Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fed takes over AIG

dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 194 posts

Re: Fed takes over AIG

#171

Post by dpapathanasiou »

netcan wrote: post #77
dpapathanasiou wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems naive and narrow minded to think another company won't step in if there is a continued need for the services that AIG provide{d|s}. But it's unrealistic to think that the vacuum could be filled fast enough to prevent a wave of failures among AIG's clients (banks who bought credit insurance to get around regulatory limits). There's more detail here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/09…

So is this a reasonable system for insuring against the collapse of insurers (and the world's financial infrastructure)? Government rescues? How about limiting the size of companies that are not allowed to die for damage control? Or limiting their ability to become companies not allowed to die?

How about limiting the size of companies that are not allowed to die for damage control? Or limiting their ability to become companies not allowed to die?

This article sums up the dilemma Treasury faces, including the whole "too big to fail" problem: http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/henry-paulsons-...

Re: Fed takes over AIG

#172

Post by fallentimes »

run4yourlives wrote: post #166
fallentimes wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are your thoughts on their high taxes?

As a Canadian, I think you Americans obsess about tax rates far too much. Sure they pay high taxes, but they also pay next to nothing for health care, schools, they get FREE university, etc etc. Point being it balances out. Add to that that they have a business friendly environment, land access to the rest of the EU and are big free trade lovers and you've got a pretty good place to settle.

It has nothing to do with me being an American; that just so happened to be where I was randomly spawned.

It has everything to do with government's indisputable inefficiency due to a lack of competition.

Re: Fed takes over AIG

#173

Post by run4yourlives »

fallentimes wrote: post #172
run4yourlives wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Canadian, I think you Americans obsess about tax rates far too much. Sure they pay high taxes, but they also pay next to nothing for health care, schools, they get FREE university, etc etc. Point being it balances out. Add to that that they have a business friendly environment, land access to the rest of the EU and are big free trade lovers and you've got a pretty good place to settle.

It has nothing to do with me being an American; that just so happened to be where I was randomly spawned. It has everything to do with government's indisputable inefficiency due to a lack of competition.

It has everything to do with government's indisputable inefficiency due to a lack of competition.

Your views on the world and government are inherent to where you were "randomly spawned", since they are inherent to the environment and culture you've been exposed to.

My comment was by no means an insult, just an observation.

Re: Fed takes over AIG

#174

Post by fallentimes »

run4yourlives wrote: post #173
fallentimes wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with me being an American; that just so happened to be where I was randomly spawned. It has everything to do with government's indisputable inefficiency due to a lack of competition.

It has everything to do with government's indisputable inefficiency due to a lack of competition. Your views on the world and government are inherent to where you were "randomly spawned", since they are inherent to the environment and culture you've been exposed to. My comment was by no means an insult, just an observation.

Fair enough, but views and opinions are a product of many things, not just environment and culture. Additionally, my view on big government has been proven many times empirically; it's more fact than view. Most of them just don't have any incentive to improve, which I understand.

This: "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." is one of my favorite quotes :). I'd argue it isn't a very "American" thing to say, but who knows. Ironically, Shaw was a socialist.

Re: Fed takes over AIG

#175

Post by SapphireSun »

netcan wrote: post #134
jrmurad wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying you're wrong that socialism is better than this mess but I will say that capitalism is better than this mess and better than socialism too. Having health insurance provided by the State (i.e. you through your tax dollars after several layers of corruption and bureaucratic waste) does not guarantee quality of care. A competitive free market is more likely to develop better medicine.

A competitive free market is more likely to develop better medicine. Well, yes & no. A free market does develop good medicine in much the same way as it develops good everything else. But what you are usually measuring something essentially different when evaluating medicine. You could say that a free market system should produce more medicine. But (as free markets do) this is distributed unevenly among the populatio…

Hmm I've thought about this a bit, and it strikes me that while yes, it does seem to make sense that we should have medicine for everyone, we should also have an area where there is pressure to perform. Essentially what I am positing is that the US should remain a nonsocialist area so that we innovate and provide the necessary advances because eventually they will filter down and become affordable by the average person. In the meantime we could make it easier for people to leave the country if they prefer to live under a socialist system. This would be counterbalanced by most of the rest of the world having that flat system you referred to. It's a compromise. On the other hand, let's assume that my dear reader has no soul and will thus not vituperate me for the following idea: Modern medicine has been around for like 60-80 years which is essentially no time at all. In the space of that time, major advances have been made that have not yet filtered down to the bottom. If you take the long view, in 100 years the stuff we thought was a $10M miracle today might be a trip to the doctor's office with a 20 dollar copay then (think robots). So what's really important is not curing every poor person today, but advancing the field to cure the poor people of the future. The trick to surviving is to try not to be poor and/or get insurance.

Essentially, this is a highly tangled problem and a simple solution won't do.

Re: Fed takes over AIG

#176

Post by MaysonL »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #138
MaysonL wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infant mortality in the US correlates highly [negatively] with income. In France it doesn't.

Smoking, obesity, drug use, and general poor lifestyle also correlate highly negatively with income, and can increase infant mortality. Being a Black American correlates negatively with income, and positively with low birth weight and infant mortality (note that Black Americans have an infant mortality rate of 16/1000, vs about 7/1000 among White Americans). With such large confounding factors, how can you draw the c…

Why not in France?

Re: Fed takes over AIG

#177

Post by furiouslol »

jcl wrote: post #169
furiouslol wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AIG is getting badly punished for this. They are getting the loan at LIBOR + 8.5%. That's downright punitive. LIBOR + 8.5% is not a rate at which a company with AIG's business model could survive at. AIG lends to people at around LIBOR + 4% for mortgages or LIBOR + a lower % to insure BBB to AA rated borrowers. They'll probably have to sell off their assets in a hurry at below fair value. The longer they wait, the mo…

What happens to them if they fail to pay it off?

The taxpayers suffer. You have to eat the loss.

Re: Fed takes over AIG

#178

Post by felipe »

fallentimes wrote: post #24

Serious question that is actually very related: if you had to move to a foreign country and work on your internet start up, where would you move? Why?

China. As a matter of fact, I am learning Mandarin right now and I am planning to move from Silicon Valley to somewhere in China in a few years.

The book "Silicon Dragon" is a fascinating read.

Re: Fed takes over AIG

#179

Post by zach »

ericb wrote: post #153
sethg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am happy to report that one element of Obama's tax plan ( http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINA... ) is to "eliminate capital-gains taxes for entrepreneurs and investors in small business".

How will eliminating capital gains taxes help me as a small business owner. Lower corporate income tax rates would be intuitive, but lower capital gains taxes is kind of a head-scratcher. Should I invest in stocks via my business?

Were the company you founded to be bought out, it would be very helpful. Then again, at that point you would no longer be a small business owner. Bit of a paradox, that.

Re: Fed takes over AIG

#180

Post by davidw »

SapphireSun wrote: post #175
netcan wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A competitive free market is more likely to develop better medicine. Well, yes & no. A free market does develop good medicine in much the same way as it develops good everything else. But what you are usually measuring something essentially different when evaluating medicine. You could say that a free market system should produce more medicine. But (as free markets do) this is distributed unevenly among the populatio…

Hmm I've thought about this a bit, and it strikes me that while yes, it does seem to make sense that we should have medicine for everyone, we should also have an area where there is pressure to perform. Essentially what I am positing is that the US should remain a nonsocialist area so that we innovate and provide the necessary advances because eventually they will filter down and become affordable by the average pers…

> Essentially, this is a highly tangled problem and a simple solution won't do.

Bingo. There's a nice discussion of just a bit of the economics involved in health care in "The Undercover Economist". It's really a very complicated subject because it is not your typical market for something like shoes, to use someone else's example. Pure capitalist systems will leave at least a few unfortunate individuals to die or suffer from easily/cheaply curable diseases. Pure state run systems throw out all the useful information that a market provides and introduce inefficiencies of their own.

Post reply on HN