Proud to be American...

[captain.crazy]

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1122-Proud-To-Be-American-You-Should-Be-Ashamed.html

discuss...

[owheelj]

It's a very poor understanding of the financial crisis. While there is no doubt about the problems leading to the bailouts (although I would seriously question the motives), the nature of those problems put the government in a terrible position. They could make an idealistic moral decision, and not help the people who caused this financial crisis, which would have the result of pulling down most of the financial system, leading to a far worse economic crisis, or they could take a pragmatic approach instead, and make a decision based on the actual consequences of their actions rather than the morality. People who oppose the bailouts (and they are largely those who who have no economic training and are not part of the government for either party), aren't looking at the big picture, but just at the morality of the decision. Yes the bailout is definitely giving money to people who don't deserve it and can easily be seen as rewarding people who caused the problems, but it's also vital in preventing the economic collapse of the US, which would have devastating effects not just on US citizens, but on the whole world. It's a clear indication that massive economic reforms and regulation needs to occur in the future, but it's also the necessary immediate response for preventing catastrophe.

[captain.crazy]

It's a very poor understanding of the financial crisis. While there is no doubt about the problems leading to the bailouts (although I would seriously question the motives), the nature of those problems put the government in a terrible position. They could make an idealistic moral decision, and not help the people who caused this financial crisis, which would have the result of pulling down most of the financial system, leading to a far worse economic crisis, or they could take a pragmatic approach instead, and make a decision based on the actual consequences of their actions rather than the morality. People who oppose the bailouts (and they are largely those who who have no economic training and are not part of the government for either party), aren't looking at the big picture, but just at the morality of the decision. Yes the bailout is definitely giving money to people who don't deserve it and can easily be seen as rewarding people who caused the problems, but it's also vital in preventing the economic collapse of the US, which would have devastating effects not just on US citizens, but on the whole world. It's a clear indication that massive economic reforms and regulation needs to occur in the future, but it's also the necessary immediate response for preventing catastrophe.

Really? You think that they were just looking at the morality? I totally think you are wrong about that. Here is why. The most basic principle of the universe is that there is success and there is failure. It is unacceptable on so many more levels than just morality to hinder this most basic principle. The big banks that actually caused the "failure" of the economic system did so by not doing a good job. And the government rewarded them for it... at my expoence. Not only has that money gone out, largely unaccounted for and with no oversite, but we had to borrow against the Fed to do so, so we will be paying interest in that money to boot.

Here is another point to ponder... they are elected to represent us... not nanny us... when they are told, in the way that they were told, not to do such a thing... they should not have done it. It would have been far better to have let those banks go through the natural process of bankruptcy. In truth, they will fail again, looking for more bailouts, only next time, it will be bigger.

[owheelj]

The most basic principle of the universe is that there is success and there is failure.

Sorry what? Who decided that this is the most basic principle of the universe? In what context is this true? Where is the evidence to support this claim? How do you judge how basic a principle is? The first year I played Australian Rules Football after high school we lost every game. The next year we only won a single game. This year we're the top team. Isn't that failure and then success, rather than the other way around. What do you mean by "success" and "failure" anyway? Is Jupiter a success or a failure? Your statement is false and meaningless.

It is unacceptable on so many more levels than just morality to hinder this most basic principle. The big banks that actually caused the "failure" of the economic system did so by not doing a good job. And the government rewarded them for it... at my expoence. Not only has that money gone out, largely unaccounted for and with no oversite, but we had to borrow against the Fed to do so, so we will be paying interest in that money to boot.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're seeing it as a moral issue, and in such a context the bailout is obviously immoral. However you're not looking at the consequences of not bailing out the banks vs bailing them out. Clearly the better outcome for the people of the US and the world, regardless of the morals, is to bailout the banks, because having them collapse would bring about a collapse of the entire financial sector. Too much of the US economy is reliant on too small a number of banks. Hence the government had no choice but to bail them out regardless of the moral issue.

Here is another point to ponder... they are elected to represent us... not nanny us... when they are told, in the way that they were told, not to do such a thing... they should not have done it. It would have been far better to have let those banks go through the natural process of bankruptcy. In truth, they will fail again, looking for more bailouts, only next time, it will be bigger.

Again, you're ignoring the reality of the size and importance of those banks. It would not have been better for anybody to allow those banks to collapse. That would have been a disaster.

[HapSmo19]

Yes the bailout is definitely giving money to people who don't deserve it and can easily be seen as rewarding people who caused the problems, but it's also vital in preventing the economic collapse of the US, which would have devastating effects not just on US citizens, but on the whole world...

I'm sure they were saying something just like this while loading the gold into trucks and laughing hysterically.

What does a person with economics training do at a time like this?;

"Wait! One of my balls is slipping out of your clenched fist. Let me put it back in for you."

[THE ARMY]

Those fraudy mortgages you talk about have given millions of lower class families a chance to own a home, so go suck on that. USA USA USA!!! It's called democracy and capitalism, if you didn't like em then why did you vote em in!


Maybe instead of yapping you should vote Conservative ALL THE TIME and keep government out of the lives of people and as small as possible. BTW, good job Barack Obama way to make 150 million people feel foolish for voting you in. Haha I love it

[owheelj]

Yes the bailout is definitely giving money to people who don't deserve it and can easily be seen as rewarding people who caused the problems, but it's also vital in preventing the economic collapse of the US, which would have devastating effects not just on US citizens, but on the whole world...

I'm sure they were saying something just like this while loading the gold into trucks and laughing hysterically.

What does a person with economics training do at a time like this?;

"Wait! One of my balls is slipping out of your clenched fist. Let me put it back in for you."

It's not at all accurate to suggest that they were actually given the money. They had their bad debt bought off them by the government. This is not the same as giving these corporations actual money. The bailout also means the government now owns significant shares in these corporations that it bought for well below market price (as in, for $1 a share when the market price was around $30 a share).

[captain.crazy]

The most basic principle of the universe is that there is success and there is failure.

Sorry what? Who decided that this is the most basic principle of the universe? In what context is this true? Where is the evidence to support this claim? How do you judge how basic a principle is? The first year I played Australian Rules Football after high school we lost every game. The next year we only won a single game. This year we're the top team. Isn't that failure and then success, rather than the other way around. What do you mean by "success" and "failure" anyway? Is Jupiter a success or a failure? Your statement is false and meaningless.

this is true in all aspects of life. It is true in the animal and plant kingdoms. It is true when you are learning to ride a bike. It is true when you learn to drive a stick shift. It is true in scientific experimentation. Failure is the method by which we learn.

Just because you do not understand something doesn't mean that it is false and meaningless. Maybe instead of coming across as insulting, you might try asking for clarification.

It is unacceptable on so many more levels than just morality to hinder this most basic principle. The big banks that actually caused the "failure" of the economic system did so by not doing a good job. And the government rewarded them for it... at my expoence. Not only has that money gone out, largely unaccounted for and with no oversite, but we had to borrow against the Fed to do so, so we will be paying interest in that money to boot.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're seeing it as a moral issue, and in such a context the bailout is obviously immoral. However you're not looking at the consequences of not bailing out the banks vs bailing them out. Clearly the better outcome for the people of the US and the world, regardless of the morals, is to bailout the banks, because having them collapse would bring about a collapse of the entire financial sector. Too much of the US economy is reliant on too small a number of banks. Hence the government had no choice but to bail them out regardless of the moral issue.

I think you are confusing moral with sound. It is sound practive, that for the betterment of all that institutions that fail, be allowed to fail, in order that room be made for better, more successful businesses (species, systems, what have you.) In a way, if by moral, you mean the right thing to do, then I guess I can use that term in that way, but by and large, it was not the kind of moral where they wall street was to fail simply because they are the rich people and the main street people are jealous. It would have been the moral thing to do because it would have been the correct thing to do in the grand scheme of things.

Here is another point to ponder... they are elected to represent us... not nanny us... when they are told, in the way that they were told, not to do such a thing... they should not have done it. It would have been far better to have let those banks go through the natural process of bankruptcy. In truth, they will fail again, looking for more bailouts, only next time, it will be bigger.

Again, you're ignoring the reality of the size and importance of those banks. It would not have been better for anybody to allow those banks to collapse. That would have been a disaster.
I think that you are putting to much importance on them. If they were that important, they would have been successful. Instead, they failed, lost a lot of money, are poor at what they do, are corrupt and dishonest. They valued, not the honest and hard earned rewards that comes from long term investments, rather the glitz and glam of very short term. Being completely careless and fundamentally greedy, they crashed their businesses into the dirt. It makes no sense to prop them up so that they can do it again. No sense, that is, unless you are in bed with them, and owe them for getting you elected as President... no matter which party you belong to. I just think its funny that you guys think that this is all ethical, especially given that people like Geithner was the president of the Fed of New York, Rom Emmanuel has made millions as an investment banker then later served on the board of directors at Freddie Mac, which was riddles with scandle.

[THE ARMY]

Yes the bailout is definitely giving money to people who don't deserve it and can easily be seen as rewarding people who caused the problems, but it's also vital in preventing the economic collapse of the US, which would have devastating effects not just on US citizens, but on the whole world...

I'm sure they were saying something just like this while loading the gold into trucks and laughing hysterically.

What does a person with economics training do at a time like this?;

"Wait! One of my balls is slipping out of your clenched fist. Let me put it back in for you."

It's not at all accurate to suggest that they were actually given the money. They had their bad debt bought off them by the government. This is not the same as giving these corporations actual money. The bailout also means the government now owns significant shares in these corporations that it bought for well below market price (as in, for $1 a share when the market price was around $30 a share).

True on this point. The banks had their moldy mortgages bought off of them and were regulated in the sense that their CEO's couldn't receive a salary of above (i think it was $500,000, which is small compared to the multi-millions they were making before the crash). However, the corporations out there that got money through bailouts or government intervention I believe is what is making people very angry. This is a market economy driven by competition. Its survival of the fittest. And if you aren't the fittest, as GM showed, then you should lose the race. However, it is hard to let companies of this size tumble these days. They are gigantic and provide employment for whole cities, this is why they were helped. Not for the CEOs, but for the people.

[captain.crazy]

Yes the bailout is definitely giving money to people who don't deserve it and can easily be seen as rewarding people who caused the problems, but it's also vital in preventing the economic collapse of the US, which would have devastating effects not just on US citizens, but on the whole world...

I'm sure they were saying something just like this while loading the gold into trucks and laughing hysterically.

What does a person with economics training do at a time like this?;

"Wait! One of my balls is slipping out of your clenched fist. Let me put it back in for you."

It's not at all accurate to suggest that they were actually given the money. They had their bad debt bought off them by the government. This is not the same as giving these corporations actual money. The bailout also means the government now owns significant shares in these corporations that it bought for well below market price (as in, for $1 a share when the market price was around $30 a share).

Except that there is no oversite as to where the funds actually went...

[captain.crazy]

True on this point. The banks had their moldy mortgages bought off of them and were regulated in the sense that their CEO's couldn't receive a salary of above (i think it was $500,000, which is small compared to the multi-millions they were making before the crash). However, the corporations out there that got money through bailouts or government intervention I believe is what is making people very angry. This is a market economy driven by competition. Its survival of the fittest. And if you aren't the fittest, as GM showed, then you should lose the race. However, it is hard to let companies of this size tumble these days. They are gigantic and provide employment for whole cities, this is why they were helped. Not for the CEOs, but for the people.

Ahhhh... there it is. Now we are getting to it. Surely, you know that companies could never get this big if they didn't grease the palms or politicians in washington...

Check this out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdKgBFiMltE

[thegreekdog]

I don't necessarily think that not helping companies/individuals would be a moral decision. In fact, one could make the argument that helping the companies/individuals was a moral decision (i.e. "We don't want these people/companies to fail.")

I, for one, oppose the bailouts and yet I understand the consequences of opposing the bailouts. I understand that entire parts of the US and world economy could fail without a bailout. Believe me, I've struggled with this. My brother-in-law has felt the effects of the GM failure. If other companies failed, my wife and I could feel the effects, directly relative to our jobs, of the companies' failures.

In any event, if I had been in charge, I would have figured out some other ways to use the money than to reward failure. For example, if the US government wanted to stimulate the economy or stimulate the banking "industry" they should have considered taking a lot of the bailout and stimulus money and givin it directly to US citizens. Unfortunately, US citizens, for the most part, don't give money to candidates, rather, companies do. Therefore, the politicians had a vested interest in giving money to companies, not to people. As another example, and as I've indicated in previous threads, the stimulus packages enacted by Congress were less about stimulus and more about wasting taxpayer money.

In short, I don't know what's going to happen... whether the bailouts and stimulus packages will be successful or not. I think these plans will help on a short-term basis, but will create long-term problems. I am trying to give the president and Congress the benefit of the doubt, because these are difficult problems and we simply don't know what is going to happen. But, based on my limited economic/law/tax training, I would say these "solutions" will cause more problems.

[THE ARMY]

they should have considered taking a lot of the bailout and stimulus money and givin it directly to US citizens.

They tried this already with the George W. Bush stimulis package, the problem was that most of the people after recieving their money didn't spend it, they put it in the bank for a rainy day.

[thegreekdog]

they should have considered taking a lot of the bailout and stimulus money and givin it directly to US citizens.

They tried this already with the George W. Bush stimulis package, the problem was that most of the people after recieving their money didn't spend it, they put it in the bank for a rainy day.

Saving is not necessarily a bad thing to stimulate the economy. Additionally, I believe I received some $200 or so from President Bush, which isn't a whole hell of a lot of money.

[Snorri1234]

they should have considered taking a lot of the bailout and stimulus money and givin it directly to US citizens.

They tried this already with the George W. Bush stimulis package, the problem was that most of the people after recieving their money didn't spend it, they put it in the bank for a rainy day.

Saving is not necessarily a bad thing to stimulate the economy.

It is when you're in a depression.

[thegreekdog]

It is when you're in a depression.

It depends on what the banks use your money for. It also depends on whether "saving" means investing in the stock market, purchasing bonds, or putting money in a savings account. Also, keep in mind that we weren't yet in a recession when President Bush gave us back $10.

[Snorri1234]

It is when you're in a depression.

It depends on what the banks use your money for. It also depends on whether "saving" means investing in the stock market, purchasing bonds, or putting money in a savings account. Also, keep in mind that we weren't yet in a recession when President Bush gave us back $10.

Well yeah ofcourse it depends on what saving means. I think in this case it means putting money in a savings account though because the trust in the stock market is really low.

And I think The Army was implying that if you give the money to people now they will do the same thing.

[Simon Viavant]

FEDERAL RESERVE IS EVIL INCARNATE!

[thegreekdog]

I wonder if giving money to people who then place that money in savings would prop up the banks? I'm not sure.

[Gypsys Kiss]

Bailing out the banks is/was a necessary evil. Bailing large corporations like GM is/was a necessary evil, if only to prevent massive job loses. I would have been inclined to let one or two banks go to the wall, just to get the message across that there isnt always a safety net. What is apparent is that the banking sector needs closer supervision, especially the housing/mortgage market.

[HapSmo19]

For a good laugh, watch the first one and just jump to 8:15 of the second if you don't wanna watch it all.

/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGUWFo5MqHc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi ... re=related

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Those fraudy mortgages you talk about have given millions of lower class families a chance to own a home, so go suck on that. USA USA USA!!! It's called democracy and capitalism, if you didn't like em then why did you vote em in!


Maybe instead of yapping you should vote Conservative ALL THE TIME and keep government out of the lives of people and as small as possible. BTW, good job Barack Obama way to make 150 million people feel foolish for voting you in. Haha I love it

.
.
.


Vote Conservative? Too funny!

After 8 years of Bush/Cheney with 6 years of Republican control of Congress is why we are in the mess we are in.

President Obama was handed a economy on the verge of collapse. Remember, he's been in office only since January 20 2009.

It was the Republicans, since the bad old days of President Reagan who cut all that pesky red tape and regulation, so the Banks, Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies to combine and buy each other out and become to BIG to FAIL.

Please, put your partisan thoughts at the door, before you debate. Otherwise, people might think that you're just a rambling idiot like Rush Limbaugh.

I miss the good ole days of President Clinton and those balanced budgets!