Your ideas on that banking bailout thing

[webcowgirl]

I'm curious - what do you think? Should Congress have passed the bailout or not passed it? Is it a good thing for the world economy? Is it just guaranteeing the demise of America as a superpower - er, either the passing of the bill or the non-passing?

Is it just staving off the inevitable?

What do you think?

In other news, I want new tea balls (I like the 1 1/2 inch size ball only, and they're hard to find), and I had to rebook Uffizi tickets (the first place was going to have us there in the morning after I'd specifically requested the afternoon). I'm a bit worried that there's something to do for the trip that I've forgotten (combo ticket for Colosseum and Palatine Hill?) I also stayed up late finishing my latest Charlaine Harris mystery (A Bone to Pick), and I did correctly guess the murderer! It was a fun book to read. Now I'm going to crack down on the Proust (I'm at page 255 of Time Regained, in the middle of a long and unflattering discussion of aging) - I have just more than a hundred pages to go and I want to have this finished by the end of the month. Oddly, I think I just might be done by Friday ...

Comments

[calum]

I think Sinfest summed up the situation perfectly..

[lovelybug.livejournal.com]

Superb!

[ajva.livejournal.com]

I think the proposed bailout is just pissing in the wind, really. Congress will obviously broker some sort of further watered-down deal because everyone seems to think it's essential, but even the original Paulson version wouldn't have been enough to solve the systemic solvency problems that have developed over the past thirty years or so. At least this way the banks know they don't get a blank cheque even in times of crisis, so hopefully the dollar will not crash as much as it would have done otherwise.

But nobody really knows what will/could happen, do they? Least of all me.

[steer.livejournal.com]

Absolutely yes 100% they should have passed the ballot. It's been known for years that derivatives are poorly understood as a financial instrument so it was pretty fuckwitted to rely on them for risk management -- but it was a mistake everyone made. However, AIG so far underlies the finance markets that to let them sink would deepen and lengthen the inevitable recession. It's not a huge hit to tax payers because remember most of those mortgages won't default and the government has the money and patience to ride it out. In the end it may be a smart investment. There's a reason that a large number of governments are nationalising banks right now and it's not a sudden yen for socialism.

If I hear another person say that they think a laissez faire approach can solve this I may scream. That's what damned well caused it.

[webcowgirl.livejournal.com]

Yep, we laissezed them faire and they fucked it right up.

[steer.livejournal.com]

Hah! Indeed. They faired pretty badly.

[lovelybug.livejournal.com]

Yes - the Republican suggestion that nationalisation is a move towards socialism and therefore to be avoided is just bonkers insane.

[oldmangrumpus.livejournal.com]

I'm the first to admit that I don't know enough about finance to be absolutely certain whether the passage or non-passage was "right" or "wrong". I can sorta see both sides of the issue, and I AM glad they didn't pass the proposed three page memo that originally came from Paulson - that would have been a grave error.

I understand the need to pass it if our financial system will become hopelessly stuck.

I understand the desire to NOT pass it, given our already astronomical debt and the fact that Wall Street did this to themselves, and I'm sick and tired of bailing out Free Marketeers every time they screw themselves over after telling us not to mess with the holy free market.

I do NOT think that it's the signal of the end of America as a Superpower. China's not about to repossess our nukes or tanks. And our revenue - well, when the jobs are still HERE, we have a base. We're still the richest of the three most populous nations on Earth.

Of course #1 and #2 are China and India, so how long that will last is anybody's guess....

I say, let it fail.

[mabel-morgan.livejournal.com]

It's over for the United States no matter what happens. The only hope is that Barack Obama does get elected and he really is a lightworker. If there was ever a plot in need of a magical Negro, this is one. Unfortunately, I don't think he's secretly Morgan Freeman.

As for whether this bailout is a good one...well I have read numerous articles saying that of all the responses this one is the most expensive and the least likely to work. The Economist is in favour apparently, but I couldn't get to grips with their reasoning.

Whatever, it's clear that free market capitalism "doesn't work". Personally, I would like them to not go ahead with the bailout and see what happens when the markets try and stabilise themselves. I think Free Market capitalism does work and this is how it works - badly for the vast majority of the world's population.

Re: I say, let it fail.

[webcowgirl.livejournal.com]

Do you think there will be another great depression? And if so, is it likely to be trigged by no bailout, or by a bailout?

Re: I say, let it fail.

[mabel-morgan.livejournal.com]

No idea on all counts. I think what a lot of economists are making clear is that the bailout will not really do anything except forestall the inevitable. I think what is clear to me is that this system is fake and that there are other systems out there - Participatory Economics for example - which would probably do a better job of it.

Re: I say, let it fail.

[madda-gaska.livejournal.com]

"Whatever, it's clear that free market capitalism "doesn't work"."
I thought there had been bailouts before?
If I'm right on that then it's not actually 'free market'- it's 'sort-of-free-market-but-look-at-this-nice-safety-net'.

So yes, if you keep paying people to make a ballsup of their profession then their profession will transform into one that is... well... unprofessional!

S

Re: I say, let it fail.

[mabel-morgan.livejournal.com]

Exactly, my point exactly. It's all fake and it's complete bullshit.

For over a decade now we have been told that Communism doesn't work and that's been proved. When you answer that what the Soviets and Chinese have had in place was not real Marxism the reply is "Ahh but that was the best that could be done. That's the best communism that can ever be on offer". Well the same applies. This is the best free market capitalism available. And just to prove a point lets see what happens when no bailouts occurs. Let's watch the markets stabilise themselves and see what happens to millions and millions of people across the globe.

Let them eat cake?

[madda-gaska.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, the Kalder book I'm reading at the moment (Strange Telescopes) suggests that Vissarion might actually have created a better example of Communism, although he doesn't call it that and does call himself the second coming (of Christ)...

It is quite... amusing, I guess (because I've been cynical for too long) to hear this described as the best free market capitalism available. The best would surely involve no subsidies or bailouts or any other outside intervention. Of course, that might not be the best to live in.

This does remind me though- doing some more reading up on the temporary rise of the anarchists in Spain around 1940 would be a good plan.

I would've suggested that monarchy under an ideal monarch is actually better than democracy under an ideal pack of politicians- because the monarchy lasts longer. Of course, a bad monarch is liable to last longer too, and the damage that can be caused is far greater, so I'm certainly not advocating a return to monarchy- although I think the US might be heading for that, given that at least one of the last two elections was awarded for reasons that had more to do with family than with votes.

S

Re: Let them eat cake?

[mabel-morgan.livejournal.com]

It is quite... amusing, I guess (because I've been cynical for too long) to hear this described as the best free market capitalism available. The best would surely involve no subsidies or bailouts or any other outside intervention. Of course, that might not be the best to live in.

Yes! My point exactly. They bring interventions, subsidies and bailouts precisely because the alternative, slavish adherence to market forces, leaving people to fend for themselves as the shit hits the fan, is morally reprehensible. Well, my point is that it's all bloody morally reprehensible and it always has been.

Stupid David Cameron said the other day that we should still remain positive about capitalism - have faith. We weren't complaining when we were reaping all the benefits. Actually, David, I was complaining, in fact lots of people were complaining ALL ACROSS THE GLOBE.

Re: Let them eat cake?

[webcowgirl.livejournal.com]

Well put, madam.

Re: Let them eat cake?

[madda-gaska.livejournal.com]

I find money itself to be a problem- not the amount I have/don't have, just the whole idea of money as an objective... it leads to lots of very intelligent people wasting their lives speculating on something that has no value outside of itself.

The real question is: Would a real Free Market Capitalism actually settle down without subsidies etc? Ultimately most people like stability, so would they thus cause there to be stability themselves if they had to?
I don't think you ever see how well something can be done except when it is done without safety nets, etc- the disadvantage being that the ground can be rather fatally far away without a safety net.

Heh- Cameron is talking about it like the religion it is!
And yes- reaping the benefits? When was this? I'm in a one fucking room flat and this is reaping the benefits? The benefits are hugely inflated house prices, etc? Well, I'll be glad to see those benefits go away, it might actually give me some options!

Incidentally, I really do think it would be amusing to see Jilted Ken performing Boris is a Moron.

S

[craigp.livejournal.com]

the "paulson plan" is idiotic in the extreme. it's a giveaway, pure and simple, and one that won't help the economy (unless paulson is actually competent and feeling like helping the country and not his buddies, which I'd say is somewhere just above a 0% chance).

if we need liquidity, or to stimulate the economy, or whatever, there's plenty of better ways to approach the problem. but, it's pretty much guaranteed congress won't do the right thing, and waste 700 billion or more buy buying up toxic assets instead of, say, investing in our core infrastructure, alternative energy, etc etc.

[madda-gaska.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how common my opinion on this is, but...
I'm glad they've at least for the moment refused to pass it. It's time for that part of the financial sector to learn to deal with the consequences of being so monumentally fucking stupid with their risk taking (sub primes I believe being the main problem?). This may then make them realise that taking such huge risks when they're in such a prominent economic position is in fact woefully irresponsible.

I mean, let's face it- anyone who does gamble should be doing so responsibly- they shouldn't be gambling so much of their money that they can't then pay their debts. If they aren't doing that then they're seen to have a problem. When the same thing is done on a larger scale should we then support the addiction to bad betting?

S