FALSELeanan wrote:To have inflation, you need wage increases as well as price increases.
Dear Senator,
I'm watching Judd Gregg on C-SPAN right now talking about an agreement being reached to make this bailout happen.
Does he not know where government profit comes from? It comes out of the US economy. Any "profit" may as well be a tax. Limiting executive compensation does nothing at this point. They've already gotten their compensation, and this bailout is just filling the hole they made. The fear mongering to get this bill passed is despicable. Warren Buffet is in no way credible in saying not passing this bill will cause "financial chaos," as he has 5 billion riding on it passing.
This is nothing but a wholesale robbery of the American taxpayer. I am carefully watching to see who supports and opposes this bill, as it clearly indicates who supports and opposes the American citizen.
hope_full wrote:This is 100% crazy. A blank check for our nation's wealthiest people and businesses.
Surely our senators have the wisdom and intelligence and historical perspective to kill this thing.
One can hope.
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:
As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:
1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.
2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.
3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.
For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.
Signed (updated at 9/25/2008 8:30AM CT)
Acemoglu Daron (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Adler Michael (Columbia University)
Admati Anat R. (Stanford University)
Alexis Marcus (Northwestern University)
Alvarez Fernando (University of Chicago)
Andersen Torben (Northwestern University)
Baliga Sandeep (Northwestern University)
Banerjee Abhijit V. (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Barankay Iwan (University of Pennsylvania)
Barry Brian (University of Chicago)
Bartkus James R. (Xavier University of Louisiana)
Becker Charles M. (Duke University)
Becker Robert A. (Indiana University)
Beim David (Columbia University)
Berk Jonathan (Stanford University)
Bisin Alberto (New York University)
Bittlingmayer George (University of Kansas)
Boldrin Michele (Washington University)
Brooks Taggert J. (University of Wisconsin)
Brynjolfsson Erik (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Buera Francisco J. (UCLA)
Camp Mary Elizabeth (Indiana University
cube wrote:FALSELeanan wrote:To have inflation, you need wage increases as well as price increases.
It is perfectly possible to have price increases with no wage increase.
How does this mathematically add up?
You simply buy less but pay more.
cube wrote:It is perfectly possible to have price increases with no wage increase.
How does this mathematically add up?
You simply buy less but pay more.
Shannymara wrote:So is this a done deal now, or is there still a chance it won't pass?
americandream wrote:Shannymara wrote:So is this a done deal now, or is there still a chance it won't pass?
Oh, this will pass. Have no fear. And if anyone's taking the Republicans seriously in all of this, well mate, it's why you have been shafted in the first place. You're gullible!
Will it succeed? Damn sure it wil. Friends in high places in China, Arabia, Europe, Russia, Latin America etc, etc, will make sure the American derivatives machine survives to securitise another day.
All this public gnashing of teeth....for the benefit of the proles!
Of course I sympathize with the people who are trying to get through to their Congressmen and Senators with petitions and pleas and plans, screaming for them not to accept the $700 billion -at any one time- Paulson plan. I sympathize because they are dead right: it’s so bad as to be disgusting.
What they don’t seem to realize is that their representatives have no choice. Not if they want to keep their jobs, that is. Whichever party would let the plan fail, is assured of a gaint sized mud bucket full of blame for the financial mayhem that will cripple the US economy between now and the election.
It’s doesn’t matter that the mayhem will come anyway, whether there’s plan or not. If they vote for it, they can claim they’ve done all they could, and followed the advice of the finest experts the country has to offer. And the other party did the same.
Voting the Paulson plan down equals losing the election. Sure, there will be discussions, some heated and frantic, but believe me, nobody wants to rob their party of any and all chances at winning the presidency. That is why the plan will be there later today, even if there must certainly be a few elected heads being severely scratched.
The people who have contocted the plan are obviously aware of all this. There is no time to discuss alternatives, not 6 weeks before the election. Check Mate.
The entire system is based on appearances, not truth finding. In the same vein as a company CEO who can’t reveal the true problems his company may be in, because his first duty is to protect the value of the shareholders, politicians simply can’t speak the truth.
If anyone stood up and told the people the real story, that their country, their welfare, and the future of their children is rapidly being gift-wrapped in a hell-bent handbasket, they’d unleash a storm of biblical proportions. And even if they’d miraculously survive that ordeal, people would move away from them and vote for the nexy guy, who promises solutions and money and sunny days and whatever else the people like to hear.
Yes, both the CEO and the politician have the option of getting out of their positions. But that doesn't change what's wrong: the next liar will simply take over.
The truth doesn’t have a place in US politics. If I may paraphrase Jay Hanson: "Democracy only works until the people figure out they can vote themselves an ever larger piece of the pie". We are today finding out that, alas and unfortunately, the pie itself does not get ever larger.
Nice try, the USA. But fatally flawed from the start.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests