Gov Bailouts... what is your take?
Gov Bailouts... what is your take?
I just heard a number we have spent 816 Billion in bailouts already - needed IDK... where does the line in the sand get drawn? many other banks are in the same boat. 816 billion is a lot for us to pay back. what do you think?
McCain was against AIG bailout now he is for it... why?
discuss.
I think Mr.KiDD said it best, we're f**ked.
K series 626. That's right. It's got a K in it.
Its BS. the companies should have planned for something like this.
The University of Florida Gators 2008 Football National CHOMPions.
the government should not bail out any company, period. Doing so goes against the Constitution.
The goverment shouldn't bail out any companies...Like has already been stated, some financial planning for times like this should have been implemented.
ttt - now that this seems like it is going to happen 700+ billion dollar bailout... what are your thoughts? Bush/Dem's have different ideas... what is your take? if we are going to bail people out who/how/why?
So long as we get something in return and this isn't just a blank check with no return investment then yea ok. It's worked in the past.
Epic Foxbody Thread Crew Member #10Originally Posted by AlanŽ
Two words: Hyper Inflation
Three words: Super Hyper Inflation
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
one word: explain. lol
If the government spends $700 Billion on a bailout.. that is $700 Billion additional dollars in circulation.
I'll put it like this, a Porsche 911 is expensive because it is rare. Demand is high and supply is low... that drives the value up.
A Toyota Corolla on the other hand is much cheaper.. you can go down to the dealership and buy one right off the lot, there are many more Corollas on the road than Porsche's.
More dollars on the market drives the value down, so imagine what 700 Billion dollars does to the value. When the value of the dollar drops, the economy suffers because whatever valuables you posses just got cheaper, furthermore whatever valuables you WANT to posses just got more expensive due to the drop of the dollar.
Notice a barrel of oil went up $16 dollars today.. there is a reason why.
^^^oooooo bbbuuuurrrrnnnn
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
I thought part of the reason also was because the speculators jumped back in to the game.
Epic Foxbody Thread Crew Member #10
Depends on how you look at it, my understanding was speculators reacted to the drop of the dollar which drove the price up.
Either way I don't think it will matter we're pretty much screwed for awhile. So I guess when gas does come back down we'll be looking at mid $3/gallon instead of around $3 flat?
Epic Foxbody Thread Crew Member #10
While I agree we have to do something with these firms, i.e. bailout. I want something in return. They ****ed this up and they should not get out free. I would like to see the govn't own share in the company coming out of this. They/taxpayers fronted the money, we should see some return when the company comes back.
Rich...Bob...Stan...?????
I'm glad they did only because my sister gets a check form them every month for the death of her husban. and if she did not have that she would lose every thing. but it is a bad thing because it does drop the dollars value!
u do understand that this laissez fair action is very socialist to some of you, right?
just no body told you about it yet to label anyone about it because it seems like the right plan of action.... lol
changing markets needs changing times of action. there is no socialist, capatilist, mix etc system that exist without flaw.. it always take adaptation and change to the markets and global movement. now the republicans and democrats are calling for more governance when last 2 election the republicans were claiming, less governance, lower higher bracket taxes, free markets supply demand will hold for itself, companies will figure it out, bla bla bla. in reality there was alot of governance, and they know what we know, that variables changes and we cant let humans run it. we are greedy, sometimes dishonest people..
them being fickle makes it worst with the bailout.
you guys have your economical philosophical labeling in order now?
Last edited by v-empire; 09-23-2008 at 01:12 PM.
The goverment sure wouldnt back any of us up like that, nor would any of the banks that we are part of. If we went in over our heads, they'd just jack up our credit and force us to make larger payments BECAUSE we messed up. It doesnt seem fair and I'd rather have the market suffer.
IF we cant mess up and get away with neither should the banks (and so on) get away scott free.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
I dont understand that part of your post, laissez faire is translated as 'allow to do,' it is a capitalistic ideal not socialist. Laissez-Faire would have been to let AIG crumble.
The reason gas went up significantly yesterday was because the bailout was viewed as inflationary. When there's lots of inflation investors turn to the commodities (currency, energy, etc) to hedge their money. Obviously if they thought there was going to be inflation of the dollar, than the value of the dollar would crumble, and once the dollar falls the price of oil rises, regardless of the fundamentals behind the two. However its not a big deal since those October contracts expired yesterday, hence oil isn't up in the 120s today, and it actually ended down to about 106 or so.
i agree
....True ////OFFSET\\\\
Somehow its related to the republican party... somehow... hmm... IDK, reppin for change I see.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
What you all fail to realize is that the govt. is doing the bailouts b/c it's their money anyways. All those loans are govt backed and insured. So if they fail now or later it's still the govt's money. They are taking over the companies to make sure the companies don't do crazy things to try and get themselves out of debt and lose more money.
Last edited by nsany(atl); 09-23-2008 at 08:39 PM.
The public sector should not have to pay for the private sector.
This situation reminds me to the ideals to which Karl Marx, Das Kapital, speaks of regarding the weaknesses of the capitalist system.
92 EH2 - Current "We will build him, better, stronger, faster."
98 EJ8 - Stolen (Thieves)
the money came from Fannie May and Freddie Mac, and they use the govt's money to make loans. So if the taxpayer defaults it is the govt that loses out in the end anyways
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are privately owned shareholder corporations, the government simply guarantees the loans that they underwrite, neither corporation is directly funded by or use government funds for their loans.
I don't normally watch Fox News but Bill O' Riley had an interesting point of view at the opening of his show.
In a nut shell our economy is a social contract that basically says that we as consumers are supposed to trust in the fact that the market isn't rigged and that we are getting a fair deal because the government is there to regulate it. He went on to say basically what I have believed all along with the mortgage crisis. While it is easy to blame any one person, party, company, etc. The blame must be spread out evenly. The government didn't do their job by regulating the companies, the companies didn't do their job by not being too greedy, and we didn't do our job by being responsible without money, credit, etc.
Epic Foxbody Thread Crew Member #10
I'm a month behind on my car payment, where's my $300 bailout.
The lesson should be that history repeats its self. When a company is so big that its failure has such a large effect, it's too big. I thought we went through this earlier in the century.
growth and profits are the focus of today's market and business, sustainability doesn't make the share holders quick money. Accountability means letting business fail. Bailing them out just encourages more of the same.
The market shares of Wal-mart simply engulfed all smaller entities in the goods market that would have continued to grow to keep pace with demand and consumer needs if they were still around. The numbers of smaller merchant failures that would have to occur to equal the failure of one the one large entity is just about impossible. Wal-Mart employs more people than all the branches of the armed forces combined, their failure (not likely) would seriously disrupt the economy and job market (not that they do much for their employees) and with their destruction of smaller industry and merchants, there are not enough smaller entities left in existence to absorb and fill the gap such a failure would create. The number of new merchants need to fill the gap would take decades to create. I used Wal-Mart simply because most people deal w/ and understand Wal-Mart much better than the banking industry, futures markets, and speculatesrs. All the eggs are in too few baskets.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
