It's a whole new ballgame!

[jillian]

What's happening is wholesale nationalisation.

So what do you think they should do? There are so many ripple effects because of the recklessness of the corporatists. Do you let everything go south?

 

[Diuretic]

So what do you think they should do? There are so many ripple effects because of the recklessness of the corporatists. Do you let everything go south?

Hell no, I'd nationalise nearly everything but I'm a socialist fascist

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Pretty much everything that everyone has and is arguing on this message board and throughout the country is now superfluous.

We are now in the beginning of an uncontrolled wildfire that's storming through western civilization's economic system. So far they cannot isolate and contain it. Hopefully, they will, but it's I'd guess there's of 75% chance against it.

The entire financial basis of of the West's economy consists of interdependant investments by large corporations (i.e. institutional investors).
As one institution falls, it brings down hundreds of others.

The ONLY thing that matters in this election is which candidate can best implement CATASTROPHIC ECONOMIC CRISIS MANAGEMENT. Which one is willing to stay ahead of the curve of this economic crisis by implementing RADICAL economic measures. Those measure may be reversed as the crisis subsides, but if they are not implemented we are not only going to have an 'economic' crisis, but the largest HUMANITARIAN CRISIS THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN.

Yes, the sky really is falling.

And Obama's solution is to take more money from those Corporations and to create a commission to PREVENT people from selling off stocks after a magic number is reached. Yup he sure has a great plan.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I warned people on Sunday night that Lehman was going down.

I noted that same night that AIG is toast.

They freaking confiscated AIG, for gods sakes.

Do our board mates NOT realize that?

Apparently not, Richard-H.

I'm glad there's at least a few of us on this board who understand how weird the relationship between the banks and the government has become in the last few weeks.

It appears that the rest of this crowd is still so enamored slinging shit at each other over the shadow puppet show that is our election, they don't realize the theater is on fire.

Can you believe the way they dealt with AIG?

These are free market capitalists!?!

If any neo-cons asshole on this board ever has the unmitigated termitity to tell me they or their party are free market capitalists I'm going to laugh in their ignorant faces.

The Fed took over AIG like stormtroopers. AIG stockholders and debtors got screwed but not kissed.


What country are we living in, Richard?

Seriously, I have no idea, anymore.

People are buying T-bills as a flight to safety?

Are they for real?

Based on what just happened to AIG, there is no safe haven from the government averice, right now.



The risk of these real estate bonds is not so bad, but since the market is dead, nobody can prove it.

Every bank holding those bonds is at risk of not seeming liquid and being taken over if they keep playing this accounting fiasco out.

You of course are aware that CONGRESS is run by the Democrats? That any money coming from Congress comes from the DEMOCRATS?

 

[jillian]

Hell no, I'd nationalise nearly everything but I'm a socialist fascist

heh... i so wish i could rep you for that one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow, that's really intelligent. At a time that our civilization is on the brink of disaster all you want to do is start the political finger pointing.

Wall St. and the N.Y. financial industry are overwhelming Republican. We have has a Republican dominated governmet for 6 of the past 8 years and have been grossly favoring the free-market philosophy since 1980.

Isn't it the Republicans that profess 'personal responsibilty'? Maybe it's time you man-up and for once take responsibilty for your actions.

Yes, there are a lot of Democrats that have catered to the Republican economic philosophy since the days of Reagan, but it has been the Republican's that led us into being a country of mindless, greedy sleaze-balls.

Hypocrite comes to mind with this post. You intended to attack republicans and have the gall to complain when it is pointed out DEMOCRATS created the problem. And in the same breath ADMIT that was your intent.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You really DO believe that people like me think this is a partisan issue, don't you?

Yes I do. Since you routinely attack republicans why wouldn't I? Remind me of the last time you blamed anything on a democrat?

 

[Ravi]

AIG probably is NOT insolvent. The government overreacted here, I think.

From what I understand, AIG got into the business of securing loans between financial institutions. The fear was that without these types of insurance policies, banks would stop lending money to each other, and the entire economy would grind to a halt. Not just our economy, either, the entire world's. AIG, though based in NY, is a company that insures worldwide.

 

[Ravi]

Yes I do. Since you routinely attack republicans why wouldn't I? Remind me of the last time you blamed anything on a democrat?

He does it quite often. But of course, you wouldn't see that because you, yourself are a deluded partisan hack retard.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He does it quite often. But of course, you wouldn't see that because you, yourself are a deluded partisan hack retard.

This from the board idiot, the person that if she had a function brain might actually have something to say, but instead spews ignorance with every post. Now tell us Ravi how do you FEEL about that?

 

[editec]

What's happening is wholesale nationalisation.

That's what the AIG event and the Fannie mae takeovers look like to me, to be honest.

that this confiscation was overseen while a NEO-CON was in office should tip at least those interested in knowing the truth, how completely UN conservative that branch of the political scene really is.

Barny Frank, of course, sees himself as saving the stock market from a complete meltdown by shoring up AIG, but the way that it was done?

Looks a LOT more like something a communist nation might do than a capitalist nation, to me, at least.

Something had to be done to be sure, but this solution?

I'm astounded by it

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's what the AIG event and the Fannie mae takeovers look like to me, to be honest.

that this confiscation was overseen while a NEO-CON was in office should tip at least those interested in knowing the truth, how completely UN conservative that branch of the political scene really is.

Barny Frank, of course, sees himself as saving the stock market from a complete meltdown by shoring up AIG, but the way that it was done?

Looks a LOT more like something a communist nation might do than a capitalist nation, to me, at least.

Something had to be done to be sure, but this solution?

I'm astounded by it

Wait, remind me? Who controls the purse string again? I could have SWORN the Legislative branch owns that control? Now remind us Editec, who controls both Houses of Congress? I guess Cheney pulled out the secret mind control ray gun he has and used it on Congress?

Further proof you are a partisan hack that pretends other wise.

 

[editec]

So what do you think they should do? There are so many ripple effects because of the recklessness of the corporatists. Do you let everything go south?

Exactly, Jill.

What TO DO?

they couldn't let AIG go down, that's for damned sure.

But was confiscating AIG the right solution?

the problem that AIG has is no basically different than the problem thousands of banks have. (okay they're on the hook for insuring these assets, but still its basically the same problem once removed)

They're all screwed because these bizarre fiancial instruments they've bought and sold and insured currently have UNKNOWN values.

And, since many of these banks counted these instruments as part of the capitalization, when those assets have unknown values, the banks have UNKNOWN capitalization and AIG has UNKNOWN risk by insuring their values.

I found it EXTREMELY troubling to read a few days ago that the FED just allowed banks to start counting the money people have in SAVINGS ACCOUNTS as part of the banks' capitalization.

I SUSPECT that the Fed did this because banks all over the USA could be declared insolvent (undercapitalized) had they not done so.

Much thanks to Brian H for bring this fact to our attention.

I have not heard doodlesquat about THAT in the news.

But that is an extremely interesting development, and I think it indicates the real nature of how badly the banks are in trouble because of the decline in real estate values.

The whole damned banking system is poisoned with these assets of unknowable values.

I am seriously going to take a significan amount of cash out of the saving account and put it into my deposit box, folks.

Not because I think that FDIC won't come to the rescue if my bank fails, but because it may not react in a timely enough way for me to pay my bills, should it (god forbid) come to that.

In my case it won't make a big difference to my bank's solvency (damn it!) but it might make a huge difference to me personally.

I'd seriously suggest that people consider keeping a month's expenses in cash rather than in a savings account, just in case.

Yeah, I know if the entire USA population did that it would cause a run on the banks, but I'm writing to about 20 people here so I think the American economy can take the hit.

 

[Bern80]

I understand your point, but I have to tell you I cannot lay the blame for this on the American buyers of real estate.

It's just way more complex than that.

This is entirely a market-made disaster with the aid of a government which stopped doing its job.

The banks, and the government which gave them free rein to create this TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS are at fault, but honestly, they do not yet have a plan to stabilize this embroglio because even they don't fully understand it.

Remember this is micro and maco economics, not something so simple as rocket science.

Anyone can predict where a rocket will fall because the laws of physics are completely predictable

NOBODY can predict something so bafflingly complex as a market reaction because the laws of human nature are not easily predicted except in to the MOST obvious cases.

But isn't, in a nutshell, what you are saying here is that government should essentially protected people from their own stupidity? I agree whole heartedly that the lending institutions deserve at least equal blame, but this obviously is hurting them as well.

I can't remember if it was you or not, but a couple have said this is all, or partially, the fault of deregulation. Well for that to be true there would have had to have been some mechanism or policy in place that would have prevented this. Well what was that?

 

[Bern80]

Exactly, Jill.

What TO DO?

they couldn't let AIG go down, that's for damned sure.

But was confiscating AIG the right solution?

the problem that AIG has is no basically different than the problem thousands of banks have. (okay they're on the hook for insuring these assets, but still its basically the same problem once removed)

They're all screwed because these bizarre fiancial instruments they've bought and sold and insured currently have UNKNOWN values.

And, since many of these banks counted these instruments as part of the capitalization, when those assets have unknown values, the banks have UNKNOWN capitalization and AIG has UNKNOWN risk by insuring their values.

I found it EXTREMELY troubling to read a few days ago that the FED just allowed banks to start counting the money people have in SAVINGS ACCOUNTS as part of the banks' capitalization.

I SUSPECT that the Fed did this because banks all over the USA could be declared insolvent (undercapitalized) had they not done so.

Much thanks to Brian H for bring this fact to our attention.

I have not heard doodlesquat about THAT in the news.

But that is an extremely interesting development, and I think it indicates the real nature of how badly the banks are in trouble because of the decline in real estate values.

The whole damned banking system is poisoned with these assets of unknowable values.

I am seriously going to take a significan amount of cash out of the saving account and put it into my deposit box, folks.

Not because I think that FDIC won't come to the rescue if my bank fails, but because it may not react in a timely enough way for me to pay my bills, should it (god forbid) come to that.

In my case it won't make a big difference to my bank's solvency (damn it!) but it might make a huge difference to me personally.

I'd seriously suggest that people consider keeping a month's expenses in cash rather than in a savings account, just in case.

Yeah, I know if the entire USA population did that it would cause a run on the banks, but I'm writing to about 20 people here so I think the American economy can take the hit.

Who will tell 20 more, who will 20 more, and then we can all just blame you.

 

[gonegolfin]

I found it EXTREMELY troubling to read a few days ago that the FED just allowed banks to start counting the money people have in SAVINGS ACCOUNTS as part of the banks' capitalization.

I SUSPECT that the Fed did this because banks all over the USA could be declared insolvent (undercapitalized) had they not done so.

Much thanks to Brian H for bring this fact to our attention.

I have not heard doodlesquat about THAT in the news.

Brian H? Were you referring to the below post I made?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/58325-glass-steagall-has-now-been-obliterated.html

What you state above is not quite the same, but in the same zip code.

I am seriously going to take a significant amount of cash out of the saving account and put it into my deposit box, folks.

Not because I think that FDIC won't come to the rescue if my bank fails, but because it may not react in a timely enough way for me to pay my bills, should it (god forbid) come to that.

This is one of the problems with FDIC that folks do not understand. Everyone knows that they are woefully undercapitalized and are probably good for one big bank failure and a few smaller regional banks. But if we get a string of bank failures, the strain on the FDIC may cause people to lose the value of their money. That is, by the time the FDIC gets around to the bailout of your account(s), the value of the Dollar may have fallen significantly. You will still get paid the nominal sum of your account holdings (within the guidelines, restrictions, and capitalization of the FDIC). But what will those holdings actually be worth by the time you receive your money? If your bank is going to fail, you want it to be one of the first ones to fail.

Another thing many do not understand is that while the FDIC states that they guarantee deposits, they in fact cannot guarantee all deposits. They can only guarantee deposits up to the amount of their reserve fund. The Glass-Steagall Act that brought FDIC into being does not require Congress to provide funding to the FDIC to account for shortfalls. Now, I do not think that this would be politically palatable in our current environment and that Congress would probably make good with the Dollars (maybe worthless Dollars by that time) the FDIC needs to conduct its depositor bailouts. But it is something to think about.

I'd seriously suggest that people consider keeping a month's expenses in cash rather than in a savings account, just in case.

Yeah, I know if the entire USA population did that it would cause a run on the banks, but I'm writing to about 20 people here so I think the American economy can take the hit.

I have kept a month's worth of cash outside the banking system for several years now. I also think it is important to keep enough gold/silver readily available (not in a safe deposit box) to pay your property taxes in a hyper-inflationary environment (where property taxes could skyrocket in terms of the US Dollar). You can own your home outright. But we do not truly have property rights in this country as the government can confiscate your fully owned home (no mortgage) for the failure to pay property taxes.

Brian