It's called the risk economy for a reason. I wonder if you have the same sympathy for millionaire investors who lose everything when their projects fail? If you fail to diversify your assets, and are working with a company, there is a RISK that you will lose when/if the company loses. Further, if your bank loan is properly and responsibly drafted (your responsibility as the consumer to check this before signing), the banks failure and selling off of your loan in no way impacts you outside of where you send your payments.

You and many other posters here deal in emotive qualitative notions that are IMMEASUREABLE and have no business in a financial or economic philosophy discussion.


What lies would those be exactly? When the US joined the WTO and reduced tariffs (ie, government diminishing its role in the economy), incomes rose and welfare improved. When Clinton cut the military budget and ignored Keynesian "logic" (Keynes was a twit), incomes rose and welfare improved. Government HURTS the economy, always has and always will. The free market governed by the negative rights model is DEMONSTRABLY superior to a regulated market governed by the positive rights model.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

Your home loan is not an investment that the bank should be able to take away from you. And the banks were trying to sell off loans and no one would take them, so that is why the government had to. They can't sell the loans if no one will buy them. As for people in invest in the stock market or in endevours, regardless of personal wealth, I feel sorry when they fail, but not so much as to take any action, unless they fail down to homelessness, but that is because as a homeless person, they are a drain on society and the economy, when they could be benefitial to some degree as a worker.

The lie that government always hurts the economy, and by removing the government the economy will only prosper. Congrats on pointing out 2 times when the government has failed, that hardly proves that the government fails every single time. While all I have to do is prove just once that government has helped or just once that the lack of government has hurt to disprove your entire primise. The bank runs of the 19th century and our 8th president do more than prove that, as agreed by economic historians.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

More qualitative emotive notions. You're not equally applying your philosophy, and if it requires caveats, it is invalid as an appropriate economic model.

Your home bought on credit is really the bank's home until you pay off the mortgage. If your bank fails, and nobody can buy your loan, you STILL have the contract, that you, as a responsible borrower ensured was airtight, and so you're fine. If nobody buys your loan, and your bank fails, well it looks like you just made off with a house now didn't you? It's basic contract law.

However if you can't make the payments on your loan, why should the bank NOT seize that for which THEY paid? You want to have your cake and eat it too, and **** just doesn't happen that way in adult land.

Many homeless people are criminals or the mentally ill, and thus are incapable of getting or keeping sound employment. A broke, law-abiding, sane person will be able to find enough work for food and shelter. What's more, private charities work wonders, how much of your paycheck do you donate? You're clearly concerned, so be sure to put your money where your mouth is, since you're certainly ok with using mine.



You mean Van Buren's issuance of BONDS (a form of government financing of bloated budgets)? You mean the continuation of the NOTORIOUS unConstitutional activities of Jackson? Your attempt to use economic history (which is largely written by Keynesian hacks) to prove me wrong as actually bolstered my position.

You want more proof? Ok. Hong Kong, circa 1980's had ZERO economic regulation outside of basic worker standards. No import tariffs, no export subsidies, no quotas, and no tax breaks (along with low taxes in the first place) for companies. They were (and still are) one of the most highly developed cities in the WORLD in a part of the globe where poverty reigns supreme. Indonesia is rapidly modernizing after embracing the free-market model, as is Vietnam. TAIWAN started out as a sweatshop state, but now is one of the leading IT producers in the world, and is very much developed. These countries all developed under atmospheres of low to no regulation because the market works.

Enter the EU. The rising tide of socialism and protectionism in Europe made international business nearly impossible, and so the gradual process of European integration began, until today you see an EU that is massively successful in terms of economic welfare accrual (given their low WTO tariffs and even lower RTA tariffs), but terribly socially inequitible, and troubled by financial crises, many of which put our current predicament to shame. If you look at their member nations' economic models you see why; price regulation, work week regulation, subsidies, quotas, incredibly high taxation, and obscenely liberal workplace regulation. This yields a less competitive economy that WILL fail once China embraces sector model economics.

I can think of not one example of government activity beyond procurement can benefit the economy. Then when you consider the taxes necessary to pay for procurement, you quickly understand that procurement almost never yields a net economic improvement. China, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Indonesia all agree that the free market system that you so adamently oppose works out really well.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

??? did you read my post? You know that in just about every contract the banks can call you debt and make you pay the rest of your loan in 30 days, right, regardless if you pay your monthly payments on time, which is what they'd do as a last case senerio (since they often won't get much money because it would cripple our economy), and when they are going under, that is a last case senerio. You won't get a free house, and you accuse me of wanting my cake.

And many non-homeless people are criminals or mentally ill, what's your point? Criminals can be rehibilitated, and the mentally ill can still find a niche in both society and the economy, contributing in some way.


Van Buren's lack of action caused the panic of 1837 to last for 5 years. It was caused by the market making a speculation bubble which was popped when the US government pulled out of the banking business when it refused to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States.

Then there are all the other panics and bank runs that happened thanks to unregulated speculation in the market.

You miss one little thing, all of those economies were starting from crap, with no where to go but up. The free economy will take and raise the lower economies of 3rd world nations and hurt the economies of 1st world nations. Look at China (as you gave as an example), what a wonderful place to live, why don't you move there and bask in the glory of thier free market? Because it still sucks to live there unless you are one of the wealthy, same with Vietnam and Taiwan. Free market will get a third world nation out of where it is, but it will never get them to the economic or social level of the US or many nations in Europe.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

i think its a horrible idea. yes, i understand the economic fundamentals. however, these are large, greedy companies who have abused the system and made horrible business decisions. the executives makes millions.

why should WE bail them out, only to have them end up with more millions? i agree with others - help the average american, and those with mortgage issues.

if we bail them out with OUR money, and then in 2 years the govt sells them for a profit, is each and every tax payer going to receive a check for their share of the profits?
i doubt it

no sympathy on this end for these large companies. make a bad decision, based on greed, you should pay the consequences. the govt isnt bailing out americans who are paying outrageous gas prices, and grocery bills that have added $20-40 more for each visit

the last time i checked, the US wasnt socialist. the govt doesnt need to nationalize these companies. free market - bad decisions and lose money? suffer the consequences

Rescuing financiers? I am afraid not, the bailout is rescuing John Q Public. Millions have been contributing to their 401k's all their lives. Someone like AIG goes under and all those 401k's are worthless. Do you have a 401k? How would you like to be 55, have $200,000 in your 401k, be looking toward retiring and someone tells you sorry, your 401k is worthless, you have nothing. You think you might be a little pissed off? The bailout may be rescuing the companies involved but if is so the average American is not the one screwed.

And you mention bad decisions. Is having and contributing to a 401k a bad decision? It is what virtually every financial advisor probably tells people to invest in to supplement your SS for retirement. It's the sort of thing Bush says everyone should invest in (privitizing SS). He says everyone should save themselves, have a 401k. Thank god that idiot never passed such an idiotic measure.

If the government sells the $700 billion for $900 billion, that is less money that tax payers will have to pay. We will either recieve it back in one of 3 ways, tax breaks, extra services for no extra cost, or paid off national debt which will strengthen the value of the dollar and help the economy.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

no we wont see any benefit. the profits - yeah right - will be spent or used on something else just a bad. this is a free market economy? let the free market work. make bad decisions, bad business dealings and you go under? to bad.

this money will disappear just like all the other money. imagine how far that would go paying off peoples mortgages, letting them own a house and then the banks would have money. and when obama is president, he already said he would raise taxes.

and yes, unless something happens mccain will pay for bush's completely uselessness as a president and obama will be in. people tend to vote their pocket books, and in this economy probably even more so.

its a waste of OUR tax money.

OE, the last time a bailout like this happen it actually lost us money.

Nobody beyond Wall Street will see a damn thing from this, unless you believe in this crazy notion it will keep people in their homes. All of this Bailout does is take assets and put it on the Federal Government balance sheet. It does not address the issue of it being paid off.

Some direct effects that will come right out of the gate is inflation due to the extra 700 billion dollars created by the Fed to buy them. Then that 700 billion dollars will create 3.6 trillion dollars as banks themselves can loan up to a 9 to 1 ratio legally. We are just going to create another mess down the line.

__________________
Pioneers are walking all around singing songs about Lenin and they should be shot for it.

Handlebars

"If you are looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror"- V

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
H. L. Mencken

come on you know you wanna play football..

Beagán agus a rá go maith.

Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

Good points.
If I'd read this post first I would have replied to it instead of posting my own.
See metro-hillbilly post 'Would someone buy my assets, please?' for a related view.