Bailout Agreement Voted Down - Stock Markets drop
- Thread starter earth_as_one
- Start date
Stock Markets back Down..... as predicted.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080930/bailout_vote_081001/20081001?hub=World
Nice to see you out of the bunker eagle
I just came up to get some additional supplies. ;-)
Here's a "from out of left field" possible solution. The US government does NOT give the
failing companies a single dime. The $700,000,000,000.00 is dived up to all home owners
and people with mortgages (good or bad...) to invest into the market as they see fit. If they
drop it onto their bad mortgage, it's now a good mortgage. If the next guy drops most of it
on his mortgage and the rest pays off his credit cards, he's still injected his portion into the
market place. If the next guy say's "screw it" and puts nothing on his mortgage and blows
his portion on a new car, his money still gets injected back into the market place.
The people, through their own spending habits, save themselves and the market in a free
market style. Many companies will still fail and many will not, but the bad will be weeded
out and the healthy will be left. The government can still claim to be hero's in staving off a
global economic disaster by throwing out the impressively big$ number of 700BILLION
(where did that number ever come from anyway???) but to the people, not the banks...
Consumer confidence will go up. They'll have a new Leader in a couple of weeks (it doesn't
matter which one) and that'll increase consumer confidence, and any change for the better
(or the illusion of it) will increase consumer confidence...which is half the battle...
This will still hurt, but it's no more (or less) crazy that anything else that is being proposed.
The real downfall for the government would be that the people would have the power to
choose their own future as opposed to being told what their future will be, and will empower
the people which means the government would have less power. This is the big reason why
the above idea wouldn't be allowed to be implemented.
Think of a finite amount of power and money (like energy and mass). there has to be a law
of conservation at work here in that their really isn't less money now than a week or a month
or a year or a decade ago...it's just in different hands. Give the cash to the masses and the
Big Dogs will gobble it back eventually instead of just getting it directly. This might just work
BUT their must also be a law of conservation with respect to political power...and the ones
with the power (Republicans and Democrats both) don't want to surrender any of that back
to the people. That's the rub...
Remember, not only am I not an Economist, but I'm also the same guy advocating to have
public outhouses on the street corners in Toronto and Winnipeg. Just throwing out an
alternative to see if one you truly bright folks can dissect and rework this into a workable
plan.
failing companies a single dime. The $700,000,000,000.00 is dived up to all home owners
and people with mortgages (good or bad...) to invest into the market as they see fit. If they
drop it onto their bad mortgage, it's now a good mortgage. If the next guy drops most of it
on his mortgage and the rest pays off his credit cards, he's still injected his portion into the
market place. If the next guy say's "screw it" and puts nothing on his mortgage and blows
his portion on a new car, his money still gets injected back into the market place.
The people, through their own spending habits, save themselves and the market in a free
market style. Many companies will still fail and many will not, but the bad will be weeded
out and the healthy will be left. The government can still claim to be hero's in staving off a
global economic disaster by throwing out the impressively big$ number of 700BILLION
(where did that number ever come from anyway???) but to the people, not the banks...
Consumer confidence will go up. They'll have a new Leader in a couple of weeks (it doesn't
matter which one) and that'll increase consumer confidence, and any change for the better
(or the illusion of it) will increase consumer confidence...which is half the battle...
This will still hurt, but it's no more (or less) crazy that anything else that is being proposed.
The real downfall for the government would be that the people would have the power to
choose their own future as opposed to being told what their future will be, and will empower
the people which means the government would have less power. This is the big reason why
the above idea wouldn't be allowed to be implemented.
Think of a finite amount of power and money (like energy and mass). there has to be a law
of conservation at work here in that their really isn't less money now than a week or a month
or a year or a decade ago...it's just in different hands. Give the cash to the masses and the
Big Dogs will gobble it back eventually instead of just getting it directly. This might just work
BUT their must also be a law of conservation with respect to political power...and the ones
with the power (Republicans and Democrats both) don't want to surrender any of that back
to the people. That's the rub...
Remember, not only am I not an Economist, but I'm also the same guy advocating to have
public outhouses on the street corners in Toronto and Winnipeg. Just throwing out an
alternative to see if one you truly bright folks can dissect and rework this into a workable
plan.
Wouldn't work and it would be totally unfair.
First off you have to divide up all the money between anyone that owns property (paid off or not) then include all the mortgages (first, second, third, held on vacation property, held on investment properties).
That would divide up your capital to about $100 per person.
The only people it would exclude would be the truly needy and underemployed who couldn't afford a mortgage in the first place.
The super rich with multiple properties would get the most back.
The least deserving would get the most and the poorest, most deserving would get nothing.
I understand the concept of "trickle down economics" and " priming the fiscal pump" but I don't think this one will fly.
And juan Britain and the European Union put mega-bucks into the system early this morning.
Japan a couple of weeks ago did the same thing WITHOUT ANY results so far.
This regardless of what the `Roos do is going to be bad !
Goodeven Trex, It seems that capitalism is on the proverbial skids, I for one will be adding my boots to it's head in an effort to ensure it is never getting up again. There is no fix, the disaster will be deep, long and bloody but at the end the planet should be devoid of free capitalists and we can all look at real human progress for once, going forward the world will enjoy the socialist nirvana including but not limited to universal health care, GAIs for the entire human race, a return of the fish, free education, heavily funded community based permaculture, enourmous expenditures of formerly elite wealthy assets to spur the solar economy and lastly but not leastly free weekend family excursions to the zoos where the last remaining capitalists can be witnessed eating each other. :lol:
Again I'm not an Economist and just throwing things out there but...the truly needy and
the underemployed aren't the ones I'd picture as being the ones applying for loans in
order to be turned down due to a tightening up of credit. They wouldn't be the ones
driving the economy. Therefore you might be mentally cutting the pie (fair of not) into
too many pieces. The underemployed and the truly needy would have (maybe or maybe
not) paid the least into the tax base, and will pay the least to dig the country out of the
financial hole.
I'm not saying even I agree with my own idea...I'm throwing it out there for dissection to
see what'll come of it. Now rip this apart. Maybe it'll inspire you to come up with a better
plan that someone else'll rip apart and come up with a better plan...and so on and so forth.
I found this at loweringthebar.net, and felt it was somehow appropos:
Now that the bailout has gone down in flames, and the nation's soup kettles are starting to heat up, it is worth taking a moment to wonder why so many people seem to be wondering how this all came about. What could possibly explain this meltdown?
Here's one piece of evidence: the Orange County Register reported on Monday that, during just the last year, a single family in California bought 43 different properties, which they were able to do with the help of 43 different mortgages, totaling $24.5 million, provided by helpful Washington Mutual. You remember good old WaMu -- the nation's biggest savings-and-loan until it became the nation's biggest failure (so far)?
I remember having to jump through at least a few hoops when I got my first and so far only mortgage a while back. I did not then go ahead and ask for another 42 mortgages, partly because of a feeling that, had I done so, they might ask some awkward questions about whether I could pay all that money back. But I guess I was just being naive.
Not only did Washington Mutual not raise any particular concerns about mortgage 2, 3, 4, or 5 through 43, it also somehow missed the fact that it was making these loans to felons. The Sonis were convicted in 2003 of "numerous felonies," all unsurprisingly involving real-estate fraud. Well, I guess that would be a surprise to Washington Mutual.
The family sold 22 of the properties it bought with this money, earning $3.7 million. The average profit was 48 percent, and the average time between purchase and sale was only 92 days. Authorities say they sometimes sold to other family members at inflated prices, with the sales then being used by appraisers to justify high prices for other properties. In July 2007, they bought a house for $440,000 in Santa Ana, then resold it 38 days later for $660,000 to Javier Hernandez, who was, coincidentally, their gardener. He later defaulted, making Washington Mutual the proud owner of a house that is now worth only $377,000. But the bank kept loaning them money. I'm not an economist, but this sort of thing might explain what's going on.
"This is a quality-control problem," said Paul Leonard of the Center for Responsible Lending and Ridiculous Understatement. "It certainly is curious WaMu's fraud-detection system didn't pick this up." Yes, it certainly is. Especially since, as an investigator put it, "any idiot can see these sale prices are excessive." Well, that's not strictly true, because we know these idiots didn't. So let's say that most idiots can see the prices were excessive, although there may well be a subset of idiots, such as possibly bank managers, who suffer from Hyper-Price Vision Impairment Syndrome.
Washington Mutual, or whatever is left of it, may lose as much as $2.7 million just on these transactions, and that's if no more of them go bad. Luckily, though, Washington Mutual is hard at work, or at least its spokespeople are. "We have extensive controls in place to protect the integrity of our portfolio and loan processes," said one, apparently referring to controls that were put in place during the last 15 minutes
Now that the bailout has gone down in flames, and the nation's soup kettles are starting to heat up, it is worth taking a moment to wonder why so many people seem to be wondering how this all came about. What could possibly explain this meltdown?
Here's one piece of evidence: the Orange County Register reported on Monday that, during just the last year, a single family in California bought 43 different properties, which they were able to do with the help of 43 different mortgages, totaling $24.5 million, provided by helpful Washington Mutual. You remember good old WaMu -- the nation's biggest savings-and-loan until it became the nation's biggest failure (so far)?
I remember having to jump through at least a few hoops when I got my first and so far only mortgage a while back. I did not then go ahead and ask for another 42 mortgages, partly because of a feeling that, had I done so, they might ask some awkward questions about whether I could pay all that money back. But I guess I was just being naive.
Not only did Washington Mutual not raise any particular concerns about mortgage 2, 3, 4, or 5 through 43, it also somehow missed the fact that it was making these loans to felons. The Sonis were convicted in 2003 of "numerous felonies," all unsurprisingly involving real-estate fraud. Well, I guess that would be a surprise to Washington Mutual.
The family sold 22 of the properties it bought with this money, earning $3.7 million. The average profit was 48 percent, and the average time between purchase and sale was only 92 days. Authorities say they sometimes sold to other family members at inflated prices, with the sales then being used by appraisers to justify high prices for other properties. In July 2007, they bought a house for $440,000 in Santa Ana, then resold it 38 days later for $660,000 to Javier Hernandez, who was, coincidentally, their gardener. He later defaulted, making Washington Mutual the proud owner of a house that is now worth only $377,000. But the bank kept loaning them money. I'm not an economist, but this sort of thing might explain what's going on.
"This is a quality-control problem," said Paul Leonard of the Center for Responsible Lending and Ridiculous Understatement. "It certainly is curious WaMu's fraud-detection system didn't pick this up." Yes, it certainly is. Especially since, as an investigator put it, "any idiot can see these sale prices are excessive." Well, that's not strictly true, because we know these idiots didn't. So let's say that most idiots can see the prices were excessive, although there may well be a subset of idiots, such as possibly bank managers, who suffer from Hyper-Price Vision Impairment Syndrome.
Washington Mutual, or whatever is left of it, may lose as much as $2.7 million just on these transactions, and that's if no more of them go bad. Luckily, though, Washington Mutual is hard at work, or at least its spokespeople are. "We have extensive controls in place to protect the integrity of our portfolio and loan processes," said one, apparently referring to controls that were put in place during the last 15 minutes
Related News:
Markets retreat amid growing slowdown concerns
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/02/bailout-markets.html
I still don't see this working in the long run.
Markets retreat amid growing slowdown concerns
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/02/bailout-markets.html
I still don't see this working in the long run.