| Author |
|
Michael Retour
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 932
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 7:15pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Greenspan is a fool and he knew exactly what his flooding the markets with liquidity would do. Greenspan did an enormous amount of damage to the economy and Clinton and Bush should have fired him.
You see, these financial wizards have to keep the game going somehow. It is sort of like speculating on comic books.
I believe Fannie and Freddie are now mandated to buy mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and more subprime loans under the terms of the bailout. Paulson said the Treasury would start buying MBS as well I believe (right from Fannie and Freddie and it doesn't matter if Fannie or Freddie issued them or they were bought by investment banks).
The words Alan speaks today are so very different than he spoke as Fed chief. Even his "irrational exuberance" statement was ridiculous as Alan created this mania in people who fancied themselves rich, drunk on speculation.
Guys where I work were crying, literally, when the NASDAQ bubble popped (their 401ks took a pounding and they are still working when they had thought they'd be sipping booze on some beach). They thought it would go on forever. The idiot channels, like CNBC, feed into this. You can't have a strong stock market without a strong economy but you sure can have financial mania without one.
We've run out of bubbles. What's next? All-Star Batman and Robin? Not enough were printed to really impact GDP. Heh.
Mr. Meyers that avatar of yours haunts my dreams.
I am getting so dizzy I am going to lie down for the evening.
Edited by Michael Retour on 14 September 2008 at 7:25pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 7:43pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/14/greenspan-this-is-t he-wor_n_126274.html
Greenspan argued that the country couldn't afford the tax cuts being proposed by John McCain without an equally massive reduction in spending.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Rich Rice
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 08 April 2008
Posts: 195
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 8:08pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
You may not see him as 'worst president ever' but he sure wins the cake in my book.
A one trillion dollar war of no purpose or value what so ever.
Dismantling of government agencies, with FEMA as the prime example. Big government Agencies serving people? -Who needs that? So the department was slashed, then tucked away into other bureaucracies. Nice and neat... and then Katrina rolled into town. Everyone's on vacation... out buying shoes... and the like. And the new 'mini-me' FEMA, being run by yet another appointed hack knowing nothing about the job, just that he's a good ol' boy player. "Heck of job."
Yessir. Heck of a job.
Not to mention the trashing of the State Dept. Passing on the more qualified in favor of the evangelical litmus test "and how do you think you can serve President Bush?" No one has to be good at a job, or qualified. Just as long as you can spit the mantra.... (McCain the 'Maverick' picks the least qualified Republican because she models the mantra so well.... Change!' Huh??? Sounds pretty familiar to me...
Not to mention the endless expansion of presidential powers including the use of signing statements to direct offices to ignore official legislation. One can't get more unconstitutional than that.
Not to mention using terror and war as a wedge to push any and every bit of legislation he favors. Including the trashing of liberties and due process in the name of security.
There's more, but I'll leave it at that. The trillion dollar fuck-up was enough on its own to win the big prize in my book.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jeff Gillmer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 August 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1920
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 9:00pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Michael Retour:
"Greenspan is a fool and he knew exactly what his flooding the markets with liquidity would do. Greenspan did an enormous amount of damage to the economy and Clinton and Bush should have fired him."
Jodi Moisan:
"Greenspan argued that the country couldn't afford the tax cuts being proposed by John McCain without an equally massive reduction in spending."
So, are we supposed to listen to him now?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 9:26pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Mr. Myers who is that in your avatar. It's very intimidating
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You lose coolness points for not recognizing Richard Boone.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 9:52pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Jeff the thing is democrats are allowed to think for themselves and have differing opinions. Silly republican.
I agree with Greenspan on this point, you can't spend the money McCain is wanting to spend and has voted to approve, and give tax cuts. It's all smoke and mirrors.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 9:59pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Jeff the thing is democrats are allowed to think for themselves and have differing opinions. Silly republican
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah. Democrats were very tolerant of Joe Lieberman's differing opinions.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jeff Gillmer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 August 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1920
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 9:59pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Sorry to burst your stereotype Jodi, but I'm not a republican. I'm an independent and choose my candidates based on platform, not if they have a (D) after their name.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 10:21pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Christopher nailed it as Richard Boone, Michael. Its an an old promotional shot for Have Gun Will Travel which I decided to
use since my son and I had been watching the dvds--swapping out with The Wild, Wild West--over his summer vacation. When I chose to resume responding in here on a semi-regular basis, I had to ditch the Byrne Captain America avatar I had been using.
For whatever it says, my son preferred a gadget-laden Jim West, coming to him in color, over a black & white Paladin.
Edited by Michael Myers on 14 September 2008 at 10:23pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 10:58pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Michael Retour wrote:
| Mike, you said "We could lose a hundred Bear Stearns and our economy would still be stronger than any other nations'." up above. I responded to that. You posed a hypothetical question and I responded. How come you're asking me about that? It is your opinion not the real world. Show me your crystal ball and I will show you mine. |
|
|
No crystal ball is needed, Michael. There is the difference of notional value, which by definition, rarely changes hands. JP Morgan Chase purchased the company in a combined stock swap and a lock up stock sale for future shares at an amended price of $10 a share with Fed backing of a non-recourse loan. Pending the class-action suit, that IS the situation.
QUOTE:
| I assert the economic crisis (and I lump them together) poses a systemic risk. That's my opinion. I don't say the sky is falling or it isn't solvable. |
|
|
You went a lot farther than simply saying the "sky was falling" and that the situation was "unsolvable". Do I even need take the time to post the quotes? As it is, I appreciate the current tone...even I am slow to adopt it myself.
QUOTE:
| I believe it is solvable but nothing I've seen from the Fed, the Congress or the Bush team will work in my opinion. I am not making predictions.I've looked at the derivatives vs. so-called assets and believe the derivatives are a systemic risk. You might believe they are a valuable tool to manage risk. I don't know. We've never discussed it. |
|
|
Michael, we have discussed it, and I asked you what solution you offered in place of the derivatives market. You never responded. Derivatives are clearly not only a valuable risk management tool, but serve the dual role of price determiner, and I do view them in this light. As I stated, the risk is real, but I don't see any clear alternative to the extent that your tone would suggest (bad, of themselves, in a systemic sense).
QUOTE:
| No I haven't looked at the restructuring. I am of the opinion the horse has left the barn. Correct me if I am mistaken but hasn't the government given Fannie and Freddie a blank check? |
|
|
To an extent. In real terms, we're so far looking at the ubiquitous, generic approximation of $100-$150 billion for both institutions. We won't really know until the auctions in October. Keep it in mind though, such an 'event' automatically effects what you're thinking of as outstanding possible debt. As I mentioned to Joe, 98% of borrowers are on time and, technically, the former GSEs assets are solid, if overvalued. By and large, the market has reacted favorably.
To me, personally, it amounts to nationalization and this is only redeemed by the restructuring plan as it aims to whittle the two entities down to size. We'll see if this restructuring escapes Congressional mandate.
QUOTE:
| Isn't it really a bit different than explained in certain press? Isn't the Treasury really not so much stepping in to help Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac but it is using them to get through a huge taxpayer bailout to international banks holding Fannie and Freddie and other mortgage securities? That is what I believe. Paulson hasn't named a figure I have heard. Is there one? I suppose the U.S. Federal debt ceiling is it huh? |
|
|
It's the last thing, as you intimate, that he would want to do, Michael. No, it can't be termed a simple bailout for overseas institutions as the collateral is mostly domestic. Overseas institutions do benefit, just not in the direct method to which i gather you refer. The benefit is the same as to everyone else, and to a lesser degree than domestic concerns when ripple effects are considered.
On the last, it is even worse than that, as congress voted, almost unanimously, to actually increase our debt ceiling in anticipation of securing the two former GSEs. Though this was a 'show of force' move designed to ease market acceptance (which demonstrates overall strength, by the way), and it worked in that respect, the very idea of so casually voting in such a fashion is indicative of congressional outlook.
QUOTE:
| A worldwide phenomena? This just sort of sprung up like a new flower does in Spring? No, you have institutions that made very foolish decisions and then the Fed started the printing presses rolling and off we went. |
|
|
If it was, indeed, simply a case of the Fed 'starting the ball rolling', then ALL of the other countries in worse shape than we regarding market overvaluation, would not, in fact, be in a worse spot. Now, this isn't the case, is it? Or, at the very least, market overvaluation would have first evidenced itself in America. Also, not the case.
QUOTE:
| This speculative bubble didn't start with housing did it? You see the various bubbles as different? Or do you see them as just one floating crap game? I see them as one giant casino and there are a lot of drunks that are playing. |
|
|
The common ingredient to the tech and housing bubbles in America is the thread of the Fed in engendering my claims of moral hazard; of which regarding my stance, I believe I've discoursed at length in previous responses. Keeping those statements in mind, I'm not automatically averse to your 'floating crap game analogy'. If by that analogy, you accept the fact that there are always winners and losers...and that it's only when the house begins sliding the losers a fifty at closing time that problems truly begin in your prefered systemic sense.
Either way, both your previous critique and Joe's current critique, as it relates to any current financial crisis in the sub-prime markets either originating or being engineered in America, loses out.
QUOTE:
| You could end all of these programs Monday and what would it solve? You're saying these programs are the root of our economic ills and if they were gone we'd all be swimming in mud like pigs? Just a metaphor Mike so don't get all bent out of shape. |
|
|
Smiling. Do you argue that the mandatory expenditures list is not the foundational expense of our national debt, Michael? To include interest on the money we borrow intra-governmentally? Yes, I am saying that if such programs were not funded in annual deficit, we would not be facing a $9.7 trillion dollar national debt with such interest.
In your extreme, removal of this foundational cost to national debt would, surely, make us all as happy as a pig in mud. In realistic terms, my terms, curbing our Congress' excesses--in even the general sense and for every project under the sun--in allowing our government to borrow from itself in deficit would definitely improve every facet of our economy. This would undoubtedly mean accepting the mandatory expenditure and finding a way to fund those expenditures...while watching every other proposed "new deal" to cross the table.
QUOTE:
| We no longer have an economic base to support the programs you mention do we? So much for your strong economy talk. |
|
|
Michael, our national debt stands at less than 65% of our real GDP, so, BY DEFINITION, we have an economic base more than string enough to support such expenditures. In this vein, we are still doing better than at least 26 other nations---like France and Norway, to name only two--when it comes to managing our debt. What we don't possess is the means to continue such excesses indefinitely; which is why I have at least twice referred to such expenditure as ultimately unsustainable.
QUOTE:
| Why is welfare growing Mike? |
|
|
Michael, it is also mandatory expenditure welfare systems like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare--which are tied directly to mandatory expenditure. In point of fact, direct cash welfare outlay in the United States has declined since the Clinton and Republican congress welfare reforms of 1996. Oh, though non-direct assistance--food stamps, health care, etc--have increased, they haven't yet risen to match previous levels in inflation-adjusted dollars. I'm excluding catastrophic figures and attendant costs; natural disasters like Katrina; etc.
QUOTE:
| I am still waiting for you, and only you, to name me those strong sectors in our economy. |
|
|
Well, I guess I'd better respond to this one.
Edited by Michael Myers on 14 September 2008 at 11:07pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 10:58pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I'm sorry Jeff, "you silly Independent with republican leanings."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12843
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 11:07pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Bush's sub-prime shithole gets deeper and deeper:
Bank of America Agrees to Buy Merrill for $50 Billion After Shares Plunge
Lehman Says It Will Seek Bankruptcy Protection as Suitors, Government Balk
Next up :
Washington Mutual Hobbled By Increasing Defaults on Option ARMs
Edited by Joe Zhang on 14 September 2008 at 11:12pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
