OT: Paulson Bail-out or Paulson Give-Away?
david...@aol.com
“The taxpayers are going to pony up close to a trillion dollars to
take bad debts off the hands of financial institutions who were
foolish enough to make the deals in the first place. And in exchange,
I think the tax payers get nothing.”
“[T]his is radically different than the S&L Crisis: RTC which was
liquidating the assets of thrifts that had already gone belly up[….]
But here the point is to take these bad debts off these companies'
hands so they can go back to being profitable businesses.”
“[F]inance industry lobbyists are already giving orders to Republican
hill staffers not to allow any meaningful reforms or protections for
taxpayers. So, just the money. No strings attached.”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/218444.php
Further reading:
Paul Krugman on the bailout: “No Deal”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/no-deal/
Even more damning sentiments from a Washington Post editorial:
OR:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/20/AR200...
Plan rejected by former Goldman Sachs partner:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-zehner/atlas-shrugged-a-reaction_b...
-david gable
Rod Speed
> Three highlights from the article I’m forwarding:
You didnt forward it, you posted links to it.
> “The taxpayers are going to pony up close to a trillion dollars
> to take bad debts off the hands of financial institutions who
> were foolish enough to make the deals in the first place.
> And in exchange, I think the tax payers get nothing.”
'think' again. The taxpayers get to avoid another great depression.
> “[T]his is radically different than the S&L Crisis:
So is the scale of the fiasco its attempting to do something about.
That one didnt sink an operation that had been around for 150
years and which had managed to survive the great depression fine.
> RTC which was liquidating the assets of thrifts that had already gone belly up[….]
And this latest scheme attempts to avoid that happening.
> But here the point is to take these bad debts off these companies'
> hands so they can go back to being profitable businesses.”
So we dont see another great depression.
> “[F]inance industry lobbyists are already giving orders to Republican
> hill staffers not to allow any meaningful reforms or protections for
> taxpayers. So, just the money. No strings attached.”
They dont get to give any orders to anyone, and even you should have
noticed that the Congress isnt controlled by the Repugs anymore anyway.
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/218444.php
>
> Further reading:
>
> Paul Krugman on the bailout: “No Deal”
>
> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/no-deal/
>
> Even more damning sentiments from a Washington Post editorial:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3kxr6p
>
> OR:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/20/AR200...
>
> Plan rejected by former Goldman Sachs partner:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-zehner/atlas-shrugged-a-reaction_b...
They're all completely irrelevant.
freeisbest
freeisbest
>
> “The taxpayers are going to pony up close to a trillion dollars to
> take bad debts off the hands of financial institutions who were
> foolish enough to make the deals in the first place. And in exchange,
> I think the tax payers get nothing.”
>
> “[T]his is radically different than the S&L Crisis: RTC which was
> liquidating the assets of thrifts that had already gone belly up[….]
> But here the point is to take these bad debts off these companies'
> hands so they can go back to being profitable businesses.”
>
> “[F]inance industry lobbyists are already giving orders to Republican
> hill staffers not to allow any meaningful reforms or protections for
> taxpayers. So, just the money. No strings attached.”
>
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/218444.php
Thanks for the urls, I'll take a look at the new ones -in all the
papers I've seen today, news consists mostly of "financial crisis/
chicken little" articles. Here's an interesting comment on the
subject from another forum (HuffPo), posted by "spinoza1111", in
response to an op-ed piece that purported to find useful advice in -
not kidding here - Ayn Rand:
"Part of the problem has been that too many Wall Street playuhs
think that Ayn Rand is "deep". She was a financially successful writer
of beach trash who told a talk-show host that she was a "philosopher",
and got a smallish number of people to believe her. Her "objectivism"
is an illusion created by what Wittgenstein called "the bewitchment of
our intelligence by means of language". If it is a noun, in her
ontology, it is objectively real.
Unfortunately this "reality" has included derivatives which
through the magic of computers today "derive from", and depend on,
countless other financial instruments, creating "objective realities"
which were liquid yesterday but which have turned into
antimatter...because their valuation depends, to arbitrary levels, on
the unknown values of thousands of other securities!
Here's the funniest part. If security A mentions B in its contract,
and B mentions C, and C mentions A, who's on first? Your computer will
hang when it tries to examine this contract unless programmed to check
for such "recursion"!
Not all "rocket scientists" seem to know this! They were asleep in
class even at Princeton. I was there: the class of 1987 carried a sign
at p-rade saying "Wall Street Here We Come!" All that mattered to many
was a superficial understanding of mere programming."
spinoza1111
> On Sep 21, 3:30 pm, "david7ga...@aol.com" <david7ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Three highlights from the article I’m forwarding:
>
> > “The taxpayers are going to pony up close to a trillion dollars to
> > take bad debts off the hands of financial institutions who were
> > foolish enough to make the deals in the first place. And in exchange,
> > I think the tax payers get nothing.”
>
> > “[T]his is radically different than the S&L Crisis: RTC which was
> > liquidating the assets of thrifts that had already gone belly up[….]
> > But here the point is to take these bad debts off these companies'
> > hands so they can go back to being profitable businesses.”
>
> > “[F]inance industry lobbyists are already giving orders to Republican
> > hill staffers not to allow any meaningful reforms or protections for
> > taxpayers. So, just the money. No strings attached.”
>
> >http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/218444.php
>
> Thanks for the urls, I'll take a look at the new ones -in all the
> papers I've seen today, news consists mostly of "financial crisis/
> chicken little" articles. Here's an interesting comment on the
> subject from another forum (HuffPo), posted by "spinoza1111", in
> response to an op-ed piece that purported to find useful advice in -
> not kidding here - Ayn Rand:
Thanks for the cite, hope it helps: this is Edward G. "spinoza1111"
Nilges.
> "Part of the problem has been that too many Wall Street playuhs
> think that Ayn Rand is "deep". She was a financially successful writer
> of beach trash who told a talk-show host that she was a "philosopher",
> and got a smallish number of people to believe her. Her "objectivism"
> is an illusion created by what Wittgenstein called "the bewitchment of
> our intelligence by means of language". If it is a noun, in her
> ontology, it is objectively real.
> Unfortunately this "reality" has included derivatives which
> through the magic of computers today "derive from", and depend on,
> countless other financial instruments, creating "objective realities"
> which were liquid yesterday but which have turned into
> antimatter...because their valuation depends, to arbitrary levels, on
> the unknown values of thousands of other securities!
> Here's the funniest part. If security A mentions B in its contract,
> and B mentions C, and C mentions A, who's on first? Your computer will
> hang when it tries to examine this contract unless programmed to check
> for such "recursion"!
> Not all "rocket scientists" seem to know this! They were asleep in
> class even at Princeton. I was there: the class of 1987 carried a sign
> at p-rade saying "Wall Street Here We Come!" All that mattered to many
> was a superficial understanding of mere programming."
Marx said it best, in The Communist Manifesto:
"The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the
instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production,
and ith them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old
modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first
condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant
revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social
conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the
bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen
relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and
opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before
they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is
profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his
real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."
People read Rand merely because she helps them to AVOID facing "with
sober senses" the real conditions of their lives.
One condition, which is almost unbearable and unadmissable for people
who work as financial or software technicians in the financial
industry (and who are often sighted reading Rand on break), is that
what Marx meant by the "bourgeoisie" is in fact a vanishingly small
class: the word doesn't mean "middle class" in any statistical sense,
but expresses a qualitative distinction.
The bourgeoisie of today are quite simply people able to accumulate
wealth over several generations, and the bourgeoisie in America have
often based their fortunes on slave trading and slave owning. Their
heirs are indistinguishable from other slobs at parties except perhaps
by lengths of lines of coke because the popular culture has masked and
mystified growing inequality with a thug's egalitarianism.
Rand lets people play at being bourgeois when in fact not even the
Harvard MBA will insulate today's financial technicians from long-term
unemployment.
Quite simply, means of production are being revolutionized today in
Asia by enlisting the formerly colonized as the new producers and
consumers: Marx didn't foresee this.
>
>
>
> > Further reading:
>
> > Paul Krugman on the bailout: “No Deal”
>
> >http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/no-deal/
>
> > Even more damning sentiments from a Washington Post editorial:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/3kxr6p
>
> > OR:
>
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/20/AR200...
>
> > Plan rejected by former Goldman Sachs partner:
>
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-zehner/atlas-shrugged-a-reaction_b...
>
> > -david gable- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -