"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:33:09 -0400, said:


Meanwhile, I wonder how Dave feels about his beloved banking industry
going on welfare.

Thus far, at least, it hasn't been the banks, but those on the other
sides
of transactions with banks. (Investment banks are different beasts from
banks.) Next question is whether the guvmint will let WaMu go into FDIC
supervised liquidation.

That said, I think I said earlier that the bailout for Fan and Fred were
mistakes. Same with AIG. Essentially what's happening now is a huge game
of
musical chairs. It's not a matter of how much _will be_ lost on mortgage
backed securities and the related fallout. Those losses have already
occurred. The money's already been lost. Now we're just seeing who will
bear
the loss--which of the holders will be left without chairs when the music
stops. I'd rather see it be the stockholders and subordinated debt
holders
of those institutions than the taxpayers. Bailouts just keep the music
playing for a bit longer.

Housing, and the mortgages financing them, need to find an equilibrium
market level. Until they do, lending for all purposes will be chilled.

People seem to lose site of the fact that when a company goes bust the
pieces left over don't just disappear into thin air. If Bear Stearns had
been allowed to fail, the people there, or at least some of them, would
no
doubt have started up smaller investment banks--investment banks that
could
become bigger, dispersing the risk of failure of a few huge institutions.
Same thing with Fan and Fred. Encouraging concentration of the
businesses,
banking or other, in fewer and fewer large firms is a recipe for further
problems. No business should be too big to fail.


Yep, you got it right. It doesn't matter how many people lose there jobs
or their homes, as long as the gov't does nothing.

Big difference between "should be to big" and "is too big" to fail.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Excuse my typo. LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...

Yep, you got it right. It doesn't matter how many people lose there jobs
or their homes, as long as the gov't does nothing.

Big difference between "should be to big" and "is too big" to fail.



If you equate taxation with job loss, the government is the best at it.

wrote in message
...


Encouraging concentration of the businesses,
banking or other, in fewer and fewer large firms is a recipe for further
problems. No business should be too big to fail.

I don't want to alarm you, Dave, but I agree with a lot of this.


Also a great tonic for political parties!

Encouraging the concentration of political power into one party is a recipe
for further problems.

Electing Obama would put government in the hands of one political party.

Voting for Obama is a recipe for disaster.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:39:10 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .


Encouraging concentration of the businesses,
banking or other, in fewer and fewer large firms is a recipe for further
problems. No business should be too big to fail.

I don't want to alarm you, Dave, but I agree with a lot of this.


Also a great tonic for political parties!

Encouraging the concentration of political power into one party is a recipe
for further problems.

Electing Obama would put government in the hands of one political party.

Voting for Obama is a recipe for disaster.



You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe we have more than one
political party now as it is. Some people think we need a third party.
I'd be happy if we could at least manage two distinct ones.

wrote in message
...

troll sh*t removed


You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe we have more than one
political party now as it is. Some people think we need a third party.
I'd be happy if we could at least manage two distinct ones.

Perhaps instead of another party, we need them to get serious. You can put
lipstick on a pig... no, forget I said that.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...


You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe we have more than one
political party now as it is. Some people think we need a third party.
I'd be happy if we could at least manage two distinct ones.


Or one could simply vote for someone who is different. Those type of people
do run, it's just that not enough people vote for them.

wrote in message
...
On 17 Sep 2008 14:22:03 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:33:09 -0400, said:


Meanwhile, I wonder how Dave feels about his beloved banking industry
going on welfare.

Thus far, at least, it hasn't been the banks, but those on the other sides
of transactions with banks. (Investment banks are different beasts from
banks.) Next question is whether the guvmint will let WaMu go into FDIC
supervised liquidation.

That said, I think I said earlier that the bailout for Fan and Fred were
mistakes. Same with AIG. Essentially what's happening now is a huge game
of
musical chairs. It's not a matter of how much _will be_ lost on mortgage
backed securities and the related fallout. Those losses have already
occurred. The money's already been lost. Now we're just seeing who will
bear
the loss--which of the holders will be left without chairs when the music
stops. I'd rather see it be the stockholders and subordinated debt holders
of those institutions than the taxpayers. Bailouts just keep the music
playing for a bit longer.

Housing, and the mortgages financing them, need to find an equilibrium
market level. Until they do, lending for all purposes will be chilled.

People seem to lose site of the fact that when a company goes bust the
pieces left over don't just disappear into thin air. If Bear Stearns had
been allowed to fail, the people there, or at least some of them, would no
doubt have started up smaller investment banks--investment banks that
could
become bigger, dispersing the risk of failure of a few huge institutions.
Same thing with Fan and Fred. Encouraging concentration of the businesses,
banking or other, in fewer and fewer large firms is a recipe for further
problems. No business should be too big to fail.

I don't want to alarm you, Dave, but I agree with a lot of this.



I don't want to alarm him by telling him the same thing, so I won't. LOL


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...
On 17 Sep 2008 13:18:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:59:57 -0400, said:

It would appear that the Republicans will defeat the bill when it
reaches the senate because they are against offshore drilling,

Um....I don't think so.

They are voting against it, Dave. Just a bunch of obstructionists who
talk about putting America first, but don't walk the walk.

This is nothing new.



But McCain has one heck of string of economic/financial advisors.

Right wingnuts... don't read this. You're head will explode.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-o..._b_127115.html

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com