 85239 |
 35211 |
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||
| Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
|
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
 |
|
|
Thread Tools |
 Member 629 Level 46.64 Mar 2006 
|
'sup No Banker Left Behind.
How ya doing, buddy?
Hey, maybe you should try that thing Chie was talking about.
|
Member 71 Level 19.91 Mar 2006
|
I'm predicting a huge boost for Obama's campaign in the future. By the time the bill is up for a vote again the general public be overwhelmingly in favor of the bailout. This will give the Democrats the balls to write up a bill stripped of anything that placates the right, and Obama will have a chance to be seen as 'saving' us and leading the majority party to success. The House Republicans' whole deal here was that they had public support. Now they'll just be seen as fucking assholes who fucked up the whole stupid fuck!!
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?  |
Member 666 Level 50.98 Mar 2006
|
Man, this stinks. I shudder to see how the rest of the world reacts today.
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Member 42 Level 42.28 Mar 2006
|
Anyone who thought there was less of a chance of revolution in this country may not want to lose all hope yet. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Member 267 Level 49.52 Mar 2006
|
Of "a bailout", yes. Of a $700 billion bailout, not so much.
FELIPE NO  |
Member 666 Level 50.98 Mar 2006
|
That survey stated that the majority favoured some action, but different from the Bush proposal. There is no inconsistency between that and the House Republican actions.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Member 22205 Level 32.07 Apr 2007
|
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Member 267 Level 49.52 Mar 2006
|
What is this, digg?
DR. RONALD EARNEST PAUL PREDICTED THIS WOULD HAPPEN YEARS AGO DR. RONALD EARNEST PAUL IS THEREFORE PSYCHIC AND RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING WE SHOULD FORM A REVOLUTION AND TAKE DOWN AMERIKKKKKA AND THE MSM AND ELECT DR. RONALD EARNEST PAUL OUR LEADER BECAUSE HE IS THE BEST WHY DIDN'T YOU VOTE FOR DR. RONALD EARNEST PAUL Spoiler:
It is people like this that make me despise the internet There's nowhere I can't reach.
Last edited by value tart; Sep 29, 2008 at 07:44 PM.
|
Member 629 Level 46.64 Mar 2006
|
Just a tip for those who do trading: Apple dropped 18% today =3 Nice time to buy some up. Ebay dropped 11% if you're looking for something that is cheaper per share.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Hey, maybe you should try that thing Chie was talking about.
|
Member 42 Level 42.28 Mar 2006
|
I'm not saying I think a revolution will happen, but some people do. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
 Member 748 Level 53.85 Mar 2006
|
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Member 18 Level 51.14 Feb 2006
|
This bill was more agreeable than the Paulson plan.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Member 748 Level 53.85 Mar 2006
|
Another lurker's been telling me that most of the global markets are down 5%.
FELIPE NO |
Member 1285 Level 26.51 Mar 2006
|
I'm just tired of this political game politicians love to play. Why don't they just stop thinking selfishly about themselves ("I'll vote for it" then turn around in the last few hours and NOT do what they just said they were about to do), and think about the people they are supposed to represent? Or the economy that is in desperate need of cash to just fund working capital (or just function on a daily basis)? Do they know how many companies can have completely good financials but not enough liquidity to survive the next few days that they go bust? "Oh, but their PPE, inventory, receivables, etc. are fine", yeah, but in the end, it's the liquidity value - not market value or book value - that counts. As if the recent events of last week weren't enough to send red flares into the air. "Cash is king" should be the motto of this year.
The media or probably rumors or just sheer ignorance of the public (that CEOs will be raking in most of the bailout money, we're bailing out the mistakes of greedy people, $700Bn is a lot of money - please, take a look at the balance sheets of Wal Mart or ExxonMobil for a sense of big, the people will be paying for it, etc etc) is maddening. When it comes time for their 401k's to go downhill, then they'll probably change their minds because it finally hits their wallets. The banking crisis has spiraled into something that needs help, and no one is trying to keep their pride by saying that it doesn't. Bankers have admitted their defeat, even the prestigious Goldman and MS has bowed to their mistakes. Forcing surviving banks to acquire the bad debts of other banks is just a temporary solution but it still doesn't address the real issue on hand. C and JPM are not out of the clear either. In fact, they have more issues to deal with after the gov't has forced them to save their peers. The gov't, while it still has some power, should at least instill some confidence in the public to keep believing in our economy. And then help funnel some temporary cash into the system so this doesn't become bigger than what it already is. Banks are already afraid to finance any more projects for existing companies and are already cutting down debt lines, bridge loans, revolving credit facilities, and commercial paper. Equity is expensive to finance. Long term debt is also expensive. Lack of liquidity could result in a issuer ratings downgrade, which in turn creates financing difficulty. It's an ugly spiral that we do not want to happen because it hits more people and companies than most realize. Okay, end rant. It's just stupid how people don't think of the long term consequences. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Member 14 Level 54.72 Feb 2006
|
Eh, tomorrow scientists will discover a 14th moon around Neptune and stocks will rally by 100 points.
The whole system is as capricious as a three year-old with a sugar high. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Member 1285 Level 26.51 Mar 2006
|
The index is not the issue; just a reflection of public expectation. Stocks are volatile. Gold star for everyone who has come to that conclusion now.
The underlying problem will still remain for a while, and people who thought it was gone half a year ago were evidently wrong (including myself). The problem, which is, credit and liquidity. Most amazing jew boots |
Member 629 Level 46.64 Mar 2006
|
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Hey, maybe you should try that thing Chie was talking about.
|
 Member 589 Level 64.55 Mar 2006
|
The people making money yesterday and today are the hedge fund short sellers. I imagine yesterday's crash created a few billionaires here and there, assuming they could find anyone dumb enough to lend them their stock holdings. If I had money to invest, I would seriously be taking it otu of the American economy and investing in the middle east or China. Both those regions have massive cash reserves, massive resource stockpiles and good credit with the World Bank. The only thing stopping a wholesale takeover of the American financial system by foreign interests is your protectionist trading policies. To be honest, a massive injection of Arab money would seriously sort your economy out and as an added bonus, be hilariously ironic for those of us watching from abroad. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?   |
Member 666 Level 50.98 Mar 2006
|
No, I think this fall is actually driven by fear - so the valuations here are not entirely rational, and there may be undervalued companies by now.
Sure, Gech won't be buying at the bottom. But you can bet your booties it's nowhere near the top. Sure, there'll be a lot of see-sawing before we get out of this mess, but any intrepid investor who bucks his fear and goes for a value play will be richly rewarded in the long term. Let's restart the Investopedia contest, chaps. We'll see who picks the most undervalued company! Most amazing jew boots |
Member 14 Level 54.72 Feb 2006
|
I didn't even notice that.
You need to stop pre-emptively copying me, nonetheless. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Member 589 Level 64.55 Mar 2006
|
The collapse of the market was not triggered by the fear impulse of small investors. Small, private investors make up a tiny fraction of the daily trading and have a negligable effect on share prices. The reason everything crashed was that the big investors; banks, pension schemes, hedge funds and the like wanted to minimise their short term losses so sold up all their American stock and are now probably holding cash for the time being. That cash is tucked away safely in Swiss and Cayman Islands bank accounts for now until they decide that investing in stock is a good idea again, with no guarantee that that's going to happen in America. That's why this is a global issue, not just an American one. Anerican companies invest all over the world and when they start suffering, they sell up their holdings to generate some cash. This prompts a similar sell off by other investors in whichever markets are taking a kicking as a result. The cash is still there, it doesn't just disappear. Only rather than being in American banks, it's sat in an account abroad, earning interest at a higher rate of return than you'll get from investing in stock right now. You could buy shares in Apple or what have you and yes, eventually they'll probably end up worth more than they are now but that could be years from now and in the mean time, you could have put the money in a bank account or governement bonds and earned 6% interest or more on the investment. In real terms, with inflation running rampant that's still not much but it's far, far more sensible than blindly buying up shares in the hope that one day they might make you some money. Don't ever be so arrogant as to think you can beat the market, these people earn a lot of money to do what they do for a reason. FELIPE NO |
Member 933 Level 36.14 Mar 2006
|
I, for one, want this crisis to stay in the market. I DO NOT want to see the ripple effects. I didn't see this kinda hubbub from you guys over the stimulus package, which was aimed at low class citizens, and as we can now recall, didn't help a motherfucking thing. But it did cost 150 billion or more.
It's okay for me and you to borrow from credit cards, in case we can't pay the bills. That's what they're there for, and they make money from it. Now big brother needs a loan from big daddy, and big daddy is likely to prosper from it as well. At any rate, prosper in comparison to what would happen if he didn't help out. I am outraged, a bit, though, at how the House republicans blamed Nancy Pelowsi for keeping the bill from passing because she gave a "demoralizing speech". Grow a backbone, you conservative prudes. I have a few questions on the matter. Has anybody figured out if we're just going to print the money we're loaning (decreasing the value of our dollar), or borrow it all from China? And Shin, could you explain that borrowing on GDP from the World Bank for me? What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?  |
Member 2867 Level 9.70 Mar 2006
|
It's not in China's interest to see the $US depreciate (US being their largest importer), so the coming crisis will prompt China to increase their holdings of US treasuries (dollars) even further. The budget deficit the US posesses is no doubt going to take an even larger hit in the coming months because of countries like China's foreign exchange intervention. Add to that the massive dollar/yen carry trade unwinds, and it's a recipe for disaster as far as US economic outlook goes.
Most amazing jew boots |
Member 50 Level 21.86 Mar 2006
|
As for where the money comes from, I don't know the details of the US rescue plan, but we had a similar crisis with two banks in the Benelux over the past weekend. The governments of the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg decided to inject 17,6 billion euro (which may not seem like a lot to Americans, but is a shitload of money for tiny countries). We actually reviewed the case for Belgium, which will be taking up the majority of the money. -30% will come from the Federal government, but will not affect the budget, since the government takes a loan at the Federal Investment Company (an institution created for these purposes, that is funded by using money that were set aside as a buffer against conjectural difficulties). -20% will come from the Flemish, Brussels and Wallon government (three of the regions that Belgium's divided in, don't ask me to explain). They will get the money with a similar construction to the Federal government. -20% will come from municipal councils, who will not use tax payers money for this, but funds generated out of their participation in public companies, like Suez (biggest gas company in Belgium) -The rest will be provided by institutional shareholders. As you can see, the impact on tax payers money will be minimized, and spread over several years, to reduce the shock. This is for a specific case though, so I don't know how the US government planned to fund it, but I guess that it would be a similar construction.
As for what would have happened if the bill had passed, this is only a guess, but the markets would have calmed down, even remaining stable for a couple of days, before they would start to sink again (You can't prevent this, since the crisis goes way deeper than just a couple of bad debts that need to be cleared). But in the meantime, not just the banks, but a lot of other companies would have gotten some leeway, and they would taken the opportunities to guard themselves against further trouble. It would have helped to show people that something was being done, and it would have served as reassurance for people involved in financial markets. There's nowhere I can't reach.
Last edited by Peter; Sep 30, 2008 at 09:24 AM.
|
Member 589 Level 64.55 Mar 2006
|
Printing money is not a viable option as the resulting inflation would completely fuck your economy, far beyond what you're seeing now. Printing more money serves to devalue the money already in circulation. By printing new notes to cover the defecit, you're not really filling the hole, you're spreading it around everyone and by giving $700billion of new money to the banks, you're just making everyone else's money worth less. In it's mildest form, this leads to rising prices, in it's worst form you have the situation you have in Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany where you need a wheelbarrow full of bank notes to buy a loaf of bread. You could borrow the money from another country but most if not all of America's main allies are in similarly dire financial straits and the amount of money you're after is about the same as the GDP of Denmark so you'll struggle to find someone to lend you that much. The World Bank exists primarily to aid developing countries. Pretty much all the developed nations pay into it annually and the World Bank loans the money to developing countries to help fund, well, development. Whilst the primary function of the World Bank is to support developing countries, I'm fairly sure that lending money to an industrial nation is not without precedent. World Bank loans however are tightly structured and deviating from their terms incurs pretty harsh interest penalties. It would make more sense for the US to stop paying in for a bit but to do so would be to default on all sorts of international treaties which you really can't afford to be doing right now. The final option is converting gold stock and similar at the federal reserve into cash by selling it. I'm not sure how much the US keeps in mineral reserves but I do know that trying to dump $700billion worth on the market at once will wipe out the price of whatever it is you're dumping, meaning the cost will ultimately be a lot higher than $700billion. To say the money is coming out of taxpayers pockets is a bit of a misnomer. What's more likely is that some would come from reserves sales, some would come in international loans (Possibly by writing off some of the reparations debts that Germany still owes you for example), some would come in the form of a short term loan from the World Bank and some would be raised by borrowing from banks around the world, using future tax revenues as collateral. It's only this last slice that taxpayers are directly funding but without being privy to the inner workings of your government, I couldn't say how big a slice of the total that was. $700billion is a lot to raise, even in theoretical money, but the inevitable repayments would, I believe, be easier to bear than the impending fucking over you're about to get by not bailing out the banks. Whilst people grumble about higher taxes, they're less psychologically damaging than mass redundancies and higher prices in the shops. You only notice higher taxes once a month when you get paid, you notice higher prices every time you buy something. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
Gechmir 
LZ 
Zergrinch 
value tart 
Fluffykitten McGrundlepuss 
Peter