What a crazy fucking day. - Nubblies.net Forums

DJ FC · 09-29-2008, 03:23 PM

Congress rejects the bank bailout.

European stocks down 10%. Dow down over 700 points - worst 1 day drop ever. Is this a market crash?

Mr. Blonde · 09-29-2008, 03:38 PM

in my expert opinion, yes.

Mr. Blonde · 09-29-2008, 03:41 PM

Ugly Bastard · 09-29-2008, 03:59 PM

I can't tell how much of this is Fuhrer Pelosi shitting the bed and how much of it is a reflection of what the people actually want (which would seem hard to believe). Hopefully Barack Hussein Obama's economic savvy can rescue us from this mess.

Sigh...

Ugly Bastard · 09-29-2008, 04:02 PM

I would take use scenario to take to heart a very true and very worthwhile reality: elected officials in Washington are dumb as shit. It's a circus of clowns. Don't let appeal to authority mindsets cloud you from that truth.

Ugly Bastard · 09-29-2008, 04:08 PM

Its just amazing that 535 out of 300 million can be collectively be both incompetent and powerful enough to create a single-day loss of 8% of the nation's wealth.

f3lix · 09-29-2008, 10:55 PM

Congress didn't sell all that stock. People who are thin and can't handle some swings or risk are pulling a tuck and run.

Ugly Bastard · 09-29-2008, 11:19 PM

Yea... right... this isn't Congress's fault.

Biggest point drop in history because of your boy's stance. Called it!

hfam95 · 09-30-2008, 03:10 PM

It'll be back. Calling it.

Heaven Can Wait · 09-30-2008, 06:09 PM

ub, what's with the sudden lack of faith in McCain winning?

Ugly Bastard · 09-30-2008, 08:56 PM

The Republicans pissed off a lot of people by voting against this bill. The election has been shifted back to the parties, not the candidates. Obama might get into office without ever having to clarify his stance on a single position.

Before this financial meltdown, I put McCain at 75-85% to win. Right now it's more like 35-40% in my opinion.

Mr. Blonde · 10-01-2008, 12:51 AM

an email that was sent to me:

Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer

By Jeffrey A. Miron
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.

Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.

If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.

The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.

Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.

So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

Cocktooth · 10-01-2008, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

The Republicans pissed off a lot of people by voting against this bill. The election has been shifted back to the parties, not the candidates. Obama might get into office without ever having to clarify his stance on a single position.

Before this financial meltdown, I put McCain at 75-85% to win. Right now it's more like 35-40% in my opinion.

UB, I'll be honest, your smarts made we waver a bit, but let's be honest here. You are saying, Pre Bail-Out, you had McCain as a 75% chance a winner???? I know you are smarter then that. Look at this country. Even my delegates, this is a sucker bet. To many toss up states. What it came down to, and what Thursday will prove, is that Palin was the worst chose that McCain could have chose. I can't wait for Thursday and niether can my Democratic buddies in this county. This could be the first and only time you see the state of Indiana go Democratic on the presidential ticket. To be honest, we don't have anyone to vote for in the governor race, so I'm not sure I will vote there!!! Congrats to Obama for leading the Hoosier state in the right direction.

DJ FC · 10-01-2008, 10:14 AM

This Harvard Prof is right.

Obama is wrong.

You don't have to bailout Wall St. And you probably shouldn't. But please God don't tax us! Obama will fuck America until it bleeds.

Mr. Blonde · 10-01-2008, 12:08 PM

Mccain is wrong too then buddy.

DJ FC · 10-01-2008, 03:19 PM

No. He isn't gonna fuck the economy with new taxes ending any incentive to earn money in America ever again.

hfam95 · 10-01-2008, 04:47 PM

"what Thursday will prove, is that Palin was the worst chose that McCain could have chose".

Here is Sara Palin at her best

YouTube - Sarah Palin vs. Boom Goes The Dynamite

THEINCREDIBLEdork · 10-01-2008, 05:32 PM

I love her accent.

f3lix · 10-01-2008, 07:32 PM

UB, any reaction to the Harvard Prof? Or am I still an idiot in your eyes?

THEINCREDIBLEdork · 10-01-2008, 09:19 PM

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081001/financial_meltdown.html

bill now passed senate

Mr. Blonde · 10-01-2008, 09:36 PM

not the house, tho

Repugnant Abomination · 10-01-2008, 09:53 PM

And I have yet to approve it.

THEINCREDIBLEdork · 10-02-2008, 02:37 PM

an old favorite

http://www.hulu.com/watch/36665/satu...nts#s-p1-st-i2

DJ FC · 10-02-2008, 02:43 PM

Damnit I hate things on the internet that only USAers can enjoy.

Mr. Blonde · 10-02-2008, 03:21 PM

why can't you see it?

09-29-2008, 03:23 PM	#1 (permalink)
DJ FC MURICAN Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Virginia Posts: 5,136 Internets: 253094	What a crazy fucking day. Congress rejects the bank bailout. European stocks down 10%. Dow down over 700 points - worst 1 day drop ever. Is this a market crash?
	The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

09-29-2008, 03:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ugly Bastard Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13,643 Internets: 247330	I can't tell how much of this is Fuhrer Pelosi shitting the bed and how much of it is a reflection of what the people actually want (which would seem hard to believe). Hopefully Barack Hussein Obama's economic savvy can rescue us from this mess. Sigh...
	Last edited by Ugly Bastard; 09-29-2008 at 04:00 PM.

09-30-2008, 06:09 PM	#10 (permalink)
Heaven Can Wait English. Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: England Posts: 868 Internets: 179	ub, what's with the sudden lack of faith in McCain winning?
	there is little I wouldn't do for a dolphin.

10-01-2008, 10:14 AM	#14 (permalink)
DJ FC MURICAN Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Virginia Posts: 5,136 Internets: 253094	This Harvard Prof is right. Obama is wrong. You don't have to bailout Wall St. And you probably shouldn't. But please God don't tax us! Obama will fuck America until it bleeds.
	The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

10-01-2008, 03:19 PM	#16 (permalink)
DJ FC MURICAN Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Virginia Posts: 5,136 Internets: 253094	No. He isn't gonna fuck the economy with new taxes ending any incentive to earn money in America ever again.
	The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

09-29-2008, 03:38 PM	#2 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	in my expert opinion, yes.

09-29-2008, 03:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106

09-29-2008, 04:02 PM	#5 (permalink)
Ugly Bastard Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13,643 Internets: 247330	I would take use scenario to take to heart a very true and very worthwhile reality: elected officials in Washington are dumb as shit. It's a circus of clowns. Don't let appeal to authority mindsets cloud you from that truth.

09-29-2008, 04:08 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ugly Bastard Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13,643 Internets: 247330	Its just amazing that 535 out of 300 million can be collectively be both incompetent and powerful enough to create a single-day loss of 8% of the nation's wealth.

09-29-2008, 10:55 PM	#7 (permalink)
f3lix Gangnam Style Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DH's Massage Parlor Posts: 6,383 Internets: 213510	Congress didn't sell all that stock. People who are thin and can't handle some swings or risk are pulling a tuck and run.

09-29-2008, 11:19 PM	#8 (permalink)
Ugly Bastard Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13,643 Internets: 247330	Yea... right... this isn't Congress's fault. Biggest point drop in history because of your boy's stance. Called it!

09-30-2008, 03:10 PM	#9 (permalink)
hfam95 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: VA Posts: 207 Internets: 1129	It'll be back. Calling it.

09-30-2008, 08:56 PM	#11 (permalink)
Ugly Bastard Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13,643 Internets: 247330	The Republicans pissed off a lot of people by voting against this bill. The election has been shifted back to the parties, not the candidates. Obama might get into office without ever having to clarify his stance on a single position. Before this financial meltdown, I put McCain at 75-85% to win. Right now it's more like 35-40% in my opinion.

10-01-2008, 12:51 AM	#12 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	an email that was sent to me: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer By Jeffrey A. Miron Special to CNN Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan. CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown. This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why. The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk. Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared. This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle. Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets. The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government. The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company. Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable. In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources. Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time. Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen. Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents. The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion. If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth. The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients. Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets. So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending. The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

10-01-2008, 12:08 PM	#15 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	Mccain is wrong too then buddy.

10-02-2008, 02:37 PM	#23 (permalink)
THEINCREDIBLEdork Emperor Meow Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 9,352 Internets: 290966	an old favorite http://www.hulu.com/watch/36665/satu...nts#s-p1-st-i2
	#YOLO

10-01-2008, 05:32 PM	#18 (permalink)
THEINCREDIBLEdork Emperor Meow Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 9,352 Internets: 290966	I love her accent.
	#YOLO

10-01-2008, 07:32 PM	#19 (permalink)
f3lix Gangnam Style Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DH's Massage Parlor Posts: 6,383 Internets: 213510	UB, any reaction to the Harvard Prof? Or am I still an idiot in your eyes?

10-01-2008, 09:19 PM	#20 (permalink)
THEINCREDIBLEdork Emperor Meow Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 9,352 Internets: 290966	http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081001/financial_meltdown.html bill now passed senate
	#YOLO Last edited by THEINCREDIBLEdork; 10-01-2008 at 09:24 PM.

10-01-2008, 09:36 PM	#21 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	not the house, tho

10-01-2008, 09:53 PM	#22 (permalink)
Repugnant Abomination Almost there... Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 5,979 Internets: 164547	And I have yet to approve it.

10-02-2008, 02:43 PM	#24 (permalink)
DJ FC MURICAN Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Virginia Posts: 5,136 Internets: 253094	Damnit I hate things on the internet that only USAers can enjoy.
	The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

10-02-2008, 03:21 PM	#25 (permalink)
Mr. Blonde Spice Master Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 17,969 Internets: 284106	why can't you see it?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
i am having a shitty fucking day	Lucy Fur	Rants	12	12-13-2005 11:31 PM
Fucking Retarded Website of the Day	Mr. Blonde	Reviews	7	04-05-2005 02:40 AM
Co-fucking-mmercials	Orgazmo	Rants	7	11-04-2004 11:26 PM
What a crazy day in college football...	BigDongedHoe	Sports	46	11-22-2002 01:34 AM