What is Digg?164 Comments
- thecoolestguy, on 04/29/2008, -3/+69There is so much room for insiders to use the Fed's incredible powers for corrupt ends, and there is so little independent oversight.
- inactive, on 04/29/2008, -4/+66Privatize the assets, socialize the losses = Market Marxism.
- UtahApocalyse, on 04/29/2008, -3/+48They decided to save the banker, not the bank customer
- loggia, on 04/29/2008, -2/+37I just can't figure out how people are so easily fooled into thinking we'll get the $29 billion back. Or that it isn't a bailout.
- inactive, on 04/29/2008, -7/+36The FEDs are Worst Deal in a Generation, and Horrific Mistake. The FEDs print money out of thin air, backed by nothing, and the United States Government pays interest on it. When are ignorant Americans ever going to get a clue?
Ron Paul is the only person that had the guts to say Americans need to get rid of the FED. - thecatcantalk, on 04/29/2008, -1/+27Gore Vidal said it best: "We have socialism for the rich, and free enterprise for the poor." If your family-owned restaurant or landscaping business or hardware store goes belly-up, it's too bad, so sad. But if Chrysler loses all its customers and goes bankrupt as a result of having built ***** cars for twenty years, well, then every taxpayer in America needs to pony up so that the idiots who bought Chrysler shares needn't suffer the consequences of their stupidity.
When did we make it national policy to reward people for being immoral and stupid? - Bagos1, on 04/29/2008, -2/+25You are an idiot....there is no money to back up the rest of the failures. This was a favor by somebody, not an end to a trend.
- louiebaur, on 04/29/2008, -6/+29I agree His appraisal is one of the harshest yet by a high-profile observer.
- thecoolestguy, on 04/29/2008, -2/+22An action should NOT have been taken. It sends the wrong message to the banking industry, that if they take huge financial risks, and ***** up, the fall will be subsidized by the tax payer. It encourages irresponsible high risk/high leverage banking (which greatly profited Wall Street in the last 5 years before the sub-prime meltdown).
- inactive, on 04/29/2008, -4/+21The worst mistake in a generation was allowing the Fed to unConsitutionally take over the monetary supply of this country.
- unkle, on 04/29/2008, -0/+16Bear Stearns buyout is a perfect example of the Too Big To Fail Policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail - noahhoward, on 04/29/2008, -0/+15That's just it though, artificial stability is not stability, that is what we are seeing now.
- UtahApocalyse, on 04/29/2008, -0/+13If a company is failing, and about to crash its a good sign they are not doing a good business. The action taken has only delayed the inevitable. The problem now is rather then falling alone, its now going to take tax payers with them along for the ride down.
- Flamancot, on 04/29/2008, -4/+15lol, for the life of me I was trying to figure out why Fed-Ex would have such a strong opinion on this matter... but.. ex-fed makes a bit more sense.
- pianomahnn, on 04/29/2008, -3/+13And you also voted for Bush. Twice.
- PeppermintPig, on 04/29/2008, -0/+9JPMorgan certainly didn't see this as a bad idea. LOLZ @ "Legal" insider trading.
"And if its the worst mistake of a generation (30 years or so) by the Fed. that's not too bad. Other central banks around the world F-up far more frequently."
Not so bad? The value of the dollar has been DECIMATED. These are not responsible or trustworthy individuals. They're not there to make fair and altruistic adjustments to balance the economy out. Why continue to support these *****? - sooska, on 04/29/2008, -1/+9Am I the only one who read this as Fed-Ex official?
- inactive, on 04/29/2008, -2/+9they should create an economist legislature instead of the Fed. A few hundred economists could meet in a big room, and they would be able to override the decisions of the fed chairman. they could make it more democratic while still retaining an academic, nonpartisan feel.
- zunipus, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7What we have here is CORPORATE WELFARE. This of course is what one would expect from lunatic politicians who consider corporations to be 'persons' deserving more government support than actual citizens. By all means starve the poor with ever decreasing social services. But preserve lame and dying corporations to the detriment of our monetary systems. That makes sense, to an idiot. :-P
- regeya, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7Do yourself a favor and look up how many DEPRESSION-LEVEL EVENTS we had during the Gilded Age.
- daveyeti, on 04/29/2008, -3/+10Threat Down!
Number 1 threat to America:
BEARS - kaelyiesta, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6Whatever economic/political name its called, it is ***** up. I'm sure we can all agree on that.
- MaynardJK, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6Most of the diggers I've seen are pissed about the bailout. I say ***** the banks and ***** the people that lost their houses because they were stupid.
- Qumahlin, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5"And because of this, the chances of anything like this happening again with new regulation are slim to none" oh what a mystical fantasy world you must live in.,,,
- inactive, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5Both scenarios reward fools for taking huge risks they couldn't possibly afford to keep afloat. Both scenarios also demand that our own money goes to help them out. I don't know about the rest of the people here, but rewarding individuals OR big business for huge mistakes or using tax dollars to soften the blow is not a solution and teaches both parties nothing. It SHOULD inspire indignation.
It's like having an idiot brother-in-law that consistently makes poor investments, gets screwed over and over, yet your wife and you keep bailing him out. - whytlessphysh, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5Bear Stearns should have been allowed to fail. The result would have been almost identical to the situation which ultimately transpired without expense of billions of taxpayer dollars. Other financial institutions, Morgan-Chase, Citibank, etc., would have stepped in to pick over the corpse which still had a great deal of sound capital investment available at fire sale prices. The Fed's bailout was predicated on the "too big to fail" premise which has more to do with market psychology than sound fiscal policy.
While a bad monetary move, the bailout did bring to light an important policy shift that has been occurring over the last three decades. The Fed, with hearty approval of financial institutions, has been systematically moving the US towards a finance-based economy while ignoring the industrial and manufacturing sectors. These measures have socialized financial risk by assuring that, no matter their level of poor judgment, investors will be compensated by the federal government. The hypocrisy demonstrated herein is staggering. The same actors involved with this little morality play decry the expense of socialized health care, energy policy and public welfare while not only condoning the socialization of risk but actively seeking such. The unmitigated greed displayed by the BS bailout is truly incomprehensible. - liuite, on 04/29/2008, -1/+6during Jimmy Carter administration, family farms went bankrupt in large number due to falling grain prices (soviet grain embargo) and rising interest rate. it was government policy that led to their demise yet the government did not intervene to prevent the foreclosures....but I guess Bear Stearns has some politicians in their pocket just like Enron did.
- portwojc, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5Master of the obvious. At least someone in those circles is saying it. It sounds like everyone else is hands off let the Fed do it. The only reason for that of course is the Fed is crying chicken little about the economy if Bear Stearns goes under. No one wants to be a thorn in the side and have that happen as a result IF they are right.
- aspec, on 04/29/2008, -2/+7So you did vote for Bush? Twice?
- inactive, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5The US Government has a long history of bailing out failing companies that it deems valuable. Take a look at the airline industry over the last 25 years as a great example.
- laserblazer, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5Bush stole money from America - again.
- PeppermintPig, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4This is a free enterprise economy? Dream on.
- Bagos1, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4And has that happened...because for sure Bear Stearns is not alone. This is the problem now. Now we have a close down of credit, something Bernake most fears. His policy is one of continued borrowing at all costs to stimulate spending. We are getting into a deeper "depression" as commodity prices make it harder to use expendable income.
- netant, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4When we voted for it. If you don't like it, vote out the incumbents. Eventually, the politicians either get the message, or they are out of a job.
- thecoolestguy, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4As Ron Paul said, most government welfare goes to the rich. The welfare for the poor is just the circus bread cumbs the elite use to buy votes and get elected.
- wracker92, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Federal Reserve executive: "I just saved a ton of money by switching over to Geico, and best of all, it was non-gold backed worthless paper money that I had printed this morning!"
- mirunit, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4It is a bad precedent, but what exactly is the fed to do? Let banks collapse, mass job loses and have credit dissapear? Some of this would reset reality (which would be nice) - however in the process it would create a rich/poor disparity like the US has never seen while trashing the economy to the point it would take multiple decades to repair. I assume some of you already believe the latter is in affect at this very point in time, if that is true - you have absolutly no idea.
- PeppermintPig, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4As funny as that might be, it really doesn't make a lick of sense when scrutinizing the scenario. Understanding economics is about appreciating how force works against the market, relying on principles which identify behaviors that can lead to greater prosperity. Economics !=Financing knowledge
In the practical application of that saying, it's more like stringing a bunch of profiteering investors together to make wild speculations about the market, and of course they can't agree.
Furthermore, the federal reserve would be constantly manipulating the market, so those predictions wouldn't be very reliable. - mustafya, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5That unfortunately wouldn't work. As a holder of a degree in economics I fully agree with the saying "You can string all the economists in the world end to end and they still wouldn't come to a conclusion."
- thecoolestguy, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5This article sums up the situation perfectly:
http://tinyurl.com/445ptt
Survival of the Richest
Most of us are aware of the sacrificial slaughter of Bear Sterns. Some people call it a bailout, but I call it a handout -- a government handout to some of the richest people on Earth, paid for by American taxpayers.
It's the survival of the richest, and the poorest be damned. There's something dismal about a society that operates by those values. - Haxnn, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Perhaps they're not fools - they simply understood that the government would provide a huge safety net underneath them. If you know that other people will pay for a soft landing if things go bad, then you're a fool if you don't increase your risk.
- laserblazer, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Absolutely. The War of 1812 and the Civil War were just opportunities for the proto-NWO to inject gold and spies into America. Look at the vast amount of our natural resources, including gold after Nixon took us off the Gold Standard, that poured east afterwards.
- thecoolestguy, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Both scenarios damn innocent people for the mistakes of irresponsible people who take financial risks. Shame on socialists for justifying either program.
- dpazar2, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4I tried saying this earlier, but everyone is soo damn ignorant on this site, they wont hear it...get ready to be dugg down.
- StopTheLie, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3See also "The Bailout." It's one of the reasons why the "Federal" (not federal) "Reserve" (no reserves) "System" (more of a cartel) was created.
http://joeplummer.com/chapter_3_the_bailout.html - inactive, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Whens his book coming out?
- calipan, on 04/29/2008, -2/+5And replace it with what? Price fixing to commodities which I assume you are suggesting with your Ron Paul support leaves the US more vulnerable to foreign manipulation. Any country that doesn't fix their prices could flood the market or horde what we fix prices to and we can't counter the action. If everyone runs fiat currencies you can counter their flooding of currency into the market with your own flooding. Its called competitive devaluation and keeps the global economy more stable than before.
- Olfster, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4Really sums up the last 40 years.
- thecoolestguy, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3netant, the tax payer is subsidizing it, through the inflation tax. The fed buys sub-prime mortgage backed securities from troubled banks with money that it prints. Printing new money devalues the currency that every American has in their pocket.
- thecoolestguy, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3In the short term yes, in the long term no. This action, and actions like it, have serious long term repercussions. Banking firms have to know that if they financial risks, the tax payer will not be subsidizing their losses.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is