Do you think the govn’t should give Wall Street the $700b?

Here is the thoughts of a Economics professor not married to wallstreet, Pretty much stating my thoughts, let them all gop bankrupt and let the markets adjust. There is too much at stake for the economy to implode, if they fail other investors will soar.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

buy on bad news sell on good news.

@slotplayer 178290 wrote:

buy on bad news sell on good news.

Very definitely!

If you have money set aside, one good idea is to invest in real estate in a while. Wait for unemployment to raise and put some locals to work renovating your house or buy some distressed property and fix it up a bit.

Opportunity comes a knocking – open the door or you’ll find the money under your mattress has lost it’s value….

@allfreechips 178288 wrote:

Here is the thoughts of a Economics professor not married to wallstreet, Pretty much stating my thoughts, let them all gop bankrupt and let the markets adjust. There is too much at stake for the economy to implode, if they fail other investors will soar.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

That’s the guy I mentioned seeing on c-span in a previous post. I didn’t catch his name as I saw it from the middle on. but now recall it after reading the article.

However, they had a caller segment and one caller brought up the Community Reinvestment Act and he said that was not the problem, he also said that sub-prime loans were just a small part of the problem. He’s kinda saying the opposite in the article. But at this point I’m tending to agree, just let the chips fall where they may. I didn’t know about the Community Reinvestment Act until this mess surfaced, however I did notice the ease with which loans were being handed out.

Can’t trust wall street, can’t trust the politicians. Who can be trusted?
This appears to be one of those “no matter how you slice it, it always comes out the same” which brings us back to the original problem, greed.

Here is the thoughts of a Economics professor not married to wallstreet, Pretty much stating my thoughts, let them all gop bankrupt and let the markets adjust.

No offense, but there is a saying – “if you can’t do it teach it”. Of course the idea is great in theory, the only problem is that in practice none of us want to go through market self-adjustment.

Here’s one from a 3 term House Rep that Voted Yes on the B.Bill, knowing he might not be re-elected for doing so.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/marshall.economy/index.html

There lots of brilliant people on both sides of this thing, and I don’t think any of them are willing to say THEIR WAY is the guaranteed solution! LOL

I don’t think there is a good solution, just the lessor of two evils.:Cry:

I know enough to say that putting 700 Billion into the system to pay for extreme risk takers will not solve anything, it will make it much worse if Wallstreet knows it can take these risks that are like betting on a 7-1 horse and keeping the winnings or making someone else pay if you lose. Simple economics here as we are relieving all risk for these guys making giant bets that we wouldnt touch.

Then when you see the guy saying we need this 700 billion bail out right now no strings attached is a board member of a Goldman Sacks you need to start asking yourself what his plans really are.

THe economy will not implode on this, they made a giant mistae by bailing out the things they already did, do not let them go the final step. Do not let them fear you into thinking this is a must pass bill.

Then now we hear the rest of the world is saying it must pass as its hurting them, why the hell dont they chip in then?

On fifth read of the Professor Moron’s article, I cannot believe you actually agree with his opinion. He is so out of touch with the real world, it makes me sick. Just look at these zingers:

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

The largest shareholder is Average Joe. I don’t know the logic behind a 50-year-old working class guy seeing his $200,000 IRA and 401K wiped out only because he may pay the maximum of $2,300 in extra taxes over the next 5-10 years (worst case scenario on the 700 billion plan). I am sorry, but this makes absolutely NO sense.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

Is he nuts?!? Did he just not see Wachovia disappear overnight?!? Doesn’t mr. Moron understand that there are tens of thousands of creditors to a big company, who are far from being able to run the company they now own, even if they are able to get together and try to keep the company in business? All the creditors own are assets, which they will likely try to sell in order to minimise their loss. Doesn’t he realize that those big companies employ hundreds of thousands of people, who will now be without jobs? Which in turn will hurt any other business, otherwise with good balance sheet?

If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else.

Who? Who is this someone else? Who else is the business of commercial paper? I just don’t see who else could fork out trillions of dollars in loans overnight…Oh, wait, I found one – the TAXPAYERS.

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street’s hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

What? The current freeze is due to the fact that the banks have no idea how much those assets are worth and they don’t want to take the risk and lend out to other banks. The credit was frozen BEFORE talks of bailout began.

The administration’s claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion. If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value.

Private parties don’t want to buy those assets because they don’t have the holding power to make them profitable. The government on the other side can hold the assets without problem until the market stabilizes, i.e. until they are worth something. There is no such thing as worthess house. The property alone costs something.

By the way, I hope Dominique is FOR the bailout plan. Dom, you just said “If you have money set aside, one good idea is to invest in real estate in a while.” That’s exactly what the Treasury was trying to do. If you see it as opportunity – you also should agree that taxpayers can make money out of this.

You know what we have foregotten is this was just a house vote. The senate has to approve it too and I seen Bill Nelson, the senior Dem. U.S. Senator from Florida, on the news last night saying he didn’t think he was voting for the bill either. 93 Dems in the house voted no so even if the bill gets through the house it’s no done deal. I can’t see how reps. are getting all the blame for the defeated bill when this high profile dem. senator goes on tv and says this. Go figure!

I think we are beyond who is to blame.

The current bill will not and should NOT pass anywhere.