• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Bye Bye Capitalism

Let me ask, and answer honestly:

Does ANYONE think McCain or Obama has an even slight clue how to deal with this mess? It scares me that the press isn't looking into who advises these guys more...and I know who those people are.

Congress wants to own the banking industry (Democrats) and the other side wants to allow these institutions to not just "sell" the gov residential and commercial mortgages, but also other "selected" securities. No one has defined what that could be (credit card debt? Auto loans?).

The government needs to loan money on a 24 month emergency basis to these institutions, and secure it with assets.
 
Current events are really just a continuation of policies started prior to, and then accelerated after, WWII. Government has always in essence existed to help "stabilize" capitalism, the most extreme example we have seen being fascism (merger of government and business). If the economy gets more unstable, something similar to fascism is something we will probably have the pleasure to look forward to.
 
Is this how oil should react to a deepening global recession?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/markets/oil/index.htm

The dollar is fucked, and this is just the beginning. The Fed needs something like 5% "growth" to make payments on its obligations. It can be a combination of e.g. 3% real growth and 2% inflation, or it can be negative growth and 5+% inflation. The more sober observers say we are at zero or negative growth already, and heading south. The prime rate is due to drop.

Last week was a good opportunity to get out of the dollar. All that remains at this point is to wipe one's ass with a fistful and stuff em in Paulson's mouth before blowing his fucking head off.
 
Holeshot said:
Let me ask, and answer honestly:

Does ANYONE think McCain or Obama has an even slight clue how to deal with this mess? It scares me that the press isn't looking into who advises these guys more...and I know who those people are.
Click to expand...

This election is amazing for the rate at which the issue of the day keeps changing. Three weeks ago the economy was troubling, but Iraq policy had center stage, then it was the response to Ike and now the candidates need to react to the bailout news. It's surreal.

In answer to your question, no, I don't think either guy knows how to deal with this. No other candidate would either, without a cadre of advisers. The sitting president has resources at his disposal nobody else does. The best either candidate can do is consult advisers and respond based upon limited information. The advisers they have today may or may not be people they will fill cabinet positions with, but it's fair to say that either guy could have a quite different view of how to deal with this once they have a broader set of resources.

Then there's the matter of the difference between the things you say prior to an election and what you say afterward. You can count on each candidate to make it partisan right now.
 
Good post Zanshin....bucky is done.

Holeshot, they are talking about eating up everything, credit cards, student loans etc etc...I swear to fucking god I have seriously thought about taking all my saved cash and euro, sell off the rest of my shit, max every one of my CC's with cash advances and get on a plane....anyone who has been responsible or a saver is getting fucked, royally.
 
I see people pulling money out of markets and bonds to buy gold. Sounds great but do you get the gold? No, just a piece of paper that says you have some. I have lots of papers that said I had a retirement fund that was twice the size once.
Not the warm and fuzzy feeling you might hope for.


When we see people in handcuffs and their assets siezed then maybe the bailout will win supporters.
 
tzrider said:
This election is amazing for the rate at which the issue of the day keeps changing. Three weeks ago the economy was troubling, but Iraq policy had center stage, then it was the response to Ike and now the candidates need to react to the bailout news. It's surreal.

In answer to your question, no, I don't think either guy knows how to deal with this. No other candidate would either, without a cadre of advisers. The sitting president has resources at his disposal nobody else does. The best either candidate can do is consult advisers and respond based upon limited information. The advisers they have today may or may not be people they will fill cabinet positions with, but it's fair to say that either guy could have a quite different view of how to deal with this once they have a broader set of resources.

Then there's the matter of the difference between the things you say prior to an election and what you say afterward. You can count on each candidate to make it partisan right now.
Click to expand...

That's total horseshit (the whole argument that the President is, or has access to the all-knowing). The President needs to be someone smart enough to think for themselves because if they have a good set of advisors they'll get conflicting information and have to make a fucking choice.

Will they make the politically safe choice or will they make the choice they believe will be the right one? Are they smart enough to make the right choice? Those are the questions I'm concerned with.
 
Cereal KLR said:
When we see people in handcuffs and their assets siezed then maybe the bailout will win supporters.
Click to expand...

Actually, that would be even more effective than the bailout. That alone maybe enough to restore confidence.
 
mlm said:
The President needs to be someone smart enough to think for themselves because if they have a good set of advisors they'll get conflicting information and have to make a fucking choice.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the gist of what you said, but let's be clear: We have not elected an economist into the White House in all the time you and I have been drawing breath. All of these guys are basing their economic policies on other people's input.
 
afm199 said:
No I dumped all my financial stocks and most everything else.

I heard the following name: "THF" or "Toxic Hedge Fund" cause it is buying all the junk toxic waste out there.
Click to expand...

I recently saw it described even more succinctly as "Cash for Trash."
 
tzrider said:
I don't disagree with the gist of what you said, but let's be clear: We have not elected an economist into the White House in all the time you and I have been drawing breath. All of these guys are basing their economic policies on other people's input.
Click to expand...

Economics is a soft science. Other than basics, its all theories, and equally accomplished economists will have conflicting views.
 
I wonder how careful they are going to be about the banks just packaging up their real crap (those with the highest likelihood of defaulting and those with less of a likelihood of defaulting) to dump onto the government versus less crap! Who is going to decide what the value is of these packages of crap? Whatever the government ends up owning will very likely be of far less value than they are represented to be.

This isn't going to be viewed by the companies getting their asses saved as a being saved nearly as much as it will be viewed as an opportunity for huge profit. You cannot change a leopard's stripes.
 
tzrider said:
I don't disagree with the gist of what you said, but let's be clear: We have not elected an economist into the White House in all the time you and I have been drawing breath. All of these guys are basing their economic policies on other people's input.
Click to expand...

However, our current President has a Harvard MBA -- the first President ever to have one -- and was widely touted as "our first CEO President."

So how has that worked out?
 
Andy's correct though: we still have not elected a President with an expertise in economics.
 
tzrider said:
I don't disagree with the gist of what you said, but let's be clear: We have not elected an economist into the White House in all the time you and I have been drawing breath.
Click to expand...


Presidential elections have more in common with "American Idol" than with a IQ talent contest. The last joker we elected because he was somebody we could have a beer with :|
 
n10sive said:
So Ernie...help me understand something. All this credit money was funny money to start with. So now that it is being replaced by hard currency...where is it going to go?
Click to expand...

Hard currency? There's no such thing. If a bank creates a dollar on an electronic ledger to loan it to Joe Blow, or if the Federal Government creates a dollar on an electronic ledger to loan it to a bank, it's the same dollar.

Even if it was printed on paper, it wouldn't mean anything.
 
Aluisious said:
Hard currency? There's no such thing. If a bank creates a dollar on an electronic ledger to loan it to Joe Blow, or if the Federal Government creates a dollar on an electronic ledger to loan it to a bank, it's the same dollar.

Even if it was printed on paper, it wouldn't mean anything.
Click to expand...

Understand that...but if I short sell a stock without owning ANY shares, and now I am compensated for my loss...I am getting what I am calling 'hard currency'. Guess I answered my own question...the bailout is going to the short sellers and bubble investors that got caught with no collateral....so I guess funny money moves around in ledgers and nothing goes to the economy. :dunno
 
Which short sellers are getting bailed out?

Why do they need to get bailed out? Looks like anyone short on financials in the last year made out like a bandit, and good for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top