Comments on: Tuesday…Looking at the financial (“bailout”/”stabilization”) bill http://ilind.net/2008/09/30/tuesdaylooking-at-the-financial-bailoutstabilization-bill/ Ian Lind • Online daily from Kaaawa, Hawaii Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:47:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: chuck_smith http://ilind.net/2008/09/30/tuesdaylooking-at-the-financial-bailoutstabilization-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-1043 chuck_smith Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:38:47 +0000 http://ilind.net/?p=1053#comment-1043 Bailout is the accurate word, stabilization is the Crony Capitalist cover. The sum total of the bill is simple: "privatize profits, socialize losses." If you read Nouriel or Brad Setser (two economists) you will find the proposal will not work anyway--it is money down a rathole. The basic idea is for the public to grossly overpay for bank-owned worthless assets as a way of "bolstering" banks' credit. In other words, these institutions are insolvent. So why don't we just buy them for $1 and outright mationalize them? Instead, we buy worthless MBS and CDOs in order to give them free money? That is insane. In Bush's quotable phrase: "This sucker's going down," and by that he meant the economy. It may be the only correct thing he's said in 8 years. chuck smith Bailout is the accurate word, stabilization is the Crony Capitalist cover. The sum total of the bill is simple: “privatize profits, socialize losses.” If you read Nouriel or Brad Setser (two economists) you will find the proposal will not work anyway–it is money down a rathole. The basic idea is for the public to grossly overpay for bank-owned worthless assets as a way of “bolstering” banks’ credit. In other words, these institutions are insolvent. So why don’t we just buy them for $1 and outright mationalize them? Instead, we buy worthless MBS and CDOs in order to give them free money? That is insane. In Bush’s quotable phrase: “This sucker’s going down,” and by that he meant the economy. It may be the only correct thing he’s said in 8 years.
chuck smith

]]> By: LarryG http://ilind.net/2008/09/30/tuesdaylooking-at-the-financial-bailoutstabilization-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-1042 LarryG Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:35:14 +0000 http://ilind.net/?p=1053#comment-1042 "Bailout" seems to be a more accurate term than "stabilization" to me in this case. Without changing the rules or dealing with foreclosures, there is another round of foreclosures due in 2009. There will therefore be more losses. Regulation was dropped, bad bets turned to losses, and so "bailout" fits perfectly, IMHO. Many have proposed one mechanism or another to freeze foreclosures or assist families in staying in their homes. Limiting foreclosures would stabilize the financial crisis nicely. But they're not doing that, yet. The focus on CEOs may be too late, since a savvy CEO has taken out what profits were available at this point. The "CEO" we need to watch is Paulson, who wants a bailout. I doubt he really cares about "stabilization" or anything else if it cuts profits. Wall Street is there to make money, as many gobs of it as they can. Popular opposition is not to stabilization, either. I haven't heard anyone say stabilization is a bad thing. But a bailout is, and that's what just failed to find support in Congress. “Bailout” seems to be a more accurate term than “stabilization” to me in this case. Without changing the rules or dealing with foreclosures, there is another round of foreclosures due in 2009. There will therefore be more losses.

Regulation was dropped, bad bets turned to losses, and so “bailout” fits perfectly, IMHO.

Many have proposed one mechanism or another to freeze foreclosures or assist families in staying in their homes. Limiting foreclosures would stabilize the financial crisis nicely. But they’re not doing that, yet.

The focus on CEOs may be too late, since a savvy CEO has taken out what profits were available at this point. The “CEO” we need to watch is Paulson, who wants a bailout. I doubt he really cares about “stabilization” or anything else if it cuts profits. Wall Street is there to make money, as many gobs of it as they can.

Popular opposition is not to stabilization, either. I haven’t heard anyone say stabilization is a bad thing. But a bailout is, and that’s what just failed to find support in Congress.

]]> By: TomPico http://ilind.net/2008/09/30/tuesdaylooking-at-the-financial-bailoutstabilization-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-1040 TomPico Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:49:10 +0000 http://ilind.net/?p=1053#comment-1040 Interesting but irritating and disgusting too. I agree, use of the word "bailout" doomed this bill. The public was fed class warfare by the media and the crazies -- "Bail out the rich SOB's? How about us little guys?" What crap. As if we're not all in the same boat. On the political side, it was reported that five Democrat committee chairmen didn't vote with the "leadership" -- shows how serious the "leadership" took this. The vote also shows what spineless representatives we have representing Hawaii. Interesting but irritating and disgusting too.

I agree, use of the word “bailout” doomed this bill. The public was fed class warfare by the media and the crazies — “Bail out the rich SOB’s? How about us little guys?” What crap. As if we’re not all in the same boat.

On the political side, it was reported that five Democrat committee chairmen didn’t vote with the “leadership” — shows how serious the “leadership” took this. The vote also shows what spineless representatives we have representing Hawaii.

]]>