Bail out of AIG unconsitutional

[Paulie]

A revolution? It would not be a revolution it would be civil war. You all haven't noticed that this nation is divided philosophically?


A civil war, yeah, that's just what we need.

The nation already isn't working, let's burn it down kill everyone we don't like and then start over.

Yeah, that'll fix it.

This is what happens when you feed people a line of bullshit about watering the tree of liberty with blood.

They haven't a clue what revolution really means.

Try THINKING revolutionary for a change, that might help.

We won't find your liberty at the end of a gun barrel, we'll find it when we stop thinking like slaves.

You want to know the BIG LIE that keeps them going?

The myth of shortage.

This world is so damned wealthy, but we've allowed our masters to convince us it isn't so we work like slaves and some of us kiss the hands of the masters who allow us the previlage of working for them.

Fucking tools.

Perhaps your idea of revolution differs from mine. My version of a successful revolution would not even involve a single shot being fired from a weapon.

Remember the four boxes: Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo. In that order.

We haven't even BEGUN to use even the FIRST one properly, let alone the next two. Jury box? PLEASE. 90% of people don't even want to be hassled with jury duty, and will do whatever they can to get out of it. Although it happens to be such a HUGE significant factor in the people's control of their own country. An unbiased, informed jury is a powerful body. I imagine we'll probably never live to see it used to its full intended potential.

 

[user_name_guest]

Like my smart Vietnamese friend said to me, "The market has spoken, and it says that these banks should not be here anymore because they did not allocate their resources
correctly. The gov jumping in - putting their hands in the market - makes it
possible for them to mess up again."

Maybe we should learn about history. Deregulation in the mortgage market screwed the United States. The government has no business to bail these financial institutions out. Don't set a bad precedent.

 

[Paulie]

Like my smart Vietnamese friend said to me, "The market has spoken, and it says that these banks should not be here anymore because they did not allocate their resources
correctly. The gov jumping in - putting their hands in the market - makes it
possible for them to mess up again."

Maybe we should learn about history. Deregulation in the mortgage market screwed the United States. The government has no business to bail these financial institutions out. Don't set a bad precedent.

I almost agree, but blaming deregulation gives consumers a free pass on their stupidity. The borrowers are just as much to blame, and regulatory standards had nothing to do with consumers' idiotic management of their finances.

 

[gonegolfin]

I almost agree, but blaming deregulation gives consumers a free pass on their stupidity. The borrowers are just as much to blame, and regulatory standards had nothing to do with consumers' idiotic management of their finances.

For all the talk about the need for more regulation, all of the proposals our "leaders" are currently championing are missing the most important regulation of all. That is, the implicit regulation that allows bankrupt companies and defaulting homeowners to fail!

Brian

 

[dilloduck]

Regulate--deregulate--BAH

get some PROPER regulation. This isn't an all or nothing deal

 

[jillian]

For all the talk about the need for more regulation, all of the proposals our "leaders" are currently championing are missing the most important regulation of all. That is, the implicit regulation that allows bankrupt companies and defaulting homeowners to fail!

Brian

In theory, that's correct, Brian. In actuality, allowing a world wide depression is probably a bit harsh of a way to say "I told you so".

 

[dilloduck]

In theory, that's correct, Brian. In actuality, allowing a world wide depression is probably a bit harsh of a way to say "I told you so".

How did one company get so powerful that the world is dependent on it. If it goes under, the rest of the world goes under ?

 

[Ravi]

How did one company get so powerful that the world is dependent on it. If it goes under, the rest of the world goes under ?

Sometimes. That's the problem with letting companies get too big. In about ten years, Bank of America might be that company, that we sat back and watched buy up all its competitors, that gets "too big" and we have to save it.

 

[gonegolfin]

In theory, that's correct, Brian. In actuality, allowing a world wide depression is probably a bit harsh of a way to say "I told you so".

No, it has nothing to do with "I told you so". It is about preventing a more dire catastrophe in the future. And that is exactly where we are headed with the approaches being suggested.

These problems will be repeated as moral hazard reigns supreme. The gross misallocation of capital and excesses must be cleansed. If you think that what is being proposed fixes all of the other ills in our economy, financial system, and monetary system that have been building for over 40 years, you are not well informed and rather naive.

Brian

 

[Richard-H]

The bail out of AIG gives the Federal Government an 80% controlling Share of the company. This is a clear violation of the constitution...

It's been quite a while since I've read the constitution, and I really am not in the mood to read it right now.

Could you please tell me exactly what clause, article or amendment this violates? A cut & paste would be nice.

 

[Paulie]

In theory, that's correct, Brian. In actuality, allowing a world wide depression is probably a bit harsh of a way to say "I told you so".

You're right. We should pass this massive debt burden on to our children who had nothing to do with the mess, and who have no say in how it's handled. As long as we adults who could have been smarter, don't have to deal with our own consequences, right?

 

[Paulie]

It's been quite a while since I've read the constitution, and I really am not in the mood to read it right now.

Could you please tell me exactly what clause, article or amendment this violates? A cut & paste would be nice.

You not being in the mood to read it out of laziness is a contributing factor to our problems these days.

 

[jillian]

No, it has nothing to do with "I told you so". It is about preventing a more dire catastrophe in the future. And that is exactly where we are headed with the approaches being suggested.

These problems will be repeated as moral hazard reigns supreme. The gross misallocation of capital and excesses must be cleansed. If you think that what is being proposed fixes all of the other ills in our economy, financial system, and monetary system that have been building for over 40 years, you are not well informed and rather naive.

Brian

Moral hazard? Cleansing? This isn't church. Corporations are amoral creations of statute. They exist solely to make money. If that requires excess,then that is what they do. Hence the need for oversight. Business does not self-correct immoral or excessive behavior. It would be nice to think it would, but it doesn't.

I'm far from naive. I do however have a child whose future concerns me as does the value of my 401K. Not being one of mccain's wealthy, earning 5 million a year or more, I suspect that rampant inflation and the failure of the banking industry would have a bit of an effect on me and my family. Now, it wasn't me who assigned and reassigned risky investments. So, that being the case,I'd say that *I* shouldn't suffer because the corporatists ran roughshod...

What solution, other than allowing the entire financiail world to fall down around us, would you suggest... you know, that might cleanse the big bad corporations.

BTW, Brian, I appreciate the discussion of these issues but if I'm naive, so are an awful lot of other people who agreed to this bail out today, no?

 

[jillian]

You're right. We should pass this massive debt burden on to our children who had nothing to do with the mess, and who have no say in how it's handled. As long as we adults who could have been smarter, don't have to deal with our own consequences, right?

They already did that by spending 200 trillion on a pretend war of choice.

 

[Paulie]

They already did that by spending 200 trillion on a pretend war of choice.

200 trillion? I don't support Iraq anymore than you, but that was a typo right?

 

[jillian]

200 trillion? I don't support Iraq anymore than you, but that was a typo right?

heh...yeah, it is... it's billion.

thanks.

 

[Valerie]

You not being in the mood to read it out of laziness is a contributing factor to our problems these days.

lol No kidding! It's just a couple of clicks away!

 

[gonegolfin]

Moral hazard? Cleansing? This isn't church.

What???

Do you know what moral hazard is in this context? Evidently not.
Do you understand the concept of cleansing the excesses and misallocation of capital ... of course in an economics context?

These are very important issues. Particularly in this discussion. This is an economics board, is it not?

Corporations are amoral creations of statute. They exist solely to make money. If that requires excess,then that is what they do. Hence the need for oversight. Business does not self-correct immoral or excessive behavior. It would be nice to think it would, but it doesn't.

Evidently I completely lost you in my previous post. This is not even remotely close to what I was referring.

I'm far from naive. I do however have a child whose future concerns me as does the value of my 401K. Not being one of mccain's wealthy, earning 5 million a year or more, I suspect that rampant inflation and the failure of the banking industry would have a bit of an effect on me and my family. Now, it wasn't me who assigned and reassigned risky investments. So, that being the case,I'd say that *I* shouldn't suffer because the corporatists ran roughshod...

I meant that you are naive with respect to the economic, monetary system, and financial market problems at hand. Not generally as a person.

What gave you the impression that I was at all in favor of a corporate bailout? They were part of the problem. But not the root cause. And we as citizens are responsible for the root cause because we let it happen. And the reason why we let it happen is because we are so dumbed down when it comes to simply understanding our money.

BTW, Brian, I appreciate the discussion of these issues but if I'm naive, so are an awful lot of other people who agreed to this bail out today, no?

If you are referring to folks in the financial media and the press ... no, many of them are not naive. But some are ... these folks are not especially well versed in the deep issues surrounding the problems of our financial and monetary system. But as for these folks as well as the professional money managers and investors that you have seen around the clock recently, it is not that they are necessarily naive. It is that they have a vested interest in the bailout (Bill Gross has been a perfect example). All folks that work in the financial industry do. Think about the vested interest of those that you see on TV or hear on the radio when you hear them expressing their opinions. Also, there is, in fact, a reasonable opposition to the bailout in the media.

Brian

 

[dilloduck]

Sometimes. That's the problem with letting companies get too big. In about ten years, Bank of America might be that company, that we sat back and watched buy up all its competitors, that gets "too big" and we have to save it.

but how do they get so big that they are indespensible ? I certainly didn't do it, Ravi..DID YOU ???

 

[Richard-H]

You not being in the mood to read it out of laziness is a contributing factor to our problems these days.

O.K., I lied. I was in the mood to read it, as I've done several times before.

I can't find anything in the U.S. Consttution that directly states that this AIG takeover is illegal.

I don't believe that there is anything about the Constituion that prohibits this type of thing.

I think the reason you answered the way you did is because you can't find anything in the Constitution that prohibits this and just didn't want to admit it.

If there is some clause, article or amendment, please post it.

Otherwise, SHUTUP!