03 Oct 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhy start now?
Why do Democrats have such a hard-on to pass a bill promoted by President Bush? Also, this thing didn't happen overnight, perhaps it would be wise to study the bills coming from Congress before passing them?
besides, buffet just said it isn't worth haggling over...just get the deal done, which will give you time to get this done properly.
Check out Krugmans' article in the NYTimes.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by uzlessPaulson's original bill was only 3 pages long; basically, it said: Give me more power and $700 billion. The one that was rejected Monday was 109 pages. The one they just passed is over 400 pages. I doubt the Congress has read these bills in their entirety, much less, discussed their ramifications.
Why start now?
besides, buffet just said it isn't worth haggling over...just get the deal done, which will give you time to get this done properly.
Check out Krugmans' article in the NYTimes.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThat's okay. We'll have plenty of time to discuss those ramifications later. I'm sure there will be a gigantic new bureaucracy who's sole function is to discuss those ramifications for the next century or so. 😞
Paulson's original bill was only 3 pages long; basically, it said: Give me more power and $700 billion. The one that was rejected Monday was 109 pages. The one they just passed is over 400 pages. I doubt the Congress has read these bills in their entirety, much less, discussed their ramifications.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by leisurelyslothOr, the whole government will be out of a job due to the next great depression this bailout sends us into.
That's okay. We'll have plenty of time to discuss those ramifications later. I'm sure there will be a gigantic new bureaucracy who's sole function is to discuss those ramifications for the next century or so. 😞
04 Oct 08
Originally posted by Dace AceI see Atlas Shrugged at the bar!
Here is a cool example for you:
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would ...[text shortened]... Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
04 Oct 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAgreed with you here. To me this bailout seems like corporate welfare and so I'd want a very good reason before agreeing to it. Just what exactly would the consequences be of doing nothing? Are they really bad enough to justify this? And are there any other solutions that might work better?
Why do Democrats have such a hard-on to pass a bill promoted by President Bush? Also, this thing didn't happen overnight, perhaps it would be wise to study the bills coming from Congress before passing them?
04 Oct 08
Originally posted by MrHandYou keep blaming derivatives. Root word 'derive'. The problem is in the underpinning assets (in this case, housing prices) that this paper 'derives' from. Tending to derivatives is like tending a symptom, not the desease.
You keep repeating this outlandish lie. I have refuted it soundly repeatedly as well.
Previous post from me in response to NimzoLaursen who argued a similar point as you are arguing:
[i]
You're missing the boat. The Fannie Mae / F Mac melt down can not, in an of itself, account for the current financial collapse. It was the credit default swaps that h ...[text shortened]... u a lot more if you actually took a reasoned approach rather than Rush Limbaugh sound bites.
This entire housing bubble was caused by cheap moneya and helped along by the rubes at Fannie, Freddie, brokerage houses and any number of other foolish bankers who were willing to gamble that housing prices would continue their meteoric rise.
Blame goes in this order.
Fed (cheap rates)
Fannie (changing their credit requirements. Raines was held up as some sort of great business leader by the donks. When he was in fact, making money in a market that you couldn't do anything other than make money, just like all the other now disgraced heroes at the rest of the banks.)
The rest of the bankers that perpetuated this mess.
04 Oct 08
Originally posted by MerkIt's nonsense to blame the Fed for the poor investment decisions of private institutions. It's like blaming your boss for paying you too much if you decide to buy heroin.
You keep blaming derivatives. Root word 'derive'. The problem is in the underpinning assets (in this case, housing prices) that this paper 'derives' from. Tending to derivatives is like tending a symptom, not the desease.
This entire housing bubble was caused by cheap moneya and helped along by the rubes at Fannie, Freddie, brokerage houses and any number of ...[text shortened]... ed heroes at the rest of the banks.)
The rest of the bankers that perpetuated this mess.
05 Oct 08
Originally posted by no1marauderPerhaps you don't understand the purpose of the Fed? The Fed is intended to control liquidity through interest rates in order to smooth out the cycle of boom and bust. They failed for years to reign in liquidity. We got the .com bubble then went directly into the housing bubble and if they don't bring rates up, we'll be moving into another bubble.
It's nonsense to blame the Fed for the poor investment decisions of private institutions. It's like blaming your boss for paying you too much if you decide to buy heroin.
05 Oct 08
Originally posted by Dace AceHow come those four people are poor and that one man is rich?
Here is a cool example for you:
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would ...[text shortened]... Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
