.. Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Krugman calls it a stupid plan as well. I can't find any economist whom I respect who thinks that this is a good idea. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 O.k. one thing to criticize, but what is the alternative here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 There are some suggestions in the links I posted. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 First, I wouldn't call it "the Bush plan". True, the Secretary of the Treasury has been one of the main players in developing the plan's outline (and rightly has a chair at the table). But others have been equally involved. I think we can appreciate the complexities that are involved. It boggles my mind and I'm glad it hasn't been handed to me to come up with a solution agreeable to all. (Not that such a plan will be developed.) Anyway, Congress will fiddle with it to one extent or another and probably try to hang "ornaments" on this like it's a Christmas tree (read "pork"). But there's only 9 or 10 days before our legislators take their "deserved" break (second in 3 months) and we know they have "non-refundable" airline tickets for Hawaii or Tahiti that they won't want to eat. :smirk: It will be interesting to see what develops this week. I'm trying to stay positive. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 I read Krugman's op-ed and only found that he asked a few questions for which he begged answers. This "plan" has to be just in it's embryonic formulation; shit, nobody even got started on it until about 72 hours ago. I suspect that Krugman had a deadline to meet and hastily penned this out without a lot of info...just putting his 2 cents in a bit early. For instance, in the last 24 hours, once TV source noted that purchases of paper will not doubt be lower than "fair market value" and will cause a bit of anguish on the part of those needing help. Well, if a guy can't pay for his car, it's repossessed if he can't sell it. Better to try to sell it in a fire sale and be stuck with a smaller amount to pay back. Not exactly "same same", but you get the idea. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Toad Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Krugman does not say it is stupid he raises some fair issues, But what he does not address is what happens if there is a real meltdown of financial institutions. My view for along time is that sooner or later the whole system will collapse: it is all based on mirrors and belief in the system. I said to a few people that I did not think this was the big one: I was beginning to think I might have been wrong on Thursday. Like it or not a total melt down of financial systems would be catastrophic for a lot more than the US bankers and big money. It would lead to a break down of world trade, of money as we know it, and inevitable I think war and general strife. It could not be allowed to happen: the question is how the politicians behave. Markets are not bad but they are if they messed with and that includes irresponsible big business, politicians and some hedge funds with too much money and no scruples! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 "The Democratic National Committee, using publicly available records, has identified 177 lobbyists working for the McCain campaign as either aides, policy advisers, or fundraisers. Of those 177 lobbyists, at least 83 have in recent years lobbied for the financial industry McCain now attacks." -- Mother Jones magazine http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9753_mccain_campaign_lobbyists_wall_street_aig.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongon Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 McCain issued an order that no one shall work as a lobbyist that is working on his campaign. Has Bambi done the same? As McCain keeps pointing out, Bambi was the second largest recipient of Fannie/Freddie cash in all of Congress. Me thinks trying to tag only one side as beholden to lobbyists is not going to fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Can you explain it to/for us? I am well aware the fallout of their collapse would be fierce and far reaching' date=' but I mean all the subtle crap the rest of us don't get.[/quote'] OH, hereâ??s an example. Businesses large and small lose their pension plans, 401K holders lose their retirement savings, companies canâ??t get insurance. Individuals and businesses find it increasingly more difficult to obtain credit. Since airline travel revenue is heavily dependent upon business travel, an airline will see itâ??s passenger loads decrease (a la post-9/11); leisure travelers who often use credit cards will not use their precious credit for what is a discretionary expenditure. This will further decrease revenue for the airline. Less tickets purchased means fewer boarding passes printed, so printers will either end up laying off employees or folding. With fewer passengers transiting the airports, those who work in the stores may find themselves out of jobs due to insufficient revenue to keep those bandits in business. Luggage companies will sell less luggage and shut down/reduce production or lay off employees at the manufacturing, wholesale and retail levels. Cabbies will have fewer fares at the airports. Airline personnel will be affected due to decreases in passenger miles. People losing jobs may mean they canâ??t afford their mortgages or car payments and lose their two most-coveted assets. I could go on and on and on. Just used the above to bring it closer to â??homeâ?Â. That is just for starters. People can forget about all these promises Obama and McCain are making now as to health care, green jobs, tax cuts, etc. They won't be in the works for the next presidential term. After Uncle Sam is finished buying up all the paper it appears poised to purchase, there won't be any money in the bank to carry out the initiatives "promised". That's not to say that Uncle Sam will lose all of the money it's putting into these portfolios. It might just happen that some, if not a substantial amount of monies will eventually be recovered. In fact, some "experts" have gone so far to say that some paper may turn out to show a positive return. I'm just saying that there are so many cynical, sad old men (SOM's) here that just bitch, complain and blindly blame Bush and others for every "crisis", that it's almost embarassing to be associated on the same board with some of them. If I were a cartoonist, I'd have a field day with some here. HH HH said: [color:red] "OH, hereâ??s an example. Businesses large and small lose their pension plans, 401K holders lose their retirement savings, companies canâ??t get insurance. Individuals and businesses find it increasingly more difficult to obtain credit. [/color] Bangkoktraveler's reply: The Conservative's position in the past has been "So!, You dig your hole, go live in it"! HH said: [color:red] Since airline travel revenue is heavily dependent upon business travel, an airline will see itâ??s passenger loads decrease (a la post-9/11); leisure travelers who often use credit cards will not use their precious credit for what is a discretionary expenditure. This will further decrease revenue for the airline. [/color] Bangkoktraveler's reply: Conservatives knew this after 9/11 but insisted not helping the airline industries so many of them had to go bankrupt. But now, that policy seems to have flip flopped. HH said: [color:red] Less tickets purchased means fewer boarding passes printed, so printers will either end up laying off employees or folding. [/color] Bangkoktraveler's reply: I can not imagine this ever happening, that is a printer who has such a narrow customer base. Conservatives would say the printers who produce only boarding passes probably deserve to fail because of their narrow mindedness. No mercy shown by Conservatives. HH said: [color:red] With fewer passengers transiting the airports, those who work in the stores may find themselves out of jobs due to insufficient revenue to keep those bandits in business. Luggage companies will sell less luggage and shut down/reduce production or lay off employees at the manufacturing, wholesale and retail levels. Cabbies will have fewer fares at the airports. [/color] Bangkoktraveler's reply: The effect on other businesses due to a slow down at airports/airlines has very little impact on other businesses. The one business it would have a major impact is the tourist trade. But traditionally Conservatives have held the position of "So!" on this subject. HH said: [color:red] Airline personnel will be affected due to decreases in passenger miles. People losing jobs may mean they canâ??t afford their mortgages or car payments and lose their two most-coveted assets. I could go on and on and on. Just used the above to bring it closer to â??homeâ?Â. [/color] Bangkoktraveler's reply: Does this plan help the little guy who is losing his home? No! It only helps the business guy and only the really big business guys. Conservatives seem to have a hard time of being able to bring issues "close to home". HH said: [color:red] That is just for starters. People can forget about all these promises Obama and McCain are making now as to health care, green jobs, tax cuts, etc. They won't be in the works for the next presidential term. After Uncle Sam is finished buying up all the paper it appears poised to purchase, there won't be any money in the bank to carry out the initiatives "promised". [/color] Bangkoktraveler's reply: Are you saying this plan of helping out the businesses at the tax payer's expense is better then providing needed relief to some tax payers in such areas as health care, home, etc.? This plan goes contrary to anything Conservatives believe in. "You dig your hole, now get down in the hole!" is there reply when somebody is down and out. HH said: [color:red] That's not to say that Uncle Sam will lose all of the money it's putting into these portfolios. It might just happen that some, if not a substantial amount of monies will eventually be recovered. In fact, some "experts" have gone so far to say that some paper may turn out to show a positive return. [/color] Bangkoktraveler's reply: I find it hard to believe a Conservative would support such a plan! I also find it hard that such a 'plan' can be profitable. HH said: [color:red] I'm just saying that there are so many cynical, sad old men (SOM's) here that just bitch, complain and blindly blame Bush and others for every "crisis", that it's almost embarassing to be associated on the same board with some of them. If I were a cartoonist, I'd have a field day with some here. [/color] Bangkoktraveler's reply: So what you are saying is "Bush can do no wrong!" A President, he is responsible for nothing. I just don't buy that last thought and I don't think you really do also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted September 21, 2008 Report Share Posted September 21, 2008 Ok, so again, lets discuss some alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.