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
...

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

"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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:35:03 -0500, Frank Boettcher

said:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
affordable housing.''

Hey, they bought and paid for Barney. Then along comes Obama and they had
to
shell out to him in just two years 250% of what they'd paid Barney over
the
previous 10 years. Inflation, I guess. Democrats don't come cheap.


You're right. They don't. The Republicans in Congress and the White House
are cheap, however.

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

Keith nuttle wrote:

If you look at a map of the coastal regions, you can see for yourself
where the continental shelf ends. It is widest off of the Maine coast
and off of Florida. The drilling would be essentially banned from North
Carolina to Cape Cod. There appears to be no shelf on the west coast.
(Get the facts, Check Google maps.) The shelf of the coast of Maine
would be extremely dangerous with the ice flows (Remember the Titanic),
so drilling would be difficult and extremely costly.

We do it, or rather the Canadian Government allows it, off the coast of
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.... of course there was the Ocean
Challenger incident, but hell, what's 84 lives in the big scheme of things.

Cheers
Marty

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:34:15 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:11:48 -0600, "redbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...

Meanwhile, I wonder how Dave feels about his beloved banking industry
going on welfare. Those are some pretty big handouts. Lets hope all
that guvmint cheese doesn't jam the ATM machines.



"Big handouts" = 11% interest rate, 80% asset backed.

Meanwhile, TBills are going into negative returns.

Let's see: loan money at 11% and borrow it at a negative interest rate.

Big handout?


Where's my 85 Billion dollar loan at those terms?

You would pay 11% to borrow 85 billion with 80% asset backing the loan?


You bet your ass its a welfare handout!


With your financial acumen I wouldn't be surprised if you are regularly
familiar with welfare handouts.

I take it you aren't that inept in finance, that the problem is simply
that
you're unfamiliar with the terms of the "big handouts".

If you don't understand what an 11% interest rate means to a large
business,
get some acumen.

Have some more Kool-Aid!


Let me know when it's all paid back, will you?



Both you and Dave bring some very valid points, points I could not argue
against.

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.

"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.