patrick.net

But I do feel bad for retirees.

Just how many average retirees have $10,000 in the stock market? If so, they have an "average" paper loss of about $700. Any assets in bank CDs or even Money Market Mutual Funds are insured. Therefore, I do think the average investor will be hurt. Even so, I think the "average" guy would be better off with the nominal $9300 than with the original $10,000 inflated by bailouts.

This bailout is for the benefit of the big boys. The ones with several hundred thousand in the market, along with the apparatus that profits from them.

Oops, I meant I DON'T think the average investor will be hurt

Millions of investors voted with their feet today. They thought a handout was coming but it did not. The bailout bill is a rip-off for american taxpayers and is a give away to the irresponsible lenders, borrowers, and foolish investors.

Why should we have a bailout that directs the money to them?

We really do need something - but not a money giveaway for the greedy fools who caused this problem.

The government can guarantee the deposits in banks so people and other banks will be willing to put their money in banks. That will solve the liquidity problem without buying bad investments from the fools who own them.

A new scare tactic -Credit Crunch

The idea being that without the bailout, banks will not loan and all business will come to a halt.

Let's see. 95% of banks are solvent. The only way they make money is to grant loans. But since it will be much harder to package and sell off risky loans, banks will insure the borrowers can demostrate the ability to repay and provide adequate collateral. "Credit Crunch" may actually mean "Sane Lending Practices." Whenever you here some newsman, politician, or wall streeter say "Credit Crunch," I bet you could substutute "Sane Lending Practice" into his sentence without changing the meaning.

now that's genius, Senator Fuckstiens website will not take comments.

Beeeeaaautiful.

@ englishman26,

While I lost a bit in my stocks, I made a bit in my gold and bonds. Remember the old saying "every portfolio starts with a heart of gold"

Balance my friend, balance.

now that’s genius, Senator Fuckstiens website will not take comments.

Therefore, you must go to her house, crack her open like a shotgun, and deliver your message personaly.

Englishman,
Listen to Tesh. You should "save". Yes. Investment is NOT equal to savings. Unless you invest in things like mattresses, fallout shelters, propane tanks, land in the choice (meaning redneck) parts of Idaho or Montana, failing that some lots up in the remote Sierras will do, gold, gun racks, guns, Screw Paulson bumper stickers, gold, seeds (for planting), buggy whips, buggies, mules, gold, large safes to put your gold, gold (can't mention that enough). Yes, cash out your 401K, empty out your IRA, kiss your job goodbye and head for the hills.

While I lost a bit in my stocks, I made a bit in my gold and bonds.

All in paper, I presume.

READ MY LIPS!!! No new Bailout!!!

hey i am justcurious, how many of the duly elected bay area reps voted yes?

As in, hell yes, give more money to the gambling fucks.

every portfolio starts with a heart of gold

and every street in the bay area is paved with gold.

Musgrave (R) - No
Udall (D) - No
DeGette (D) - Yes
Salazar (D) - No
Lamborn (R) - No
Tancredo (R) - Yes
Perlmutter (D) - Yes

Well, everybody in Colorado knew that Tancredo is a whore. Perlmutter disappoints me. Fortunately, my rep is Marilyn Musgrave. And Udall... more spine than I would have ever thought, especially with the Dems pushing the bill. Good show, all Colorado reps who voted No.

btw, no huge surprise for DeGette. Her district is geographically tiny, encompassing Denver, which is a big financial hub. So not exactly a mind-blowing betrayal there. Perlmutter is from the exact same area, excluding Denver.

@HeadSet,

Be careful what you presume.

Cheers!

Paul Krugman was on CNN advocating he Swedish equity-based rescue model. Go Krugman!

EBGuy pointed out what I think is the most underreported story of the day: The huge expansion of the Fed balance sheet.

Suze Orman is running arund on CNN like a headless chicken, trying to scare up support for the rescue bill. God, that b*tch is annoying.

I am so fucking sorry my horseshoe hair wearing friends.

tinyurl.com/3f5wzw

man, just when you thought it couldn't get worse. But hey, there are still those fond memories of woodstock.

oh, go fuck yourselves boomers.

There's nothing wrong with a Wall Street bailout as long as Wall Street pays for most of it, esp since they're going to reap the most benefits. To SNMR: It's ridiculous to argue that we need this particular bailout simply because some economists and barrons say we need some type of bailout. And why does the money have to go to Wall Street? $700 billion mailed directly to taxpayers would have a much greater impact on Main Street than this ridiculously one-sided bill. Thank goodness congress voted against it. Unfortunately my CA rep McNerney chose to ignore his voters. So, I just registered to make sure there's one more vote against him on election day.

I had another nightmare. In this nightmare, the current crisis lasted for more than two years and all the world's major currencies collapsed. The Central Banks of every nation gathered to announce our economic salvation: one world electronic currency. The evolution from barter, to metal coins, to paper reserve notes, to paper draft checks, to electronic money was complete. The leaders rejoiced and exclaimed that one universal currency required more than a central bank - it required one world government. Then I awoke in a cold sweat, grateful to be alive. In Stockton - where my mundane concerns are drive-by shootings, home invasion robberies, or being dragged from my car and beaten to death.

are you suggesting that Fed has already started printing since it has less than $300B on its balance sheet?
I am suggesting that they will use the same means they used last week (injection from the Treasury) to fund the new TAF expansion (as they wouldn't have any Treasuries left for OMO if the rest were sold off). This is where they got it from last week (and, all things being equal, the same till that would be funding the Paulson Plan, right). From last week's H.4.1:
On September 17, the Treasury Department announced the Supplementary Financing Program. Under this program, the Treasury
issues marketable debt and deposits the proceeds in an account at the Federal Reserve that is segregated from the Treasury General Account. Or as the bake sale link (treasry(dot)gov) from my previous post says (just to be really clear): The program will consist of a series of Treasury bills, apart from Treasury's current borrowing program, which will provide cash for use in the Federal Reserve initiatives.

EBGuy,

When will they be done with these nonsense stats that cost TOO much to collect? End it now so we can all rest in our non information (save the FED $$$).

Oh wait they make those $$$ so how much does it really cost?? Nada, nothing, zilch.

Anna Eshoo (D, Palo Alto) voted for the bailout. I just sent her an e-mail expressing my disappointment. They are just going to reshuffle the pages and put this to another vote really soon. Bush is going to make a plea tomorrow at 5:45am. I want a return of "sane lending practices", not a bailout.

Anna Eshoo (D, Palo Alto) voted for the bailout. I just sent her an e-mail expressing my disappointment. They are just going to reshuffle the pages and put this to another vote really soon. Bush is going to make a plea tomorrow at 5:45am. I want a return of "sane lending practices", not a bailout.

I am SO done with this place!

Yes, you are correct, our democracy will last no more than 48 hours. Enjoy it while you can!

The leaders rejoiced and exclaimed that one universal currency required more than a central bank - it required one world government.

World government? Dream on. :)

Don't worry. We will have WW3 before that happens.

On a lighter note-

Whatever happened to the good ole days?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvaY4AMd-js

Oh it was Dream on or Dream weaver?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5WrD-fAzx4

EBGuy,

sure, they are tapping into the Treasury. But who, WHO are buying these T-bills? As far as the July report can tell, foreigners are fleeing T-bills. The retail Americans don't have that much patriotic dollars left.

I say the 770 pt crash is rather staged.

Look at Nikkei and Hong Kong, the drop is significantly smaller.

I agree with Krugman. I think the nationalization of the banks is exactly the way to go. None of this equity warrant nonsense. Let it fail. Take it over. Make 'em all federal employees until they are spun out.

One of the articles I loved about BoA taking on Meril was the CEO stating he will not bay Wall Street wages, he is paying banker maret rate. There is a man who knows who has the power.

When will Congress wake up and reaise who has the power? Banks need us to buy their garbage more than we need to bail them out. We can always get them in BK anyway. Time to peddle another plan.

Bayrenter1 - yea. I think McNearney knows he is a 1 termer. His party fed him to the wolves and he is gone. Remember, Pombo was voted out for his close ties with Abramoff. Well, I would rather vote fo Abramoff himself after that terrible partisan vote! The 11th distric was HUGELY anti-bailout.

Duke.

I think public (i.e. government) purchases of senior, preferred, voting, convertible stock does not necessarily count as nationalization, unless the public ends up holding a majority of the voting power. But that may be a fine distinction, I can agree.

I will support a plan that requires any rescue to take the form of senior, preferred, voting, convertible stock. But as always, the valuation of the companies and their debt is key, and the law must nail down a tight system for evaluating the price the public should pay for their share.

justme,

Deal.

Wow - that was easy. Why is this so hard in Congress?

Paul Says:

> On a lighter note-
> Whatever happened to the good ole days?

Rember when we had a large number of posters telling us we were crazy and real estate would never drop in value?

Case Shiller out.
SFO at 156.88.
Down 1.85% for July.
Down 24.81% YOY.
Down 28.16% from Peak.

I am now chosing a rate of 1.5%, and I show an equilbirum to normal BA prices in Nov. 2009 if there is no market overshoot.

This means we have 35% to go.

Even with a bailout, I think we WILL overshoot though. Either because the recession will be bad, or because the 'cure' of a bad bailout will be worse.

Also, part of my model presumes the BA appreciates at 4.25% per year - or about 1% faster than inflation. Sadly, we are not seeing tha kind of wage increases. So, if my model fails, it is too optimistic.

Please recall that at its peak, SF was 108% of normal.

Here's a link to a messageform that will send your thoughts about the bailout bill to all of your representatives, including Bush and Paulson.

http://congressorg.capwiz.com/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=11987806

I think a bailout will eventually happen, no matter what. Maybe in some modified form, but politicians want attention and it would be very hard for them not to be seen doing "something". Even if that something turns out to be counterproductive.

I have faith that our politicians will take this recession and turn it into something worse.

Still, it was heartening to see them do the right thing, if only momentarily.