What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
95 Comments
- upick, on 03/19/2009, -0/+36Who's going to bail out America when they run out of money?
- sockpuppets, on 03/20/2009, -0/+20We'll just print more.
- BlackOculus, on 03/20/2009, -1/+20These bad egg companies need to fail. There will be more to take their place. Always has. Always will. I like to compare bailouts to passing kids who fail classes.
Failing kids for bad grades is a necessity to the academic development of these kids. If you pass them they have no incentive to learn from their mistakes. Same can be said for all of these companies.
If you give them bailouts you not only stand in the way of progress for potential companies that would seize the opportunity to take the place of that failing company. You prevent these failing companies from learning from their mistakes. - shauncorleone, on 03/20/2009, -2/+16So after all this money that we the taxpayers have "invested" into failed businesses with faulty business models, banks still are not lending and are only really taking care of their own top level employees? Rebuilding the economy from the ground up doesn't seem like such a bad option.
- GrooTheWanderer, on 03/20/2009, -5/+19How about bail out the company but don't allow the executives who ran it into the ground to keep their jobs?
- BuzzFriendly, on 03/20/2009, -1/+14Let the market handle itself. All of the companies getting bailout money have customers and if the they go under the customers will go elsewhere. Perhaps to companies that are more capable of managing their money and as those companies grow they hire. I don't see how people rationalize that borrowing huge amounts of money to bailout companies that are unable to properly manage their money is a sound solution to this problem.
- bradleyland, on 03/20/2009, -0/+13We use debt based money. We've been "out of money" from day one.
- edstate, on 03/20/2009, -1/+12All they had to do was amend Mark-to-Market last spring, and most of these banks would've ended up losing 20-40% on the bad securities. A hit, sure. But that's what happens when you make stupid business decisions.
Instead, they let the heavy-handed post-Enron M2M rules declare that the assets were worth "???" which means zero, essentially. And so they were "too big to fail" and were given billions and billions of tax payer money. Plus, the fed just bought all the "worst" mortgage assets.
Biggest heist in history. - NJank, on 03/20/2009, -1/+12"too big to fail"
It's like an SAT analogy test:
GM : US economy :: US economy : world economy
Oh, the answer is China. Or at least it has been for quite some time. US was worried about what AIG was doing with its money, China was worried about what the Fed was doing with their money. See? - Berkana, on 03/20/2009, -1/+12Right now, what we're doing is akin to a very drunk man in an expensive suit deliberating whether it is better to puke up your expensive dinner and face the consequences, or to hold it down and face the consequences.
- greevar, on 03/20/2009, -1/+12I say let them twist in the wind. They screwed up, so they need to deal with the consequences. "Too big to fail" is a lie and they know it. This recession was a long time coming and it's time for some changes. Privatized banks were a foolish idea and this just goes to prove it. They have the fate of our economy in their hands and they twisted it around like a kitten playing with a ball of yarn. The whole damn loan system is nothing but a covert system of slavery. You take out a loan for a house and they own your ass until it's paid off. But you can't pay it off. Because you have a 30 year mortgage and you pay interest on it. You're stuck paying that damn loan off the test of your life. If you do manage to pay it off, you end up paying roughly 3 times what they originally loaned to you. Meanwhile, the value of your house is dropping like a rock.
Now, the house of cards has fallen apart and the government is bailing them out. They pay their execs huge bonuses for ***** UP OUR ECONOMY! They need to be left to die or we will be going through this time after time, again and again.
P.S. I hate this ***** text box! It keeps bouncing up and down while I'm trying to type!!!! Just make it a damn scroll box!!! - skztr, on 03/20/2009, -1/+12No bailouts would mean that failing businesses would fail. This is a good thing.
- boynamedsue09, on 03/20/2009, -1/+12I heard you like bailouts, so I'm bailing out your bailout so you can bailout while you bailout.
- Berkana, on 03/20/2009, -0/+10Reported as spam.
- nmessick, on 03/20/2009, -2/+12I used to watch MSNBC from time to time, but I'm done. They've really become nothing but cheerleaders for the government and seem totally detached from the fact that this is just pissing people off.
- inactive, on 03/20/2009, -0/+8Hey, wait, I'm not pissed that American International Group paid out millions of dollars in executive bonuses, I'm pissed that the U.S. Gov't/Obama Inc. gave away billions of tax payer dollars to cover billions in bad loans and over-hyped equity in the form of a new tyrannical unconstitutional concepts called "bailouts" or "stimulus packages" in the FIRST PLACE!
This is the Savings and Loan scandal multiplied by billions...
over in flated, over hyped, vapor equity
When is it time to storm Capital hill and drag these traitors into the street? - roddack, on 03/20/2009, -1/+9Let the market do its job and clean house. Trying to keep sinking ships afloat by throwing out buckets of water is a temporary solution at the most. The fact that the damn boom and bust cycle is a by product of our current monetary system should be a signal that we need to chain something. But we won't because we live in this illusion that savings is bad and consumption is the only way to economic prosperity. Friedman ripped Keynesian a new ass hole and showed what causes our current boom bust cycle but Washington prefers to go with the ostrich strategy of if I don't look at the elephant in the room then it doesn't exist!
- tomasII, on 03/20/2009, -0/+7Great idea, we also need to fire the members of congress who, despite running america into bankruptcy gave themselves a big fat raise. Can anyone see the irony here?
- Charlotte_Web, on 03/20/2009, -0/+7The article presumes an absolute worst-case scenario. It also presumes that the government would just stand to the sideline and watch everything melt down.
If these companies are "too big to fail," then why are we continuing to prop them up at their present size? Sure, AIG hasn't failed yet, but everyone knows what's going on, and it's destroyed confidence in the company.
And yet, for all the money we've spent, bankruptcy is STILL a very real possibility. - brettg102, on 03/20/2009, -0/+7Congress is completely incompetant. The law they are trying to pass to get back the ill-gotten bonuses is inherently unconstitutional and will be struck down quickly (ex-post-facto, Bills of Attainder). The fact that no-one (NO ONE, NOT REPUBS OR DEMS) noticed this ***** is disgusting to me. Chris Dodd should be drug in the streets and shot. Vote everyone out next cycle and replace them with someone accountable who answers to his/her constituents.
- chadsmith729, on 03/20/2009, -0/+6Is it just me or my small town mentality but when a business is verging on bankruptcy doesn't that mean that they will sell what they own? If they own people's mortgages doesn't that mean they will sell them? If they sell them then other banks can buy them and possibly give them a better rate. Which leads me to ask, why was it a good idea for our government to give billions of dollars so the same failed practices could continue? Same goes for you auto industry. Wake the ***** up and realize having 400 cars on a lot is NOT a good plan to sell cars. Wait, is that basic Economics? Oh right, yeah it is. That's why politicians are NOT economists.
- legolas68, on 03/20/2009, -0/+6And... just how long do think it's going to take America to pay for all this money flung into the bailouts? It's not like we had a rainy day fund for this. We borrowed ours, our children's, and their children's money for Heaven sake. I'd rather have a few decades of difficulty rather than a few generations.
- Solis, on 03/20/2009, -0/+6We need that economic breakdown. People like you are just too scared to accept it.
- Stingwolf, on 03/20/2009, -0/+5I contend that we don't need -these- companies at all. We may need their services, but those can be provided by others. We should've let the giants fail and allowed new, more efficient startups to take over. Free markets are amazingly adaptive. Government controlled/propped-up ones, not so much.
We've basically set the precedent that bad business practices are fine once you get big enough. - Memitim, on 03/20/2009, -0/+5Oh, c'mon. Surely you're not blaming Hank are you? Why would a guy who spent the bubble years as president of Goldman Sachs after another 25 years of loyal service to them only to walk away with $700 million tax free possibly screw the American people in favor of the banks? Before that, he spent the Watergate years as the assistant to Nixon's counsel John Ehrlichman, who was convicted of crimes committed in connection with the Watergate scandal. Henry is obviously a man of honor.
- ByteMeAHole, on 03/20/2009, -0/+5Haven't heard anything about the Fannie May, and Freddie Mac heads getting millions in bonuses... And THEY are on the government payroll - of course, they are also friends with Pelosi and that camp so I don't expect to see anything about that... Instead they are playing the typical move of sleight-of-hand, drawing attention away from that to other things... And trying to do it via an Unconstitutional Act of Congress - they should all be shot...
- MisterFizzle, on 03/20/2009, -0/+5Bailouts are a joke. You just do not give cash to failing businesses. You can assist their customers. The government needs to fix the interest of the foreclosure mortgages, of the customers with the means to pay the mortgage, to something reasonable like 6%. The government can also offer a program similar to the first time home buyers tax refund / 0% loan program. If the banks and insurrance companies still needed money, let them go bankrupt.
The auto bailout? Give incentive to tax payers to buy cars. We are giving the auto manufactures more money to keep them in business, even though nobody is buying their current car stock. So are they now suppose to make more cars, which they can not sell? How is that going to keep them a float?
By giving tax payers incentive to buy cars they still get their money, and tax payers get new cars. They should have offered tax payers in the bottom 75% be eligible for tax refund / 0% loan program for a new car, and/or an additional no payback percentage refund for a new car. I know some people would probably have taken up the offer. Win win for the consumer and car manufactures. - ZZardozZ, on 03/20/2009, -1/+5Let them go bankrupt.
US Government buys them for pennies on the dollar with tax payer money then sells them to more responsible people for a profit or breaks them into chunks and sells those chunks for profit (which has the double effect of starting to break up the monopolies Ronald Satan allowed to start forming again despite what we learned from the last depression).
Government gives profit back to taxpayers.
The American people win.
Why are we giving money to people with demonstrated incompetence? Isn't that another subprime loan? - Asheis, on 03/20/2009, -0/+4I dont see the bailouts solving anything, just throwing money at people who are proven to be fiscally irresponsible is supposed to work? yeah, that makes a truckload of sense. If they're failing let them fail.
- Memitim, on 03/20/2009, -0/+4A better solution would be controlled failure. Let them go into Chapter 11 and then the government can step in to help manage the parting out and selling of the failed companies. There are plenty of smaller financial firms that have conducted business in a smart, rational manner while these pigs were feeding at the bubble trough. I'm sure that the viable institutions will be more than happy to take on the expansion to their businesses at a discount. All of the pieces that are worth saving get absorbed into other institutions and the remaining piece of crap is then much more easily analyzed and dissected without having to worry about the good stuff. Seems to have been working out for Lehman so far; go check out http://www.lehman.com/ to see how that heap got divided up.
- yoyar, on 03/20/2009, -0/+4Bailouts == Politicians get to give lots of money to their friends.
Anyone who does a modicum of investigation will find out that infusing the economy with fake money will only prolong the problem that has been building up for years. "Saving" companies that have no value will only make the depression in the USA worse, not better.
The article is so biased and uninformed that it makes me sick. - rrife, on 03/20/2009, -4/+7Had they not bailed out AIG, then AIG would have filed for Chapter 11 and would still be around today doing business as usual. However, the 100's, if not 1000's, of banks they insured would have collapsed or be near collapse....which would have led to 1000's, maybe 100,000's, of companies and individuals all around the world who rely on those banks for credit to be on the edge of collapse.
- tmbrown, on 03/20/2009, -0/+3Ron Paul and Peter Schiff noticed a looooong time ago. People ignored them like they still do because the truth hurts.
- LokitheComplex, on 03/20/2009, -0/+2It would have been nice to let these companies fail. But it would have guaranteed a depression. The global economy would have crashed.
Perhaps companies need to be regulated not to become that big. - Risingashes, on 03/20/2009, -1/+3Of course in Japan they chose the spending route only to be stuck in a similar decade long slump.
The key in nearly all situations is to get the banks to start lending again. But private banks will only lend once they can be assured the worst of it is over, meaning the worst will never be over if left to the banks.
Instead of spending a trillion dollars on roads that aren't due to be upgraded and schools that are somewhat outdated you'd be far better off simply setting up a nationalised bank and lending all that money out to viable businesses. Once the credit shortage is somewhat resolved the private banks will come to the party on their own and you can scale back the nationalised loans. - Annihilia, on 03/20/2009, -0/+2No, these companies got to be where they are due to the excessive number of regulations (often introduced by their own lobbyists) that stifle competition and encourage consolidation. The government should have nothing to do with the economy for this very reason.
The economy is an evolutionary ecosystem. If you just let it work, companies will grow and die based upon consumer confidence alone. The government is akin to human activity that throws the natural equilibrium out of whack. - chadsmith729, on 03/20/2009, -0/+2China. There I said it. Then they will start to take over our country and we wouldn't fight them because they bought us out.
- sphigel, on 03/20/2009, -0/+2No, actually he just explained it in such simple terms and so accurately that it is impossible to argue against him.
- fatfreddyscat, on 03/20/2009, -3/+5But would no bailout be even worse?
Can it get worse? Are they making anything better? - Nerys, on 03/20/2009, -0/+2No firing them would do nothing. Your still sending the message RAPE US and we will just send you home.
CONFISCATE there finances RETURN it to the people and PUT THEM IN PRISON.
that's the message you need to send. NO you will not get to keep the rewards of your crime and your GOING to spend significant time in a prison cell.
THAT is how you stop this kind of stuff.
Slap them on the wrist and in there other hand they will have there wad of cash and be laughing as they get sent home. - WHauser, on 03/20/2009, -0/+2Can we bail out of the bailouts?
"Yes We Can"
Sidebar: Digg, why the ***** don't we have a damn scroll bar on this jumpy text box? - inactive, on 03/20/2009, -0/+2"What if we let companies that are 'too big to fail' do just that?"
Then we'll have free market capitalism.
LETS DO IT!!! - tomasII, on 03/20/2009, -1/+3You'll have to stop watching NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC and stop reading most major newspapers.
- yoyar, on 03/20/2009, -0/+2Right, except that you don't need the government at all. The market will purchase assets left over that have value and the rest will be discarded. The assets will then be used by productive individuals to create wealth. Government is not needed nor should it be desired. The market would take care of all of it if the government would get the f*&^k out of the way.
- Nerys, on 03/20/2009, -0/+2Maybe they should not be relying on credit so much?
ever think of that? - diguptruth77, on 03/20/2009, -0/+1This US gov is like your drunk uncle, who's already into the loansharks for 5 large, and now he's stealing money from your Mom to put it all on the ponies...he's got 10-1 on Bailout Bill...Bailout Bill rounding the last turn...into the final stretch...OOH Bailout Bill stumbles and goes down!!! Oh the humanity!
Your Mom = future generations' security - inactive, on 03/20/2009, -0/+1A) China does not allow currency speculation. This would ***** up their controlled exchange rates.
B) Silver & Gold prices are especially high due to the flight to safety caused by economic uncertainty
C) Australia isn't exactly immune from the current economic crisis. - voiceofid, on 03/20/2009, -0/+1I always thought that the anti-trust committee was suppose to prevent companies from growing this big that it affects the global economy. as for keeping aig alive, we live in what's supposedly capitalism, those who operates smartly survives, those who fails will be replaced by others. a dead tree will be replaced by seedlings growing within its body. like life itself, all things must come to an end. putting something on life support only prolongs the inevitable!
- BuzzFriendly, on 03/21/2009, -0/+1You would appear slightly more credible if you could point out exactly why the allowing the markets to handle themselves will not work.
- Nerys, on 03/20/2009, -0/+1"But it would have guaranteed a depression. The global economy would have crashed."
So what? Seriously SO WHAT?
We already have a depression. WE ALREADY have a crashing global economy.
Do you know what I see? I see little kids throwing temper tantrums saying GIVE ME MY FRAKING BAIL OUT or else we will crash your market.
What happens when you GIVE IN to this kind of situation?
You get EXACTLY what we have now.
It worked once so lets do it again.
ANOTHER TAMTRUM more bailouts more bonuses.
Can you say DUH ?
Washington Ignoring the elephant in the room? your kidding right?
Washington BOUGHT TRAINED AND PAID FOR the elephant to be put in the room and IGNORE IT so "WE" can pretend its not there.
They know its there they PUT it there. The trick is to get US to pretend not to see it. -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is