Tweet
Or the S&L "bailout", where, IIRC, the government made money.
-
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV) -
It took more than 10 years, didn't it?Originally posted by Zkribbler
...or a student of history, who knows that, in 1933, FDR set up the Home Owners Loan Corp. to help stop foreclosures and funded it with $3 billion, and that eventually the government made a small profit on the deal.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
The Home Owners Loan Corp took 18 years to get the money back. That's not a profit. One should expect a nice return on their money after 18 years.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
The RTC recieved the assets from failed S&L's. In this case the government corporation would buy up assets at book value for the purpose of keeping the corporation up and running.Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Or the S&L "bailout", where, IIRC, the government made money.
Also, I don't think they were toxic derivatives. There's a good chance that investors won't be very interested in these derivatives in the future. I sure wouldn't touch them. Would you?I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
I don't think anyone's suggesting the Fed go into business with this model, but if it makes its money back and accomplishes the goal (stabilizing the economy) that's not a bad price to pay, is it?
(Note: I don't think it will do either one, hence my opposition to the bailout ... but the theory is not bad.)<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.Comment
-
Stablizing the economy (in this case) = putting it back the way it wasOriginally posted by snoopy369
I don't think anyone's suggesting the Fed go into business with this model, but if it makes its money back and accomplishes the goal (stabilizing the economy) that's not a bad price to pay, is it?
(Note: I don't think it will do either one, hence my opposition to the bailout ... but the theory is not bad.)
And I don't think that's as great of a thing as people are making it out to be.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
...or a student of history, who knows that, in 1933, FDR set up the Home Owners Loan Corp. to help stop foreclosures and funded it with $3 billion, and that eventually the government made a small profit on the deal.
1. As Kid said, it took a long time for the gov't to get the money back. Loaning out cash and waiting that long to get it back doesn't count as "profit."
2. The deal as it currently stands isn't structured like the HOLC. I'm particularly pessimistic about the insurance nonsense as a drain of money. I would like to see a HOLC, but that's not what we're talking about."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
I think the deal might have a decent chance at working, but I don't see any chances of profit (and a return on a negligible interest loan doesn't count as profit since you've got an opportunity cost to factor in). Which is why I think we ought to make sure we can pay for it.Originally posted by snoopy369
I don't think anyone's suggesting the Fed go into business with this model, but if it makes its money back and accomplishes the goal (stabilizing the economy) that's not a bad price to pay, is it?
(Note: I don't think it will do either one, hence my opposition to the bailout ... but the theory is not bad.)
No tax increase may mean some priorities I think we have to take care of, like universal health care and an alternative energy infrastructure, might be a lot more difficult to get passed.
In the debate, Obama said that he'd cut back on his proposal to increase foreign aid due to this chicanery.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
This is how absurd it is to think that the tax payers will get a return on this. If these assets are sold for a profit who would untimately own them? The people who the hold them now. Because otherwise no one in their right mind would think they are valuable.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
My deep respect to House's Wittman.
It just shows the USA I knew some years ago are still alive.
Best regards,Comment
-
At last, someone also thinks that the whole concept of that Rescue Plan sucks and cures only symptoms instead of the disease.
Finally, the new business cycle tacitly embeds a new monetary policy stance that replaces concern with real wages with concern about asset prices. Whereas pre-1980 policy tacitly focused on putting a floor under labor markets to preserve employment and wages, now policy tacitly puts a floor under asset prices. This policy behavior has been clearly visible with the 2007 U.S. sub-prime mortgage crisis. It is not a case of the Fed intentionally bailing out investors. Rather, the macro economy is now vulnerable to asset price declines so that the Fed is obliged to step in to prevent such declines from inflicting broad macroeconomic damage. However, that has the twin consequence of bailing out investors and also potentially creating investor moral hazard. Such moral hazard encourages investors to chase even greater high risk – return ventures because they know there is a good chance they will be bailed out by the Fed if things go wrong.
Moreover, the Fed itself may suffer from cognitive dissonance about this. On one hand good policy requires that investors bear the financial costs of bad decision-making. On the other hand, the macroeconomic system created by financialization may require rising indebtedness and asset prices to maintain growth. Consequently, not only does the Fed have reason to prevent asset price declines, it also has reason to engage in serial blowing of asset price bubbles. That certainly appears to be the lesson of the 2001–06 house price bubble.Knowledge is PowerComment
-
It looks like no banker will be left behind after all :joy:
I agree we have to do something to stabilize credit markets before small and medium sized companies really get squeezed but does it have to be so one sided and entirely at Paulson's discretion?Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Good paper with lot's of information.Originally posted by Ellestar
At last, someone also thinks that the whole concept of that Rescue Plan sucks and cures only symptoms instead of the disease.
Higher reserve requirements.
That's pretty obvious, but the industry won't like it. That's another way you can tell that Congress isn't independent here.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
George Soros has proposed a simple, easy to understand and effective plan:
The banks need money (i.e. liquidity). Fine, give them money in exchange for some of their stock.
Comment
-
Warren Buffett thinks the rescue plan must pass -- does that change anyone's opinion?The undeserving maintain power by promoting hysteria.Comment
Comment