700 Billion Dollar Bailout!
- Thread starter Menelik
- Start date
Man these people have some nerve. To assume that we want or need to have these elitist scum bailed out is absolute hubris. Let them go under.
Why do the laws of capitalism that we hear so much about on the news only seem to apply to the poor and middle class?
Remember the iron law of economics: somebody always pays. In this case it should be the illuminist scum on Wall St. and in London but it will be us. This bailout will dilute the value of our currency even more.
Stagflation.Edited by: Poacher
Why do the laws of capitalism that we hear so much about on the news only seem to apply to the poor and middle class?
Remember the iron law of economics: somebody always pays. In this case it should be the illuminist scum on Wall St. and in London but it will be us. This bailout will dilute the value of our currency even more.
Stagflation.Edited by: Poacher
DWFan
Mentor
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Messages
- 741
Poacher said:
I know people that made over three million dollars and complain that they're poor because they wasted (though of course they wouldn't use that term) their savings "playing" the stock market trying to have an even better lifestyle. Your message hits it right on the nose. They need us but we don't need them by a long shot. They'll never get enough and they don't even have the capability for introspection to realize it.
Charlie said:
How does the bailout avoid suffering? and for how long? You and I are not getting bailed - the banks are - and their using our money to do it. They can't really raise taxes anymore than what they are so they will do it by adding to the debt. Eventually we all pay for this debt and its interest by future taxes as well as paying for it in inflation. To think that "everyone else will not suffer" from this bail out is ridiculous because we will actually suffer much more. We just may not suffer this month, but we are sure to suffer and to suffer much more.
What would happen if housing prices plummeted? Is that really bad news? Is it bad news if big screen TV prices plummeted? How bout car prices? So, why is it bad news for average american citizens if home prices fell? I know I would prefer to actually buy a house with cash rather than have to pay some banker for thirty years. We've been brainwashed into adopting the exact opposite of logical reasoning as unopposed fact. Edited by: Kaptain Poop
Everything is financed. Bought on credit. Without the easy flow of credit the negative side of fractional reserve banking kicks in, which is to say a deflation as during the Great Depression and other deflationary periods. From 1865 onward poverty was the norm for most Americans. Not only was there a lack of credit there was even a lack of currency. 'Cross of gold' and all that.
With the debt ceiling reset at $11 trillion the debt to GDP ratio is still less than 1. GDP is at $14 trillion. This is comparable to WW2-era debt ratios.
Buy a house with cash? Even if your circumstances allow the question is why? You lose the interest rate deduction. Jobs and careers often require mobility. Neighborhoods and schools can go downhill fast. House values can go down.
Buying on credit means you can walk away without great loss. It enables you to treat things as just that, things. Just crap to consume and throw away.
If prices do decline to bargain levels who do you think is going to grab those bargains? Certainly not the people we think of as Americans.
With the debt ceiling reset at $11 trillion the debt to GDP ratio is still less than 1. GDP is at $14 trillion. This is comparable to WW2-era debt ratios.
Buy a house with cash? Even if your circumstances allow the question is why? You lose the interest rate deduction. Jobs and careers often require mobility. Neighborhoods and schools can go downhill fast. House values can go down.
Buying on credit means you can walk away without great loss. It enables you to treat things as just that, things. Just crap to consume and throw away.
If prices do decline to bargain levels who do you think is going to grab those bargains? Certainly not the people we think of as Americans.
Am I wrong about any of these details?
1. A subprime loan that became toxic debt = a loan made to a non-white.
2. The $700B will magically appear from the fed.
3. The US gov is going to buy this toxic debt from US and european banks.
4. This is treason.
5. People will not be rioting in the streets.Edited by: C Darwin
1. A subprime loan that became toxic debt = a loan made to a non-white.
2. The $700B will magically appear from the fed.
3. The US gov is going to buy this toxic debt from US and european banks.
4. This is treason.
5. People will not be rioting in the streets.Edited by: C Darwin
I don't think that we can pin this one on non-white people. They are certainly well represented in the numbers but I personally know PLENTY of white folks who bought too much house then they could afford. Also I'm not sure that bad money management, which it is on a mega level, can be equated to treason.
Options executives decry SEC's short-selling ban
link
CHICAGO: The leaders of two of the world's largest options trading and clearing entities criticized the Securities and Exchange Commission's emergency ban on short-selling scores of financial stocks.
William Brodsky, the chief executive officer of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, said in a written statement that the ban is "a draconian measure that will result in the sudden and severe removal of liquidity from the marketplace."
And Wayne Luthringshausen, chairman and CEO of Chicago-based The Options Clearing Corporation, said he understood the need to curb abusive practices but called the SEC order too restrictive.
Luthringshausen said the ban could "harm a marketplace that a great many investors have come to rely on to manage risk in their equity portfolios."
Both statements were issued late Friday after the SEC banned all short-selling in the shares of 799 financial companies until Oct. 2.
SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said the action was necessary to "combat market manipulation that threatens investors and capital markets."
The CBOE, which is regulated by the SEC, is the nation's largest options exchange.
On Thursday, trading volume at the exchange set a new all-time high for the second consecutive day. And though the SEC exempted from the ban exchange market-makers, traders who trade only their own accounts and provide market liquidity, Brodsky said he was especially concerned with what he called the collateral damage caused by the ban to exchange customers.
Jason Leander, a money manager with Cunningham Financial Resource Management, said the ban on short selling will hamstring more savvy retail investors by prohibiting them from taking advantage of major slides in the market's financial sector. Leander said he believes, in the short-term, the ban "has and will stop some of the bleeding" in the markets.
But it puts many market players at a strategic disadvantage.
"Let's face it, the short-sellers called the market right," Leander said.
link
CHICAGO: The leaders of two of the world's largest options trading and clearing entities criticized the Securities and Exchange Commission's emergency ban on short-selling scores of financial stocks.
William Brodsky, the chief executive officer of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, said in a written statement that the ban is "a draconian measure that will result in the sudden and severe removal of liquidity from the marketplace."
And Wayne Luthringshausen, chairman and CEO of Chicago-based The Options Clearing Corporation, said he understood the need to curb abusive practices but called the SEC order too restrictive.
Luthringshausen said the ban could "harm a marketplace that a great many investors have come to rely on to manage risk in their equity portfolios."
Both statements were issued late Friday after the SEC banned all short-selling in the shares of 799 financial companies until Oct. 2.
SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said the action was necessary to "combat market manipulation that threatens investors and capital markets."
The CBOE, which is regulated by the SEC, is the nation's largest options exchange.
On Thursday, trading volume at the exchange set a new all-time high for the second consecutive day. And though the SEC exempted from the ban exchange market-makers, traders who trade only their own accounts and provide market liquidity, Brodsky said he was especially concerned with what he called the collateral damage caused by the ban to exchange customers.
Jason Leander, a money manager with Cunningham Financial Resource Management, said the ban on short selling will hamstring more savvy retail investors by prohibiting them from taking advantage of major slides in the market's financial sector. Leander said he believes, in the short-term, the ban "has and will stop some of the bleeding" in the markets.
But it puts many market players at a strategic disadvantage.
"Let's face it, the short-sellers called the market right," Leander said.
The SEC put a 'regulation' on the traders.
What is FREE about the power of the SEC?
You don't get it do you.
This was caused by some people having too much control.
The market needs to be less regulated.
Competition needs to be encouraged, not suppressed. Edited by: C Darwin
What is FREE about the power of the SEC?
You don't get it do you.
This was caused by some people having too much control.
The market needs to be less regulated.
Competition needs to be encouraged, not suppressed. Edited by: C Darwin
screamingeagle
Mentor
Government policies caused this trouble. We need to go back to New Deal regulations.
Meabwhile, all those involved should should be thrown into a pit so that we can throw mud at them.
Meabwhile, all those involved should should be thrown into a pit so that we can throw mud at them.
On second thought, no way. Anyone that believes that the fedgov hasn't F'd everything up that it has ever touched is really the problem. These issues are not due to capitalism and the free market. Too many rules and regulations restrict competition. The problem has always been a shortage on liquid assets, which is controlled by Bank of America (Rothschild).
Every day on the news, some douchebag is trying to sell me more government regulation on Wall St. F that. The more rules that the federal government puts in place, the worse things have always been. ALWAYS and for EVERYTHING!.
This crisis is a total GD shakedown. The trust told the fedgov - either bail us out, or we crash the market. It's win / win for the trust because those f**kers either get a bailout, or end up with a monopoly.
This is all part of the business cycle where the elite reap their harvest of assets at rock bottom prices.
The answer to this is not regulation of any sort, but the end of legal tender and the promotion of competitive currency.
People who think we need more rules are the sand in my crotch.
Every day on the news, some douchebag is trying to sell me more government regulation on Wall St. F that. The more rules that the federal government puts in place, the worse things have always been. ALWAYS and for EVERYTHING!.
This crisis is a total GD shakedown. The trust told the fedgov - either bail us out, or we crash the market. It's win / win for the trust because those f**kers either get a bailout, or end up with a monopoly.
This is all part of the business cycle where the elite reap their harvest of assets at rock bottom prices.
The answer to this is not regulation of any sort, but the end of legal tender and the promotion of competitive currency.
People who think we need more rules are the sand in my crotch.
aussieaussie31
Guru
YeaHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! This site is alive now.
Tom Iron
Mentor
screamingeagle,
The heck with throwing mud at them. They should be thrown in a pit and buried alive.
Tom Iron...
The heck with throwing mud at them. They should be thrown in a pit and buried alive.
Tom Iron...
Just a tidbit of trading info I thought I might share that would show you how manipulated the market is and how unfair it is when a well-lobbied government gets involved.
Anyways, in this past year I shorted (bet on them going down) three banks; Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and Wells Fargo. Because of the new SEC rules (once this summer and once now) I was forced to buy to cover my shorts - and at the most inopportune time; when everyone else was forced to do the same. This caused a short squeeze and I had to buy all three of them back at a loss. Now consider that since then Lehman is now is penny stock and Golman Sachs had lost 40% of its value - I got screwed out of sure money. Today I was forced to buy back my last short - Wells Fargo. Expect Wells Fargo to sink.
Now you know why a permanent ban on short-selling may never be put in place? If it weren't for the shorts we may have had many more banks that would have already joined Lehman. Now that short selling is done - so is buying back to cover. Over the last couple of months this little short squeeze ploy is the only thing that has been keeping these financial stocks afloat.
Anyways, in this past year I shorted (bet on them going down) three banks; Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and Wells Fargo. Because of the new SEC rules (once this summer and once now) I was forced to buy to cover my shorts - and at the most inopportune time; when everyone else was forced to do the same. This caused a short squeeze and I had to buy all three of them back at a loss. Now consider that since then Lehman is now is penny stock and Golman Sachs had lost 40% of its value - I got screwed out of sure money. Today I was forced to buy back my last short - Wells Fargo. Expect Wells Fargo to sink.
Now you know why a permanent ban on short-selling may never be put in place? If it weren't for the shorts we may have had many more banks that would have already joined Lehman. Now that short selling is done - so is buying back to cover. Over the last couple of months this little short squeeze ploy is the only thing that has been keeping these financial stocks afloat.