and you pretend to believe in everybody else, but never actually get off your ass to lead the other half to a better life.
stand up and be counted phil, we need you.
Just imagine all the things you could do if you weren't so busy lecturing us on the concept of "every man for himself" while wasting your time on a large penis site... while you could be doing so much more for your fellow man....i get it, you have to start right in your own back yard...think globally act locally...perfect for you phil...you can start right here...show em it is not really every man for himself...start right here on LPSG!!! Show the world phil, pay it forward, start right now, by holding the ruler for an LPSG'er having trouble measuring...it really is about helping one another.
well phil, nothing is stopping you from chucking it all, selling the business, selling the house, giving away all your money to charity and living for the people as a simple man, walking along the road of the american life, encouraging others to live for each other, give up material things, etc...
all you need is a tent, you can grow your own vegetables, you can live off the grid, not have to pay for electricity...don't need a TV...
why don't you sacrifice phil? You talk about caring for others...if you sold it all you could probably help dozens of folks...do you really need what you have? Or i guess you are just too invested in your life, and really just all about the bluster.
you talk a big game...let's see you do it.
market rebounds 280 pts.
Hmm... Looks like some people are still optimistic, like me.
Why wait? Massive funding is what it took to solve the last one... why suffer 10 years of hell before we fund it?
What we are witnessing here are the consequences of a failed education system in America. A populace too ignorant and uninformed to make educated decisions on complex issues such as this.
I doubt that they have this problem in countries where education is highly valued such as Japan and Finland where the common citizen has very basic and rudimentary understanding of economics.
This bail out would be a no-brainer for most informed and educated capitalistic societies. But here in America we are dealing with hillbilly and uneducated masses who have no understanding of the problem and are calling the shots for our economic survival without a clear understanding of the consequence of inaction. Feed into this equation representative politicians up for re-election who will cow tow to the masses however ill-informed they are and you have a disaster moving in slow motion.
You reap what you sow. Dumb citizens make dumb decisions, it's that simple and the consequences of their stupidity in a democracy is mind numbing if not dangerous.
A large measure of why this bailout failed has to rest on the President's failure to explain the problem and solution clearly not only to the American people but to all of the legislature. But alas it seems that this is par for the course from the shoot from the hip Bush Administration. It's only fitting that he leave office with one more big mess for all of us to clean up after
Thank you. Guess what those fuckers tried to slip in the bail out?Drifterwood said:try my contempt for bullshit finance and investment banking.
13 SEC. 128. ACCELERATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE.
14 Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Re-
15 lief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by strik-
16 ing ‘‘October 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2008’’.
SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall take effect October 1, 2011......
SEC. 202. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO ESTABLISH RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.
Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking `the ratio of 3 per centum' and inserting `a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)'; and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking `and not less than 8 per centum,' and inserting `(and which may be zero),'.
My bank just stores mine. Yours actually gives? Sign me up, dude!
What we are witnessing here are the consequences of a failed education system in America. A populace too ignorant and uninformed to make educated decisions on complex issues such as this.
I doubt that they have this problem in countries where education is highly valued such as Japan and Finland where the common citizen has very basic and rudimentary understanding of economics.
This bail out would be a no-brainer for most informed and educated capitalistic societies. But here in America we are dealing with hillbilly and uneducated masses who have no understanding of the problem and are calling the shots for our economic survival without a clear understanding of the consequence of inaction. Feed into this equation representative politicians up for re-election who will cow tow to the masses however ill-informed they are and you have a disaster moving in slow motion.
You reap what you sow. Dumb citizens make dumb decisions, it's that simple and the consequences of their stupidity in a democracy is mind numbing if not dangerous.
A large measure of why this bailout failed has to rest on the President's failure to explain the problem and solution clearly not only to the American people but to all of the legislature. But alas it seems that this is par for the course from the shoot from the hip Bush Administration. It's only fitting that he leave office with one more big mess for all of us to clean up after
What is wrong with that is the failure to recognize that you are a member of a community.
That there is NO success without the contribution of community. No economy.
All successful people OWE that success to the community that creates the environment in which they can succeed.
Warren Buffet recognized this.
But those who believe in 'every man for himself" do not.
Truly, no man is an island.
And the most rewarding success is the success you SHARE... not the success you hoard.
You just called me, and millions of other Americans, vehemently opposed to this bail out, stupid. Did it ever occur to you, we know a bit more than a poor highschool education on the subject?
Guess what? As smart as you and the millions of other anti bailout Americans are, we still haven't heard a proposed a solution to the problem from any of you.
Unless of course you and the millions of other Americans don't really see the ramifications of dwindling credit funding and the increased cost of borrowing money as a problem that affects everyone.
Most of the anti-bailout sentiment revolves around punishing the guys who set the fires instead of fighting the fire.
If you are wrong can we come back to you after the markets have crashed and burned and ask you to undo all the damage?
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:
As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:
1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.
2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.
3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.
For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.
[/FONT]We, the undersigned economists, write to strongly advise against the proposed \$700 billion bailout of the financial services sector as a response to current trends in the market. Granting the Treasury broad authority to purchase troubled assets from private entities poses a significant threat to taxpayers while failing to address fundamental problems that have created a bloated, over-leveraged financial services sector.
Such a large government intervention would create changes whose effects will linger long into the future. The Treasury plan would fundamentally alter the workings of the market, transferring the burden of risk to the taxpayer. At the same time, the \$700 billion proposal does not offer fundamental reforms required to avoid a repeat of the current problem. Many of the troubles in today’s market are the result of past government policies (especially in the housing sector) exacerbated by loose monetary policy. Congress has been reluctant to reform the government sponsored enterprises that lie at the heart of today’s troubled markets, and there is little to suggest the necessary reforms will be implemented in the wake of a bailout. Taxpayers should be wary of such an approach.
In addition to the moral hazard inherent in the proposal, the plan makes it difficult to move resources to more highly valued uses. Successful firms that may have been in a position to acquire troubled firms would no longer have a market advantage allowing them to do so; instead, entities that were struggling would now be shored up and competing on equal footing with their more efficient competitors.
Although it is clear that the financial sector has entered turbulent times, it is by no means evident that providing the U.S. Treasury with \$700 billion to purchase troubled assets will resolve the crisis. It is clear, however, that the federal government will be facing substantially higher deficits and taxpayers will be exposed to a significant new burden just as the looming crisis in entitlement spending appears on the horizon.
For these reasons, we find the proposed \$700 billion bailout an improper response to the current financial crisis.
Sincerely,
Dick Armey, FreedomWorks Foundation
Wayne Brough, FreedomWorks Foundation
Alan C. Stockman, University of Rochester
Ambassador Alberto Piedra, Institute of World Politics
Arthur A. Fleisher III, Denver Metropolitan State College of Denver
Bryan Caplan, George Mason University
Burt Abrams, University of Delaware
Cecil E. Bohanan, Ball State University
Charles N. Steele, Hillsdale College
Charles W. Baird, California State University East Bay
D. Eric Shansberg, Indiana University Southeast
Donald L. Alexander, Western Michigan University
Douglas K Adie, Ohio University
E.S. Savas, Baruch College/CUNY
Ed Stringham, Trinity College
Erik Gartzke, University of California, San Diego
Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield
George Selgin, West Virginia University
Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University
Ivan Pongracic, Jr., Hillsdale College
James L. Huffman, Clark University
James McClure, Ball State University
Joe Pomykala, Towson University
John P. Cochran, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Kirk Dameron, George Mason University
Kishore G. Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Lawrence H. White, University of Missouri-St. Louis
M. Northrup Buechner, St. John’s University
Melvin Hinich, University of Texas, Austin
Nikolai G. Wenzel, Hillsdale College
Norman Bailey, Institute of World Politics
Paul Evans, Ohio State University
Randall Holcombe, Florida State University
Richard W. Rahn, Institute for Global Economic Growth
Robert Heidt, Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington
Robert Stanley Herren, North Dakota State University
Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University
Roy Cordato, John Locke Foundation
Samuel Bostaph, University of Dallas
Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University
Soheila Fardanesh, Towson University
Stephen Shmanske, California State University, East Bay,
T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans
William Barnett, II, Loyola University New Orleans
William F. Shughart, II, University of Mississippi
William Niskanen, Cato Institute
Guess what? As smart as you and the millions of other anti bailout Americans are, we still haven't heard a proposed a solution to the problem from any of you.
Unless of course you and the millions of other Americans don't really see the ramifications of dwindling credit funding and the increased cost of borrowing money as a problem that affects everyone.
Most of the anti-bailout sentiment revolves around punishing the guys who set the fires instead of fighting the fire.
What if your bail out creates disastrous inflation that forces more people into choosing between gas in their tank, food in their bellies or their mortgage, and more home loans go into default. After we all suffer the inflation and the resulting meltdown, and we hear you guys begging for another $2 or $3 trillion to prop up your failed prop-up, can we come back to you, and ask you to undo all the damage... and give us our fucking money back, and refund me for the loss of the purchasing power of my dollar?If you are wrong can we come back to you after the markets have crashed and burned and ask you to undo all the damage?
I don't think it's necessarily a foregone conclusion. Many economists oppose the bailout as it stands, or any bailout at all. Below are two separate letters signed by economists who oppose the bailout. It is not so cut and dried:
I guess you have been failing to read my posts,
What if your bail out creates disastrous inflation that forces more people into choosing between gas in their tank, food in their bellies or their mortgage, and more home loans go into default. After we all suffer the inflation and the resulting meltdown, and we hear you guys begging for another $2 or $3 trillion to prop up your failed prop-up, can we come back to you, and ask you to undo all the damage... and give us our fucking money back, and refund me for the loss of the purchasing power of my dollar?