|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:38 am Post subject: Half of American GDP to financial sector |
|
|
Quote: |
Fed Pledges Top $7.4 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit
By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry
Enlarge Image/Details
Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government is prepared to lend more than $7.4 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers, or half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, to rescue the financial system since the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.
The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $2.8 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the only plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department�s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis.
When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in.
�Whether it�s lending or spending, it�s tax dollars that are going out the window and we end up holding collateral we don�t know anything about,� said Congressman Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. �The time has come that we consider what sort of limitations we should be placing on the Fed so that authority returns to elected officials as opposed to appointed ones.� |
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk&refer=home
And we're just getting started. Credit cards, auto loans and others - all of which have been securitized - are set to explode in the new year. This is lunacy. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Join Me

Joined: 14 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe it is time for those of us who are Americans to change our lifestyles. What other country in the world would let you buy a home with a few thousand down and anything else you want with 100% financing and no cash up front. We got ourselves into this mess...now it is time to pay up. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
An adjustment will happen. It is not possible to prevent. But the government is trying to keep the party going and sustain the late 90's model when it has clearly failed.
Citi has 300k employees. That is too many, obviously. Going forward the financial sector will be much smaller (80% smaller +/-). Most people in the FIRE economy will need to retrain and find productive employment. The government ought to focus on that and not keeping insolvent firms from failing. Every cent thrown at these banks (and Bank of America is, if not next, then certainly in line) is wasted.
* $2.4 trillion in commercial paper purchases by the Fed.
* $2 trillion in other loans and pledges from the Fed.
* $1.4 trillion in rescue committments, including higher deposits insurance. Bloomberg explains: "The FDIC, chaired by Sheila Bair, is contributing 20 percent of total rescue commitments. The FDIC's $1.4 trillion in guarantees will amount to a bank subsidy of as much as $54 billion over three years, or $18 billion a year, because borrowers will pay a lower interest rate than they would on the open market, according to Raghu Sundurum and Viral Acharya of New York University and the London Business School."
* $892 billion for the Treasury's TARP and other Hank Paulson rescues.
* $300 billion from FHA to guarantee mortgages through the Hope for Homeowners program, designed to keep distressed borrowers from foreclosure.
* $444 billion bailout bucks for Sheila Bair's mortgage program. Bloomberg: "Not included in the calculation of pledged funds is an FDIC proposal to prevent foreclosures by guaranteeing modifications on $444 billion in mortgages at an expected cost of $24.4 billion to be paid from the TARP, according to FDIC spokesman David Barr. The Treasury Department hasn't approved the program."
http://clusterstock.alleyinsider.com/2008/11/our-7-4-trillion-bailout |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is really spiraling out of (even apparently the Fed's) control.
I have for some time been aware, in a general sense, that the US was in line for an eventual major economic shakeup (taxpayer shakedown?) Still, I never would have expected things to unravel as quickly as this.
We are also faced with a situation where Bush and Co. has zero clout (and offers nothing but stop-gap measures such as throwing more money at the problems) and Obama's people are not yet vested with the power to step in to take the reins (remains to be seen how effective they will be once there).
As McCain might say, 'My friends, these are difficult times.' |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
All US Financials Will be Nationalized in a Year: Manager
It's not preferable, but all major U.S. financial companies will eventually be under government control because the alternative is so much worse, Hugh Hendry, chief investment officer at hedge fund Eclectica Asset Management, said Friday.
"All financials will be owned by the U.S. government in a year," Hendry said. "I bet you."
Nationalizations take dramatic losses from the private sector and places them on the larger balance sheet of the public sector, he said.
"It's not good," but society is vulnerable and society is going to have to intervene, Hendry said.
Shareholders Should Get Nothing
Because the taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for bailout out the banks, shareholders shouldn't be compensated, Hendry added.
"Actually the shareholders of Citigroup have looked the other way for more than a decade" while management took excessive risk, he said.
Shareholders should take nothing away if it is nationalized, because the taxpayer will be "paying this for a long, long time," he added.
|
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27835645
That would be a pretty large change in American political economy. Even a few months ago such a claim would have been easily tossed aside as nonsense. But now.. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, mises. It's time to be honest. Just how much of this grim economic news do you believe? I mean 'really believe'? Yes, I know you read right-wing economists. And yes, I remember that you said '80 %' of economics is ideology.
I know you have said you think it's best to let the banks etc go bankrupt as that is the quick way to rip the band aid off. But something tells me (mostly Paul Krugman) that you are just 'hoping for the worst' so as to justify your ideological view.
Something tells me that 75 years from now your grand kids and my great-grand kids will be arguing that Obama should have/shouldn't have done whatever...much like Kuros says that FDR screwed up the New Deal while ignoring what could have happened if he hadn't done the New Deal.
I think what I'm saying is this: The views that were obsolete in 1932 are even more obsolete 75 years on in 2008 but they sound good to the people who live in an ideological paradise of a world that never existed outside of a text book. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
OK, mises. It's time to be honest. Just how much of this grim economic news do you believe? I mean 'really believe'? Yes, I know you read right-wing economists. And yes, I remember that you said '80 %' of economics is ideology.
|
Frankly, I don't know. I have lost almost all faith in economics of late, it is true. But I certainly don't read 'right wing' economists exclusively or even mostly anymore. Though it is true I mostly agree with the Austrian School in their analysis of banking/finance etc. But in regards to the post above your post, I think it is possible that the government will feel itself forced to nationalize most of the financial system.
Quote: |
Something tells me that 75 years from now your grand kids and my great-grand kids will be arguing that Obama should have/shouldn't have done whatever...much like Kuros says that FDR screwed up the New Deal while ignoring what could have happened if he hadn't done the New Deal. |
Yeah, that is about the only thing we can say for sure.
Quote: |
I think what I'm saying is this: The views that were obsolete in 1932 are even more obsolete 75 years on in 2008 but they sound good to the people who live in an ideological paradise of a world that never existed outside of a text book. |
Probably right as well.
This crises is getting worse by the day. The banking system and her offspring (finance, insurance and real estate) is too large (20% GDP) and will cause crises after crises as it shrinks. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Frankly, I don't know. I have lost almost all faith in economics of late, it is true. |
You were not supposed to say that.
You were supposed to say something.....about how if I ended up living in a cardboard box under a bridge in the winter in Iowa at -20 degrees F it would be for the betterment of humanity. (Many many years ago I told my high school students that 'your' generation of Americans would have wheelchair races to the extermination centers with me and their grandparents so they could save 50 cents. It's looking more and more like I was a prophet.) [I'm 59.]
I have absolutely no basis for saying this (and I'm probably just expressing a wishful hope) but I don't think things are quite as bad as you have been posting. Something tells me that things will work out better than you are predicting...probably about 1 month and 2 days after I freeze to death under my bridge. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I have absolutely no basis for saying this (and I'm probably just expressing a wishful hope) but I don't think things are quite as bad as you have been posting. Something tells me that things will work out better than you are predicting |
I'm not predicting anything more than a very severe recession. I think the 'prediction' part is dead and we are now in a severe recession. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-Ta Boy wrote: |
I think what I'm saying is this: The views that were obsolete in 1932 are even more obsolete 75 years on in 2008 but they sound good to the people who live in an ideological paradise of a world that never existed outside of a text book. |
First, let me fulfill my role and start this post out with a little FDR-bashing. But here I'll have Megan McCardle emphasize how misguided and disingenuous the Leftist Authoritarians are.
Quote: |
"Roosevelt saved capitalism from a violent communist revolution with the New Deal, and that therefore free market types should bow down in gratitude to Dear Leader." This argument is, as far as I can tell, advanced entirely by people who also believe that its programs are a moral imperative.
There are two problems. The first is that a program that must give people money so that they will not kill/imprison/etc the donors may be practical, but it is also immoral. This means, it seems to me, that you can either claim that the New Deal is a sort of broad spectrum Dangeld, or that it is a moral necessity, but not both.
The second is that this is not necessarily a good argument for New Deal programs. If the concerns are merely practical, then perhaps the New Deal was the more cost effective way to buy peace; but perhaps not. This could just as well be an argument for rich people buying bigger and better guns than poor people. Even rich people are, presumably, entitled to shoot back.
I think most of the people who make this argument are, in fact, being sophistic; they aren't particularly interested in saving American capitalism, but they think that the people to whom they speak might be persuaded by this remarkably stupid and amoral argument. I have, obviously, a mixed opinion of the New Deal. But I find this particular "logic" an unbelievably offensive slur against my country. |
And lest Ya-Ta think I am heartless and without compassion, let me underline it was not FDR's Leftism that is such an affront. No, people, even Presidents, make mistakes. His egregious authoritarianism is what was unforgivable.
Nevertheless, back to the topic at hand.
This is not the Great Depression. Only 19% of the banks have failed, in the Great Depression, ALL of them failed. Barack Obama is not FDR (or even Herbert Hoover for that matter, the man who STARTED the New Deal). Comparisons between the present economic climate and that of the 1930s should be made with caution and support. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree. But the problem is we are a backwards looking bunch. Whenever something bad happens to us now, we immediately look in the past for a similar event and then try to apply the lessons from that to the current predicament.
There are any number of reasons as to why this crises is different from the depression. I don't see much that we can learn from that experience that will help us move past this. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
sojourner1

Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Location: Where meggi swim and 2 wheeled tractors go sput put chug alugg pug pug
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hope the government creates millions of new jobs by training people to go out on site to manage these banks and corporations with the goal of returning them to profitability and then keeping it that way through accountability. While this spells America becoming a socialist state, it will be better for the majority of Americans, but bad for that 1% upper crust population, because the majority will be gainfully employed in their respective fields and have what they need in order to live their lives without the anxieties our current failed capitalist system forces upon most of us.
A socialist system that is effectively managed and productively producing profit is more sustainable and offers a way for most to survive while the country can pay down debt, personally and as a nation. Just because a company or bank is held by the government doesn't mean it can't operate at a profit. We don't need a privatized laizze faire capitalist system. We need to restructure and realign the government to manage the economy, financial sector, large corporations, investing, and all employment to ensure it's done fairly and in a way that is sustainable. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RJjr

Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Savor today's economy and every luxury because it will get a lot worse. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|