Subdude Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 Here's something I bet you didn't know. The assorted bailouts this year have cost more than any other expenditure in American history. Yes, you read right. If we add in the Citi bailout, the total cost now exceeds $4.6165 trillion dollars. People have a hard time conceptualizing very large numbers, so let Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Amazing, Subdude. I was reading that about 20 minutes ago and thinking about posting the link. Just staggering. And today, Paulson and his latest decree that thanks to $800 billion more, us lucky Americans will again have our 'basic credit needs' met.A quick check of Maslow's heirarchy of needs does indeed confirm that 'credit' is not on the list. All this makes my eyeballs hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 All this makes my eyeballs hurt.Wait until the bill comes in.I can't escape the suspicion that at some point the law of unintended consequences is going to pop up and smack us upside the head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 We need to jump start inflation real quick so this bail out doesn't look so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Your tax dollars at work, as they say.LinkEstimate is closer to $8+ TRILLION:http://www.cnbc.com/id/27912307Then again, this is CNBC.I am thinking we should ban the pursuit of all business degrees/professions in the United States. Clearly, people in that line of education and work do not know what the hell they are doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 Me, I'm just glad it wasn't spent on national health care, or something wasteful like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 so when is happy hr? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 so when is happy hr? I believe it will have to be delayed due to Lucky Strike not opening as planned. This is simply too much bad news to handle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 How are those stocks doing? Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted November 28, 2008 Author Share Posted November 28, 2008 Funny clip from 2006 of someone who called it right. The other fellow must feel a bit of a fool nowadays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted December 7, 2008 Author Share Posted December 7, 2008 From my favorite blog:Here is a question that I have been wrestling with:What exactly did the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act accomplish?Were there positives as well as negatives?Should the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act be repealed, and Glass-Steagall reinstated?LinkGood question given what has happened. Was it too risky to have re-allowed commercial banks to take up investment bank activities? Given that US banking is dominated by a small group of government supported "too big to fail" institutions, shouldn't we question what they are allowed to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 Wait! The banks need more money!Even before word came on Tuesday that Citigroup might split into pieces to shore up its finances, an unpleasant message was moving through Congress and President-elect Barack Obama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) From my favorite blog:LinkGood question given what has happened. Was it too risky to have re-allowed commercial banks to take up investment bank activities? Given that US banking is dominated by a small group of government supported "too big to fail" institutions, shouldn't we question what they are allowed to do?Of course my answer to the question is yes, it was too risky. And questioning the markets is anathema to the Chicago School missionaries who orchestrated the repeal of Glass Steagall. We're now paying the price for ideology. It will be very interesting to see how the new administration's swing back to more Keynesian principles will work in the 21st century economy. Edited January 14, 2009 by crunchtastic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 Hell freezes over!Pigs fly!Greenspan supports bank nationalization! Greenspan backs bank nationalisationBy Krishna Guha and Edward Luce in WashingtonPublished: February 18 2009 00:06 | Last updated: February 18 2009 00:06The US government may have to nationalise some banks on a temporary basis to fix the financial system and restore the flow of credit, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has told the Financial Times.In an interview, Mr Greenspan, who for decades was regarded as the high priest of laisser-faire capitalism, said nationalisation could be the least bad option left for policymakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Hell freezes over!Pigs fly!Greenspan supports bank nationalization! Here's the link.Pretty rich from the man who is arguably more responsible than anyone else for what has happened.I am dumbfounded! Maybe he's trying some reverse psychology trick. That, or dementia has set in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Get ready for Gold $2500. DOW 6000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 AIG gonna get yet more govmint $$$$:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 AIG gonna get yet more govmint $$$$:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home AIG will be breaking itself up? Get ready for Gold $2500. DOW 6000. I thought this was overly pessimistic, but the futures markets are saying the Dow will fall below 7000 today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 It's looking like an ugly Monday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 There it is folks 6935 and falling..........Lowest since 1987 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Surely none of the analysts out there thought the market would rise after the AIG news release?I really AM a government employee now. AIG's domestic life insurance (my divisision) has been securitized--in essence the gov. has bought the cash flow from the book of business. Time to seriously ramp up my job search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 There it is folks 6935 and falling..........Lowest since 19871997. We've only rolled back the clock one decade... we have not rolled back two decades YET.Way to go PRESIDENT BUSH. Kinda hard for Obama to save us, when you left us Thelma & Louise style. Hard to save us, when you have driven us off a cliff... We're hanging in mid air about now... On our way down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Sorry Typo on the 10-key..... Bryan, So how long do you get to keep blaming Bush and really put it where it belongs? 2010? 2011, 2012? Get real........... Do you you honestly think these trillions they are dumping like water, into the people who caused the majority of this, is really having a positive effect on the economy? Really now......... Yeah Crunch , life on your end really is getting iffy is it not? Hope they treat you kindly whatever happens. At this rate we will be in 1987 by 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Surely none of the analysts out there thought the market would rise after the AIG news release?I really AM a government employee now. AIG's domestic life insurance (my divisision) has been securitized--in essence the gov. has bought the cash flow from the book of business. Time to seriously ramp up my job search.I don't think the market is reacting to AIG. They opened low today in Asia and it just spread. Europe got hammered - FTSE down 5.5%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 There it is folks 6935 and falling..........Lowest since 1987Dow down 282 to 6781, S&P down 4.43%. Ouch!A bit stunning to see 12 years of market gains have been wiped out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Do you you honestly think these trillions they are dumping like water, into the people who caused the majority of this, is really having a positive effect on the economy? Really now.........I don't think the markets are reacting negatively to the stimulus and the TARPs. The markets LIKE money flowing in. A couple of weeks ago, the financials tanked because Geitner was too vague about more TARP money. In effect, the market went down because not enough money was coming in, not too much.The markets are tanking because there is no good news. Profits are off, unemployment up and rising, banks are in danger of failing, and the cycle is deepening and widening. Whoever and whatever is to blame for starting this mess, at this point it is simply feeding on itself...as recessions have a habit of doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Update of a chart I posted above to put things in (rather depressing) perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I don't think the markets are reacting negatively to the stimulus and the TARPs. The markets LIKE money flowing in. A couple of weeks ago, the financials tanked because Geitner was too vague about more TARP money. In effect, the market went down because not enough money was coming in, not too much.The markets are tanking because there is no good news. Profits are off, unemployment up and rising, banks are in danger of failing, and the cycle is deepening and widening. Whoever and whatever is to blame for starting this mess, at this point it is simply feeding on itself...as recessions have a habit of doing.Not all cash in-flows are created equal. The markets especially like it when the very existence of financial infrastructure is made more certain, and the markets are also generally supportive of productivity-enhancing infrastructure. But the markets do not seem to like it when "stimulus" merely transfers wealth around within the economy by expanding entitlement programs. Proponents of Keynesianism essentially support that the velocity of money be artificially accelerated, and that's all fine and well when it is carried out responsibly. But when investors become sophisticated enough to foresee the long term consequences of increasing transfer payments within what will likely become an increasingly-progressive system of tax brackets, it just begs the question as to why they should be compelled to invest further in that future when the expected returns on their investments are dashed; and if they can't see themselves or others like them investing in the future, it makes no sense to invest now.Warren Buffet has speculated that another asset bubble is already well under way, and it is Treasury debt. I have made similar predictions. The government will have to pay for all their expenditures somehow, and taxes cannot immediately be raised. It will have to either issue debt or print money in the short term, and one way or the other interest rates will necessarily increase and devalue outstanding Treasuries. In the following years, taxes will have to be raised, and it seems most likely that the largest tax increases will occur for those households with the highest propensity for savings/investment. And to the extent that the supply of loanable/investable funds is diminished, it further devalues both equities and bonds and creates a self-perpetuating cycle of dis-investment. It has me very concerned.I've made fun of BryanS' hysterics in the past, but I honestly believed that the controlling Party were smart enough to know when they had to reevaluate their priorities and shift to somewhat more of a fiscally centrist bent, with the opposition party filling the political void by shifting to an outright populist platform. Instead, the controlling party is only retrenching with failed policy, and it has this investor quaking in his boots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Tax rates? Speaking of hysterics, I see why you stopped making fun of Bryan histrionics. It is because you are making your own. The market is not tanking on fears of an increase in the top tax bracket to 10.4% lower than Reagan's top tax rate. If it is, then investors are even dumber than you and I have said they are.Did you learn this argument at the tea party? You need to trade it in on a new model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.