Obama

[Sibirsky]

The main problem with the bail-outs is not their current effect, but their future one. By giving these financial institutions money because they were "too big to fail," we sent them a message that we really shouldn't be sending, namely that they are free to take as much risk as they want without any consequences at all. In other words, they have no reason to be intelligent with our money, because they can fail over and over and the government will just keep bailing them out.

I never thought of it that way. Good point.

Bird and Fortune. This is a riot.
The last 20 seconds or so, of the first video explain exactly what our governments taught our banks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXJtnqXu ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g

[Sibirsky]

The bailouts were not necessary. I already have posted a bank plan that would work much better.

Which?

The initial bail-out was necessary, entirely so, AIGs potential liabilities had to be covered - if anything, the one issue was not backstopping Lehmann, that really sent the markets into a spin.

They tried to do a private partnership bail-out, but no-one could commit to the scale, especially since many of them looked to be next on the chopping block, the government HAD to step in.

Bank bailouts. AIG... I dunno. I had nothing for them specifically.

The head of 9 major financial groups sat in the Federal Reserve building throughout the weekend before the 17-19th September, when Lehmann went, AIG was backstopped and all the rest. Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch etc., the actual CEOs and their upper management along with Geithner, Bernanke and Paulson.

Do you really think the decisions were made in a vacuum, that it was a government whim to socialise America, or that this wasn't foreseen,

It's the height of arrogance to make utterly whimsical statements on whether the bail-out was necessary or not, or that these people don't know what they're doing...

I see it in purported economists all the time, freshmen airily announcing statements as though they have the inside knowledge, a grasp of the scale and political nature of economics in government to propose easy solutions to extremely complex problems.

This whole, 'the government is the problem' comes from a large lack of understanding about the time and effort put in against easy-to-sway public opinion and attention-grabbing politicians. Even the finance houses before Congress yesterday said 'better and more regulation is needed', more funding for oversight, that part of the problem is that the regulators had neither the support, time or staff to head off this disaster, a disaster caused by products even the finance houses didn't understand.

They don't have a clue. The problems that caused this crisis remain. Hell they are the ones that caused it, and they remain. All this sweeping financial reform that has been proposed, has not addressed the major issues.

[Barringtonia]

They don't have a clue. The problems that caused this crisis remain. Hell they are the ones that caused it, and they remain. All this sweeping financial reform that has been proposed, has not addressed the major issues.

Alas, the political will to actually make changes simply isn't there, I'll agree to that but look to who's blocking any movement,

That 'they don't have a clue' is utterly wrong.

[Whole Conviction]

Alas, the political will to actually make changes simply isn't there, I'll agree to that but look to who's blocking any movement,

That 'they don't have a clue' is utterly wrong.

But don't you understaaaaaaaaaaaand?

Government is wrong! It's stupid! Everythig it does it wrong! By definition! So even if it looked like it had a good idea, or averted a potential disaster, it was wrong! Because the disaster probably wouldn't have happened anyway! Or even if it did, it would have been a good thing!

[Hydesland]

has not addressed the major issues.

Which major issues?

[Sibirsky]

They don't have a clue. The problems that caused this crisis remain. Hell they are the ones that caused it, and they remain. All this sweeping financial reform that has been proposed, has not addressed the major issues.

Alas, the political will to actually make changes simply isn't there, I'll agree to that but look to who's blocking any movement,

That 'they don't have a clue' is utterly wrong.

In your opinion. They haven't proved any competence.

To lighten up this new, financial look Obama thread, I present a video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o4IcNbf ... ature=fvwp

[Barringtonia]

They don't have a clue. The problems that caused this crisis remain. Hell they are the ones that caused it, and they remain. All this sweeping financial reform that has been proposed, has not addressed the major issues.

Alas, the political will to actually make changes simply isn't there, I'll agree to that but look to who's blocking any movement,

That 'they don't have a clue' is utterly wrong.

In your opinion.

Mine, the heads of those finance houses, Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner, against you, a one-track record on economics, whose solution to everything is 'take out government'.

Call me hedging my bets...

[Sibirsky]

has not addressed the major issues.

Which major issues?

For instance, the government decided we have institutions that are too big to fail. As part of the new financial regulation, there is nothing about the size of financial institutions. If such institutions exist, maybe they should not. The credit default swaps (this is AIG's territory) are still opaque, unknown instruments that were not put on an exchange. They're still OTC derivatives. They should be exchange traded. That provides, liquidity, but more importantly, transparency. Short selling is now more difficult. And they same people are still in charge.

[Sibirsky]

They don't have a clue. The problems that caused this crisis remain. Hell they are the ones that caused it, and they remain. All this sweeping financial reform that has been proposed, has not addressed the major issues.

Alas, the political will to actually make changes simply isn't there, I'll agree to that but look to who's blocking any movement,

That 'they don't have a clue' is utterly wrong.

In your opinion.

Mine, the heads of those finance houses, Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner, against you, a one-track record on economics, whose solution to everything is 'take out government'.

Call me hedging my bets...

My banking plan involved the government. To a lesser extent than today of course, but heavily involved.

And I'm sorry, the opinion of the buffoons that caused the mess? Really? It should count for less than a third graders. How come you did not put Greenspan in that list? As far as individuals go, he's the one I pin the most blame on.

[Grave_n_idle]

and the Stimulus was supposed to create jobs.

It did create jobs.

Not the proposed millions that President Obama stated it will create.

Because most of it hasn't been spent...

and there for... the millions of jobs wern't created.

of course, my opinion of President Obama is that this is only his first year. I'll wait till the end of his second year before I pass judgement.

but so far... he's been pretty good. no real complaints.

No big international problems, no no war fronts, no Geneva scandals, no new Haliburton scandals, no new recessions, no new unemployment trends, a recovering stock market, movment towards bringing home troops on at least one front...

There's really not much to honestly bitch about.

On the other hand - a half-hearted healthare bill, an end to some of the worst humanitarian abuses of the previous decade, but no follow up, and a lot of wasted populist capital...

There's not much to honestly be excited about, either,


Generally, "mostly harmless", but yet to make any real impression.

Can you tell me why the stock market has been recovering?

Several reasons - quite prominent among them being the bump in confidence that voting the previous ramshackle mob out of office garnered.

A second, prominent, reason is the fact that the adjustment has largely occured in the economy. There's still more adjustment to be made - and hopefully that will actually happen in a controlled fashion over the next few years, rather than bubbling along and then crashing again.

Third - credit is actually moving, albeit sluggishly.

[Barringtonia]

My banking plan involved the government. To a lesser extent than today of course, but heavily involved.

And I'm sorry, the opinion of the buffoons that caused the mess? Really? It should count for less than a third graders. How come you did not put Greenspan in that list? As far as individuals go, he's the one I pin the most blame on.

Whatever..

Not that you're among them, I wouldn't really know, but Alan Greenspan was hailed by many as a low-interest, deregulatory, laissez-faire, the markets will produce the best result... that is suddenly the solution again, apparently, and yet he's decried for it.

[Grave_n_idle]

The economy would have stabilized faster if there were no bailouts.

And you know this because you used your dimension jumping gateway to hop through to an alternate reality where there WERE no bailouts, and checked... right?

The job losses were in existence since Bush Jr you mean right?

Read what is actually written. The FORCES were in motion since Bush Sr.

The bailouts were not necessary. I already have posted a bank plan that would work much better.

Personally, I was against the bailouts, too - I offered an alternative at the time.

But, what happened has happened, and it's working. I lack the kind of partisan commitment to pretend nothing worked just because they didn't do it my way.

[Arumdaum]

O'Bama? Never heard of him.

He's the President of the United States of America, in the actual world

I don't think he was being serious.

[Grave_n_idle]

To pay someone, it has to take form someone? Do you not understand this incredibly simple concept?

Do you not understand the concepts of deficit spending and Keynsian economics?

I understand it very well. Something else I understand... it doesn't work.

You understand deficit spending, but you think it doesn't work?

I have to say, then - you don't understand what you think you understand.

Historical examples have shown us that it doesn't work.

Then you don't understand historical examples, either.

[Grave_n_idle]

Has he shut down GB prison yet?

George Bush has a prison?

its Guantomino Bay aka Gitmo
I think he need to stop blaming bush and make good on what he said

I agree.

Now that we're out of the poor economy handed to us from the Bush admini.... oooh, we're not are we.

Okay, well, now that we're out of the two wars that they got us into..... oh, I see.

Hmm.

Do you think maybe we should worry about not blaming the previous administration ONCE the legacy of the former administration has been overcome?

Just a thought.

he needs to stop saying i was handed this war, economy and fix it, i don't expect it to be done overnight, he not a miracle worker ofcoruse. i just want to see somthing that would be long term improvement, not short term.

Like trying to reform the single biggest economic drain on Americans? (That's healthcare). Or trying to bring closure to wars on two fronts? Those kinds of things?

Yeah - why doesn't he do that?

Hang about... someone at my door. Be right back.



Oh, that was 'reality' - it says sorry to intrude, but apparently those things are being done.

[Milks Empire]

Like trying to reform the single biggest economic drain on Americans? (That's healthcare). Or trying to bring closure to wars on two fronts? Those kinds of things?
Yeah - why doesn't he do that?
Hang about... someone at my door. Be right back.
Oh, that was 'reality' - it says sorry to intrude, but apparently those things are being done.

I like you.

[Grave_n_idle]

Please. Look up the 1920-1921 Depression. The New Deal, prolonged the Great Depression.

That comparison will not hold without solid evidence - that means actual sources, not assertions. Kindly either give us some or shut the hell up.

The first few minutes are enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI

The post-war market adjusted. It wasn't by ten percent, it wasn't for three or more years - it wasn't a Depression.

The problem didn't go away - the recovery of '21 was incomplete - and we ended up in the Great Depression.

[Grave_n_idle]

Like trying to reform the single biggest economic drain on Americans? (That's healthcare). Or trying to bring closure to wars on two fronts? Those kinds of things?
Yeah - why doesn't he do that?
Hang about... someone at my door. Be right back.
Oh, that was 'reality' - it says sorry to intrude, but apparently those things are being done.

I like you.

*bows*

[Pope Joan]

I was deeply disappointed that he selected Rubin to be his economy czar, after promising he would steer away from growth oriented constant-consumption economics.

Rubin was a huge proponent of those very things and, under Clinton, an architect of the policies which inevitably led to failure under Dubya.

Not that the GOP did anything to prevent that disaster, of course.

[Arkinesia]

My banking plan involved the government. To a lesser extent than today of course, but heavily involved.

And I'm sorry, the opinion of the buffoons that caused the mess? Really? It should count for less than a third graders. How come you did not put Greenspan in that list? As far as individuals go, he's the one I pin the most blame on.

Whatever..

Not that you're among them, I wouldn't really know, but Alan Greenspan was hailed by many as a low-interest, deregulatory, laissez-faire, the markets will produce the best result... that is suddenly the solution again, apparently, and yet he's decried for it.

By the time he had taken the reins of the Federal Reserve, he was quite Keynesian in his policies, though he still believed in laissez-faire economics.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

It reduces the DEFICIT over 10 years.

By charging taxes for all 10, and paying for benefits for 7. I wish I could work for 10 years, and pay my bills for 7. Or at least pay my tax bill that way.

CBO source coming tomorrow. Too damn tired right now.

The DEFICIT is calculated year to year. Built up taxes for 3 extra years doesn't have any effect on the deficit in the last year. It doesn't matter If I charge taxes for all 10 years and only give benefits the 10th. As long as the taxes for that year exceed the expenditures it reduces the DEFICIT. Your complaint makes no sense.

[JuNii]

O'Bama? Never heard of him.

He's the President of the United States of America, in the actual world

I don't think he was being serious.

either that or it's the fact that he put O'bama insead of Obama.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

For instance, the government decided we have institutions that are too big to fail. As part of the new financial regulation, there is nothing about the size of financial institutions. If such institutions exist, maybe they should not. The credit default swaps (this is AIG's territory) are still opaque, unknown instruments that were not put on an exchange. They're still OTC derivatives. They should be exchange traded. That provides, liquidity, but more importantly, transparency. Short selling is now more difficult. And they same people are still in charge.

So you support government intervention in the free market?

And putting derivatives on an exchange is nice, but barely even begins to deal with problems in the financial system.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

has not addressed the major issues.

Which major issues?

He believes the CRA, Fannie, and Freddie caused the financial crisis.

[Barringtonia]

Personally, I wish Barack Obama had the balls to form the healthcare bill himself rather than wishy-washily leave it to Congress - damn well take responsibility for it and push it through.

In fact, on a lot of this 'hey guys, let's work this out' stuff, screw it, the opposition isn't interested so give it up already.