Home Non Cigar Related

Fed bailout

sanesane Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 151
I would guess that a number of you watch the stock market. Wondering what some of your think of the $700 bil. bailout plan that Henry Paulson proposed to Congress on Saturday? I personally am ageist the shorts freeze, and the bailout. I don't think the shorts make any long term difference in the stock market and I think that all it dose is f'up the little guy that was trying to hedge their losses. I know that if the upper level financial institutions go bankrupt then it would seriously affect the USA and the worlds economics stability, but I think we need a "dooms day" before we can fix the financial problems that we are facing.
«134

Comments

  • rusiriusrusirius Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 564
  • sanesane Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 151
    rusirius:
    "Trying to fix a problem caused by lack of oversight with a plan that has no oversight seems a bit crazy..."
    I would say that sums it up.
  • LukoLuko Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,004
  • dutyjedutyje Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,263
  • dutyjedutyje Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,263
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 14,471
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 7,349
    I think it's great that large companies make bad deals and screw up and the govt. gets on the bailout lickity split! However people are losing their homes, losing jobs, family's have to work way too much just to eek by, the list goes on, but is that something that is as important? NO, well there you have it... So yes I'm opposed to it, I say let them sink. The average guy can't even afford get their kids in good schools....
  • dutyjedutyje Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,263
    Looks like we've found one of the only political issues on which we actually agree :)
  • LukoLuko Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,004
  • dutyjedutyje Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,263
    Luko:
    You make the bailout and then you fix it long-term.
    No... you fix it long-term while you've still got leverage... then you bail them out. If you bail them out first, your leverage in negotiating a long-term fix is gone. This is why the Dems have dragged their feet on this. They want the corporations and execs to suffer, and to install safeguards. The Reps know who their backers are, and they want to protect the execs.
  • LukoLuko Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,004
  • These Filthy HandsThese Filthy Hands Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 455
    I feel that we shouldn't have to pay for the large banks inability to think that giving mortgages to people that couldn't afford them. I think that we should let them burn. The ones left standing will prosper. Survival of the fittest.
  • sanesane Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 151
    duty as kuzi put it "damn dude. couldnt have said it better myself. " I CAN'T wait to see what gas, food, everything will go up to after the feds print the extra cash to cover this bailout and are dollar collapses and be comes worthless. That will be a fun day for everyone.
  • urbinourbino Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 4,517
  • LasabarLasabar Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 4,457
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 14,471
  • LukoLuko Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,004
  • urbinourbino Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 4,517
    kuzi16:
    Obama even has some of their execs on his staff.
    So does McCain. Well, okay, not their execs. Their lobbyists.
  • urbinourbino Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 4,517
    Luko:
    It's not just corporate America who got us here. People who couldn't afford these loans (and for the most part very well knew it) took the money. Joe Bagadonuts is just as responsible.
    True. But Mr. & Mrs. Bagadonuts are the only ones not getting bailed out.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 14,471
    urbino:
    kuzi16:
    Obama even has some of their execs on his staff.
    So does McCain. Well, okay, not their execs. Their lobbyists.
    i was making the point to show its not just republicans. we alredy established it was republicans, i dindt need to do it again.
  • urbinourbino Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 4,517
    Ah. Guess I didn't read closely enough. Proceed apace.
  • sanesane Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 151
    Warning Rant: Sorry for this but I'm really pissed off with the government right now, I know that WaMu was looking for a buyer and that they kept getting their ratting cut so there insurance was going up and up but I am a firm believer that they would have survived. But no the government had to come in, shut them down and sell of there assets to JPM, in the process screwing over every share holder. I didn't lose much so it didn't affect me that much but I know people that have lost a good amount in the deal and in the f'ing shorts freeze they did last week. Sorry for the rant just needed to put it out there.
  • LukoLuko Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,004
  • dutyjedutyje Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,263
    sane:
    Warning Rant: Sorry for this but I'm really pissed off with the government right now, I know that WaMu was looking for a buyer and that they kept getting their ratting cut so there insurance was going up and up but I am a firm believer that they would have survived. But no the government had to come in, shut them down and sell of there assets to JPM, in the process screwing over every share holder. I didn't lose much so it didn't affect me that much but I know people that have lost a good amount in the deal and in the f'ing shorts freeze they did last week. Sorry for the rant just needed to put it out there.
    That's the "risk" part of investing... the takeover left a lot of people (including me) sitting on worthless paper. I think the freeze on shoring was a necessary move as well. Just the day before they made that announcement, I advised one of my associates that shorting some financial stock wouldn't be a bad idea. So much for that. The thing is, widespread shorting becomes a self-fulfilling gamble in the exact same way that speculative buying does. Eventually, the bubble bursts and somebody gets stuck. That's no different from the temporary halting of trades in securities as they either plummet or skyrocket. Volatility is one of the biggest risks to the market. With greater access for amateur traders, the risk has been compounded significantly.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 14,471
    dutyje:
    sane:
    Warning Rant: Sorry for this but I'm really pissed off with the government right now, I know that WaMu was looking for a buyer and that they kept getting their ratting cut so there insurance was going up and up but I am a firm believer that they would have survived. But no the government had to come in, shut them down and sell of there assets to JPM, in the process screwing over every share holder. I didn't lose much so it didn't affect me that much but I know people that have lost a good amount in the deal and in the f'ing shorts freeze they did last week. Sorry for the rant just needed to put it out there.
    That's the "risk" part of investing... the takeover left a lot of people (including me) sitting on worthless paper. I think the freeze on shoring was a necessary move as well. Just the day before they made that announcement, I advised one of my associates that shorting some financial stock wouldn't be a bad idea. So much for that. The thing is, widespread shorting becomes a self-fulfilling gamble in the exact same way that speculative buying does. Eventually, the bubble bursts and somebody gets stuck. That's no different from the temporary halting of trades in securities as they either plummet or skyrocket. Volatility is one of the biggest risks to the market. With greater access for amateur traders, the risk has been compounded significantly.
    yet again duty, i couldnt have said it better myself.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 4,132
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 7,349
    I like that plan. But it will never happen. Would be a good move but it doesn't help the politicians, normal americans have no sway in their power.
  • dutyjedutyje Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,263
    What a great idea! Except your math is wrong. $85B divided among 200M is only $425. So, we each get $425 and not $425,000.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 4,132
    Well it wasn't my math, I just copied it from an email I got, but it was a pretty funny idea I thought. We all know even if the math was right that it still wouldn't happen... I mean why would the government give that much of OUR money back to us? Like we know whats best for us or something...
  • dutyjedutyje Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,263
    PuroFreak:
    Well it wasn't my math, I just copied it from an email I got, but it was a pretty funny idea I thought. We all know even if the math was right that it still wouldn't happen... I mean why would the government give that much of OUR money back to us? Like we know whats best for us or something...
    At any rate, you're not doing my taxes next year ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.