Government Bailouts.

[Blog]

ROFL, its a supposedly a huge emergency to pass, it fails, then congress takes 2 days off, kinda makes you wonder how important it really is. I could just imagine how this would go over with a major deadline in the business world.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Jyn
It would be federally started and funded, but not federally controlled. A non-profit of sorts.

He who funds it controls it. That's always the way. If you want something not federally controlled, then make it a co-op.

[Kraxe]

If I were Paulson I'd be thinking 'Screw you guys' and I'd just head up into the mountains until it all blows over.

Which it will.

It was this weekend that was the real test. Monday opened up and the banking system was still there. A few less banks, but the world did not end. YET HAHAHAHAH.

[Savaric]

Originally posted by Blog
ROFL, its a supposedly a huge emergency to pass, it fails, then congress takes 2 days off, kinda makes you wonder how important it really is.

Probably to talk behind closed doors. So far what I've seen is that the majority of Americans oppose a bailout (like me). I find it hard to believe that the government is working towards my best interests.

[Riek]

Originally posted by Savaric
So far what I've seen is that the majority of Americans oppose a bailout (like me).

Can I get an understanding of why people are so opposed to the bailout fund?

I'll post later as to why I think it makes good sense, but don't want to taint any thoughts just yet.

[Rilthyn]

Originally posted by Jyn
Also, maybe it is necessary at the moment, but I don't like that all of these failing banks are being bought up buy other banks. It could lead to monopolies, and that doesn't seem like a good idea with banks in particular. If something like this ever happens again, we'd have all our eggs in one basket, so to speak. Then what?

Incidentally, that's what the conspiracy theory around ye olde Wall St crash was about. Banks in the know (which had stepped out of the market quite conveniently just before the shit hit the fan) pocketing rival banks who got tanked when the market died, increasing their control over the market.

v2.0?

[Jozep]

Imagine if the tables were turned and it was you going to the bank for a loan:

Hi. I know I have no money in the bank, and I have a massive credit card bill and a line of credit which is pretty much maxed out, and a mortgage which takes up 65% of my take home pay, and I blew a shitload of money on iquor and whores on several trips to Vegas, and I lent a bunch of money to my brother-in-law for his new business idea of selling snow to Eskimos, and I owe Big Tony a thousand bucks which I have to pay back by Friday or he'll break my legs, but .... I really, really need you to lend me $700 billion dollars.

Oh, and I have no intention of paying it back. And if you don't loan it to me, I swear to God your bank will go out of business.

What do you think the answer would be?

[Snrrub]

This mess isn't just caused by banks giving out loans to poor people with bad credit, like some people seem to believe.

1) Of the subprime mortgages that are outstanding, a large percentage were issued to non-subprime borrowers, i.e. borrowers with credit scores above 620 (41% of subprime issues loaned in 2000, 55% in 2005, 61% in 2006).

2) Many people who qualified for more traditional loans were tricked into subprime loans by brokerages employing predatory lending practices.

3) Many of these loans (both prime and subprime), are non-recourse loans. So thanks to the crash in house prices, it's in the financial best interest of the borrower (especially if that borrower is a speculator) to simply stop making the payments, even if they could easily afford to. As far as I know, non-recourse mortgages aren't available in Canada, for example, as a result of regulation.

I personally don't think the $700 billion bail out is ultimately necessary, although Wallstreet is clearly in love with the idea (and there is definitely benefit in boosting the market).

[Cais]

Although, it's really sad it's so necessary to stuff bills with other goodies in order to get enough Congress members to pass it, and we've certainly watched this happen to the "rescue" bill: I was particularly happy that health insurance companies are now mandated to insure their client's mental health needs as well.

This seems to be one of the least understood concepts of health in general: even recently I hear some doctors spewing the most ignorantly backwards theories about causes and affects of mental illness, so it's really no wonder why so few have a clue. It's a shame such a bill couldn't pass on it's own, but this is one I'm particularly glad followed on the coattails of an otherwise innane bill.

I wish that medicare would follow suit with this type of thinking: medicare's drug insurance plan doesn't cover medicines as common and widely used as anti-anxiety medication. And for the record: you either have to be retired or disabled to receive medicare. I'll draw your attention to the "disabled" part, where a disability isn't limited strictly to a physical handicap, but also mental handicaps: what's one of the most prevalent mental disorders according to more recent revelations? Anxiety.

I'm probably expecting too much considering electro-shock therapy was still a viable option for treatement for depressive individuals well into the 21st century, despite its affects being decidedly unhelpful in any way: its affects include loss of memory, loss of cognition, let alone causing a whole new array of mental impairments.

I chalk this one up as a victory.

[Ilusan]

I'd ahve to agree with you, Cais. That's been a long time coming, but i wonder if the bill will extend to learning disabilities, as well. Treatments for Dyslexia or Dyscalculia, often aggravated by ADD or other hyperactivity disorders aren't covered by medicare or general health insurance are they?