Quote :

"So it shouldn't be a right. Shouldn't be a right in the sense that you can't own something unless you save money for it? you know, no matter how I turn this, the ability to own things is a right. "

you dont have the right to own something at the expense of someone else.

when you have worked/earned enough money, you can buy anything you want, but it isnt a 'right' like voting or free speech.

7/13/2008 3:10:03 PM

Quote :

"As mrfrog said: Quote : "the ability to own things is a right" I think most agree with this in the sense of negative rights, seen through the Lockean life, liberty, and property idea. mrfrog's comment was a response to DaBird's comment: Quote : "owning anything is a privledge. nobody has a right to own anything." I think this is framed in the context of positive rights, essentially saying that no one is entitled to own anything at the expense of others/taxpayers. "

yes. you put that a lot better than i did.

7/13/2008 3:10:55 PM

Quote :

"So what you're saying is that gov. entitlements are okay?"

Where did I say that? And what does it have to do with this thread?

Quote :

"Isn't the whole point of the freemarket to allow unscrupulous companies like this to fail, so better, more reliable companies can take their place?"

I wouldn't say that's the point of the free market, but ideally it should work that way. Unfortunately, when large financial institutions fail there are huge counterparty risks that can turn a simple recession into something much worse. In fact, the large public bank failures of the late 20's and the Federal Reserve's failure to step in are what turned the market crash into the huge clusterfuck that was the Great Depression.

Milton Friedman goes into detail about this in A Monetary History of the United States and you'd be hard-pressed to say that he didn't believe in the free market.

Quote :

"The Fed was largely responsible for converting what might have been a garden-variety recession, although perhaps a fairly severe one, into a major catastrophe. Instead of using its powers to offset the depression, it presided over a decline in the quantity of money by one-third from 1929 to 1933 ... Far from the depression being a failure of the free-enterprise system, it was a tragic failure of government."

—Milton Friedman

7/13/2008 5:10:30 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure it's been mentioned before but why should we try and rescue many of these people who tried to live out of their means and it bit them in the ass."

While many that are suffering from the current housing collapse are guilty for trying to live above the means; part of the blame should also be directed at the lenders. Not to sound to liberal; but many banks utilized shady tactics to lure people into houses whose mortgages were beyond there means and/or utilized the variable rate in order to try and milk every last cent they could out of those who took the loans. Their plan ended up backfiring when the housing market collapse and more people than expected started defaulting on loans. Both sides are to blame. Trying to blame only the buyers or only the banks though is short sighted.

7/13/2008 6:05:39 PM

The American Dream is not about the house, the yard, and the white picket fence. It is about freedom and opportunity make your own future by your own hard work and not be limited by your parents' social class.

Do not be deceived. A man reaps what he sows. A dream is a future to be worked toward, not instant gratification.

7/13/2008 6:33:46 PM

Quote :

""So what you're saying is that gov. entitlements are okay?" Where did I say that? And what does it have to do with this thread? "

The gov. bailing out banks (and airlines) is the same thing as the gov. giving money to poor and needy people.

Quote :

"I wouldn't say that's the point of the free market, but ideally it should work that way."

When I said "point" i meant the point behind the stated mechanisms of the free market.

But, I think your sentence here describes perfectly why gov. regulation is not bad. In this case, people/businesses had to get hurt before people stepped in and said "hey this is a bad idea." Where many in the banking industry KNEW it was a bad idea, they were just blinded by greed. In any freemarket system, you can head off bad decisions, BEFORE waiting for bad things to happen. You can rely on "market forces" to work after the fact, but why should your risk waiting for your friends, family, and neighbors being on the wrong side of "market forces"?

7/13/2008 6:39:04 PM

^^

this is from wiki, but it's just states what is already generally known:

Quote :

"The American Dream is belief in the freedom that allows all citizens and residents of the United States to achieve their goals in life through hard work. Today, it generally refers to one's material prosperity depending upon one's abilities and work ethic — not a rigid class structure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream

it primarily does have a material component... that is to live "well"

[Edited on July 13, 2008 at 6:39 PM. Reason : .]

7/13/2008 6:39:16 PM

yeah, and i guess the government should give a minimum wage cashier a home, since he/she can't afford it...

7/13/2008 8:03:34 PM

^ firstly, the gov. DOES do that.

Secondly, that's not really what people here are directly advocating.

7/13/2008 8:04:54 PM

Quote :

"The gov. bailing out banks (and airlines) is the same thing as the gov. giving money to poor and needy people."

Hardly. Different motivations, different mechanisms, much different consequences.

Quote :

"But, I think your sentence here describes perfectly why gov. regulation is not bad. In this case, people/businesses had to get hurt before people stepped in and said "hey this is a bad idea." Where many in the banking industry KNEW it was a bad idea, they were just blinded by greed. In any freemarket system, you can head off bad decisions, BEFORE waiting for bad things to happen. You can rely on "market forces" to work after the fact, but why should your risk waiting for your friends, family, and neighbors being on the wrong side of "market forces"?"

Yeah, which is why I said:

Quote :

"Now let's implement some regulatory oversight that makes sure it never happens again."

Gov. regulation is not "bad", it's just inefficient. I'm fully aware that there are shortcomings with the free market, and a degree of regulation is necessary. However, overregulation is a serious problem as well. As with any topic, it's not a black-and-white issue.

7/13/2008 8:20:49 PM

Quote :

"The gov. bailing out banks (and airlines) is the same thing as the gov. giving money to poor and needy people. "

I agree to this. I am not a big fan of our current social entitlement programs. Although i agree with its purpose; in reality it has turned into a system that rewards laziness and creates so called welfare queens. Hypocritical though are the diehard republicans who get on their soapbox about how they hate entitlement spending, yet when in office will gladly hand over BILLIONS of dollars in tax payer money to bail out their aristocratic buddies businesses that are tanking instead of letting the free market solve the problem.

I find corporate welfare much worse than social welfare. Social welfare at least has positive intentions while corporate welfare solely supported by greed.

7/13/2008 8:46:08 PM

True that about what's being said about "rights".

Reminds me of a guy from a high school social studies class. In response to "what would make a good country?" his response was 'one in which you didn't have to do work if you didn't want to... at all'.

I think we should allow this... in exchange for the renouncement of reproductive rights and sterilization, lol.

7/13/2008 8:56:26 PM

Quote :

"one in which you didn't have to do work if you didn't want to"

One is already free to take part in such lifestyle. Usually we call these people hobos. They live in boxes on a street and pander for change to buy cheeseburger and 40's.

Seriously though we just need to stop rewarding those living on the system for squirting out babies.
If you are collecting welfare, live in subsidized housing, and buy groceries on food stamps to feed your two kids then you obviously do not have the financial ability to care for 4 more kids.

[Edited on July 13, 2008 at 9:07 PM. Reason : l]

7/13/2008 9:06:17 PM

Quote :

"The financial sector is the backbone of our economy. We can't function without it, and it was (and is) at risk of a meltdown. That's why I think the Bear Stearns bailout was the right thing to do. Now let's implement some regulatory oversight that makes sure it never happens again."

Actually, the best thing to do is to let the companies that made bad decisions DIE. That way other companies will actually think about the consequences of their decisions. A bailout will simply show that consequences don't exist. Only profits do.

Quote :

"And how many had the requisite understanding of market dynamics to have chosen rationally here? "

if you don't understand interest rates and shit, you shouldn't be borrowing money. If you did so anyway and got fucked, then you got what you deserved. Enjoy life on the street.

Quote :

"^ all well and good, but the fact of the matter is that we're so far from that now. Madison cared, but current leaders couldn't give half a rats ass whether the powers they're exercising were granted in the constitution."

HAHAHA. Hey, fuck it. We've ignored what is right for so long, we might as well go ahead and keep doing what is wrong. What great logic.

Quote :

"everyone should have the right to become a home owner if they so choose to pursue it"

Everyone has that right. They just don't have that right at the price of $0 dollar bucks.

look, I could, in all honesty, go out and purchase a home right now. I pay about $800dollarbux in rent a month, and a decent 3-bedroom house around here would go for around 700 a month with my credit. Why don't I do that? Well, I only have $1000dollarbux saved in my bank account right now that I don't touch. I put 250-500 a month in that account, depending on how I am with money. Long story short, I understand what it takes to own a home, and understand the kinds of things you need to have as a backup if you are going to do so. And a 1000 bux in savings aint gonna cut it. Do I "deserve" a home of my own? Maybe. Am I dumb enough to go out and get one right now? Hell no, even though I can, technically, afford it. So yeah, I'm not gonna buy your sob-story about "everyone deserves to own their own home." Hell no they don't. The only people who "deserve" to own one are the people who have fucking worked for it and WON'T fuck it up by not being ready to own one.

Btw, I think it would be a great idea if, in the case of any "bailout," the government requires that the entire leadership of the company being bailed out be forced to resign. And resign with absolutely NO bonuses or severance packages. You fucked up, and if you want to save your company, then you should have to fall on your sword.

7/13/2008 9:40:06 PM

lol, you can't invest in shit with 1000 dolarbux.

Still, if you don't have debt I guess you're doing better than most people.

7/13/2008 9:43:48 PM

^ exactly. That's the reason I DON'T go out and get a house. I could easily qualify for a mortgage with a decent rate under some of the "first time homeowners" programs, but I won't go out and do it.

7/13/2008 9:44:55 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7504122.stm

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

bailed.

7/13/2008 10:31:43 PM

it's OK to bail them out, though... they are a government program. I mean, when a government program fails, we should definitely keep it going. Like medicare. Or medicaid. Or welfare. Or Social Security. Or...

7/13/2008 10:38:09 PM

I lol'd

7/13/2008 10:42:19 PM

Hey guyz, lets just let our entire financial system collapse on itself! The resultant depression will teach those stupid investors not to overextend!


There is a whole lot of stupid in this thread. How about you people stop worrying about "rewarding bad decisions" and address the very real threat of a financial meltdown that could occur as a result of a string of high-profile bank failures? If you don't think that is a valid threat, than explain why. If you think a financial meltdown would benefit the country in the long run, then say that. But otherwise you just sound stupid shouting on and on about "rewarding corporate greed" while ignoring the 800-pound-gorilla that necassitates these bailouts.

7/13/2008 10:51:57 PM

so instead, we should allow the system to fuck us over again and again and again and again instead of cutting off the fucking head of the serpent so that it will quit fucking us. Makes sense to me...

7/13/2008 10:54:53 PM

What system fucked us? The banks that are in trouble are an entirely different beast than the mortgage lenders and subprime borrowers that fucked us in this particular case. Watching idly as investment banks collapse hardly addresses the issues that created this mess.

7/13/2008 11:01:13 PM

The term "bailout" is used too loosely in this thread. The Fed facilitated a merger with JPM. Their primary liability is a $29bn loan to JPM, collateralized by a 30bn portfolio of primarily MBS. The only risk the Fed is taking is on the collateral, which JPM is liable for the first billion in losses. While there is definitely the potential for the Fed to realize losses, it is far too small to characterize the deal as an all out bailout.

7/14/2008 8:04:32 AM

I tried that Hunt, few here seem to care about the facts.

7/14/2008 10:12:29 AM

but the gubernments make me

[Edited on July 14, 2008 at 10:58 AM. Reason : ]

7/14/2008 10:58:29 AM

Quote :

"The term "bailout" is used too loosely in this thread. The Fed facilitated a merger with JPM. Their primary liability is a $29bn loan to JPM, collateralized by a 30bn portfolio of primarily MBS. The only risk the Fed is taking is on the collateral, which JPM is liable for the first billion in losses. While there is definitely the potential for the Fed to realize losses, it is far too small to characterize the deal as an all out bailout."

In fairness, however, the government secured a below-market loan of fairly favorable terms that no Joe Citizen could possibly obtain. If that isn't a "bailout," then what exactly is it? (Really - what exactly do we call guaranteed and federally-backed loans secured at a below-market rate, dispensed only to a select, well-connected few, if we are to eschew the term "bailout?" Corporate welfare?)

7/14/2008 11:04:38 AM

just incase you missed it:

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=533467&page=1#11798981


and WE KNOW FOR A DOGGNAAMED FACT that the gumbent has nothing to do with that!

7/14/2008 11:08:58 AM

DrSteveChaos, that is called access to the Federal Reserve discount window, a right every bank in America has on a daily basis (but does not use). The Federal Reserve as an institution of a larger society plays the role of lender of last resort and actually made out on the deal: after-all, if the Federal Reserve had not loaned out that money at interest, it would have just sat upon it at 0% interest. People forget that while the Federal Reserve is not a money making venture it does turn a tidy profit, especially when shit goes wrong, presuming it does not go that wrong.

Now, if JPM bungles this and leaves the Fed holding losses then this would become a bailout, but until then it is extraordinary normal operations. To object to this act is to object to the existance of the Fed at all, not just this instance (which would be a valid objection, particularly for investment banks).

[Edited on July 14, 2008 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/14/2008 12:03:48 PM

Quote :

"Now, if JPM bungles this and leaves the Fed holding losses then this would become a bailout, but until then it is extraordinary normal operations. To object to this act is to object to the existance of the Fed at all, not just this instance (which would be a valid objection, particularly for investment banks)."

Then so be it. I understand the concept of having the Fed lend to ordinary "commercial" banks, but having them act as lender of last resort to investment banks just seems to scream "Moral Hazard!"

7/14/2008 12:37:23 PM

It shouldn't be forgotten that Bear's equity was all but wiped out. While it's possible this did create some moral hazard, I think it is rather limited given the huge losses Bear's stakeholders realized. You're right, though, at the margin, this most likely increased moral hazard. The question remains, how much moral hazard and is it significant enough to warrant Bear's failure and the financial meltdown that could have possiblely ensued?

7/14/2008 7:37:35 PM

Quote :

"There is a whole lot of stupid in this thread. How about you people stop worrying about "rewarding bad decisions" and address the very real threat of a financial meltdown that could occur as a result of a string of high-profile bank failures?"

You know..constantly bailing out everyone will eventually cause a financial meltdown too.

7/14/2008 7:42:16 PM

For bear stearns investors the difference between 13 dollars and zero dollars a share is not that large. So, as you said, the hazzard here is only on the margin.

However, a very real hazzard is created for bear's stake holders, namely debt holders, customers, etc. Afterall, the purpose of the Fed is to protect these stake holders. These stake holders stood to lose a lot in the event of a Bear collapse, even though they owned no shares. However, thanks to a quick transfer of power fascilitated by the Fed, these stake holders in the future will have no qualms getting themselves tied up with even reckless investment banks, now that they know they will be protected.

This is a serious issue, as while it is possible to argue that regular bank account holders are insufficiently educated to know when a bank is risky, it is not easy to argue the same when it comes to professional investors.

7/14/2008 8:07:50 PM

Well they better buckle down for a bear market!

ahahahaha

No, but srsly, #1 threat to America.

7/14/2008 8:15:05 PM

Quote :

"This is a serious issue, as while it is possible to argue that regular bank account holders are insufficiently educated to know when a bank is risky, it is not easy to argue the same when it comes to professional investors."

Which is really what I'm getting at - this is no ordinary mom & pop credit union that went under - this was a professional investment bank. People buying into this arguably knew the risk they were taking on, and while at the margin, the moral hazard to BS investors was small, my concern is over the precedent it sets overall. Should investors start to assume their risky investments will be covered by the fed - even only marginally so, like you illustrate in this case, it still sends exactly the wrong signal, and will encourage future risky investments.

I understand the argument Hunt is making re: network effects - i.e., either the cost is shouldered by taxpayers directly, or later on through a cascade of failures, but it seems like there has to be some other way. Lower the prime rate or something. Don't encourage moral hazard.

My point, I think, is supremely illustrated now by the move to bail out Freddie & Fannie Mac. "Too big to fail," etc., when in fact much of their woes were their own doing, namely through privatized gains and subsidized losses. It's not just moral hazard - it's a rigged game.

7/14/2008 9:06:05 PM

Ok, you said it twice in your post that these woes were their own making and that these were "risky investments", but present reality aside, these investments were not that risky. Hell, arguably they are still not that risky. These AAA derivatives still have not lost a cent due to falling property values and foreclosure costs which can eat away as much as 40% of the loan value. No, the problem comes from the houses losing 140% of the loan value because they will not sell.

There is no question that the loans issued were bad loans, but that was why they were repackaged: not to hide their true value, but to compensate for it. They knew full well that house prices were going to fall in the future, but how were they supposed to know that housing markets would freeze like they did? Housing markets have only frozen like this once before, and that was during the great depression. How was an investment banker in 2001 supposed to know 2008 would be like 1934?

So, while I agree that they should suffer the losses of being unable to know the future, I do not believe for one second that they deserve the derrision and condemnation that is being thrown at them. It seems some lenders may have lied to some customers, and they are already under investigation. But no one along the line to Bear Sterns had to do anything wrong for us to end up here. It is merely an unfortunate and unforseable turn of disasterous events. I sincerely hope the housing bottom comes soon so those left holding these once AAA derivatives can finally get their money back. And get it back they will; it is just that until then many of them will find themselves forced by accounting standards into bankruptcy.

7/14/2008 9:28:16 PM

Keep in mind that I am simply condemning the activity of subsidizing risk - I'm not calling the investors who gambled and lost on these instruments greedy or whatever epithet serves the day. No, no one likely foresaw a complete seizure of the housing market - but on the flip side, anyone who didn't see that housing prices were in a bubble were clearly deluding themselves.

Investors took a risk, faced an unforeseen consequence, and lost. Some investment banks - like BS, lost too much because too much of their capital was tied up in these derivative instruments, and too many of the loans within them failed. I'm not accusing them of greed, but I am accusing them of poor foresight - AAA rated or not, as we are learning, mortgage repackaging was a pretty murky and opaque instrument. In other words, far from a "sure thing."

So, again - why subsidize risk? Yes, hopefully once the housing market rebounds, these investors will recoup their losses. But why do they deserve a bailout (or whatever you wish to label the intervention) when their investment falters - for whatever reason - as opposed to any other investor? Because they have a whole lot of equity tied up?

Again - moral hazard. It doesn't matter if it's a "sure thing" that fails - you bail out people when investments fail, you decrease incentives to be careful. Or, more importantly, you give all the greater strength to the next call for a bailout when the next "sure thing" fails.

[Edited on July 14, 2008 at 9:52 PM. Reason : .]

7/14/2008 9:51:33 PM

I agree. It would be foolish to ignore the effects of moral hazard. Of any government body, I think the Fed understands this best. In a very narrow sense, the Fed had to choose between the mutually exclusive options of moral hazard and financial stability. I would hope their intervention aided the latter more than the former. Moreover, I hope this does not start a precedent, whether perceived or real, that the Fed will always be there to backstop any failure (i.e. Bernanke put).

7/14/2008 10:34:21 PM

Oh, I know, when you bail out on sure things then why not unsure things.

We as a society seem to have discovered between 1908 and now that either you bail out no one or you must bail out everyone: there is no in-between, because then the rules of the game are 'iffy' and moral hazard will kill you. This is one of the many contributors to the great depression; large banks were covered by the Fed from all threats, including contagion, so they did not police themselves and collectively rescue hobbled banks like they had done in 1908. As such, contagion took hold and spread, bringing down the whole non-Fed protected system. This is why the Fed was then expanded to cover all commercial banks: the non-Fed protected segment of the financial system was insufficiently large to save itself from contagion, or at least everyone thought it was, so it failed, and would always fail.

But the logic holds the same for investment banks: they are also capable of bringing about contagion, especially since investments banks have grown to occupy much more of the financial system which used to be occupied by commercial banks. As such, the same logic holds, covering some (or most) is worse than covering none, so the Fed is expanding to cover investment banks too.

Now, yes, society as a whole will today act with insufficient care. But this is the price we are paying to live with a stable financial system. Yes, we make sure that those in charge (shareholders of BS) lose their shirts, but this will have to do. We cannot go back to 1908, that ship of has sailed; so we must go ahead and admit that everyone is covered. I agree with this policy. And no, as some here have said, this policy cannot fail under any circumstances because even after the Fed has emptied every vault (estimates say the vaults are currently half empty) it still has the right to print as much money as it deems necessary.

7/14/2008 10:46:33 PM

Fuck these irresponsible people. Let 'em rent an apartment or house like other people who can't afford a house. Maybe they should have set their financial priorities straight and not bought something bigger than they could afford, or pile this on top of their many other debts.

Whats next, we start bailing out people who are getting their car repo'd? "How are they going to get to work? These poor people were cheated by the car dealership!" Fuck them. They were fiscally irresponsible and there are supposed to be consequences for your fuck ups. This is why I don't believe in big brother as a safety net. When the founding fathers built this country, you prospered or floundered on your own. If you were rich, great, you keep your money. You lose it, too bad. You don't make shit for yourself? Too bad, nobody is bailing you out. That is what this country was built on. Not this safe shit the liberals want to shove down our throat. "Universal Healthcare is a right! Its for the children!" Fuck them, their ignorant cunt mothers shouldn't fuck everything that moves.

7/15/2008 8:22:19 AM

never

ceases

to

amaze

7/15/2008 11:46:50 AM

It's like my dad always said

The only thing you're entitled to is the air around you.
Everything else is up to you.

7/15/2008 11:56:57 AM

^Your dad is exactly fucking right Bobby.

7/15/2008 12:55:32 PM

Quote :

"Not this safe shit the liberals want to shove down our throat."

Something tells me it's not the liberals hand-delivering cash by the barrel-full to any of the Macs...

Letting individuals--even corporate persons--succeed or fail on their own is a high-minded concept, but only if applied equally.

7/15/2008 2:03:53 PM

I'm more libertarian than Republican on fiscal policy, so my idea would be to say "Fuck You" to all the fiscally irresponsible, overextended people and companies that have got us in this situation. But the liberals ARE the ones who want Social Security, Universal Healthcare, Medicaid/Medicare, Welfare, and now mortgage bailouts to overextended idiots in this country.

But I can see why they don't want a repeat of the 30s. Laissez-faire is in my opinion the best way to go, but its almost impossible to get away with it these days. Some light government restriction I can see as a necessary evil, but I don't see where my tax money should go to cover stockholders who invested in a company that is a RISK, even a perceived safe risk like a bank.

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ]

7/15/2008 2:16:26 PM

Well, I don't see any reason to spend taxpayer dollars propping up (or taking over) these private entities when taxpayers don't end up sharing in the profits.

7/15/2008 3:43:46 PM

I do. To quote myself:

Quote :

"Unfortunately, when large financial institutions fail there are huge counterparty risks that can turn a simple recession into something much worse. In fact, the large public bank failures of the late 20's and the Federal Reserve's failure to step in are what turned the market crash into the huge clusterfuck that was the Great Depression."

Yes, we're in a huge mess right now. But lets not make it worse by allowing it to turn into a complete financial meltdown.

7/15/2008 4:09:06 PM

Some farm animals are more equal than others.

Got it.

We can own the shares, but not share in the profits. Wonderful.

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

7/15/2008 4:11:09 PM

keeping the farm open for business is more important than any favoritism concerns.



Or maybe you just can't comprehend the meaning of a complete financial meltdown.

7/15/2008 4:23:25 PM

So the Great American Shopping Mall might reopen under a new name.

Excuse me for not asking about the children.

Nothing would make us pay more attention to our government officials and economic leaders.

I'm not opposed to it, and I'm not afraid to say it.

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ...]

7/15/2008 4:36:49 PM

Be careful what you wish for.

Economists have speculated that allowing Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to die would touch off a global financial crisis, sending the world into a pretty nasty recession.

7/15/2008 4:50:50 PM