[pigpenz]

is this good or bad?

[luke warm]

it depends on what funds you were long in, or had shorted

[pclayton]

Classic.

Nice to be a House Republican and hold everyone's nuts in a vise.

[blackshoe]

From my local paper:

Quote

Democratic Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin blamed President Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain for the defeat because they failed to deliver sufficient votes from members of their own party. "It is incredibly reckless on their part," he said.

This is nonsense. We want our elected representatives to use their best judgement, do we not? That they did not toe the party line does not, in my opinion, reflect poorly on Bush or McCain. To call them "incredibly reckless" is specious. OTOH, best judgement or not, it may be that those (of both parties) who voted against the measure were incredibly reckless. It may also be that those who voted for it fit that description. There are way too many variables to be sure one way or the other.

[kenberg]

This morning my wife observed that the bailout may be bad for Congress because now that they have shown they can actually do something people may come to expect it. She needn't have worried.


We shall see what we shall see. The members who voted No did indeed use their judgment and they will get full credit for the results.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Sep 29 2008, 04:06 PM, said:

...it may be that those (of both parties) who voted against the measure were incredibly reckless. It may also be that those who voted for it fit that description. There are way too many variables to be sure one way or the other.

Those legislators with a strong enough economic background to be confident that stopping the bailout will not cause a quick financial disaster (despite what we've been told) cannot be said to have voted recklessly.

All others who voted against it, democrats and republicans, did so extremely recklessly. That goes for the republicans blathering about "socialism" and the democrats spewing invective at "corporate crooks."

Almost everyone hates the bailout, but sometimes you must put country first.

[TimG]

kenberg, on Sep 29 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

The members who voted No did indeed use their judgment and they will get full credit for the results.

I do not pretend to understand the financial or political subtleties, but I don't think House members who voted "no" will get full credit for the results. At least not because of this vote. Whatever turmoil, disaster, market crash, etc. that results will not be fully on their shoulders as a result of this vote. Plenty of blame to go around.

[mikeh]

It all smacks of self-interest over public good, but that isn't exactly news, nor is it unique to the US.

I may be falling into my habit of overstating what are really only speculations but:

1. many republicans, especially in the House, are in danger of losing their seats this November

2. many of them will, for various reasons, including the loss of republican power in Washington, not get the lucrative lobbying jobs that have come to be seen as the logical next step

3. the republicans are at greater risk than are democrats to be blamed for the current crisis. It is not that the democrats would have done a better job.. who knows that? But it is the fact that the US got where it is today under a republican president with a largely republican Congress... at least for a good chunk of the past 8 years

4. while some may understand the package, most voters will be reacting to sound-bites or semi-literate (in economic terms) talking heads on television... imagine trusting a Rush Limbaugh with explaining the pros and cons to you And how many have read the 113 pages.. heck, I am willing to bet that the vast majority of members of Congress haven't read it, let alone understood it. So the public, perhaps especially those who might vote republican, are opposed to the bailout.

5. I am not going to accuse any politician of deliberately placing personal interests (reelection) ahead of national interest, but the very complexity of the package, and the uncertainty as to how it would play out, will allow any politician to convince him or herself that his or her vote is really in the national interest.

6. the full extent of a collapse of the financial system may not be felt until after the elections. Most of the remaining vulnerable institutions will be audited in the last quarter or shortly thereafter, and it is then that the true extent of the bad debts will have to be disclosed. The massive government injections of liquidity might prevent a total lockup of the commercial paper industry until then. So not only may the politicians get re-elected before the ***** hits the fan, but they may have time to 'rescue' the system even after rejecting the bailout now

7. more probably, they will reluctantly vote for the bailout later this week.. maybe as early as tomorrow.


One last point: I wonder if any members of Congress shorted the market before voting?

[fred]

pigpenz, on Sep 29 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

is this good or bad?

I do not know anywhere near enough about economics to offer an informed opinion, but I do know that my friend Warren Buffett claims that some form of bailout, though highly distasteful, is unfortunately necessary.

Warren understands the workings of the financial world as well as anyone and he is also a man of great integrity - he would never make a statement like this unless he genuinely believed it was true.

So I am concluding that it is bad

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[pigpenz]

fred, on Sep 29 2008, 05:59 PM, said:

pigpenz, on Sep 29 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

is this good or bad?

I do not know anywhere near enough about economics to offer an informed opinion, but I do know that my friend Warren Buffett claims that some form of bailout, though highly distasteful, is unfortunately necessary.

Warren understands the workings of the financial world as well as anyone and he is also a man of great integrity - he would never make a statement like this unless he genuinely believed it was true.

So I am concluding that it is bad

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Mr Buffet is not your typical wealthy person....he has not let greed get ahold of him.

[pclayton]

fred, on Sep 29 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

pigpenz, on Sep 29 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

is this good or bad?

I do not know anywhere near enough about economics to offer an informed opinion, but I do know that my friend Warren Buffett claims that some form of bailout, though highly distasteful, is unfortunately necessary.

Warren understands the workings of the financial world as well as anyone and he is also a man of great integrity - he would never make a statement like this unless he genuinely believed it was true.

So I am concluding that it is bad

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Sure, but just because it doesn't pass today, doesn't mean it won't pass, and the next version will be a reasonable one.

Mr. Buffett also has a dog in the fight with Goldman-Sachs, although I'm sure his feelings would be the same without this investment.

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Sep 29 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

Classic.

Nice to be a House Republican and hold everyone's nuts in a vise.

Translation for non-native speakers?

[fred]

cherdano, on Sep 29 2008, 11:37 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 29 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

Classic.

Nice to be a House Republican and hold everyone's nuts in a vise.

Translation for non-native speakers?

"Vise" is a 2-loser squeeze, that was named and analyzed by Reese.

If the USA we spell it like this: vice

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Lobowolf]

Also the antonym of virtue. See also: "vicious."

[pclayton]

Lobowolf, on Sep 29 2008, 04:06 PM, said:

Also the antonym of virtue. See also: "vicious."

Finally, someone gets the pun

[kenberg]

TimG, on Sep 29 2008, 04:35 PM, said:

kenberg, on Sep 29 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

The members who voted No did indeed use their judgment and they will get full credit for the results.

I do not pretend to understand the financial or political subtleties, but I don't think House members who voted "no" will get full credit for the results. At least not because of this vote. Whatever turmoil, disaster, market crash, etc. that results will not be fully on their shoulders as a result of this vote. Plenty of blame to go around.

That there are many who share in the blame for us reaching the current situation is true without a doubt. Congress is high on the list. But the results that will follow directly from the actions of today? That will lie at their door of the Nays, and it will be clearly seen to lie at their door.

In a automotive collision there is often blame to go around. After the mistakes have been made, the person who could still have taken sensible action to avoid the crash but failed to do so is, I believe, held legally at fault. It's a good common sense principle. Mistakes come with life, no way around that. But when the crash is imminent and you decide not to do what needs to be done, I guess you can call it using your judgment but the rest of the world will take a different view.

Of course maybe their actions will be seen to be wise. Then indeed they can claim the credit. Wanna bet?

[Lobowolf]

pclayton, on Sep 29 2008, 07:13 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Sep 29 2008, 04:06 PM, said:

Also the antonym of virtue.  See also: "vicious."

Finally, someone gets the pun

"The pun used to be considered the height of humor."

-The Vampire Bill



Don't tell me I'm the only one around here who watches Trueblood.

[Al_U_Card]

fred, on Sep 29 2008, 05:59 PM, said:

pigpenz, on Sep 29 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

is this good or bad?

I do not know anywhere near enough about economics to offer an informed opinion, but I do know that my friend Warren Buffett claims that some form of bailout, though highly distasteful, is unfortunately necessary.

Warren understands the workings of the financial world as well as anyone and he is also a man of great integrity - he would never make a statement like this unless he genuinely believed it was true.

So I am concluding that it is bad

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

And he might not be just a bit influenced by his standing as a man of great riches?

[Al_U_Card]

And the geniuses that brought us the "reworked" mortgage security? Kind of like the "reworked" bond from back in the '80's....(Michael Millikan anyone?) He too claimed the instrument to be a good thing until it unravelled and caused quite the "recession".

Those in the know take advantage, as that is their rightful due (in their minds) for they are well placed. The herd that is milked is only performing its purpose, no?

They shout that the sky is falling and we all run terrified. The sky is always falling, it is only when they go beyond their abilities to maintain control that they cry wolf.

[matmat]

Al_U_Card, on Sep 29 2008, 08:08 PM, said:

And the geniuses that brought us the "reworked" mortgage security? Kind of like the "reworked" bond from back in the '80's....(Michael Millikan anyone?) He too claimed the instrument to be a good thing until it unravelled and caused quite the "recession".

Those in the know take advantage, as that is their rightful due (in their minds) for they are well placed. The herd that is milked is only performing its purpose, no?

They shout that the sky is falling and we all run terrified. The sky is always falling, it is only when they go beyond their abilities to maintain control that they cry wolf.

I am fairly sure that the sky has already fallen. The issue with holding those that effed up accountable is that it will take additional millions in taxpayer dollars to successfully (or unsuccessfully) prosecute them. I can imagine the hearings now....
"and at which point did you know that there was a problem?"
"what exactly, do you mean by 'know'?"

ugh