Complaints about a bail-out aren't worth expending the least bit of energy on. Bail-outs are happening already, and will continue to happen at ever larger extents for years to come, that's all there is to it.
The reality is that the government is not capable of standing up to either it's well-connected supporters or noisy constituencies. Just look at who the biggest political donors have been for many years: it's largely financial firms. Even more importantly, the vast majority of home-owners become down-right livid when they see the value of their properties decline, and will demand the politicians do something about it.
When you consider that something like 60% of Americans own homes, it's easy to do the math as to which voting block politicians are going to listen to.
Lastly, it's worth considering that the worst sin for a politicians is to be seen as doing nothing when her consituents are in pain or hurting. It's far better to have some half-baked bail-out program to point to as evidence that a congresswoman is trying to help instead of issuing some convoluted statement about how there really isn't anything that can be done and that the best thing is to let the market play things out on it's own. I don't care which district you run in, you will be dead in the water telling home-owners who find their homes have lost value that they should just sit tight and let the economy right itself over time, without intervention.
Do we "complain" about hurricanes or earthquakes? No! When it's an act of God we recognize that there is nothing that can be done about it and that complaints are a waste of time. So why even bother complaining about bail-outs, which are nothing more than forces of nature in their own right?
You complain because that's the political process in a democrazy (intentionally misspelled). It doesn't matter how large your demographic is, if you keep silent it will be marginalized.
Even just this last year, we've seen that enough complaining can change politician's minds. Remember that big stink over immigration? My understanding is it was going to pass, but so many people complained that it stopped the politicians in their tracks. You can argue all you want about whether that was the right thing to fight for, but it proved in my mind that if enough people complain loud enough enough of the politicians will respond that it can have an effect.
As the inequity of the bailouts grows, more will complain. And eventually, people will realize that the .gov doesn't have the money to bail out everyone, so it will stop. Afterall, if there isn't enough to give something to everyone, then nothing for everyone will be the "fair" solution. At least I hope so... :?
If the bailouts would not occur in the example of Bear Sterns then you would have an issue that would surpass all of your worries for the next 15 years.
If you have any money in 401k, IRA, Pension Funds, at least 10% of it was held at that institution. If that were to collapse on Monday of that week you would see riots.
People who are doing these bail outs and working with banks to slow down the slide are doing this to save EVERYONE. They know and have more experience then all of us on this forum combined.
If the bailouts would not occur in the example of Bear Sterns then you would have an issue that would surpass all of your worries for the next 15 years.
If you have any money in 401k, IRA, Pension Funds, at least 10% of it was held at that institution. If that were to collapse on Monday of that week you would see riots.
People who are doing these bail outs and working with banks to slow down the slide are doing this to save EVERYONE. They know and have more experience then all of us on this forum combined.
Ah, we're just a bunch of children who need to be saved by Big Daddy Government. Of course it's all for "our own good". Remember to eat your carrots. :shock: :shock:
They know and have more experience then all of us on this forum combined.
Nothing like this has happened in our lifetime. How can they have more experience with it?
Alan, this has happened in the early 90s.
The experience that these people have is combined from the time of a market economy started. We are not talking about one persons experience of 20 years. Or even a dozen people. This is a machine of funds, lending, and elaborate moves to guide the economy. There is data that is available of cause and effect to regulators of this financial market that nobody else sees or comprehends.
Things like this have happened before, and have happened on the average of 10 years apart.
People who are doing these bail outs and working with banks to slow down the slide are doing this to save EVERYONE. They know and have more experience then all of us on this forum combined.
Um, aren't these the people who encouraged a real estate bubble by providing outrageously low interest rates? Aren't these the same people who relaxed lending standards until a monkey working literally for peanuts could buy a house (even if they couldn't make a single payment). Aren't these the same people who lobby congress telling them that laws which used to prevent crises just like this one must be repealed? Aren't these the same people who have banked billions of dollars profiting during the good times while making sure that small investors take the hit during the bad times?
While I agree the Bear Sterns meltdown could have been terrible if it had gone though, I don't see how that means I'm supposed to trust any of these people.
I'm with RCC. Trusting the people who thought up bundling billions of dollars in credit default swaps, sub prime / alt A loans, and other high risk products... and then hiding them on their books... No thanks.
I seem to recall the real estate experts saying there wouldn't be a bubble in Seattle, as recently as December. They're experts, they know better than we do, right?
I'm a bit torn, honestly. Bailouts piss me off because it takes tax money away from other priorities and rewards reckless financial behavior. Letting our financial institutions spiral into the ground has a lot of consequences too, though. Is there a middle ground to all this?
I disagree. We haven't seen a situation this bad for a long time, if ever.
This is a machine of funds, lending, and elaborate moves to guide the economy.
That machine has failed miserably. Why should I give it credit to operate correctly in the near future?
There is data that is available of cause and effect to regulators of this financial market that nobody else sees or comprehends.
I would argue that the regulators don't understand it either. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. People with reputations to protect often make choices that fit common expectations. Making choices like that does not help you avoid once in a lifetime disasters.
Speaking of which, I really should move away from that active volcano I can see in the distance.
Sure. The middle ground works like this. If an entity is too big to fail, and behaves in a way that assumes socialized losses (taxpayer bailout). Then when that entity does fail, it should be socialized.
I don't mind that the Fed is backing $30 billion in Bear Sterns debt, but when such a thing happens I think the government should (must) invoke imminent domain on the corporation. In short, taxpayers become the owners, and taxpayers recoup any profits if the company can be saved. By the way, in such a deal the owners of BSC stock get the same $2 payout, since imminent domain requires fair compensation.
I would add that the government should not become permanent owners of such an entity. A deal like that should include a plan to privatize the company (for a substantial profit) in say 5 years when the economy is stable again.
Comments
The reality is that the government is not capable of standing up to either it's well-connected supporters or noisy constituencies. Just look at who the biggest political donors have been for many years: it's largely financial firms. Even more importantly, the vast majority of home-owners become down-right livid when they see the value of their properties decline, and will demand the politicians do something about it.
When you consider that something like 60% of Americans own homes, it's easy to do the math as to which voting block politicians are going to listen to.
Lastly, it's worth considering that the worst sin for a politicians is to be seen as doing nothing when her consituents are in pain or hurting. It's far better to have some half-baked bail-out program to point to as evidence that a congresswoman is trying to help instead of issuing some convoluted statement about how there really isn't anything that can be done and that the best thing is to let the market play things out on it's own. I don't care which district you run in, you will be dead in the water telling home-owners who find their homes have lost value that they should just sit tight and let the economy right itself over time, without intervention.
Do we "complain" about hurricanes or earthquakes? No! When it's an act of God we recognize that there is nothing that can be done about it and that complaints are a waste of time. So why even bother complaining about bail-outs, which are nothing more than forces of nature in their own right?
Even just this last year, we've seen that enough complaining can change politician's minds. Remember that big stink over immigration? My understanding is it was going to pass, but so many people complained that it stopped the politicians in their tracks. You can argue all you want about whether that was the right thing to fight for, but it proved in my mind that if enough people complain loud enough enough of the politicians will respond that it can have an effect.
If you have any money in 401k, IRA, Pension Funds, at least 10% of it was held at that institution. If that were to collapse on Monday of that week you would see riots.
People who are doing these bail outs and working with banks to slow down the slide are doing this to save EVERYONE. They know and have more experience then all of us on this forum combined.
Nothing like this has happened in our lifetime. How can they have more experience with it?
Ah, we're just a bunch of children who need to be saved by Big Daddy Government. Of course it's all for "our own good". Remember to eat your carrots. :shock: :shock:
Alan, this has happened in the early 90s.
The experience that these people have is combined from the time of a market economy started. We are not talking about one persons experience of 20 years. Or even a dozen people. This is a machine of funds, lending, and elaborate moves to guide the economy. There is data that is available of cause and effect to regulators of this financial market that nobody else sees or comprehends.
Things like this have happened before, and have happened on the average of 10 years apart.
Um, aren't these the people who encouraged a real estate bubble by providing outrageously low interest rates? Aren't these the same people who relaxed lending standards until a monkey working literally for peanuts could buy a house (even if they couldn't make a single payment). Aren't these the same people who lobby congress telling them that laws which used to prevent crises just like this one must be repealed? Aren't these the same people who have banked billions of dollars profiting during the good times while making sure that small investors take the hit during the bad times?
While I agree the Bear Sterns meltdown could have been terrible if it had gone though, I don't see how that means I'm supposed to trust any of these people.
I seem to recall the real estate experts saying there wouldn't be a bubble in Seattle, as recently as December. They're experts, they know better than we do, right?
I'm a bit torn, honestly. Bailouts piss me off because it takes tax money away from other priorities and rewards reckless financial behavior. Letting our financial institutions spiral into the ground has a lot of consequences too, though. Is there a middle ground to all this?
That machine has failed miserably. Why should I give it credit to operate correctly in the near future?
I would argue that the regulators don't understand it either. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. People with reputations to protect often make choices that fit common expectations. Making choices like that does not help you avoid once in a lifetime disasters.
Speaking of which, I really should move away from that active volcano I can see in the distance.
Sure. The middle ground works like this. If an entity is too big to fail, and behaves in a way that assumes socialized losses (taxpayer bailout). Then when that entity does fail, it should be socialized.
I don't mind that the Fed is backing $30 billion in Bear Sterns debt, but when such a thing happens I think the government should (must) invoke imminent domain on the corporation. In short, taxpayers become the owners, and taxpayers recoup any profits if the company can be saved. By the way, in such a deal the owners of BSC stock get the same $2 payout, since imminent domain requires fair compensation.
I would add that the government should not become permanent owners of such an entity. A deal like that should include a plan to privatize the company (for a substantial profit) in say 5 years when the economy is stable again.