Bush administration sees 4000-point drop in DOW this week if no bailout

[urbanrealtor]

EDUCATE THIS MORON

[quote=stockstradr]
That is I think urbanrealtor’s reply in this thread is moronic.
[/quote]
I am not sure what was so moronic. What I was trying to point out was that some of the previous major bailouts have had rather beneficial consequences. Some have earned money. To view all bailouts with the same level of incredulity as one would view the half-truths leading up to the war may be unwarranted. Was my assessment inaccurate?

[quote=BGinRB]
shallow, sarcastic, cynical… were all unnecessary adjectives. They apply to persons, not arguments.[/quote]

I Think that my responses (and those adjectives) were confined to the arguments presented, not the individuals. I have no opinions about individuals here (though some may have opinions about me). Often arguments or complaints are shallow,cynical, or sarcastic. This is especially true of critical projects (eg: Marx or Foulcault). However, I have no opinions on the people involved. I am not sure what you mean by “uncompromising and lawyerly” but it implies I am close-minded. I don’t think you can make a good argument for that.

Patientrenter has some of the most interesting ideas here. His involve alternative ideas that, at least from my worm’s eye view, seem useful and compelling. They are some of what seeds the questions below.

THE PAST FEW DAYS ON THIS BAILOUT BILL HAVE RAISED SOME QUESTIONS:

Can somebody give a better idea of why many experts think that the now-dead plan was such a good idea?

Does someone know an actual rebuttal to that framed in economic terms? (not just outrage)

Does anybody here have a good understanding of the short term commercial paper the economists keep talking about?

Economists comment that the seizing of the short term commercial paper market will lead to mass layoffs. CNN yesterday commented somthing like 100k jobs per month. Does that make some version of a bailout inevitable?

Do large numbers like that seem likely or is it just hyperbolic?

Does some version of patient’s idea of a hit-list for banks seem like its on the way?

Rich recently commented that the 700b plan was surgical and that future versions would be less so and therefore more inflationary (at least that was my understanding of his remark).
What are people (including tinfoil types) thinking about the inflationary component of the coming storm and government action?

[patientlywaiting]

[quote=esmith]Ok, there’s no bailout.

Where’s my 4000-point drop??[/quote]

Yeah, where’s my 4000 point drop.

Why can the gov’t not recapitalize the banks through equity purchases rather than a money give-away?

Answer: that would dilute the ownership interests of existing shareholders.

So the banks want a bailout but they want us to pay for it.

[patientlywaiting]

[quote=esmith]Ok, there’s no bailout.

Where’s my 4000-point drop??[/quote]

Yeah, where’s my 4000 point drop.

Why can the gov’t not recapitalize the banks through equity purchases rather than a money give-away?

Answer: that would dilute the ownership interests of existing shareholders.

So the banks want a bailout but they want us to pay for it.

[patientlywaiting]

[quote=esmith]Ok, there’s no bailout.

Where’s my 4000-point drop??[/quote]

Yeah, where’s my 4000 point drop.

Why can the gov’t not recapitalize the banks through equity purchases rather than a money give-away?

Answer: that would dilute the ownership interests of existing shareholders.

So the banks want a bailout but they want us to pay for it.

[patientlywaiting]

[quote=esmith]Ok, there’s no bailout.

Where’s my 4000-point drop??[/quote]

Yeah, where’s my 4000 point drop.

Why can the gov’t not recapitalize the banks through equity purchases rather than a money give-away?

Answer: that would dilute the ownership interests of existing shareholders.

So the banks want a bailout but they want us to pay for it.

[patientlywaiting]

[quote=esmith]Ok, there’s no bailout.

Where’s my 4000-point drop??[/quote]

Yeah, where’s my 4000 point drop.

Why can the gov’t not recapitalize the banks through equity purchases rather than a money give-away?

Answer: that would dilute the ownership interests of existing shareholders.

So the banks want a bailout but they want us to pay for it.

[urbanrealtor]

How would your version of an equity purchase work?
A new entity or GSE owner or the govt itself?

Are there other negatives to diluting shareholder interest?

Wasn’t there some equity component in the defunct plan? (I thought there was but maybe I dreamed it).

[urbanrealtor]

How would your version of an equity purchase work?
A new entity or GSE owner or the govt itself?

Are there other negatives to diluting shareholder interest?

Wasn’t there some equity component in the defunct plan? (I thought there was but maybe I dreamed it).

[urbanrealtor]

How would your version of an equity purchase work?
A new entity or GSE owner or the govt itself?

Are there other negatives to diluting shareholder interest?

Wasn’t there some equity component in the defunct plan? (I thought there was but maybe I dreamed it).

[urbanrealtor]

How would your version of an equity purchase work?
A new entity or GSE owner or the govt itself?

Are there other negatives to diluting shareholder interest?

Wasn’t there some equity component in the defunct plan? (I thought there was but maybe I dreamed it).

[urbanrealtor]

How would your version of an equity purchase work?
A new entity or GSE owner or the govt itself?

Are there other negatives to diluting shareholder interest?

Wasn’t there some equity component in the defunct plan? (I thought there was but maybe I dreamed it).

[cr]

Scare tactic.

[cr]

Scare tactic.

[cr]

Scare tactic.

[cr]

Scare tactic.

[Author]

Posts