DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The Bailout
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 171, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/29/2008 04:52:25 PM · #1
I feel like I'm supposed to be against this bailout, but I also feel that the danger of economic collapse is very real. So real, in fact, that the bailout may not even fix it.

You've heard of "defining moments"? For America, this may be a redefining moment. I hope we get over our credit-driven profligacy that drives us madly through the sovereign borders of other nations.

9/11, dotcom boom, housing bust, bailout, so much can be traced back to Henry Kissinger and Ayn Rand. The virtue of selfishness, my ass.

09/29/2008 05:08:27 PM · #2
BailOut Fails - Worst Dow Plunge EVER

Edit to add: Love this quote... “This is panic, and fear is running amok,” one trader told CNBC. “We are in a classic financial meltdown, and it’s panic-based. We’re seeing panic selling.”



Message edited by author 2008-09-29 17:11:14.
09/29/2008 05:19:37 PM · #3
Without getting into a partisan debate and blame here, I had this thought today:

My understanding of the issues: The purpose of the government bailout is to avoid an economic meltdown. That meltdown affects main street America via credit freezes, money stops flowing, businesses can't do business, jobs are lost, more people can't pay their mortgage, more foreclosures results in more toxic mortgage assets for comapnies previously unaffected, etc.

So - instead of bailing out the failed companies whose irresponsibility was at least in large part responsible for this - let them fail and spend the $700billion guaranteeing NEW loans to CREDIT-WORTHY businesses and individuals to offset the main concern of the meltdown? Implement strict credit rating guidelines and oversight, but essentially reward protect the banks and companies and people who DID NOT act irresponsibly.

Is this too simplistic? Am I missing something?
09/29/2008 05:22:03 PM · #4
I agree with you 100%. But what do us average Joe Schmoes know?
09/29/2008 05:23:43 PM · #5
Well no matter what happens, I am investing in torches and pitchforks.
09/29/2008 05:24:40 PM · #6
...and vote for Joe Schmoe for Congress.
09/29/2008 05:25:25 PM · #7
ROFL!
09/29/2008 05:27:13 PM · #8
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Well no matter what happens, I am investing in torches and pitchforks.


If you're smart you'll invest in torch and pitch fork futures. That way you don't have to use real money. What could possibly go wrong? ;-)

Message edited by author 2008-09-29 17:27:26.
09/29/2008 05:31:03 PM · #9
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Well no matter what happens, I am investing in torches and pitchforks.


If you're smart you'll invest in torch and pitch fork futures. That way you don't have to use real money. What could possibly go wrong? ;-)


And for a small "insurance" fee I'll back your pitch fork futures in case they fall through, you'll be covered.

Message edited by author 2008-09-29 17:31:20.
09/29/2008 05:43:30 PM · #10
Ok, but I want to make sure that EVERYONE gets a torch and a pitchfork - the poor, the unemployed, and the most overlooked minority in this country - the blind quadraplegic undocumented immigrant steelworkers union. Because nobody should be without a torch and a pitchfork.

angryvillager2.gif
Sold as a unit, $23,499.99 each. Void where prohibited, easy financing is available.
09/29/2008 05:46:21 PM · #11
I'll take two please! And make sure the payment plan includes a big balloon!
09/29/2008 05:51:29 PM · #12
Do you have a discount for wholesellers? I'll take a large shippment of each and put it on credit... I'll go to my bank and take out a line of credit based on the assets in the property I own :)

Sounds like a plan?
09/29/2008 06:00:07 PM · #13
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Ok, but I want to make sure that EVERYONE gets a torch and a pitchfork - the poor, the unemployed, and the most overlooked minority in this country - the blind quadraplegic undocumented immigrant steelworkers union. Because nobody should be without a torch and a pitchfork.

angryvillager2.gif
Sold as a unit, $23,499.99 each. Void where prohibited, easy financing is available.


I don't have any money, assets or even a job but that's ok right? Where do I sign up?

Message edited by author 2008-09-29 18:00:31.
09/29/2008 06:21:05 PM · #14
Originally posted by Eyesup:

Do you have a discount for wholesellers?

I have a discount for Holesellers - cuz we're gonna need lots of them to bury the bodies.
10/13/2008 09:05:03 AM · #15
I'm starting to understand better why the original bailout was a bad idea. It looks like, thanks to England of all places, the bailout will turn out not to be a bailout after all. Here's a helpful article by Paul Krugman, someone who predicted a lot of the problems we're having now.

//www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html?ref=opinion

10/13/2008 10:27:59 AM · #16
Originally posted by posthumous:

I'm starting to understand better why the original bailout was a bad idea. It looks like, thanks to England of all places, the bailout will turn out not to be a bailout after all. Here's a helpful article by Paul Krugman, someone who predicted a lot of the problems we're having now.

//www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html?ref=opinion


The last I heard, buying equity shares in US banks was exactly what Paulson was planning to do.

Coming from an administration that has, until now, had a free-market, de-regulation philosophy, this is a huge change in attitude.

10/13/2008 11:04:59 AM · #17
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

I'm starting to understand better why the original bailout was a bad idea. It looks like, thanks to England of all places, the bailout will turn out not to be a bailout after all. Here's a helpful article by Paul Krugman, someone who predicted a lot of the problems we're having now.

//www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html?ref=opinion


The last I heard, buying equity shares in US banks was exactly what Paulson was planning to do.

Coming from an administration that has, until now, had a free-market, de-regulation philosophy, this is a huge change in attitude.


That's what he's planning to do now, after England has done it.
10/13/2008 11:14:34 AM · #18
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

I'm starting to understand better why the original bailout was a bad idea. It looks like, thanks to England of all places, the bailout will turn out not to be a bailout after all. Here's a helpful article by Paul Krugman, someone who predicted a lot of the problems we're having now.

//www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html?ref=opinion


The last I heard, buying equity shares in US banks was exactly what Paulson was planning to do.

Coming from an administration that has, until now, had a free-market, de-regulation philosophy, this is a huge change in attitude.


That's what he's planning to do now, after England has done it.


I think it was announced late last week, Thursday or Friday, but anyway...
10/13/2008 12:28:47 PM · #19
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

I'm starting to understand better why the original bailout was a bad idea. It looks like, thanks to England of all places, the bailout will turn out not to be a bailout after all. Here's a helpful article by Paul Krugman, someone who predicted a lot of the problems we're having now.

//www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html?ref=opinion


The last I heard, buying equity shares in US banks was exactly what Paulson was planning to do.

Coming from an administration that has, until now, had a free-market, de-regulation philosophy, this is a huge change in attitude.


That's what he's planning to do now, after England has done it.


I think it was announced late last week, Thursday or Friday, but anyway...


Yes, the bailout package was passed last week but the details of how the money was going to be used was not done at that time.
10/13/2008 01:49:09 PM · #20
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

I'm starting to understand better why the original bailout was a bad idea. It looks like, thanks to England of all places, the bailout will turn out not to be a bailout after all. Here's a helpful article by Paul Krugman, someone who predicted a lot of the problems we're having now.

//www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html?ref=opinion


The last I heard, buying equity shares in US banks was exactly what Paulson was planning to do.

Coming from an administration that has, until now, had a free-market, de-regulation philosophy, this is a huge change in attitude.


That's what he's planning to do now, after England has done it.


I think it was announced late last week, Thursday or Friday, but anyway...


Yes, the bailout package was passed last week but the details of how the money was going to be used was not done at that time.


The plan to buy controlling interest in banks was announced on Friday, 10/10.

I read it here.

Message edited by author 2008-10-13 13:49:40.
10/13/2008 01:50:36 PM · #21
Why am I getting flashbacks to the Star Wars Prequels?
10/13/2008 01:50:48 PM · #22
from your article:

"The purchase of equity stakes in companies would be in addition to the main thrust of the $700 billion rescue effort, which involves purchasing distressed assets off the books of financial institutions as a way of unthawing frozen credit markets and getting banks to resume more normal lending operations."

He needs to drop that "main thrust"
10/13/2008 02:06:51 PM · #23
Originally posted by posthumous:

from your article:

"The purchase of equity stakes in companies would be in addition to the main thrust of the $700 billion rescue effort, which involves purchasing distressed assets off the books of financial institutions as a way of unthawing frozen credit markets and getting banks to resume more normal lending operations."

He needs to drop that "main thrust"


I noticed that they announced what they were doing on a friday, which is typically when stories that they don't want to get a lot of attention are announced.
10/28/2008 11:29:50 AM · #24


Goldman has set aside 6.8 million for employee end-of-the-year bonuses. Morgan Stanley has set aside 6.44 million in employee bonuses. Merrill has set aside $110,000 for each of its 610,000 employees.

If we are going to bail these guys out, which I don't think we should have, shouldn't there at least be some sort of regulations or some kind of authority or some sort of education or SOMETHING. Are we really just GIVING them money to screw with all over again. These guys get paid $80,000 to $600,000 a year without the bonuses.
10/28/2008 11:48:48 AM · #25
Originally posted by cynthiann:

Merrill has set aside $110,000 for each of its 610,000 employees.


I don't know where you got these particular numbers, but that works out to $67 Billion in bonuses.

I doubt it.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/20/2019 05:13:25 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/20/2019 05:13:25 AM EDT.