Desert Rat, we're spending $2 billion a week in Iraq. Here comes the bailout. What happens if Russia rolls tanks into Ukraine or Iran closes the Strait? We'll have to refer it to the United Nations, because we're tapped.
The mockingly asked question, "Where's my bailout?"
Everyone there, at the after party, was just fumin'. Wanting to get their family's $10,000 share, not pay it. Seemed fair to me, since all of us have been hit by the recession AZ is in the throes of.
Okay, here's what's really got me "Hot and Bothered." They say we've got to bail them out so they will have the money to make loans to businesses, and consumers.
Well, here's the thing. They Had the Money. They Pissed it Away gambling on worthless shit.
You watch; we'll end up bailing out bad bets in Nigerian Cassava Harvests, and Tanzanian Goat-milk production before that Goldman Cocksucker gets all the money spent.
"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.
"You can put it off a few days the problem is it's hard to reschedule those things," Clinton said, "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that."
And anybody says otherwise is just "overly parsing."
Okay, here's what's really got me "Hot and Bothered." They say we've got to bail them out so they will have the money to make loans to businesses, and consumers.
Well, here's the thing. They Had the Money. They Pissed it Away gambling on worthless shit.
Investor confidence fell on Thursday morning to the lowest level ever recorded by the Rasmussen Investor Index. At 75.1, the Index is down five points since yesterday morning, twelve points over the past week, and twenty-three points over the past two weeks.
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 49% of the vote while John McCain earns 46%. Other than the bounces related to his convention and speech in Berlin, this is the first time Obama has had 49% support on back-to-back days since early July.
Palin Still Viewed More Favorably - And Unfavorably - Than Biden
Sununu Moves Ahead in New Hampshire
Colorado Senate: Udall's Lead Cut to Two
Get the Inside Scoop as a Premium Member
In Colorado, Obama Moves Back on Top
New Hampshire: McCain Gains Ground, Holds Two-Point Advantage
McCain is leading another charge, against his constitutents. Just as he has on Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Promising a Comprehensive Bailout Bill, by Monday. The Dems will stall him, or he them, to create another divisive campaign issue. But, like Immigration, McCain is on the "wrong" side of his base.
Man in OJ trial testifies 'after revelation from God'. How can you not believe testimony like that?
LAS VEGAS (AP) - A former defendant in the O.J. Simpson kidnapping and armed robbery case testified Wednesday that he decided to take a plea deal and accuse Simpson in court after God answered his prayers with a revelation telling him to do the right thing.
Obama is the worst possible person to preside over this mess.
McCain has shown his ass for sure with all the temper-tantrums and flip-flopping and my confidence in him has plummeted.
Newt's proposals are the best I have seen, but our government will make all the wrong decisions because it is led by people that see more government as the cure for all ills.
The hybrid mix of the free market, economic fascism and socialism that are known as "American Capitalism" has run its course. We have to decide on one, because all three at once ain't workin' no more.
The bailout is the preservation of the status-quo. I don't want the status-quo. I want the reset button.
Wow Bob, Kristol really got out the kneepads on that one...
...For McCain will have acted presidentially in the campaign--which some voters, quite reasonably, will think speaks to his qualifications to be president.
As for the question of Friday night's debate, which some in the media seem to think more important than saving the financial system--if the negotiations are still going on in D.C., McCain should offer to send Palin to debate Obama!...
Good Government more important than Constitutional Government, per John McCain in 2006.
John McCain, ... said that "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."
But we never achieved "Clean Government" but have lost the protections and freedoms of a Constitutional one.
Now he will champion socializing Wall Street. Onward Christian Soldier!!!
We taxpayers could turn a profit quicker, if we did that.
The US becoming a Banana Republic, right before our eyes.
No kidding Rat. We're having fuel shortages in NC right now with a tropical depression forming off the coat, so combined with the financial picture, there's a slight whiff of Apocalypse in the air.
May be the reason my posts are so full of doom today.
"As it grew -- according to the industry's trade group, the credit default market grew to $46 trillion by the first half of 2007 from $631 billion in 2000 -- all that changed." ==
It was like betting with a "bookie." All you had to do was call him up, and make a bet.
The beautiful part was, you wouldn't get knee-capped if you couldn't pay. In fact, there was a "good" chance uncle sugar would come in and "bail you out."
They loaned the money to the banks, which invested it 30:1 in the varied "investments", which then grew as profits accumulated, until the bubble burst.
It was a manufactured crisis, one that is far beyond the sub-prime mortgages. That is part of the public consumption propaganda, seems like to me.
As Ben Stein wrote, that was not enough to do what we see is happening.
Conspiracy or incompetence, neither deserves for more good money after bad.
That's where I was at, when we used a shithole in the forest. ...after I built a fancy bathroom, I usually continued to shit in the woods. ...except when it rained.
I read while ago that some hedge fund created a small (coupld of million capitalization) company which sold UBS "insurance" on over a Billion $s worth of mortgage backed assets.
About a Thousand to One that leverage was. UBS thought that was "okay," since mortgages never default.
If US taxpayers go along with this scam, it will be the end of the US middle class. You will not be considered people, but Turnip plants, and you will be treated as such.
Remember, in the Great Depression, people who owned 90 percent of their houses still lost them. Until recently at least we’ve been talking about people who own ten percent losing them.
Hoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corp. begat the entities that begat Fannie and Freddie. But the idea that homeownership is an entitlement, rather than a contractual responsibility, is fairly recent. Fannie and Freddie’s off-budget aspect we can date to LBJ. In my Bloomberg column I tried to trace that.
Lopez: Is there a forgotten man in this mortgage mess?
Shlaes: The taxpayer. In my Bloomberg column I tried to trace that.
Invested in these varied types of derivitives, left unregulated by the Gramm Amendment to the 2000 Budget Act.
Thu Sep 25, 11:01:00 AM EDT
The primary, regulatory line of defense, in the US as elsewhere, is not the instrument, but the institution. And as John Mauldin has pointed out: Up until 2003, all investment banks were allowed only 12 to 1 leverage. Then in 2004, the SEC basically gave five banks (and only five banks) the ability to lever up 30 or even 40 to 1. Bet you can guess the five banks. Bear, Lehman, Merrill, Morgan and Goldman. Three down.
As Barry Ritholtz wrote: "So while the SEC runs around reinstating short selling rules, and clueless pension fund managers mindlessly point to the wrong issue, we learn that it was the SEC who was in large part responsible for the reckless leverage that led to the current crisis." (Don't get me started on blaming the short sellers. Let's not blame the people who leveraged up their companies 40 to 1 with bad investments.)
Who was at the SEC in 2004? Bet you don't know his name.
Funny, isn't it?
There's something both horrible and satisfying about this whole episode. Nominal conservatives who haven't given much real thought to the destructiveness of one of the most unconservative administrations in US history, are, in the last months of its twin tenure, in high dudgeon. Fat lot of good it will do them.
That's not just satisfying.
That's downright amusing. So long as one has an appropriately dark sense of humor.
Today's troubles began when President Lyndon Johnson was having a hard time delivering on his guns-and-butter promise. In January 1968, LBJ proposed to Congress both a war surtax and a change in government's bookkeeping. The Federal National Mortgage Association would move off-budget, nominally reducing federal borrowing. The new mortgage company, the New York Times reported, would be ``wholly privately owned.''
But not entirely private. For here is where Fannie's career as a swinger -- swinging between public and private, that is -- took off. Either at that point, or later, Fannie and its sibling, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., or Freddie Mac, enjoyed a number of government privileges.
These included a line of credit with the U.S. Treasury Department, exemption of corporate earnings from state and local income tax, exemption from registration under the 1933 Securities and Exchange Commission law and status as government securities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. (Those suffering from Fannie shock may even want to download the full roster of privileges from an essay by John Weicher in ``Restructuring Regulation and Financial Institutions,'' a 2001 Milken Institute publication.)
Every era features its trademark stocks, the ones that capture the public imagination. In the summer of 1968, Fannie Mae was that stock. Wall Street wanted to do good in addition to doing well. The housing legislation that had given Fannie Mae public stock ownership also provided funds to house the poor. This association made investors feel better about any windfalls their stock was yielding.
Tzipi Livni served as a lieutenant in the Israel Defense Forces and worked for the Mossad for nearly two years during the early 1980s, resigning in August 1983 to marry and finish her law studies. It was rumored that she was a terrorist hunter for the Mossad, but recent findings suggest that Livni was a low level agent. She was hired to live in a Paris apartment to maintain the appearance of a regular residential property. A graduate of Bar Ilan University's Faculty of Law, she has 10 years experience as a practicing lawyer specializing in public and commercial law. Livni resides in Tel Aviv. She is married to accountant Naftali Spitzer and has two children, Omri and Yuval. According to her childhood friend Mirla Gal, Livni is a vegetarian. Livni speaks Hebrew, English, and French.
Japan, China and other holders of U.S. government debt must quickly reach an agreement to prevent panic sales leading to a global financial collapse, said Yu Yongding....
``We are in the same boat, we must cooperate,'' Yu said in an interview in Beijing on Sept. 23. ``If there's no selling in a panicked way, then China willingly can continue to provide our financial support by continuing to hold U.S. assets.''
An agreement is needed so that no nation rushes to sell, ``causing a collapse,'' Yu said. Japan is the biggest owner of U.S. Treasury bills, holding $593 billion, and China is second with $519 billion. Asian countries together hold half of the $2.67 trillion total held by foreign nations....
``Whether some kind of agreement between them to continue to hold Treasury bills is viable, I'm not sure,'' said James McCormack, head of sovereign ratings at Fitch Ratings Ltd in Hong Kong. ``It would be unusual. If it became apparent that sovereigns in Asia were selling Treasuries the market would take that quite badly, it's something to be avoided.''...
China's huge holdings of U.S. debt means it must bear a large proportion of the ``burden of sorting things out'' in the U.S., Yu said. China is not in a hurry to dump its U.S. holdings and communication between the two nations every ``couple of days'' is keeping Chinese leaders informed and helping to avoid a potential panic, he added.
``China is very worried about the safety of its assets,'' he said. ``If you want China to keep calm, you must ensure China that its assets are safe.''
Yu said China is helping the U.S. ``in a very big way'' and added that it should get something in return. The U.S. should avoid labeling it an unfair trader and a currency manipulator and not politicize other issues, he said.
``It is not fair that we are doing this in good faith and are prepared to bear serious consequences and you are still labeling China this and that, accusing China of this and that,'' he said. ``China knows what to do. We don't need your intervention.''
The U.S. financial crisis had taught China a lesson and that was: ``Why are we piling up these IOUs if they may default?'' China's economic expansion strategy, which emphasizes export growth that has led to trade surpluses and the accumulation of $1.81 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves, is the main problem, said Yu.
``Our export-growth strategy has run its natural course,'' he said. ``We should change course.''
William Henry Donaldson (born June 2, 1931 in Buffalo, New York, USA) is a former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Donaldson attended both Yale University (B.A. 1953) and Harvard University (M.B.A. 1958).
While he was a senior at Yale, he joined its Skull and Bones secret society.
Donaldson returned to Yale and founded the Yale School of Management where he served as dean and professor of management studies. He also served in the United States Marine Corps.
Donaldson served as Under Secretary of State in the Nixon Administration and as a special adviser to Vice President Nelson Rockefeller.
Donaldson founded Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette. He was Chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace from 1999 to 2003.
On June 1, 2005, he announced he would step down as SEC chairman on June 30.
Then, it gets even "better"
Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette or DLJ was an investment bank founded by William H. Donaldson, Richard Jenrette and Dan Lufkin in 1959. Its businesses included securities underwriting; sales and trading; investment and merchant banking; financial advisory services; investment research; venture capital; correspondent brokerage services; online, interactive brokerage services; and asset management. The firm was headquartered at 277 Park Ave in New York City and employed 11,300 people as of July 2000.
In August 2000, DLJ (which was majority owned by AXA Financial) announced that it was being acquired by Credit Suisse. The acquisition closed in November 2000 with a purchase price of approximately $11.5 billion.
The point being, mat, that no one knows his name because no one is looking at that particular cause of the current crisis, nor the consequent need to marry off/rescue those banks.
The point being, mat, that no one knows his name because no one is looking at that particular cause of the current crisis, nor the consequent need to marry off/rescue those banks. ==
No, Trish. The point being they been paid to look the other way.
That was the essence of the 256 page Gramm Amendment to the 2000 Budget Act.
Was Mr Gramm one of the corrupt, it seems so. As were they all. His wife got $1.5 million, if memory serves, while sitting on the Enron Board of Directors.
Jonah sees what Matt Yglesias saw last week (paraphrasing: If the bailout means curtains for a truly progressive policy agenda under a President Obama, we better all become hardcore libertarians right now):
Re: Liberal Realignment: A Sunnier View [Jonah Goldberg]
Sorry for the radio silence, I had to fly out to Richmond, Kentucky for a debate tonight at EKU. In regard to Jim Manzi's post about a liberal realignment, I agree with Jim that the emotional and political climate is as conducive to a liberal/activist government agenda as we've seen in a long time. But here's the thing: Who'll pay for it?
Jim writes:
3. If the current bail-out efforts don’t prevent an economic catastrophe, we will have the precipitating event of an economic crisis. In my view, this would make a liberal realignment all but certain.
Given the debt the government is in, thanks to the events and actions of the last 8 years as well as the long term liabilities enshrined by the last two waves of liberalism (the entitlements of the New Deal and the Great Society), government doesn't have a lot of money at its disposal. Throw in an economic crisis and it really won't have a lot of money. Even if Obama abandons his pay-as-you-go rhetoric, which he surely will, how can he pay for a new meaty liberal agenda?
I've never really been a huge advocate of the starve-the-beast argument from some on the right, but the beast is starved. Moreover, statist policies will not only starve it further they will produce little to no increases in prosperity or productivity (I know liberals disagree with that, but that's why they're liberals). Politically, that is a very difficult climate to build a liberal realignment on. Either liberals will have to abandon their biggest action-items or they will have to get on the wrong side of an electorate that wants prosperity more than a theoretically generous social welfare state. This is what Bill Clinton faced in the early 90s which is why he told his cabinet, "I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans now." He added: "We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market." The supposedly very liberal president presided over the end of welfare as we knew it and NAFTA. Obama clearly thinks that he doesn't have to go that route. He can try to be a Reagan of the Left. But if the economy sinks as he tries to socialize medicine, I doubt whatever grassroots momentum there is to send America leftward will long endure.
So cheer up! The worst is yet to come.
My mother had to laugh when Romney said something to the effect of 'An Obama administration will mean the raging return of big government.' Her response: No, see, that was the LAST eight years.
Here we go, turn on the printing presses and shovel the US dollar out by the skid load.
It should be interesting to see how the US currency holds up and what all these extra dollars will do to the price of oil. I'm certainly not long on the US dollar.
What a clusterfuck.
And this limiting Executive pay thing, what a political sop that is. The bandits have already flown the coop with their bags of money and we want to penalize the clean up team.
Now that the bailout is done and America can power on to prosperous and tax free future we can ponder foreign policy.
This is reassuring knowing that she could advise the Master McCain, or even lead US herself if, god forbid, something should happen to the cancer ridden old guy.
Mat, you might want to study up a bit on exactly what a Credit Default Swap is. There are many many contracts where no payout is made. Others there is. It goes on the balance sheet and is taxed like any other trading profit or loss.
Credit default swap From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties, whereby the "buyer" or "fixed rate payer" pays periodic payments to the "seller" or "floating rate payer" in exchange for the right to a payoff if there is a default[1] or "credit event" in respect of a third party or "reference entity".
If a credit event occurs, the typical contract either settles by delivery by the buyer to the seller of a (usually defaulted) debt obligation of the reference entity against a payment by the seller of the par value ("physical settlement") or the seller pays the buyer the difference between the par value and the market price of a specified debt obligation, typically determined in an auction ("cash settlement").
A credit default swap resembles an insurance policy, as it can be used by a debt holder to hedge, or insure against a default under the debt instrument. However, because there is no requirement to actually hold any asset or suffer a loss, a credit default swap can also be used for speculative purposes and is not generally considered insurance for regulatory purposes.
I should clarify, the profits or loss stemming from a CDS will show up on the balance sheet but all the contracts themselves have no capital held in reserve nor show up on a balance sheet making them very very dangerous.
Article Tools Sponsored By By ERIC SCHMITT Published: September 25, 2008
WASHINGTON — Pakistani and American ground troops exchanged fire along the border with Afghanistan on Thursday after the Pakistanis shot at two American helicopters, ratcheting up tensions as the United States increases its attacks against militants from Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who are being sheltered in Pakistan’s restive tribal areas.
This Sarah Palin is a real piece of work (You can see her answer on video at the link)
Palin On the Bailout:
" COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? … Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions.
I tried to answer it once for you already Mattie. The majority of what makes up the 46 trillion value referred to are contracts that don't pay out. What money that does change hands would be subject to whatever applicable taxes are levied. They don't have a Goods and Services tax in the states so I'm guessing that it gets taxed like other capital gains/losses and earned income. Just like they do for stock trades.
Try reading below a little more carefully - maybe a bit of bold will help:
Credit default swap From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties, whereby the "buyer" or "fixed rate payer" pays periodic payments to the "seller" or "floating rate payer" in exchange for the right to a payoff if there is a default[1] or "credit event" in respect of a third party or "reference entity".
If a credit event occurs, the typical contract either settles by delivery by the buyer to the seller of a (usually defaulted) debt obligation of the reference entity against a payment by the seller of the par value ("physical settlement") or the seller pays the buyer the difference between the par value and the market price of a specified debt obligation, typically determined in an auction ("cash settlement").
A credit default swap resembles an insurance policy, as it can be used by a debt holder to hedge, or insure against a default under the debt instrument. However, because there is no requirement to actually hold any asset or suffer a loss, a credit default swap can also be used for speculative purposes and is not generally considered insurance for regulatory purposes.
---
in short they are a series of "if/then" contracts with a specified value IF something happens. If it doesn't the only money that changes hands are the 'fees' agreed upon between the two parties.
My man Donaldson was on Bloomberg tv and a viewer emailed, asking about the rule change back in 2004. He gave a sober-sounding explanation (it was a response to European bank requirements put in place for US bank participation, in which the holding company had to have overall control and almost all the bad belongs to the holding company and not the bank, so the rule change is a non-issue in the current crisis. Got that?) He seemed quite credible, but, you know, he was wearing a jacket and tie. That's the whole point of a jacket and tie.
He did say that he doesn't like this plan. And he doesn't like it primarily because of the central approach of offering above market value for badly depreciated assets. Said we should be doing exactly what Buffet did, going in at below market value and taking a hefty share of the dividends.
So they had their parade of guest analysts on and no one said this is the end of the crisis; no one said 700b will be enough; no one said this is going to benefit market fundamentals; no one said the recession isn't going hurt, hurt, hurt.
"A bandaid."
At that cost, however, I'm wondering how much the tourniquet goes for. Because I get the feeling that's next.
"Said we should be doing exactly what Buffet did, going in at below market value and taking a hefty share of the dividends." --- WTF does Jimmy Buffet know about this stuff? Who's next, Paris Hilton?
I'm not believing that rumor till it's proved beyond a reasonable doubt, Gag. And then I still wouldn't believe it. I'd consider I'd flipped into an alternative universe.
“Quite simply, the panic that has gripped the mortgage financing market is irrational and has no basis in investment reality.”
And herein it seems time to remember the words of John Maynard Keynes, who said that the market “can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
The true house-of-horrors aspect of the bill is its intent to prop up asset prices, in the midst of a recession, creating a system of arbitrary accounting. All this, in order to buy time.
"Ash, you're taking an acute interest in all this, seeing that it was your type of politician that caused most of it in the first place."
I've long been interested in things monetary - how money gets its value, how the Fed works, how banks work ect.
For someone who continually professes his lack of knowledge on this stuff, Bobal, I'm perplexed that you'd be so arrogant as to suggest you know the cause of the current financial upheaval.
Reid to Renew Oil Shale Ban, Deny Americans Vast Energy Resources During Economic Crisis
09/25/2008 - 12:46:53 PM
We've just been alerted that despite House Democrats relenting on extending bans on offshore drilling and oil shale in the continuing resolution (CR) appropriations bill, Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid has decided to sneak an extension of the oil shale ban through as Congress fights over the financial bailout. Oil shale in America's West is estimated to hold be between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil -- that is more than three times the proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia alone.
Here is the text of Reid's proposed new ban on oil shale, that he is trying to add as an amendment to the CR or move seperately as a "stimulus" package, or we should say an anti-stimulus package if this is included.
Sec 1602 continues ban on oil shale. The language follows:
SEC. 1602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 152 of division A of H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, the terms and conditions contained in section 433 of division F of Public Law 110–161 shall remain in effect for the 19 fiscal year ending September 30, 2009. It would be an insult to all Americans if Senate Democrats worked to bailout Wall Street while damaging our future prosperity by banning development of vast energy reserves in oil shale.
mat, this shouldn't be a hard concept for you to understand but it seems to be. The 46 trillion is the total (estimated) value of the market. Say, for example, you bought 1 million dollars of GM bonds. You then enter into a CDS agreement with Bobal where he will pay you 1 million dollars if GM defaults on those Bonds in the next year. You pay Bobal one thousands dollars for entering into the agreement. If the bonds don't default then Bobal profits a grand and you expense a grand. The market estimate of the value of that trade would be 1 million 1 thousand dollars.
China banks told to halt lending to US banks-SCMP Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:52pm EDT
BEIJING, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Chinese regulators have told domestic banks to stop interbank lending to U.S. financial institutions to prevent possible losses during the financial crisis, the South China Morning Post reported on Thursday.
The Hong Kong newspaper cited unidentified industry sources as saying the instruction from the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) applied to interbank lending of all currencies to U.S. banks but not to banks from other countries.
"The decree appears to be Beijing's first attempt to erect defences against the deepening U.S. financial meltdown after the mainland's major lenders reported billions of U.S. dollars in exposure to the credit crisis," the SCMP said.
A spokesman for the CBRC had no immediate comment. (Reporting by Alan Wheatley and Langi Chiang; editing by Ken Wills)
Reading further in the Examiner commets, the owner seems to be a conservative fellow. Still, it shows some courage, as his readership is going to sink lower.
Facing a postconvention fall in the polls, John McCain once again reshaped the dimensions of the race by suspending his campaign and calling for postponement of tomorrow's debate.
This bold move could have an impact on the race akin to McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Defensively, McCain had to act to stop the fall in his poll numbers.
Offensively, he has placed himself at the epicenter of the only issue on the national agenda - proactive action to stop a total international financial collapse.
Obama's response to McCain's initiative is lame. As with his initial reaction to Sarah Palin, Obama has miscalculated. While he tries to spin McCain's move as a mere response to his initiative, it was the Republican who first issued the call for a suspension of the campaigns.
Both McCain and Obama will now go to Washington. McCain on his own initiative. Obama as a result of the president's call for an economic summit.
But it is McCain who will play the proactive role. Obama will come to Washington, but will keep one foot outside the Beltway.
Even though the president has called both candidates to Washington to save the country, Obama continues to campaign. Politics as usual.
He doesn't want to cancel the debate. He would debate while the markets burn.
McCain is going to work while Obama is phoning it in.
Oddly, McCain and Obama agree on the bailout package. But it is only McCain who can pass the bill. Only McCain can deliver the administration and the Republicans.
McCain will be at the center of the process, managing it through to success while Obama lingers on the outskirts, irrelevant and uninvolved.
McCain will pass Barack Obama's bill (which parallels his own proposals), and will get the credit for it.
There are compelling reasons why McCain may be saving his campaign by this bold move.
McCain's entry into the legislative foray personalizes the economy issue.
As long as McCain stayed away from Washington, it was the Democrats against the Republicans. Polls give the Democrats the edge. But voters trust McCain personally more than they trust Obama to manage his way out of a crisis.
By showing up in Washington, McCain makes the issue personal, not partisan.
And the rescue legislation will pass. Washington has no alternative but to act. And it probably will work. The markets will calm down. The bailout legislation will have done it.
Including the Democratic amendments, it will become a fairly popular piece of legislation and it will have been McCain's bill. Obama can claim authorship, but it will have been McCain who will have brought the Administration into line.
Once the bill is passed, McCain will have the credentials to go on the offensive and warn of the impact of Obama's tax increases on the recovery.
Had McCain not acted, Republican opposition to big government might have doomed the economy and destroyed Republican hopes.
By going to Washington, McCain makes it imperative that the Republicans pass the legislation. His presence makes it an issue of party survival in a way that lame duck Bush could never do.
As Woody Allen said "half of life is just showing up."
Limbaugh says even if the Govt ends up making money long term on the deal, does anyone believe it will be used for anything other than EXPANDING GOVERNMENT?
So even if Deuce is right, he's wrong, and the causes of this mess will go unrepaired.
The Egyptians had Zawahiri in prison for awhile after the Sadat assassination. Why they let him go remains unclear.
ReplyDeleteThat was a well planned assassination.
Don't be so literally bloody-minded.
ReplyDeleteCuz it's not gonna work that way.
Well, well, well
ReplyDeleteThose Chinese built tankers must be about finished, their refineries, too.
This has been a known known since the Hugo and his Chinese friends announced it, a couple of years ago.
Now the Russians will be rotating bombers and naval vessels in and out of Venezuela, too.
Gotta be in position to protect the Canal from foreign aggression
While it would be real neat to see Hugo go into the night, quietly or otherwise ... do not bet the balance of your 401k on that expectation.
Oh, after three frames of bowling and drinks afterwards, the consensus was pretty clear.
McCain's a coward, for not wantiing to debate, when debate is most needed, prior to an election, scared to be tied to the mess.
If Mr Shadegg votes for the bailout, those at the table would vote against him, even those that had met him. There were no AZ Democrats with us.
Never saw such a group of pissed off, dispirited, self-employed and small business folk before.
None were going to vote for McCain.
Except, maybe, my wife. She still is a Palin fan, but there was little, well, no talk of her around the table.
Shocking, really, the turn around from a week ago, when spirits were high and hope was alive.
Desert Rat, we're spending $2 billion a week in Iraq. Here comes the bailout. What happens if Russia rolls tanks into Ukraine or Iran closes the Strait? We'll have to refer it to the United Nations, because we're tapped.
ReplyDeletetesting
ReplyDeleteRCP has put CO into the leaning Obama catagory.
ReplyDeleteI guess it was three games of bowling, 30 frames.
Strange game, bowling.
The mockingly asked question, "Where's my bailout?"
Everyone there, at the after party, was just fumin'. Wanting to get their family's $10,000 share, not pay it. Seemed fair to me, since all of us have been hit by the recession AZ is in the throes of.
Okay, here's what's really got me "Hot and Bothered." They say we've got to bail them out so they will have the money to make loans to businesses, and consumers.
ReplyDeleteWell, here's the thing. They Had the Money. They Pissed it Away gambling on worthless shit.
Who's to say they won't just do it again?
If the Russians were to roll into Ukraine, all we'd do is watch, regardless, Ms T.
ReplyDeleteSame as with Georgia.
Talk loud and carry a twig.
That's the way forward.
The wrong decision, in June of 2003 has led US to a military that is over extended and an economy that's busted.
The two are joined together, at the hip.
The credit, energy and military policies of the United States, as well as immigration.
They form a package.
Stay the Course!
I'm so goddamned mad I'm ready to say "just burn the goddamned thing down, and we'll all get poor, and start all over.
ReplyDeleteTeam43 cannot keep the Russians out of Venezuela, let alone the Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteWho is kidding who?
You watch; we'll end up bailing out bad bets in Nigerian Cassava Harvests, and Tanzanian Goat-milk production before that Goldman Cocksucker gets all the money spent.
ReplyDeleteMcCain's a coward, for not wantiing to debate, when debate is most needed, prior to an election, scared to be tied to the mess.
ReplyDeleteWell Rat, your friends don't know the McCain that Bubba Knows
Isn't that beautiful really, Bubba in there 'campaigning for McCain' when the Jewish holidays are over like he said.
The Clintons, backing Obama all the way!
The Democrats, in control of Fannie and Fraudie, oh the outrage!
ReplyDeleteThe SOLUTION is to give the Democrats $700 BILLION to socialize Wall Street?
Gotta be kidding, but you're not.
The time to draw the line is now!
Not some future date, yet to be determined, not when the track record of Government performance just sucks!
"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.
ReplyDelete"You can put it off a few days the problem is it's hard to reschedule those things," Clinton said, "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that."
And anybody says otherwise is just "overly parsing."
So there!
Just relax!
ReplyDeleteWew're all going to turn a handsome profit on this give-a-way.
All the responsible people 'in the know' say so!
The proposed solution, as currently framed, will exacerbate the problem, not solve it.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleterufus said...
Okay, here's what's really got me "Hot and Bothered." They say we've got to bail them out so they will have the money to make loans to businesses, and consumers.
Well, here's the thing. They Had the Money. They Pissed it Away gambling on worthless shit.
Who's to say they won't just do it again?
Exfuckingactly.
Investor Confidence Tumbles to New All-Time Low
ReplyDeleteInvestor confidence fell on Thursday morning to the lowest level ever recorded by the Rasmussen Investor Index. At 75.1, the Index is down five points since yesterday morning, twelve points over the past week, and twenty-three points over the past two weeks.
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 49% of the vote while John McCain earns 46%. Other than the bounces related to his convention and speech in Berlin, this is the first time Obama has had 49% support on back-to-back days since early July.
Palin Still Viewed More Favorably - And Unfavorably - Than Biden
Sununu Moves Ahead in New Hampshire
Colorado Senate: Udall's Lead Cut to Two
Get the Inside Scoop as a Premium Member
In Colorado, Obama Moves Back on Top
New Hampshire: McCain Gains Ground, Holds Two-Point Advantage
Is asking for what you know will not happen justification for not showing up at the first one that IS scheduled?
ReplyDeleteI think not.
Be careful what you wish for, when Maverick was finally about to get his wish, he withdrew.
Performance, not promise, counts.
If Colorado goes Obama and New Hampshire goes McCain, and all the other perform as expected, you got a tie, 269 to 269.
ReplyDeleteBe careful of overly parsing.
Overly parsing is parsnipping.
ReplyDeleteDon't be a parsnipping whippersnapper.
Well, we let the Democrats choose this goofy sack of shit for us. If we're that fucking stupid we deserve what we're going to get.
ReplyDeleteMcCain is leading another charge, against his constitutents. Just as he has on Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
ReplyDeletePromising a Comprehensive Bailout Bill, by Monday. The Dems will stall him, or he them, to create another divisive campaign issue. But, like Immigration, McCain is on the "wrong" side of his base.
As seen from here.
With friends like Bubba a candidate doesn't need any enemies.
ReplyDeleteMcCain is probably going to lose in the biggest landslide since Reagan/Mondale.
ReplyDeleteMan in OJ trial testifies 'after revelation from God'. How can you not believe testimony like that?
ReplyDeleteLAS VEGAS (AP) - A former defendant in the O.J. Simpson kidnapping and armed robbery case testified Wednesday that he decided to take a plea deal and accuse Simpson in court after God answered his prayers with a revelation telling him to do the right thing.
Obama is the worst possible person to preside over this mess.
ReplyDeleteMcCain has shown his ass for sure with all the temper-tantrums and flip-flopping and my confidence in him has plummeted.
Newt's proposals are the best I have seen, but our government will make all the wrong decisions because it is led by people that see more government as the cure for all ills.
The hybrid mix of the free market, economic fascism and socialism that are known as "American Capitalism" has run its course. We have to decide on one, because all three at once ain't workin' no more.
The bailout is the preservation of the status-quo. I don't want the status-quo. I want the reset button.
Tax and spend, print and spend, tax and spend, print and spend.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't Bubba just come out and say it!
ReplyDeleteVote McCain! Hillary and I are!
This entire deal, the greatest "EARMARK" of all time, rushed to vote, without debate in the normal process.
ReplyDeleteBrought to US, by John McCain, now putting himself in the forefront of finding a comprehensive solution, by Monday.
If the Bill does not pass by Monday, should we reschedule the debate, again?
McCain's Bold Strong Move Could Reframe Election and Win It
ReplyDeleteNow that's what I call proper parsing.
Wow Bob, Kristol really got out the kneepads on that one...
ReplyDelete...For McCain will have acted presidentially in the campaign--which some voters, quite reasonably, will think speaks to his qualifications to be president.
As for the question of Friday night's debate, which some in the media seem to think more important than saving the financial system--if the negotiations are still going on in D.C., McCain should offer to send Palin to debate Obama!...
Palin Couric Interview Video
ReplyDeletePut off the Election, if need be.
ReplyDeleteGood Government more important than Constitutional Government, per John McCain in 2006.
John McCain, ... said that "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."
But we never achieved "Clean Government" but have lost the protections and freedoms of a Constitutional one.
Now he will champion socializing Wall Street.
Onward Christian Soldier!!!
Hey, Bro D:
ReplyDelete10% of voters agree w/Mac.
Back Off!
May as well make it $2 Trillion dollars, and take the oil companies, too.
ReplyDeleteDeMint says they're getting more calls than for Amnesty Debate!
ReplyDeleteAmnesty 2 for Mac.
Pelosi says the Deal will be loaded with earmarks.
We taxpayers could turn a profit quicker, if we did that.
ReplyDeleteThe US becoming a Banana Republic, right before our eyes.
The "WHOLE DEAL" is an earmark, that's the point of it.
ReplyDeleteA Trillion here,
ReplyDeleteA Trillion there,
Pretty soon you're talkin Compassionate Conservative Level Spending.
not to worry...
ReplyDeleteobama want to give free housing to all the world's poor...
oh yeah...
free medical for all the world's poor...
and
80% cut in green house gases in 10 years...
and 150 billion to give millions of jobs to the poor who are waiting for GOOD jobs to be created FOR them....
It's a COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION, 'Rat!
ReplyDelete...like Immigration Reform.
obama...
ReplyDeleteanother 2 billion a year for international kids schools
he even has pauses in his speech for applause..
ReplyDeleteproblem is no one is clapping
can we say milli vanilli
You left out the Money for the United Nations, WIO.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletedesert rat said...
We taxpayers could turn a profit quicker, if we did that.
The US becoming a Banana Republic, right before our eyes.
No kidding Rat. We're having fuel shortages in NC right now with a tropical depression forming off the coat, so combined with the financial picture, there's a slight whiff of Apocalypse in the air.
May be the reason my posts are so full of doom today.
now he wants to save the african kids.....
ReplyDeletesave somila, save sudan
ReplyDeletemalaria is his pressing concern
forming off the COAST. My coat is fine.
ReplyDeletehe's teleprompter is screwing up
ReplyDeletebed nets....
that will heal the earth
Only america can do this...
ReplyDeletecan he fly with those ears?
ReplyDeletei swear they are flappin
ReplyDeletedont fear... obama is near
ReplyDeleteenergy community poverty..
ReplyDeletehope
lives to see another day
dreams....
destiny
written by us, not for us...
what a prophet!
"bed nets...."
ReplyDelete---
Good, pure Green Solution,
WIO,
NO DDT!
obama is the messiah....
ReplyDeleteand like others of 1000's of other false messiahs he will fail...
I mean, really, if we are going to have the Government take equity interests in business, why buy the losers?
ReplyDeleteLet US just legislate a price for Chevron and buy it.
If we cannot beat Hugo, we may as well join him.
That is the set course from our Federal Socialists.
A Trillion here,
ReplyDeleteA Trillion there,
Pretty soon you're talkin Compassionate Conservative Level Spending.
:)
You gotta give me credit for being first at the bar with the Maxine Waters Socialized Big Oil Solution, 'Rat!
ReplyDeleteThe Airlines, they'll be needing help, and are vital to the US economy.
ReplyDeleteLike the Amtrack trains.
The list goes on and on.
"As it grew -- according to the industry's trade group, the credit default market grew to $46 trillion by the first half of 2007 from $631 billion in 2000 -- all that changed."
ReplyDelete==
$46 trillion
Where did this money come from?
We have plenty of ethanol available.
ReplyDeleteWonder why NC, SC, Tn, or Georgia don't petition the EPA for a temporary approval of E15?
I thought it farfetched, then, doug.
ReplyDeleteNot now.
There's an "Energy Crisis", too, you know.
That Big Oil, they've been "gouging Americans", too.
Gotta save America and the World!
46 Trillion here,
ReplyDelete46 Trillion there, Mat, that's all she wrote.
Sorry.
From the Fed, mat.
ReplyDeleteLeveraged upon the value of the secured paper.
Invested in these varied types of derivitives, left unregulated by the Gramm Amendment to the 2000 Budget Act.
Somebody said all the pricks in America will be together in one place at 4pm in the White House today.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the aliens will levitate the whole bunch to the Pleides.
Where did this money come from?
ReplyDeleteIt didn't come from anywhere. It didn't have to be reserved.
In other words, the bank of rufus could sell a trillion dollars worth of CDSs to Lehman if Lehman was dumb enough to buy them.
And, guess what: They were.
From the Fed, mat.
ReplyDelete==
What do you mean from the Fed. How did it come from the Fed?
Actually, I think the CDO's represented money, Mat, so that's how that worked.
ReplyDeleteThose were backed by the full faith and credit of the American Taxpayer, Rufus.
ReplyDeleteNo Problemo there.
It was like betting with a "bookie." All you had to do was call him up, and make a bet.
ReplyDeleteThe beautiful part was, you wouldn't get knee-capped if you couldn't pay. In fact, there was a "good" chance uncle sugar would come in and "bail you out."
And, he did.
What if a pause came, and nobody clapped, WiO?
ReplyDeleteNo applause, no pause.
No name, no fame.
ReplyDeleteEvery transaction needs a buyer and a seller. Who are the players? Who was winning, who was losing?
ReplyDeleteThey loaned the money to the banks, which invested it 30:1 in the varied "investments", which then grew as profits accumulated, until the bubble burst.
ReplyDeleteIt was a manufactured crisis, one that is far beyond the sub-prime mortgages. That is part of the public consumption propaganda, seems like to me.
As Ben Stein wrote, that was not enough to do what we see is happening.
Conspiracy or incompetence, neither deserves for more good money after bad.
CDO's are
ReplyDeleteASSet Backed instruments.
YOUR Ass.
bobal said...
ReplyDeleteWhat if a pause came, and nobody clapped, WiO?
No applause, no pause.
But HE PAUSED and WAITED FOR APPLAUSE
To Which there was none...
Who was in, who was out?
ReplyDeleteWho was up, who was down?
Who was before, who was after?
These are the questions, ladies and gentlemen.
Don't forget folks, everyone needs food and water too.
ReplyDeleteMight as well have Unk Sugar seize the San Joaquin valley and the Midwest too.
Vital industries. National interest. Too big to fail.
Five year plans comrades. Off to the rubber boot and lightbulb factories.
I knew William Shakespear, LaBob, and you're no William Shakespear.
ReplyDeleteFood, water, a clean place to shit, we'll be well off, when you think of it.
ReplyDeleteI'm so fucking tired of hearing, "we'll get the Smartest Guys, together.
ReplyDeleteThey're the motherfuckers that got us into this mess to start with.
God, I'm pissed off.
And you're no Lord Darlyrumple, al-Doug!
ReplyDeleteThat's where I was at, when we used a shithole in the forest.
ReplyDelete...after I built a fancy bathroom, I usually continued to shit in the woods.
...except when it rained.
All my assets were apprciatin, in them days, since we lived on 'em.
ReplyDeleteSurrounded by them, actually.
Courtesy of you know who.
How ya gonna keep em from Goin Back to the Farm?
ReplyDeleteStill don't have a Turnip Tax, do they?
ReplyDeletePut Ron Paul on it. He'll clean it up.
ReplyDeleteHe scares the shit out of the Smart People.
How you gonna keep 'em in the city when the electricity fails?
ReplyDeleteWhen the garbage men don't arrive. When the municiple debt comes due?
ReplyDeleteControversial Comprehensive CDO Reform includes Earmarks for research into squeezing Blood from Turnips!
ReplyDeleteSo is that it?
ReplyDeleteI guess people get the government they deserve.
ReplyDeleteBlood from turnips, ethanol from parsnips!
ReplyDeleteHey, you guys got Olmert :)
ReplyDeleteHow so?
ReplyDeleteI read while ago that some hedge fund created a small (coupld of million capitalization) company which sold UBS "insurance" on over a Billion $s worth of mortgage backed assets.
ReplyDeleteAbout a Thousand to One that leverage was. UBS thought that was "okay," since mortgages never default.
His resignation was Sunday. But that's OK. We got another paid US agent running for PM.
ReplyDeleteWith all the hullalullaboo, didn't realize Olmert was gone.
ReplyDeleteAbout that Turnip Earmark LaBob,
ReplyDeleteDon't forget:
"Progress is our most important product"
"Parity for Parsnips!"
ReplyDeletean old farm labor rallying cry...
If Obama Loses It Won't Be Because Of Racism
If US taxpayers go along with this scam, it will be the end of the US middle class. You will not be considered people, but Turnip plants, and you will be treated as such.
ReplyDeleteRemember, in the Great Depression, people who owned 90 percent of their houses still lost them. Until recently at least we’ve been talking about people who own ten percent losing them.
ReplyDeleteHoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corp. begat the entities that begat Fannie and Freddie. But the idea that homeownership is an entitlement, rather than a contractual responsibility, is fairly recent. Fannie and Freddie’s off-budget aspect we can date to LBJ. In my Bloomberg column I tried to trace that.
Lopez: Is there a forgotten man in this mortgage mess?
Shlaes: The taxpayer. In my Bloomberg column I tried to trace that.
Mat,
ReplyDeleteNow that he's found out, will LaBob drop Palin for Tzipi ?
The Gazebo, The Drainpipe and the Missing Obama Money
ReplyDeleteWhat we have to look forward to, folks.
The United States of Chicago.
Can Tzipi gut an elk? Build an igloo?
ReplyDeleteShow me the proof.
Have you her teeth? I have. That's all the proof I need.
ReplyDeleteHey, al Doug, there's a Medical Marijuana Smoking Festival underway in Santa Cruz.
ReplyDeleteFolks out your way firing up Maui Wowie in solidarity?
Beats smoking parsnips.
From the Fed, mat.
ReplyDeleteLeveraged upon the value of the secured paper.
Invested in these varied types of derivitives, left unregulated by the Gramm Amendment to the 2000 Budget Act.
Thu Sep 25, 11:01:00 AM EDT
The primary, regulatory line of defense, in the US as elsewhere, is not the instrument, but the institution. And as John Mauldin has pointed out: Up until 2003, all investment banks were allowed only 12 to 1 leverage. Then in 2004, the SEC basically gave five banks (and only five banks) the ability to lever up 30 or even 40 to 1. Bet you can guess the five banks. Bear, Lehman, Merrill, Morgan and Goldman. Three down.
As Barry Ritholtz wrote: "So while the SEC runs around reinstating short selling rules, and clueless pension fund managers mindlessly point to the wrong issue, we learn that it was the SEC who was in large part responsible for the reckless leverage that led to the current crisis." (Don't get me started on blaming the short sellers. Let's not blame the people who leveraged up their companies 40 to 1 with bad investments.)
Who was at the SEC in 2004? Bet you don't know his name.
Funny, isn't it?
There's something both horrible and satisfying about this whole episode. Nominal conservatives who haven't given much real thought to the destructiveness of one of the most unconservative administrations in US history, are, in the last months of its twin tenure, in high dudgeon. Fat lot of good it will do them.
That's not just satisfying.
That's downright amusing. So long as one has an appropriately dark sense of humor.
Have you her teeth? I have. That's all the proof I need.
ReplyDelete:) And I'll bet she doesn't even know they're missing!
What about your kids, tho, Trish?
ReplyDeleteNo Joke that.
Today's troubles began when President Lyndon Johnson was having a hard time delivering on his guns-and-butter promise. In January 1968, LBJ proposed to Congress both a war surtax and a change in government's bookkeeping. The Federal National Mortgage Association would move off-budget, nominally reducing federal borrowing. The new mortgage company, the New York Times reported, would be ``wholly privately owned.''
ReplyDeleteBut not entirely private. For here is where Fannie's career as a swinger -- swinging between public and private, that is -- took off. Either at that point, or later, Fannie and its sibling, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., or Freddie Mac, enjoyed a number of government privileges.
These included a line of credit with the U.S. Treasury Department, exemption of corporate earnings from state and local income tax, exemption from registration under the 1933 Securities and Exchange Commission law and status as government securities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. (Those suffering from Fannie shock may even want to download the full roster of privileges from an essay by John Weicher in ``Restructuring Regulation and Financial Institutions,'' a 2001 Milken Institute publication.)
Every era features its trademark stocks, the ones that capture the public imagination. In the summer of 1968, Fannie Mae was that stock. Wall Street wanted to do good in addition to doing well. The housing legislation that had given Fannie Mae public stock ownership also provided funds to house the poor. This association made investors feel better about any windfalls their stock was yielding.
wiki says
ReplyDeleteTzipi Livni served as a lieutenant in the Israel Defense Forces and worked for the Mossad for nearly two years during the early 1980s, resigning in August 1983 to marry and finish her law studies. It was rumored that she was a terrorist hunter for the Mossad, but recent findings suggest that Livni was a low level agent. She was hired to live in a Paris apartment to maintain the appearance of a regular residential property. A graduate of Bar Ilan University's Faculty of Law, she has 10 years experience as a practicing lawyer specializing in public and commercial law. Livni resides in Tel Aviv. She is married to accountant Naftali Spitzer and has two children, Omri and Yuval. According to her childhood friend Mirla Gal, Livni is a vegetarian. Livni speaks Hebrew, English, and French.
Here she is, bob, taming a bull.
(Amity Shlaes link above)
ReplyDeleteAnd let's not forget that Freedom of Speech May Soon Be At Risk
ReplyDeleteAccording to her childhood friend Mirla Gal, Livni is a vegetarian.
This is disturbing, as I just read vegetarianism shrinks your brain.
Presumably a normal brain is superior to a shrunken one, though a shrunken one might concentrate thought.
ReplyDeleteTrue, Doug. Too true.
ReplyDeleteThat's why, in addition to being perfectly amusing, it's also horrifying.
:) And I'll bet she doesn't even know they're missing!
ReplyDelete==
LOL! Yes, I see what you mean.
So Bob, Freezedry your brain, and be the first to focus your laser insight into a real death experience.
ReplyDeleteRDE Research For Science.
Crystallized Thought.
ReplyDeleteWho was at the SEC in 2004? Bet you don't know his name.
ReplyDelete==
His name? Why would I care about HIS name?
Who's watching the watchers? Who oversees the SEC?
Does Tzipi like moose meat?
ReplyDeleteBloomberg:
ReplyDeleteJapan, China and other holders of U.S. government debt must quickly reach an agreement to prevent panic sales leading to a global financial collapse, said Yu Yongding....
``We are in the same boat, we must cooperate,'' Yu said in an interview in Beijing on Sept. 23. ``If there's no selling in a panicked way, then China willingly can continue to provide our financial support by continuing to hold U.S. assets.''
An agreement is needed so that no nation rushes to sell, ``causing a collapse,'' Yu said. Japan is the biggest owner of U.S. Treasury bills, holding $593 billion, and China is second with $519 billion. Asian countries together hold half of the $2.67 trillion total held by foreign nations....
``Whether some kind of agreement between them to continue to hold Treasury bills is viable, I'm not sure,'' said James McCormack, head of sovereign ratings at Fitch Ratings Ltd in Hong Kong. ``It would be unusual. If it became apparent that sovereigns in Asia were selling Treasuries the market would take that quite badly, it's something to be avoided.''...
China's huge holdings of U.S. debt means it must bear a large proportion of the ``burden of sorting things out'' in the U.S., Yu said. China is not in a hurry to dump its U.S. holdings and communication between the two nations every ``couple of days'' is keeping Chinese leaders informed and helping to avoid a potential panic, he added.
``China is very worried about the safety of its assets,'' he said. ``If you want China to keep calm, you must ensure China that its assets are safe.''
Yu said China is helping the U.S. ``in a very big way'' and added that it should get something in return. The U.S. should avoid labeling it an unfair trader and a currency manipulator and not politicize other issues, he said.
``It is not fair that we are doing this in good faith and are prepared to bear serious consequences and you are still labeling China this and that, accusing China of this and that,'' he said. ``China knows what to do. We don't need your intervention.''
The U.S. financial crisis had taught China a lesson and that was: ``Why are we piling up these IOUs if they may default?'' China's economic expansion strategy, which emphasizes export growth that has led to trade surpluses and the accumulation of $1.81 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves, is the main problem, said Yu.
``Our export-growth strategy has run its natural course,'' he said. ``We should change course.''
trish, you had to have known, you devil you ...
ReplyDeleteWilliam Henry Donaldson (born June 2, 1931 in Buffalo, New York, USA) is a former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Donaldson attended both Yale University (B.A. 1953) and Harvard University (M.B.A. 1958).
While he was a senior at Yale, he joined its Skull and Bones secret society.
Donaldson returned to Yale and founded the Yale School of Management where he served as dean and professor of management studies. He also served in the United States Marine Corps.
Donaldson served as Under Secretary of State in the Nixon Administration and as a special adviser to Vice President Nelson Rockefeller.
Donaldson founded Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette. He was Chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace from 1999 to 2003.
On June 1, 2005, he announced he would step down as SEC chairman on June 30.
Then, it gets even "better"
Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette or DLJ was an investment bank founded by William H. Donaldson, Richard Jenrette and Dan Lufkin in 1959. Its businesses included securities underwriting; sales and trading; investment and merchant banking; financial advisory services; investment research; venture capital; correspondent brokerage services; online, interactive brokerage services; and asset management. The firm was headquartered at 277 Park Ave in New York City and employed 11,300 people as of July 2000.
In August 2000, DLJ (which was majority owned by AXA Financial) announced that it was being acquired by Credit Suisse. The acquisition closed in November 2000 with a purchase price of approximately $11.5 billion.
The point being, mat, that no one knows his name because no one is looking at that particular cause of the current crisis, nor the consequent need to marry off/rescue those banks.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I figured you of all people would get a kick out of that, Rat.
ReplyDeleteMore, shall we say, circumstance to believe the entire episode a preconcieved scam to socialize the market.
ReplyDeleteThe actors all together, now and then, from a frat house at Yale.
Are all these boys so, so dumb, or oh so bright. The "Best and the Brightest", they knew the score, and the consequences, from the get go.
The point being, mat, that no one knows his name because no one is looking at that particular cause of the current crisis, nor the consequent need to marry off/rescue those banks.
ReplyDelete==
No, Trish. The point being they been paid to look the other way.
Fraud on the grandest of scales, to be unprosecuted, while some poor sap, another Martha Stewart, will be set to take a fall.
ReplyDeleteThey're not even paid to look the way, mat.
ReplyDeleteThey've been told, by Law, not to even look.
That was the essence of the 256 page Gramm Amendment to the 2000 Budget Act.
Was Mr Gramm one of the corrupt, it seems so. As were they all.
His wife got $1.5 million, if memory serves, while sitting on the Enron Board of Directors.
Well. It's a done deal today.
ReplyDeleteAnd wasn't that *quick*?
So we can all, as dear host said, turn our attention elsewhere.
Well, it's gonna be intrestin.
ReplyDeleteJonah sees what Matt Yglesias saw last week (paraphrasing: If the bailout means curtains for a truly progressive policy agenda under a President Obama, we better all become hardcore libertarians right now):
ReplyDeleteRe: Liberal Realignment: A Sunnier View [Jonah Goldberg]
Sorry for the radio silence, I had to fly out to Richmond, Kentucky for a debate tonight at EKU. In regard to Jim Manzi's post about a liberal realignment, I agree with Jim that the emotional and political climate is as conducive to a liberal/activist government agenda as we've seen in a long time. But here's the thing: Who'll pay for it?
Jim writes:
3. If the current bail-out efforts don’t prevent an economic catastrophe, we will have the precipitating event of an economic crisis. In my view, this would make a liberal realignment all but certain.
Given the debt the government is in, thanks to the events and actions of the last 8 years as well as the long term liabilities enshrined by the last two waves of liberalism (the entitlements of the New Deal and the Great Society), government doesn't have a lot of money at its disposal. Throw in an economic crisis and it really won't have a lot of money. Even if Obama abandons his pay-as-you-go rhetoric, which he surely will, how can he pay for a new meaty liberal agenda?
I've never really been a huge advocate of the starve-the-beast argument from some on the right, but the beast is starved. Moreover, statist policies will not only starve it further they will produce little to no increases in prosperity or productivity (I know liberals disagree with that, but that's why they're liberals). Politically, that is a very difficult climate to build a liberal realignment on. Either liberals will have to abandon their biggest action-items or they will have to get on the wrong side of an electorate that wants prosperity more than a theoretically generous social welfare state. This is what Bill Clinton faced in the early 90s which is why he told his cabinet, "I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans now." He added: "We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market." The supposedly very liberal president presided over the end of welfare as we knew it and NAFTA. Obama clearly thinks that he doesn't have to go that route. He can try to be a Reagan of the Left. But if the economy sinks as he tries to socialize medicine, I doubt whatever grassroots momentum there is to send America leftward will long endure.
So cheer up! The worst is yet to come.
My mother had to laugh when Romney said something to the effect of 'An Obama administration will mean the raging return of big government.' Her response: No, see, that was the LAST eight years.
This mess is going to give us a "Surprise" almost every day for a long, long time.
ReplyDeleteAnd, no, chilluns, you're Not getting your money back.
Well. It's a done deal today.
ReplyDeleteAnd wasn't that *quick*?
So we can all, as dear host said, turn our attention elsewhere.
==
Happy Constitution Day!
Btw, what's the tax rate on CDS transactions?
ReplyDeleteHere we go, turn on the printing presses and shovel the US dollar out by the skid load.
ReplyDeleteIt should be interesting to see how the US currency holds up and what all these extra dollars will do to the price of oil. I'm certainly not long on the US dollar.
What a clusterfuck.
And this limiting Executive pay thing, what a political sop that is. The bandits have already flown the coop with their bags of money and we want to penalize the clean up team.
Does Tzipi like moose meat?
ReplyDeleteWe know Sarah has a small Israeli flag in her office.
If the deal is done, it's the best news possible, as, according the Newt, now they'll all be voted out of office!
ReplyDeleteBtw, what's the tax rate on CDS transactions?
ReplyDelete==
$46 trillion in business.
What was the Fed's cut?
Now that the bailout is done and America can power on to prosperous and tax free future we can ponder foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteThis is reassuring knowing that she could advise the Master McCain, or even lead US herself if, god forbid, something should happen to the cancer ridden old guy.
Palin stands on guard for thee
Mat, you might want to study up a bit on exactly what a Credit Default Swap is. There are many many contracts where no payout is made. Others there is. It goes on the balance sheet and is taxed like any other trading profit or loss.
ReplyDeleteCredit default swap
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties, whereby the "buyer" or "fixed rate payer" pays periodic payments to the "seller" or "floating rate payer" in exchange for the right to a payoff if there is a default[1] or "credit event" in respect of a third party or "reference entity".
If a credit event occurs, the typical contract either settles by delivery by the buyer to the seller of a (usually defaulted) debt obligation of the reference entity against a payment by the seller of the par value ("physical settlement") or the seller pays the buyer the difference between the par value and the market price of a specified debt obligation, typically determined in an auction ("cash settlement").
A credit default swap resembles an insurance policy, as it can be used by a debt holder to hedge, or insure against a default under the debt instrument. However, because there is no requirement to actually hold any asset or suffer a loss, a credit default swap can also be used for speculative purposes and is not generally considered insurance for regulatory purposes.
Man, can our government act at light speed, or what?
ReplyDeleteNow that's fixed, on to the debates.
It's not even 4pm back there is it? Cancel the White House meeting, back to the campaign trail.
I should clarify, the profits or loss stemming from a CDS will show up on the balance sheet but all the contracts themselves have no capital held in reserve nor show up on a balance sheet making them very very dangerous.
ReplyDeleteBiden Looking Out For Ash
ReplyDeleteAsh, you must be 18 to watch this.
Mat, you might want to study up a bit on exactly what a Credit Default Swap is.
ReplyDelete==
It's a service transaction. Service transactions, like insurance, are taxed. Why not this one?
Pakistani and American Troops Exchange Fire
ReplyDeleteArticle Tools Sponsored By
By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: September 25, 2008
WASHINGTON — Pakistani and American ground troops exchanged fire along the border with Afghanistan on Thursday after the Pakistanis shot at two American helicopters, ratcheting up tensions as the United States increases its attacks against militants from Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who are being sheltered in Pakistan’s restive tribal areas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/asia/26military.html?hp
It's a service transaction. Service transactions, like insurance, are taxed. Why not this one?
ReplyDelete==
A 46 trillion dollar industry, and it goes untaxed? Why?
This Sarah Palin is a real piece of work (You can see her answer on video at the link)
ReplyDeletePalin On the Bailout:
" COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? … Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions.
here's the link to see the Brilliant oratory of Ms. Palin referred to in my above comment
ReplyDeletehttp://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/25/palin-bailout-healthcare/
A 46 trillion dollar industry, and it goes untaxed? Why?
ReplyDelete==
So? Why no takers on this question?
I tried to answer it once for you already Mattie. The majority of what makes up the 46 trillion value referred to are contracts that don't pay out. What money that does change hands would be subject to whatever applicable taxes are levied. They don't have a Goods and Services tax in the states so I'm guessing that it gets taxed like other capital gains/losses and earned income. Just like they do for stock trades.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of what makes up the 46 trillion value referred to are contracts that don't pay out.
ReplyDelete==
That's not true.
They have sales tax? So what's the problem?
ReplyDeleteTry reading below a little more carefully - maybe a bit of bold will help:
ReplyDeleteCredit default swap
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties, whereby the "buyer" or "fixed rate payer" pays periodic payments to the "seller" or "floating rate payer" in exchange for the right to a payoff if there is a default[1] or "credit event" in respect of a third party or "reference entity".
If a credit event occurs, the typical contract either settles by delivery by the buyer to the seller of a (usually defaulted) debt obligation of the reference entity against a payment by the seller of the par value ("physical settlement") or the seller pays the buyer the difference between the par value and the market price of a specified debt obligation, typically determined in an auction ("cash settlement").
A credit default swap resembles an insurance policy, as it can be used by a debt holder to hedge, or insure against a default under the debt instrument. However, because there is no requirement to actually hold any asset or suffer a loss, a credit default swap can also be used for speculative purposes and is not generally considered insurance for regulatory purposes.
---
in short they are a series of "if/then" contracts with a specified value IF something happens. If it doesn't the only money that changes hands are the 'fees' agreed upon between the two parties.
Doug Was First With The Scoop On This Poll
ReplyDeleteSweet of you, LaBob!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWho cares what the payout is or is not, that's irrelevant. Why do these transactions benefit or qualify for tax exemption?
ReplyDeleteMy man Donaldson was on Bloomberg tv and a viewer emailed, asking about the rule change back in 2004. He gave a sober-sounding explanation (it was a response to European bank requirements put in place for US bank participation, in which the holding company had to have overall control and almost all the bad belongs to the holding company and not the bank, so the rule change is a non-issue in the current crisis. Got that?) He seemed quite credible, but, you know, he was wearing a jacket and tie. That's the whole point of a jacket and tie.
ReplyDeleteHe did say that he doesn't like this plan. And he doesn't like it primarily because of the central approach of offering above market value for badly depreciated assets. Said we should be doing exactly what Buffet did, going in at below market value and taking a hefty share of the dividends.
So they had their parade of guest analysts on and no one said this is the end of the crisis; no one said 700b will be enough; no one said this is going to benefit market fundamentals; no one said the recession isn't going hurt, hurt, hurt.
"A bandaid."
At that cost, however, I'm wondering how much the tourniquet goes for. Because I get the feeling that's next.
What makes you think the money that changes hands is tax exempt mat?
ReplyDeleteAlmost forgot: There's no way to avoid the clobbering of the dollar on the other end of this.
ReplyDelete"Said we should be doing exactly what Buffet did, going in at below market value and taking a hefty share of the dividends."
ReplyDelete---
WTF does Jimmy Buffet know about this stuff?
Who's next, Paris Hilton?
DeMint says Harry Reid's trying to reinstate the
ReplyDeleteOIL SHALE BAN.
Sticking it in another piece of legislation.
How can you not trust a guy in a Hawaiian shirt?
ReplyDeleteRumor has it the San Fran Examiner has endorsed McCain/Palin. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteAsh, you're taking an acute interest in all this, seeing that it was your type of politician that caused most of it in the first place.
ReplyDeleteDoug, I'm just a sweet guy.
and flip flops...
ReplyDeleteI'm not believing that rumor till it's proved beyond a reasonable doubt, Gag. And then I still wouldn't believe it. I'd consider I'd flipped into an alternative universe.
ReplyDelete“Quite simply, the panic that has gripped the mortgage financing market is irrational and has no basis in investment reality.”
ReplyDeleteAnd herein it seems time to remember the words of John Maynard Keynes, who said that the market “can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
MarketBeat
The true house-of-horrors aspect of the bill is its intent to prop up asset prices, in the midst of a recession, creating a system of arbitrary accounting. All this, in order to buy time.
ReplyDeleteThe bank-to-bank credit collapse continues apace.
Blogger bobal said...
ReplyDelete"Ash, you're taking an acute interest in all this, seeing that it was your type of politician that caused most of it in the first place."
I've long been interested in things monetary - how money gets its value, how the Fed works, how banks work ect.
For someone who continually professes his lack of knowledge on this stuff, Bobal, I'm perplexed that you'd be so arrogant as to suggest you know the cause of the current financial upheaval.
What makes you think the money that changes hands is tax exempt mat?
ReplyDelete==
Because even a nominal tax of just 5% on that $43 trillion is $2.15 trillion. And that's more than the total collected by Feds from all taxes.
I believe I know the basic cause but not the best fix nor the severity of the problem.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/The_Examiner_endorses_McCain-Palin.html
ReplyDeleteReid to Renew Oil Shale Ban, Deny Americans Vast Energy Resources During Economic Crisis
ReplyDelete09/25/2008 - 12:46:53 PM
We've just been alerted that despite House Democrats relenting on extending bans on offshore drilling and oil shale in the continuing resolution (CR) appropriations bill, Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid has decided to sneak an extension of the oil shale ban through as Congress fights over the financial bailout. Oil shale in America's West is estimated to hold be between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil -- that is more than three times the proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia alone.
Here is the text of Reid's proposed new ban on oil shale, that he is trying to add as an amendment to the CR or move seperately as a "stimulus" package, or we should say an anti-stimulus package if this is included.
Sec 1602 continues ban on oil shale. The language follows:
SEC. 1602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 152 of division A of H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, the terms and conditions contained in section 433 of division F of Public Law 110–161 shall remain in effect for the 19 fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.
It would be an insult to all Americans if Senate Democrats worked to bailout Wall Street while damaging our future prosperity by banning development of vast energy reserves in oil shale.
Because even a nominal tax of just 5% on that $43 trillion is $2.15 trillion. And that's more than the total collected by Feds from all taxes.
ReplyDelete==
Seems to me the reason this is a $43 trillion industry, is because it's a pretty good way to shelter money from the IRS.
mat, this shouldn't be a hard concept for you to understand but it seems to be. The 46 trillion is the total (estimated) value of the market. Say, for example, you bought 1 million dollars of GM bonds. You then enter into a CDS agreement with Bobal where he will pay you 1 million dollars if GM defaults on those Bonds in the next year. You pay Bobal one thousands dollars for entering into the agreement. If the bonds don't default then Bobal profits a grand and you expense a grand. The market estimate of the value of that trade would be 1 million 1 thousand dollars.
ReplyDeletejeez, Gag, that is truly amazing.
ReplyDeleteOne of the commenters suggested that maybe someone had hacked into their website?
Next thing we know, Bernie Ward will have had a true conversion in prison, seen the light, and will be backing McCain/Palin too.
The 46 trillion is the total (estimated) value of the market.
ReplyDelete==
Good. Than that's the value it should be taxed on.
China banks told to halt lending to US banks-SCMP
ReplyDeleteWed Sep 24, 2008 9:52pm EDT
BEIJING, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Chinese regulators have told domestic banks to stop interbank lending to U.S. financial institutions to prevent possible losses during the financial crisis, the South China Morning Post reported on Thursday.
The Hong Kong newspaper cited unidentified industry sources as saying the instruction from the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) applied to interbank lending of all currencies to U.S. banks but not to banks from other countries.
"The decree appears to be Beijing's first attempt to erect defences against the deepening U.S. financial meltdown after the mainland's major lenders reported billions of U.S. dollars in exposure to the credit crisis," the SCMP said.
A spokesman for the CBRC had no immediate comment. (Reporting by Alan Wheatley and Langi Chiang; editing by Ken Wills)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, even at 40:1 leverage, it's still good money.
ReplyDeleteReading further in the Examiner commets, the owner seems to be a conservative fellow. Still, it shows some courage, as his readership is going to sink lower.
ReplyDeleteJimmy Buffet, Langi Chingyangi, now I've heard it all.
ReplyDeleteDoug, do you think Bernie Ward would sign an endorsement of McCain/Palin if it would spring him from prison?
ReplyDeleteSorry, LaBob, Bernie ain't backing anybody.
ReplyDeleteFor now he just gets backed.
Probly learned to enjoy it by now.
He used to whine on KGO.
ReplyDeleteNow he moans on the Prison Floor.
McCain To The Rescue, And Just In Time
ReplyDeleteFacing a postconvention fall in the polls, John McCain once again reshaped the dimensions of the race by suspending his campaign and calling for postponement of tomorrow's debate.
This bold move could have an impact on the race akin to McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Defensively, McCain had to act to stop the fall in his poll numbers.
Offensively, he has placed himself at the epicenter of the only issue on the national agenda - proactive action to stop a total international financial collapse.
Obama's response to McCain's initiative is lame. As with his initial reaction to Sarah Palin, Obama has miscalculated. While he tries to spin McCain's move as a mere response to his initiative, it was the Republican who first issued the call for a suspension of the campaigns.
Both McCain and Obama will now go to Washington. McCain on his own initiative. Obama as a result of the president's call for an economic summit.
But it is McCain who will play the proactive role. Obama will come to Washington, but will keep one foot outside the Beltway.
Even though the president has called both candidates to Washington to save the country, Obama continues to campaign. Politics as usual.
He doesn't want to cancel the debate. He would debate while the markets burn.
McCain is going to work while Obama is phoning it in.
Oddly, McCain and Obama agree on the bailout package. But it is only McCain who can pass the bill. Only McCain can deliver the administration and the Republicans.
McCain will be at the center of the process, managing it through to success while Obama lingers on the outskirts, irrelevant and uninvolved.
McCain will pass Barack Obama's bill (which parallels his own proposals), and will get the credit for it.
There are compelling reasons why McCain may be saving his campaign by this bold move.
McCain's entry into the legislative foray personalizes the economy issue.
As long as McCain stayed away from Washington, it was the Democrats against the Republicans. Polls give the Democrats the edge. But voters trust McCain personally more than they trust Obama to manage his way out of a crisis.
By showing up in Washington, McCain makes the issue personal, not partisan.
And the rescue legislation will pass. Washington has no alternative but to act. And it probably will work. The markets will calm down. The bailout legislation will have done it.
Including the Democratic amendments, it will become a fairly popular piece of legislation and it will have been McCain's bill. Obama can claim authorship, but it will have been McCain who will have brought the Administration into line.
Once the bill is passed, McCain will have the credentials to go on the offensive and warn of the impact of Obama's tax increases on the recovery.
Had McCain not acted, Republican opposition to big government might have doomed the economy and destroyed Republican hopes.
By going to Washington, McCain makes it imperative that the Republicans pass the legislation. His presence makes it an issue of party survival in a way that lame duck Bush could never do.
As Woody Allen said "half of life is just showing up."
Dick Morris, political harlot
Limbaugh says even if the Govt ends up making money long term on the deal, does anyone believe it will be used for anything other than EXPANDING GOVERNMENT?
ReplyDeleteSo even if Deuce is right, he's wrong, and the causes of this mess will go unrepaired.
:)
ReplyDeletePoor ol' Bernie, he doesn't have to fantacize no more.
He gets off imagining he's the Big Black Guy doing the fat kid on the floor.
ReplyDeleteCrossword Puzzles Endorse Obama
ReplyDelete:O
ReplyDeleteSoon we'll have Want Ads Endorse Obama.
ReplyDeleteNext up: Famine, pestilence, locusts.
ReplyDeleteAnd Russians. A plague of Russians.
Richard Shelby, outside the WH, says, "No deal."
"The Russians are coming!
ReplyDeleteEverybody to get from Streets!"
Obama's gone from Black to Grey Hair in ONE MONTH!
ReplyDeleteWise Man
ReplyDelete