effect of No vote on Bailout

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
I'm not supporting one action or the other and this is not a rhetorical question. What do people think the fallout will be in the overall economy in the next year or two if this Bailout gets voted down?
 
dow will drop to 8000-9000 levels, money market will fail under the dollar will happen this week.

banks will fail and freeze assets (see indymac)

long term major recession.
 
Some people will lose their jobs, and other businesses will pick up the securities at a very reduced rate.

people with stock in these soon to be non existant companies will take a hit on their portfolios
 
honestly bailout that takes the bad mortgages at least is attacking root cause here. All the other crap they were doing with AIG and Fannie and Freddie was stupid and expensive for nothing. this is a blunt fix that will probably work. It sucks yes but the govt will get some value back out of this if they are smart with the assets they buy
could only be 30cents on the dollar but will be something.
 
uscitizen said:
The excrement will impact the osciallating air movement device sooner than if we do the bailout.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure of that. Commodity prices are skyrocketing on the news of the bailout alone. If the bailout causes foreign nations to dump the dollar we are in pretty deep shit, pretty quickly.
 
Damocles said:
But there will be much less of it. Don't forget the benefit. I'd much rather be covered with smaller amounts of excrement.
Click to expand...

Why will there be much less of it, you mental midget?

If we do nothing, we will turn a one year recession into a ten year one. If we do nothing, there will be a million times more of it. Let's not continue the free market idiocy that got us into this mess.
 
This neo-hooverish philosophy that something has to happen is a bunch of bullshit. If we take in the debt we can stabilize the situation quickly, if we do nothing we let the thing fly out of control and badly damage every sector of our economy. People do not always make individual decisions that are collectively beneficial. It is often that they make them in ways that are mutually destructive, like in the thirties, when everyone ran the banks. If the government would've stopped people from running the banks and stabilized the situation, shit wouldn't have been half as bad. But we had that Hooverish philosophy that said that if we just left shit alone everything would turn out fine. And, of course, it did not.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mellon#The_Great_Depression

Mellon became unpopular with the onset of the Great Depression. Many economists today (such as Milton Friedman and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, to give two prominent examples) partially attribute the collapse of the American banking industry to the popularity among Federal Reserve leadership of Mellon's infamous "liquidationist" thesis: weeding out "weak" banks was seen as a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. This "weeding out" was accomplished through refusing to lend cash to banks (taking loans and other investments as collateral), and by refusing to put more cash in circulation.
 
Watermark said:
Why will there be much less of it, you mental midget?

If we do nothing, we will turn a one year recession into a ten year one. If we do nothing, there will be a million times more of it. Let's not continue the free market idiocy that got us into this mess.
Click to expand...
Seriously, you never learn. Corrections come and go, the only way to make them last longer is to emote yourself into crappy legislation that doesn't solve the problem it just allows the bubble to grow larger before it collapses.

How will it be less? Instead of climbing higher on the cliff before jumping off, let's get off now. The safety equipment is inadequate, there are no seat belts, and the "fix" is being performed by unqualified mechanics. It gives too much power to the government. Shoot, the first version (hopefully rejected) even took away the oversight that the congress barely pretends to hold over monetary policy.
 
Damocles said:
Seriously, you never learn. Corrections come and go, the only way to make them last longer is to emote yourself into crappy legislation that doesn't solve the problem it just allows the bubble to grow larger before it collapses.

How will it be less? Instead of climbing higher on the cliff before jumping off, let's get off now. The safety equipment is inadequate and gives too much power to the government.
Click to expand...

Damo's liquidationist theory:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_...eat_Depression

Mellon became unpopular with the onset of the Great Depression. Many economists today (such as Milton Friedman and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, to give two prominent examples) partially attribute the collapse of the American banking industry to the popularity among Federal Reserve leadership of Mellon's infamous "liquidationist" thesis: weeding out "weak" banks was seen as a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. This "weeding out" was accomplished through refusing to lend cash to banks (taking loans and other investments as collateral), and by refusing to put more cash in circulation






Your theory sounds good to someone who knows enough about economics to not understand it. It has that tough, harsh, brute force no-nothingist feel about it that Americans enjoy making love to constantly, to the detriment of our national well-being. It does not, however, work in reality. Instead of jumping off the cliff, let's just not jump off it.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
Damo's liquidationist theory:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_...eat_Depression

Mellon became unpopular with the onset of the Great Depression. Many economists today (such as Milton Friedman and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, to give two prominent examples) partially attribute the collapse of the American banking industry to the popularity among Federal Reserve leadership of Mellon's infamous "liquidationist" thesis: weeding out "weak" banks was seen as a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. This "weeding out" was accomplished through refusing to lend cash to banks (taking loans and other investments as collateral), and by refusing to put more cash in circulation






Your theory sounds good to someone who knows enough about economics to not understand it. It has that tough, harsh, brute force no-nothingist feel about it that Americans enjoy making love to constantly, to the detriment of our national well-being. It does not, however, work in reality. Instead of jumping off the cliff, let's just not jump off it.
Click to expand...
Nobody said "do nothing" they said not to pass a trillion dollar inflationary missile at the populace.

I'd prefer that we allow, as in the S&L crisis, some of the more egregious to fail and work a far less inflationary program.

There is a place for government, but it isn't in owning the banks. The idea that it has to be all or nothing is popular with emotive election year politics. I prefer a more reasoned and slower approach.

The effect of the "no" vote, as originally asked, would be a slower and more responsible reaction not based on emotive reasoning.
 
Damocles said:
Nobody said "do nothing" they said not to pass a trillion dollar inflationary missile at the populace.

I'd prefer that we allow, as in the S&L crisis, some of the more egregious to fail and work a far less inflationary program.

There is a place for government, but it isn't in owning the banks. The idea that it has to be all or nothing is popular with emotive election year politics. I prefer a more reasoned and slower approach.

The effect of the "no" vote, as originally asked, would be a slower and more responsible reaction not based on emotive reasoning.
Click to expand...

Alright.

So maybe you aren't a liquidationist.
 
Now, if we did nothing, I think we would be looking at something a little like Japan's lost decade. I'd like you to remember, though, that at the end of the decade the Japanese government eventually bailed the banks out anyway. They just tortured themselves a long time beforehand.

I don't think another great depression could literally happen in the modern economy.
 
Chapdog said:
honestly bailout that takes the bad mortgages at least is attacking root cause here. All the other crap they were doing with AIG and Fannie and Freddie was stupid and expensive for nothing. this is a blunt fix that will probably work. It sucks yes but the govt will get some value back out of this if they are smart with the assets they buy
could only be 30cents on the dollar but will be something.
Click to expand...

Yea and us taxpayers get stuck paying the other $0.70. Not only should their be punitive measures to ensure executives at these companies don't get golden parachutes, they should be prosecuted in civil court for damages.

How about a Republican tax? Since this was their fault can't we just raise the taxes on all registered Republicans? Hell we'll even throw them a bone. We'll make it a flat tax on Republicans of $250,000 each. Since there are about 30 million or so registered Republicans that would pay for the bail out, wouldn't it?
 
Note--we have to make a thread to discuss exactly what can happen. I think some rich people (mostly dems in this case) will loose one of their 7 homes.

I really don't see how it would harm the economy of the people if they got a pretty much free home, and F&F were disolved. the rest of the free market would flourish, 1/2 the people woujld have more money to spend, and help the economy.

Now--wen Dodd and Paluson talk about the economy--they are only talking about them and their friends---who screwed us.

They are just protecting their asses. Take away half of my mortage payment or more--and I am buying American made products or be less of a burdon on my neighbors.

IMO, this is more about forced socialism, not the peoples economy. Give them the homes for free--and watch the local banks give them money to improve their home--and add value to their community.
 
Mottleydude said:
Yea and us taxpayers get stuck paying the other $0.70. Not only should their be punitive measures to ensure executives at these companies don't get golden parachutes, they should be prosecuted in civil court for damages.

How about a Republican tax? Since this was their fault can't we just raise the taxes on all registered Republicans? Hell we'll even throw them a bone. We'll make it a flat tax on Republicans of $250,000 each. Since there are about 30 million or so registered Republicans that would pay for the bail out, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...


Name one republican that wants the bail out? The Dem party can't find one to use as a scapegoat. How many shareholders of F&F were dem politicians--how many were Rep politicians? They are almost all DEM. Do some research. Then talk party politics if you think you have a point.
 
Last edited:
We have a much needed recession, then we can rebound and have another 25 years of growth. If we bail everyone out we just delay the inevidible, promote a flawed buisiness model and the next crash will be even worse. You bail out Freddie and Fannie only since they were GSE's and sell them off to the private banks and end GSE's altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top