Economic Crisis of 2008/2009

[mg1942]

They better tweak the Bill on Tue/Wed!!!


There was more working against the package than just Pelosi's speech.

1. The placing of unprecedented power into the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, with no Congressional oversight. This is a recipe for the growth of graft and cronyism.

2. The nationalization of our lending institutions, with the aforementioned Secretary holding the reins of power.

3. Republican Congressmen responding to the wishes of their constituents, who were absolutely livid about the bailout. E-mails to these congressmen were running 80 to 1 against.

4. The arrogant approach of Paulson in his negotiations with the Republicans. The former chairman of Goldman Sachs, an institution that got an 85 billion dollar "gift" largely because of his influence, has motives that are highly suspect.

[solomon]

Reason's 1, 2 and 4 I can understand.

3; Meh, I think some people are gonna have to eat it, I mean I don't know WHO will eat WHAT. But especially politicians are gonna have maybe bite a bullet, both Liberals and Conservattives

[Vexx]

Aye, I think we're on the same page with all 4 of those points, especially point 4. I view this as some eyes having the wool *finally* removed after eight years of duping.

Actually, the Democratic congressman were also taking vast amounts of heat about the proposal as is. Many Dems voted against it for fear of being tarred and feathered in their home districts because of point 1 and point 4 coupled with the notion we were rewarding the weasels that were playing the finance system like Vegas.

[mg1942]

...coupled with the notion we were rewarding the weasels that were playing the finance system like Vegas.

Man you ain't helping Las Vegas with the statement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFj_1F6R52s&fmt=18

[solomon]

I mean I respect the criticism on some of the points, particularly 1 and 4.

However, I seriously have trouble giving any sympathy to politicians worried about getting re elected. I see that as too self serving short term viewing, After all I thought this was supposed to be a "stiff upper lip" kinda bill that sucks generally but would prevent calamity in the forseeable future, How much further to the bottom do we have to fall?

Listening to the NewsHour anaylisis about it, a general concensus is that "Ok they can say this now, but once more banks fall and Joe Sixpack is directly affected more, then the Ideological arugements will be tempered somewhat."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/busin...ote_09-29.html

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I've quoted it several times, but I think it bears saying again: "Every one's a socialist at some point."

It's just a question of what point and how. My personal preference is that all socialism be a layer on top of an economic system, not PART of the economic system. Freedom, robustness, and safety. The bailout is putting the government right at the core of the system.

If that's the case, it's essentially a question of ideology moulded by historical experience. Coming as I do from a system that works because the government is virtually everywhere in the economy, it's not surprising that I am partial to a more robust form of socialism than many Americans would like. Not that I don't see the potential abuses that such a system could create, but at the same time, I also see its benefits as a social leveller that narrows the gap between the free-wheeling rich and the dirt poor.

At a time when corporate governance has failed so spectacularly, I wouldn't mind having the government take over for a provisional period, at least until the books have been cleaned up. So, in principle, I would support some form of taxpayer intervention in this mess, provided that taxpayer interests come before the interests of failed corporations.

I'm still trying to digest all the details of the now-defunct Bill, and to the extent that it only barely manages to cover the first principle I suggested above, I'm not surprised that it didn't pass in the end.

Originally Posted by Vexx

You're hearing the screams of testicle-waving day-trading speculators who just got their waving ways scrunched. Investors tend to be more measured in their response - if you didn't sell this morning you're probably best off riding it out. And it might be a good time to pick up some deals. ... even if it drops more, the only thing that really matters is how much you bought it for and later how much you sell it for.

Yes, I largely agree. The markets are over-reacting, no thanks to speculators. Anyone who thought that this Bill would have passed Congress smoothly is either delusional, or just another financial scalper.

Unfortunately, real or imagined, the panic will inevitably have an impact on the real economy. At the very least, it will prolong, if not heighten, the credit crunch for legitimate borrowers who need short-term credit to manage their cash flows, pay salaries and buy inventories.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. It would merely be the first step in the deflationary approach towards solving this problem. Speaking as an outsider, it would make an interesting case study for whether it's better to let reckless firms collapse, or to continue the logic that some companies are too big to fail.

But I wonder if ordinary Americans are really ready to put up with the very acute short-term pain that will follow from letting Wall Street implode. We'll soon know over the next few weeks.

Originally Posted by karasuma

Proposed solution: http://www.denninger.net/letters/fixit.pdf

Key points:
1. Force all off-balance sheet "assets" back into the balance sheet.

2. Force all derivatives onto a regulated exchange similar to that used by listed options in the equity markets.

3. Re-instate the original leverage ratio of 12:1.

The above solutions are actually sound. Greater accounting clarity and stiffer controls on leverage ratios are good to have. Even if the bailout plan went through, these solutions would have to be implemented, otherwise what's the point of putting the government in charge of the financial system?

The question remains. Do you let Wall Street collapse first, then pick up the pieces later, or save what you still can? Today, the House has opted for the former. Let's see how that will play out.

In the end, bear in mind that the crux of the probem is that the virtual economy has been divorced from the real economy. Whether or not the bailout occurs, the US still has a lot to do to shore up its own domestic and export economies: America needs a build-up, not just a bailout

[Aquillion]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

For those who go "TL;DR", I'll sum it up: "<explanations on the "how" of the crisis>. Banks are in trouble, and thus, so is everyone." I accept that banks are in trouble. I even accept that something has to be done. But what that post didn't explain is why that "something" has to be giving the people who got us (and I say "us" even though I'm European) in trouble in the first place unchecked authority over a trillion dollars so they can practically give it away with no counterpart.

Well, it isn't that simple. Several points:

1. We're not just giving the money away. The government would used it to buy up mortgage banked securities that, realistically, no private company can afford to buy in the current market, on the belief that the market will eventually recover and the government will be able to sell them back. We may or may not make a profit, but the actual long-term cost will not be anywhere approaching the 700 billion figure; it's an investment, not a giveaway. (As several people have said, now is a good time to buy, so actually seeing a profit for taxpayers from this buy is not such a farfetched idea.)

2. It's not unchecked. Several restrictions and layers of oversight were added to the final version; the most important one stipulates that if we haven't made back the 700 billion dollar investment, it will be recouped by additional taxes on the Wall Street firms that benefit most from these purchases, essentially turning it into a loan rather than an investment.

3. The main reason why it has to involve injecting a large amount of money into the economy comes down to the real problem: With these collapses, there is simply not very much money out there for lending. Without money available for lending, economic growth is going to slow sharply -- it will be harder to start new businesses, start new homes, go to college, important things like that. The businesses that are impacted by this will often fold or scale back operations. People will get paid less, and many will lose their jobs. Those people will in turn not be able to buy as much, which will result in more pressure on other businesses -- who won't be able to take out loans to cover the harsh times.

I can even sympathize, somewhat, with the economic conservatives who would like to find another way out. But none of their suggestions address the real problem; there needs to be money available for lending, and it needs to be available right now. Subtle efforts to change the behavior of financial institutions are an excellent idea if you have a suggestion as to how we can implement them five years ago; but right now, we're facing an almost-complete drying up of vital lending money that our economy needs to survive, and one way or the other, that money will have to be replaced if we're going to avoid one of the worst recessions since the great depression.

(Yes, that sounds like hyperbole. It is not. There are also many economic conservatives -- within the administration, in particular -- who favor this plan because they fear that the sort of recession we will see if this isn't done would result in far, far worse and longer-term government intervention in the economy in the long term.)

There are other options, but not many. Right now the only reasonable alternative that is going to get that kind of money available in time is to simply print it and consequences be damned. That is a much, much worse solution, because it means that we will all end up paying for it in inflation; but it is preferable to suddenly entering a situation where practically nobody can buy a house, start a business, or go to college, which is a not merely a very real possibility, but is what will happen otherwise.

[Vexx]

Item 3 of Aquillion's list is already happening. Try going in for an auto loan and see. If you have a 5-star godly credit rating, you *may* get a loan and the interest rate will be a bit different than what you grew up with.

I'm wondering how this will affect college loans in the near term for many folk...

[TinyRedLeaf]

^ Well, on the bright side, this could encourage American consumers to *gasp* start saving again, instead of spending beyond their means.

My greater concern remains with small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). If the credit crunch worsens, they will be among the first to feel its effect. Large, publicy-listed firms will have other means of raising short-term cash that SMEs don't. If SMEs start to fail, believe me, the dangers to the real economy would become immediately apparent.

Once again, time will tell. Up until August, the real economy still managed to limp along. Maybe the crisis in confidence wouldn't spread. Maybe it will. As an observer, I'd be curious to see what happens next. But for ordinary Americans, I sure wouldn't like to be in your shoes at this point in time.

[DonQuigleone]

My question is whether all these stupid bankers are gonna be able to keep their pent houses and mercedes Benz, or will they be held responsible in some way?

[Kaioshin Sama]

I have to wonder how hard it is for them to reach a compromise on a bill this important. It's definitely all on the Bush Adminstratio this time as even the Republican party couldn't have been expected to pass a bill giving that much power to one person with pretty much no oversight or strings attached. You don't just give money to somebody if you don't know what exactly they are going to use it for.

I have to wonder just how far the Bush administration is willing to take this. I mean I know they absolutely must pull this brinksmanship game with their policies every single time they put something before Congress and absolutely have to have everything their way, but this is like the fate of the country as we know it practically. Yet still I have the feeling the Bush Administration is going to put it's own my way or the highway style of doing things ahead of the countries welfare and fudge this for everybody.

Can't they just do a quickie motion, impeach Bush, then impeach Cheney and get Pelosi in the White House for the last few months of this term. That way she can have the bill that everyone wants to pass, get it done and save the economy. Is this doable?

You know, on the Daily Show the other day John Oliver made a joke exchange with Jon Stewart that went something like this:

Oliver: "Well you know Jon, President Bush knows he can't ever be considered for the honor of greatest president of all time....but if he tries really hard in this last few months, and really works at it....he could be......"
Stewart: ".....The Worst?"
Oliver: "The last John...."

As ominous as it sounds I'm starting to wonder if it could conceivably happen now.

[solomon]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

^ Well, on the bright side, this could encourage American consumers to *gasp* start saving again, instead of spending beyond their means.

My greater concern remains with small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). If the credit crunch worsens, they will be among the first to feel its effect. Large, publicy-listed firms will have other means of raising short-term cash that SMEs don't. If SMEs start to fail, believe me, the dangers to the real economy would become immediately apparent.

Once again, time will tell. Up until August, the real economy still managed to limp along. Maybe the crisis in confidence wouldn't spread. Maybe it will. As an observer, I'd be curious to see what happens next. But for ordinary Americans, I sure wouldn't like to be in your shoes at this point in time.

Once SME's start falling I think you'll see more people clamoring for more action especially to republican representatives who are leading the Ideological protest.


Also TinyReadLeaf, your outlining of Gov't participation in Singapore Gov't is interesting, but wasn't once a big necessity to get the economy up and running post independence? Plus I read somwhere that such management of economy was tolerated more in the Four Asian Tiger Economic Countries (Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea) plus Japan, partly because of differences in cultural outlook, such as being more collectivist.

(Sorry if this is incorrect or off topic, just piqued my interest a bit, because I never knew that much about Singapore's economy, namely that it has the 6th highest GDP per capita according to wiki).

[Mystique]

US failure hits European shares
London trader looking at stock data
Global stock markets have had a bumpy ride in recent weeks
European share indexes have been volatile in Tuesday trading after a US financial rescue plan failed to gain Congressional backing.

With the US House of Representatives rejecting the $700bn (£380bn) rescue deal, the UK's FTSE 100 fell as much as 3% before recovering to rise 0.3%.
Asian stocks had already seen big declines in Tuesday trading.

US President George W Bush is due to speak shortly on the deadlock over the bailout plan.

rest of news
Yeesh, i swear with all the freaking front page headlines this morning, it's supposed to be some kinda financial apocalypse over there. :|
guardian front page
telegraph front page
(Somehow, i'll go with the typical "facts are blown out of proportion for sensationalism purposes)
So.... if i'm somewhat right on the basic level, i remember a lot of americans where saying that there should be no pay out cause it'd be rewarding greedy behaviour from the banks lending money to your average joe when they have none to give.
(Then why did they lend it, were they hoping to make more via interest or something?)
-So now it's been rejected, it's a good thing?
(basically, if anyone can be so kind to give a recent idiots guide to it all, I'd appreciate it) ^^;

As far as i'm trying to figure out how it'll affect us everyday peeps, well if the dollar drops again to £1 = $2, that at least means some half price shopping for me
For the present time, only those who're into investments and shares seem to be heavily affected it seems like..

[solomon]

Well Mystique, I am no expert but heres my take after reading many articles on it, primarily from the Beeb.


The bill failed in the house due to people being worried about

Lack of oversight/accountability on various items/actions of the bill
A simple violation of ideological views.

This last one is key;

For conservative republicans it is ANATHEMA for the gov't to be engaging in the markets like this, they say "let the markets sort themselves out without MASSIVE gov intervention"

Average Joe Blow American percieves this as a blank check or mere slap on the wrist to Wall Street "Fat Cats" who "fleeced america"

Average Joe Yankee's angry response is VERY important to both dems and repubs. But I think more so Repubs, because they are more hard-line freemarket then democrats, PLUS THERE ARE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS COMMING UP, soooo...yea.

According to BBC's Have your say webpage, opinon is very 2 demensional in being for and against the bailout (more so against in the US, more varied worldwide at least from average consumers)

From the commentators and certain economic anaylsts worldwide (not to mention international politticans and traders) they expect some drastic action soon to prevent further economic woes, and are generally saying "Some sort of large gov't intervention is necessary" That is of course A broad concensus or nutshell of news analysis that I have read


Also Mystiyque for a great cliff's notes on the entire crisis just go to the Beeb's site, they do the best job of breaking down these large news stories into easy pieces.

[TigerII]

Vexx, college loans were affected even last year. Last year it was insanely hard to get one and even forced me to change my major. In the next few years, we will see college entrance rates fall.

The other scary part is all the smaller businesses that do not have millions to fall upon that will fail. Hell, it may even get empty around here. If inflation gets bad enough the normal American would not be able to afford internet service.

Hard times coming and to make it worse, I have seen videos from other nations celebrating the fall of the Evil American Empire, and I am not talking about middle eastern folk either.

[TigerII]

Anyways, the NYSE has been open for twenty minutes. Lets see what happens today. So far the DOW is 500 above ten thousand. I wonder if it will dip below.

[Shadow Kira01]

The DOW dropped "777" points Monday.

[TigerII]

...yeah...that was talked about several pages ago.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by solomon

Also TinyReadLeaf, your outlining of Gov't participation in Singapore Gov't is interesting, but wasn't once a big necessity to get the economy up and running post independence? Plus I read somwhere that such management of economy was tolerated more in the Four Asian Tiger Economic Countries (Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea) plus Japan, partly because of differences in cultural outlook, such as being more collectivist.

First of all, Singapore is not the United States. We're a tiny island city-state, while the US is a country that spans a continent. What worked for us is very unlikely to work for many other countries, let alone a giant like the US.

Secondly, I'm not 100% fond of our brand of socialist economic management. Neither are many Singaporeans, actually. But I give credit where credit is due, and it's certainly true that in the early stages of independence, government intervention was sorely needed to jump-start an economy that was, at the time, totally dependent on serving the British naval base and the entrepot trade of Malayan manufactured goods.

I hesitate to discuss the topic because 1) It's not directly relevant to this thread; 2) I don't think I can adequately explain the nuances of our government's economic philosophy to a foreign audience.

Broadly speaking, it worked like this:

Spoiler for not being directly relevant to thread:

(1)
In the beginning, the government literally created a domestic manufacturing industry where none had existed previously. It turned a swampland in the south-western part of the island into our first industrial park.

(2)
The government then courted as many foreign corporations as it could to invest in Singapore, to set up factories, and to hire Singaporeans. To ensure that these companies would come, the government took up the mission of educating and training Singaporeans and, more importantly, by totally crushing the power of independent labour unions. In fact, it literally told MNCs that they could go ahead and sack any worker who dared to strike; the government would fully support their decision. The idea was simple: Any employee who refused to work can be easily replaced by another jobless individual who doesn't mind the working conditions.

(3)
But, the government knew full well that MNCs can't be trusted in the long run. These companies could always pack up and go as soon as the market went against them. To counter this, the government decided that Singapore needed its own national companies, to ensure that Singaporeans can always turn to domestic names for employment if the foreigners pull out. So, it set up various government-linked companies (GLCs) to fight the big boys. The government may be the majority shareholder, but it expects the companies to be run as though they were privately owned. The various management were bluntly told that if they failed, they won't be bailed out. You may be familiar with one of these Singapore government-linked companies: Singapore Airlines, which is now one of the most prestigious airlines in the world.

(4)
Over time, the government also set up its own sovereign wealth fund, GIC, to manage our growing national reserves. Together with Temasek Holdings, the government's holding company for all our GLCs, GIC has been quietly investing in global stock and commodity markets, including some of the recently troubled banks, such as Merrill Lynch.

(5)
In effect, all the above means that the Singapore government is intricately involved in almost every stage of our economy. This has created stability and prosperity for many of our citizens, but at a high price that very few Singaporeans fully appreciate. Many of our civil liberties have been sacrificed, for the sake of achieving what was once our top priority of putting food on our tables. The heavy presence of the government in the domestic economy also has the unintended effect of killing many attempts at local entrepreneurship, a development that even the government has belatedly come to regret.

For official references:

• Ministry of Trade and Industry
• Economic Development Board

For an excellent independent reference:

• Discovery Channel documentary on Singapore

[TigerII]

Well, three and a half hours in and no fall out. Up 301.38