San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

I have been hammering them with e-mail since Friday. I am sure I am on some kind of watch list by now. I have sent e-mails to both sides, the White House and the candidates. I think it will pass in the newest form, but who can tell. I have been sending the Youtube video to let them know they are not off the hook and blaming one side over the other does not absolve them of casting a responsible vote today.

I do appreciate this line of your email:

I, as a citizen of California will vote for a trained monkey over you in the next election should I find out that you voted for this bailout.

Please don't flame me but actually answer this question. I am asking it genuinely.

Would it be better for you as an individual to not have an economic bailout/rescue/stimulus/bucket-of-money-for-bank?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Again, not looking to fight, I am curious what people think of this. I know everybody is pissed off but I am curious what else is in the thought process.

--Dan

Dan, The few concrete items don't affect me. I can come up with a guess based on what promises this bailout is supposed hold or the consequences that might occur. Ask again in a few months to a few years.

In the short term I should not be one of the bailouts winners or losers.
Even if I knew for sure that I would benefit, I think I would still be against it.

It would be better for me as an individual if asset prices fall, and that's what they're trying to avoid.

I WANT TO SEE...

-people buy things with savings, not debt.

-"We the People" take control of this country away from the banks and give it back to the citizens.

-a REAL economy, where we build things and make things better for people, not an eCONomy where we just sell inflated assets back and forth to one another.

-a balance between labor and capital, which would have helped to prevent this "crisis" from happening in the first place.

For decades, our entire economy had its foundation built on a mountain of debt. They called this "growth". As long as people (poor/middle-class workers) buried themselves deeper and deeper in debt, the creditors (wealthy) got more power and money. The sheeple didn't notice this shift because they had more shiny, plastic "stuff" to show off to one another -- all bought with debt that had to be paid back with interest.

The entire system needs to be brought down and rebuilt from scratch. That's why I don't want to see a bailout of the scum who brought us this "crisis".

For decades, our entire economy had its foundation built on a mountain of debt. They called this "growth". As long as people (poor/middle-class workers) buried themselves deeper and deeper in debt, the creditors (wealthy) got more power and money

And this "no banker left behind bill" is supposedly to allow more credit to be available, for more debt.

The put another way: The main problem with our economy is too much debt. So what do we do borrow more money to allow more debt. Makes sense to me. This bill is not for the economy.

In other news:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=n...

Japan, China and other holders of U.S. government debt must quickly reach an agreement to prevent panic sales leading to a global financial collapse, said Yu Yongding, a former adviser to the Chinese central bank.

snip

Without yuan appreciation, China will continue to accumulate foreign reserves, which means further accumulating ``IOUs from the U.S.,'' said Yu. ``This is paper and it may default and it will not increase China's national welfare.''

If China doesn't allow the yuan to appreciate and continues to promote export-led growth it will lead to confrontation with the U.S. and Europe, Yu said.

Meanwhile CNBC continues to hose down the peasants with a steady stream of kool-aid.

Me too. But it's OK you can flame, I'm living in fire resistant virtuality. I hear a lot of anger, but so far the arguments I've heard against are as lame as the arguments for. Maybe the message needs re-scripting.

Susan Davis' website has a survey:

Susan Davis

Keep trying to vote. I got this when my vote went through:

SURVEY RESULTS
Survey started on 10/1/2008.
The last response was on 10-02-2008 11:47.

1. Should Congress pass the financial rescue package?

Yes 0.6% 6 Votes
No 99.2% 945 Votes
Not Sure 0.2% 2 Votes
Total: 953 Votes

2. How much do you think the financial rescue package will affect you personally?

A Lot 83.4% 792 Votes
A little 3.5% 33 Votes
Not At All 12.2% 116 Votes
Not Sure 0.9% 9 Votes
Total: 950 Votes

I called Hunter and a guy answered. Took my name and zip code and said he'd let the Congressman know.

PHONE: (619) 448-5201

Bilbray's number is Phone: 858-350-1150

It's maddening to watch this bailout thing play out. That old milk cow doesn't give enough milk to meet the balooning demand for milk shakes, so the powers that be propose she be slaughtered so we can have a big bar-b-que. And they want to do this just as soon as possible, so we can get back to "normal."

I hear a lot of anger, but so far the arguments I've heard against are as lame as the arguments for.
----------------

How about this:

1. By bailing out the very institutions that caused this mess, these speculators will feel entitled to take more risks in the future...the "moral hazard" argument.

2. We will need to preserve our resources for the deflationary debt destruction that's coming, because it will be getting progressively worse (and will likely accelerate as we approach the bottom). We will need to backstop the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC (and other retirement accounts/funds, to an extent) and insurance companies, as well as job programs and domestic/national defense.

3. I am not necessarily opposed to deficit spending or attempts to ease conditions as we move through these tumultuous times. My opposition is to giving money to those who created the mess, and to prolonging the recession/depression by trying to keep asset prices (housing, stock, fixed income, etc.) artificially inflated at the taxpayers' expense.

We need to allow asset prices to fall and the monetary base to contract so that we can cleanse the system of destructive debt and rebuild our economy from the ground-up,

I am against it because it is a slippery slope. In the long run we will not be better off for the bail out and I think Wall Street keeps having a tantrum just like it used to when the rate cuts were not made fast enough or low enough. Propping up these inflated prices will help in the short term, but it is all about paying the piper. Pay him now or pay him later.

Let me add #4, which is really the most important one:

4. Because $700 billion is not large enough to make a difference. It will vaporize within weeks, if not days, and they will be back for more, but the next demand (and the one after that) will be even more urgent:

"Look how bad the markets are, they're FROZEN!!!!! Hurry and give us another $3 trillion so we can stop the bleeding NOW. Clearly it's worse than anyone could have expected as the disappearance of $700 billion shows us that the problem is HUGE and URGENT and it's THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!!!"

Best to let the crack heads experience the withdrawl which will either kill them or make them healthier. No matter what, it needs to happen. The sooner we get this over with, the sooner we can create REAL jobs and get back to business. Until we reach bottom (either quickly via no bailout, or slowly via failed bailout after failed bailout -- with longer periods of unemployment and declining wages/growth), we will not be able to turn the economy around.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"The [privately-owned] Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly
hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution...
if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their
currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations
that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property
until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered."

I think in the short term, it may keep things from correcting for a few more weeks. It may in fact work somewhat by allowing the banks to dump all of their toxic securities.

However, I have lost all trust in the government and the banking system to not abuse the hell out of this and just make things worse in order to pocket more money. If I am going to have to spend money (1 trillion/US population = about $3200 for every man woman and child) I would rather do it in saving the lower and middle classes after a correction has occurred. Let the scoundrels who made billions on schemes which have failed six different times in our history lose their shirts. I understand the argument over the lending freeze, but I don't think this will help at all. Don't banks make money by lending it? If they want to stop trying to make a profit, let them. Ultimately it is in their interest just as much as ours to continue lending. Looking at the government, the ratio of senators/reps that voted for the bill who had received significant contributions from the benefactors of the bill and those that voted against who did not receive contributions tells a pretty bleak story.