The Great Recession - post mortem

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Of course people fail to realize that the US government made good money from the S&L takeovers.

And everyone seems to think the US is going to make a good deal of the $700 billion back, if not MORE (A WSJ article said this could make the US government $1.2 trillion!)

I read that article, too...but there was still a question there as to whether the mortgages the gov't would buy could be valued at a few pennies on the dollar or whether they were truly worthless (big difference). I'd be in favor of using a $700b check in order to get a bigger return at a later date, but other that that article, I haven't seen anyone explore that angle to such a depth that it would convince me that a "blank check" would benefit the country and leave us less exposed than a $700b loan would.

[Daimyo]

From fivethirtyeight.com, here is the breakdown of the vote based on the incumbent 's election status:

Status	Yea	Nay	% Yea
Vulberable	8	30	21.1%
Not vulnerable	174	196	47.0%
Not running	23	2	92.0%

Vulnerable indicates incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project. Not running indicates incumbent congressmen not running for re-election (nearly all republicans). Not vulnerable is everyone else.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Surtt

It is not the housing market that is collapsing, it is the stock market.
Lots of responsible people who had nothing to do with the housing boom/bust are loosing their life savings.


Federalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Merrill Lynch sold to Bank of America amidst fears of collapse
Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy.
Federalization of American International Group.
Washington Mutual was seized by the FDIC.
etc...

No one knows what will happen, but we have had a historic run of bank failures.
It is not just a market correction.

only a bank going out of business affects the avg person. one bank being bought by another bank doesn't affect the people with savings in the aquired bank. of all the examples you gave above, i would say the Lehman one is the most dire since it wasn't bailed out. only the people actually investing in those particular companies were hit the hardest since the price per share declined in most cased 90%-95%. otherwise it's been business as usual for those other entities you cited.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Anthony

only a bank going out of business affects the avg person. one bank being bought by another bank doesn't affect the people with savings in the aquired bank. of all the examples you gave above, i would say the Lehman one is the most dire since it wasn't bailed out. only the people actually investing in those particular companies were hit the hardest since the price per share declined in most cased 90%-95%. otherwise it's been business as usual for those other entities you cited.

I was trying to point out that the string of failures (they would have failed if not bought) was not something that happens during a normal "market correction."

[SirFozzie]

MSNBC is reporting as breaking news that they won't take another whack at it till Thursday.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

MSNBC is reporting as breaking news that they won't take another whack at it till Thursday.

Tommorrow's probably a good day to buy.

[DaddyTorgo]

jeezus -- not till Thurs? they should close the fucking markets till then, or there won't be much to save...although tbh i think if that's true then today was the worst of it and tues/weds will be lesser drops (~200pts)

[DaddyTorgo]

interesting viewpoint

Commentary: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer - CNN.com

this part for sure i agree with

The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.
If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth

[stevew]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

MSNBC is reporting as breaking news that they won't take another whack at it till Thursday.

Is it still because of the jewish holiday?

[Surtt]

[quote=DaddyTorgo;1847060]interesting viewpoint

Commentary: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer - CNN.com

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

I am not sure I follow the logic.
1. The government is responsible because of "implicitly promises"
2. The lenders trusted the government backing.
3. Lenders should be punished for the government's mistake?

[molson]

[quote=Surtt;1847078]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

interesting viewpoint

Commentary: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer - CNN.com

I am not sure I follow the logic.
1. The government is responsible because of "implicitly promises"
2. The lenders trusted the government backing.
3. Lenders should be punished for the government's mistake?

It's more like:

1. The government is responsible.
2. The lenders trusted the government backing
3. The government should learn from prior mistakes and not punish lenders by over-meddling and
screwing the economy up even more.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Of course people fail to realize that the US government made good money from the S&L takeovers.

And everyone seems to think the US is going to make a good deal of the $700 billion back, if not MORE (A WSJ article said this could make the US government $1.2 trillion!)

Which why it is really an investment plan, not a bailout plan.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Which why it is really an investment plan, not a bailout plan.

It's an investment into a company whose assets are of questionable value (if any value at all), purchased by a "company" (USGov) whose record in managing money is, to say the least, shit, in a deal written up by political hacks whose 1) primary concern is getting re-elected and 2) know next to nothing about economics.

What could possibly go wrong?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

It's an investment into a company whose assets are of questionable value (if any value at all), purchased by a "company" (USGov) whose record in managing money is, to say the least, shit, in a deal written up by political hacks whose 1) primary concern is getting re-elected and 2) know next to nothing about politics.

What could possibly go wrong?

Did you mean for (2) - know next to nothing about economics?

Seriously, these hacks putting together something like this - in a panicked rush - is just terrifying.

[Coffee Warlord]

Yeah, I corrected myself...apparently slightly too late for you.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Which why it is really an investment plan, not a bailout plan.

< cyncism >

Yeah but the media get more interest and excitement by making it appear its a waste of tax payers money then they would actually reporting what the intent is ...

Of course the fact that their scaremongering has terrified the public (who largely can't be bothered to find out details themselves) and thus scared congress out of supporting the bill and thus further fubaring the economy doesn't bother the media in the slightest .... I hate the fact that the media report the bills as being a bail out of fat cats when the intent is actually for the good of the economy as a whole imho.

After all they'll probably get good ratings as even more economic turmoil unfolds.

< end cyncism >

I agree that the initial give Paulson $700bn and he promises to be good plan was a tad ludicrous, however the idea of the goverment getting equity in companies seems largely sensible to me to be honest and isn't that far from nationalising the banks (which I know is a 'dirty' concept to some people). The institutions run correctly will make comfortable profits as they have in the past, yes initially they may not but in the long term it'd not just be good for the economy but by owning a profit making corporation the goverment would have higher income in the future*.

*Allowing them to be more fiscally balanced or to give a windfall tax or similar should the companies be floated and returned to the public sector.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Like others have said what good would this do? Do you really want $2300 + Great Depression II?

Perhaps if this money could only be used to pay off debts and/or deposit into a bank (raising their assets). If you limit it to taxpayers alone, the payout would be significantly larger than $2300 and could still accomplish a lot. You put restrictions on how this special money can be spent. Heck, you can call it a credit that gets applied to credit cards, mortgages, or can be put into long term CDs. That way it is put into the system, but it is done by individuals and the populace in a way that they might be more likely to support.

At least with the bailout you are not only hopefully avoiding a global economic collapse but because the taxpayers are going to be contributing the money for it we're investors in the rebuilding of Wall St. That way the profits get spread around all the taxpayers rather than one massive bank and its shareholders. Look at the sweet deals JPM got on WaMu and Buffett got on Goldman. Those deals are to be had on some of these other banks and hopefully we'll be able to look back at this period in time 5 years from now and say that there were some great, great bargains on Wall St. for investors.

Perhaps. We will see what happens. Given the news of the afternoon, it looks like we may end up with a different solution.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The institutions run correctly will make comfortable profits as they have in the past, yes initially they may not but in the long term it'd not just be good for the economy but by owning a profit making corporation the goverment would have higher income in the future*.

US Government and correctly managed institutions are two terms that rarely, if ever, go together. Especially with a LOT of money to be made.

[Flasch186]

a GOP member came out and said he expects a bill to pass late Thursday or Friday and basically scoffed at the idea that things are on the precipice. HE stated that as a fiscal conservative he cant spend this money without the things the GOP house needs, for example, a reduction in the Capital Gains Tax....you shouldve seen Dylan Ratigan's reaction on CNBC and Jeff Mackey almost wanted to jump through the camera and choke the Congressman.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by molson

Did you mean for (2) - know next to nothing about economics?

Seriously, these hacks putting together something like this - in a panicked rush - is just terrifying.

This is the equivalent of hiring Dusty Baker to be your manager when you have 5 young arms who've never thrown over 150 innings. Disaster.

[ISiddiqui]

If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them

Which private parties have the money though? Especially without leveraging?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I noticed that this thread started back in March. Could we have done say a hundred billion dollar plan in March that would have kept us from this point?

Bush kept saying the economy was fine until the past few weeks. That could be major reason why nothing was likely to happen. Despite all available evidence, people like Bush and McCain were insisting that all was well until very recently.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

a GOP member came out and said he expects a bill to pass late Thursday or Friday and basically scoffed at the idea that things are on the precipice. HE stated that as a fiscal conservative he cant spend this money without the things the GOP house needs, for example, a reduction in the Capital Gains Tax....you shouldve seen Dylan Ratigan's reaction on CNBC and Jeff Mackey almost wanted to jump through the camera and choke the Congressman.

The ABC news Capitol correspondent was saying that he still expected a deal by Thursday/Friday as well. Looks like the Senate could take up the matter on Wednesday, and if it passes get it to the House on Thursday.

[Flasch186]

that's true. Unbridled Capitalism works until it doesn't.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

that's true. Unbridled Capitalism works until it doesn't.

We've found a winner for most generic statement ever. "insert blank" works until doesn't! Instant epiphany!!

I'm not sure you could point to a time in American history when we've had "unbridled capitalism". There's always been some level of government interference and regulation.

[Flasch186]

right we've had great regulation and rules that have been enforced. Worked great. Go back to page 1 and start again.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

It's an investment into a company whose assets are of questionable value (if any value at all), purchased by a "company" (USGov) whose record in managing money is, to say the least, shit, in a deal written up by political hacks whose 1) primary concern is getting re-elected and 2) know next to nothing about economics.

What could possibly go wrong?

Would the government, aside from oversight, be running the "fund" (so to say), or would it Paulson and a group of business-minded people be running it?

I like Mark Cuban's idea: My BailOut Solution - I’m In For At Least $50mm « blog maverick

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Perhaps if this money could only be used to pay off debts and/or deposit into a bank (raising their assets). If you limit it to taxpayers alone, the payout would be significantly larger than $2300 and could still accomplish a lot. You put restrictions on how this special money can be spent. Heck, you can call it a credit that gets applied to credit cards, mortgages, or can be put into long term CDs. That way it is put into the system, but it is done by individuals and the populace in a way that they might be more likely to support.




Perhaps. We will see what happens. Given the news of the afternoon, it looks like we may end up with a different solution.

And how is that going to help the economy and get the financial sector flowing again? It's the Refund scheme, Part II, from this summer all over again, expect your going to restrict people what they can their money (which they gave to the government in the first place) on. I would rather have jobs and credit flowing, instead of a few $1,000s in a refund.

[Bigsmooth]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

The LACK of short sellers is why the dow was down 700 points earlier today!!!!!!! Short selling stablizes markets. Roughly 1/7 of all the companies on the NYSE are on the can't short list.

This seems rediculous to me. Betting on a company/stock to fail is good for the market? There has to be a better way to stabilize the damn market. Come on, people that are shorting stocks make money off of other shareholders losses. Short selling stocks reeks of organized crime IMO. Make no mistake, some bastards made millions off of our failing 401k's. I mean, isn't banning short selling of those 799 companies implying that short selling will crush a stock? Maybe if they ban short selling across the board, the market willl stabilize?

[SirFozzie]

BTW, I'm no friend of the Republicans (as I've long said), but today pisses me off. Either they're spinning the fact that it failed and don't want to look like they were playing politics with the economy (which is crap, if you can't support it, come out and say so).. or they're telling the truth and they're so butthurt by someone's meaningless statement that they're willing to cut off their nose to spite their face..

Especially with at least some of the members of the GOP trying to sneak capital gains tax cuts in there.. WHAT. THE. FUCK.

[Bigsmooth]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

BTW, I'm no friend of the Republicans (as I've long said), but today pisses me off. Either they're spinning the fact that it failed and don't want to look like they were playing politics with the economy (which is crap, if you can't support it, come out and say so).. or they're telling the truth and they're so butthurt by someone's meaningless statement that they're willing to cut off their nose to spite their face..

Especially with at least some of the members of the GOP trying to sneak capital gains tax cuts in there.. WHAT. THE. FUCK.

It's just an absolute debacle, an embarrassing time to be an American, really.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

BTW, I'm no friend of the Republicans (as I've long said), but today pisses me off. Either they're spinning the fact that it failed and don't want to look like they were playing politics with the economy (which is crap, if you can't support it, come out and say so).. or they're telling the truth and they're so butthurt by someone's meaningless statement that they're willing to cut off their nose to spite their face..

Especially with at least some of the members of the GOP trying to sneak capital gains tax cuts in there.. WHAT. THE. FUCK.

I didn't hear about that CGT part. Both sides are pathetic (see the spending bill passed earlier that gave the automakers $25 billion in nice loans this weekend.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

< cyncism >

Yeah but the media get more interest and excitement by making it appear its a waste of tax payers money then they would actually reporting what the intent is ...

Of course the fact that their scaremongering has terrified the public (who largely can't be bothered to find out details themselves) and thus scared congress out of supporting the bill and thus further fubaring the economy doesn't bother the media in the slightest .... I hate the fact that the media report the bills as being a bail out of fat cats when the intent is actually for the good of the economy as a whole imho.

After all they'll probably get good ratings as even more economic turmoil unfolds.

< end cyncism >

I agree that the initial give Paulson $700bn and he promises to be good plan was a tad ludicrous, however the idea of the goverment getting equity in companies seems largely sensible to me to be honest and isn't that far from nationalising the banks (which I know is a 'dirty' concept to some people). The institutions run correctly will make comfortable profits as they have in the past, yes initially they may not but in the long term it'd not just be good for the economy but by owning a profit making corporation the goverment would have higher income in the future*.

*Allowing them to be more fiscally balanced or to give a windfall tax or similar should the companies be floated and returned to the public sector.

The first thing that comes to mind is most of the public have been told or believe that govt is evil and the private sector should be left alone to succeed and fail on its own. All of a sudden, the "evil" govt wants to give tax dollars (that Joe Public doesn't believe should be there anyway) to banks that the public can't get money from now.

I agree with all those who have said that the supporters of this bill have done a horrible job of explaining what it does. I personally have learned a hell of a lot more reading this thread over the last week than anything that I have listening to most of the experts.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I didn't hear about that CGT part. Both sides are pathetic (see the spending bill passed earlier that gave the automakers $25 billion in nice loans this weekend.

See post 719 above for the details.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

And how is that going to help the economy and get the financial sector flowing again? It's the Refund scheme, Part II, from this summer all over again, expect your going to restrict people what they can their money (which they gave to the government in the first place) on. I would rather have jobs and credit flowing, instead of a few $1,000s in a refund.

If you require it be used in the financial industry, how is it different? It must be used to pay credit card debt, loan/mortgage debt, or put into long term CDs. All of these put money into the financial industry. The total is the same, plus it frees taxpayers of the debts they owe to these institutions, which removes that strain on their own resources. It accomplishes the double play of putting capital back into the banks while freeing up discretionary income for individual taxpayers.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

The first thing that comes to mind is most of the public have been told or believe that govt is evil and the private sector should be left alone to succeed and fail on its own. All of a sudden, the "evil" govt wants to give tax dollars (that Joe Public doesn't believe should be there anyway) to banks that the public can't get money from now.

I agree with all those who have said that the supporters of this bill have done a horrible job of explaining what it does. I personally have learned a hell of a lot more reading this thread over the last week than anything that I have listening to most of the experts.

Oh, no doubt. There is much more info in this thread than in say "Newsweek." But a lot of comments show how little the average joe understand about how businesses run. Most businesses of any size run on some line of credit to pay payroll, buy supplies, etc. and get paid back when receipts come in. Lock down credit, and many people will not be seeing a paycheck.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

BTW, I'm no friend of the Republicans (as I've long said), but today pisses me off. Either they're spinning the fact that it failed and don't want to look like they were playing politics with the economy (which is crap, if you can't support it, come out and say so).. or they're telling the truth and they're so butthurt by someone's meaningless statement that they're willing to cut off their nose to spite their face..

Especially with at least some of the members of the GOP trying to sneak capital gains tax cuts in there.. WHAT. THE. FUCK.

Is this about the claim that Nancy Pelosi suddenly has tremendous influence in the way the GOP votes on critical issues facing this nation?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Is this about the claim that Nancy Pelosi suddenly has tremendous influence in the way the GOP votes on critical issues facing this nation?

Yeah. "We would have saved America, but twelve of us couldn't stand our beloved policies being questioned, so we're going to let America rot. Nyah! (sticks out tounge)."

[Galaxy]

Didn't the Democrats have about 90-some members vote against it? If so, why did they vote against it?

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

If you require it be used in the financial industry, how is it different? It must be used to pay credit card debt, loan/mortgage debt, or put into long term CDs. All of these put money into the financial industry. The total is the same, plus it frees taxpayers of the debts they owe to these institutions, which removes that strain on their own resources. It accomplishes the double play of putting capital back into the banks while freeing up discretionary income for individual taxpayers.

The problem is home loans that are bad and need to be written off not credit accounts in good standing.

If some one owes you $500 and is paying it off slowly. If he pays it off sooner it doesn't really mater. You will get your money either way.

But if some one owes you $500 and skips town, you are sol. Having some one else pay it off makes a big difference. It is the difference from getting paid or not.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Didn't the Democrats have about 90-some members vote against it? If so, why did they vote against it?

Politics. Share the blame. That was the whole point of this. The agreement was both parties would vote 50-50 or something close to it so that it is not one party's plan.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Didn't the Democrats have about 90-some members vote against it? If so, why did they vote against it?

because:

See the votes are mostly counted in the back hallways before the actual vote occurs. SOOOOOO, the ones who are in heated elections coming up would vote "no" while people who are comfortable in their races or are not in races at all vote "yeah." Same on the GOP side. Then add in variances and you get the results today.

[Bigsmooth]

Another good take:

Let Risk-Taking Financial Institutions Fail - TIME

Also, the voice of reason, Ron Paul:

YouTube - Bailout Fails!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

because:

See the votes are mostly counted in the back hallways before the actual vote occurs. SOOOOOO, the ones who are in heated elections coming up would vote "no" while people who are comfortable in their races or are not in races at all vote "yeah." Same on the GOP side. Then add in variances and you get the results today.

what he said

[SirFozzie]

Lawmakers quickly point fingers after bailout fails - CNN.com

Confirmed that the earliest a bill will come up is Thursday.

The House will not be in session Tuesday and Wednesday, but behind-the-scenes work will continue until it reconvenes on Thursday.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Politics. Share the blame. That was the whole point of this. The agreement was both parties would vote 50-50 or something close to it so that it is not one party's plan.

Yup: From the link in my last post

"They lost 2-1 on their own side, voting against their president, their presidential candidate and against every leader in their own party," one Democratic source said.

Pelosi said the Democrats lived up their side of the bargain. "We've entered into those conversations in a spirit of bipartisanship, with the understanding that each side would have half of our votes to pass the bill," she said.

"When the legislation came to the floor, the Democratic side more than lived up to its side of the bargain," she added. "While the legislation may have failed, the crisis is still with us."

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Bigsmooth

Another good take:

Let Risk-Taking Financial Institutions Fail - TIME

Biggest problem:

"Let financial institutions fail, merge or be bought out. The faltering institutions will see their shares devalued and will be likely to be taken over by stronger institutions — as has already started happening. This consolidation of the financial sector is both efficient and inevitable; government action can only delay the adjustment."

Other banks can't buy them out if they don't have the credit or money to do so. Healthier banks, who aren't exactly "strong" as it is, are buying other assets with help from the government.

If the government bought out actual mortgages, does that mean people that had these mortgages get free homes? What if, which would include a lot of them, can't make mortgages payments even when the government's bailout? People seem to think that Wall Street and Main Street (like the idiots in the picture on that page) are separate. They are tied at the hip.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Politics. Share the blame. That was the whole point of this. The agreement was both parties would vote 50-50 or something close to it so that it is not one party's plan.

Ah, thanks.

[Tekneek]

I will take a buyout as long as I get to erase some debt in the process. I'll take that over the government having an equity stake. It's not like I will ever see a penny from those transactions, even if it does come out positively. The government will just create some new bullshit to blow the money on and continue trying to destroy their credit rating and devalue the currency.

Which taxpayers got their share of the S&L assets the government apparently made a profit on? Did you get dividends on your ownership share? Get a payment when your ownership stake was sold? That may be why many people don't know the government made money on that deal. It might very well be because the government didn't let them share in the proceeds.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

If the government bought out actual mortgages, does that mean people that had these mortgages get free homes? What if, which would include a lot of them, can't make mortgages payments even when the government's bailout? People seem to think that Wall Street and Main Street (like the idiots in the picture on that page) are separate. They are tied at the hip.

No, it just means that the gov't would have more flexibility in changing the terms of their loan than a private institution could offer. Let's say that if those mortgages are being valued at a 5% recovery rate (the actual value is the big question mark), the gov't could make money by altering the terms in order to get a 15%-20% recovery rate. Pretty good investment for the country. The 80% that are still unrecoverable would still lose their house though...can't save everyone.

However, if these mortgages are valued at 5%, but are actually more like 0%-2%, then taxpayers are on the hook for the difference. Bad investment for the country and not worth the effort in the first place.