> RoMunn wrote:
> You are off in la-la land if you think the government created derivatives.
>
I guess "la-la land" is your pet term for the US of A.
The following was authored by Phil Gramm, McCain's econ adviser, and
he promised it would create a "new era" for the financial services
industry.
Good luck with that fool's errand.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Gruss G wrote:
>
> *SYSTEMIC* risk can and should be eliminated primarily through anti-trust.
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dr
You are off in la-la land if you think the government created derivatives.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
> President Bush, Phil Gramm, and the Republicans just tried to regulate
> risk out of the banking industry with new instruments called
> derivatives meant to spread risk out
> RoMunn wrote:
> Exactly. Risk is part of the capitalist model. You can't eliminate it.
>
*INVESTOR* risk is part of the capitalist model - not just part, but most of it.
*SYSTEMIC* risk can and should be eliminated primarily through anti-trust.
~
> RoMunn wrote:
> I have zero confidence in the ability of the government to regulate risk out
> of the banking industry without destroying the economy
Well you shouldn't given the Bush government just did destroy the economy.
President Bush, Phil Gramm, and the Republicans just tried to regulate
Exactly. Risk is part of the capitalist model. You can't eliminate it.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Judah M wrote:
> I have less than 0 confidence that the banks can self-regulate the
> risk out of the banking industry without destroying the economy. Why?
> Because they just failed, that's wh
I have less than 0 confidence that the banks can self-regulate the
risk out of the banking industry without destroying the economy. Why?
Because they just failed, that's why.
So my inclination is to try the side that hasn't failed spectacularly recently.
Judah
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Ro
Ironically the banks are taking matters into their own hands in that
respect. Citi is breaking itself up. Now BofA is talking about breaking
itself up.
I have zero confidence in the ability of the government to regulate risk out
of the banking industry without destroying the economy, but let's see
Now you have a valid point...
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
> >One could argue that the schools indirectly gave tns of money to political
> >parties. I doubt a lot of money came in from uneducated people.
> >
> OK how many all expense paid congressional junkets have been p
To be fair, teachers unions throw around a pretty penny. Not in the
same class as Big Pharm or Tobacco or anything. But its not like the
NEA isn't a player.
Judah
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>>One could argue that the schools indirectly gave tns of money to political
>>pa
>One could argue that the schools indirectly gave tns of money to political
>parties. I doubt a lot of money came in from uneducated people.
>
OK how many all expense paid congressional junkets have been paid by schools.
Now how many have been funded by banks and similar institutions.
~
> RoMunn wrote:
> See my comments to Gruss. My concern is systemic risk.
So on that we agree, sounds like we disagree on the efficacy of
actions taken thus far.
The real problem once we fix the banks is anti-trust; the banking
sector and the individual banks within have been allowed to grow too
b
Fair enough answer. I was curious where you came down on the matter.
I don't really have a solid opinion yet, honestly. I decent
understanding of macroeconomics but I can't say I really have a good
understanding of large scale finance and the markets. A lot of voodoo
going on there methinks.
Juda
See my comments to Gruss. My concern is systemic risk. Ultimately, the banks
should and will be private entities. In the short term, if the government
needs to take over the banks for BK/reorg purposes, they should treat it
like any other BK proceeding. I would not support outright nationalization
I wouldn't say the banks have been nationalized either. But I want to
know, if it comes down to a choice between nationalizing banks or
letting them fail, what's your choice?
Judah
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
> According to the talking head crowd, the banks have already
I don't care about the shareholders of the banks, they deserve no special
protection. I care about systemic risk. If the government can accomplish
what you are suggesting without crashing the system, then they should do it.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Gruss wrote:
>
> Then hopefully when t
According to the talking head crowd, the banks have already been
nationalized. I don't agree with that assessment, and no I don't support
nationalization.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> Honest question for you then Robert. Do you think there is any way the
> banks (we'll
> RoMunn wrote:
> crisis. Hopefully in a few years when this is all behind us someone will
> write a book about it and fill in the details for the historical record.
>
Hopefully congress will subpoena the bank records so we'll know within
a few months.
Then hopefully when they see the horrors, th
Honest question for you then Robert. Do you think there is any way the
banks (we'll leave the other industries out for a moment) will be able
to survive short of nationalization? Would it be better to support
nationalization or widespread bank failure? And in what circumstances,
if any, would you s
Do you have a point or are you just babbling nonsense like usual?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Gruss wrote:
>
> Did your sources tell you they were a zombie bank? cause if they
> didn't then your sources are one of 2 things:
>
> (1.) Idiots, or
>
> (2.) Morons. Morons are idiots who don't
We gave them money to keep them from failing, I think that is the untold
story of the crisis and the reason that Paulson asked for a big pile of
money with no strings attached. Had he gone to Congress and said, "I need
money, the nation's biggest banks are on the verge of collapse,", he might
as we
> Judah wrote:
> And what, exactly, does that do to help the problem that was to be
> solved...the illiquidity of the credit market?
>
Zero. If anything the banks are in even more of a mess than when this started.
Wave 1 was ~$1T, wave #2 will be $1.5T and that's just mortgages.
"credit default
> RoMunn wrote:
> They might not be telling the public or the press, but inside the banking
> industry there is plenty of talk about what is going on with the money.
> According to my sources,
Your 'sources', HA!
"ahem, ah, yes, we're doing great things ... GREAT things with that
money and we're
And what, exactly, does that do to help the problem that was to be
solved...the illiquidity of the credit market?
We did not give them the money to pay down debt or acquire banks. Of
course I blame Congress for it mostly. They should have put rules in
place to require banks to follow through on th
They might not be telling the public or the press, but inside the banking
industry there is plenty of talk about what is going on with the money.
According to my sources, they are using at least some of the money to pay
down debt, strengthen their balance sheets, and acquire smaller banks- all
of w
One could argue that the schools indirectly gave tns of money to political
parties. I doubt a lot of money came in from uneducated people.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Larry Lyons wrote:
> >Banking industry gets a blank check to do whatever they want...schools get
> >money, but with string
>Banking industry gets a blank check to do whatever they want...schools get
>money, but with strings attached...
>
>http://tinyurl.com/8zhp9b
>
>--
>Scott Stroz
Look at it this way, how much money did the schools give to the political
parties? Now compare that to how much the banking industry an
I dunno, if I go to get a loan for my business, I sure as hell have to
tell the bank what it's for. Sometimes you have to submit a business
plan. There is quite a bit of scrutiny given to most businesses when
asking for a loan - more if the business is in financial trouble.
Actually, most banks w
e bonus is proportional to
the companies earnings.
Bruce
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Stroz"
To: "cf-community"
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: This makes no sense
> Here is what pisses me off about how some banks handled the
> handout..umm
Here is what pisses me off about how some banks handled the
handout..umm..bailout...
They spent millions of our tax dollars on bonuses for the executives that
were at the helm when the banks got into trouble to begin with. Imagine
doing your job so poorly that it brings your company and industry
> Judah wrote:
> To be fair, I think for Gruss its an accountability issue. Pluto's
> orbit is just too eccentric.
>
Eggs-actly. As we can plainly see, our checking accounts go up and
down cyclically and there's nothing we can do change that.
So quit your job and take a vacation and stop worryi
To be fair, I think for Gruss its an accountability issue. Pluto's
orbit is just too eccentric.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Charlie Griefer
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>> > Judah wrote:
>> > And ignore the melting icecaps..I mean falling Dow...it is really
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> > Judah wrote:
> > And ignore the melting icecaps..I mean falling Dow...it is really
> > getting colder.
> >
>
> But we could fix the falling Dow if we invaded Pluto.
>
oh sure, now that it's not a planet you're a big tough guy.
--
I have fa
> Judah wrote:
> And ignore the melting icecaps..I mean falling Dow...it is really
> getting colder.
>
But we could fix the falling Dow if we invaded Pluto.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic re
And ignore the melting icecaps..I mean falling Dow...it is really
getting colder.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> Oh! Oh! I know this one!
>
> It's your global warming theory as applied to economics. The economy
> is bigger than any one of us or even the totality of a nati
Oh! Oh! I know this one!
It's your global warming theory as applied to economics. The economy
is bigger than any one of us or even the totality of a nation and it
is horribly presumptious of us to try and "handle" it. It will do what
it wants and will outlive us all. Yeah, some weaklings may or ma
> RoMunn wrote:
> You think it was a bad idea? Tell me, what would you have proposed as an
> alternative? Let the banks fail and see what happens?
>
it's unclear whether they would've failed or will fail any way.
>From what we know, they didn't use the money to "save themselves" but
then we don'
You think it was a bad idea? Tell me, what would you have proposed as an
alternative? Let the banks fail and see what happens?
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Dana wrote:
> yeah... the economy totally falls apart if the executives don't get
> their bonuses.
>
~
yeah... the economy totally falls apart if the executives don't get
their bonuses.
hehe
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> The banking bailout was necessary to prevent a systemic collapse. What would
> happen if you went to the ATM tomorrow to get cash and couldn't get cash?
>
The banking bailout was necessary to prevent a systemic collapse. What would
happen if you went to the ATM tomorrow to get cash and couldn't get cash?
What if no one could get cash? What if payroll services stopped issuing
paychecks because the three or four largest banks in the country were shut
d
Yeah - it would be nice if this level of scrutiny was assigned to the
money loaned to banks. Really, it's just more proof that congress
can't spend money wisely under virtually any circumstance and no
matter which party is in control.
I seem to remember a big tax surplus in the Clinton years that
the bank bailout pisses me off too. I have been busy and hadn't
noticed that we are bailing out schools now sounds like A Good
Thing in theory but it's hard not to be cynical about any such
proposal. Offhand (on the basis of nothing but my prejudices) I'd
worry about how more money will actuall
@Cameron - I am not saying that the strings are bad, I actualyl liek the
idea. What pisses me off more is that the banking industry has no strings
at all, not even 'good' ones.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Cameron Childress wrote:
> Those strings aren't all bad:
>
> High-quality education
Those strings aren't all bad:
High-quality educational tests.
Ways to recruit and retain top teachers in hard-to-staff schools.
Longitudinal data systems that let schools track long-term progress.
I'm not terribly fond of testing - I seem to remember feeling like I
took standardized tests e
ever.. did the
bail out just keep the marketing department alive?
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 8:21 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: This makes no sense
Banking industry gets a blank check to do whatever they want...schools
Banking industry gets a blank check to do whatever they want...schools get
money, but with strings attached...
http://tinyurl.com/8zhp9b
--
Scott Stroz
Some people are like slinkies...not really good for anything but they bring
a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
~~~
46 matches
Mail list logo
