Keep in mind that even if the plan had passed the House the senate had yet to act and the bill wouldn't even go into effect for 2 weeks after that.
It makes one question if matters are as dire as we are lead to believe.
Between posts here some voices I give credence to, and who were opposed to the bailout at first blush, seem to say that the market correction will be quite dire and they seem to think the bill should have passed even though they hated it.
But here is a scary thought:
Quote:
In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.
"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."
|
Bad News For The Bailout - Forbes.com
I'm still not convinced the cure is better than the disease and this does nothing to assuage those fears. We were told Bear Stearns needed band-aids to stop the hemorrhage yet here we are today.
How can we propose a solution if there is no "data point" upon which the scope of the bailout is based? We're dealing with toxic assets: properties that cannot be sold because they are over-valued, the market is saturated and as they have no defined price even if a buyer was interested they couldn't make a sound offer.
Extracting a $700B number from your rectum does nothing to address a value-based crash.
OK, partisan BS aside, no jabs because I have plenty too, let's talk solutions:
Should we hold and wait to see how much the market falls to develop a picture of baseline values?
(more questions likely to follow)
Linear Mode
