News What is wrong with the US economy? Part 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Economy
AI Thread Summary
The U.S. economy is facing significant challenges, highlighted by the Federal Reserve's decision to maintain interest rates at 2%, which led to a market decline. AIG's stock plummeted by 45% due to concerns over its exposure to risky derivatives, prompting speculation about a potential Federal bailout. The Fed is reportedly considering a lending facility for AIG, with major banks like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase involved in discussions. Despite some recovery in AIG's stock, there are ongoing concerns about the broader implications of a potential AIG collapse on the financial system. The U.S. trade deficit has also widened, raising alarms about the country's economic stability as it continues to accumulate debt.
  • #151
jimmysnyder said:
Is Socialism a cure for the division of labor?

"Socialism," as the term is being used here (i.e., in the sense of Marx) is intended to cure the division between labor and capital, and the associated division between labor and the bourgeoisie. It has nothing to do with the division of labor as such. Indeed, as it only applies to industrialized societies, which uniformly post-date the division of labor by thousands of years, you could say that it presumes a division of labor.

As far as trading goes, most countries that implemented "socialism" in this sense (as opposed to the more modern sense of Social Democracy a la Scandanavia) did not have financial markets or, for that matter, private property.

Of course, this kind of socialism (i.e., communism) has long been completely discredited as a nice idea that doesn't stand a chance of working in reality. Socialism, as the term is used today, refers to mixed economies with strong provisions for workers' rights and public welfare, as well as strongly progressive taxes to limit inequality. The so-called "means of production" are still largely in private hands, although certain sectors may be dominated, or even monopolized, by state entities.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
quadraphonics said:
The so-called "means of production" are still largely in private hands, although certain sectors may be dominated, or even monopolized, by state entities.
If you follow the links back to msg #124 you will see that it was precisely in this sense that I spoke of Socialism, 'here' as I call it. orbitalPower proposed that crazy definition 'here' as you call it.
 
  • #153
Well, I'm not sure I'll sign up for your bail-out=socialism assertion, but reading the ensuing posts does make it pretty clear that OrbitalPower is indeed using Marxist terminology (not to mention ideology). Which is pretty dated, and not just in the definition of socialism.
 
  • #154
quadraphonics said:
Well, I'm not sure I'll sign up for your bail-out=socialism assertion, but reading the ensuing posts does make it pretty clear that OrbitalPower is indeed using Marxist terminology (not to mention ideology).
You mean that according to Marx, the problems at Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and Bear Stearns could have been avoided if top management had asked the janitor what course to take on derivatives and pork belly futures? Then Marx was certifiable.
 
  • #155
Folks need to be careful with terms and definitions. Here's a reasonably good definition of socialism.
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Clearly there are elements of socialism in the US politico-economic system, but of course, the system is far from egalitarian.

In the sense that the US government is using public monies (Treasury) to shore up private entities (distressed financial institutions), isn't this an example of the 'state' administering the means of production, in this case raising for or injecting capital into a troubled economy (through the distressed financial institutions), and distributing risk to the public?

Fascism doesn't seem to fit well -
merriam-webster.com said:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition


I think what we have seen is a classic example of corruption (which undermines any human system be it government, economy, . . . ): failure to adhere to ethical principles and standards, lack of fiduciary responsibility, lack of oversight/regulation/enforcement, and in some cases just simple fraud. The questions are "why was this allowed to happen" and "how do we fix the problem and ensure it is not repeated in the future".
 
  • #156
Astronuc said:
Folks need to be careful with terms and definitions.
I say that the current proposal for the government to buy up these bad loans is Socialism under the wiki definition you linked to. I hope that's careful enough.

But as to orbitalPower's definition, which I paraphrase as "Socialism is where the inmates run the asylum", I call it wrong and I swing away with reckless abandon. I also doubt quadraphonics' assertion that this definition is dated Marxist terminology and ideology. If it were, we would never have heard of Marx.
 
  • #157
completely agree with Astronuc.

As to future prevention, I think the guiding principal should be to realize that bankers will behave like bankers, traders like traders and consumers like consumers.

And because of that, we need regulators to regulate.

Everyone in fact acted as they're supposed to act, to do what they were paid for, or what was in their best interest. EXCEPT the regulators.
 
  • #158
kronon said:
Everyone in fact acted as they're supposed to act, to do what they were paid for, or what was in their best interest. EXCEPT the regulators.
Well I'm not sure is was only the regulators who were not doing their job. I've heard many reports of fraudulent mortgages, which involved over-valuation of income or property value (e.g. at Countrywide). I've heard of teams of mortgage agents processing mortgages without doing the appropriate verification of the information.

AFAIK, the FBI is investigating over 300 individuals with respect to questionable mortgages, and that does not include the investigation of accounting irregularities and fraud in the distressed financial institutions (e.g. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman, AIG, . . . .)


Ultimately it is a matter of personal integrity - without it human systems/societies are undermined.


Honesty is the best policy. :smile:
 
  • #159
Just as an aside, I thought this might be an interesting point of view. Its how banks own market strategists seem to be interpreting the current situation. Rather worrying really.




Equity Strategy: Congressional Reluctance Surfaces

- News of stumbling blocks emerges. The $700 billion rescue plan proposed by the Treasury Secretary has run into bipartisan opposition as concerns step up on a variety of items from executive compensation restrictions to concentrated power issues and contingent equity participation. In essence, the sense of urgency seen last Thursday evening has ebbed in worrisome fashion.

- Bailout fatigue and frustration seems to be obstructing the critical issue. The various attempts over the past few weeks by the authorities to support the GSEs, a large insurance company and to facilitate business combinations seemingly have left many Congressional members wondering how this all benefits average citizens even as tightening credit conditions are squeezing the corporate sector further threatening jobs and GDP. Financial markets must be understood to being inexorably linked to economic stability since businesses need a banking sector that will lend it money at reasonable cost to successfully invest in human, physical or working capital.

- Illiquid credit markets seem to need help as a "buyers strike" appears to be the key problem in pricing securities. Deleveraging hedge funds and falling prices have created a downward spiral in so-called toxic paper that, if continued unchecked, could further undermine capital markets, business funding availability and the US economy. Indeed, the negative consequences of self-reinforcing feedback are deeply disconcerting. In many respects, the current proposal provides a new longer term buyer in the market that could generate some positive leverage into the current vacuum.

- Global growth is slowing given credit issues too. While US business trends have been poor, especially in the housing industry, news of rapidly weakening trends abroad is leaving a wake of commodity price softness and declining industrial stocks, suggesting that the few remaining areas of strength look to be on the cusp of a major slowdown. Thus, the need to stimulate domestic activity seems to be even more necessary than may be fully appreciated. Failure to face up to this reality may lead to inconvenient truths in upcoming elections.
 
  • #160
kronon said:
In essence, the sense of urgency seen last Thursday evening has ebbed in worrisome fashion.
Don't worry, the sense of urgency was phony baloney.
 
  • #161
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #162
Confidence in Goldman Sachs -

Berkshire's $5 bln shot, he bags a wad of warrants
Buffett gets $5 billion in preferred stock paying 10% and right to buy up to $5 billion common shares at $115 any time in next 5 years.

Berkshire to invest at least $5 billion in Goldman

Hey, if Warren Buffet and George Soros can do it, anyone can become a billionaire.
 
  • #163
mheslep said:
Raines worked for Obama campaign per the WP. I hear the campaign denies this now. Whatever.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071502827.html
The campaign ought to deny it if it's not true. Answering a couple of phone calls from someone on the campaign and talking about general economic issues is not the same as "working for the campaign". That's just a ridiculous conflation.

I, personally, think Raines is a scoundrel and would prefer that campaigns simply have no contact with him at all. But on the other hand, he was the White House budget director and thus, is probably very knowledgeable about economic issues at the national level. Besides, it's been over 4 years since Raines left Fannie.

Incidentally, the WP itself had an article that debunks the claim - extrapolated from the previous WP article - the Raines had any kind of "working" relationship with the Obama campaign.

But if you want to find more connections to Freddie/Fannie, here's a pretty direct one:
Newsweek said:
Freddie Mac continued checks to McCain campaign chief's firm.

Michael Isikoff
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Sep 23, 2008 | Updated: 7:39 p.m. ET Sep 23, 2008

Since 2006, the federally sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac has paid at least $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement.

Freddie Mac had previously paid an advocacy group run by Davis, called the Homeownership Alliance, $30,000 a month until the end of 2005, when that group was dissolved. That relationship was the subject of a New York Times story Monday, which drew angry denunciations from the McCain campaign.
...
But neither the Times story—nor the McCain campaign—revealed that Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, based in Washington, D.C., continued to receive $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac until last month—long after the Homeownership Alliance had been terminated.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160561/output/print
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #164
Astronuc said:
Hey, if Warren Buffet and George Soros can do it, anyone can become a billionaire.
I'm working on my second billion. I gave up on the first.
 
  • #165
Astronuc said:
Well I'm not sure is was only the regulators who were not doing their job. I've heard many reports of fraudulent mortgages, which involved over-valuation of income or property value (e.g. at Countrywide). I've heard of teams of mortgage agents processing mortgages without doing the appropriate verification of the information.

AFAIK, the FBI is investigating over 300 individuals with respect to questionable mortgages, and that does not include the investigation of accounting irregularities and fraud in the distressed financial institutions (e.g. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman, AIG, . . . .)

Ultimately it is a matter of personal integrity - without it human systems/societies are undermined.

Honesty is the best policy. :smile:
I agree with this post in the identification of aspects of the subprime story (regulators aside), but as an attempt at identifying fundamental causes I believe it completely misses the mark. There are always some people breaking the rules(Enron), and in a market economy there are periodically waves of people chasing unsound bubbles of economic activity (dot com). Those activities are usually collapsed by the market at much smaller scales than has been reached in this subprime case, even when completely unregulated (or mis-regulated). The glaring, fundamentally flawed difference in the subprime case is the government backed entities of Freddie and Fannie, without which this subprime crisis with all its bad agents, bad accounting, and foolish house flippers would never come anywhere close to its present scale. Everybody knew Fred/Fan had a $Trillion+ of subprime mortgages on the books, everybody knew the GSE's were continuing to do more of the same with the encouragement of much of Congress, that the regulators were specifically not given the power to cap the acquisition of even more mortgages.

Now, without those GSEs out there always promising to gobble up more lousy mortgages, there might have indeed been the odd Lehman or the like that might have gotten away with 30X leverage for awhile, but never to this scale, it never would have become systemic. No, instead we'd have something closer to an Enron sized scandal. With Enron, which built an analogous house of cards with energy trading, the short sellers finally looked at their model, called it BS, and hammered Enron into the ground. Instead of a $trillion subprime problem, we'd be arguing around the margins over a few $billion and some wiped out 401Ks. Imagine, instead of Fannie's fired CEO D. Mudd, that Enron's Ken Lay or AOL's Steve Case could had a relation w/ Congress where they could host the swearing in ceremony of an entire Congressional caucus and say things like "... come here today to reaffirm the friendship and partnership... So many of you have been good friends to Fannie Mae [Enron] and our mission. You've been friends through thick and thin. We have indeed come upon a difficult time for Fannie Mae [AOL]." - Mudd 2005. We would have had a similar bum's rush of people trying to do the same as Enron as everyone would know the govt. would not let the house of Enron fail.

I've gone on here because I think the GSEs and their coziness with Congress is being mis-characterized as just another plot twist of the subprime story. It is the story. Given recent commentary from Barney Frank, who contributes purposely to the confusion, it appears that his lot will set up the GSE's as before if allowed to. Blame Wall Street and inadequate regulation, do more regulation, claim again that the govt. has to act to provide affordable housing, and do uncapped GSEs AGAIN.
 
Last edited:
  • #166
Gokul43201 said:
The campaign ought to deny it if it's not true. Answering a couple of phone calls from someone on the campaign and talking about general economic issues is not the same as "working for the campaign". That's just a ridiculous conflation.

I, personally, think Raines is a scoundrel and would prefer that campaigns simply have no contact with him at all. But on the other hand, he was the White House budget director and thus, is probably very knowledgeable about economic issues at the national level. Besides, it's been over 4 years since Raines left Fannie.

Incidentally, the WP itself had an article that debunks the claim - extrapolated from the previous WP article - the Raines had any kind of "working" relationship with the Obama campaign.
Yes 'working' is the wrong word, my use and my mistake. That WP follow-up is fairly self-righteous in that it is debunking its own reporters article ala 'Shame on you for believing us'.
 
  • #167
Bush is going to explain everything tonight. This ought to be annoying.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

How crazy is it that this jackass still has any credibility?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #168
Hopes that the US was in a recession were dealt a setback yesterday when Ben Bernanke won points by pointedly pointing out the point that we are not at that point.
Yahoo said:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress on Tuesday that failure to act quickly could trigger deepening in the credit crisis that would lead to a recession, with rising unemployment and increased home foreclosures.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown" . Get the point? Don't give up hope though, Ben may not get what he wants.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #169
Analysis: Bailout blues may help define Bush term
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_bailout_blues

. . . . Just when the war in Iraq is going better, President Bush finds himself with a domestic crisis so vast it could redefine how he is remembered. To save a tanking economy, Bush is backing a bailout of historic proportions, brimming with federal intervention and taxpayer risk and a pile more debt.

Bush did promise to sprint to the finish. No one expected Wall Street to line the track with hurdles.

Aggressive lending to people with spotty credit led to record foreclosures, which imperiled investment houses and froze credit, the lifeblood of the economy. The upshot for people trying to make sense of it all: plummeting stock values, rising unemployment, shrinking confidence.

It could be much worse. And it will be. That is, Bush says, unless Congress acts fast to approve a bailout plan worth a staggering $700 billion.

. . . .

Democratic leaders ask for a smaller bailout
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown
WASHINGTON - Democratic officials say leaders are asking the Bush administration to dramatically cut the size of the $700 billion bailout of the financial industry and then come back to Congress later if they need more.

Under the plan, which is still emerging, Congress would approve a fraction of what President Bush is asking for — perhaps $150 billion or $200 billion — to allow the government to begin rescuing tottering financial companies.



A $200 billion here, $700 billion there. Pretty soon it's going to add up to serious money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #170
People borrowed money that they couldn't pay back ...
Solution ... let them borrow more money!
 
  • #171
The solution is to grow the government, err the economy, but actually not the economy.

3wHEOtg1OkY[/youtube] I think Mc.../2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html
 
  • #172
I'd be interested to hear from you guys how Bush's speech was received by americans generally?

From afar, in my personal opinion, i think that despite massive factual errors it was a strong speech that should hopefully help restore some confidence. Couldnt help notice the contrast with other countries: in the US, problems tend to be dealt with rather quickly and decisively, but in the UK for instance barely a peep from Brown and the rest since it all started 15 months ago. Very disappointing.

What was slightly grating however was bushs statetment that the cause of the credit problem was "due to wealthy foreigners investing in our country because its a good place to invest"...seemingly he just can't resist a dig, even when its totally wrong. I was waiting in vein for him to say "Its because I told greenspan to shut up, spare me the details, and just keep pushing".
 
  • #173
I personally thought the speech actually wasn't that bad. He obviously outlined his soultions, the bailout and so on, and let's hope that if implemented, they work.

But, he also said that we need to prevent, in the future, some of these finanancial institutions from becoming so big that when they fail it's nearly essential the government bails them out. He also called our economy not "free-enterprise," or "capitalism," but "democratic-capitalism," and in democratic-capitalism, there is room to address some of the inequities of the marketplace and to adjust rules and regulation to given scenarios.

His other opinions on what it will actually cost the government were also interesting and it remains to be seen what will actually happen, but yes, I thought it was somewhat of a confidence builder.
 
  • #174
Economic Activity Is Slowing Across Many Areas, Fed Chairman Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/business/25econ.html
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, described the nation’s economy on Wednesday as one that was barely limping along and could buckle if financial institutions did not get a $700 billion crutch from the government.
The $700 billion crutch is apparently necessary to keep the economy progressing, and that is in addition to the monies (~$200 billion) already put up for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (in addition to a guarantee for JP Morgan's takeover of Bear Stearns), in addition to the current Federal deficit (est. >$400 billion), and in addition to the supplemental spending (>$100 billion) for the military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

$700 billion is about 4.9% of the $14.4 trillion annual GDP.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this situation.


These (before the current financial crisis) might be of interest -

http://www.thestreet.com/s/the-state-of-the-union--and-its-debt/markets/marketfeatures/10400586.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/05/nation/na-budget5

Estimate on federal deficit for FY2008
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0423/p01s01-uspo.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #175
Hurricanes drive spike in jobless claims
Initial weekly claims hit their highest level in seven years as people in hurricane-hit states file.

To add to the injury, the businesses and homes of many of these people simply do not exist anymore. Galveston and towns on Bolivar Peninsula are either decimated or obliterated.

• Durable goods orders down 4.5% in August
 
  • #176
I heard on the radio this morning that some congressman named DeFazio was proposing a new 0.25% tax on wall street transactions. I was half asleep and can't find reference to it yet on the web. Perhaps it was just a dream. Does anyone know the average daily transaction amounts for the various markets here in the US?

Here's a little blip on Defazio I found while looking for the above:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/House_pushes_back_DeFazio_blasts_Paulson_as_a_Wall_Street_executive_masquerading_as_secretary.html"
September 22, 2008

Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman of California warned Congress not to blindly approve the estimated $700 billion bailout plan, which he called “the most generous power grab a Wall Street executive has ever asked for.”

And just in case you were wondering who that Wall Street executive was, Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio spelled it out on the House floor before Sherman spoke.

“We should not be rolled by a Wall Street executive who is masquerading as the secretary of the Treasury,” DeFazio said, referring to Henry Paulson, who previously served as CEO of Goldman Sachs.

In an interview with Politico, Sherman called Paulson’s proposed legislation an “awe-striking, mind-boggling power grab” designed with only Wall Street in mind.

DeFazio warned that Congress will not be “rushed” into passing a bill because of dire warnings from the administration to act quickly to stave off a global financial meltdown.

“The world will wait,” DeFazio said. The Oregon Democrat said Congress needs to adopt a “thoughtful” plan that helps struggling homeowners as well as Wall Street banks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #177
GE slashes earnings view for 2008

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- General Electric Co. on Thursday warned 2008 earnings may be as much as 15% lower than it earlier predicted and said it would halt a stock-buyback program to maintain the AAA credit rating that's so important to its financials business.
. . . .
GE currently makes about 45% of its earnings from the financial unit, called GE Capital.

"Given the recent dramatic developments in the financial markets, we have made some tough decisions to further reduce risk and strengthen our balance sheet while maintaining our dividend. We have suspended the stock buyback to reduce GE Capital leverage, while still being able to pursue opportunistic acquisitions," said Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt in a statement.

Other businesses are doing well, he said, with industrial and service orders up by rates in the double digits and with the "unqualified success" of the Beijing Olympics for NBC Universal.
. . . .
GE is one of the Dow 30 and a key indicator about the economy.

I think DeFazio's and Sherman's comments about Paulson and the plan are unfortunate and counter-productive to moving forward to resolve the current situation with the economy.
 
  • #178
Astronuc said:
GE slashes earnings view for 2008

GE is one of the Dow 30 and a key indicator about the economy.

I think DeFazio's and Sherman's comments about Paulson and the plan are unfortunate and counter-productive to moving forward to resolve the current situation with the economy.
I am interested in what the non-financial 55% of GE is doing - medical - jet turbines - wind turbines etc.
 
  • #179
mheslep said:
I am interested in what the non-financial 55% of GE is doing - medical - jet turbines - wind turbines etc.
Apparently they are doing well according to Immelt (stated elsewhere in the Marketwatch article). GE capital is less than 45% of GE, but they are much more profitable than the industrial/manufacturing divisions and it produces 45% of earnings.
 
  • #180
In case anyone missed it, here is the text of Bush's address to the nation concerning the current financial crisis:

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future. I understand their worry and their frustration. We've seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money.

We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive action. We've boosted confidence in money market mutual funds, and acted to prevent major investors from intentionally driving down stocks for their own personal gain.
Most importantly, my administration is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets. Financial assets related to home mortgages have lost value during the housing decline. And the banks holding these assets have restricted credit. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I've proposed that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently-needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending.

This rescue effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry -- it is aimed at preserving America's overall economy. It will help American consumers and businesses get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs. And it will help send a signal to markets around the world that America's financial system is back on track.
I know many Americans have questions tonight: How did we reach this point in our economy? How will the solution I've proposed work? And what does this mean for your financial future? These are good questions, and they deserve clear answers.

First, how did our economy reach this point?

Well, most economists agree that the problems we are witnessing today developed over a long period of time. For more than a decade, a massive amount of money flowed into the United States from investors abroad, because our country is an attractive and secure place to do business. This large influx of money to U.S. banks and financial institutions -- along with low interest rates -- made it easier for Americans to get credit. These developments allowed more families to borrow money for cars and homes and college tuition -- some for the first time. They allowed more entrepreneurs to get loans to start new businesses and create jobs.

Unfortunately, there were also some serious negative consequences, particularly in the housing market. Easy credit -- combined with the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise -- led to excesses and bad decisions. Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford, assuming that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on.

Optimism about housing values also led to a boom in home construction. Eventually the number of new houses exceeded the number of people willing to buy them. And with supply exceeding demand, housing prices fell. And this created a problem: Borrowers with adjustable rate mortgages who had been planning to sell or refinance their homes at a higher price were stuck with homes worth less than expected -- along with mortgage payments they could not afford. As a result, many mortgage holders began to default.

These widespread defaults had effects far beyond the housing market. See, in today's mortgage industry, home loans are often packaged together, and converted into financial products called "mortgage-backed securities." These securities were sold to investors around the world. Many investors assumed these securities were trustworthy, and asked few questions about their actual value. Two of the leading purchasers of mortgage-backed securities were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk.

The decline in the housing market set off a domino effect across our economy. When home values declined, borrowers defaulted on their mortgages, and investors holding mortgage-backed securities began to incur serious losses. Before long, these securities became so unreliable that they were not being bought or sold. Investment banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers found themselves saddled with large amounts of assets they could not sell. They ran out of the money needed to meet their immediate obligations. And they faced imminent collapse. Other banks found themselves in severe financial trouble. These banks began holding on to their money, and lending dried up, and the gears of the American financial system began grinding to a halt.

With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice: To step in with dramatic government action, or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions of some to undermine the financial security of all.

I'm a strong believer in free enterprise. So my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There's been a widespread loss of confidence. And major sectors of America's financial system are at risk of shutting down.

The government's top economic experts warn that without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold:
More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.

Fellow citizens: We must not let this happen. I appreciate the work of leaders from both parties in both houses of Congress to address this problem -- and to make improvements to the proposal my administration sent to them. There is a spirit of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, and between Congress and this administration. In that spirit, I've invited Senators McCain and Obama to join congressional leaders of both parties at the White House tomorrow to help speed our discussions toward a bipartisan bill.

I know that an economic rescue package will present a tough vote for many members of Congress. It is difficult to pass a bill that commits so much of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. I also understand the frustration of responsible Americans who pay their mortgages on time, file their tax returns every April 15th, and are reluctant to pay the cost of excesses on Wall Street. But given the situation we are facing, not passing a bill now would cost these Americans much more later.

Many Americans are asking: How would a rescue plan work?

After much discussion, there is now widespread agreement on the principles such a plan would include. It would remove the risk posed by the troubled assets -- including mortgage-backed securities -- now clogging the financial system. This would free banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses. Any rescue plan should also be designed to ensure that taxpayers are protected. It should welcome the participation of financial institutions large and small. It should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars. It should establish a bipartisan board to oversee the plan's implementation. And it should be enacted as soon as possible.

In close consultation with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and SEC Chairman Chris Cox, I announced a plan on Friday. First, the plan is big enough to solve a serious problem. Under our proposal, the federal government would put up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line to purchase troubled assets that are clogging the financial system. In the short term, this will free up banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses. And this will help our economy grow.

Second, as markets have lost confidence in mortgage-backed securities, their prices have dropped sharply. Yet the value of many of these assets will likely be higher than their current price, because the vast majority of Americans will ultimately pay off their mortgages. The government is the one institution with the patience and resources to buy these assets at their current low prices and hold them until markets return to normal. And when that happens, money will flow back to the Treasury as these assets are sold. And we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back.

A final question is: What does this mean for your economic future?

The primary steps -- purpose of the steps I have outlined tonight is to safeguard the financial security of American workers and families and small businesses. The federal government also continues to enforce laws and regulations protecting your money. The Treasury Department recently offered government insurance for money market mutual funds. And through the FDIC, every savings account, checking account, and certificate of deposit is insured by the federal government for up to $100,000. The FDIC has been in existence for 75 years, and no one has ever lost a penny on an insured deposit -- and this will not change.

Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th century laws. Recently, we've seen how one company can grow so large that its failure jeopardizes the entire financial system.

Earlier this year, Secretary Paulson proposed a blueprint that would modernize our financial regulations. For example, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum and ensure that their practices do not threaten overall financial stability. There are other good ideas, and members of Congress should consider them. As they do, they must ensure that efforts to regulate Wall Street do not end up hampering our economy's ability to grow.

In the long run, Americans have good reason to be confident in our economic strength. Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised. It has unleashed the talents and the productivity, and entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. It has made this country the best place in the world to invest and do business. And it gives our economy the flexibility and resilience to absorb shocks, adjust, and bounce back.

Our economy is facing a moment of great challenge. But we've overcome tough challenges before -- and we will overcome this one. I know that Americans sometimes get discouraged by the tone in Washington, and the seemingly endless partisan struggles. Yet history has shown that in times of real trial, elected officials rise to the occasion. And together, we will show the world once again what kind of country America is -- a nation that tackles problems head on, where leaders come together to meet great tests, and where people of every background can work hard, develop their talents, and realize their dreams.
Thank you for listening. May God bless you.
 
  • #181
Bush and his cronies have not explained why we the taxpayers have to pay more than market value for Wall Street's bad debt, and how that will "save" our economy. The "crisis" is largely manufactured so that the neocons can rob our treasury. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and if investment firms fail, others will step in and take their share of the business. If liquidity is affected or credit tightens, the market will eventually correct, and with private capital. There is NO need for a huge bailout - there is a need for re-regulation so that speculators find it harder to leverage the economy as they have.
 
  • #183
is anyone else concerned that too much confidence has been put on the bailout plan? It is very much needed, to be sure, but is unfortunately unlikely to prevent a recession anyway, only perhaps avert a very BAD recession.

Even calling it a "rescue" or "bailout" seems to suggest a connotation that it'll all be fixed afterwards, but it wont.

Congress are understandably loathe to agree the package but will do so in the belief that it will work once and for all. We'll see. Probably should of been promoted as an interim solution rather than raise hopes as a final "rescue".
 
  • #184
Wall Street? http://www.hollywood.org/images/Wall_Street.jpg" !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #185
Bush_via_Astronuc said:
This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk.

This sad fact gets laid squarely at the feet of the Republicans and their poor regulatory oversight and their concessions that allowed the big firms to over-leverage in a slackened environment of lending standards.
 
  • #186
All this talk about economic crisis, depression, domino effect, etc, how exactly would this scenario play out if the bailout plan wasn't implemented?

What is the bailout plan supposed to achieve?
 
  • #187
nuby said:
All this talk about economic crisis, depression, domino effect, etc, how exactly would this scenario play out if the bailout plan wasn't implemented?

What is the bailout plan supposed to achieve?

Preserve liquidity.
 
  • #188
I thought of a scenario.

If the bailout has some success and helps the banks continue, what is stopping house prices from staying high? And if that is the case, if house values remain high and lending is tighter won't there be a sudden slump in the market somewhere down the track? Then there will be another group of mortgagees who can't afford to keep paying, but can't get a decent price to get out so they will default too. Is there a possibility it will happen all over again but this time there will be no money in the kitty?
 
  • #189
Banks will be very leary about appraised values.

Also, I would expect no more zero-down or zero-% financing.

Credit will tighten up.

And hopefully regulatory oversight will improve.


We still need to wait to see what falls out of the various FBI investigations. The fraud, especially systemic fraud, could be prosecuted under RICO.
 
  • #190
felixxelgato said:
I thought of a scenario.

If the bailout has some success and helps the banks continue, what is stopping house prices from staying high?

At this point I think only inflation is going to raise housing prices when they hit bottom. I think they are dropping further first.
 
  • #191
The federal reserve corp. manipulates the prime rate by buying and selling into the bill and bond market. The prime is the lending rate federal reserve member banks charge other member banks for overnight loans in order make their cash-on-hand. The prime rate influences the housing market through home lone interest rates. So the prime, lending practices, and load regulations determine housing prices.

The overheated housing maket was a direct result of manipulating the prime to sub 4.25% values in order to keep businesses solvent in the aftermath of the overheated tech market frenzy.
 
Last edited:
  • #192
Astronuc said:
In case anyone missed it, here is the text of Bush's address to the nation concerning the current financial crisis:

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. ...where people of every background can work hard, develop their talents, and realize their dreams.
Thank you for listening. May God bless you.

What a beautiful speech. Probably the smartest words that have ever crossed his lips. I wonder who wrote it.

I now endorse president Bush, and his message.

btw, did anyone see the CNN "http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/20/se.01.html" " show? (Sorry if I've missed the thread. I've been busy being depressed about my finances...)

I was so mesmerized, I had to watch it twice.

SESNO: Warren Christopher?

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, 63TH SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I think we have to deal with the two wars we're dealing with at the present time. They're draining our economy in enormous way.

I found when I came into office that our economy was in some difficulty. The first year the president got through the Deficit Reduction Act, and it just improved things so much. So I think the president needs to begin to work on that to give the world confidence that we can manage our own economy and thus we are a trusted partner.

and cow farts too. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #193
"Ignore the economics of anyone with a political axe to grind." -Phrak
 
  • #194
A whole other situation that I haven't really heard anything about.

Some people paid $240k for new homes that are now worth $180k (going down) ... The same house next door is for rent for $800/month ... They're paying $1700/month. Lots of people out there are doing the math, and will just walk away from their mortgage/home (even though they can afford the payment).
 
  • #195
John McCain's last minute dash to DC to "rescue the economy" looks a lot like a comedy skit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #196
Astronuc said:
GE slashes earnings view for 2008

GE is one of the Dow 30 and a key indicator about the economy.

I think DeFazio's and Sherman's comments about Paulson and the plan are unfortunate and counter-productive to moving forward to resolve the current situation with the economy.

Ok. I agree that finger pointing is non-productive, but I think something in your post points out what is really wrong with the US economy:
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- General Electric Co. ...
GE currently makes about 45% of its earnings from the financial unit, called GE Capital.

When making money is more important than making "something", there's something wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • #197
Wall Street rescue deal stalemate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7636943.stm
Talks to agree a huge $700bn (£380bn) bail-out of the US financial industry have ended in a "shouting match".

After several hours of discussions with President George W Bush, a group of Republican members of Congress blocked the government plan.

The proposal would have seen the government buy bad debts from US banks.

Without a swift rescue package more finance companies are expected to collapse, causing more serious damage to the global economy.

Both sides have agreed to resume talks later on Friday. The leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, told ABC News that she "hoped" a bailout plan could be agreed within 24 hours, because "it has to happen".

Financial markets are gummed up because banks do not know exactly how much bad debt they hold and are therefore reluctant to lend to businesses, consumers and each other.

The fall-out of this credit crunch continues to make a huge impact:

  • The United States suffered its largest bank failure yet, when regulators moved into close down Washington Mutual and then sold it to US rival JP Morgan Chase for $1.9bn
  • In a co-ordinated move the European Central Bank, the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank announced new short-term loans to the banking sector worth tens of billions of dollars
  • Banks continued to cut costs, with UK banking giant HSBC saying it would axe 1,100 jobs
  • Shares in UK bank Bradford & Bingley fell another 20% to 17 pence before recovering slightly.
Serious matter and McCain and House GOP members are playing games, or sabotaging the economy. :rolleyes:


This statement - banks do not know exactly how much bad debt they hold - is a stunning revelation. I have to wonder if this is true or an exaggeration.
 
  • #198
Astronuc said:
This statement - banks do not know exactly how much bad debt they hold - is a stunning revelation. I have to wonder if this is true or an exaggeration.
Unfortunately, this is not only true, but an inevitable consequence of lending. Banks lend based on an expectation that they will be repaid. When they lend in a boom housing market, and they lend more than the collateral will be worth in a flat or bust housing market, they have taken on bad debt. The magnitude of the bad debt can be roughly estimated, but it cannot be quantified until the bank finds out how many people will default on their loans, and how much the collateral has depreciated due to market conditions. What makes the situation much worse is that so many of these bad loans have been bundled and resold, and it might be impossible to try to evaluate one's exposure to losses in the housing market. If you bought and held individual mortgages, you could look at the job market, the overall economy, and the housing market in the region where the loan was originally written, and estimate the likelihood of repayment. How do you do that when you have bought debt bundled from thousands of mortgages?
 
  • #199
turbo-1 said:
Unfortunately, this is not only true, but an inevitable consequence of lending. Banks lend based on an expectation that they will be repaid. When they lend in a boom housing market, and they lend more than the collateral will be worth in a flat or bust housing market, they have taken on bad debt. The magnitude of the bad debt can be roughly estimated, but it cannot be quantified until the bank finds out how many people will default on their loans, and how much the collateral has depreciated due to market conditions. What makes the situation much worse is that so many of these bad loans have been bundled and resold, and it might be impossible to try to evaluate one's exposure to losses in the housing market. If you bought and held individual mortgages, you could look at the job market, the overall economy, and the housing market in the region where the loan was originally written, and estimate the likelihood of repayment. How do you do that when you have bought debt bundled from thousands of mortgages?
I get a monthly statement from the bank that has my mortgage. I expect that since there is a monthly record of payment, then there must be a giant database on some mainframe that has all the loans. Presumably it's pretty easy to roll in the assessed value with payment schedule so that the particular bank can see what's outstanding against the assessed value, and which loans on current, which are behind, and which are in default.

As for the securitized mortgages, I have to wonder. The moment I hear securitized, bundled, collateralized, . . . - alarm bells go off! :rolleyes:

I thought the job description of finance/accounting included knowing precisely how much debt one has. I thought the point of 'account' is to 'account'. Has someone changed the commonly accepted definitions of the English language recently?
 
  • #200
Talks Implode During a Day of Chaos; Fate of Bailout Plan Remains Unresolved
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bailout.html
WASHINGTON — The day began with an agreement that Washington hoped would end the financial crisis that has gripped the nation. It dissolved into a verbal brawl in the Cabinet Room of the White House, urgent warnings from the president and pleas from a Treasury secretary who knelt before the House speaker and appealed for her support.

“If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down,” President Bush declared Thursday as he watched the $700 billion bailout package fall apart before his eyes, according to one person in the room.

It was an implosion that spilled out from behind closed doors into public view in a way rarely seen in Washington.

By 10:30 p.m., after another round of talks, Congressional negotiators gave up for the night and said they would try again on Friday. Left uncertain was the fate of the bailout, which the White House says is urgently needed to fix broken financial and credit markets, as well as whether the first presidential debate would go forward as planned Friday night in Mississippi.

When Congressional leaders and Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, the two major party presidential candidates, trooped to the White House on Thursday afternoon, most signs pointed toward a bipartisan agreement on a grand compromise that could be accepted by all sides and signed into law by the weekend. It was intended to pump billions of dollars into the financial system, restoring liquidity and keeping credit flowing to businesses and consumers.

“We’re in a serious economic crisis,” Mr. Bush told reporters as the meeting began shortly before 4 p.m. in the Cabinet Room, adding, “My hope is we can reach an agreement very shortly.”

But once the doors closed, the smooth-talking House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, surprised many in the room by declaring that his caucus could not support the plan to allow the government to buy distressed mortgage assets from ailing financial companies.

Mr. Boehner pressed an alternative that involved a smaller role for the government, and Mr. McCain, whose support of the deal is critical if fellow Republicans are to sign on, declined to take a stand.

The talks broke up in angry recriminations, according to accounts provided by a participant and others who were briefed on the session, and were followed by dueling news conferences and interviews rife with partisan finger-pointing.

Friday morning, on CBS’s “The Early Show,” Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the lead Democratic negotiator, said the bailout had been derailed by internal Republican politics.

“I didn’t know I was going to be the referee for an internal G.O.P. ideological civil war,” Mr. Frank said, according to The A.P.Thursday, in the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to “blow it up” by withdrawing her party’s support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.

“I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson’s kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: “It’s not me blowing this up, it’s the Republicans.”

Mr. Paulson sighed. “I know. I know.”

It was the very outcome the White House had said it intended to avoid, with partisan presidential politics appearing to trample what had been exceedingly delicate Congressional negotiations.

. . . .
That the integrity of the US economy hinges upon the drama in Washington is pretty surreal. Reality is certainly sometimes way more bizarre the fiction.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
35
Views
8K
Replies
870
Views
113K
Replies
91
Views
24K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top