Steve Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Interesting perspective HeartThais. I have lost ALL faith in the system frankly. If a financial mess of this proportion couldn't get the pols to act for the interest of the American people for once then I think just about nothing will. Even in time of war we see them giving cozy contracts to friendly contributors (military contractors, etc.). All I can imagine is that many politicians have seen that the system and problems are so huge, pervasive and untenable and the drug of power from their position so addicting that they are giving lip service to us. I wouldn't mind 'starting over' in what ever context you wish to accept its meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartThais Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Interesting perspective HeartThais. I have lost ALL faith in the system frankly. If a financial mess of this proportion couldn't get the pols to act for the interest of the American people for once then I think just about nothing will. Actually, I do think the pols are trying to act in the interest of the American people but they don't know how. Even seasoned old hands like Bernanke, Paulson, and now Geitner have misunderstood the exact nature of the problem. When I watch Bernanke being interviewed on Capitol Hill, I'm usually stunned by how idiotic some of the questions coming from the senate are and wonder how they ever got through college. Part of it is that this issue has rocked the foundation of free market capitalism as being a self-correcting and self-monitoring. It has taken us a long time to realize the financial crisis isn't just a liquidity problem that can be fixed by "greasing the wheels." We're immobilized because after all our victories, it is just unfathomable that free markets can fail this way. IMO, we need to be having serious discussion with all options on the table such as full nationalization of banks, forcing banks to take a one time haircut, or assigning a czar to decide which banks go into receivership. We can't have these discussions while politicians are too busy scoring media points bitching or even enacting new tax legislation over bonuses when they really should be prepping for serious talks. Or forcing the debate as Obama/Geitner are too cautious to come up with these alternatives on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Frankly, the bonuses do piss me off given the situation. However, I am against the bullshit tax legislation that will take them away. Sets a very bad precedent all the way around, and opens the flood gates for more governmental tax abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartThais Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Understandable. I'm just saying there are much bigger fish to fry and they are basically the same fish. When the bonus recipients are banks and hedge funds, people get suddenly quiet. When the bonus recipients are individuals, people get fired up, even for a much smaller sum. The hedge funds and banks were buying AIG derivatives because they were cheap. They were cheap because there is risk of AIG default. If the US government were selling the same derivatives, they would cost more. Well, AIG defaulted so the banks/HFs should have lost. They were already compensated for this outcome via the cheaper premiums. Instead the US taxpayer decided to pay all the banks and hedge funds out at full value so they retroactively have gotten a free lunch for years. And barely a whimper. I understand the psychology of why individual bonuses get so much more attention but this is borderline crazy when considering the amounts involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 ... I wouldn't mind 'starting over' in what ever context you wish to accept its meaning. Seen "Watchmen" yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartThais Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 ... I wouldn't mind 'starting over' in what ever context you wish to accept its meaning. Seen "Watchmen" yet? Dr Chocolat Manhattan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Not to forget Brother Ozymandius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Frankly, the bonuses do piss me off given the situation. However, I am against the bullshit tax legislation that will take them away. Sets a very bad precedent all the way around, and opens the flood gates for more governmental tax abuse. Essentially what these characters are doing is redefining the rules. The businesses are in pseudo bankruptcy. If a business is in bankruptcy and the CEOs, etc. decide to give themselves huge bonuses, the creditors will come after them for committing fraud. The creditors would say if anybody gets paid, it would be them not the CEOs, etc. If this kind of activity is allowed, this faulty thinking may peep up in other areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 ... I wouldn't mind 'starting over' in what ever context you wish to accept its meaning. Seen "Watchmen" yet? Seen the movie. I want a bigger penis than the one he had in the movie though. Dr Chocolat Manhattan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Understandable. I'm just saying there are much bigger fish to fry and they are basically the same fish. When the bonus recipients are banks and hedge funds, people get suddenly quiet. When the bonus recipients are individuals, people get fired up, even for a much smaller sum. The hedge funds and banks were buying AIG derivatives because they were cheap. They were cheap because there is risk of AIG default. If the US government were selling the same derivatives, they would cost more. Well, AIG defaulted so the banks/HFs should have lost. They were already compensated for this outcome via the cheaper premiums. Instead the US taxpayer decided to pay all the banks and hedge funds out at full value so they retroactively have gotten a free lunch for years. And barely a whimper. I understand the psychology of why individual bonuses get so much more attention but this is borderline crazy when considering the amounts involved. Perhaps the free market would work but its what has to occur (hitting the financial bottom and all its ramifications) that no one wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.