A new bailout plan.

[daniel]

I think there is a longer version - I'll try to find it. My favorite part is when she says "well, obviously this is a matter of opinion"

Here is an hour and 43 mins of the guy's pain - it gets funny. http://media.putfile.com/Verizon-Bad-Math

And a remix: http://media.putfile.com/VerizonMath...r-Dumb-Parrots

haha yes. math is subjective!

[DarkWing6]

Oh yea that's a real good idea. You realize that capitalism would fail if there was no bailout - ie: every single market in the world would collapse.

huh? explain.

[Farbin Kaiber]

huh? explain.

I think he means if the USD fails, it will topple/assault the majority of the remainder of the world markets. Lots and lots of financial institutes/govts that have vested interest in everything the US does (Tech/Military/Business/etc) will lose one or more of the legs required to let them stand as their own "empire".

[1428bm]

do the math, its not 425,000 its 425$

[devonjordan]

I think there is a longer version - I'll try to find it. My favorite part is when she says "well, obviously this is a matter of opinion"

Here is an (edit: about 40 mins) of the guy's pain - it gets funny. http://media.putfile.com/Verizon-Bad-Math

And a remix: http://media.putfile.com/VerizonMath...r-Dumb-Parrots

Im listening, fucking idiots.

Finished, did he ever get his money back?

[einstein57]

Who ever thinks that the us dollar would not be worth anything by redistributing wealth (not creating artificial weatlh) is dumb. If the U.S. created artificial wealth by just creating money that was not already in circulation, then yes, a snickers bar would be $20. But if they just shift assets to the american citizens then it would only create inflation if we purchased goods that were produced in other countries (like almost everything we buy.) But that would happen gradually until all our wealth was spent and all that money left the us and cn no longer afford the products from the previously poor countries like china who now have all our money. So if we stopped importing goods we would not need to hand out money to stimulate out economy. It would heal itself. That being said who wants to buy some chinese knock off carbon fiber ITBs.

[Aptyp]

I didn't want to start this thread, and waited for somebody else to do it for me, thanks OP. I want to write out what I think, and then some one who knows can explain it to me without bias. Also, to be noted that I am not an economist nor an idiot (despite what TwoJ's says (he's a Seahawks fan, best high school team in the country)).



So we are about 10-15 trillion dollars in debt already. That's hard cash that we owe to Federal Bank (Not US government, France and UK primarily). How does Federal Bank put value on that cash? Most of the banks who put their hands on that money double the value by crediting it out. And people who were credited that money paid for imports. So now there are 30-45 trillion dollars of imaginary value floating around the globe with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Our government is prepared to borrow another trillion (that's 2 trillion in value and 6-12% in instant inflation).

Now how does that help? I got mixed messages from C-SPAN.

Are we buying out bad credit/loans from those banks that people owe money to? Does that mean that if your credit got bought out, you no longer owe money to the bank, but owe to Uncle Sam? So now instead of dealing with annoying bank, you deal with annoying bureaucracy of US government, now you can be arrested and have everything repossessed by the IRS?

Now, second theory I see is that few guys on Wall Street ask for almost a trillion bucks with no oversight for a package that has to be evaluated by any federal branch. So US government doesn't know who or what they are bailing out and if it all fails, US government may get absolutely nothing. Economist on C-SPAN speaking in front of committee made a solid point that US government should not give anything to any one with out recieving something of equal value in return. He made a point that US government is not a business and cannot afford risque behavior that is associated with free market.

In either case? Why would government do something like that? Id there's a sound explanation without bias I would like to know. Even if it's hypothetical, theoretical, or simply improbable. How is that even a consideration?

Thanks in advance.

[2Big4a3Series]

In either case? Why would government do something like that? Id there's a sound explanation without bias I would like to know. Even if it's hypothetical, theoretical, or simply improbable. How is that even a consideration?

For lack of more intellectual way of putting it, this is probably a fund raiser. In the late 70's/early 80's, Chrysler got into trouble and the government bailed them out. By the time it was all over the taxpayers ended up making 350 million on the deal in fees and interest.

[george graves]

^I never heard that side of the story. It wouldn't surprise me. But I have little tolerance for car companies making a inferior product.


Other hand, ask any economist - and they will tell you $1 spend on the space program equals about $3 in your pocket. How nice is that? Tang anyone?



Or

TV Satellite Dish
Medical Imaging
Vision Screening System
Ear Thermometer
Sun Tiger Glasses
Cordless Tools
Shock Absorbing Helmets
.....the list goes on and on....

[Aptyp]

But Chrysler eventually failed again, not to mention they closed many parts factories and starting importing heavily. Many tax-payers lost jobs. Eventually even got bought out and about to go up for grabs again.

Besides, Chrysler had a product. A physical product that could be liquidated, how will government liquidate massive amounts of paper-work?

Even girl scouts have to account for their bake/cookie sales.

[Aptyp]

Other hand, ask any economist - and they will tell you $1 spend on the space program equals about $3 in you pocket. How nice is that? Tang anyone?

That can be said about having public schools and public libraries. Get rid of one or another and save a whole lot. This is not a serious option.


But we spend close to a trill on wars, and economy is suppose too boom in post-war time, why not end war and take all the left overs to bail out wall street.



By the way, Pentagon spending came up in congress recently. One republican made a good point. "If pentagon can't account for 70% of last years budget, they should get only what they can account for" I need to find guys name in case he ever runs for presidency.

[DarkWing6]

I think he means if the USD fails, it will topple/assault the majority of the remainder of the world markets. Lots and lots of financial institutes/govts that have vested interest in everything the US does (Tech/Military/Business/etc) will lose one or more of the legs required to let them stand as their own "empire".

All the more reason why what I said would work. People looking to invest don't just leave money on the table. There is good money to be made there, but not in the current structure. As the companies begin to fall investors would come in. Allowing these companies to fall and not bailing them out would only allow for a truer form of capitalism to occur.

[Farbin Kaiber]

All the more reason why what I said would work. People looking to invest don't just leave money on the table. There is good money to be made there, but not in the current structure. As the companies begin to fall investors would come in. Allowing these companies to fall and not bailing them out would only allow for a truer form of capitalism to occur.

I think we let them get too big. They have grown like a tumor that's wound it's way around an artery. There is no way to force it to die without cutting off vital bloodflow.

[rwh11385]

For lack of more intellectual way of putting it, this is probably a fund raiser. In the late 70's/early 80's, Chrysler got into trouble and the government bailed them out. By the time it was all over the taxpayers ended up making 350 million on the deal in fees and interest.

Great story. Too bad it is lost on many of these people.

Lee Iacocca also worked for $1 as salary.

[CorvallisBMW]

Without reading through 4 pages, let me just say this.

It's a terrible idea. These companies fucked themselves over and we should not have to bail them out. I realize that their collapse will have an effect on the market, but sometimes that's just part of life. I don't want my $700B in tax dollars bailing out Wall Street firms that fucked up. Wheres the $700B for all the homeowners facing foreclosure? Oh, right, this is supposed to be a free market and not a welfare state where people have to take responsibility for their poor decisions

There was a good interview with Newt Gingrich the other day, and I actually agreed with his assessment that we shouldn't be doing this. Quick, someone go check the temperature in Hell because I'm pretty sure it froze over the minute I agreed with Newt Gingrich on something....