The bailout worked!
10-06-2008, 07:46 AM
#2
CHRISTMASTIME IN IRAQ
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yay! I trust my government so much when it comes to economic matters! I bet all this dumped cash has no positive effect and, possibly, even tanks it more.
10-06-2008, 01:29 PM
#3
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 44,908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
did you really think that it would not take over a course of time perhaps 6-12months before any affect would be felt?
I don't recall last time there was an instant affect when trying make changes to economy of this size.
I don't recall last time there was an instant affect when trying make changes to economy of this size.
__________________
'00 Dakar Bus CRS Edition
LCD Squad #0001
'00 Dakar Bus CRS Edition
LCD Squad #0001
Originally Posted by WiLL
...I really wanna get out and shoot people.
10-06-2008, 01:45 PM
#4
ZOMG Pew Pew Laserbeams
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
instant gratification.
10-06-2008, 01:47 PM
#5
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 44,908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's going to take time to buy back the bad mortgage backed securities and free up credit. as to how long it will take, my guess is as good as yours. my guess is min 6 to 12months.
__________________
'00 Dakar Bus CRS Edition
LCD Squad #0001
'00 Dakar Bus CRS Edition
LCD Squad #0001
Originally Posted by WiLL
...I really wanna get out and shoot people.
10-06-2008, 03:04 PM
#6
ZOMG Pew Pew Laserbeams
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree nothing is going to happen instantly but I thought more people would know that this is no panacea to the problem. It was just a step to try to enable freeing of the credit markets so business could run as usual. Chances are your predictions are right on that time span though.
10-06-2008, 04:34 PM
#7
CHRISTMASTIME IN IRAQ
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I was being a bit too much of a dick for On-Topic. I just don't like how we were sold that this had to be passed IMMEDIATELY OR ELSE THE WORLD WOULD COLLAPSE, when we could have probably taken a bit more time and explored more options to really find a lower cost, more proper solution to this problem.
10-06-2008, 05:04 PM
#8
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 44,908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I was being a bit too much of a dick for On-Topic. I just don't like how we were sold that this had to be passed IMMEDIATELY OR ELSE THE WORLD WOULD COLLAPSE, when we could have probably taken a bit more time and explored more options to really find a lower cost, more proper solution to this problem.
#1 the government is buying the securities, which means when the market recovers they can sell the securities and recoup the full cost and possibly extra
#2 after 5 years if the market hasn't recovered, the President has the power to forced the companies that the government bought the securities from to pay back the amount.
and you are once again being dramatic, no one said the world would collapse or even the economy. I'm not going to sit here and pretend to know better than the economists of the world/US. However, I'm not seeing the lower "cost", no one will know for at least half a decade if this was the right decision or not. I for one feel the package could have been improved. I feel the package could have been bigger and I'm not talking about all the ear7am I referring to helping "the people" The whole toxic debt is estimated to be well into 3Trillion dollars. 700B I feel is not enough to offset the toxic debt. This isn't just my opinion but also the opinion of other economists that were interviewed in the past 2 weeks on various news outlets.
__________________
'00 Dakar Bus CRS Edition
LCD Squad #0001
'00 Dakar Bus CRS Edition
LCD Squad #0001
Originally Posted by WiLL
...I really wanna get out and shoot people.
10-06-2008, 06:03 PM
#9
CHRISTMASTIME IN IRAQ
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are multiple clauses in the bail out package
#1 the government is buying the securities, which means when the market recovers they can sell the securities and recoup the full cost and possibly extra
#2 after 5 years if the market hasn't recovered, the President has the power to forced the companies that the government bought the securities from to pay back the amount.
and you are once again being dramatic, no one said the world would collapse or even the economy. I'm not going to sit here and pretend to know better than the economists of the world/US. However, I'm not seeing the lower "cost", no one will know for at least half a decade if this was the right decision or not. I for one feel the package could have been improved. I feel the package could have been bigger and I'm not talking about all the ear7am I referring to helping "the people" The whole toxic debt is estimated to be well into 3Trillion dollars. 700B I feel is not enough to offset the toxic debt. This isn't just my opinion but also the opinion of other economists that were interviewed in the past 2 weeks on various news outlets.
#1 the government is buying the securities, which means when the market recovers they can sell the securities and recoup the full cost and possibly extra
#2 after 5 years if the market hasn't recovered, the President has the power to forced the companies that the government bought the securities from to pay back the amount.
and you are once again being dramatic, no one said the world would collapse or even the economy. I'm not going to sit here and pretend to know better than the economists of the world/US. However, I'm not seeing the lower "cost", no one will know for at least half a decade if this was the right decision or not. I for one feel the package could have been improved. I feel the package could have been bigger and I'm not talking about all the ear7am I referring to helping "the people" The whole toxic debt is estimated to be well into 3Trillion dollars. 700B I feel is not enough to offset the toxic debt. This isn't just my opinion but also the opinion of other economists that were interviewed in the past 2 weeks on various news outlets.
We can't, and shouldn't offset the entire toxic debt. BUT, my oppositions to the plan are as follows (This is all AFAIK):
1) There's still no oversight committee, review process, or public inquiry into how Paulson doles out the money (My biggest complaint)
2) There is no specific tax provision to establish that all funds "earned" through taking these toxic debts to be provided back to the taxpayers as tax cuts.
3) I don't think the limits on the corporate spending of companies that receive this bailout go far enough.
10-06-2008, 06:54 PM
#10
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 44,908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFAIK, Bush, Paulson, and several key people all said that we were at the brink of economic situation and we would have to act immediately to resolve this issue. I listened to Paulson's testimony, and yeah, there was an air of "Immediate problem, give me money, don't ask questions."
We can't, and shouldn't offset the entire toxic debt. BUT, my oppositions to the plan are as follows (This is all AFAIK):
1) There's still no oversight committee, review process, or public inquiry into how Paulson doles out the money (My biggest complaint)
2) There is no specific tax provision to establish that all funds "earned" through taking these toxic debts to be provided back to the taxpayers as tax cuts.
3) I don't think the limits on the corporate spending of companies that receive this bailout go far enough.
We can't, and shouldn't offset the entire toxic debt. BUT, my oppositions to the plan are as follows (This is all AFAIK):
1) There's still no oversight committee, review process, or public inquiry into how Paulson doles out the money (My biggest complaint)
2) There is no specific tax provision to establish that all funds "earned" through taking these toxic debts to be provided back to the taxpayers as tax cuts.
3) I don't think the limits on the corporate spending of companies that receive this bailout go far enough.
it sounds to me like you read into what he was saying and got what you wanted to hear.
1) there shouldn't be one! it will prevent paulson from doing his job.
2) i don't believe this should be the case, there is no way to only reward those who made the right decision (such as myself and yourself) why should those that got loans that they couldn't pay be rewarded?
3) limits on corporate spending? are you talking about executive compensation? because i'm not sure what you're referring to. if you are talking about the executive compensation, why should there be a limit? it's contract between the private citizen and the corporate entity. if that is what they agreed on when who are we to say nope you can't have what was contracted.
I'm also not saying some of those executives shouldn't have their packages slashed greatly but think of what your saying.
__________________
'00 Dakar Bus CRS Edition
LCD Squad #0001
'00 Dakar Bus CRS Edition
LCD Squad #0001
Originally Posted by WiLL
...I really wanna get out and shoot people.