patrick.net

I would love to o an informal poll here.
I think many followed this board because they newk prices were out of whack in the BA and they wanted to know when that might change.

Does anyone really care ny more about housing? With the sheer magnitude of this thing?

Does anyone really care ny more about housing?

Why not? But many of us knew this was beyond a housing bubble.

2012 is coming. The Mayans knew.

Here's something I'd like to know: Where does Warren Buffett currently keep all his biilions of cash? In a bank? In treasury bill or bonds? Under his mattress?

He seems to be able to come up with cash quite readily, and he doesn't seem to have it locked up in some illiquid money-market fund, eirther.

TOB, I assume you are joking.

I am reading so much news I know to be false. Fox, Bloomberg, CNN, CBS, NBC, NY Times, the list goes on and on.

I feel that the entire media simply does not kow the diffrence between a provable fact and and a conlusion drawn from their biased opnions that they try to connect to facts.

For example: The market is down is a fact.
They say, the market is down since the House rejected the bailout
Or they say, the market is up in anticipation of the bailout.

After this massive media watching I have been indulging in, I think I will never watch or read the news again. What a load of BS it all is. Reporters are idiots. Commentators are idiots.

welcome to Kevin Fucking Martin’s FCC!!!!!!! gotta love it!

Yeah, but it's not just the broadcast media that does this. Read the front/financial/science page of any paper but the WSJ and you'll see dozens of the same. And that doesn't hold the WSJ very far above the indictment; they just seem to make fewer of these, "My Electric Bill went up and the market crashed! That musta been whut done it!" deductions. (IMO) And god knows the streaming media avoids Aristotle most chances it gets.

You want logic, look at a circuit board.

Duke,
Let me be the first to respond to your informal poll. I am an early believer of the housing bubble, sold my house, am now renting, also believed that the stock markets were inflated, got into a large cash position, and now have a very conservative portfolio. I have been reading Patrick for a couple of years. Also was kind of sympathetic to Ron Paul, and especially concerned about the enormous federal debt obligations that my children will have to face.

At first it was fun and informative being on this site. Frustrating sometimes to see how much denial the country was in, but ultimately smug as it became evident that I was "right".

Now it is not fun. I am concerned, scared for my friends, my children, and everyone who through no fault of their own will face hardship. The posters here, instead of being concerned and waving red warning flags, now appear downright nasty-vengeful because of now they're talking about their tax-dollars. Some guy stated - do it the Ron Paul way, let everything go to hell if it must so the right people get punished. It is still our country, and most of all, it is our children's country. To see people who don't know all the facts but spout vitriol at this time just disturbs me.

Now Patrick's philosophy seems like as long as I can pound house prices into the ground, I don't care if this country goes to hell in a hand-basket.
No fun any more.

Regarding the media, there are still some gems that slip through the cracks. Nightline had a piece last night about foreclosures in McMansion country (Claremont, CA). Included a guy trying to do a million dollar flip as a retirement plan (hasn't worked out the way he planned). The best part, though, was a local RE agent who has seen the writing on the wall and has a booming business fixing up 'stripped' foreclosures for banks. The reporter wanted to get his prognosis for the future and seemed to expect the usual "Sunshine out of my $@#$% RE boosterism". Instead, the guy was very matter of fact: the next wave of ARM resets are coming and the ship is going down.

A view of the "why" we should pass the Bailout:

http://tinyurl.com/4uua69

Not sure I buy it. Armeggedon isn't here yet.

Comments?

Duke, I agree that MSM is completely failing.

They are all cheerleading the rescue package and trying to frighten the public into complying.

I haven't seen propaganda like this since, oh, 2001-0911 or so ;-(.

kona_three :

There WILL be a bailout. There needs to be one. I don't like that fact, but there is no choice.

The question is, which bailout ? I believe the Paulson plan will make matters worse for our children. They are just using the "kids and retirement" as a tremendously successful scare tactic.

There have been many alternatives proposed - like capital infusion via equity purchase. These seem extremely better plans than what was originally proposed.

Look at what Buffet did with GS. Look at what Ireland did today. look what worked in Sweden 15 years ago.

Paulson plan in a sentence - gad bad assets out of my friends' balance sheets by paying them a premium.

Everyone should be opposed to such a plan - for the sake of their children, as you say.

I was reading marketwatch.com and found some links to additonal alternative rescue plans. These plans are generally of the "preferred stock" flavor. I like especially the first one, by Columbia University FInance Professor Charles Calomiris

Charles Calomiris plan,
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1683
Joseph Stieglitz plan, http://www.alternet.org/workplace/101034/here%27s_a_better_bailout_plan/

Someone please get my 2-link comment out of moderation.

Here's an analogy that I just made up, which we should try to spread around "teh internets"
(TM):

The Paulson bailout plan of buying bad assets is like invading Iraq in 2002.

The people's rescue plan of buying preferred stock is like sending more troops to Afghanistan in 2002.

kona_three,

You are mistaking the hatred of the bailout for desire for housing to come down.

Most of here KNOW that housing will come down either way, bailout or no. That's not why people here are opposing the bailout.

They are destroying our currency, and making our country weak by their actions. Those 2 consequences are far worse than the recession we would be in by not passing this bill.

Homeowners are already fucked. Passing this bill fucks everyone else, and the homeowners to boot.

Duke,

I couldn't agree more. In fact, the market on Monday morning was already down 3%, WHEN EVERYONE STILL THOUGHT THE BILL WOULD PASS.

I could argue that the market would have dropped even more if they had passed it.

I could also argue that voting NO was the cause of the dollars rally. I'm sure they'd find a way to paint that negative too though.

Fuzzy, good stuff.

Please not ethat frequent contributor cb (in lowercase) thinks kona_three == Marina Prime. he may very well be right.

Marina Prime is back? I am so excited. :)

FuzzyMath.
Your words:
"My favorite argument is the following…

1. The banks are fundamentally sound
2. They have assets that are stuck that they can’t sell
3. It would be silly to let them fail just because they can’t sell their assets for what they’re “really” worth.
4. Therefore, we should save them by buying that asset.

Through the same logical sequence, I could argue the following…
1. I am financially sound
2. I have an asset (a house) that I can’t sell for a “fair” market value (more than I bought it for)
3. It would be silly to let my go bankrupt just because I can’t sell my house for more than I bought it for.
4. Therefore, the government should save me by buying my house.

Substitute house for any other asset you can imagine and the argument still works! Brilliant!"

Here's where your logic is fuzzy and not at all brilliant. If your going bankrupt would in any way jeopardize the financial system of America, absolutely it would be silly to let you go bankrupt. If not, then you are on your own. Now, is there any way to sell it to the government that you are the cornerstone of the US financial system? No? Figured as much. If Paulson can't seem to win the argument (in the minds of people like you) that the US financial system is in deep shit (even with the failure of Bear Stearns, Lehman, Wamu, WB, etc), and we need to help the banks, then how the heck could you expect that the government would help you?

This crisis has been like a slow motion train wreck. If Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, WAMU, Wachovia, Fannie and Freddie has all failed at the same time, I think that there would be widespread panic, and every household would really need a pitchfork, and not just to skewer Paulson with. But they failed kind of one at a time, so we all developed the "boiled frog" syndrome. But make no mistake, a boiled frog will be in the end just that, a boiled frog.

If you were looking at the Dow or the currency markets to gauge what the economic impact is, then you are looking at an incomplete picture. These are heavily influenced by people's bets, or how other countries are doing. Plot out what has happened to the 3 month LIBOR rates, and you will see the impact more starkly, and then realize how many loans are tied to the LIBOR, and what kind of real pain these Americans are feeling, and will continue to feel. If your boss in any way depends on a loan, and things continue to go badly, you hbetter hope that you are among his most valued employees, and not among the most fuzzy.

I don't know who Marina Prime is. He/she is entitled to his/her opinion, and the sure sign of a mob are brainless people looking for their own kind and pointing out people who don't agree with them. And you don't even realize how crappy the image of a pitchfork is if you consider yourself a civilized society.

StuckinBA,
I think we agree that there needs to be a "bailout". However, I don't think Paulson's plan is that bad; everything depends on what the "price premium" is. If there is proper oversight, and knowing that we do not have to commit to the $700 billion all at once, then I believe there is time to examine and refine the "price discovery" process, be it from knowing who would show up at an auction(if any), how much they would pay, or taking apart the assets as much as possible to see how they should be valued.

Do you really like Ireland's action? They put as a guarantee 2 years worth of their GDP behind their banks. Would you like to hear of a plan to do that in the US, which would put at risk $15 Trillion (give or take a couple of trillion or so) of taxpayer money? Do you think that would go across very well as a headline? Also, if we did that, we would likely cause a worldwide bank run, because everyone will be jerking their deposits out of their (foreign) banks to put into the US. You could start a war by doing that, at least an economic one.

Warren Buffet did what he did with the assumption that a bailout would backstop the financial system. He said so himself. In any case, there aren't that many Warren Buffets around.

I haven't really seen a cogent plan that is superior in concept and wider in scope that Paulson's, flawed that it is. Perhaps a monstrous ugly problem just needs a monstrous ugly solution. All I know is in addition to the mechanics of the plan, confidence is the biggest issue. And to see that farce in congress played out in plain view of the whole world just sickens me as an American. I don't think there is any plan you can think of that wouldn't get torn to shreds with the idiotic self-interest of these utter fools.

Newsflash. House just passed bailout; looks as if the coming "bank holiday" I have been expecting will be averted for awhile.