Jump to content
  • entries
    62
  • comments
    464
  • views
    86,981

Largest ever bank heist


supercat

2,884 views

Well, it looks as though the Senate is going to buy a getway car for the worlds' most expensive bank robbery. Unless Congress can stop it, the U.S. may commit economic suicide in the next couple days. STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID!

 

The novel-length Christmas-tree piece-of-Sith legislation the Senate just passed will do nothing to resolve the effects of toxic paper in the credit derivatives marketplace, but will cost us about a trillion dollars. As a result of its passage, the crash will be worse than it would have been without it, and we'll have a trillion dollars less of credit to deal with it. :mad:

 

On the other hand, at least people who want to buy a toy bow and arrow for their kid won't have to pay an excise tax for the arrows. I guess maybe that's a good thing. :x

 

And McCain--what's up with him? He promises that he'll reject any pork-laden legislation that crosses his desk, and he'll name names. So when a bill with more pork than all the world's sausage factories combined crosses his desk, does he reject it and name names? Nah, he simply approves it. How can he expect to win with leadership like that!? STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID!

42 Comments


Recommended Comments



It has gone from a document less than 5 pages to an overblown 400 in this iteration!

In order to get a democrat majority they needed a lot of pork and a lot of barrels.

 

Can't wait to see the easter eggs in this one!

 

Crazy!

Link to comment

The market bailout is unpopular, but the rest of the world expects us to do something if they are to retain any sort of trust in US markets. I'd rather just see regulations or other policy changes that help prevent the same problem from occurring again in a few years, but if they must bail out the market, that money should not be provided without such changes. Bush and his cronies are opposing any changes, which I think is a terrible idea.

 

I think that the bailout money is more of a gesture to other countries than anything. I read somewhere that the actual capital losses of the US market over the past few months is about 5-6 trillion, with over 1 trillion of that occurring in a single day. It's hard to see how a fraction of that infused back into the market will actually help, except to induce another artificial paper gain for a while.

Link to comment
The market bailout is unpopular, but the rest of the world expects us to do something if they are to retain any sort of trust in US markets.

Exactly. Without the bailout, US economy is virtually dead to the world.

 

I'd rather just see regulations or other policy changes that help prevent the same problem from occurring again in a few years, but if they must bail out the market, that money should not be provided without such changes. Bush and his cronies are opposing any changes, which I think is a terrible idea.

I hoped to find more regulations being introduced with the bailout, but that seems not the case. :(

 

I think that the bailout money is more of a gesture to other countries than anything. I read somewhere that the actual capital losses of the US market over the past few months is about 5-6 trillion, with over 1 trillion of that occurring in a single day. It's hard to see how a fraction of that infused back into the market will actually help, except to induce another artificial paper gain for a while.

Nope. Without the bailout, the available free capital in the USA is close to ZERO. Which means, US economy is completely stuck. This would cause deflation and dramatic economy shrinking, causing losses in a much bigger dimension than what we have seen so far.

 

The bailout makes free capital available, preventing healthy industries to suffer even more from the bank disaster. So the money (mainly) doesn't go to those who caused the crash, but to those who rely on a functioning banking system.

 

BTW: I wonder why nobody talks about the massive subventions into the US automobile industry. THOSE are really, really bad.

Link to comment
BTW: I wonder why nobody talks about the massive subventions into the US automobile industry. THOSE are really, really bad.

In addition, it will not help the US automotive industry to become more competitive.

Link to comment

The problem with regulations is that no one can point to a regulation that would have prevented this mess.

 

Actually, no one really understands the mess itself anyway.

 

Without the bailout, the available free capital in the USA is close to ZERO. Which means, US economy is completely stuck. This would cause deflation

Can you explain that a little further? That doesn't follow what I've been reading.

 

The point of the bailout is to put banks on a better footing so that they will continue to loan money to other people. How it's supposed to do that, no one knows, other than some vague generalities.

 

Some economists think we are close to the end of the world, some think we aren't. Who knows? Some version of the bailout will likely go through and so we'll never know for sure.

Link to comment
Some economists think we are close to the end of the world, some think we aren't. Who knows?

 

It feels a bit like the end of Fight Club, it's just missing the fireworks.

 

Speaking of Fight Club, that reminds me that the the Ikea catalogue has surpassed the Bible as the most published work in 2006, which probably is a sign of the apocalypse just as well. At least the soundtrack is ready.

 

Link to comment
Speaking of Fight Club, that reminds me that the the Ikea catalogue has surpassed the Bible as the most published work in 2006, which probably is a sign of the apocalypse just as well.

Things are falling apart quicker than a Poäng chair.

Link to comment
Things are falling apart quicker than a Poäng chair.

 

Ours seem to be pretty robust though. We even have Pello chairs for the kids :(

Link to comment
The market bailout is unpopular, but the rest of the world expects us to do something if they are to retain any sort of trust in US markets.

 

The proper way to regain trust would be to put some of the crooks in jail. If investors see that crooks are free to rob people, should the government's apparent willingness to take taxpayers' money to cover some of the shortfalls created by the crooks inspire confidence?

 

I'd rather just see regulations or other policy changes that help prevent the same problem from occurring again in a few years, but if they must bail out the market, that money should not be provided without such changes. Bush and his cronies are opposing any changes, which I think is a terrible idea.

 

Bush and McCain have tried to reign in some of the abuses. McCain introduced legislation in 2005 to bring F&F under control, but were opposed on what was essentially a straight party-line vote (all of the Republicans who are still in Congress voted Aye; all such Democrats Nay).

 

I think that the bailout money is more of a gesture to other countries than anything. I read somewhere that the actual capital losses of the US market over the past few months is about 5-6 trillion, with over 1 trillion of that occurring in a single day. It's hard to see how a fraction of that infused back into the market will actually help, except to induce another artificial paper gain for a while.

 

That is absolute nonsense. What has happened is that a number of institutions, starting with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have worked to create investment products that were difficult to evaluate carefully. They claimed to investors that they had done due diligence in selecting the assets that went into the bundled products (lying through their teeth), and sold their products far above their actual worth. The products were then bought and sold in the securities marketplace, at prices which had more relation to F&F's claimed valuation than their actual worth. When it became apparent that F&F had been selling junk securities and labeling them AAA, the values plummeted.

 

The money was not lost when people realized that the securities were junk and the values plummeted. The money was lost when F&F fraudulently misrepresented the assets to entice buyers to pay more than they were worth. The markets simply didn't realize it at the time.

 

In order for the markets to function efficiently, asset prices must reflect real worth. A major effect of this bailout--and part of the reason it's exactly the wrong medicine, is that it will prop up the market price of any asset people think they might be able to unload on the government. Not just assets covered in the current bail-out plan, but also any asset class that people think the government might bail out in future.

 

Much of the 'investment' marketplace is a big pyramid scheme. Trying to bail out a pyramid scheme will simply increase the losses.

 

What needs to happen is for the government to use regulations to ensure that the market will correct itself in an orderly fashion, and then it needs to allow that correction to happen. I'd much rather have my 401K drop 30%, but have the 70% of value that it keeps be based upon real assets, than have it retain its price as long as nobody's trying to cash out, and then drop 30% when more people start retiring. Especially if the latter course of action would result in major inflation such that the dollars in the 401K wouldn't have the purchasing power of today's dollars.

Link to comment
The problem with regulations is that no one can point to a regulation that would have prevented this mess.

 

I can think of quite a few things that would have caused F&F to crash much sooner, swallowing up a lot less money and not becoming such a big mess; I can also think of quite a few things that would help resolve it. Of course, if F&F had crashed sooner, nobody would even think of spending $700 bailing them out.

 

First of all, I'd like to see something like the following definition of predatory lending codified into law and forbidden: A person commits the crime of predatory lending if he makes a loan and both of the following apply: (1) There is no plausible scenario by which the loan might be ultimately paid back without default. A loan is considered to be 'ultimately paid off' when it is paid off, and any money that was borrowed to pay it off is also paid off. (2) He has a reasonable belief that he will profit from the loan even if the borrower defaults.

 

I would consider predatory lending, by that definition, to be a form of fraud. Fannie and Freddie would have crashed much sooner, creating much smaller losses, were it not for the practices of predatory lenders who fit the definition above.

 

Secondly, I would require that no credit default swap may be listed as an positive asset unless the seller follows certain rules, including publishing certain information about all the credit-default swaps it sells; no mortgage-backed security may be listed as a positive asset unless certain information for each mortgage therein is obtained and periodically validated, including the credit rating of the borrower at time of origination, reliability of payments, and payment schedule. If the borrower's credit rating was not determined, the mortgage may not be listed as a positive asset.

 

As for resolving the issue, I'd start by disentangling mortgage-backed securities by requiring that the owners acquiesce to a consolidation by lottery. For a simple example, if 20 people each had 1/20 shares of 20 mortgages and five wanted to consolidate, then five mortgages would be selected completely at random from the 20 and given to the five people who wanted to consolidate. Those peoples' shares of the other mortgages would then be distributed to the other shareholders. The net effect would be that five people would hold independent mortgages, and the other people would hold 1/15 shares of 15 mortgages.

 

In the credit default swap marketplace, I would require that (1) no credit default swap may be paid unless certain properties (at minimum, seller and value; preferably counterparties as well) have been made public for some period of time (e.g. a week); (2) no credit default swap may be paid unless the fact of its triggering has been made public for some period of time (e.g. a day); (3) a company whose assets are insufficient to cover all of the outstanding credit default swaps it has written may only pay out early-triggering credit default swaps at a certain rate, thus avoiding have all of the CDS sellers' assets to to the people whose swaps triggered first.

 

Those rules sound reasonable?

Link to comment
The point of the bailout is to put banks on a better footing so that they will continue to loan money to other people. How it's supposed to do that, no one knows, other than some vague generalities.

 

The point of the bailout is to buy a getaway car for the bank robbers.

 

Some economists think we are close to the end of the world, some think we aren't. Who knows? Some version of the bailout will likely go through and so we'll never know for sure.

 

If the government were to refuse the bailout, but put in regulations to ensure that the market corrections resulting from such refusal were orderly, it would hardly be the end of the world. Many assets which were priced above their real worth would see significant reductions in valuation (anywhere from 0.1% to 99.9999999%, though most probably between 5-40%). The market transparency would cause an influx in new capital, the dollar would rise relative to other countries, and things would soon return to normal.

 

If the government goes through with the bailout, we'll soon be in the same situation again, except hundreds of billions, if not trillions, poorer. The bailout won't fix the disparity between asset valuations and worth, but will instead perpetuate it. One of two things will happen: either (1) the government will ultimately refuse a bailout, while it still has a choice, or (2) it will continue to grant bailouts until foreign investors dump the U.S. dollar and a $100 bill is about enough to buy a loaf of bread. Scenario #2 would be the end of the world. Scenario #1 may or may not be the end of the world, depending upon how many trillions of dollars the government wastes before wising up.

 

The best scenario would be to inform the market that the era of bailouts is over.

Link to comment
In order to get a democrat majority they needed a lot of pork and a lot of barrels.

 

A higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans favored the earlier one. Senators who were up for re-election often opposed it, but those who weren't up for re-election favored it.

 

Can't wait to see the easter eggs in this one!

 

My favorite is the rule which provides that makers of toy arrows don't have to pay the excise taxes charged for real arrows. While there's nothing wrong with that rule, it really doesn't belong in emergency legislation.

Link to comment
Without the bailout, the available free capital in the USA is close to ZERO. Which means, US economy is completely stuck. This would cause deflation

Can you explain that a little further? That doesn't follow what I've been reading.

 

The point of the bailout is to put banks on a better footing so that they will continue to loan money to other people. How it's supposed to do that, no one knows, other than some vague generalities.

I am no expert by far, but outside the USA (and UK maybe) there is no discussion. All experts I am aware of favour a bailout (though not exactly like it is done now). Due to the huge amount of bad credits on the markets, nobody trusts anybody anymore, even if the risks are very low. Reduce the bad credits and you regain trust. Then necessary credits will become available again.

 

Some economists think we are close to the end of the world, some think we aren't. Who knows? Some version of the bailout will likely go through and so we'll never know for sure.

Without a bailout, this is not the end of the world, but the (at least for many years) end of US economy. Which will have major negative impact on global economy.

 

Being outside the USA, I would see this as a chance for a fairer, better functioning, better regulated global market. But I would also be afraid of a super power with a floored economy.

Link to comment
So capitalism didn't win over communism, it just lasted a decade longer.

:(

 

Communism's still alive and kicking: see Cuba, China, etc.

 

;)

Link to comment
The market bailout is unpopular, but the rest of the world expects us to do something if they are to retain any sort of trust in US markets.

 

The proper way to regain trust would be to put some of the crooks in jail. If investors see that crooks are free to rob people, should the government's apparent willingness to take taxpayers' money to cover some of the shortfalls created by the crooks inspire confidence?

What SEC rules were broken?
I'd rather just see regulations or other policy changes that help prevent the same problem from occurring again in a few years, but if they must bail out the market, that money should not be provided without such changes. Bush and his cronies are opposing any changes, which I think is a terrible idea.

 

Bush and McCain have tried to reign in some of the abuses. McCain introduced legislation in 2005 to bring F&F under control, but were opposed on what was essentially a straight party-line vote (all of the Republicans who are still in Congress voted Aye; all such Democrats Nay).

As I understand, they wanted to create a new government agency to control F&F. The dems opposed it because they felt the goal was to force F&F to raise their standards on what loans they could buy, thus making it more difficult for some minorities to obtain loans.

 

I don't think you can blame the sub-prime mortgage market for everything. While the passage of the bill might have helped, I think the major force in the crash was the historically low interest rates from 2002-2006 thanks to Greenspan, which helped caused the housing boom. It's not hard to imagine how the unprecedented explosion of construction, home prices (which then faltered, leaving millions underwater on their home loans) and the low interest rates all combined to create disaster.

 

Even among those who bought homes during the boom, are not underwater, and got 30-year-fixed mortgages, it makes me wonder if these securities aren't all that great either. I have a 30-year-fixed at 5.25%, no PMI. I can't imagine that 5.25% will be considered a great return on your money for that long. This is typically only 2% above inflation, and in 2008 a 5.25% return would lose money.

I think that the bailout money is more of a gesture to other countries than anything. I read somewhere that the actual capital losses of the US market over the past few months is about 5-6 trillion, with over 1 trillion of that occurring in a single day. It's hard to see how a fraction of that infused back into the market will actually help, except to induce another artificial paper gain for a while.

 

That is absolute nonsense.

What is nonsense?

 

I don't believe the bailout money will change everything. However, if it gives foreign investors more confidence in US markets, whether justified or not, that is worth something.

 

As for the US markets, the total market cap of publicly traded companies was around 25 trillion, and they have lost roughly 20% of their value in the past few months.

Link to comment
What SEC rules were broken?

 

Loans were written by people who (1) could not have reasonably expected that they'd ever be repaid, and (2) stood to profit regardless. These loans were then misrepresented and resold. How is that not fraud?

 

I don't think you can blame the sub-prime mortgage market for everything. While the passage of the bill might have helped, I think the major force in the crash was the historically low interest rates from 2002-2006 thanks to Greenspan, which helped caused the housing boom. It's not hard to imagine how the unprecedented explosion of construction, home prices (which then faltered, leaving millions underwater on their home loans) and the low interest rates all combined to create disaster.

 

Why were the floodgates of home lending opened to such ridiculous extremes? The notion that someone should be able to buy a $300,000 house with no money down, no verification of income, and not even so much as a Social Security Number is patently unreasonable. No legitimate lender would ever make such a loan. On the other hand, the housing bubble would have crashed in 2005 if housing prices didn't keep going up. So rather than allow a small market crash, Congress opened up the floodgates to all manner of fraudulent demand so as to keep pushing housing prices skyward for another few years.

 

After all, if the housing market had crashed in 2005, nobody would have thought of bailing anyone out. So the solution was to make sure the problem could get monstrously insanely big before crashing, so then the government would "have" to bail out the market.

 

(unprintable language omitted).

 

Even among those who bought homes during the boom, are not underwater, and got 30-year-fixed mortgages, it makes me wonder if these securities aren't all that great either. I have a 30-year-fixed at 5.25%, no PMI. I can't imagine that 5.25% will be considered a great return on your money for that long. This is typically only 2% above inflation, and in 2008 a 5.25% return would lose money.

 

A 30-year fixed mortgage is a great thing to have. It provides an excellent hedge against many types of bad economic conditions. The two main things it does not protect against are deflation and some types of currency revaluations (it provides an excellent hedge against inflation if the loan remains denominated in 2008 dollars, but in some countries the dollar amounts on loans can get inflation-adjusted).

 

What is nonsense?

 

Although stock prices, in the long term, reflect the value at which stocks may ultimately be redeemed, changes in price from day to day do not generally reflect changes in value. If an attempt by 5% of shareholders to unload their holdings over the course of a month would cause a stock's price to fall from $100 to $20, then the stock is really only worth $20/share. The price drop from $100/share to $20/share would not represent a loss of value, since the stock would have only been really worth $20/share beforehand. People wouldn't realize that until after the price fell, but the money was lost when prices exceeded worth; the correction wouldn't cause the loss, but would only reveal the loss that had already occurred.

 

I don't believe the bailout money will change everything. However, if it gives foreign investors more confidence in US markets, whether justified or not, that is worth something.

 

I don't think it will give investors more confidence. It certainly shouldn't. What would give investors confidence would be throwing crooks in jail, and working to ensure that markets are transparent. The bailout will simply attract more crooks to the market to collect more free money.

 

As for the US markets, the total market cap of publicly traded companies was around 25 trillion, and they have lost roughly 20% of their value in the past few months.

 

Again, that's a meaningless number. The price may have gone down 20%, but that doesn't imply anything about their underlying value.

Link to comment
Reduce the bad credits and you regain trust. Then necessary credits will become available again.

 

The fundamental problem in the marketplace is the gap between assets' prices and book values, versus their actual worth. The government's bailout will serve to increase this gap for all assets it does not purchase. Very bad. Further, it will reward people who were betting that they could scam the government. Is that really a good idea?

 

Without a bailout, this is not the end of the world, but the (at least for many years) end of US economy. Which will have major negative impact on global economy.

 

If Congress had driven a stake through the heart of the bail out and passed a law requiring that a large sign be posted on Wall Street saying "If you lose money, YOU LOSE MONEY", the markets would have recovered just fine.

 

Being outside the USA, I would see this as a chance for a fairer, better functioning, better regulated global market. But I would also be afraid of a super power with a floored economy.

 

You should be getting very worried. The Secretary of the Treasury has just been given the power to drain the economy of billions of dollars and filter the money to his friends. Don't doubt that he will use it.

 

I wonder whether it would be better to learn Chinese or Russian.

Link to comment
I wonder whether it would be better to learn Chinese or Russian.

 

Which of the two is so far less involved in "money globalization"? I'd assume China?

 

In case you want invest somewhere, I'd suggest Japan though, it can impossibly get any more downhill for them.

Link to comment
The fundamental problem in the marketplace is the gap between assets' prices and book values, versus their actual worth.

Which is defined by what? The market, right? So if you let the market drop to nowhere, you will only increase that gap. And eventually this goes down do zero!

 

Remember: Everthing is only as much worth as the market pays for it. If nobody wants to buy for any price, everything becomes worthless. Even you car, house etc. and finally even your $$$ on the bank. All their worth is only virtual too.

 

The government's bailout will serve to increase this gap for all assets it does not purchase.

Nope, it will stabilize their actual worth. Big difference!

 

If Congress had driven a stake through the heart of the bail out and passed a law requiring that a large sign be posted on Wall Street saying "If you lose money, YOU LOSE MONEY", the markets would have recovered just fine.

I understand that you have that free market ideology. Even though it is currently proving that is doesn't work well. So what makes you so convinced it won't increase the crisis even further?

 

You should be getting very worried. The Secretary of the Treasury has just been given the power to drain the economy of billions of dollars and filter the money to his friends. Don't doubt that he will use it.

Unlike the USA, Europe is not that much relying on foreign money. Our economy is not build on massive debts like yours. So, yes it will suffer, but on a much smaller scale.

 

I wonder whether it would be better to learn Chinese or Russian.

IMO China is more likely to become world's economic power nation #1 (soon!). Russia is way to much relying on raw materials. Even India will be a better choice.

Link to comment
Remember: Everthing is only as much worth as the market pays for it. If nobody wants to buy for any price, everything becomes worthless. Even you car, house etc. and finally even your $$$ on the bank. All their worth is only virtual too.

 

My house is worth something not because anybody is willing to pay me for it, but because it provides me shelter and comfort. My car is worth something not because anybody would want to buy it, but because it takes me places. Gasoline is worth something to me not because I can sell it to people, but because it fuels my car. Stock is worth something not only because people will pay for it, but also because it represents a share of a company that has useful things like buildings, equipment, and other stuff, plus the ability to use those things to produce more useful stuff.

 

Nope, it will stabilize their actual worth. Big difference!

 

I should have said for unpurchased assets similar to those it does purchase (which people might expect it to purchase in future).

 

How will the government stabilize their worth? What is the actual worth of a $350,000 mortgage for a house which may have been worth $150,000 when new, but which has been abandoned by a non-paying owner and has since been trashed to the point that the structure cannot be made habitable except by a tear-down and rebuild? Some of those mortgages are worth less than $1.00. Not $100. One dollar. I suppose you could say their worth is "stable", since it really can't go further down, but I don't think the government is needed for such stabilization.

 

If Congress had driven a stake through the heart of the bail out and passed a law requiring that a large sign be posted on Wall Street saying "If you lose money, YOU LOSE MONEY", the markets would have recovered just fine.

 

I understand that you have that free market ideology. Even though it is currently proving that is doesn't work well. So what makes you so convinced it won't increase the crisis even further?

 

The apparent crisis is going to increase further, regardless of what the government does, because the real crisis has already grown much larger than is immediately apparent.

 

Consider the First National Bank of Pottsylvania, run by Boris Badenov. He offers $100 two-year certificates of deposit at 41.4% interest (so after two years, you get $200 back). Initially investors are skeptical, but a few investors each month put their money in and sure enough, two years later, it they get paid back double. Soon, more and more investors start putting their money in; the number of investors doubles every year until suddenly Boris stops paying people. People raid the bank and find the vault empty. What happened?<p>

 

Actually, as it happens, Boris was simply pocketing half the money people put into the bank. The other half was used to pay off earlier depositors. As long as people kept putting money into the bank at an increasing rate, the new deposits would be more than enough to pay off the earlier obligations; anything left over could go in Boris' pocket. Once deposits stop accelerating, Boris leaves town with all his pocketed cash.

 

Note that people didn't lose money when the bank crashed. People had been losing money all along. Every $100 someone put into the bank meant $50 more was lost into Boris' pocket. One would not be able to predict which individuals would end up making money and which individuals would lose money, but every single $100 deposit would be another $50 loss that somebody would have to eat.

 

Note that trying to keep the pyramid scheme afloat by injecting more money will do nothing to curb losses. It is mathematically impossible to bail out any pyramid scheme involving non-trivial payoffs.

 

It is fundamentally impossible for the pyramid of investments in mortage-backed securities and derivatives to come anywhere close to making good on its obligations. It is going to crash. It may be possible to delay the crash for a few months, or even years, by injecting an exponentially-increasing amount of money to pay off earlier investors, but that will only increase the amount of money lost.

 

IMO China is more likely to become world's economic power nation #1 (soon!). Russia is way to much relying on raw materials. Even India will be a better choice.

 

The issue isn't just economic. It's military. If the U.S. keeps pumping money into the pyramid until its economy totally collapses, its military will effectively cease to function. The effect of that will either be nuclear Armageddon or a takeover by another superpower. So which do you think--China or Russia? Or should we surrender ourselves to China in the hope that China will use its military to protect its new asset from the Russians?

Link to comment
My house is worth something not because anybody is willing to pay me for it, but because it provides me shelter and comfort. My car is worth something not because anybody would want to buy it, but because it takes me places. Gasoline is worth something to me not because I can sell it to people, but because it fuels my car.

Right, that what it is worth to YOU. The market may think different. And the "profit" you make from using something is independent from its market worth.

 

E.g. Someone drowning would pay $1000s of dollar for a life belt, but still its market worth is maybe a few $100.

 

Stock is worth something not only because people will pay for it, but also because it represents a share of a company that has useful things like buildings, equipment, and other stuff, plus the ability to use those things to produce more useful stuff.

Yup. But to make a stock interesting, many people have to believe that this company is (or is going to be) profitable. Which not only includes making good, useful stuff, but also being able to sell it.

 

How will the government stabilize their worth? What is the actual worth of a $350,000 mortgage for a house which may have been worth $150,000 when new, but which has been abandoned by a non-paying owner and has since been trashed to the point that the structure cannot be made habitable except by a tear-down and rebuild? Some of those mortgages are worth less than $1.00. Not $100. One dollar. I suppose you could say their worth is "stable", since it really can't go further down, but I don't think the government is needed for such stabilization.

Right. But it can stabilize the worth of the still intact houses to stay closer to the initial $150,000. Without stabilization and the current excessive supply of houses, those houses will massively loose worth too. And even those who based their solid financial model on the "real" value wouldn't be able to finance their houses anymore too.

 

The apparent crisis is going to increase further, regardless of what the government does, because the real crisis has already grown much larger than is immediately apparent.

Agreed. But unlike you, I am convinced that strong, efficient counter measures are possible.

 

Consider the First National Bank of Pottsylvania, run by Boris Badenov....

Of course it's not worth to put any money into that bank. And I strongly doubt this is done with the bailout money.

 

As far as I understand, the bailout intends to secure real values from further suffering due to unreal values crashing.

 

The issue isn't just economic. It's military. If the U.S. keeps pumping money into the pyramid until its economy totally collapses, its military will effectively cease to function.

Which function are we talking about? If your military would concentrate on home protection, you could cut costs by maybe 80% or 90%. If you want to continue to try to rule the world by military power (too), the costs will ruin the US economy sooner or later anyway. Even without a crisis.

 

The effect of that will either be nuclear Armageddon or a takeover by another superpower. So which do you think--China or Russia? Or should we surrender ourselves to China in the hope that China will use its military to protect its new asset from the Russians?

Now you understand. ;)

 

Seriously: The more financal interests are spread and mixed worldwide, the lower the chance for a major war which would automatically ruin the attackers assets too. So as long as China is investing into US economy, you are pretty safe from them. :(

Link to comment
Seriously: The more financal interests are spread and mixed worldwide, the lower the chance for a major war which would automatically ruin the attackers assets too. So as long as China is investing into US economy, you are pretty safe from them. :(

 

You realize that chinese investors started bailing out of this early on as soon as they realized what was going on right? ;)

 

That's part of what got this rock rolling now rather than in a year or two.

Link to comment
You realize that chinese investors started bailing out of this early on as soon as they realized what was going on right? ;)

Can't bame them for that, right? :(

 

To keep them staying, provide them a stable, steadily growing economy.

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...