Hello, friend, your urgent help needed

[aristide1]

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had a crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transaction is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailoutattreasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with
detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson

[frenchie]

PS : whether or not you provide that info, we will take a randomly large amount of money out of your pockets anyway. God Bless America.

[MikeC]

aristide1 -- That's just perfect!

[xan_user]

The, ahem, check is in the mail.

Should be there any day...

[aristide1]

Privatized profits and socialized losses. It's the American model of capitalism.

I sent this email to my economics prof.

[MikeC]

Privatized profits and socialized losses. It's the American model of capitalism.

Kudos for eloquent phraseology worthy of Winston Churchill!

[m0002a]

Only one problem. The US is not giving away the money (at least not any businesses, however the Democrats want to give money to homeowners).

For example, when the US lent AIG $85 billion, they got a 80 equity stake in the company in return. The loan was at very high interest rate and the US government (based on current stock price of AIG) has already make a $15 billion profit on the equity stake.

Here is a direct quote from Bill Clinton:

"When they helped AIG, they took an 80-percent ownership share, they loaned the money at a very high interest rate, and they are going to make a profit.â€

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

Of course the they would give it away to banks -- and they want to do it without any oversight. Apparently, they've been planning this for months...

This giveaway is brought to us by the same logic that said "let the free market work it out by itself, without any hindrance or regulation!" If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.


If it is so profitable, why are the banks going out of business?

If the mortgage company robs you, and forces you out of your house, how does that help anybody? Empty houses and unpaid loans hurt everybody.

Re-working the loans back to a place that allows the homeowners to continue to pay the loan -- and prevents them from becoming homeless (rentals are very hard to find in this market), and keeps the home values up to a reasonable level -- helps everyone. This is the only real solution to the crisis.

[xan_user]

I thought me spending my "cake and eat it too" stimulus check was supposed to avert all this?

[m0002a]

Hi,

Of course the they would give it away to banks -- and they want to do it without any oversight. Apparently, they've been planning this for months...

This giveaway is brought to us by the same logic that said "let the free market work it out by itself, without any hindrance or regulation!" If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.


If it is so profitable, why are the banks going out of business?

If the mortgage company robs you, and forces you out of your house, how does that help anybody? Empty houses and unpaid loans hurt everybody.

Re-working the loans back to a place that allows the homeowners to continue to pay the loan -- and prevents them from becoming homeless (rentals are very hard to find in this market), and keeps the home values up to a reasonable level -- helps everyone. This is the only real solution to the crisis.

The vast majority of sub-prime mortgages are being paid on-time. The problem right now is not profitability of the financial institutions, but of problem of “confidence.â€

[m0002a]

I thought me spending my "cake and eat it too" stimulus check was supposed to avert all this?

It did help. But the short sellers and speculators have managed to ruin many good and profitable financial companies (in a similar way that they manipulated the price of oil futures). Short selling has been temporarily suspended on financial stocks, and new permanent short selling rules (like reinstituting the up-tick rule) will be put into place.

BTW, if you look at the foreign media, much the same problem (but to a lesser extent) is going on in Europe right now (especially the UK). It is not limited to the US.

[jaganath]

The $700 Billion is not an expense, but an investment that will likely be profitable for the US government, and will clean out Wall Street and financial firms of those ridiculously high paying jobs.

sorry, you cannot for decades preach the dogma/ideology of free markets and force it onto third world countries who are not ready for it via the World Bank, ADB etc, and then suddenly when it suits you it's OK for the state to make massive loans to the private sector. I dislike libertarians who oppose this bailout, but at least they aren't massive hypocrites.

[m0002a]

The current problems are the result of government involvement in the mortgage process when Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association or FNMA) was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. Then in 1968 (during LBJ’s term with a Democrat controlled Congress) FNMA was converted into a private corporation to remove the activity of Fannie Mae from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget.

Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac) buy loans made by banks and other mortgage lenders and package them into debt instruments that sell as bonds on the secondary markets. So the people at the banks who approved the loans had no real stake in the outcome if the loans defaulted, because the loans were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac right after they were initiated. These “New Dealâ€

[m0002a]

sorry, you cannot for decades preach the dogma/ideology of free markets and force it onto third world countries who are not ready for it via the World Bank, ADB etc, and then suddenly when it suits you it's OK for the state to make massive loans to the private sector. I dislike libertarians who oppose this bailout, but at least they aren't massive hypocrites.

I am not preaching anything. I am just telling you it does no good to cut your nose off to spite your face.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the root of the problem. They are quasi-government agencies created by the US government to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. We never had a free market to begin with, so don't get on your high horse just yet.

The good thing about this is that Wall Street and financial companies are going to rid themselves of many ridiculously high-paying jobs once and for all, while the regular workers in these companies will (mostly) get to keep their jobs. Good riddance in my opinion.

If all these companies went bankrupt, it would hurt the little people much more than the rich ones.

[aristide1]

Sorry for the slip up, hopefully we now return to reality.
If all these companies went bankrupt, it would hurt the little people much more than the rich ones.

Oh look, concern for the little guy. This must be a pattern. Its not like you did that while in reality being pro-corporate. It's a pattern. Yeah right.

...The loan was at very high interest rate and the US government (based on current stock price of AIG) has already make a $15 billion profit on the equity stake.

Here is a direct quote from Bill Clinton:

"When they helped AIG, they took an 80-percent ownership share, they loaned the money at a very high interest rate, and they are going to make a profit.â€

[m0002a]

Oh look, concern for the little guy. This must be a pattern. Its not like you did that while in reality being pro-corporate. It's a pattern. Yeah right.

It comes as no surprise that your world view is one that pits business interests against the interests of citizens. The fact is that the vast majority of people in the US work for private companies. If you don't like that, then there are a few countries still left where all jobs are government jobs.

So according to you the taxpayer is going to pay less. Funny how those in charge missed telling us that. I mean it's so obvious, look at all the excellent investing done over the past half century, why of course this is going to lower our taxes. It's so obvious.

We now return to reality.

Well Bill Clinton told you that the AIG "bailout" will make a profit for the US government.There is no guarantee that the proposed action to buy up troubled loan portfolios will make money, but there is a guarantee that everyone will be a lot worse off in the long run if the US government does not do that. If you haven't heard that, that is not my fault.

Nope. No reality just yet....

Oh yes, right now. Many executives on Wall Street (and at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) have lost their jobs and their fortunes invested in their company stock and options. Many more to follow.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

So, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went along for over 60 years, without too much drama -- and then when usury lending started due to relaxed rules, along with outright fraud, it collapses in 5 or 6 years?

Not very convincing. In fact, it's completely delusional.

And it's hypocritical -- you are blaming government involvement for causing the problem, and now you want the government to step in to solve it?

Did government involvement cause the Enron collapse, or WorldCom's, or Tyco's?

Did government involvement cause melamine contamination? No -- in fact quite the opposite: it is the lack of effective government involvement (looking the other way) that caused both calamities.

[aristide1]

It comes as no surprise that your world view is one that pits business interests against the interests of citizens. The fact is that the vast majority of people in the US work for private companies. If you don't like that, then there are a few countries still left where all jobs are government jobs.

I listed actual events like PCB's in the Hudson, Lake Onondoga, these are more than viewpoints. You talk theory, how things would work if we were all in a vacuum. Here's the proof:

The good thing about this is that Wall Street and financial companies are going to rid themselves of many ridiculously high-paying jobs once and for all,

Really? We will never see the private sector board of directors and big league sales people ever again with ridiculous salaries and bonuses? How do you plan on having this remain fact? Plan on creating laws to limit total compensation? Last I looked these types were just like politicians, determining their own salaries. Sure they will be curtailed initially, but they will return to their old habits the first opportunity they get, much like one party is well on their way to starting a second cold war.

I have no problem with honest well run ethical companies, despite all your propaganda, which without you would have no reason to flap your gums.

Well Bill Clinton told you that the AIG "bailout" will make a profit for the US government.There is no guarantee that the proposed action to buy up troubled loan portfolios will make money, but there is a guarantee that everyone will be a lot worse off in the long run if the US government does not do that. If you haven't heard that, that is not my fault.

Heard it? Yes? From the same people who told me where the WMD's are, the same group who claim to be for human rights and blow off genocide in Sudan. Yeah I heard them talk, I just didn't sheeple myself. At this point we're all going to be worse off either way. You on the other hand are missing some great opportunities over at Faux News.

[m0002a]

Hi,

So, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went along for over 60 years, without too much drama -- and then when usury lending started due to relaxed rules, along with outright fraud, it collapses in 5 or 6 years?

Not very convincing. In fact, it's completely delusional.

And it's hypocritical -- you are blaming government involvement for causing the problem, and now you want the government to step in to solve it?

Did government involvement cause the Enron collapse, or WorldCom's, or Tyco's?

Did government involvement cause melamine contamination? No -- in fact quite the opposite: it is the lack of effective government involvement (looking the other way) that caused both calamities.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased the mortgage loans. They had the right to not purchase them if they felt they were not credit worthy (they establish the guidelines under which loans maybe purchased, and they have never purchased all loans). While real estate prices sky-rocketed, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac assumed that the loans were backed by safe assets, which they could easily sell if the mortgage went into foreclosure. With declining real estate prices that is no longer true, hence the problem.

I don't know what any of this has to do with usury, maybe you can explain that.

If you don't think that the US government should guarantee the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds (issued against mortgage loans), then I am assuming that you don't mind if there is depression (not recession, depression). I know that might help Obama get elected, but it is "over the top" IMO.

The US government has recently taken over control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after it backed their bonds. I think you will notice that liberal Democrats i Congress backed the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by overwhelming numbers, so you may want to rethink your rants.

The mortgage backed bonds issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not only held by banks and insurance companies, but they are widely held by pension funds and individual retirement and investment accounts of ordinary Americans.

BTW:

1. I never suggested that the government should have bailed-out Enron or WorldCom. They deserved to fail and their executives deserved to be in prison (not for the company failing, but for the other crimes they committed). Personally, I would advocate the death penalty for Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom. I would be glad to do the lethal injection on Ebbers if you can arrange that--oh, but wait, liberals don't support the death penalty--never mind. BTW, Ebbers fraudulently and purposefully misstated the financial records of the company by about $11 Billion.

2. Tyco was never in fear of bankruptcy. The former chief executive and the former chief financial officer of Tyco International Ltd. were convicted on charges that they personally benefited $150 million through a racketeering scheme involving stock fraud, unauthorized bonuses and falsified expense accounts. These amounts, while large to you and me, did not jeopardize the overall financial condition of the Tyco.

[m0002a]

Really? We will never see the private sector board of directors and big league sales people ever again with ridiculous salaries and bonuses?

Members of the Board of Directors are almost always paid less than $100,000 per year (unless they are also officers of the company such as the CEO, etc, in which case they have a separate salary for that).

Big league sales people? Sounds like you have some baggage that we will not go into here. Or maybe you are talking about big league ball players? I don't know if you plan on limiting salaries of people in the entertainment business also, but maybe you can explain how that will work.

[aristide1]

Leave it to M0002a to latch onto the least important aspect of any opposing post, while pretending the important points made don't exist.

Will the BOD be giving up their golden parachutes?

[m0002a]

Leave it to M0002a to latch onto the least important aspect of any opposing post, while pretending the important points made don't exist.

Will the BOD be giving up their golden parachutes?

Important points? I don't call mis-information to be important points.

Apparently you know next to nothing about how businesses operate (and you don't comprehend so well when I explain it to you). Members of the BOD get paid a salary of about 50K - 100K per year, with no bonuses and no golden parachute. You must be thinking of the officers of the company, like the CEO, (who may also sit on the BOD).

As far as giving up a golden parachute, you will have to explain in a little more detail what companies you are referring to.

[aristide1]

oh, but wait, liberals don't support the death penalty--

Spoken with your usual level of objectivity.

I did enjoy how your 2 other threads fell on their faces. Unable to find anything positive you justify things with more bad. Lowering Obama to McSame's level doesn't make McSame look any better.

Same faulty nonsense trying to pass as logic. Two wrongs make things acceptable. Must be the new ethics.

[m0002a]

Spoken with your usual level of objectivity.

I did enjoy how your 2 other threads fell on their faces. Unable to find anything positive you justify things with more bad. Lowering Obama to McSame's level doesn't make McSame look any better.

Same faulty nonsense trying to pass as logic. Two wrongs make things acceptable. Must be the new ethics.

Objectivity? What does that have to do with whether liberals support the death penalty? Surely you agree that very few liberals support the death penalty. Maybe you are an exception, but I am not sure you are liberal, more like a Marxist.

When I quoted the New York Times about Biden and CNN about the Bridge to Nowhere, those threads didn't fall on their faces. There is really nothing you can say in response to those articles, and I don’t blame you for pretending the threads don’t exist.

I am not lowering anyone to anything. Just stating the facts.

[aristide1]

Objectivity? What does that have to do with whether liberals support the death penalty?

Man, talk about being manipulative. You claimed you were objective. You should get a TV show of your own, you make O'Reilly and Limbaugh look like rank amateurs.

No wonder we have such great crops in the US, its the over-abundance of natural fertilizer.

more like a Marxist.

Please continue Don Quixote.

I am not lowering anyone to anything. Just stating the facts.

I'm pretty sure everyone here is convinced you're Edward R Murrow reincarnated.

[xan_user]

I was going to fact check this whole thread but I have a life...

Here's what i located with my limited time available in regard to the first questionable statement I found in this tread...

The vast majority of sub-prime mortgages are being paid on-time.

LA times.
"Nationally, 6.35% of all mortgages were considered delinquent in the first quarter, up from 5.82% in the fourth quarter of last year and 4.84% in the first three months of 2007, the association reported."

Mortgage Bankers Association.
"The delinquency rate for mortgage loans on one-to-four-unit residential properties stood at 6.41 percent of all loans outstanding at the end of the second quarter of 2008, up six basis points from the first quarter of 2008, and up 129 basis points from one year ago on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) National Delinquency Survey.

The delinquency rate includes loans that are at least one payment past due but does not include loans somewhere in the process of foreclosure. The percentage of loans in the foreclosure process at the end of the second quarter was 2.75 percent, an increase of 28 basis points from the first quarter of 2008 and 135 basis points from one year ago.

The percentage of loans on which foreclosure actions were started during the second quarter was 1.08 percent, up 7 basis points from last quarter and up 49 basis points from one year ago on a non-seasonally adjusted basis. "

http://www.nabe.com/graphweek/2008/gw080817.html

My counties foreclosure rate change in the last year was up a mere 197.8%

Real rosy picture you "paint" though, keep up with the bailing the ship will never(blub-blub) sink.

Again I wish Bush could serve one more term and go down once and for all with his ship. I know I could live on stick and berries a whole lot longer than most.

As for liberals and the death penalty..sure I believe in it. Just be sure and start at the top 'Cheif' with a guillotine on the white house lawn. The ultimate democratic tool.

Fox would need to be under court order to air it. Just to be fair and balanced, they would have to call it "Mission Accomplished, Finally"

[m0002a]

If 6.35% of mortgages are in default, that means that 93.65% are not in default. 93.65% is the vast majority. That is a high default rate, although not anywhere near enough to bankrupt the companies holding the mortgages, or to cause the mortgage backed bonds issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go into default.

The problem is that there is a panic on Wall Street, and no one wants to buy these loans unless they are guaranteed by the US government. If no one buys the loans, very few new loans will be issued and the economy will go from not-so-good, to a depression. That means that housing prices will sink further, more bankruptcies, more decreases in housing prices, more bankruptcies, etc, etc, spiraling down until there is a depression.

Not to mention that anyone who has anything to do with real estate, housing construction, appliances, furniture, building materials, etc will be unemployed. Eventually the majority of people in every profession will be unemployed if there is no bailout. I am sure that pleases some on the left so they can say “it’s the economy stupidâ€

[m0002a]

Man, talk about being manipulative. You claimed you were objective. You should get a TV show of your own, you make O'Reilly and Limbaugh look like rank amateurs.

No wonder we have such great crops in the US, its the over-abundance of natural fertilizer.

I never claimed to be "objective" in matters of political opinion. I don't know if that is possible.

But I do try to stick to the facts (which seems to be unpopular these days). As Adam is bound to perspire I am only human, and I may occasionally fail in that regard, so I will ask for your forgiveness for my errors (but not until you point out exactly where I was factually incorrect).

I do agree about the fertilizer, but of course we probably disagree about the source.

[jhhoffma]

In my opinion, and it's just that, this whole mortgage crisis began when the bank began offering these "Starter Loans" also know as the DEMONS IN ARMs.

They allowed people with lower incomes to buy a house that they previously couldn't afford. As a result, there was a huge rush of available home buyers (increased demand) and the value of housing increased dramatically as a result (too high, in actuality). Now when the banks start taking hits on these forclosed homes, due to buyers inability to either pay the increased ARM or refinance the home because it's not worth what they paid, markets are panicking. This sends property values back down where the should have been in the first place. Except now new buyers are upside-down in their mortgages with no way to recoup that loss, with the added difficulty of trying to refinance without the benefit of banks handing out crappy loans.

For sure, this is hard on a lot of people, but the real estate bubble needs to be popped. I'm no economist, but it makes sense for a government to protect an industry as a whole if it serves to strengthen the nation, but not individual companies. The weak must be sacrificed to better serve the industry and the nation as a whole.

As for the bailout, I'd rather see the money go into financial education of the general public, so people can be more aware/conscientious of the significance of these types of dealings. Just because a bank is willing to lend you a certain amount of money to buy a house, doesn't mean you can afford it...

[disphenoidal]

Things I'm tired of hearing:

1. Partisan bickering. Can we please redirect our energy away from hating whatever party we don't belong to, and take a moment to calmly evaluate each party's stance? Whether or not an idea is morally reprehensible to you--e.g., the death penalty--you should be able to recognize why an individual would subscribe to it, and understand that calling them stupid, a fascist, a communist, or any other jibe won't alter their opinion. We would get much more accomplished if our discourse didn't constantly devolve to pundit shouting matches.

2. $700,000,000,000 bail-out / 305,000,000 Americans = I lost $2295!
The primary funding for the bail-out will be the sale of treasury bills. You will not recieve a bill for your 2 grand. For the last few days, at least, investors have shown no hesitation to buy treasury bills, evidenced by the yield dipping to 0 briefly. A volatile stock market drives investors to buy these bills, even if returns are minimal. I would expect some inflation to result from this influx of cash, but the dollar has proven to be fairly resilient in the face of inflation. Of course inflation drives up the prices of commodities, oil and corn being hot buttons, lately. However, speculation also played a role--in my opinion the primary role--in spiking commodity prices. Having just escaped one commodity bubble, I would not expect another to form immediately.

3. We need oversight against the financial industry! Oversight may be part of the solution, but it is not the only one. Consider the Fed rate cutes that made adjustable rate mortgages so attractive in the first place. Certainly the ban on certain types of short-selling will help, as would outlawing certain financial instruments, such as the interest only loan. The true solutions to our problems will require much more time and effort to implement. I would like to see our economy become less dependent on consumer spending made possible through personal debt. Reforming credit card laws, reducing trade deficits, and improved education are all avenues to accomplish this.

Discuss.