What's the main difference between this bill and the one that was rejected last week? Is it just the pork offerings including a tax credit for racetrack owners and makers of wooden toy arrows?
Here's a rundown of the groups that switched:
The House has passed the economic bailout bill 263 to 171
51–60 of 77 posts
Re: The House has passed the economic bailout bill 263 to 171
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to imply two false points. Chavez was elected democratically, twice. And Venezuela's oil was not nationalized. I don't like the paternalistic and interventionist style he has but he isn't Fidel Castro. In many ways, he is quite a capitalist.
"You" Rather, the reporters did. And Waters was also elected democratically. And that's not the point; the point is the media's reaction to nationalization then and now.
"[...] and compare her to Hugo Chavez. Guess what? The imbecile wasn't that far off..."
To me that line makes him own the journalists's remarks about Chavez.
Re: The House has passed the economic bailout bill 263 to 171
#53What's the main difference between this bill and the one that was rejected last week? Is it just the pork offerings including a tax credit for racetrack owners and makers of wooden toy arrows?
The main difference is the four days in between that has allowed insiders to buy up quality stock that was free-falling and that will presumably recover now.
Re: The House has passed the economic bailout bill 263 to 171
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't really know much about Warren Buffet. He is famous for paying unusually high taxes compared to his peers because he thinks it is the right thing for people in his position to do.
Why did he partner up with Goldman Suchs, then? I know [who he is] and besides this he is almost a financial saint. Still, he backs this bailout and will make huge profit on it. Oh, and the bailout favors his other investments. Being foreign, the bailout favors me as it helps my savings indirectly. But it is the largest scam in history.
I don't know anything inside or specific but I have read some books on buffet. He invests in good companies that are below market rates. His generally buys companies that have sound financials and will continue to make money. He also likes companies that make simple products (razor blades, furniture, not technology : ).
Buffet has gone on record multiple times (cnn, print interviews) saying he would be the person who buys the mortgages from the banks and resales them later if he could get a 700 billion dollar or comparable loan.
The mortgages are current artificially low because everyone is scared. If you can buy them low and sell them once the fear is gone, you could make a ton of money.
People will make money on this situation, the government will completely mess up some aspects of this, articles will be written 'exposing' all the problems.
Re: The House has passed the economic bailout bill 263 to 171
#55This is a real low point for HN (comment wise), the subject matter is interesting but I would have expected some interesting comments.
[deleted]
Re: The House has passed the economic bailout bill 263 to 171
#56One of the meanest things a friend has ever said to me is "people get the government they deserve." Part of me still hates him for that.
a democratic people get the government they deserve. those living under a monarchy or dictatorship get to say "Well I didn't vote for you~"
The nation's control over its form of government goes beyond voting. All people have the government they deserve.
Re: The House has passed the economic bailout bill 263 to 171
#57Re: The House has passed the economic bailout bill 263 to 171
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
i wish there were wikipedia style discuss pages for legislation. especially for things like this.
http://publicmarkup.org/bill/emergency-economic-stabilizatio... thank you, Sunlight Foundation.
Good link, but the commentary there is just as bad as on this site.
Re: The House has passed the economic bailout bill 263 to 171
#59This is a real low point for HN (comment wise), the subject matter is interesting but I would have expected some interesting comments.
Well, like you wouldn't want to read Paul Krugman's or Tyler Cowen's opinions on programming languages, most people here don't have much that's truly insightful to say about economics and finance, with the exception, perhaps, of economics as related to software. I guess there are a few people who work or have worked as quants and know more than a thing or two about finance, but how much insight does that give you into the system as a whole, which is what broke?
This remains the best thing I've ready so far, in terms of something brief and at the same time thoughtful:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/10...
Re: The House has passed the economic bailout bill 263 to 171
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quants are going to go to town on this one. This bill gives the SEC authority to suspend the practice of marking to market. Bad idea. That makes this bill just a big money giveaway in practice. Transfer of wealth basically. Further, the FDIC is already running low on funds, we should be slow to make new promises when we are already uncertain with regard to meeting present obligations. Additionally, raising the li…
The SEC already had the authority to suspend mark-to-market accounting. This bill just re-affirms it. Furthermore, mark-to-market is an accounting technique.It may result in fraud but there is no "transfer of wealth" about it. Furthermore, if history is any indication, corporations can always cook their book if they really want to. The FDIC is indeed running low on funds and raising the limit at this point in time is…
Accounting fraud is exactly what will make this whole thing degenerate into a transfer of wealth. Think about it, they can cook the capital ratios so that not only the bonds, but now even those CDS's that they have are worth X, when they would fetch Y at market. This gives them more liquidity, yes. But it is an illusion. Those CDS's are still as precarious as they were before, so are the now revalued bonds that they carry. Nothing changes, except the balance book. Add to this a guaranteed market for these assets, the taxpayer and surely you must see the potential for fraudulent profit taking in this scenario.
Early indications that a bank needs to be looked at comes to the FDIC because people with more than $100000 start moving excess money to different banks. FDIC starts to look at them, and that is where the lowest form of all quants comes in. The "shorter". They get wind. I don't know how, but you and I both know it always happens, and the bank's stock starts a death spiral. Putting more pressure on their capital ratios, which have to factor in cheap stock now. Also, in fractional reserve banking, the fees charged by the FDIC to the banks SHOULD depend on the amount that the FDIC is insuring accounts for. There is NOTHING in the bill about raising fees. I'm sure we can all imagine that fees will probably not be raised, as the idea is to help with liquidity, not hinder it. So right there the banks just got something for nothing in terms of insurance. Helping their financial position appear safer.
Maybe we are talking about two different things. Could you please explain why you believe this does not help the banks to appear financially healthy longer?
If you consider $150 billion a 'drop in the bucket' then salud! I think $150 billion here, $150 billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money. Consider the possibility that you believe it to be a small amount because you agree with this bill. What if we gave $150 billion to fund welfare? How about we give $150 billion to fund the salaries of H1B workers? Or we blow $150 billion on 2 toilets for stealth bombers? Is it still a drop in the bucket?