I cannot stop myself laughing at this ...

"We sent a message to Wall Street. The party is over. The era of golden
parachutes for high flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will the
US taxpayer bail out the recklessness of Wall Street", "This is not about a
bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in so we can turn our economy around"

All said with an incredibly straight faced Democrat House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi.

How can anyone say, "No longer will the US taxpayer bail out the
recklessness of Wall Street" with a straight face when all the toxic debt
which Wall Street has accrued has just been dumped firmly in the tax payer's
lap ? Pelosi can call it a "buy-in" all she wants but it is a bail out if
ever there was one. Forgiving the sins of Wall Street so they can go back to
work on Monday exactly as they have been doing and all the high-rollers who
got the US in this mess in the first place are guranteed their multi-million
dollar salaries. Phew ! That *was* a close one !

It's pushed US debt to $10 billion ( on an economy worth $14 billion ) and
pushed the deficit to around $400 million, but it's going to be business as
usual for the people who caused the problem and those in oversight who were
asleep at the wheel or simply din't care. If it's not the ultimate case of
sweeping a disaster under the carpet and pretending nothing happened I do
not know what is.

But let's thank God ( or maybe Bush and the Democrats ) for making sure the
guys at the top haven't suffered in any way through their bad management and
flawed buiness practices over years. They must be extremely grateful for the
Golden Parachutes that they've just been handed. I'm sure there will be more
than one email doing its rounds when trading opens; "See, I told you we can
do no wrong. Even when we fail we come out winners. Someone always pays but
it's never us. Send Pelosi some roses and drop a check off at Republican HQ.
I told you they were the best friends to have".

And let's say a big thanks to all those in the financial service industry
who are frantically running around lying their arses off saying the trillion
dollar "buy-in" so far won't affect US debt or deficit. Because we all know
we can trust them don't we. Because we all know they are the most
trustworthy people on the face of this earth, aren't they ? They'd never be
reckless with money, would they ?

I'm sure we've all learned some valuable lessons. Certainly those running
fail^W successful businesses have.

I'm just wondering how the American people are going to take it now they've
been bent over and shafted harder than they ever have been ( around $17,000
per family ) ? Wondering how knowing Obama and the Democrats are Bush
supporting Wall Street lovers who embrace the Capitalist dream will affect
the forthcoming election ? I've been saying for ages there's nothing
left-wing about American Democrats and they've finally shown their true
colours in the most high profile way possible; support big business, stuff
the man in the street.

Way to go America, the American Dream is still alive - the system protects
its own regardless of cost to anyone else.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...

> I cannot stop myself laughing at this ...
>
> "We sent a message to Wall Street. The party is over. The era of golden
> parachutes for high flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will
the
> US taxpayer bail out the recklessness of Wall Street", "This is not about
a
> bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in so we can turn our economy around"
>
> All said with an incredibly straight faced Democrat House Speaker Nancy
> Pelosi.

And I'm in danger of my sides splitting now Republican Roy Blunt has offered
up his gem; "I think you can much more adequately describe this bill as a
workout of the problem rather than a bailout of the problem. As long as we
were bailing out somebody it didn't make sense to the American people".

Anyone going to tell me that the sub-text there isn't, "if we call it
something other than it is, the gullible and stupid American people will lap
it up and support it" ?

It'll be a first if it doesn't work, for years the US have been calling
their evils of human rights breaches, murder of innocents, torture and other
abuses something else and the American people have largely swallowed that
bullshit hook, line and sinker. Will it be any different this time round ?

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> I cannot stop myself laughing at this ...
> 
> "We sent a message to Wall Street. The party is over. The era of golden
> parachutes for high flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will the
> US taxpayer bail out the recklessness of Wall Street", "This is not about a
> bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in so we can turn our economy around"
> 
> All said with an incredibly straight faced Democrat House Speaker Nancy
> Pelosi.
> 
> How can anyone say, "No longer will the US taxpayer bail out the
> recklessness of Wall Street" with a straight face when all the toxic debt
> which Wall Street has accrued has just been dumped firmly in the tax payer's
> lap ? Pelosi can call it a "buy-in" all she wants but it is a bail out if
> ever there was one. Forgiving the sins of Wall Street so they can go back to
> work on Monday exactly as they have been doing and all the high-rollers who
> got the US in this mess in the first place are guranteed their multi-million
> dollar salaries. Phew ! That *was* a close one !
> 
> It's pushed US debt to $10 billion ( on an economy worth $14 billion ) and
> pushed the deficit to around $400 million, but it's going to be business as
> usual for the people who caused the problem and those in oversight who were
> asleep at the wheel or simply din't care. If it's not the ultimate case of
> sweeping a disaster under the carpet and pretending nothing happened I do
> not know what is.
> 
> But let's thank God ( or maybe Bush and the Democrats ) for making sure the
> guys at the top haven't suffered in any way through their bad management and
> flawed buiness practices over years. They must be extremely grateful for the
> Golden Parachutes that they've just been handed. I'm sure there will be more
> than one email doing its rounds when trading opens; "See, I told you we can
> do no wrong. Even when we fail we come out winners. Someone always pays but
> it's never us. Send Pelosi some roses and drop a check off at Republican HQ.
> I told you they were the best friends to have".
> 
> And let's say a big thanks to all those in the financial service industry
> who are frantically running around lying their arses off saying the trillion
> dollar "buy-in" so far won't affect US debt or deficit. Because we all know
> we can trust them don't we. Because we all know they are the most
> trustworthy people on the face of this earth, aren't they ? They'd never be
> reckless with money, would they ?
> 
> I'm sure we've all learned some valuable lessons. Certainly those running
> fail^W successful businesses have.
> 
> I'm just wondering how the American people are going to take it now they've
> been bent over and shafted harder than they ever have been ( around $17,000
> per family ) ? Wondering how knowing Obama and the Democrats are Bush
> supporting Wall Street lovers who embrace the Capitalist dream will affect
> the forthcoming election ? I've been saying for ages there's nothing
> left-wing about American Democrats and they've finally shown their true
> colours in the most high profile way possible; support big business, stuff
> the man in the street.
> 
> Way to go America, the American Dream is still alive - the system protects
> its own regardless of cost to anyone else.

Ok Hip, when you start your own round of bailouts over there, post some 
pics of you marching in the streets with a pitch fork, will ya ?

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:lzWDk.64098$E41.54965@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>I cannot stop myself laughing at this ...
>
> "We sent a message to Wall Street. The party is over. The era of golden
> parachutes for high flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will 
> the
> US taxpayer bail out the recklessness of Wall Street", "This is not about 
> a
> bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in so we can turn our economy around"
>
> All said with an incredibly straight faced Democrat House Speaker Nancy
> Pelosi.
>
> How can anyone say, "No longer will the US taxpayer bail out the
> recklessness of Wall Street" with a straight face when all the toxic debt
> which Wall Street has accrued has just been dumped firmly in the tax 
> payer's
> lap ? Pelosi can call it a "buy-in" all she wants but it is a bail out if
> ever there was one. Forgiving the sins of Wall Street so they can go back 
> to
> work on Monday exactly as they have been doing and all the high-rollers 
> who
> got the US in this mess in the first place are guranteed their 
> multi-million
> dollar salaries. Phew ! That *was* a close one !
>
> It's pushed US debt to $10 billion ( on an economy worth $14 billion ) and
> pushed the deficit to around $400 million, but it's going to be business 
> as
> usual for the people who caused the problem and those in oversight who 
> were
> asleep at the wheel or simply din't care. If it's not the ultimate case of
> sweeping a disaster under the carpet and pretending nothing happened I do
> not know what is.
>
> But let's thank God ( or maybe Bush and the Democrats ) for making sure 
> the
> guys at the top haven't suffered in any way through their bad management 
> and
> flawed buiness practices over years. They must be extremely grateful for 
> the
> Golden Parachutes that they've just been handed. I'm sure there will be 
> more
> than one email doing its rounds when trading opens; "See, I told you we 
> can
> do no wrong. Even when we fail we come out winners. Someone always pays 
> but
> it's never us. Send Pelosi some roses and drop a check off at Republican 
> HQ.
> I told you they were the best friends to have".
>
> And let's say a big thanks to all those in the financial service industry
> who are frantically running around lying their arses off saying the 
> trillion
> dollar "buy-in" so far won't affect US debt or deficit. Because we all 
> know
> we can trust them don't we. Because we all know they are the most
> trustworthy people on the face of this earth, aren't they ? They'd never 
> be
> reckless with money, would they ?
>
> I'm sure we've all learned some valuable lessons. Certainly those running
> fail^W successful businesses have.
>
> I'm just wondering how the American people are going to take it now 
> they've
> been bent over and shafted harder than they ever have been ( around 
> $17,000
> per family ) ? Wondering how knowing Obama and the Democrats are Bush
> supporting Wall Street lovers who embrace the Capitalist dream will affect
> the forthcoming election ? I've been saying for ages there's nothing
> left-wing about American Democrats and they've finally shown their true
> colours in the most high profile way possible; support big business, stuff
> the man in the street.
>
> Way to go America, the American Dream is still alive - the system protects
> its own regardless of cost to anyone else.
>
>


I think it should have been allowed to fail, and only pension funds bought 
out.  Basically all the kiddies in suits are now playing the Wall St casino 
with their parents' money now.

The system is still built on sand, it's just the sand is now being supplied 
by the government.  All that's happening is big fire sales of national banks 
to foreign concerns.

I wonder if there isn't a case to be made for state-run electircity, water, 
transport and perhaps banking systems?  We're always being told the evils of 
such arrangements, but losing national assets to foreign buy-outs via 
financial fire sales because assets have been pumped out of them into 
private hands until the well runs dry doesn't sound like a good deal either.

The whole point of this (well, the big one as far as I can see) is that 
public money (ie pension funds) has been privately overseen and the 
overseeers or just the financial system itself via tricks like short-selling 
has namaged to wipe people out at a stroke.  If it isn't an actual crime it 
should have been.

If only Robert Maxwell had known how easy it was to get away with.  He 
didn't even need to worry about meddling kids.  Just hang on tight and wait 
for the government cheque to come.  It's funny - the same government that 
bails out these banks for billions (I'm talking about the UK now) followed 
and ill friend of mine around once to make sure he wasn't working while 
claiming £45 per week disability benefit.  Well each billion handed over to 
the banks would have paid that for about 40,000 years, and the banks didn't 
really have to answer for the necessity of it at all.  It's interesting how 
the poor never seem to be able to quite shake off supporting the rich. 
Remember the Poll Tax?  Of course you do! :-)

TWP

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:OfmdnWEE1IMGVX3VnZ2dnUVZ8qLinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>

> It's interesting how the poor never seem to be able to quite shake off 
> supporting the rich. Remember the Poll Tax?  Of course you do! :-)

I think my definition of "poor" was a bit broad - I'm talking about all the 
regular people who wouldn't be considered rich.... not just people living in 
boxes.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:OfmdnWEE1IMGVX3VnZ2dnUVZ8qLinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...

"Many people of course became extremely rich - which was perfecty natural 
and nothing to be ashamed of, because no-one was really poor.... at least 
no-one worth speaking of."

Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

"TWP"  wrote ...

[snip]

> > Way to go America, the American Dream is still alive - the system
protects
> > its own regardless of cost to anyone else.
> >
> >
>
>
> I think it should have been allowed to fail, and only pension funds bought
> out.  Basically all the kiddies in suits are now playing the Wall St
casino
> with their parents' money now.

It's hard not be reckless when win or lose it doesn't cost you anything
personally. That's what's inherently wrong with the system ( and with
politicians as well ).


> The system is still built on sand, it's just the sand is now being
supplied
> by the government.

Who are using tax payers money to cover the loses business has created for
itself. I wish I could get the government to cover any debts I accumulate by
making my neighbours pay for those.


> All that's happening is big fire sales of national banks
> to foreign concerns.
>
> I wonder if there isn't a case to be made for state-run electircity,
water,
> transport and perhaps banking systems?

I think there always has been, but the state itself isn't always overly
capable. It's regulation and enforcement of the regulation which is the real
necessity, with a solid basis for what the regulation is and is there to
achieve.

A huge part of the problem is what regulation was meant to achieve. We have
his complete mish-mash of ideology which on one hand promotes Free Market,
Globalisation and the like while on the other has Anti-Trust legislation and
trying to protect people from the harm the very things being promoted
create.

You cannot run a system with two completely opposed ideologies. There's the
implicit acknowledgement that it's not safe to have the Free Market and
Globalisation run riot while at the same time encouraging that. It's no
surprise it's all chaos and has eventually fallen to pieces. It was
inevitable.


> We're always being told the evils of
> such arrangements, but losing national assets to foreign buy-outs via
> financial fire sales because assets have been pumped out of them into
> private hands until the well runs dry doesn't sound like a good deal
either.
>
> The whole point of this (well, the big one as far as I can see) is that
> public money (ie pension funds) has been privately overseen and the
> overseeers or just the financial system itself via tricks like
short-selling
> has namaged to wipe people out at a stroke.  If it isn't an actual crime
it
> should have been.

Anyone who says the bailout isn't a good idea does have to answer the
question as to what they would do and it's not easy to rescue or change a
failed system if the prime goal is to protect people from the revolutionary
change it should be bringing.

At the very least, those responsible should have been arrested and had all
their assets seized. In the current bailout it does little more than say, oh
well, never mind, not your fault. The problem is that "those responsible" is
nearly everyone in the system.

Capitalism is a crime in my opinion which goes unpunished simply because
people buy into the promises of greed and can selfishly ignore those who
have to suffer to bring that to them. When criminals are judging criminals
its no surprise there's a concensus that everyhing is above board and fine.


> If only Robert Maxwell had known how easy it was to get away with.  He
> didn't even need to worry about meddling kids.  Just hang on tight and
wait
> for the government cheque to come.  It's funny - the same government that
> bails out these banks for billions (I'm talking about the UK now) followed
> and ill friend of mine around once to make sure he wasn't working while
> claiming £45 per week disability benefit.  Well each billion handed over
to
> the banks would have paid that for about 40,000 years, and the banks
didn't
> really have to answer for the necessity of it at all.  It's interesting
how
> the poor never seem to be able to quite shake off supporting the rich.
> Remember the Poll Tax?  Of course you do! :-)

That's the real offensiveness I see at the very heart of the capitalist
system. It's intrinsically making 'the lucky few' richer while ignoring
those it needs to suffer to achieve that. Communism didn't fare much better
in its implementation but there has to be some middle ground.

Many Christians, and most Muslims, would say that middle ground should come
from following the teachings of their religion, "Christian socialism" and
the like, where the intent is to do good, or the best we can for everyone
equally, and that the notion of capitalism and anything which favours some
and ignores the plight of others is a fundamental evil.

I'd go along with that in principle.

It's also no surprise that those who reject the notion of capitalism being
imposed upon them do so with such vehemence.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:uU5Ek.64255$E41.57346@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
> [snip]
>
>> > Way to go America, the American Dream is still alive - the system
> protects
>> > its own regardless of cost to anyone else.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> I think it should have been allowed to fail, and only pension funds 
>> bought
>> out.  Basically all the kiddies in suits are now playing the Wall St
> casino
>> with their parents' money now.
>
> It's hard not be reckless when win or lose it doesn't cost you anything
> personally. That's what's inherently wrong with the system ( and with
> politicians as well ).
>
>
>> The system is still built on sand, it's just the sand is now being
> supplied
>> by the government.
>
> Who are using tax payers money to cover the loses business has created for
> itself. I wish I could get the government to cover any debts I accumulate 
> by
> making my neighbours pay for those.
>
>
>> All that's happening is big fire sales of national banks
>> to foreign concerns.
>>
>> I wonder if there isn't a case to be made for state-run electircity,
> water,
>> transport and perhaps banking systems?
>
> I think there always has been, but the state itself isn't always overly
> capable. It's regulation and enforcement of the regulation which is the 
> real
> necessity, with a solid basis for what the regulation is and is there to
> achieve.
>
> A huge part of the problem is what regulation was meant to achieve. We 
> have
> his complete mish-mash of ideology which on one hand promotes Free Market,
> Globalisation and the like while on the other has Anti-Trust legislation 
> and
> trying to protect people from the harm the very things being promoted
> create.
>
> You cannot run a system with two completely opposed ideologies. There's 
> the
> implicit acknowledgement that it's not safe to have the Free Market and
> Globalisation run riot while at the same time encouraging that. It's no
> surprise it's all chaos and has eventually fallen to pieces. It was
> inevitable.
>
>
>> We're always being told the evils of
>> such arrangements, but losing national assets to foreign buy-outs via
>> financial fire sales because assets have been pumped out of them into
>> private hands until the well runs dry doesn't sound like a good deal
> either.
>>
>> The whole point of this (well, the big one as far as I can see) is that
>> public money (ie pension funds) has been privately overseen and the
>> overseeers or just the financial system itself via tricks like
> short-selling
>> has namaged to wipe people out at a stroke.  If it isn't an actual crime
> it
>> should have been.
>
> Anyone who says the bailout isn't a good idea does have to answer the
> question as to what they would do and it's not easy to rescue or change a
> failed system if the prime goal is to protect people from the 
> revolutionary
> change it should be bringing.
>
> At the very least, those responsible should have been arrested and had all
> their assets seized. In the current bailout it does little more than say, 
> oh
> well, never mind, not your fault. The problem is that "those responsible" 
> is
> nearly everyone in the system.
>
> Capitalism is a crime in my opinion which goes unpunished simply because
> people buy into the promises of greed and can selfishly ignore those who
> have to suffer to bring that to them. When criminals are judging criminals
> its no surprise there's a concensus that everyhing is above board and 
> fine.
>
>
>> If only Robert Maxwell had known how easy it was to get away with.  He
>> didn't even need to worry about meddling kids.  Just hang on tight and
> wait
>> for the government cheque to come.  It's funny - the same government that
>> bails out these banks for billions (I'm talking about the UK now) 
>> followed
>> and ill friend of mine around once to make sure he wasn't working while
>> claiming £45 per week disability benefit.  Well each billion handed over
> to
>> the banks would have paid that for about 40,000 years, and the banks
> didn't
>> really have to answer for the necessity of it at all.  It's interesting
> how
>> the poor never seem to be able to quite shake off supporting the rich.
>> Remember the Poll Tax?  Of course you do! :-)
>
> That's the real offensiveness I see at the very heart of the capitalist
> system. It's intrinsically making 'the lucky few' richer while ignoring
> those it needs to suffer to achieve that. Communism didn't fare much 
> better
> in its implementation but there has to be some middle ground.
>
> Many Christians, and most Muslims, would say that middle ground should 
> come
> from following the teachings of their religion, "Christian socialism" and
> the like, where the intent is to do good, or the best we can for everyone
> equally, and that the notion of capitalism and anything which favours some
> and ignores the plight of others is a fundamental evil.
>
> I'd go along with that in principle.
>
> It's also no surprise that those who reject the notion of capitalism being
> imposed upon them do so with such vehemence.
>
>

If you think about it, capitalism is is a kind of socialism for the wealthy. 
It's little more worthy than socialism.... socialism shares the wealth 
generated by others among those that don't necessarily do any actual work to 
generate the money, which lots of people look down their noses at, but 
capitalism does pretty much the same thing.  You don't have to work or 
produce anything in that system to make money either.  It seems to have more 
respectibility though because the beneficiaries of the system already have 
money.  That makes all the difference.  What do we end up with though?  Not 
just people who make money out of the work of others, but people making 
money out of actually wiping out the value of the work of others.  All from 
the comfort of their own homes too.

I'm not an economics expert - or even an economics fiend, but I think we're 
now seeing the weakness of an economy that allows people who don't actually 
produce anything to make money.  Eventually you end up having to print lots 
of pretend money so that all those people who pretended that they had made 
fortunes can actually be paid.  What a scam!  I wish I'd been in on it....


TWP
Pretend Billionaire (Sterling, naturally).

This post was printed on recycled money.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in
news:lzWDk.64098$E41.54965@text.news.virginmedia.com: 

> I cannot stop myself laughing at this ...
> 
> "We sent a message to Wall Street. The party is over. The era of
> golden parachutes for high flying Wall Street operators is over. No
> longer will the US taxpayer bail out the recklessness of Wall Street",
> "This is not about a bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in so we can
> turn our economy around" 
> 
> All said with an incredibly straight faced Democrat House Speaker
> Nancy Pelosi.
> 
> How can anyone say, "No longer will the US taxpayer bail out the
> recklessness of Wall Street" with a straight face when all the toxic
> debt which Wall Street has accrued has just been dumped firmly in the
> tax payer's lap ? Pelosi can call it a "buy-in" all she wants but it
> is a bail out if ever there was one. Forgiving the sins of Wall Street
> so they can go back to work on Monday exactly as they have been doing
> and all the high-rollers who got the US in this mess in the first
> place are guranteed their multi-million dollar salaries. Phew ! That
> *was* a close one ! 
> 
> It's pushed US debt to $10 billion ( on an economy worth $14 billion )
> and pushed the deficit to around $400 million, but it's going to be
> business as usual for the people who caused the problem and those in
> oversight who were asleep at the wheel or simply din't care. If it's
> not the ultimate case of sweeping a disaster under the carpet and
> pretending nothing happened I do not know what is.


have you confused your billions and your trillions?  


all's fair in politics but it is not as if there is no upside to the 
different deals that have been worked out.  It's not simple calculation 
and only time will tell.  


Preston's blog on the BBC described today's drop in the markets:


"4) A massive penny dropping on Wall Street, the recognition that 
Congress will extract back from financial firms in a few years the $700bn 
to be injected into banks to keep them alive."


(The have not been given "free money")


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/

"TWP"  wrote ...

> If you think about it, capitalism is is a kind of socialism for the
wealthy.
> It's little more worthy than socialism.... socialism shares the wealth
> generated by others among those that don't necessarily do any actual work
to
> generate the money, which lots of people look down their noses at, but
> capitalism does pretty much the same thing.  You don't have to work or
> produce anything in that system to make money either.  It seems to have
more
> respectibility though because the beneficiaries of the system already have
> money.  That makes all the difference.  What do we end up with though?
Not
> just people who make money out of the work of others, but people making
> money out of actually wiping out the value of the work of others.  All
from
> the comfort of their own homes too.

Marx, I believe, tackled the devision of proletariat and bourgeoisies with
the differentiation of those who simply sat around and money generated
itself for them, and those who had to work to produce income.

I'm not sure how much Marx touched on "Middle Class", and I don't think he
did in its modern form, but that has largely been the trick of moving poor
workers towards being slightly better off workers with aspiration of being
the toffs at the top but never having the real possibility of getting there.
Of course they think they're better than those below them and so perpetuate
the system which they conveniently forget they are actually part of.

This gives the artificial repectability because for a very long time people
have been suckered into believing it is respectable and the way things
should be.

It's a circular system, because people are then encouraged to higher
respectability by way of its trappings, expensive houses, yachts, jewellry
and so on which means they have to work harder or borrow money which simply
feeds those at the top even more than it did. Because they've ought into
this stupid regime they believe everyone should be buying into the regime.
We've been at it for so long that it seems a self-evident thing to do.

The same hold true of many of those on the lowest rung; they want their
plasma TV's their holidays abroad their own property and the market saw this
as another way to feed themselves and the obvious problem that those at the
bottom are first to fall by the wayside when a hiccup occurs was simply
ignored, over looked or its effects under estimated.

It's all driven by greed and vanity, of those seeking to gain this
respectability, to be seen as better than others, and those who leech off
that.

It's no coincidence warnings that the love of money is the root of all evil
and the poor man's 'access all areas' pass won't get a rich man through the
eye of a needle date back 2,000 years.

Capitalism to me is simply immoral.

I suppose it then follows that those who force people into it ( and there
really is no choice or option to avoid it ) are doing the devil's work.

There's something gone seriously wrong when someone cannot set themselves on
land they are deemed to own, cut themselves from all dependence on the state
in all forms and not be allowed to get on with it as self sufficiently as
they need to. They may thrive or die as they choose, they make that choice.

Instead they are required to pay tax or rates for doing nothing which makes
it impossible to even lie there and die over time without becoming in debt
to the state, so they have to work and they have to trade and they have to
be part of the system. Should they die, the state will seize the land in
lieu of debt, any off-spring then have no land to even consider that option
upon.


> I'm not an economics expert - or even an economics fiend, but I think
we're
> now seeing the weakness of an economy that allows people who don't
actually
> produce anything to make money.  Eventually you end up having to print
lots
> of pretend money so that all those people who pretended that they had made
> fortunes can actually be paid.  What a scam!  I wish I'd been in on it....

Don't we all, and isn't that exactly why it does perpetuate itself ?

You might feel a pang that what you are about to gain may be taking
something from someone else, but how long does that last when 99.9999% of
people tell you you fret over nothing, or it's fuck 'em if we can pull
ourselves upwards then so can they. It's so easy to get stuck in a spiral of
wrong and convince ourselves it isn't wrong at all.


> TWP
> Pretend Billionaire (Sterling, naturally).

No "multi" ? Pah; you commoner. I'm glad my butler didn't waste too much
time typing this reply. There's some rocks in the garden I need her to wash
before it rains.


> This post was printed on recycled money.

LOL. I'm printing it out on real money then burning it :-)

"basho007"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in
> news:lzWDk.64098$E41.54965@text.news.virginmedia.com:
>
> > I cannot stop myself laughing at this ...
> >
> > "We sent a message to Wall Street. The party is over. The era of
> > golden parachutes for high flying Wall Street operators is over. No
> > longer will the US taxpayer bail out the recklessness of Wall Street",
> > "This is not about a bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in so we can
> > turn our economy around"
> >
> > All said with an incredibly straight faced Democrat House Speaker
> > Nancy Pelosi.
> >
> > How can anyone say, "No longer will the US taxpayer bail out the
> > recklessness of Wall Street" with a straight face when all the toxic
> > debt which Wall Street has accrued has just been dumped firmly in the
> > tax payer's lap ? Pelosi can call it a "buy-in" all she wants but it
> > is a bail out if ever there was one. Forgiving the sins of Wall Street
> > so they can go back to work on Monday exactly as they have been doing
> > and all the high-rollers who got the US in this mess in the first
> > place are guranteed their multi-million dollar salaries. Phew ! That
> > *was* a close one !
> >
> > It's pushed US debt to $10 billion ( on an economy worth $14 billion )
> > and pushed the deficit to around $400 million, but it's going to be
> > business as usual for the people who caused the problem and those in
> > oversight who were asleep at the wheel or simply din't care. If it's
> > not the ultimate case of sweeping a disaster under the carpet and
> > pretending nothing happened I do not know what is.
>
>
> have you confused your billions and your trillions?

I have indeed ! Debt is $10 trillion, deficit is $400 billion.


> all's fair in politics but it is not as if there is no upside to the
> different deals that have been worked out.  It's not simple calculation
> and only time will tell.
>
>
> Preston's blog on the BBC described today's drop in the markets:
>
>
> "4) A massive penny dropping on Wall Street, the recognition that
> Congress will extract back from financial firms in a few years the $700bn
> to be injected into banks to keep them alive."
>
>
> (The have not been given "free money")
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/

And only time will truly tell if they've been given free money or not. I'm
sure we've all lent on the promise of a due return and been rather upset
that hasn't come about, and sometimes because it's beyond the debtor's
control.

There's a fundamental flaw in the bailout thinking that this has been a
one-off that it won't ever happen again, things are in place to stop that,
and that there will be the money to get back and the will and means to
actually extract it.

What's seriously lacking is any concept of there having been any wrong done,
all those who sailed into this disaster are now back at the helm with little
incentive to not do it again. Beng on 'suspended sentence' never really has
much of an effect on those who think more about today than they do of
tomorrow, and they'll be pretty confident they'll be able to buy themselves
out of the same mess in the future. They've successfully held America to
ransom and no reason they should not do it again. They've proved their case;
they are untouchable. Hold them to account and America collapses.

What the government is betting on is that the stinking pile of worthless
crap they hold now will turn to gold in the future. Ironically enough, the
same thinking which got America to its current state of affairs.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in
news:eW7Ek.64297$E41.8400@text.news.virginmedia.com: 

> 
> "basho007"  wrote ...
> 
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in
>> news:lzWDk.64098$E41.54965@text.news.virginmedia.com:
>>
>> > I cannot stop myself laughing at this ...
>> >
>> > "We sent a message to Wall Street. The party is over. The era of
>> > golden parachutes for high flying Wall Street operators is over. No
>> > longer will the US taxpayer bail out the recklessness of Wall
>> > Street", "This is not about a bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in
>> > so we can turn our economy around"
>> >
>> > All said with an incredibly straight faced Democrat House Speaker
>> > Nancy Pelosi.
>> >
>> > How can anyone say, "No longer will the US taxpayer bail out the
>> > recklessness of Wall Street" with a straight face when all the
>> > toxic debt which Wall Street has accrued has just been dumped
>> > firmly in the tax payer's lap ? Pelosi can call it a "buy-in" all
>> > she wants but it is a bail out if ever there was one. Forgiving the
>> > sins of Wall Street so they can go back to work on Monday exactly
>> > as they have been doing and all the high-rollers who got the US in
>> > this mess in the first place are guranteed their multi-million
>> > dollar salaries. Phew ! That *was* a close one !
>> >
>> > It's pushed US debt to $10 billion ( on an economy worth $14
>> > billion ) and pushed the deficit to around $400 million, but it's
>> > going to be business as usual for the people who caused the problem
>> > and those in oversight who were asleep at the wheel or simply din't
>> > care. If it's not the ultimate case of sweeping a disaster under
>> > the carpet and pretending nothing happened I do not know what is.
>>
>>
>> have you confused your billions and your trillions?
> 
> I have indeed ! Debt is $10 trillion, deficit is $400 billion.



an easy faux pas - the eyes go glassy with all those zeos.  


> 
> 
>> all's fair in politics but it is not as if there is no upside to the
>> different deals that have been worked out.  It's not simple
>> calculation and only time will tell.
>>
>>
>> Preston's blog on the BBC described today's drop in the markets:
>>
>>
>> "4) A massive penny dropping on Wall Street, the recognition that
>> Congress will extract back from financial firms in a few years the
>> $700bn to be injected into banks to keep them alive."
>>
>>
>> (The have not been given "free money")
>>
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/
> 
> And only time will truly tell if they've been given free money or not.
> I'm sure we've all lent on the promise of a due return and been rather
> upset that hasn't come about, and sometimes because it's beyond the
> debtor's control.
> 
> There's a fundamental flaw in the bailout thinking that this has been
> a one-off that it won't ever happen again, things are in place to stop
> that, and that there will be the money to get back and the will and
> means to actually extract it.


there are the junk bond saga - the internet stock bubble - now this (and 
not to mention the Long term asset management meltdown averted by the 
Fed.  

All this is my lifetime!


I'd suggest that these pillars of The City are a type of terrorist.  


One positive condequence of this might be the re-mergence of an authentic  
(and modern) left.  

  


> 
> What's seriously lacking is any concept of there having been any wrong
> done, all those who sailed into this disaster are now back at the helm
> with little incentive to not do it again. Beng on 'suspended sentence'
> never really has much of an effect on those who think more about today
> than they do of tomorrow, and they'll be pretty confident they'll be
> able to buy themselves out of the same mess in the future. They've
> successfully held America to ransom and no reason they should not do
> it again. They've proved their case; they are untouchable. Hold them
> to account and America collapses. 


There is much criticism floating about directed at the obscene profits 
etc made.  


What I've not seen is any mea culpa on the part of bankers or traders, 
swearing to go clean.  


The thing is for depraved bankers, now on the wagon to avoid a relapse.  


How about sending them to Re-education camps, a la The Great Helmsman?   



> 
> What the government is betting on is that the stinking pile of
> worthless crap they hold now will turn to gold in the future.
> Ironically enough, the same thinking which got America to its current
> state of affairs. 
> 


I understand that the collateral in question is more of a problem because 
the valuation banks have put on it is not trusted - and so a realistic 
rate can't be fixed to the collateral.  


It is not like it's all at a default rate of 100%.

Bail-out bill rejected (this time)

US Stock Market down 551 so far.
Make that down 560
No 572

"TWP"  wrote in 
news:yIednajHNYTzvnzVnZ2dnUVZ8tvinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk:

> Bail-out bill rejected (this time)
> 
> US Stock Market down 551 so far.
> Make that down 560
> No 572
> 
> 
> 
> 



It had been down as much as 700 earlier in the day.


Do I read correctly then that the rejection did not push it further down?  


I think the House asserting its power - there will be more concessions.  
More democrats will vote yes.   


The Republicans will be tarred as the "rejection" party. 


A towering achievement for Bush to be, at the end of his term, the 
harbinger of socialism in America.

TWP wrote:

> If you think about it, capitalism is is a kind of socialism for the
> wealthy. It's little more worthy than socialism.... socialism shares the
> wealth generated by others among those that don't necessarily do any
> actual work to generate the money, which lots of people look down their
> noses at, but capitalism does pretty much the same thing.  You don't have
> to work or produce anything in that system to make money either.  It seems
> to have more respectibility though because the beneficiaries of the system
> already have money.  That makes all the difference.  What do we end up
> with though?  Not just people who make money out of the work of others,
> but people making money out of actually wiping out the value of the work
> of others.  All from the comfort of their own homes too.

All in all, sharia banking has much to commend it.

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


-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"TWP"  wrote ...

> Bail-out bill rejected (this time)
>
> US Stock Market down 551 so far.
> Make that down 560
> No 572

I go out for a couple of hours, only to find that while I've been looking
the other way America has gone the way of the Titanic, and I missed it !

Dow Jones, down 777.68, down 6.99%
NASDAQ, down -199.61, down 9.14%

I wonder what tomorrow's going to bring ?

"basho007"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9B28CE19FCDBCbasho@69.16.176.253...
> "TWP"  wrote in
> news:yIednajHNYTzvnzVnZ2dnUVZ8tvinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk:
>
>> Bail-out bill rejected (this time)
>>
>> US Stock Market down 551 so far.
>> Make that down 560
>> No 572
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> It had been down as much as 700 earlier in the day.
>
>
> Do I read correctly then that the rejection did not push it further down?
>
>
> I think the House asserting its power - there will be more concessions.
> More democrats will vote yes.
>
>
> The Republicans will be tarred as the "rejection" party.
>
>
> A towering achievement for Bush to be, at the end of his term, the
> harbinger of socialism in America.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Now down 777 - the largest points drop ever, although Fox says not even 
close to being the biggest percentage drop.

Fox just said that the market dived after the "no" vote - I don't know where 
it started.  I remeber it being up a couple of hundred when they were 
expecting a "yes" vote.

It'll go through eventually, or something like it.  No-one is going to want 
to get the blame for all those lost pensions.  They probably don't want to 
look too eager to shell out all that money.


TWP

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:n5bEk.64443$E41.27012@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> Bail-out bill rejected (this time)
>>
>> US Stock Market down 551 so far.
>> Make that down 560
>> No 572
>
> I go out for a couple of hours, only to find that while I've been looking
> the other way America has gone the way of the Titanic, and I missed it !
>
> Dow Jones, down 777.68, down 6.99%
> NASDAQ, down -199.61, down 9.14%
>
> I wonder what tomorrow's going to bring ?
>
>

Probably fresh promises of a bail-out, and foreign buyers licking their lips 
in case there isn't one.

Someone is going to get hugely rich out of all this, especially if they hold 
their nerve for the right moment.

TWP

"basho007"  wrote ...

> "TWP"  wrote in
> news:yIednajHNYTzvnzVnZ2dnUVZ8tvinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk:
>
> > Bail-out bill rejected (this time)
> >
> > US Stock Market down 551 so far.
> > Make that down 560
> > No 572
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> It had been down as much as 700 earlier in the day.
>
>
> Do I read correctly then that the rejection did not push it further down?

It's gone down a tad more, near -778.


> I think the House asserting its power - there will be more concessions.
> More democrats will vote yes.

Reining in my global perspective of Obama's political position to a US focus
where the dividing line of left-right falls, I think Obama probably has come
out of this best. And I think you are right, the vote was tight, and it's
probably just as easy to buy more Democrat support as Republican.


> The Republicans will be tarred as the "rejection" party.

I had some suspicions last night it wasn't as plain sailing as other
commentators were suggesting due to Blunt's words when he said, "I encourage
those Republicans whose conscience will allow them to support the proposals"
( or something very much like that ). Dang ! I should have spoken out,
better still bet some money on it !

Looked at from both perspectives, there are pretty compelling arguments to
bailout and to let it sink so I'm not sure how America is ever going to get
a genuinely bi-partisan concensus on what to do. This could become a long
running sore for the future.

I'm not entirely sure what I'd do. My instinct is to say let it sink, it
needs to as a matter of principle, but there is that 'think of the children'
element that it is going to hurt a lot of people who are not the major ones
to blame. Then again, getting burnt is the best way to learn not to play
with fire and it's a lesson that needed to be sorely learned by everyone who
was running the system and those foolishly buying into it.

For the rightwing Christians I suppose there'd be a lot of parallels with
Noah and the flood; you got into the mess and now you're paying the rice for
that.

For the leftwing Christian, there's the campassion angle, reaching out to
rescue people from their plight.

What would Jesus do ?


> A towering achievement for Bush to be, at the end of his term, the
> harbinger of socialism in America.

It is a pretty amazing 'final act' performance. I would love to have seen
his face when they rejected the bailout / buy-in / workout / Wall Street's
early Christmas present.

"TWP"  wrote ...

> Now down 777 - the largest points drop ever, although Fox says not even
> close to being the biggest percentage drop.
>
> Fox just said that the market dived after the "no" vote - I don't know
where
> it started.  I remeber it being up a couple of hundred when they were
> expecting a "yes" vote.

MSN and others confirm ...

10,365.45 Down -777.68 -6.98%

Open: 11,139.62
High: 11,139.94
Low: 10,365.45

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?Symbol=%24indu
http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/dow/

So that looks like a 0.32 rise followed by a 774.49 fall from High to Low.
But huh ? How can the total fall be greater than the High to Low fall ?

Oh, that's right, it's "Wall Street" their numbers never add up :-o

"basho007"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9B28CE19FCDBCbasho@69.16.176.253...
> "TWP"  wrote in
> news:yIednajHNYTzvnzVnZ2dnUVZ8tvinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk:
>
>> Bail-out bill rejected (this time)
>>
>> US Stock Market down 551 so far.
>> Make that down 560
>> No 572
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> It had been down as much as 700 earlier in the day.
>
>
> Do I read correctly then that the rejection did not push it further down?
>


The O'Reilly Factor's intro on Fox just replayed Fox getting news of the 
rejection over news wires and you could see the DOW in the corner "-404.93".

I expect that the market won't have had to wait for Fox News to tell them 
about the "no" vote, but that's where things stood as the news went public 
to everyone else.  The slide will have started before -404.93.

TWP

The Happy Hippy wrote:

> What would Jesus do ?

If the problem is that the poor are defaulting on their mortgages, and
therefore the banks have refused to extend credit, then why - instead of
pumping extra funds into the banks - doesn't the government support the
mortgage payers so that fewer of them default? Then the banks have no need
to be chary about extending credit.

The whole approach of the proposed bail-out is top-down rather than
bottom-up, and the main beneficiaries are the rich and those who run and
hold shares in Wall Street. Having been bailed out once, what is to prevent
them coming back again and again for more? Especially as the Bush
administration has been willing to spend more per day on the Iraq war than
the costs of the proposed bail-out.

What seems particularly unjust is that the measure introduced in 1978,
whereby bankruptcy judges are not free to exercise discretion with regard
to mortgages in the same way as they are with other debts, is not proposed
to be changed at all. So the poor can go on being screwed for the last
penny while those who ran the dodgy mortgage schemes can go sailing away
with millions in their pockets, thanks to the taxpayer.

I don't recall that the Magnificat praised God because he had raised and
established the mighty in their seats, but the poor he had sent empty away.
That isn't the American dream, surely?
-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"Robin T Cox"  wrote ...

> If the problem is that the poor are defaulting on their mortgages, and
> therefore the banks have refused to extend credit, then why - instead of
> pumping extra funds into the banks - doesn't the government support the
> mortgage payers so that fewer of them default? Then the banks have no need
> to be chary about extending credit.

Arguments against are that it encourages people to take on mortgages they
cannot afford because they know that even if they cannot the government will
bail them out, and why should only one group who get themselves into debt
get bailed out ? Should government bailout those with gambling addictions or
casinos who have clients in debt ?

There may be ways and means of making that fairer for all but the underlying
problem is there is a whole section of society which is forced to live
beyond its means or languish in their poverty who are also the people with
less long term financial stability than others higher up the employment
ladder.

It's also not just the intrinsically poor in an awkward position; take the
UK, can many lower down on the housing ladder really afford to own property
without moving themselves into the poverty bracket once their mortgage
payment is taken out of their salaries ?

I'd be more sympathetic to the blame being on the mortgage payers and other
debtors for getting themselves into a mess of their own creation, but there
is very little choice they have and this is what they are being encouraged
to do. People have been lured into risky ventures ( stock market investment,
private pensions ) and often with government 'cashback' offers as enticement
to do so. Greed plays its part, but when government is cutting state
pensions and warning that people will be living in poverty if they don't
play the capitalism game then what are they to do ?

Supermarket and utility costs are soaring and those companies are getting
richer and richer. People can cut back all they want but there comes a point
where outgoings exceed income and something has to give. In the long term
it's entirely possible these will be the richest companies in the world, on
paper, with the entire UK population registered as bankrupt.

Regulation and control seems to be; as long as there's someone we can screw
money out of we will continue to do so. Regardless of knock-on and future
consequences.

Bailout ( of creditor or debtor ) solves an impending crisis but it doesn't
fix the flawed system. Far greater fundamental changes are needed.

The Happy Hippy wrote:

> 
> "Robin T Cox"  wrote ...
> 
>> If the problem is that the poor are defaulting on their mortgages, and
>> therefore the banks have refused to extend credit, then why - instead of
>> pumping extra funds into the banks - doesn't the government support the
>> mortgage payers so that fewer of them default? Then the banks have no
>> need to be chary about extending credit.
> 
> Arguments against are that it encourages people to take on mortgages they
> cannot afford because they know that even if they cannot the government
> will bail them out, and why should only one group who get themselves into
> debt get bailed out ? Should government bailout those with gambling
> addictions or casinos who have clients in debt ?
> 
> There may be ways and means of making that fairer for all but the
> underlying problem is there is a whole section of society which is forced
> to live beyond its means or languish in their poverty who are also the
> people with less long term financial stability than others higher up the
> employment ladder.
> 
> It's also not just the intrinsically poor in an awkward position; take the
> UK, can many lower down on the housing ladder really afford to own
> property without moving themselves into the poverty bracket once their
> mortgage payment is taken out of their salaries ?
> 
> I'd be more sympathetic to the blame being on the mortgage payers and
> other debtors for getting themselves into a mess of their own creation,
> but there is very little choice they have and this is what they are being
> encouraged to do. People have been lured into risky ventures ( stock
> market investment, private pensions ) and often with government 'cashback'
> offers as enticement to do so. Greed plays its part, but when government
> is cutting state pensions and warning that people will be living in
> poverty if they don't play the capitalism game then what are they to do ?
> 
> Supermarket and utility costs are soaring and those companies are getting
> richer and richer. People can cut back all they want but there comes a
> point where outgoings exceed income and something has to give. In the long
> term it's entirely possible these will be the richest companies in the
> world, on paper, with the entire UK population registered as bankrupt.
> 
> Regulation and control seems to be; as long as there's someone we can
> screw money out of we will continue to do so. Regardless of knock-on and
> future consequences.
> 
> Bailout ( of creditor or debtor ) solves an impending crisis but it
> doesn't fix the flawed system. Far greater fundamental changes are needed.

I must say that I'm impressed by Ann Pettifor's argument in her Guardian
article today, in which she says that the various attempts to solve the
problem are flawed because they are all based on the monetarist theories
that have caused it in the first place.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/wallstreet.marketturmoil
http://tinyurl.com/3jjb5x

The solution, in that case, is not more monetarism, but a return to Keysian
principles.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"Robin T Cox"  wrote ...

[snip]

> > Bailout ( of creditor or debtor ) solves an impending crisis but it
> > doesn't fix the flawed system. Far greater fundamental changes are
needed.
>
> I must say that I'm impressed by Ann Pettifor's argument in her Guardian
> article today, in which she says that the various attempts to solve the
> problem are flawed because they are all based on the monetarist theories
> that have caused it in the first place.
>
>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/wallstreet.marketturmoil
> http://tinyurl.com/3jjb5x
>
> The solution, in that case, is not more monetarism, but a return to
Keysian
> principles.

"Will these plugs and private-sector fixes work? No, because a) they are not
system-wide fixes and b) they are based on the same flawed economic policies
that spurred this crisis in the first place"

That's exactly what I agree with and Pettifor has come up with an answer
better than I could ( why she writes for a leading newspaper and I write
here ).

Can the system be swung round though, especially as we are in the depth of
crisis now ? Probably not, it's going to take an effort to get things on the
track they should be. So the challenge is making the fix now compatible with
the future or bucking ideas up and making the change rapidly.

I'm not convinced though that there's the political will to do it. Since
Thatcher and Reagan, this "greed is good" has been embraced as an ideal by
near everyone, with those who won't embrace it cast off to sink or swim for
themsleves, mainly sinking with no one caring about that or trying to help;
it's their own fault. This greed and selfishness has infected and spread
thorough society like a cancer.

There's been a shift to the right; you get what you work for, you have to
pay whatever it costs or do without, free healthcare doesn't make money so
we'll charge you for it. While profiteers cut wages and jack-up costs to
benefit themselves, the only option is to borrow, and they saw the
profiteering which could be had there as well. It's been a headlong rush to
shift money from the poor to the rich and they've succeeded so well they've
hit the wall. And that's before we even consider the financial sector's
amazing ability to create non-existent but usable money from thin air which
can disappear just as quickly.

Will Keynes be this century's Robin Hood ?

As an aside : I did like the comment on that piece, that CERN's Large Hadron
Collider wasn't shut down because of fault, but that it did create the black
hole people feared, in Wall Street of all places.

The Happy Hippy wrote:

> 
> "Robin T Cox"  wrote ...
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> > Bailout ( of creditor or debtor ) solves an impending crisis but it
>> > doesn't fix the flawed system. Far greater fundamental changes are
> needed.
>>
>> I must say that I'm impressed by Ann Pettifor's argument in her Guardian
>> article today, in which she says that the various attempts to solve the
>> problem are flawed because they are all based on the monetarist theories
>> that have caused it in the first place.
>>
>>
>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/wallstreet.marketturmoil
>> http://tinyurl.com/3jjb5x
>>
>> The solution, in that case, is not more monetarism, but a return to
> Keysian
>> principles.
> 
> "Will these plugs and private-sector fixes work? No, because a) they are
> not system-wide fixes and b) they are based on the same flawed economic
> policies that spurred this crisis in the first place"
> 
> That's exactly what I agree with and Pettifor has come up with an answer
> better than I could ( why she writes for a leading newspaper and I write
> here ).
> 
> Can the system be swung round though, especially as we are in the depth of
> crisis now ? Probably not, it's going to take an effort to get things on
> the track they should be. So the challenge is making the fix now
> compatible with the future or bucking ideas up and making the change
> rapidly.
> 

I think Bush is simply making the problem worse, by scaremongering in
support of his preferred solution, which causes minimal pain to the rich
whilst soaking the taxpayer.

In a splendid Matt Davies cartoon, Bush is shown repeating his
scaremongering over Iraq, but replacing certain key words and phrases. On
Iraq, he said he would find the WMDs. Now he says he will find liquidity.
Then he said the operation would pay for itself with oil money. Now he says
it will pay for itself in mortgage securities. And on Iraq he said that the
Iraqis would throw flowers at our feet. Now he says that the bankers will.
The cartoon shows that the public no longer buys it.

http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/PCbest5.asp

And there's the problem. Not a lack of political will, but of political
credibility - in other words, trust. Bush and his fat cat friends are no
longer trusted to exercise good faith, much less competence, in the conduct
of the nation's affairs. And, with good cause, people are scared to entrust
their money to them, because they cannot be trusted. And that's the root of
it. There is a cancer of mistrust, that has started at the top.
 
> I'm not convinced though that there's the political will to do it. Since
> Thatcher and Reagan, this "greed is good" has been embraced as an ideal by
> near everyone, with those who won't embrace it cast off to sink or swim
> for themsleves, mainly sinking with no one caring about that or trying to
> help; it's their own fault. This greed and selfishness has infected and
> spread thorough society like a cancer.
> 
> There's been a shift to the right; you get what you work for, you have to
> pay whatever it costs or do without, free healthcare doesn't make money so
> we'll charge you for it. While profiteers cut wages and jack-up costs to
> benefit themselves, the only option is to borrow, and they saw the
> profiteering which could be had there as well. It's been a headlong rush
> to shift money from the poor to the rich and they've succeeded so well
> they've hit the wall. And that's before we even consider the financial
> sector's amazing ability to create non-existent but usable money from thin
> air which can disappear just as quickly.
> 
> Will Keynes be this century's Robin Hood ?
> 
> As an aside : I did like the comment on that piece, that CERN's Large
> Hadron Collider wasn't shut down because of fault, but that it did create
> the black hole people feared, in Wall Street of all places.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"Robin T Cox"  wrote ...

> I think Bush is simply making the problem worse, by scaremongering in
> support of his preferred solution, which causes minimal pain to the rich
> whilst soaking the taxpayer.

When Bush warned that if the bailout wasn't passed America would be
devastated I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought they'd like to see what
that looked like.


> In a splendid Matt Davies cartoon, Bush is shown repeating his
> scaremongering over Iraq, but replacing certain key words and phrases. On
> Iraq, he said he would find the WMDs. Now he says he will find liquidity.
> Then he said the operation would pay for itself with oil money. Now he
says
> it will pay for itself in mortgage securities. And on Iraq he said that
the
> Iraqis would throw flowers at our feet. Now he says that the bankers will.
> The cartoon shows that the public no longer buys it.
>
> http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/PCbest5.asp
>
> And there's the problem. Not a lack of political will, but of political
> credibility - in other words, trust. Bush and his fat cat friends are no
> longer trusted to exercise good faith, much less competence, in the
conduct
> of the nation's affairs. And, with good cause, people are scared to
entrust
> their money to them, because they cannot be trusted. And that's the root
of
> it. There is a cancer of mistrust, that has started at the top.

Same here I'd say. "Prudent Chancellor, best and most competent we've had in
decades" doesn't have quite the ring to it these days.

Same too for the Fat Cats running the show. Few believed their skills
actually justified $20 million salaries and bonuses and events have proven
them right. It's only natural that people feel those who have been paid
obscene amounts of money to get it right should escape unscathed when they
got it so badly wrong. They don't get a bailout when the repossession orders
and bailiffs arrive and that disparity of treatment is blatantly obvious.

That's another nail in the credibility coffin.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...
>
> > I cannot stop myself laughing at this ...
> >
> > "We sent a message to Wall Street. The party is over. The era of golden
> > parachutes for high flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer will
> the
> > US taxpayer bail out the recklessness of Wall Street", "This is not
about
> a
> > bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in so we can turn our economy around"
> >
> > All said with an incredibly straight faced Democrat House Speaker Nancy
> > Pelosi.
>
> And I'm in danger of my sides splitting now Republican Roy Blunt has
offered
> up his gem; "I think you can much more adequately describe this bill as a
> workout of the problem rather than a bailout of the problem. As long as we
> were bailing out somebody it didn't make sense to the American people".
>
> Anyone going to tell me that the sub-text there isn't, "if we call it
> something other than it is, the gullible and stupid American people will
lap
> it up and support it" ?

This really is, for all its seriousness, a laugh-a-minute sideshow - I
nearly wet myself last night. I cannot say who nor repeat their exact words
but it was a male, older, and I believe Republican speaking in the debate
before last night's vote ...

Their argument to support the bailout was that it would give Americans
confidence in their economy, confidence in their financial institutions,
would lead them to believe there was a great future for them, it would buoy
up American spirits, it will allow everyone to look at American institutions
and believe they are doing well, give them a belief that America has a
promising future, a belief which has made America great for two hundred
years.

Talk about evangelising the Emporer's new clothes. As long as there's the
illusion everything is fine it will be. As long as there's the illusion
everything is fine it doesn't matter that it isn't. It doesn't matter that
this is the ridiculous line of reasoning and denial of reality which brought
the disaster we see around us.

If anyone does know who it was or exactly what they said; let me know.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:OT3Fk.65628$E41.52187@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote ...
>>
>> > I cannot stop myself laughing at this ...
>> >
>> > "We sent a message to Wall Street. The party is over. The era of golden
>> > parachutes for high flying Wall Street operators is over. No longer 
>> > will
>> the
>> > US taxpayer bail out the recklessness of Wall Street", "This is not
> about
>> a
>> > bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in so we can turn our economy 
>> > around"
>> >
>> > All said with an incredibly straight faced Democrat House Speaker Nancy
>> > Pelosi.
>>
>> And I'm in danger of my sides splitting now Republican Roy Blunt has
> offered
>> up his gem; "I think you can much more adequately describe this bill as a
>> workout of the problem rather than a bailout of the problem. As long as 
>> we
>> were bailing out somebody it didn't make sense to the American people".
>>
>> Anyone going to tell me that the sub-text there isn't, "if we call it
>> something other than it is, the gullible and stupid American people will
> lap
>> it up and support it" ?
>
> This really is, for all its seriousness, a laugh-a-minute sideshow - I
> nearly wet myself last night. I cannot say who nor repeat their exact 
> words
> but it was a male, older, and I believe Republican speaking in the debate
> before last night's vote ...
>
> Their argument to support the bailout was that it would give Americans
> confidence in their economy, confidence in their financial institutions,
> would lead them to believe there was a great future for them, it would 
> buoy
> up American spirits, it will allow everyone to look at American 
> institutions
> and believe they are doing well, give them a belief that America has a
> promising future, a belief which has made America great for two hundred
> years.
>
> Talk about evangelising the Emporer's new clothes. As long as there's the
> illusion everything is fine it will be. As long as there's the illusion
> everything is fine it doesn't matter that it isn't. It doesn't matter that
> this is the ridiculous line of reasoning and denial of reality which 
> brought
> the disaster we see around us.
>
> If anyone does know who it was or exactly what they said; let me know.
>
>

One of the most disasterous things about this disaster is that no-one quite 
knows exactly how disasterous it is!

They'll get their $700 billion I expect, but I think that'll just be a 
downpayment, and I've heard others say the same thing.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> One of the most disasterous things about this disaster is that no-one
quite
> knows exactly how disasterous it is!
>
> They'll get their $700 billion I expect, but I think that'll just be a
> downpayment, and I've heard others say the same thing.

Most American economic analysts I've read are saying something needs to be
done but there's an awful lot of criticism ( not all in agreement on
specifics ) about what's being done and how they are going about it. One
claim which is quite wide-spread amongst analysts is that the bailout is
over-stated in need and scale, and may call more problems than a more
focused strategy would have.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:TQaFk.65892$E41.4443@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> One of the most disasterous things about this disaster is that no-one
> quite
>> knows exactly how disasterous it is!
>>
>> They'll get their $700 billion I expect, but I think that'll just be a
>> downpayment, and I've heard others say the same thing.
>
> Most American economic analysts I've read are saying something needs to be
> done but there's an awful lot of criticism ( not all in agreement on
> specifics ) about what's being done and how they are going about it. One
> claim which is quite wide-spread amongst analysts is that the bailout is
> over-stated in need and scale, and may call more problems than a more
> focused strategy would have.
>
>

They haven't even worked out how deep the hole is that they're in 
though!.... they've quoted a bail-out figure, but really the goalposts are 
moving all the time, plus one of the problems is that assets have been 
over-valued sometimes when they have absolutely no value.  It seems that a 
lot of assets need to be revalued just so that the banks can get their 
credit ratings back with each other.  Who is to say that at the end of it 
all another massive black hole won't be found?  Imagine the lurch downwards 
THAT would cause on the Dow!  Especially if they thought that they'd had all 
the cash they were likely to get and it still hadn't been enough.  I just 
can't help but think that those that say that this is only the first payout 
of several are right.

I always thought though that you shouldn't gamble with money that you can't 
afford to lose.  Maybe I'm dumb, but I really don't see the point in a 
market that has to be bailed out.  I would have thought that having to do so 
defeated the very tenets of capitalism that the stock market represented. 
There have to be losers for their to be winners at any game, but in this 
game the losers have largely been people who weren't even playing.  Rather 
than put everyone's money at risk with a stock market why don't they just 
open a big casino on Wall Street instead?


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:TQaFk.65892$E41.4443@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >
> > "TWP"  wrote ...
> >
> >> One of the most disasterous things about this disaster is that no-one
> > quite
> >> knows exactly how disasterous it is!
> >>
> >> They'll get their $700 billion I expect, but I think that'll just be a
> >> downpayment, and I've heard others say the same thing.
> >
> > Most American economic analysts I've read are saying something needs to
be
> > done but there's an awful lot of criticism ( not all in agreement on
> > specifics ) about what's being done and how they are going about it. One
> > claim which is quite wide-spread amongst analysts is that the bailout is
> > over-stated in need and scale, and may call more problems than a more
> > focused strategy would have.
> >
> >
>
> They haven't even worked out how deep the hole is that they're in
> though!.... they've quoted a bail-out figure, but really the goalposts are
> moving all the time, plus one of the problems is that assets have been
> over-valued sometimes when they have absolutely no value.  It seems that a
> lot of assets need to be revalued just so that the banks can get their
> credit ratings back with each other.  Who is to say that at the end of it
> all another massive black hole won't be found?  Imagine the lurch
downwards
> THAT would cause on the Dow!  Especially if they thought that they'd had
all
> the cash they were likely to get and it still hadn't been enough.  I just
> can't help but think that those that say that this is only the first
payout
> of several are right.

This is a fundmental flaw of the bail-out; it's buying worthless entities.
If the entities aren't worthless then the institutions can keep them and
bail themselves out, if they are worthless then what makes the government
think they are anything other than worthless to themselves ( which is really
the tax payer ) ?

It really is money for old rope. Wall Street gets the money it was hoping to
get, Main Street gets lemons it cannot make money on. At best it's
government gambling on a bad deal in the hope it turns good, exactly what's
brought down Wall Street.

> I always thought though that you shouldn't gamble with money that you
can't
> afford to lose.  Maybe I'm dumb, but I really don't see the point in a
> market that has to be bailed out.  I would have thought that having to do
so
> defeated the very tenets of capitalism that the stock market represented.
> There have to be losers for their to be winners at any game, but in this
> game the losers have largely been people who weren't even playing.  Rather
> than put everyone's money at risk with a stock market why don't they just
> open a big casino on Wall Street instead?

Exactly. Wall Street is a totally flawed and corrupt concept.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:qfgFk.65984$E41.20138@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>> news:TQaFk.65892$E41.4443@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> >
>> > "TWP"  wrote ...
>> >
>> >> One of the most disasterous things about this disaster is that no-one
>> > quite
>> >> knows exactly how disasterous it is!
>> >>
>> >> They'll get their $700 billion I expect, but I think that'll just be a
>> >> downpayment, and I've heard others say the same thing.
>> >
>> > Most American economic analysts I've read are saying something needs to
> be
>> > done but there's an awful lot of criticism ( not all in agreement on
>> > specifics ) about what's being done and how they are going about it. 
>> > One
>> > claim which is quite wide-spread amongst analysts is that the bailout 
>> > is
>> > over-stated in need and scale, and may call more problems than a more
>> > focused strategy would have.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> They haven't even worked out how deep the hole is that they're in
>> though!.... they've quoted a bail-out figure, but really the goalposts 
>> are
>> moving all the time, plus one of the problems is that assets have been
>> over-valued sometimes when they have absolutely no value.  It seems that 
>> a
>> lot of assets need to be revalued just so that the banks can get their
>> credit ratings back with each other.  Who is to say that at the end of it
>> all another massive black hole won't be found?  Imagine the lurch
> downwards
>> THAT would cause on the Dow!  Especially if they thought that they'd had
> all
>> the cash they were likely to get and it still hadn't been enough.  I just
>> can't help but think that those that say that this is only the first
> payout
>> of several are right.
>
> This is a fundmental flaw of the bail-out; it's buying worthless entities.
> If the entities aren't worthless then the institutions can keep them and
> bail themselves out, if they are worthless then what makes the government
> think they are anything other than worthless to themselves ( which is 
> really
> the tax payer ) ?
>
> It really is money for old rope. Wall Street gets the money it was hoping 
> to
> get, Main Street gets lemons it cannot make money on. At best it's
> government gambling on a bad deal in the hope it turns good, exactly 
> what's
> brought down Wall Street.

Plus another aspect that should worry the  US politicians who are being 
asked to accept this is that "foreign entities working with a base in the 
USA" can also get bailed out. So a bank in Singapore, or wherever, transfer 
its billions of home based bad debts to its American branch and hey presto, 
the US government buys it up. As soon as thing is law, or sooner, you will 
see these foreign debts piling in. Then $700 billion isn't going to stretch 
far.



snip

"Bill Again"  wrote in message 
news:gc4p7h$i86$02$1@news.t-online.com...
>
> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:qfgFk.65984$E41.20138@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>>> news:TQaFk.65892$E41.4443@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> >
>>> > "TWP"  wrote ...
>>> >
>>> >> One of the most disasterous things about this disaster is that no-one
>>> > quite
>>> >> knows exactly how disasterous it is!
>>> >>
>>> >> They'll get their $700 billion I expect, but I think that'll just be 
>>> >> a
>>> >> downpayment, and I've heard others say the same thing.
>>> >
>>> > Most American economic analysts I've read are saying something needs 
>>> > to
>> be
>>> > done but there's an awful lot of criticism ( not all in agreement on
>>> > specifics ) about what's being done and how they are going about it. 
>>> > One
>>> > claim which is quite wide-spread amongst analysts is that the bailout 
>>> > is
>>> > over-stated in need and scale, and may call more problems than a more
>>> > focused strategy would have.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> They haven't even worked out how deep the hole is that they're in
>>> though!.... they've quoted a bail-out figure, but really the goalposts 
>>> are
>>> moving all the time, plus one of the problems is that assets have been
>>> over-valued sometimes when they have absolutely no value.  It seems that 
>>> a
>>> lot of assets need to be revalued just so that the banks can get their
>>> credit ratings back with each other.  Who is to say that at the end of 
>>> it
>>> all another massive black hole won't be found?  Imagine the lurch
>> downwards
>>> THAT would cause on the Dow!  Especially if they thought that they'd had
>> all
>>> the cash they were likely to get and it still hadn't been enough.  I 
>>> just
>>> can't help but think that those that say that this is only the first
>> payout
>>> of several are right.
>>
>> This is a fundmental flaw of the bail-out; it's buying worthless 
>> entities.
>> If the entities aren't worthless then the institutions can keep them and
>> bail themselves out, if they are worthless then what makes the government
>> think they are anything other than worthless to themselves ( which is 
>> really
>> the tax payer ) ?
>>
>> It really is money for old rope. Wall Street gets the money it was hoping 
>> to
>> get, Main Street gets lemons it cannot make money on. At best it's
>> government gambling on a bad deal in the hope it turns good, exactly 
>> what's
>> brought down Wall Street.
>
> Plus another aspect that should worry the  US politicians who are being 
> asked to accept this is that "foreign entities working with a base in the 
> USA" can also get bailed out. So a bank in Singapore, or wherever, 
> transfer its billions of home based bad debts to its American branch and 
> hey presto, the US government buys it up. As soon as thing is law, or 
> sooner, you will see these foreign debts piling in. Then $700 billion 
> isn't going to stretch far.
>
>
>
> snip
>

Apparently the new bail-out bill has grown from 3 pages for the bill that 
was rejected to 450 pages for the new bill, and features provisions for 
millions in tax breaks for toy wooden arrow production, rum production as 
far as I know, and wool research (wool research?!)... plus many more.

Sounds like someone has been getting bribed to offer support!  Quite a lot 
of people in fact.

I thought they said that additional spending tacked on to the bailout bill 
"wouldn't be understood [by voters presumably]".  They must have just been 
talking about the last one, because it seems fairly easy to understand to 
me.

TWP