, he would buy them up. The problem is that even he can't borrow that kind of money with the current crisis.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yep, and if the plan passes homeowners get to default on the US gov't, which can't foreclose on numerous people without seeming like a villain, and pass their debts on to the taxpayer.
Five bucks says the Feds will pass some kind of wage-garnishing law to preclude foreclosures/bankruptcies on the debts they own.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: In this interview with Buffet, he does mention that if he could borrow the amount of money that the US government can, he would buy them up. The problem is that even he can't borrow that kind of money with the current crisis.
And if Warren Buffet were sitting accross the table from these banks, negotiating with his own money, I'm sure he'd be able to get an excellent deal.
As Tom implied, when the people sitting accross the table from the banks probably owe more favors to their lobbyists than the taxpayers, are negotiating with my money, and go out of their way to make sure it's done very quickly and with as little oversight as possible on the process, I think the deal that ends up getting made will be (from the investor's point of view)... less excellent.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:a very good thing when attempting to avoid having more banks collapse
Here's the thing: I'm okay with having these banks collapse. Seriously. No skin off my nose. The adjustment would be brutal, but it would be worth it. I'm tired of propping up rich people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Of course no one is going to be able to raise 700 billion, but smaller chunks are definitely doable and, depending on how much information they could get, would be an even better investment (assuming that most of the debt was going to get taken over).
Maybe there just aren't enough people with enough resources out there to cover this much. I don't think that this is the case. If these are really great investments, there is money out there outside the U.S. government to buy it and we should be using a much smaller amount of money to help bring that about.
If they don't contain the amount of toxic debt that I've been led to believe, loans that just aren't going to get paid back ever, then the government's plan seems to be pointing the wrong way.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's the thing: I'm okay with having these banks collapse. Seriously. No skin off my nose. The adjustment would be brutal, but it would be worth it. I'm tired of propping up rich people.
I'd be even more okay with the government helping new banks and financial institutions get started to take advantage of the emerging situation that would result in these banks collapsing. The short term situation would be worse, but I think the long term outlook (except for the rich people who are in large part to blame for this) would be significantly better.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Here's the thing: I'm okay with having these banks collapse. Seriously. No skin off my nose. The adjustment would be brutal, but it would be worth it. I'm tired of propping up rich people.
That is a good solution in terms of spite. But in terms of the economy, the problem is that the financial industry still employs a heck of a lot more non-rich people than rich people.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Is he buying any?
No, but like I said he can't raise that kind of money. More importantly, he can't raise it at the same kind of rate since the US still has a very good credit rating even when trying to borrow that kind of money.
For example, if he needs to borrow money at 6% then he needs to make at least 7% on an investment to make it worthwhile. However, if the treasury can borrow at 3% then even making 5% is a good deal. The numbers are fictitious but the idea is his from that link.
quote: Maybe there just aren't enough people with enough resources out there to cover this much. I don't think that this is the case.
Apparently, that is the case. It is related to the commons idea. If any individual person buys it now and the bailout doesn't happen, then the economy tanks and the investment goes really bad before it gets better. The bailout is large enough to help the economy and help get a good return on the investment much earlier than any one individual can do.
As I mentioned before, we already did a similar kind of bailout last year when Canada had a problem with ABCP and it worked pretty well.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But in terms of the economy, the problem is that the financial industry still employs a heck of a lot more non-rich people than rich people.
Sure. But you know what? When the Internet bubble burst, no one rushed to bail out the janitors at the various office complexes. Let these people find other jobs, just like we expect our ex-steelworkers to do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah - but the adjustment would be brutal for people not just in the financial industry. It would be brutal for everyone if we let our whole financing sector collapse. Since, you know, they finance everything else that goes on in the economy.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that there is a difference between the financial industry and steelworkers.
Steelworkers jobs have been moved to China and other developing countries and the world is a better place for it.
Its actually in America's best interest to revive its financial industry because a collapse would cause problems throughout the economy. There was a thread on student lending having major problems, venture capital to start new businesses would suffer, the housing industry would suffer even faster. Its in the world's best interest for America because it is not as easy to move those jobs. Students in America cannot easily go abroad to get a loan.
When this bailout is in both America's best interest and the world's best interest, I consider that a win-win scenario.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me, when I reduce all arguments I have heard for and against the bailouts down to a simplistic statement of where I stand, that you cannot address a crisis caused by artificial wealth with artificial wealth.
At least cut the budget by 700 Billion.
Does anyone think by the time this is over it will only be $700,000,000,000?
EDIT:
quote:Its actually in America's best interest to revive its financial industry because a collapse would cause problems throughout the economy.
There is a pretty big assumption that this bailout will revive the financial industry. It is also possible it would only delay it and replace it with an even bigger financial crisis.
quote: But in terms of the economy, the problem is that the financial industry still employs a heck of a lot more non-rich people than rich people.
Most of those people will be able to find other employment, many of them in the financial industry.
The banks and investment houses failed. Let them fail. Others will take their place and they'll have learned that if they make stupid, greedy decisions, the government won't pull the out of the fire.
quote:No, but like I said he can't raise that kind of money. More importantly, he can't raise it at the same kind of rate since the US still has a very good credit rating even when trying to borrow that kind of money.
For example, if he needs to borrow money at 6% then he needs to make at least 7% on an investment to make it worthwhile. However, if the treasury can borrow at 3% then even making 5% is a good deal. The numbers are fictitious but the idea is his from that link.
But they're not looking to pay the lowest they can get for these loans. If they were hard bargaining and seemed to really know what they were doing, many of my objections would be met. That's not what they are doing. Even the size of the bailout is a number they pulled out of the air and then freely announced to the people they are bargaining with.
And Buffet is talking about a 10-15% return for the whole thing, including the toxic mortgages. Someone with his acumen could stretch that percentage quite a bit. He doesn't seem to be putting any money into this, nor is anyone else.
This leads me to believe that it is not an amazing investment opportunity, although I should say that I haven't been able to keep up with this anywhere near as much as I'd like.
quote:Apparently, that is the case. It is related to the commons idea. If any individual person buys it now and the bailout doesn't happen, then the economy tanks and the investment goes really bad before it gets better. The bailout is large enough to help the economy and help get a good return on the investment much earlier than any one individual can do
And that's something the government can do, act as a broker/sweetener for many, many groups of people to come forward to invest in this.
If this really isn't a case of the government spending far above what this debt, a large amount of which will never be repaid, would go for on the market (especially with U.S. government coordination, I don't see why the way they are going is preferrable.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be brutal for everyone if we let our whole financing sector collapse.
I'm certainly not suggesting this. As I've said, I would expect the finanical sector to continue on, with most of the big players being replaced by new ones or others that didn't make the same stupid decisions. There would be a difficult period of readjustment, but I'm not sure that this wouldn't be better in the long run.
The industry that allowed this mess should have a major shake up, not just morally, but as a way to get it to work better.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Edited to add: looks like as the day has gone on, he may be moderating that. (?)
quote:House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, bristled early in the day at suggestions a deal was at hand. “As I told our Conference this morning, there is no bipartisan deal at this time,” he said. “There may be a deal among some Democrats, but House Republicans are not a part of it.”
By midday, however, Boehner’s tone had moderated. “The Speaker and I have worked together to try and craft a bipartisan plan that will pass the House,” Boehner said
quote:Students in America cannot easily go abroad to get a loan.
Good! Then fewer students go to college, and college prices fall, and we go through an extended recession.
Which is probably better for us in the long run.
The collapse of our financial sector may well be better for us than the violent revolution that's ultimately our other option.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The story on this seems to be changing by the hour. Richard Shelby (R-AL) is still saying that this deal is fundamentally flawed and that it should be solved with private sector money (like what Buffett did) and not a huge government plan. Shelby is the ranking Republican member of I think the Senate Banking committee, which is chaired by Chris Dodd (D-CT).
I guess we'll have to watch tomorrow to see where this thing lands. It may end up being that having McCain on hand to whip Republican votes isn't the worst idea ever, but that depends on where things stand tomorrow when/if we actually see a bill and not just more jockeying. If House Republicans give in on the measure, there could be a vote by the weekend, but it looks like a lot of the wrangling might be done.
What's the real neat thing that came out of this? Congress as a whole told Bush "NO!" about a dozen times, stood up to him, when he sent his surrogates to the Hill to tell Congress he wasn't giving in and that they had to pass the measure NOW, they said no again! And at the end of the day? They got a ton of major concessions from the White House that Bush swore he'd veto before. Huzzah for Congress! You regrew part of your backbone. I'm so proud.
Now let's see how you muck it all up!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard Shelby may wish to read that link to the interview with Buffet. Buffet explicitly says this in regards to his investment in Goldman Sachs:
quote: Well, I would say this. If I didn't think the government was going to act, I would not be doing anything this week. I might be trying to undo things this week. I am, to some extent, betting on the fact that the government will do the rational thing here and act promptly. It would be a mistake to be buying anything now if the government was going to walk away from the Paulson proposal.
But his comments do reflect the latest news I've seen which indicates that the sticking point is Republicans who think that the plan is too socialist/big government, not Democrats.
I do like seeing the concessions the Democrats are putting in for oversight and executive's pay which is why I highlighted it in my previous quote.
TomDavidson:
I'm a little surprised by that. I kinda quoted Dodd's support for the plan because I recall that you previously billed one of his speeches as "This may be the best speech delivered this decade..." Granted, this is a different issue.
Anyways, could you elaborate on how you think violent revolution fits into all this? I'm not sure where you're heading with that.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
