"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:51:23 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Hasn't this already started with domestic interests? You know, AIG a
couple of banks, some motor car companies....?

Cheers
Martin

Only their debt was nationalized.

Wrong!

Well you must be right because you say I'm wrong. Oh, wait a minute...

Wrong!

Gee, what a great argument that was. Thanks for teaching it to me.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:08:15 -0500, Marty said:

I don't think so, they are loans, with interest, which means you, the
taxpayer gets some of the profit. You now own, through your government
80% of AIG,,, the Government is now beginning to dictate to banks, loan
companies and vehicle manufactures terms of operation,,,, yup, they are
in effect nationalized.

You also have to consider the equity piece the guvmint is taking, including
the convertible preferred stock and warrants. The real issue is not the loan
provisions, but what the guvmint will do with the equity. If they were to
spin it out to taxpayers pro rata it would be one thing. If there were to
hold onto it longer term it would be different.

Now I know the proverbial excrement has truly hit the fan, that's twice
in less than than seven days that Dave and I agree on something.... gn

Cheers
Martin

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:25:21 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

So, still waiting for something besides bs... still waiting for a
solution.

Neither I nor anyone else has a workable comprehensive solution. I do have
some ideas for dealing with the part I'm familiar with--the toxic bank
assets.

I think what's needed in that regard is some creative use of Congress's
power to prescribe bankruptcy laws, thinking a bit outside the box. The
proposals to have bankruptcy judges rewrite individual mortgages is just
plain silly. But the bankruptcy laws could be used to trump some of the
Constitutional limits on rewriting the contracts of institutions and
others
holding structured investment vehicles. The process would involve what
might
be called "destructured finance"--using the bankruptcy laws to unwind the
structured finance vehicles that the investment bankers and lawyers built
on
the basis of a faulty economic model, and getting rid of the various
"tranches" of each trust so as to eliminate the conflicts inherent in the
way those vehicles are set up. Then bring in the workout specialist to
restructure the underlying mortgages without the conflict between former
holders of the various tranches. The result should be to bring some
certainty to the value of these vehicles and their underlying mortgages.


Interesting suggestion. If you're not too proud, you should send it to them.
You never know. You could end up on National TV next to Joe-the-non-Plumber.

Seriously though, you should send it along.

Given that no one has a comprehensive solution, then it seems to me that
trying things that might work, piecemeal if necessary is the only rational
approach vs. doing nothing. I believe that's what's going to happen.

Why would rewriting mortgages to something a bit more same be silly? In some
cases it wouldn't make sense, in others it might.

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

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:19:10 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

Now I know the proverbial excrement has truly hit the fan, that's twice
in less than than seven days that Dave and I agree on something.... gn

You must be learning g.


Hmmm, could be, or the ginko biloba you've been taking is starting to
work. g

Cheers
Martin

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:16:34 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Interesting suggestion. If you're not too proud, you should send it to
them.
You never know. You could end up on National TV next to
Joe-the-non-Plumber.

Not enough political appeal in my suggestions I fear.

One of the other things that needs to be done is to jettison some of the
career regulators who seem to think their job is to go out and do all
manner
of good deeds for "consumers" instead of focusing on the financial health
of
the institutions they're supposed to be regulating. Sheila Bair and Julie
Williams come immediately to mind.


Not familar with these people... sure... financial health is important, but
it's not mutually exclusive with doing what's right for consumers.

I better stop. We're getting close to consensus. lol

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:48:22 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

One of the other things that needs to be done is to jettison some of the
career regulators who seem to think their job is to go out and do all
manner
of good deeds for "consumers" instead of focusing on the financial
health
of
the institutions they're supposed to be regulating. Sheila Bair and
Julie
Williams come immediately to mind.


Not familar with these people.

Sheila Bair engineered the intended takeover of Wachovia by Citibank for
peanuts plus government assistance. A week later, before contracts could
be
prepared, BOA came in and offered far more without government assistance,
and bought the bank.

Julie Williams is General Counsel, and from time to time acting head, of
the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the agency that regulates
nationally chartered banks. She has for several years been pushing the
idea
that the OCC's job is to cut off telemarketers, online pharmacies and
companies that sell tobacco products over the internet from access to the
banking system, and generally to do good deeds for consumers. She would be
better advised to have her examiners focusing on their banks' assets.


Interesting...

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

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:36:26 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:48:22 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

One of the other things that needs to be done is to jettison some of the
career regulators who seem to think their job is to go out and do all
manner
of good deeds for "consumers" instead of focusing on the financial
health
of
the institutions they're supposed to be regulating. Sheila Bair and
Julie
Williams come immediately to mind.


Not familar with these people.

Sheila Bair engineered the intended takeover of Wachovia by Citibank for
peanuts plus government assistance. A week later, before contracts could
be
prepared, BOA came in and offered far more without government assistance,
and bought the bank.

Julie Williams is General Counsel, and from time to time acting head, of
the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the agency that regulates
nationally chartered banks. She has for several years been pushing the
idea
that the OCC's job is to cut off telemarketers, online pharmacies and
companies that sell tobacco products over the internet from access to the
banking system, and generally to do good deeds for consumers. She would be
better advised to have her examiners focusing on their banks' assets.


Interesting...

You are too easily lead - or mislead.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:36:26 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:48:22 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

One of the other things that needs to be done is to jettison some of
the
career regulators who seem to think their job is to go out and do all
manner
of good deeds for "consumers" instead of focusing on the financial
health
of
the institutions they're supposed to be regulating. Sheila Bair and
Julie
Williams come immediately to mind.


Not familar with these people.

Sheila Bair engineered the intended takeover of Wachovia by Citibank for
peanuts plus government assistance. A week later, before contracts could
be
prepared, BOA came in and offered far more without government
assistance,
and bought the bank.

Julie Williams is General Counsel, and from time to time acting head, of
the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the agency that regulates
nationally chartered banks. She has for several years been pushing the
idea
that the OCC's job is to cut off telemarketers, online pharmacies and
companies that sell tobacco products over the internet from access to
the
banking system, and generally to do good deeds for consumers. She would
be
better advised to have her examiners focusing on their banks' assets.


Interesting...

You are too easily lead - or mislead.



Why do you say that? If I had time, I'd look them up. It's easy to do, I
just don't care that much. I'm assuming there's some truth in Dave's post. I
tend to filter out the obvious right-leaning stuff.


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

wrote in message
...
On 13 Feb 2009 10:34:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:09:37 -0500, said:

On 13 Feb 2009 09:43:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:29:58 -0500, said:

You are too easily lead - or mislead.

I eagerly await your defense of Ms. Bair and Ms. Williams.

I hope you are holding your breath!

So you're not prepared to defend them? Never would have guessed it from
your
earlier post.

I'd rather have you hold your breath. It would mean so much more to so
many people.



He's already a bit red (umm.. not commie red....)! No need to go further...

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

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:02:22 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:36:26 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:48:22 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

One of the other things that needs to be done is to jettison some of
the
career regulators who seem to think their job is to go out and do
all
manner
of good deeds for "consumers" instead of focusing on the financial
health
of
the institutions they're supposed to be regulating. Sheila Bair and
Julie
Williams come immediately to mind.


Not familar with these people.

Sheila Bair engineered the intended takeover of Wachovia by Citibank
for
peanuts plus government assistance. A week later, before contracts
could
be
prepared, BOA came in and offered far more without government
assistance,
and bought the bank.

Julie Williams is General Counsel, and from time to time acting head,
of
the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the agency that regulates
nationally chartered banks. She has for several years been pushing the
idea
that the OCC's job is to cut off telemarketers, online pharmacies and
companies that sell tobacco products over the internet from access to
the
banking system, and generally to do good deeds for consumers. She
would
be
better advised to have her examiners focusing on their banks' assets.


Interesting...

You are too easily lead - or mislead.



Why do you say that? If I had time, I'd look them up. It's easy to do, I
just don't care that much. I'm assuming there's some truth in Dave's post.
I
tend to filter out the obvious right-leaning stuff.


Good Lord!



I would be Good Jonathan.. You would be Good Salty.. Dave would be Good
Dave.. Lloyd Bridges would be Good Lloyd. lol


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