#2 2008-09-29 15:05:10
Offline
#3 2008-09-29 15:07:05
From Phreddy and Lads' friend, Michael Moore!
Friends,
Let me cut to the chase. The biggest robbery in the history of this country is taking place as you read this. Though no guns are being used, 300 million hostages are being taken. Make no mistake about it: After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years, after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars in just the last two years, Bush and his cronies -- who must soon vacate the White House -- are looting the U.S. Treasury of every dollar they can grab. They are swiping as much of the silverware as they can on their way out the door.
No matter what they say, no matter how many scare words they use, they are up to their old tricks of creating fear and confusion in order to make and keep themselves and the upper one percent filthy rich. Just read the first four paragraphs of the lead story in last Monday's New York Times and you can see what the real deal is:
"Even as policy makers worked on details of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Wall Street began looking for ways to profit from it.
"Financial firms were lobbying to have all manner of troubled investments covered, not just those related to mortgages.
"At the same time, investment firms were jockeying to oversee all the assets that Treasury plans to take off the books of financial institutions, a role that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees.
"Nobody wants to be left out of Treasury's proposal to buy up bad assets of financial institutions."
Unbelievable. Wall Street and its backers created this mess and now they are going to clean up like bandits. Even Rudy Giuliani is lobbying for his firm to be hired (and paid) to "consult" in the bailout.
The problem is, nobody truly knows what this "collapse" is all about. Even Treasury Secretary Paulson admitted he doesn't know the exact amount that is needed (he just picked the $700 billion number out of his head!). The head of the congressional budget office said he can't figure it out nor can he explain it to anyone.
And yet, they are screeching about how the end is near! Panic! Recession! The Great Depression! Y2K! Bird flu! Killer bees! We must pass the bailout bill today!! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Falling for whom? NOTHING in this "bailout" package will lower the price of the gas you have to put in your car to get to work. NOTHING in this bill will protect you from losing your home. NOTHING in this bill will give you health insurance.
Health insurance? Mike, why are you bringing this up? What's this got to do with the Wall Street collapse?
It has everything to do with it. This so-called "collapse" was triggered by the massive defaulting and foreclosures going on with people's home mortgages. Do you know why so many Americans are losing their homes? To hear the Republicans describe it, it's because too many working class idiots were given mortgages that they really couldn't afford. Here's the truth: The number one cause of people declaring bankruptcy is because of medical bills. Let me state this simply: If we had had universal health coverage, this mortgage "crisis" may never have happened.
This bailout's mission is to protect the obscene amount of wealth that has been accumulated in the last eight years. It's to protect the top shareholders who own and control corporate America. It's to make sure their yachts and mansions and "way of life" go uninterrupted while the rest of America suffers and struggles to pay the bills. Let the rich suffer for once. Let them pay for the bailout. We are spending 400 million dollars a day on the war in Iraq. Let them end the war immediately and save us all another half-trillion dollars!
I have to stop writing this and you have to stop reading it. They are staging a financial coup this morning in our country. They are hoping Congress will act fast before they stop to think, before we have a chance to stop them ourselves. So stop reading this and do something -- NOW! Here's what you can do immediately:
1. Call or e-mail Senator Obama. Tell him he does not need to be sitting there trying to help prop up Bush and Cheney and the mess they've made. Tell him we know he has the smarts to slow this thing down and figure out what's the best route to take. Tell him the rich have to pay for whatever help is offered. Use the leverage we have now to insist on a moratorium on home foreclosures, to insist on a move to universal health coverage, and tell him that we the people need to be in charge of the economic decisions that affect our lives, not the barons of Wall Street.
2. Take to the streets. Participate in one of the hundreds of quickly-called demonstrations that are taking place all over the country (especially those near Wall Street and DC).
3. Call your Representative in Congress and your Senators. (click here to find their phone numbers). Tell them what you told Senator Obama.
When you screw up in life, there is hell to pay. Each and every one of you reading this knows that basic lesson and has paid the consequences of your actions at some point. In this great democracy, we cannot let there be one set of rules for the vast majority of hard-working citizens, and another set of rules for the elite, who, when they screw up, are handed one more gift on a silver platter. No more! Not again!
Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com
P.S. Having read further the details of this bailout bill, you need to know you are being lied to. They talk about how they will prevent golden parachutes. It says NOTHING about what these executives and fat cats will make in SALARY. According to Rep. Brad Sherman of California, these top managers will continue to receive million-dollar-a-month paychecks under this new bill. There is no direct ownership given to the American people for the money being handed over. Foreign banks and investors will be allowed to receive billion-dollar handouts. A large chunk of this $700 billion is going to be given directly to Chinese and Middle Eastern banks. There is NO guarantee of ever seeing that money again.
P.P.S. From talking to people I know in DC, they say the reason so many Dems are behind this is because Wall Street this weekend put a gun to their heads and said either turn over the $700 billion or the first thing we'll start blowing up are the pension funds and 401(k)s of your middle class constituents. The Dems are scared they may make good on their threat. But this is not the time to back down or act like the typical Democrat we have witnessed for the last eight years. The Dems handed a stolen election over to Bush. The Dems gave Bush the votes he needed to invade a sovereign country. Once they took over Congress in 2007, they refused to pull the plug on the war. And now they have been cowered into being accomplices in the crime of the century. You have to call them now and say "NO!" If we let them do this, just imagine how hard it will be to get anything good done when President Obama is in the White House. THESE DEMOCRATS ARE ONLY AS STRONG AS THE BACKBONE WE GIVE THEM. CALL CONGRESS NOW.
Offline
#4 2008-09-29 15:13:09
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … e20884.htm
$700 billion or Armageddon? Sounds like sci-fi
The more I hear about Henry Paulson's plan, the less convinced I am it's worth
$2,000 from every American. The predictions of financial Armageddon without it don'tring true.
By Ken Kam
27/09/08 "MSN Money" -- - Put $700 billion in the bag and no one gets hurt.
That's pretty much what I'm hearing as the reason for pushing through a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. We are told that the situation is so dire that we must accept Treasury Secretary Paulson's plan or face financial Armageddon.
Of course, when Ben Bernanke was asked what would happen if Paulson's plan was not approved, he said car loans and student loans would be more difficult to get, and businesses would find it harder to borrow money. Perhaps he was trying to downplay the consequences so as not to start a panic, but that doesn't sound like Armageddon to me.
In fact, it doesn't sound like it's worth spending $700 billion to avoid.
Using $700 billion of taxpayer money is a huge decision, or at least it ought to be. It's more than $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. It makes me angry to think that they want my 4-year-old daughter to contribute $2,000 to a plan which, at least originally, would have allowed bank executives to keep their compensation packages and their golden parachutes.
Earlier this week it looked like Congress would fairly quickly agree to use $700 billion of taxpayer's money to implement Henry Paulson's plan to resolve the credit crisis. But Democrats and Republicans in Congress both demanded concessions and, heading toward the weekend, no one seemed to know what would happen.
Such a deal for taxpayers?
As details of the Paulson plan emerged, however, I become less confident that it would be the end of the crisis even if it passed.. Nevertheless, I expect that the news would send the market up, at least for a few days.
As I've listened to Paulson and Fed chief Ben Bernanke explain their proposal, I am left with the impression that protecting taxpayers is a lower priority for them than protecting banks. This is the only way I can make sense of their proposal to use taxpayer money to buy mortgage securities from banks at a higher price than anyone else would pay, without even asking for an equity kicker -- part of the company -- to offset the risk.
Then there are the claims put forward by Wall Street insiders including Andy Kessler, a hedge fund manager, who writes in the Wall Street Journal that this is going to be a great deal for the Treasury -- akin to the purchase of Alaska for $7 million in 1867. Those billions of bad loans we're buying will be money makers soon enough.
If that's so, I want to know why Mr. Kessler's hedge fund, or any other hedge fund, is not willing to do the same deal? I've never know them to turn down easy money.
Why is it a good deal for my daughter's money, but not a good deal for his money? Is there a better alternative?
If the primary objective is to recapitalize the banking system, as Bernanke testified to Congress, it seems to me that there might be a better way to use $700 billion to accomplish this.
Morgan Stanley (MS, news, msgs) was said to be looking at a good bank/bad bank structure when it was considering a merger with Wachovia (WB, news, msgs). As I understand it, Morgan Stanley would have bought the "good bank" from Wachovia's shareholders, leaving Wachovia's shareholders with cash and all the bad loans -- the "bad bank."
Why couldn't the Treasury use the $700 billion to do something similar -- splitting out the "good banks" from the banking system while paying cash and leaving the bad loans to existing shareholders? I suspect that using the money to set up a number of "good banks" will do more to restart the flow of credit than Paulson's plan to buy the bad loans at favorable prices. This plan would save the part of the banking system that is healthy and empower it to continue making good loans. In contrast, Paulson's plan rewards the part of the banking system that made the worst loans.
To my knowledge such a plan has not been considered, and that feeds my
impression that the taxpayers' interests are a low priority. (For another idea, read "A credit-crisis fix for banks and homeowners."
Getting our goat
The situation reminds me of a portion of the Douglas Adams novel "The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy," in which the leaders of the planet Golgafrincham decided to get rid of the least useful third of their population. This was accomplished by making up a story about a giant space goat coming to eat their planet and convincing all of the people they wanted to get rid of to board Ark-B, the first of three giant spaceships that would take them all to a new planet. The other two-thirds of the population, of course, did not follow.
The way that Paulson and Bernanke have described the problem, I cannot shake the feeling that my wife, daughter and I are being told to board Ark-B. Tell me again what the problem is that is so severe that it justifies taking $2,000 from every man, woman and child in the country?
Nevertheless, this train has left the station. No matter what we think, Paulson is going to have $700 billion to fix the credit crisis as he sees fit. It's a lot of power to give one man, especially one who was not elected and who has the gall to tell us he doesn't want there to be any oversight.
I am insulted that they think they can scare the money out of me without offering a good explanation. Maybe there are good reasons why each of us should give them $2,000, but I haven't heard them yet.
There is only one thing that politicians respond to more than money -- your votes. Whether you agree with me or not, I hope this makes you angry enough to vote. If the politicians who did this are returned to office, at least I'll feel that they really did represent their constituents instead of the interests of a very small group of people who think they can scare us out of $700 billion.
Thank goodness there is an election coming up.
Offline
#5 2008-09-29 15:35:26
Feeling lucky, The stock markets are down more than 3%, setting new lows. Dow INDU's down 7 % with down volune is 95 times up volume. Programmed selling is in play.
Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-09-29 16:07:52)
Offline
#6 2008-09-29 16:28:52
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his top aides took credit for building a winning bailout coalition – hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked.
Offline
#7 2008-09-29 16:51:29
So, something no one has ever been able to properly explain to me is the following:
When the Dow was topped out at 2000 pre-blowjobs in the OO swings of 200 points were the equivalent of 1929. If the Dow tracks at 11,000 wouldn't we need a 2000 point swing for people to be shitting bricks like they are?
News reporting on the Dow has kept the same swing of 200 points or up to the current 800 as a panic button for the dumb masses.
Why is 800 points a big deal in a 11000 point market? Doesn't make sense to me.
Offline
#8 2008-09-29 17:06:19
It gets people worrying which in turn gets them hanging onto the news outlets. I mean, really. When did "everything's fine" ever sell papers?
Offline
#9 2008-09-29 17:11:54
Scotty wrote:
So, something no one has ever been able to properly explain to me is the following:
When the Dow was topped out at 2000 pre-blowjobs in the OO swings of 200 points were the equivalent of 1929. If the Dow tracks at 11,000 wouldn't we need a 2000 point swing for people to be shitting bricks like they are?
News reporting on the Dow has kept the same swing of 200 points or up to the current 800 as a panic button for the dumb masses.
Why is 800 points a big deal in a 11000 point market? Doesn't make sense to me.
I'm a complete dummy when it comes to the stock market, but a close friend with an MBA ain't sweatin' the 778-point drop. There was the same amound of media blubbering and hair-pulling last weekend over the 400-point drop, which the market made up in about a day and a half.
Bright side: at least the news outlets aren't leading with Brangelina and/or Missing Cute White Girl of the Week.
Offline
#10 2008-09-29 17:15:32
Zookeeper wrote:
It gets people worrying which in turn gets them hanging onto the news outlets. I mean, really. When did "everything's fine" ever sell papers?
I understand that but is it really that simple an explanation? Is the general public too stupid to understand the difference between a 200 point drop in a 2000 point market and an 800 point drop in an 11000 point market?
Are they? Please tell me they aren't.
Offline
#11 2008-09-29 17:15:47
Scotty wrote:
So, something no one has ever been able to properly explain to me is the following:
When the Dow was topped out at 2000 pre-blowjobs in the OO swings of 200 points were the equivalent of 1929. If the Dow tracks at 11,000 wouldn't we need a 2000 point swing for people to be shitting bricks like they are?
News reporting on the Dow has kept the same swing of 200 points or up to the current 800 as a panic button for the dumb masses.
Why is 800 points a big deal in a 11000 point market? Doesn't make sense to me.
Derivatives, credit-swaps, credit ratings and retirement accounts. We've never had so much of the economy tied up in the stock markets and they've never been more systemically linked or opaque.
Offline
#12 2008-09-29 17:16:17
George Orr wrote:
Bright side: at least the news outlets aren't leading with ...Missing Cute White Girl of the Week.
Yeah but fapping to line graphs isn't my thing.
Offline
#13 2008-09-29 17:17:03
Offline
#14 2008-09-29 17:35:05
Scotty wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
It gets people worrying which in turn gets them hanging onto the news outlets. I mean, really. When did "everything's fine" ever sell papers?
I understand that but is it really that simple an explanation? Is the general public too stupid to understand the difference between a 200 point drop in a 2000 point market and an 800 point drop in an 11000 point market?
They only understand it if it is reported in those terms. It isn't so they don't.
Offline
#15 2008-09-29 18:22:25
George,
This market is responding to uncertainty. The stock market hates uncertainty. Even more so then in the past generations, it depends on speculation and projections of what is going to happen. The market will continue to see high volatility in the short term until what is going to happen with the financial crisis can be assessed with more surety.
For traders, high volume and a single day slide of more than 1.5 % is a significant event. It is not that often when you see a sudden broad market downward slide of more than 3 %. It usually takes falling confidence and news that some economic measure has fallen below predictions combined with periodic times of high market activity. But not till it gets to greater then 8% to say 20 % is it a true blowout.
For us it is not so much what happens in any one day, but if the economic outlook (and with it projected earnings) is recalibrated lower. Then the market will have to continue to slide lower till it finds a trading range that reflects the new reality.
Whether the bailout will have good or bad results is less what is driving things these weeks then the uncertainty. The market will adjust to bad news, but it undermines its ability to function to be in limbo. This is a weakness to the system.
In a very real way the very announcement of a potential bailout threw the market into turmoil. When they say a bailout plan must be passed or things will collapse within a few weeks, in a way they ensured that this might happen just by dangling the bailout option.
The commercial credit industry is also responding to the crisis and potential bailout in a similar way. Apparently in the recent week they are withholding capital because they can not anticipate what is about to happen with the bailout.
I haven't verified it yet, but some are claiming that such credit activity was not being that stifled before all this rescue talk. These analysts could be wrong as they were using measures from the previous month's federal reports that show while overall capital credit availability is not falling, it may not reflect bottlenecks in the process to getting it to commercial borrowers.
Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-09-29 18:43:46)
Offline
#17 2008-09-29 19:42:19
jesusluvspegging wrote:
Let's hope it's a trend.
Offline
#18 2008-09-29 19:54:40
Our M&A Portfolio Manager wrote:
"We need this bail-out to continue to make money"
The financial markets have their lifestyle at risk, everything they recommend will be slanted to benefit them; which is understandable as they are greedy people by nature.
My answer you ask?
Emmeran wrote:
I work for the Private Equity side also, we're creditors with dry powder* and will be here long after the Hedge Fund defaults and closes up shop
*Dry Powder = Money to spend.
Offline
#19 2008-09-29 20:19:51
Let's see how main street america is holding up in the housing crisis. We take you now to main street Manhattan.
since the building was created to support the fantasy of living in the 20s or 30s, it’s no big deal to pretend also that it’s 2005, when prices everywhere were still soaring. At 15 Central Park West, it’s still 2005—unless, that is, it’s really 1929.
Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-09-29 20:22:26)
Offline
#20 2008-09-29 21:02:55
But we'll never see any sort of uprising because Americans still live with the stupid idea that they'll get rich, too, and they'll want to enjoy the same sorts of perks.
Offline
#21 2008-09-29 21:16:31
Asia chimes in - Nikkei down 5% to open
Offline
#22 2008-09-29 21:46:03
Scotty wrote:
Zookeeper wrote:
It gets people worrying which in turn gets them hanging onto the news outlets. I mean, really. When did "everything's fine" ever sell papers?
I understand that but is it really that simple an explanation? Is the general public too stupid to understand the difference between a 200 point drop in a 2000 point market and an 800 point drop in an 11000 point market?
Are they? Please tell me they aren't.
My boss told me the 24/7 news station she was watching was reporting the largest drop in history for the stock market. I asked her percentage or point? Then had to explain the difference and why the point thing was chicken little nonsense. It really is that simple, bad news sells blipverts. Math is a skill most don't use.
Last edited by hedgewizard (2008-09-29 21:50:33)
Offline
#23 2008-09-29 21:53:38
hedgewizard wrote:
blipverts.
Bryce wrote:
I have a classified rebus tape which recorded the incident during a routine 2-A sampler at the time. It is a bit graphic, I'm afraid.
Offline
#24 2008-09-29 22:12:47
The record it broke in terms of points lost on the Dow was set in 2001 the day after 9/11, and the S&P 500 today had both the largest point drop and percentage drop in its history.
You can't think of it as just a bucket of money, though. The entire market was dependent on movement and trust. 400 points lost is no big deal if everyone knows it's just a market correction, but the problem is that nobody can see the bottom, and each person that reflexively holds on to their cash in order to gain some modicum of security compounds the losses.
The world isn't ending yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't a serious situation.
Offline
#25 2008-09-29 22:47:00
tojo2000 wrote:
The world isn't ending yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't a serious situation.
Well, of course, the world isn't ending. That won't happen until the Hadron Collider is back on line.
Offline
#26 2008-09-29 23:24:52
I'm getting a little sick of this bullshit about who's to blame for this shit. We've had current account balance and government spending deficits since the 60s and the 30s. As a populace we've been spending more than we've been saving for years. We came up with a million different ways to hide the debt, from home refinancing to CDOs and it worked for a long time. Just like a gambler who can maintain his standard of living by floating his bets on rivers of plastic, sooner or later the bill comes due. It started with those who's money was weakest and most exposed, like any plague, the subprime folks caught it and died of it. Those closest to that money, the builders and real estate developers got a dose and they, in classic merchant fashion, carried it to the cities. In the cities, the massive metropoli of wealth, death is stalking. Since the rest of us draw on the water from these cities, in our retirement accounts, education accounts, insurance policies, credit cards, home loans, car loans, muinicipal bonds and accounts, t-bills and so on, we are all endanger of catching something.
But it wasn't the greedy wall street guys, the subprime deadbeats, or the investment banks (RIP), it was all of us. We lived the high life, as a culture, for a long time and now Guido, um, I mean Ben, is telling us we got pay him, or he's gotta break our legs.
End of the world, schmende the world. Worlds end all the time. Victorian England is a memory; the Rommans, a comedy; Greece, CGI. Welcome to the end of the American Century.
Something new is going to be born.
Offline
#27 2008-09-29 23:34:52
Today's US economy is the world's biggest pyramid scheme ever. The only thing that kept it going so long this time (reference: 1929) is the Chinese buying up US debt to keep cash going back here so we could keep buying their stuff. Problem is, the cycle needs cheap energy (oil) and materials (steel, aluminum, copper, you name it) coming in to keep going. But the real estate bubble, created by stupid credit policies, added another pyramid scheme monkey to that brokedick camel's back, and there are too many energy straws sucking at the bottom of the petroleum milkshake glass. Now the whole house of cards is coming down, and soon, we'll have nothing to eat but scrambled metaphors on toast.
Offline
#28 2008-09-30 00:49:25
The only thing worse than living in an empire is living in an empire in decline. I think I'm going to get stoned and then tried to get laid. Or vice versa.
Offline
#29 2008-09-30 01:04:51
Ya'll need to think positive about all of this.... Once the market readjusts itself there will be a shitload of inexpensive homes for sale... Not only that but white people can now have their neighborhoods back because the majority of the foreclosures are happening to minorities which the subprime loans were created for in the first place.... It'll be a pain in the ass for awhile I'm sure, but Bill Clinton's fuckup will correct itself... I'm still not sure what kind of disaster it will take to clear up George Bush's fuckups though...
Offline
#30 2008-09-30 07:45:12
tojo2000 wrote:
The record it broke in terms of points lost on the Dow was set in 2001 the day after 9/11, and the S&P 500 today had both the largest point drop and percentage drop in its history.
You can't think of it as just a bucket of money, though. The entire market was dependent on movement and trust. 400 points lost is no big deal if everyone knows it's just a market correction, but the problem is that nobody can see the bottom, and each person that reflexively holds on to their cash in order to gain some modicum of security compounds the losses.
The world isn't ending yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't a serious situation.
That is short sighted and myopic tojo.
The market can and will find its bottom. Ultimtely it is found at the traditional base structures that support the markets. Like acceptable price vs earnings, and measures of economic condition. But it must go through this temporary period of uncertainity while various schemes to intervene in the finacial crisis are worked out and interjected in the market. There will be volatillity.There will be reactions like flights of capital to quality. And if the uncertainity lasts for a period of time there will be unwillingness to invest in riskier growth and hoilding back of capital. Resulting in a mostly a flat market defined by low volume and some volatility.
Such periods do eventualy impact and support a slow down or recession, but they are understandable and reasonable market reactions, part of the cyclic process. Not neccesarily harbingers of doom and precursors to collapse.
Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-09-30 07:46:23)
Offline
#31 2008-09-30 10:50:47
Johnny_Rotten wrote:
That is short sighted and myopic tojo.
The market can and will find its bottom. Ultimtely it is found at the traditional base structures that support the markets. Like acceptable price vs earnings, and measures of economic condition. But it must go through this temporary period of uncertainity while various schemes to intervene in the finacial crisis are worked out and interjected in the market. There will be volatillity.There will be reactions like flights of capital to quality. And if the uncertainity lasts for a period of time there will be unwillingness to invest in riskier growth and hoilding back of capital. Resulting in a mostly a flat market defined by low volume and some volatility.
Such periods do eventualy impact and support a slow down or recession, but they are understandable and reasonable market reactions, part of the cyclic process. Not neccesarily harbingers of doom and precursors to collapse.
That would be true if we were just talking about the stock market, but the stock market is just a symptom of the bigger problem, which is why there is so much uncertainty, with the entire derivatives market so massively leveraged. Nobody's sure where the bottom is because the derivatives market is 10 times the GDP of the entire planet, so there are a lot of bets that can still be called in.
And yes, it sounds short-sighted because I'm talking about the short term, not the Great Depression. Doesn't mean it won't suck for a lot of people.
Offline
#32 2008-09-30 11:19:32
There are a lot of smart people on both sides of the issue and history tells us that usually both parties are correct to a certain extent, we just hope to guess which side is more correct.
What I'm having trouble swallowing is that the entire proposal was put together and presented so badly; this is entirely out of line with the normal output from these agencies. The way thisj was put forward in the current atmosphere of complete public distrust for all parties involved indicates that either these guys are further out of touch with reality than we thought or we are being manipulated for a far more nefarious purpose.
(I personally don't completely discount the theory that the Republicans have written off this election cycle and are setting up the incoming administration for failure)
Offline
#33 2008-09-30 14:17:27
tojo2000 wrote:
Johnny_Rotten wrote:
That is short sighted and myopic tojo.
The market can and will find its bottom. Ultimtely it is found at the traditional base structures that support the markets. Like acceptable price vs earnings, and measures of economic condition. But it must go through this temporary period of uncertainity while various schemes to intervene in the finacial crisis are worked out and interjected in the market. There will be volatillity.There will be reactions like flights of capital to quality. And if the uncertainity lasts for a period of time there will be unwillingness to invest in riskier growth and hoilding back of capital. Resulting in a mostly a flat market defined by low volume and some volatility.
Such periods do eventualy impact and support a slow down or recession, but they are understandable and reasonable market reactions, part of the cyclic process. Not neccesarily harbingers of doom and precursors to collapse.That would be true if we were just talking about the stock market, but the stock market is just a symptom of the bigger problem, which is why there is so much uncertainty, with the entire derivatives market so massively leveraged. Nobody's sure where the bottom is because the derivatives market is 10 times the GDP of the entire planet, so there are a lot of bets that can still be called in.
And yes, it sounds short-sighted because I'm talking about the short term, not the Great Depression. Doesn't mean it won't suck for a lot of people.
Points taken.
Offline
#34 2008-09-30 14:33:37
I know, it's getting so bad in this country that we may not be able to pay to outsource every single function of our economy from making products to making beds. We might actually have to dig down deep and get real jobs making stuff ourselves instead of having a "job" owning holding companies that own other companies in turd-world countries that make stuff for us and then sell it back to us for us to sell to someone else.
A 2% move is normal. A 5% move is newsworthy. A 10% move would should be examined. Wake me up when it moves 25%.
Offline
#35 2008-09-30 14:46:17
25% in what period of time?
Offline
#36 2008-10-01 15:34:13
Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz is building a better bailout (warning, dense economic language). For people who want their credit crises a lot simpler on the ears and eyes, Hugh Hefner is sacking a few of his bunnies to save on...I don't really know what it saves on. Lube and silicone, probably, like a car shop.
Offline
#38 2008-10-01 16:56:38
Emmeran wrote:
What I'm having trouble swallowing is that the entire proposal was put together and presented so badly; this is entirely out of line with the normal output from these agencies.
The Bush administration has spent nearly eight years populating every agency under its authority with C-student cronies and yes-men, clones of Fearless Leader. The chickens are limping home to roost.
Offline
#39 2008-10-02 03:18:38
The Guilty and Semi-Guilty
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/peopl … plete_list
Senators stuffed the economic rescue aka bailout bill with fat tax breaks and other PORK before passing it by a wide margin, 74-25, a month before the presidential and congressional elections.
In the House, leaders were working overtime to sway enough opponents of the bill to push it through by Friday, just days after lawmakers there stunningly rejected an earlier version and sent markets plummeting.
Both parties' presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, made rare appearances to cast "aye" votes.
In the final vote, 40 Democrats, 33 Republicans and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted "yes."
Nine Democrats, 15 Republicans and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont voted "no."Here is a list of the Bailout vote in the Senate.
CNN reports these are the Senators who voted No:
Allard (R)
Barasso (R)
Brownback (R)
Bunning (R)
Cantwell (D)
Cochran (R)
Crapo (R)
DeMint (R)
Dole (R)
Dorgan (D)
Enzi (R)
Feingold (D)
Inhofe (R)
Johnson (D)
Landrieu (D)
Nelson (FL) (D)
Roberts (R)
Sanders (I)
Sessions (R)
Shelby (R)
Stabenow (D)
Tester (D)
Vitter (R)
Wicker (R)
Wyden (D)
How the Senate voted Wednesday on the financial bailout bill (S. Amdt. 5685 to H.R. 1424):
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Offline
#40 2008-10-02 16:08:56
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Did anybody really expect another vote from that sort of name? How did a "Crapo" ever get elected? Wait. He serves with Larry Craig. Never mind.
Offline
#41 2008-10-02 17:34:47
Offline
