Comments on: It’s all their fault

By: Ronald Hayden

Ronald Hayden — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:46:28 +0000

What burns me in all this is that we’ve wanted to buy a house for the last several years, but as everyone started buying up stuff they couldn’t afford, we were left in the cold because we wouldn’t pay the insane prices that resulted.

We were tempted at times, just out of exhaustion and frustration, but thankfully we stayed true.

If we’re lucky, this situation will cause a move back to old fashioned 20-30% down on a house, and a glut of houses for sale, and finally we’ll be able to make a reasonable deal.

(We live in San Francisco, which has very limited and very expensive housing on the best of days…this insanity sent things to the moon.)

By: suek

suek — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 13:59:59 +0000

>> ” we are going to have to trust the Treasury to find a way out of this crisis.”>>

I’ve heard this before….”I’m from the government, and I’m here to help”

Run for the hills!!!

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 12:52:20 +0000

boqueronman,
I found this quote from an article frightening:

it is important to give the Treasury secretary and the people he hires a good deal of flexibility in designing and experimenting with the mechanics of this rescue. The reality is that these guys will be operating in uncharted territory, making things up as they go along. That means there are no assurances that any particular approach will work and no assurances that this will be the final solution. It also means that, just as we entrust generals to fight a war, we are going to have to trust the Treasury to find a way out of this crisis.

Boy, that language, “the reality is that these guys will be operating in uncharted territory”, isn’t it terrifying if true that we’ve gotten to this point? And what confidence should anyone have that a government “operating in uncharted territory” is the way to calm frantically boiling waters?

Dark days.

By: boqueronman

boqueronman — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:47:39 +0000

Socialism is too strong a word here. Apparently the Paulson-Bernanke plan intends to obtain illiquid, or toxic, assets composed of subprime MBSs. The problem is since no one knows how much the individual mortgages in the bundle are worth they cannot be properly valued by the holders or potential buyers. Therefore, the government will commit to “purchasing” the toxic assets at a steep discount, analyze each mortgage in the MBS, put a book value on it and resell the MBS at open auction. The original seller’s balance sheet and income statement will take a substantial hit. The responsible, designated government agency will then offer the “clean” asset for sale at auction. The USG might actually make money from this process. The Paulson-Bernanke plan will only become socialism if the Democrat efforts to add clauses to intimidate the private sector such as setting levels of salary and bonus compensation, mandatory public sector equity participation, representation on the BofDs, adding non toxic assets to a bailout, or something similar. I would hope the Republicans would not only veto anything hinting at direct or indirect government control of this recovery plan but would assure that the taxpayer pays the minimum discounted amount for the toxic asset and that the clean MBS is sold for true market value.

By: Zhombre

Zhombre — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:11:24 +0000

Bienvenidos, amigos y amigas, a la Republica de Bananas. Cada hombre un rey, cada mujer una reina. O, como escrito Borges: ” La tarde se había ahondado en ayeres, los hombres compartieron un pasado ilusorio. Sólo faltó una cosa: la vereda de enfrente.”

By: spiff580

spiff580 — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:27:15 +0000

Yeah, I’d have to agree with you on that one. I guess the end results is the same either way. With some of the statements that come out the Democratic leadership mouths sometimes I wonder how they can tie their own shoes. And sometimes I wonder about the Republicans as well, but not as much.

Spiff

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:58:03 +0000

I think, though, that their short-term moves, probably because they all had the idea of getting unfit borrowers into homes come Hell or high water, inevitably led to the fruition of the base goal.

Corruption leads to corruption. Sin leads to sin. Evil leads to evil. Pretty simple from my perspective.

If the premise is that “doing evil is good” and the conclusion becomes “if doing evil is good then doing even more evil is even better”: eventually, what comes down to it is that evil is defined as “self-destructive actions and events that bring misery and injustice to as many people as it can reach”.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:55:39 +0000

“It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.”

That’s why we have a free press, Book, so that anybody could publish what he or she felt was important for others to read.

As for why we have the media, Book, well everybody needs a state controlled or centrally organized propaganda apparatus to calm down the panicking masses. You don’t want them to start forming into mobs, now.

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:52:30 +0000

I don’t think they had the goal. It’s only in novels and movies that people see that many moves ahead in the game. I think, though, that their short-term moves, probably because they all had the idea of getting unfit borrowers into homes come Hell or high water, inevitably led to the fruition of the base goal.

By: spiff580

spiff580 — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:45:11 +0000

Do you really think that the Dems had the goal of socialism in mind when they caused this crisis? I mean, do we really want to give them much credit that they actually knew what they were doing when this mess started? Or is it a situation that a sort of instant socialism was the result or unintended consequences of their ignorant and uninformed action/inactions.

What do you think?

Spiff