Does anyone agree with the $700 bailout?

I am not looking at things from inside any system.

I am explaining why a system based strictly on barter would be a disastor.

Please tell me what the poor people would be able to use for barter? They would use their labor, which only has what value they can get from it, which means they become indentured servants.

Pleae explain how the myriad of things that are not involved in individual transactions get paid for? How does a barter system pay to maintain highways? How does a barter system pay to maintain public lands?

Please explain how we fund a fair minded police force on a barter system? If I can offer them lots of good stuff and you can't, who are they going to protect?
 
Obfuscate said:
Man are you stupid. The interest rate is 3% points BELOW inflation and now we're printing $700 billion to add to the deficit. Raising rates won't help people lend either so you'r saying putting us in a catch 22 box is good. No way, we need to take our medicine like the early 80's. Also, you are advocating promoting this flawed buisiness model by keeping these companies that should have failed alive and keeping GSE's that will back bad loans. I'd say half the loans we currently sell are FHA loans now. I'm sure these are great borrowers and will be good investments like they were in the past.

Plenty of investors will but Fannies and Freddie loans. I sell REO loans for our bank and there are lots of buyers. Investers are buying still at 50 cents on the dollar, and our bank doesn't even deal with foriegn investments banks. Just local investors.

No one could get credit easy in the early 80's either. I suppose that was a bad move when Volcker purposly raised rates then?

I can't believe Republicans now agree with socialism. Disgraceful. I'd ratherbe short term poor than a fucking disgraceful socialist.
Click to expand...


LOL

These things always crack me up. Cause I know that SF isn't stupid (doesn't mean he's right here), and I think it's so funny that someone would rather be "shot" than be a socialist, and that somehow that would be disgraceful? Though in this case, socialism for the rich, social Darwinism for the rest of us, is disgraceful.

But somehow I doubt that's what the Friedman accolyte means.
 
Darla said:
Well, I don't want to move to a barter economy I don't see how I am going to be getting the kind of boots I want out of that?

But I'm afraid that after the fact, yeah, the bailout will be considered a mistake. And we will all hear "well I don't think anyone could have guessed" once again, relegating many of us to no ones.
Click to expand...

Since Obfuscate and Asshat refuse to address this....

Was the bailout of the S&L's a net gain or loss to taxpayers?
 
You're on Crack if you think that 30% of people who bought homes that are now worth half what they bought them for and the borrowers had no buisiness or sufficient income or credit to buy them in the first place will pay them off. How? If it were possible private banks woul be all over it. Plus if they sold for 30 cents on the dollar of the note it's because THAT'S WHAT IT'S WORTH. You also don't consider carry costs and the costs to get the assets back into sellable shape when you get them back.
 
Darla said:
LOL

These things always crack me up. Cause I know that SF isn't stupid (doesn't mean he's right here), and I think it's so funny that someone would rather be "shot" than be a socialist, and that somehow that would be disgraceful? Though in this case, socialism for the rich, social Darwinism for the rest of us, is disgraceful.

But somehow I doubt that's what the Friedman accolyte means.
Click to expand...

Of course I am right. Don't be a silly guurrrlll. Me Man... me right.

:)

Seriously though... I am right on this. While I hate the fact that it came to this, it is necessary and it will be a net benefit to taxpayers, provide we go with the Congressional plan and not Bush's... which looks to be the case.
 
You have to be retarded to think that if there was a profit to be had that private banks wouldn't be buying them.
 
SF flaw. All the foreclosures he's relying on would push the market down by more than 30%.

A home now worth 210 k.... that's a number he pulled out of his ass.
 
Superfreak said:
Since Obfuscate and Asshat refuse to address this....

Was the bailout of the S&L's a net gain or loss to taxpayers?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I googled it and could only find one article from yahoo finance which said that the govt recouped 2/3rds of the initial costs.

But let's say that article is wrong and they did recoup them all, if we had taken the bush plan we would never have recouped at all, do you have any explanation for why they would want to do that to the country? Even a speculation on it?
 
Darla said:
I don't know, I googled it and could only find one article from yahoo finance which said that the govt recouped 2/3rds of the initial costs.
Click to expand...

It also increased the deficit which has many negative factors Superfreak isn't pricing in. It was also 1/7 as big a bailout and totally differant situation.
 
Solitary said:
I am not looking at things from inside any system.
Click to expand...
You are looking at a barter system assuming some people are still operating in fiat system.
I am explaining why a system based strictly on barter would be a disastor.
Click to expand...
No you're not. You're failing to fully understand the scenario. and keep asking question I've already answered. Doctors and teachers will work for other goods and services.
Please tell me what the poor people would be able to use for barter? They would use their labor, which only has what value they can get from it, which means they become indentured servants.
Click to expand...
You ansered your question. They use their labor. Is everyone who works and indentured servant? That's pretty gay.
Pleae explain how the myriad of things that are not involved in individual transactions get paid for? How does a barter system pay to maintain highways? How does a barter system pay to maintain public lands?
Click to expand...
People will offer goods and services to workers to maintain those things, if they truly value them. A barter system is a great way to keep a check on statist power. What you're casting as a negative is actually a positive.
Please explain how we fund a fair minded police force on a barter system? If I can offer them lots of good stuff and you can't, who are they going to protect?
Click to expand...


They mostly pay to protect the property of the rich as it is now. This wouldn't change much. And there will probably be far less full time police and more vigilante justice. Not a bad thing.
 
Obfuscate said:
Man are you stupid. The interest rate is 3% points BELOW inflation and now we're printing $700 billion to add to the deficit. Raising rates won't help people lend either so you'r saying putting us in a catch 22 box is good. No way, we need to take our medicine like the early 80's. Also, you are advocating promoting this flawed buisiness model by keeping these companies that should have failed alive and keeping GSE's that will back bad loans. I'd say half the loans we currently sell are FHA loans now. I'm sure these are great borrowers and will be good investments like they were in the past.

Plenty of investors will but Fannies and Freddie loans. I sell REO loans for our bank and there are lots of buyers. Investers are buying still at 50 cents on the dollar, and our bank doesn't even deal with foriegn investments banks. Just local investors.

No one could get credit easy in the early 80's either. I suppose that was a bad move when Volcker purposly raised rates then?

I can't believe Republicans now agree with socialism. Disgraceful. I'd ratherbe short term poor than a fucking disgraceful socialist.
Click to expand...
It's not permanent Socialism though, YOU have said you may be voting for Obama, knowing he will implement universal healthcare which is DEFINETELY going to be permanent Socialism and with a far greater percent of GDP then a few mortgage companies and far far more in the long run with an aging populace.

I don't like this bailout either and I still lean more toward not supporting it, but if it does go through at least I can take slight solace in it not being permanent.

You've made some good points BTW, same as Superfreak, but no need to turn this ugly, it's an important debate.
 
Obfuscate said:
It also increased the deficit which has many negative factors Superfreak isn't pricing in. It was also 1/7 as big a bailout and totally differant situation.
Click to expand...

Well, again, I'm not for the plan, at all.

I am not sure why we have been left arguing as if the only choices were do what Paulson says, or do nothing. I feel we need to slow down this rushing train. I know that I want to get off of it.
 
KingCondanomation said:
It's not permanent Socialism though, YOU have said you may be voting for Obama, knowing he will implement universal healthcare which is DEFINETELY going to be permanent Socialism and with a far greater percent of GDP then a few mortgage companies and far far more in the long run with an aging populace.

I don't like this bailout either and I still lean more toward not supporting it, but if it does go through at least I can take slight solace in it not being permanent.

You've made some good points BTW, same as Superfreak, but no need to turn this ugly, it's an important debate.
Click to expand...


Superfreak is a liar though. In his explanation he posits that the house is now worth 210, though the foreclosures he';s counting on would drive it much lower than that. His dishonest explanations are ugly.
 
Bullshit this is temporary

"There is nothing more permanent than a temporay government solution"

Milton Friedman
 
Basically what you see from the righties, especially ones like Dano is, that they'd rather spend billions on billionaires - as long as they don't have to pay for health insurance for poor people.

It's a very ugly ideology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top