Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[classicman]

ok tw, for a minute there I thought you had been abducted by aliens or something.

SO...are you for or against regulating banking and financial services

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...More regulation is not the solution. That is stupid.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...Eliminate non-commerical banks abilities to provide low cost loans to people who never could have afforded them in the first place...

You still havent addressed the apparent contradiction in those statements unless you know of a way to eliminate non-commercial banks from the housing finance market w/o regulation?

Do you only agree with Volcker that we should "let financial institutions fail" or do you agree with him that we also need "somewhat in the spirit of Glass-Steagall in making a distinction between capital-market activities and trading activities and banking activities."

[xoxoxoBruce]

Threads are like paper boats, you can't steer them, you can only watch them drift.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Threads are like paper boats, you can't steer them, you can only watch them drift.

Or disintegrate like a dollar bill.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Naw, bills are waterproof.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Naw, bills are waterproof.

But not liberals in the land of Merc who hate dissent.

I"'m melting, melting. Oh, what a world."
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=624042&postcount=984

[classicman]

Round three is coming - Just heard from a friend that they are researching more of those ever elusive "shovel-ready" jobs.

Originally Posted by classicman

Round three is coming - Just heard from a friend that they are researching more of those ever elusive "shovel-ready" jobs.

Sounds to me like you are confusing bailout with stimulus.

Since there hasnt been a round two of stimulus funding yet, its hard for me to understand how round three is coming.

As I understand it, there is consideration for a second stimulus using the left-over TARP (bail out) funds for more targeted jobs creation as well as using some of those left-over TARP funds for deficit reduction.

If you think additional stimulus funds will not be helpful (in the short term), what would you suggest to address the continued high unemployment?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Sounds to me like you are confusing bailout with stimulus.

At this point, whatever. These threads have been drifting and crossing so much that they've basically melded together.

If you think additional stimulus funds will not be helpful (in the short term), what would you suggest to address the continued high unemployment?

Do you think it worked? With underemployment and unemployment at what now 17-18% ? Do you think it worked?

Originally Posted by classicman

At this point, whatever. These threads have been drifting and crossing so much that they've basically melded together.


Do you think it worked? With underemployment and unemployment at what now 17-18% ? Do you think it worked?

Hey, my question was just a discussion stimulus, but you can bail out and not respond.

And, yes, I think we had to do something to stimulate the economy that was on the brink of disaster and, I agree with many economists who believe it has contributed to slowing the economic downtown and ending the recession sooner than otherwise would have occurred. Employment is always the last to recover.

We can quibble on the numbers, but there is no doubt that it helped save or create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

IMO, government action was necessary and is still needed.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

We can quibble on the numbers, but there is no doubt that it helped save or create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Great job. To bad we have lost millions of jobs. Hundreds of thousands is just pissing in the wind.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

We can quibble on the numbers, but there is no doubt that it helped save or create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

How many? Lets ask three members of the administration. . .

White House advisers appearing on the Sunday talk shows gave three different estimates of how many jobs could be credited to President Obama’s Recovery Act.

Valerie Jarrett had the most conservative count, saying “the Recovery Act saved thousands and thousands of jobs,” while David Axelrod gave the bill the most credit, saying it has “created more than – or saved more than 2 million jobs.” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs came in between them, saying the plan had “saved or created 1.5 million jobs.”

Their remarks in context:

Axelrod, on CNN’s State of the Union: “But understand that, in this recession that began at the beginning of 2007, we've lost 7 million jobs. Now, the Recovery Act the president passed has created more than — or saved more than 2 million jobs. But against 7 million, you know, that — that is — it is cold comfort to those who still are looking.”

Jarrett, on NBC’s Meet the Press: “The Recovery Act saved thousands and thousands of jobs. There are schoolteachers and firemen and— and— teachers all across our country, policemen, who have jobs today because of that recovery act. We're investing in infrastructure. We're investing in public education so that our kids can compete going forth into the next— generation.”

Gibbs, on “Fox News Sunday”: “Well, Chris, let's take for instance the example you just used of the stimulus package. We had four quarters of economic regression in terms of growth, right? Just last quarter, we finally saw the first positive economic job growth in more than a year. Largely as a result of the recovery plan that's put money back into our economy, that saved or created 1.5 million jobs.”

Link

Originally Posted by Redux

IMO, government action was necessary and is still needed.
Most of the recovery money has yet to be spent (by intent) and is directed towards retooling the economy by focusing on developing new energy technologies, a national broadband network, wide spread infrastructure improvement, investments in health technology, investments in education...

I agree that action was and now still is needed, but it should have addressed actually creating jobs first. As you said the first phase of this money was NOT directed at that. I believe that is where it should have been.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Do you think it worked? With underemployment and unemployment at what now 17-18% ? Do you think it worked?

We know due to economic mismanagement in the 2000s (ie tax cuts for the rich, Enron accounting without any prosecution, etc) that we created a 2008 meltdown. History says massive jobs losses will occur in 2012. That is inevitable due to money games played and encouraged throughout the 2000s.

The question is - and nobody can answer it - is how bad the inevitable job losses will be. With intelligent people replacing political extremists, we have seen a major economic disaster averted. Now we will learn how expensive it was to avert disaster.

Only wackos would blame Obama for this - as they are lining up to do. As Obama accurately said when he took office (and the overwhelming consensus from the Jan 2009 Economist's convention in San Francisco), we will be paying for the 2000s for the next ten years.

A concept repeated repeatedly. Money games result in economics taking revenge. That revenge is ongoing due to a $trillion wasted in Mission Accomplished, et al, welfare for the rich, welfare to industries such as big Pharma, protection for some of America's least productive industries (ie big steel), all but open encouragement of Enron accounting, subversion of the SEC, a ten year 2% reduction of American incomes, etc. Whereas problems could have been solved at the source (ie bankruptcy of big steel, proper regulation and oversight of finance institutions, innovation required from big auto, honesty about threats to America, mythical tax cuts, the lessons from LTCM, etc). Now everyone becomes innocent victims as economics takes revenge. Lessons learned from history.

We must sell off major parts of America to pay for those money games. Or bankrupt many corporations. Or massively downsize the military. Or further depreciate the American dollar (below the already 40% drop compared to the Euro). Or massive unemployment. Or increase foreign debts. All examples of how the American economy may have to suffer to correct economic money games through the 2000s.

How high must unemployment rise when economics takes revenge? Nobody can say. But we do know this. The American standard of living is expected to drop in response to so much economic mismanagement ten years previous. No way around reality and the lessons of history. It has hardly begun.

The lies of Vietnam in 68 and 70 resulted in misery - years centered about 1979. 30 years later, a new public is doomed to relive the lessons of history. Nobody can say how large unemployment might be to pay for the 2000s. We know this. It would have been a hell of a lot worse if not for intervention at the highest levels of government.

They were given eight hours to save the American economy. It was no exaggeration.

Originally Posted by tw

We know due to economic mismanagement in the 2000s (ie tax cuts for the rich, Enron accounting without any prosecution, etc) that we created a 2008 meltdown. History says massive jobs losses will occur in 2012. That is inevitable due to money games played and encouraged throughout the 2000s.

The 2000s were a lost decade, but some, particularly the critics, obviously chose to ignore that.

Many economists see job growth returning by this summer, but that still wont address the long-term need to retool and restructure the economy on a much larger scale.

Repeating myself (from my link on the lost decade):

Most of the recovery money has yet to be spent (by intent) and is directed towards retooling the economy by focusing on developing new energy technologies, a national broadband network, wide spread infrastructure improvement, investments in health technology, investments in education...all critical if you're interest is looking forward to be better positioned to compete in a global economy in which we may have lost the competitive edge that we enjoyed for decades.

I still havent heard a better approach from the critics here...they just keep on bailing out.

[TheMercenary]

Maybe they are going to really start to get pushy on enticing people to take out loans based on known credit scores or payment history. We get offers in the mail to refinace our house at least once per week. There is no way in hell I would take out such a loan at this point.