Soup Lines?
Weighing in on the nation’s current economic debacle:
What one writer thinks of John McCain’s bitch move. It is dead-on.
Quote:
… self is McCain’s selling point. He is either the man on horseback riding to the rescue, or he is nothing — or, more precisely, the loser come November. Obama, Lord knows, has his flaws, but he does not seem to believe that the nation’s crises are primarily about him.
And here’s something from the same writer last week saying “good riddance” to the Wall Street firms that have gone under. Also dead-on.
Quote:
Someone needs to invest in the United States of America. For the past decade and, in a broader sense, for the entire duration of the Reagan era, both government and Wall Street have opted not to. Should Barack Obama win, the era of neglectful government will probably come to an end. No matter who wins, Wall Street is vanishing before our eyes. And by the measure of their contribution to America’s economic strength and well being, both Reagan-age government and Wall Street’s investment banks plainly deserve to die.
This does beg the question of why, with all the bridges that need rebuilding, roads that need fixing and water mains that need replacing, we can suddenly, magically, provide $700 billion to cover the mistakes of Wall Street, whose behavior bordered on criminal.
And finally, here’s a letter urging journalists not to take what officials say at face value on this bailout as they did during the run-up to Iraq war:
Quote:
Ask this question — are the credit markets really about to seize up?
If they are then lots of business owners should be eager to tell how their bank is calling their 90-day revolving loans, rejecting new loans and demanding more cash on deposit. I called businessmen I know yesterday and not one of them reported such problems. Indeed, Citibank offered yesterday to lend me tens of thousands of dollars on my signature at 2.99 percent, well below the nearly 5 percent inflation rate. That offer came after I said no last week to a 4.99 percent loan.
If the problem is toxic mortgages then how come they are still being offered all over the Internet? On the main page AOL generates for me there is an ad for a 1.9% loan (which means you pay that interest rate and the rest of the interest is added to your balance due.) Why oh why or why would taxpayers be bailing out banks that are continuing to sell these toxic loans?
How does the proposal help Joe and Mary Sixpack who can afford their current monthly payment, but not the increased interest rate that has been or soon will take effect? Every day bankers work out loans with customers — so why are taxpayers being asked to act when banks are largely on strike, refusing to negotiate revised deals with many loan customers?
See you in the soup lines.
I have been following the credit crunch crisis and have listened to arguments for bailing fennie and freddie amongst others, and of the recent collapse of Limahn Brothers… and government’s bailing some and allowing others to take the fall…hopefully this will be a lesson, and once the markets have started gaining momentum, and stabilising, although some are predicting the 1929 recession, it might change the culture of rewarding those corporate directors for taking those stupid risks in the first place. There seem to be a bonus culture, and the British Chancellor Alistair Darling, who’s been spearheading the practice of ‘throwing a life line to lenders practice like Northern Rock’, has publicly said the city has to stop this whole bonus culture…
But then again, when u listen to reason, even though I still don’t get how the federal banks decide which corporation is worth saving, and which can go under, if some were allowed to fail, it would trigger recessions, the rising oil and food prices doesn’t help. Although there seem to be no clear system as to how they asses the importance of the lenders as to decide who they bail out, it’s just random, in the UK Northern Rock was bailed about a year ago, but HBOS which would have cost a major disaster wasn’t bailed, it had to be bought by another, which many termed a gunpoint marriage. Where am I going with this…. Le’me think
Shazza, I think this whole debacle is the result of having greedy baby boomers with their associated senses of entitlement running companies. I think they know that their fellow baby boomers in the government will bail them out. They’re borderline criminal.
Comment by Shazza — September 26, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
I agree that the activities are criminal, but why aren’t they being treated as such? I really don’t understand.
Perhaps, A, because criminal may not be the best word to describe what they did. The things they did may be legal, but highly unethical and lacking in common sense. And selective prosecution is rampant when it comes to white collar crime, which usually doesn’t involve violence.
Comment by A — September 29, 2008 @ 11:31 am