Jester;1129582 wrote: We have to fight them. We have no choice. If we fought them with less care for civilian casualties we could reduce the cost greatly but we kind of have this policy that keeps us from doing that, war is expensive, the altrnative is being attacked continually or giving them our necks.
How would we be continually attacked if we werent there ?
Remember, while Bush loves to remind us there havent been any attacks on foreign soil since 9/11. Hes very proud of that. Ive never heard him mention his responsibility for 9/11 happening on his watch.
And I take great offense at hearing those words we have no choice.
When did our ability to choose cease to exist ?
Bailouts
Bailouts
Jester;1130122 wrote: You see it your way I see it mine.
You should be more like me. :p
You should be more like me. :p
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Bailouts
spot;1129372 wrote: You're aware of the fact that all the depositors' cash is forfeit once a bank folds? What they get back is the minimum guaranteed cover and then they're just creditors waiting in line for a small share of the firesale.
Jester's entirely right about the long-term benefit to the economy in letting inefficient or madly-directed companies die. All of the bailout is short-term relief that will spin out the long-term suffering. The media scream for a fix this year, they're given a fix this year and a five-year crisis turns into a twenty year crisis.
The answer which reduces the degree of suffering to the greatest number is socialism. When the US workforce finally realizes the government doesn't even do bodycounts at home and that the Baghdad Syndrome of refusing to acknowledge consequences has become a domestic issue maybe they'll vote in a socialist administration and refuse to ever vote it out afterwards.
Power to the People!
Yes I am aware. But people do know that they are only covered for 100,000 (it is temporarily raised to 250,000). So most spread their money around to different institutions, if they have that much to put them above that limit. So most depositors would be fully covered for all their deposits.
Jester's entirely right about the long-term benefit to the economy in letting inefficient or madly-directed companies die. All of the bailout is short-term relief that will spin out the long-term suffering. The media scream for a fix this year, they're given a fix this year and a five-year crisis turns into a twenty year crisis.
The answer which reduces the degree of suffering to the greatest number is socialism. When the US workforce finally realizes the government doesn't even do bodycounts at home and that the Baghdad Syndrome of refusing to acknowledge consequences has become a domestic issue maybe they'll vote in a socialist administration and refuse to ever vote it out afterwards.
Power to the People!
Yes I am aware. But people do know that they are only covered for 100,000 (it is temporarily raised to 250,000). So most spread their money around to different institutions, if they have that much to put them above that limit. So most depositors would be fully covered for all their deposits.
Bailouts
wildhorses;1130151 wrote: Yes I am aware. But people do know that they are only covered for 100,000 (it is temporarily raised to 250,000). So most spread their money around to different institutions, if they have that much to put them above that limit. So most depositors would be fully covered for all their deposits.
Yes, most depositors would. Most depositors have smaller deposits. The poitn of guaranteeing the full value of all deposits is that if the bank is then allowed to go bankrupt, which is the efficient solution Jester refers to, it doesn't drag down the businesses which carry their large deposits there. It doesn't drag down the local authorities who bank public funds there. It's the large depositors being hit by the bankruptcy that causes the major knock-on grief to employment.
Yes, most depositors would. Most depositors have smaller deposits. The poitn of guaranteeing the full value of all deposits is that if the bank is then allowed to go bankrupt, which is the efficient solution Jester refers to, it doesn't drag down the businesses which carry their large deposits there. It doesn't drag down the local authorities who bank public funds there. It's the large depositors being hit by the bankruptcy that causes the major knock-on grief to employment.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bailouts
spot;1130214 wrote: Yes, most depositors would. Most depositors have smaller deposits. The poitn of guaranteeing the full value of all deposits is that if the bank is then allowed to go bankrupt, which is the efficient solution Jester refers to, it doesn't drag down the businesses which carry their large deposits there. It doesn't drag down the local authorities who bank public funds there. It's the large depositors being hit by the bankruptcy that causes the major knock-on grief to employment.
Scenario (what if)
The government goes bankrupt and cant meet the demands of the insured.
The way things are going its not out of the realm.
Scenario (what if)
The government goes bankrupt and cant meet the demands of the insured.
The way things are going its not out of the realm.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Bailouts
Nomad;1130880 wrote: Scenario (what if)
The government goes bankrupt and cant meet the demands of the insured.
The way things are going its not out of the realm.
You must be using bankrupt in a sense I'm unfamiliar with. There's no legal mechanism for any government anywhere in the world to declare bankruptcy. It's beyond believability that the US government would renege on a debt, too.
The government goes bankrupt and cant meet the demands of the insured.
The way things are going its not out of the realm.
You must be using bankrupt in a sense I'm unfamiliar with. There's no legal mechanism for any government anywhere in the world to declare bankruptcy. It's beyond believability that the US government would renege on a debt, too.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bailouts
Kindle;1128912 wrote: It sounds good, but I don't think the US government can confiscate companies here. I'm trying to check in on the Net, but haven't been successful yet.
If a company declares itself insolvent (given that I do not understand the implications of "Chapter 11"), in this country an Administrator is appointed to run the company and either find a buyer to take on the debt or sell off the assets to obtain the best value for the creditors (who are paid their outstanding debt pro rata the realised assets to total debts). How does it work in the US?
It would be quite easy for the government to take on a company where the debts exceeded the assets either before or after the creditors had been paid.
If a company declares itself insolvent (given that I do not understand the implications of "Chapter 11"), in this country an Administrator is appointed to run the company and either find a buyer to take on the debt or sell off the assets to obtain the best value for the creditors (who are paid their outstanding debt pro rata the realised assets to total debts). How does it work in the US?
It would be quite easy for the government to take on a company where the debts exceeded the assets either before or after the creditors had been paid.
Bailouts
Jester;1129270 wrote: There should be no bailouts, the failed companies should declare bankruptcy and the market would react to the niches that open and other companiies that didnt screw themsleves into the groudn would have great new opportunities to fill those market niches, new blood in the market, thats change I could get into.
Id love to buy a division of one of the failed big auto companies, fire all the unions and rehire non union and start building real cars that people could afford.
Thats change I could get behind.
Bailouts! Thats something that should NEVER be in America, you either survive a market or you quit. I'd be shamed forever if the government came in and had to bail out any of my compnaies.
Given that the first responsibility of the Administrator is to realise as much asset value as possible to pay the creditors you appear to be suggesting foreclosing on all mortgages held by the failed banks.
How do you imagine that this action would affect John Doe?
Then, given the number of people on the street, how do you imagine that this would affect the US economy?
Id love to buy a division of one of the failed big auto companies, fire all the unions and rehire non union and start building real cars that people could afford.
Thats change I could get behind.
Bailouts! Thats something that should NEVER be in America, you either survive a market or you quit. I'd be shamed forever if the government came in and had to bail out any of my compnaies.
Given that the first responsibility of the Administrator is to realise as much asset value as possible to pay the creditors you appear to be suggesting foreclosing on all mortgages held by the failed banks.
How do you imagine that this action would affect John Doe?
Then, given the number of people on the street, how do you imagine that this would affect the US economy?
Bailouts
Jester;1129582 wrote: We have to fight them. We have no choice. If we fought them with less care for civilian casualties we could reduce the cost greatly but we kind of have this policy that keeps us from doing that, war is expensive, the altrnative is being attacked continually or giving them our necks.
Total and utter bullsh!t - the invasion of Iraq was totally unconnected with 9/11 or any terrorist operation.
Total and utter bullsh!t - the invasion of Iraq was totally unconnected with 9/11 or any terrorist operation.
Bailouts
It's the working man who is trying to house and feed a family that needs the bailout. Have you looked around your town and seen how many homeless people there are? How many are trying to find an opening in a shelter at night just to find a safe place for their kids to sleep? Why the food pantries are running out of food due to high demand? How is bailing out the auto industries and banks going to help the common man who isn't making enough to pay just his mortgage, electric, gas and groceries? Are only the already rich going to be the only ones to survive in this economy? :-5 We need help...all of us. I know, I for one, do not have a trust fund or family money to fall back on when times get tough. When times are tough, paying bills get tough and so down goes your credit. Try and get around that one.
Folks, IMO we are going downhill fast and unless something is done soon, it isn't going to get any better.
Folks, IMO we are going downhill fast and unless something is done soon, it isn't going to get any better.
Bailouts
spot;1131045 wrote: You must be using bankrupt in a sense I'm unfamiliar with. There's no legal mechanism for any government anywhere in the world to declare bankruptcy. It's beyond believability that the US government would renege on a debt, too.
Perhaps not in the technical sense of the word but I was referring to a worst case scenario. Playing devils advocate and imagining things just kept getting worse and if the bail outs fail and theyre unable to repay loans eventually leading to the Fed unable to guarantee insured depositors.
We'd become like Somalia and get all pirate on everyone.
Perhaps not in the technical sense of the word but I was referring to a worst case scenario. Playing devils advocate and imagining things just kept getting worse and if the bail outs fail and theyre unable to repay loans eventually leading to the Fed unable to guarantee insured depositors.
We'd become like Somalia and get all pirate on everyone.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Bailouts
Nomad;1132145 wrote: Perhaps not in the technical sense of the word but I was referring to a worst case scenario. Playing devils advocate and imagining things just kept getting worse and if the bail outs fail and theyre unable to repay loans eventually leading to the Fed unable to guarantee insured depositors.
We'd become like Somalia and get all pirate on everyone.
What ever happened with that, last I heard they had the worlds largest oil tanker, but never heard the result.
Like in video games and in movies did the Navy Seals or some high level covert opps go in during the dark of night and take it back over??????
We'd become like Somalia and get all pirate on everyone.
What ever happened with that, last I heard they had the worlds largest oil tanker, but never heard the result.
Like in video games and in movies did the Navy Seals or some high level covert opps go in during the dark of night and take it back over??????
Bailouts
mikeinie;1132163 wrote: What ever happened with that, last I heard they had the worlds largest oil tanker, but never heard the result.
Like in video games and in movies did the Navy Seals or some high level covert opps go in during the dark of night and take it back over??????
They got paid off.
If it comes to us becoming pirates Im not holding ships for ransom. Ill hold movie theatres for ransom. That way while Im waiting for the money I can watch films and eat popcorn.
Like in video games and in movies did the Navy Seals or some high level covert opps go in during the dark of night and take it back over??????
They got paid off.
If it comes to us becoming pirates Im not holding ships for ransom. Ill hold movie theatres for ransom. That way while Im waiting for the money I can watch films and eat popcorn.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Bailouts
Nomad;1132145 wrote: Perhaps not in the technical sense of the word but I was referring to a worst case scenario. Playing devils advocate and imagining things just kept getting worse and if the bail outs fail and theyre unable to repay loans eventually leading to the Fed unable to guarantee insured depositors.
We'd become like Somalia and get all pirate on everyone.
Think Russia in the 1990's
Think Chicago during the depression
We'd become like Somalia and get all pirate on everyone.
Think Russia in the 1990's
Think Chicago during the depression
Bailouts
Bryn Mawr;1132359 wrote: Think Russia in the 1990's
Think Chicago during the depression
I dont care what those people did.
Im becoming a pirate Bryn.
Think Chicago during the depression
I dont care what those people did.
Im becoming a pirate Bryn.
I AM AWESOME MAN