1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

This bailout plan is the worst thing we could have done

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by The Big Ragu, Sep 28, 2008.

  1. Moderator1

    Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

    Spinning just paraphrased and told me in a PM that it said, "Vote Obama."
     
  2. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    I just read the whole thing in five minutes. The Bradley Effect. /mizzou et al.
     
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Got it. I apologize. I didn't bother to read the story first, which is embarrassing.

    The story itself is simplistic. The point isn't whether "the government is making a good investment or not." The government doesn't belong here. There is no market competition. If the government doesn't do this, there will be buyers. Everything has a price. And the price for those assets will be exactly where it belongs. What the government trying to play the role of white angel does, has disastrous effects. It chokes off our private markets. We all suffer from that.
     
  4. editorhoo

    editorhoo Member

    Great post Ragu. It's nice to know someone out there gets it. Your average person has no idea what this is all about, and it's why the government basically has the freedom to essentially hijack all of us. People will keep going to their jobs, collecting their paychecks and sticking to their routines, so they'll think everything is A-OK.

    This isn't the first time the government has done this. Remember after 9/11 when they "bailed out" the airline companies because their business was in danger? I don't remember what the exact figure was, but I believe it was in billions. Why? With the advent of the Internet and technology in general, it goes to figure that airline travel is less relevant. People can do business from their computers and don't need to travel as much. This is supposed to be Capitalism. And that means if there's a less need for your product, you need to downsize your operation, not get bailed out by the government with taxpayer dollars.

    I find this topic to be quite interesting an a journalism forum. We all know our industry is dying, and newspapers are cutting and slicing all over the place. Is the government going to bail us out? No way. And what about gas prices? Escalating gas prices have made it more costly for me to cover games and pay for home-heating bills. Is the government going to bail me out? Never.

    A side issue here is all the goddamn money our current president has spent over the past 8 years. The airline bailout, the war in Iraq and now the possible $700 billion to the mortgage companies? And to think that the current Republican candidate has the audacity of accusing the current Democratic candidate of wanting to spend too much of the taxpayers' dollars.

    I don't claim to be any kind of expert on economics or politics, but I'd be willing to bet my left testicle that W has spent more of the public's money than any president in history.

    Republicans, these days, trying to tell the public that the Democratic Party is the party of spending is a jailable offense.

    And for the record, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat.
     
  5. Lollygaggers

    Lollygaggers Member

    I don't know all the details and I'm definitely not thrilled with the idea of spending $700 billion of our money to "bail people out," but if Warren Buffet says this thing needs to pass in some form or we will see the greatest economic collapse in our history, then I say it needs to pass.


    "Buffett warned that the United States would face "its biggest financial meltown in American history" if congressional negotiators couldn't find common ground on a $700 billion plan to rescue Wall Street, according to a report on CNN.com."
     
  6. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    The whole "system" is a fraud and the fraud must be protected at all costs.
     
  7. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    This is the reason I am inclined to support it despite my inclination not to do so. While it may have unsavory consequences, if Warren Buffett says the alternative is worse, I believe him.
     
  8. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    Leave it to Hondo to a.) bring politics into this thread and b.) be wrong.

    Like clockwork.
     
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Guys, Warren Buffett has a tremendous track record of making investments that benefit Warren Buffett. And this is no different. Buffett stepped in and invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs. It made a huge statement. It was Warren Buffett -- who people blindly worship, the way you two just did -- giving his stamp of approval to the U.S. Financial Sector. He could have been selling short, but instead he was stepping up and saying that he felt there was money to be made there -- and since he is Warren Buffett, therefore, inspiring confidence in others to do the same.

    Buffett also was counting on that $700 billion package. He made a bet that the plan would pass through Congress, so OF COURSE, he was out there saying we need it. He'd have been an idiot not to be on TV calling for it. $5 billion of his money is on the line. It was a win-win bet, in a way, which is a Buffett kind of bet. He was fairly sure the package would pass, and that benefits his investment. But even if it hadn't, he had Goldman shareholder's equity as insurance and he got such favorable terms that he was the first in line to get paid back. Again, he got a deal that you or I never could. Clearly, though, he was personally better off with the U.S. government insuring his investment.

    Buffett may be a smart man, but also keep a few other things in mind. Plenty of other investors stepped in and offered to provide liquidity to Goldman Sachs at more favorable terms to Goldman than Buffett got. They were turned away. Buffett has cachet. His name endorsing Goldman's solvency could make or break the value of Goldman preferred stock. Goldman knew this, so they let him basically rob them in order to gain an association with him. He cashed in on his name to get a deal that the average investor could never get. Regardless of the U.S. giving firms like Goldman a $700 billion free ride, if you look at the reality, Goldman giving Buffett a sweetheart deal in order to use his name to inspire confidence isn't a sign that you or I (or the U.S. government with taxpayer dollars) should be loading up financial stocks. And it wasn't a particularly gutsy bet by Buffett. He got a deal that none of us could get, by virtue of who he is. Congrats to him.
     
  10. SigR

    SigR Member

    An Excellent post. I agree with every word and sentiment.
     
  11. Lollygaggers

    Lollygaggers Member

    Yeah, Buffet has a vested interest in Goldman Sachs not going under, and said he wouldn't have made the deal unless he thought the bailout would pass. He also has a vested interest in the economy as a whole not tanking. The key to this whole deal is the possibility that we (taxpayers) make money by selling these securities back into the market in a few years, and there are provisions in the bill for us to get our money back if we don't sell them for a gain. Believe me, I'm for capitalism, but I'm also for keeping my job and avoiding a depression. There is still going to be crap cleaned out by the market, and lots of people who shouldn't have bought their homes will still lose them and the pain isn't over, but I believe that this really could be catastrophic - rather than just really really really bad - if some kind of bailout isn't enacted.
     
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Lolly, When the economy is going into the tank, the government can't buy it's way out of the economic downturn. We are in a recession, in which more people are going to be losing their jobs. There's no avoiding it. Sorry. This is just going to prolong that and create a host of other problems that are an anchor on the economy. It is going to take what might have been another 18-months of recession and turn it into a decade-long mess.

    Explain to me how the government buying assets with our taxpayer money at inflated prices (prices they can not fetch on their own in the market) is a good idea? And explain the provisions that will pay us back if these assets turn out to be worthless? Are they going to hire David Blaine to hang upside down and create a trillion dollars out of thin air?

    Also, look at the realities of the U.S. financial sector. $700 billion isn't enough to fully clean this mess. It's the most short-sighted thinking. What the government now hijacking the markets will do is slow the markets from finding the appropriate clearing prices of these packaged securities. Uncertainty is going to continue after the initial feeling of security this causes, and what the government action will do is have the opposite effect they are selling to everyone: It is actually going to hinder banks' efforts to recapitalise and put them at the mercy of a bunch of legislators who don't have a clue!

    This needed a free market solution. It would have been UGLY solution, but it would have been the lesser of all evils. You are getting candy-coated BS right now that is going to be MUCH uglier in the long-run than if we had just swallowed our medicine. You have a financial mess on your hands. You can't take a pile of dung and create the Mona Lisa out of it. Why won't people accept something they acknowledge in every day situations?

    If the government was REALLY interested in the banks recapitalising (and I don't advocate this either, because it is a non-market solution), it would have gotten a lot more bang for OUR buck, by just investing directly in the banks. They could have done it at onerous terms (these institutions have no choice at this point). This would have had its own set of problems, but it would have been the lesser of two government-intervention evils.

    But having the government buy assets at inflated prices is a bad idea, no matter how you slice it. First, it chokes off a free market--the most important free market to our economy. You might as well tie an anchor to our economy. It creates a short-sighted feeling of security, but taxpayers are going to take a shellacking and the boost to the economy is going to be short. The negative effects with be lasting.

    Moreover, $700bn probably isn't enough to fully clean up the mess. It will merely slow the markets from finding the appropriate clearing prices of the crap these institutions are holding. And if uncertainty continues, it will hinder banks' efforts to adequately recapitalise.

    This is just such a bad idea in every way possible, and most of the people who made it happen know it, but they are like children -- they want their candy now. Where are the adults to tell them that too much candy causes cavities?

    My advice to everyone is to buy gold bricks and stash them in your cellar. I am only half joking.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page