Two weeks ago, there were five big independent investment banks, just as there have been since WW II or thereabouts. Now there are none. I don't think anyony really knows what it means yet.
They just made it up! Excellent! Now they're saying that they have to have the money NOW, or else. You gotta hand it to the Republicans. They sure know how to handle money.
They just made it up! Excellent! Now they're saying that theyhave to have the money NOW, or else.You gotta hand it to the Republicans. They sure know how to handle money.
And yet we want to deprivatize more sectors of the economy....
They just made it up! Excellent! Now they're saying that theyhave to have the money NOW, or else.You gotta hand it to the Republicans. They sure know how to handle money.
Yes, if we don't bail out these companies we're facing a world wide financial meltdown. Maybe it'll only take 300 billion, or 500 billion, but it has to happen now.
Yes, if we don't bail out these companies we're facing a world wide financial meltdown. Maybe it'll only take 300 billion, or 500 billion, but it has to happen now.
The economy of the world is dependent on Americans buying stuff. If our economy collapses, the countries that are dependent on us will get hit hard as well. Not to mention the fact that most of the financial intuitions that are in trouble are far from domestic only companies. They're invested all over the world. So not only will the production of other countries get hit, but their financial markets too.
Put simply the world, thanks to globalization, is like one big economy. If people stop buying in an economy (America) then the proverbial shit will hit the proverbial fan in a hurry.
Also, if "[t]he economy of the world is dependent on Americans buying stuff" as you say, wouldn't it make more sense to bail out the many, many individuals who are in financial distress than a few big-shot banks?
What does that have to do with this specific bailout?
Save the American economy, keep people buying, and thus save the world.
Also, if "[t]he economy of the world is dependent on Americans buying stuff" as you say, wouldn't it make more sense to bail out the many, many individuals who are in financial distress than a few big-shot banks?
Maybe, but it's a lot easier and considerably faster to help 20-30 (or however many there are) banks than 100 million Americans. We tried giving money directly to the people last year in the form of rebate checks, and yet we're still here today facing economic meltdown. Banks are tightening down the credit lines to the point where people with good credit are finding it difficult or impossible to get a mortgage. A 620 credit score is now Sub-prime and you won't be able to get anything at all. There's only so much much bad debt any bank can afford to take on and right now most banks are at their limit. If we assume that debt in the form of this bailout then they'll loosen their lending up and people will be able to get loans again.
Also, if "[t]he economy of the world is dependent on Americans buying stuff" as you say, wouldn't it make more sense to bail out the many, many individuals who are in financial distress than a few big-shot banks?
Remember, all those bad mortgages were because they started with people on a low interest rate they could afford, then suddenly switched them to a bigger rate they couldn't afford. I heard someone suggest that we just give all those people their original rate, that they could afford, but make their mortgages 50 years, instead of 15 or 30. Good idea, bad idea?
Remember, all those bad mortgages were because they started with people on a low interest rate they could afford, then suddenly switched them to a bigger rate they couldn't afford. I heard someone suggest that we just give all those people their original rate, that they could afford, but make their mortgages 50 years, instead of 15 or 30. Good idea, bad idea?
Other than 50 years probably being longer than a lot of those people's working lives. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it'll be possible to implement or effective fast enough. 6 months or 1 year ago it might have worked.
Edit, I'll use some metaphores to describe our situation. The American financial institutions are large towers built upon the loans they make. All this bad debt has eroded the base of these towers. Now a wind has come along and blown over a couple of these towers, a few knocked other towers in the process. Now everyone on the streets is freaking out and running all over the place, shaking the foundations of the damaged, but remaining towers.
Now we can try to help everyone this affects by trying to rebuild the damage to the towers, or we can run real quick and brace the towers before they fall down and worry about the rebuilding when they aren't about to fall down.
Also, if "[t]he economy of the world is dependent on Americans buying stuff" as you say, wouldn't it make more sense to bail out the many, many individuals who are in financial distress than a few big-shot banks?
Maybe, but it's a lot easier and considerably faster to help 20-30 (or however many there are) banks than 100 million Americans. We tried giving money directly to the people last year in the form of rebate checks, and yet we're still here today facing economic meltdown. Banks are tightening down the credit lines to the point where people with good credit are finding it difficult or impossible to get a mortgage. A 620 credit score is now Sub-prime and you won't be able to get anything at all. There's only so much much bad debt any bank can afford to take on and right now most banks are at their limit. If we assume that debt in the form of this bailout then they'll loosen their lending up and people will be able to get loans again.
As for those rebate checks, no one seriously believed that such a small amount was going to change the economy at all. If you seriously think that spending alone will improve the economy, why not take the money that the banks would get and give it directly to the people? Poor people first, of course.
Also, if "[t]he economy of the world is dependent on Americans buying stuff" as you say, wouldn't it make more sense to bail out the many, many individuals who are in financial distress than a few big-shot banks?
Remember, all those bad mortgages were because they started with people on a low interest rate they could afford, then suddenly switched them to a bigger rate they couldn't afford. I heard someone suggest that we just give all those people their original rate, that they could afford, but make their mortgages 50 years, instead of 15 or 30. Good idea, bad idea?
I believe this is a similar Idea to what we did in the great depression which when the government did this, they actually made a profit. I believe this is one of the things we should do, but I am not a financial expert...
As for those rebate checks, no one seriously believed that such a small amount was going to change the economy at all. If you seriously think that spending alone will improve the economy, why not take the money that the banks would get and give it directly to the people? Poor people first, of course.
Take $700 billion and divide it by 200 million or so (I don't know the exact number) tax paying American's. You get $3500. Sure that'll stop some foreclosures for a month or two, but that's not gonna stop fix anything. The damage has already been done, these people have already walked out on the vast majority of of these mortgages. They have to get the bad debt off the books. That and I've never been a fan of just handing people money.
No, at this point we have to bail out the banks. Once the bad debt is gone, they can loan money again. Then they can sell off all those homes they've piled up and hopefully pay back the American people. At least that's how I'd like this to pan out in the end.
As for those rebate checks, no one seriously believed that such a small amount was going to change the economy at all. If you seriously think that spending alone will improve the economy, why not take the money that the banks would get and give it directly to the people? Poor people first, of course.
Take $700 billion and divide it by 200 million or so (I don't know the exact number) tax paying American's. You get $3500. Sure that'll stop some foreclosures for a month or two, but that's not gonna stop fix anything. The damage has already been done, these people have already walked out on the vast majority of of these mortgages. They have to get the bad debt off the books. That and I've never been a fan of just handing people money.
No, at this point we have to bail out the banks. Once the bad debt is gone, they can loan money again. Then they can sell off all those homes they've piled up and hopefully pay back the American people. At least that's how I'd like this to pan out in the end.
So, you don't like just handing people money, but it's okay to just hand banks money? How does handing banks money "get the bad debt off the books"?
I'd be interested to know what you think happened with the government bail out that supposedly fixed the S&L; scandal (that also, btw, was a result of deregulation). Were the American people ever "paid back" for that?
So, you don't like just handing people money, but it's okay to just hand banks money? How does handing banks money "get the bad debt off the books"?
Well that's how this is going to work, that's the idea of the bailout. We, the American people, are going to buy the all those bad mortgages from the failing banks.
I'd be interested to know what you think happened with the government bail out that supposedly fixed the S&L; scandal. Where the American people ever "paid back" for that?
Look, I said "ideally." I don't think that's gonna happen, we're never gonna see that money again.
Anyway, it's a better plan than just giving people money again. That economic stimulus package cost $150 billion and it only slightly delayed the situation.
As for handing money to the banks, I don't like that much either, but I can't think of a better idea. Some one has to buy off this bad debt and if it's not the government then who? I don't think we can trick the Chinese into it.
Some one has to buy off this bad debt and if it's not the government then who? I don't think we can trick the Chinese into it.
Why does someone have to "buy off the bad debt"? Why don't we just let those few banks declare bankruptcy? That's what individuals have to do. That's what a lot of small businesses have had to do. Why are these banks any different?
Why do Republicans yell and scream about capitalism and the free market but, when bad things start affecting them directly, suddenly turn socialist?
Some one has to buy off this bad debt and if it's not the government then who? I don't think we can trick the Chinese into it.
Why does someone have to "buy off the bad debt"? Why don't we just let those few banks declare bankruptcy? That's what individuals have to do. That's what a lot of small businesses have had to do. Why are these banks any different?
Why do Republicans yell and scream about capitalism and the free market but, when bad things start affecting them directly, suddenly turn socialist? 1. Palin is stupid, I've got nothing, and I'm not gonna even try to bail her out. I will say this, McCain stopped campaigning to return to Washington to deal with this crisis, as a Senator should.
2. Why are these banks special, because they are large and far reaching. If they declare bankruptcy there would be a domino effect throughout our society.
3. I'm not socialist, this is a trickle down solution. A very Republican and capitalist idea. Again I say, we tried giving money straight to the people, at no small expense, and it didn't work. What's your better plan?
I will say this, McCain stopped campaigning to return to Washington to deal with this crisis, as a Senator should.
Why should he? They're pretty much finished with the deal. What does he have to contribute?
Why are these banks special, because they are large and far reaching. If they declare bankruptcy there would be a domino effect throughout our society.
So, the real reason you think that we should spend $700 billion dollars to bail them out is that they are "large and far reaching"? Where do you think the $700 billion figure comes from? What about that free market? Maybe they should be allowed to fail because they couldn't compete and/or couldn't do their jobs.
Why do you think there would be a "domino effect"? Are you basing that on any actual source or is that just an opinion that you have?
All you've done is call me a socialist again. You're the president, the economy is on the brink of collapse.What do you do?
Bernanke didn't say anything in the article about anyone specifically needing $700 billion dollars. How did they arrive at that figure?
I don't know what to do. I've never said I know what to do. You were the one who said
Yes, if we don't bail out these companies we're facing a world wide financial meltdown. Maybe it'll only take 300 billion, or 500 billion, but it has to happen now.
I just want to know more about why you think this is so. If you can't defend what you said, maybe you were wrong.
Comments
Reuters
US News
Google News
They just made it up! Excellent! Now they're saying that they have to have the money NOW, or else. You gotta hand it to the Republicans. They sure know how to handle money.
Put simply the world, thanks to globalization, is like one big economy. If people stop buying in an economy (America) then the proverbial shit will hit the proverbial fan in a hurry.
Edit,
I'll use some metaphores to describe our situation. The American financial institutions are large towers built upon the loans they make. All this bad debt has eroded the base of these towers. Now a wind has come along and blown over a couple of these towers, a few knocked other towers in the process. Now everyone on the streets is freaking out and running all over the place, shaking the foundations of the damaged, but remaining towers.
Now we can try to help everyone this affects by trying to rebuild the damage to the towers, or we can run real quick and brace the towers before they fall down and worry about the rebuilding when they aren't about to fall down.
As for those rebate checks, no one seriously believed that such a small amount was going to change the economy at all. If you seriously think that spending alone will improve the economy, why not take the money that the banks would get and give it directly to the people? Poor people first, of course.
No, at this point we have to bail out the banks. Once the bad debt is gone, they can loan money again. Then they can sell off all those homes they've piled up and hopefully pay back the American people. At least that's how I'd like this to pan out in the end.
I'd be interested to know what you think happened with the government bail out that supposedly fixed the S&L; scandal (that also, btw, was a result of deregulation). Were the American people ever "paid back" for that?
Anyway, it's a better plan than just giving people money again. That economic stimulus package cost $150 billion and it only slightly delayed the situation.
As for handing money to the banks, I don't like that much either, but I can't think of a better idea. Some one has to buy off this bad debt and if it's not the government then who? I don't think we can trick the Chinese into it.
Why do Republicans yell and scream about capitalism and the free market but, when bad things start affecting them directly, suddenly turn socialist?
Why do Republicans yell and scream about capitalism and the free market but, when bad things start affecting them directly, suddenly turn socialist?
1. Palin is stupid, I've got nothing, and I'm not gonna even try to bail her out. I will say this, McCain stopped campaigning to return to Washington to deal with this crisis, as a Senator should.
2. Why are these banks special, because they are large and far reaching. If they declare bankruptcy there would be a domino effect throughout our society.
3. I'm not socialist, this is a trickle down solution. A very Republican and capitalist idea. Again I say, we tried giving money straight to the people, at no small expense, and it didn't work. What's your better plan?
Why do you think there would be a "domino effect"? Are you basing that on any actual source or is that just an opinion that you have?
All you've done is call me a socialist again. You're the president, the economy is on the brink of collapse. What do you do?
I don't know what to do. I've never said I know what to do. You were the one who said I just want to know more about why you think this is so. If you can't defend what you said, maybe you were wrong.