Economic Crisis of 2008/2009

[monir]

As I was driving by downtown New York the other day, an interesting cardboard banner was hung that read something like this.

Understanding the problem doesn't lessen the anger and frustration the general populace are feeling. No wonder the house is taking every precaution to passing a bill to rectify this situation to a certain degree.

[Vexx]

When most economists are talking like this:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...04&ft=1&f=1001

It makes you wonder either:
1) what dingbat information the Whitehouse is using for developing their plan.
2) what the real agenda is because the proposal was so off-channel.

[Reckoner]

I'm personally tired of politicians playing the blame game. Everyone was at fault for this bill not passing from the Democrats to the Republicans to Paulson. Though I am torn on this issue regarding the bail out. I don't think it will be effective, but as someone planning to go to college next year, student loans is looming in the back of my head. I may very well get screwed over by this current economic crisis more than I already am.

[Goshin]

is it okay to think that the president might use this failed bill to promote more totalitarianism. if the economy gets really bad they might claim that if the president had more power he would have been able to stop it. of course stupid americans would give him more power, and bit by bit....

[Vexx]

On the college loan matters... *normally* banking institutions consider student loans a pretty good bet. If credit really tightens up though, I'd predict they will start hedging based on what your listed major is. How directly applicable is it to a "good job"?

One "play the game" response would be to double major if you are turned down the first time for that reason. Pick a "practical" major along with your desired major.

If you've done your FAFSA stuff thoroughly though -- most of your loans and whatnot should be channeled through them anyway so they've done the work of finding willing partners and you just have to pick one.

Obviously, the current situation does make it more tentative.
Since the credit lockup is the *real* problem for most (small/medium business, individuals, etc) -- I'd be writing my congressman asking why a great deal of the money isn't going to those institutions who behaved well and are still profitable and fluid so they'll have more money to lend. In other words, why isn't Main Street getting a pile of money to keep half our economy from grinding to a halt?

It's easy for Americans to look at President Bush -- he of the 935 "misstatements" in the Iraq war runup... and Henry Paulson, the "Goldman Sachs" Treasury Secretary -- and say, "prove it" regarding the dire predictions of doom if a bailout doesn't occur.

What was missing in the "boogah boogah" noise talk last week was someone who could put the danger in concrete terms: a businessman, say (as opposed to a financier), who could explain how lack of credit would prevent him from stocking up on new inventory or meeting payrolls.

An administration marked by profound arrogance (Hellooooo, Cheney!) sent a financier to Congress to demand unprecedented power for a financier, and the result sounded familiar and empty. Wolf!!!! There's a Wolf! Right Behind You! Really!

If the danger is that real and that near, somebody with a shred of credibility and some real skin in the game should have been in the limelight to tell Americans exactly what's in the alleged abyss. The administration's failure to understand that fact is telling and profound.

[Anh_Minh]

Caveat: I'm not American, so my interest in all this is mostly academic... as long as it doesn't end up crashing the economy here. (And that's the sticking point, isn't it, for all of us outside looking in?)

I accept that some money must be sent to banks so they can get the confidence to lend again. I just don't see the sense in buying toxic assets. Get shares in the bank on the cheap? Sure. Milk the bastards for all they're worth. But buying stuff you know isn't going to profit you? Why?

[OtseisRagnarok]

Originally Posted by Goshin

is it okay to think that the president might use this failed bill to promote more totalitarianism. if the economy gets really bad they might claim that if the president had more power he would have been able to stop it. of course stupid americans would give him more power, and bit by bit....

Well, I'm an american, and I'm not stupid. I saw this coming a mile away.... But I can't do anything about it. The vast majority of us are too stupid to stop the president, or too lazy to care. (I'm part of the latter.)

[Irenicus]

"Nancy Pelosi hurts our feelings, and she's a socialist Babylonian whore who wants to expand teh g0v4rnm4ntz0r, so we voted it down."

Well, great job, Congress. There goes the chance for a short-term recovery.

By all means the Bill is messed up; the 700$ billion number is arbitrary, the goal convoluted, the oversight lacking, the money's going everywhere and nowhere, and punishment for the yuppie scumbags is another issue entirely, not that I'm sympathetic to people who fucking made a profit from bankrupting their own companies -- so tell us that, and say that you'd still solve the problem but with a different direction! Goddammit, what is this partisan bullshit (not that Pelosi isn't guilty of that in a big way) when the whole economy's crashing down on us?

The modern capitalist economy is very much a faith-based economy, one which relies on money to flow farther and more richly than the actual underlying production and consumption levels are, and one of the key problems facing the economy right now is the reduction of this flow, as people just dam themselves in and wait for a better tomorrow. Sure, there's the base, and the whole problem stems from how terribly faulty and downright false this base is, but banks don't lend because they know the base is firm, people and businesses don't buy and borrow because they are completely aware of how much money they have left and have gained, and investors don't invest because the corporation's been doing well for the last ten thousand years or so -- it's called the goddamn margin. They loan because they think they'll get their money back from the loans (the good, normal way, or the screwed up speculative way that happened with the housing mortgages), they borrow because they think they'll be able to pay back, and they invest because they think they'll eventually profit from the investment. And that's all perception, what people *think* will happen, any short term recovery is very much reliant on papa Sam doing his cowboy job and convincing the spooky cattle that everything's okay and you can let the spice flow again. Congress just instead did a great job of convincing the market, cowardly, self-interested creature that it is, that the U.S. government will not be able to forcefully solve this issue any time soon. Result? Nobody's going to invest, lend, and borrow, and the gears will come to a stop, no matter how many trillions you throw at them and asking them to do all that.

It's not like Roosevelt actually launched a revolution when he declared the bank holiday back in the very lowest point of the Great Depression, he just kept going on and on about how everything's going to be okay after the holiday's over, and boy, it actually got better, not because he was tinkering with the thousands and thousands of loose screws within the system, but because he convinced the people that they can let the money flow again safely, and with the rivers back online, things slowly improved. Why can't someone just do the same? Are they waiting for the day after the Great November Day? So Obama or McCain or Palin (God forbid, lol) can declare the start of the Newer Deal and play the confidence game then? It'd be epic and all, and if the speechwriters did a good job I'm sure future students of U.S. History will have something awesome to read about how President Amazing saved the world in 2009, but really now.

[solomon]

No offense guys, but to all these MAKE WALL STREET RESPONSIBLE AND PAY UP criers, I ask

HOW THE HELL DO YOU DO THAT?

(Note I am against CEOs getting rich off stupid risks as the rest of you guys are)

Maybe there is someway that I don't know about, but normally in dealing with corrupt CEOS or politicians, they are indicted and taken to court then if need be settlements are made or fines made. THIS CAN TAKE FOREVER, it seems like they've JUST STARTED Senator Ted Steven's trial last week and he was fingered how long ago.

Maybe the number 700$ is too big, maybe it's too much all at once. Sure maybe they could add some more gov't oversight. I still fail to see how we can get out of this mess, without some large intervention by the gov't temporarily. I hardly think we are suddenly gonna transform into a managed economy over this, which is what I think some use as fuel for their "ideological" dissent.

[Vexx]

It isn't the dollar value (though we now know that $700B was literally pulled out of thin air). Its where its being applied that reasonable people might disagree on.
I think that increasing confidence in the credit markets is a matter that simply wasn't addressed in the bill. I also think the administration blew what remains of their credibility in the way the whole thing was developed and presented.

A lot of congresscritters voted against it for the wrong reasons.. .but that doesn't mean it wasn't a mess that needs to be corrected.

[karasuma]

Originally Posted by solomon

No offense guys, but to all these MAKE WALL STREET RESPONSIBLE AND PAY UP criers, I ask

HOW THE HELL DO YOU DO THAT?

(Note I am against CEOs getting rich off stupid risks as the rest of you guys are)

Maybe there is someway that I don't know about, but normally in dealing with corrupt CEOS or politicians, they are indicted and taken to court then if need be settlements are made or fines made. THIS CAN TAKE FOREVER, it seems like they've JUST STARTED Senator Ted Steven's trial last week and he was fingered how long ago.

Very simple.
Any current CEOs of companies come to government for help/money,
1) Your golden parachute contract will be void and your job or paycheck will be set to what government expect. Similar to CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
2) Government IS going to take equity stake of the company. It will be similar to what Buffet gets from GoldmanSack. IE : 10% interest each year on 5B. For this 5B, if the market goes up, this 5B acts as stock. If the market goes down, this 5B acts like a loan. Extra option to buy 5B more share at current price.

Maybe the number 700$ is too big, maybe it's too much all at once. Sure maybe they could add some more gov't oversight. I still fail to see how we can get out of this mess, without some large intervention by the gov't temporarily. I hardly think we are suddenly gonna transform into a managed economy over this, which is what I think some use as fuel for their "ideological" dissent.

Problem is lack of interest or money for commercial paper. IE short term loan to companies. There is debate on how real that is or it is just scare tactic.

You can solve this by something like :
1) Form a 700B national bank and have it buy commercial paper directly.
2) Give every citizen a $2300 5 year CD account. You can't touch it for 5 years. That is the same as putting 700B deposit to the whole banking system for 5 years. Hence, help the bank but it is our money.

What Paulson's plan is :
1) Have taxpayer take the toxic mortgage off GoldmanSack and Morgan Stanley. (Let's face it, they are the cowboys during the good time and they have the most toxic waste. Paulson makes it sounds like a financial system rescue, but it is really for a few selected big banks)

So, Paulson's plan is a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to bankers. His plan definitely is a no go.

===================================

Ok, so, do we have a real problem?

Recession is a real thing and it is a normal thing. Like the tech bubble happened in 2000. No one rush to government and said "Bail me out or tons of techies are going to lose their job!". Somehow, when it happens to the bankers, they have the ear of the government. So, I said "All in. I will call your bluff". I will save my 700B and see your bluff on economic collapse. I bet this slow down will feel no worse than the internet bubbles for techies.

[karasuma]

Originally Posted by Vexx

It isn't the dollar value (though we now know that $700B was literally pulled out of thin air). Its where its being applied that reasonable people might disagree on.
I think that increasing confidence in the credit markets is a matter that simply wasn't addressed in the bill. I also think the administration blew what remains of their credibility in the way the whole thing was developed and presented.

A lot of congresscritters voted against it for the wrong reasons.. .but that doesn't mean it wasn't a mess that needs to be corrected.

You are totally correct. To address the confidence and trust issue, they have to "mark their asset to market value". That means some of them will go bankrupt. Hence, they ask Paulson to take their junk to taxpayers in exchange for cold hard cash.

[WanderingKnight]

It's not like Roosevelt actually launched a revolution when he declared the bank holiday back in the very lowest point of the Great Depression, he just kept going on and on about how everything's going to be okay after the holiday's over, and boy, it actually got better, not because he was tinkering with the thousands and thousands of loose screws within the system, but because he convinced the people that they can let the money flow again safely, and with the rivers back online, things slowly improved.

Well, there was the war, too. War fuels the arms industry, and that's what the US has been using since a long time ago to pull itself out of recession.

By the way, I see this more and more as an opportunity to FINALLY have a world without a single point of reference when it comes to domination. The US doesn't seem to be able to pull itself out of this crisis without a huge effort and giving up a lot of its current power over the fate of the world. Europe is still not in shape to regain its former relevance, and India and China both are too closely linked to the fate of the dollar to be able to catapult themselves into power.

As for our own country, we are rather isolated from most of the world's cash flow... except for the fact that, stupidly enough (or not so, in accordance to other interests), this isolation has little to do with self-sufficiency, but with the fact that those shitheads in our government saw fit not to have some sort of economic planning and let everything depend on the price of commodities, namely soybeans. And who's the world's biggest soybean consumer? China. A China that will shortly cut down its demand for soybeans due to the fact that it depends way too much on the US dollar.

And when that happens, we're screwed.

[TigerII]

No offense Knight, but isn't Argentina the one that decided to raid people's bank accounts in the 1980s?

[WanderingKnight]

No offense Knight, but isn't Argentina the one that decided to raid people's bank accounts in the 1980s?

That would be 2001. In 1981 the military government (under the supervision of the US government, of which it was a puppet) carried away, however, exactly what the US attempted to do with this bailout.

[mg1942]

This just in, the Senate will vote on the "rescue bill" on Wednesday.

[Vexx]

But which one we wonders.... what has they gots in their pocketessss?

[Solace]

Hmm.

This was recorded when the 1987 crash happened. As you will see, the tape is very old, so the sound and video are pretty bad. But still viewable.

You'll find some interesting parallels. Especially on the congressional side.

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by Solace

Hmm.

This was recorded when the 1987 crash happened. As you will see, the tape is very old, so the sound and video are pretty bad. But still viewable.

You'll find some interesting parallels. Especially on the congressional side.

Wow, Congress literally did not change, that is definitely something wrong.

[karasuma]

Originally Posted by mg1942

This just in, the Senate will vote on the "rescue bill" on Wednesday.

Ha. They want to ram this down house reps who oppose it. Unfortunately, they are pros. It probably will work. I will have to give them hell with my measely 1 vote...