Economic News

[Mal_Con]

Bill Kristol and Paul Krugman both agree that this is a bad plan if it is approved we are so fucked, probably even if we don't.

[pc313]

Bill Kristol sucks shit,Fox News what a joke! Raegans Fuck-ups cost us to bail out the Banking system and the Savings and Loans!

Bill Kristol was all for Reagan-nomic,and GWs doctrine of no child left a dime!! I'm sorry he has no crediblity!!!

 

IN 1965 Boeing laid off 80% of its workforce and stoped ordering from sub-contractors,and some one put up a billboard in south Seattle that read "WILL THE LAST PERSON TO LEAVE PLEASE TURN OFF THE LIGHTS"

I worked at boeing from 1977-84, in 1980 they laid off 80%,and agian in 1982 at least 80% I never got laid off,so I was the one who turn the lights on and off.. but alot of people got wiped out!!

 

Were in for some shit,but what don't kill you, hopefully will make you vote smarter!!!!!

Edited September 22, 2008 by pc313

[billcoe]

 

IN 1965 Boeing laid off 80% of its workforce and stoped ordering from sub-contractors,and some one put up a billboard in south Seattle that read "WILL THE LAST PERSON TO LEAVE PLEASE TURN OFF THE LIGHTS"

I worked at boeing from 1977-84, in 1980 they laid off 80%,and agian in 1982 at least 80% I never got laid off,so I was the one who turn the lights on and off.. but alot of peaple got wiped out!!

....

 

Are you the corporate spell checker?

[Off_White]

Were in for some shit,but what don't kill you, hopefully will make you vote smarter!!!!!

 

When you lose a tooth, do you still put it under your pillow?

[Mal_Con]

This may be why Paulson is so reluctant to stop wall street bonuses Paulson got 18 million bonus from Goldman

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm calling bullshit on that. Unless you're saying that the millions of Americans who've had their home foreclosed are going to turn around and get loans to buy another home, we're looking at a whole generation of American renters, new concentrations in real estate, and a new class of parasites to administer it. Remember those property management bastards you had to deal with as a college student? That's the future of American housing.

 

The decline in home prices will probably bring at least as many people into the market for homes as foreclosures eject from them, so I don't expect net home-ownership percentages to drop substantially over the long term.

 

Yeah Jay, let us know when the Martians land to purchase the homes whose only reason for existing was the home construction boom based on consumer access to junk credit! These vast tracts for the moment are serving as unintentional wildlife refuges.

 

I think Jay's point is that most owners of hard-to-unload properties, be them banks, individuals, or developers, would probably sell at a discount or a loss to willing buyers with less money than give them to all those nice kitties. Obviously, America has a glut of living space right now, so it makes sense that prices will continue to come down until supply roughly balances with demand; probably about the point where purchase prices are low enough so as to be covered by rental income.

 

The biggest losers will be the McMansion owners. Awwwwwwwwwwww.

[prole]

I think Jay's point is that most owners of hard-to-unload properties, be them banks, individuals, or developers, would probably sell at a discount or a loss to willing buyers with less money than give them to all those nice kitties. Obviously, America has a glut of living space right now, so it makes sense that prices will continue to come down until supply roughly balances with demand; probably about the point where purchase prices are low enough so as to be covered by rental income.

 

The biggest losers will be the McMansion owners. Awwwwwwwwwwww.

 

I think I get it, maybe not. I guess my question in this scenario is where is that demand going to come from? In real life...you know like, not from a diagram.

[tvashtarkatena]

If prices come down to the point where mortgages can be covered by rents, they will probably stabilize. At that point the supply in excess of what is wanted for primary residences will be purchased by real estate investors, if for no other reason than to park their money somewhere that's not the stock market. There's still a lot of people out there wondering where to safely put their money.

[prole]

So, large concentrations of homes in the hands of real estate investors managed by (I'm assuming) rental companies renting to people who used to be homeowners. Those people who are looking for somewhere "safe to put their money" are now absentee landlords? Sounds rather feudal doesn't it?

[tvashtarkatena]

It depends on the job market, demand for credit (interest rates), and other factors. It seems like both interest rates (due to our exploded debt) and inflation (due to the world running out of cheap energy and a growing demand for stuff from an exploding world Middle class) will result in more renters and fewer buyers, even as prices continue to drop, which would probably mean a greater concentration of real estate holdings among fewer people. It might also mean a degradation of neighborhoods, given that owners tend to improve things more than renters.

[dmuja]

 

Speaking as a true free marketeer,

 

screw all you wimptards, NO BAIL OUT!

 

In this new age economy free men and dirtbags will rule. All you formerly rich boys (on paper! ) can come get some cuz we ready for thunder dome brah!

 

 

Have modified and sharpened all cams to penetrate human flesh and crush bone before expanding.

 

let us

 

 

[j_b]

 

Posting from a rotary phone that you've leased from AT&T? No?

 

The break up of ATT occurred in spite of people like you who despite what they may say never agree to breaking up monopolies. And, as far as I can tell I am posting via cable managed by another quasi-monopoly.

 

 

Bore me with examples.

 

So you'd recycle ad-infinitum your silly one-liners like the above and I'd give you a history lesson?

[j_b]

Bill Kristol and Paul Krugman both agree that this is a bad plan if it is approved we are so fucked, probably even if we don't.

 

The question of the day is whether this democratic congress will finally show some spine and not give a blank check to Wall Street. The senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders has a plan:

 

"I have proposed a four part plan to accomplish that goal which includes a five-year, 10% surtax on the income of individuals above $500,000 a year, and $1 million a year for couples; a requirement that the price the government pays for any mortgage assets are discounted appropriately so that government can recover the amount it paid for them; and, finally, the government should receive equity in the companies it bails out so that when the stock of these companies rises after the bailout, taxpayers also have the opportunity to share in the resulting windfall. Taken together, these measures would provide the best guarantee that at the end of five years, the government will have gotten back the money it put out.

 

Second, in addition to protecting the average American from being saddled with the cost, any serious proposal has to include reforms so that we end the type of behavior that led to this crisis in the first place. Much of this activity can be traced to specific legislation that broke down regulatory safety walls in the financial sector and allowed banks and others to engage in new types of risky transactions that are at the heart of this crisis. That deregulation needs to be repealed. Wall Street has shown it cannot be trusted to police itself. We need to reinstate a strong regulatory system that protects our economy.

 

Third, we need to address the needs of working families in this country who are today facing very difficult times. If we can bail out Wall Street, we need to respond with equal vigor to their plight. That means, for example, creating millions of jobs through major investments in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and creating a new renewable energy system. We must also make certain that the most vulnerable Americans don’t freeze in the winter or die because they lack access to primary health care.

 

Finally, we need to protect ourselves from being at the mercy of giant companies that are "too big to fail," that is, companies who are so large that their failure would cause systemic harm to the economy. We need to assess which companies fall into this category and insist they are broken up. Otherwise, the American taxpayer will continue to be on the financial hook for the risky behavior, the mismanagement, and even the illegal conduct of these companies' executives."

 

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=303317

[olyclimber]

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

[tvashtarkatena]

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

 

An LHC created black hole would have a longer life than this clause under judiciary committee review. Like, man, just how un-constitutional can you get?

[TREETOAD]

Privatize profit, socialize losses. Now that is capitalism at it's finest!!

[j_b]

Let's play "Wallstreet Bailout"

 

[video:youtube]S27yitK32ds

[JayB]

 

Posting from a rotary phone that you've leased from AT&T? No?

 

The break up of ATT occurred in spite of people like you who despite what they may say never agree to breaking up monopolies. And, as far as I can tell I am posting via cable managed by another quasi-monopoly.

 

 

Bore me with examples.

 

So you'd recycle ad-infinitum your silly one-liners like the above and I'd give you a history lesson?

 

Yes.

 

Speaking of history lessons, it might be useful to revisit the saga of the Corn Laws, back in the days before "liberal" and "leftist" meant two entirely different things.

 

At some point in mid-nineteenth century England came to a couple of conclusions concerning the production and sale of corn within the Kingdom. Back then - the Crown determined who could grow and sell corn, and either forbade the import of corn or permitted the folks who grew the corn to do the same. I can't recall the precise mechanism the crown used to distribute these rights - but I suspect they were either sold for cash or distributed for political favors.

 

Worked like a charm. Eliminating competition meant the large landholders would pay the crown more for the right to grow corn under monopoly conditions, and those who secured the monopoly rights didn't have to fret about competition diminishing their profits. The only people it didn't work out so well for were the consumers of corn, who would have been considerably less hungry, and/or starvation or death if they had been able to buy twice as much corn with the same amount of money. Given that hunger and/or starvation were acute realities in those days, there was quite a bit at stake - at least for the hungry and starving.

 

It's been at least a dozen years since I read their essays, so the particular arguments are a bit difficult to recall, but they all seemed to agree on a couple of points. The first was that it was neither ethical nor just for the crown to use its power to grant monopoly concessions to enrich themselves and the large landholders at the expense of the poor and the hungry. The second was that a constraint on the right to buy corn from whomever they chose was a profound a violation of the rights and liberties that centuries of Englishmen had fought and died to secure - no less so than the crown dictating who they could and could not speak to, etc.

 

I'm still waiting to hear the array of industries that will constitute your pean to the glory days of corporatism, but the gist of your arguments seem to be that consumers were much better off when the government prohibited competition using one mechanism or another. Whether it's corn or cars, when the government shields one company or sector from competition, the consumer invariably pays more and gets less than they would if the government wasn't playing favorites. There's no escape from this.

 

In your fond remembrances of the days when people had to fork over a week's pay to speak to their grandchildren for five minutes, or could behold the glory of the cracked engine block on their new car and know that at least they'd been spared the agony of paying less money for a more reliable vehicle made by foreigners..etc, etc, etc...Spare me the pretend argument where anyone arguing for open competition without the government playing favorites is arguing against any rules in the marketplace. Suggesting that we're all better off when the laws that govern behavior in the marketplace apply equally to all participants is all I'm doing here. If you want to pretend that this means retreating into some kind of left-wank-fantasy Hobbesian state where the department of weights and measures, the enforceability of contracts, and patents all get tossed out with the Ethanol subsidies, you'll have to find another participant.

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

Privatize profit, socialize losses. Now that is capitalism at it's finest!!

 

Worked like a charm for Fannie and Freddie. I'd be more than happy to see the folks here dissect exactly who argued against reforming that case study of moral hazard every time it's come up - ever since the Johnson administration "privatized" Fannie in order to get it's balance sheet off of the country's books.

[Fairweather]

 

 

 

I think Jay's point is that most owners of hard-to-unload properties, be them banks, individuals, or developers, would probably sell at a discount or a loss to willing buyers with less money than give them to all those nice kitties. Obviously, America has a glut of living space right now, so it makes sense that prices will continue to come down until supply roughly balances with demand; probably about the point where purchase prices are low enough so as to be covered by rental income.

 

The biggest losers will be the McMansion owners. Awwwwwwwwwwww.

 

This is the market correction that's been long overdue. I say let the McMansions and the willfully and ignorantly overextended suck it...just like Barney Frank.

[glassgowkiss]

this cry wolf game is getting old. first the terrorist threats, then iraq, now collapse of the economy.

[glassgowkiss]

 

 

 

I think Jay's point is that most owners of hard-to-unload properties, be them banks, individuals, or developers, would probably sell at a discount or a loss to willing buyers with less money than give them to all those nice kitties. Obviously, America has a glut of living space right now, so it makes sense that prices will continue to come down until supply roughly balances with demand; probably about the point where purchase prices are low enough so as to be covered by rental income.

 

The biggest losers will be the McMansion owners. Awwwwwwwwwwww.

 

This is the market correction that's been long overdue. I say let the McMansions and the willfully and ignorantly overextended suck it...just like Barney Frank.

 

i assume you are still for the bailout, since you never opposed it?

[Fairweather]

I honestly don't know. It sounds necessary, but is anathema to my beliefs.

[jon]

This is the market correction that's been long overdue. I say let the McMansions and the willfully and ignorantly overextended suck it...just like Barney Frank.

 

I totally agree. We need to protect our assets from foreign takeover but at the same time I think this country needs a hard lesson that as individuals, companies, and government that we can't live off of credit and loans, especially when an increasing amount of our money is leaving.

[Mal_Con]

I know it is from Drudge but fun.

 

EXCLUSIVE: LETTERMAN MOCKS MCCAIN CANCELLATION

Wed Sep 24 2008 17:41:58 ET

 

David Letterman tells audience that McCain called him today to tell him he had to rush back to DC to deal with the economy.

 

Then in the middle of the taping Dave got word that McCain was, in fact just down the street being interviewed by Katie Couric. Dave even cut over to the live video of the interview, and said, "Hey Senator, can I give you a ride home?"

 

Earlier in the show, Dave kept saying, "You don't suspend your campaign. This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves." And he joked: "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil."

 

"He can't run the campaign because the economy is cratering? Fine, put in your second string quarterback, Sara Palin. Where is she?"

 

"What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!"

 

Developing...