TARP has lost 40% since inception

[patientrenter]

Fair enough, Allan. But I would just caution all Piggs that most of the population of the US is hooked on the dream of becoming wealthy via inflation of the prices of assets bought with other people’s money. That creates a tremendous incentive for even intelligent and good people to ‘buy in’ to any plausible theory that tries to keep them in the dream little longer, or at least rescues them from the full consequences of their bad personal choices.

So we are getting, from all directions and in tremendous volumes, support for the bailouts. Maybe the bailouts really are the best course of action, but I am very suspicious of ‘free lunch’ solutions, ones that evade personal responsibility for past actions, the madness of crowds and, above all, motives. As in solving any crime, you can often figure things out best just by following who gets the money, not by listening to the clever stories that people weave for their own ends.

The lesson I draw from what is happening is that my worst fears of the country’s people and politicians is realized. When next I have a chance to ‘screw the system’ for my personal enrichment, I will take full advantage of it. Maybe I am just an insignificant element of the population, but if a lot of people like me, who have never before tried to avoid paying taxes and debts, instead work the system from every angle, maybe there won’t be a system. I doubt Larry Summers is calculating in the cost of the bailouts any large impact from that. I hope he’s right, but he might be wrong. He’s smart, but he’s not a genius.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

PR: In your opinion, and I’m guessing you’re dead set against the FED and Administration plans, what is the better alternative? And, yes, that is a serious question.

Like I said, I don’t have any particular genius here; I’m simply trying to figure out a way we don’t pile this thing into a wall. To be honest, I’m not seeing it.

Admittedly, both the FED and Administration plans are fraught with peril and, as of late, neither has imparted a huge amount of confidence. But, what’s the alternative?

I’m watching the EU and the ECB fumble this thing even worse than we are. The notion that the Chinese are doing a better job is not being borne out by any sort of evidence. To the contrary, nearly 20MM migrant workers are unemployed and the Chinese government has openly admitted that if they don’t keep unemployment below 8%, they’re facing serious social and economic “dislocation”.

Various economists have opined as to alternatives, but, after looking them through, nearly all of their plans have serious flaws as well.

So? What do you think? Hopefully, it’s not, “Oh, the hell with it, let ’em all fail!”, which I really don’t believe is a viable alternative, in spite of the quasi-laissez faire rhetoric spouted by Breeze.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

PR: In your opinion, and I’m guessing you’re dead set against the FED and Administration plans, what is the better alternative? And, yes, that is a serious question.

Like I said, I don’t have any particular genius here; I’m simply trying to figure out a way we don’t pile this thing into a wall. To be honest, I’m not seeing it.

Admittedly, both the FED and Administration plans are fraught with peril and, as of late, neither has imparted a huge amount of confidence. But, what’s the alternative?

I’m watching the EU and the ECB fumble this thing even worse than we are. The notion that the Chinese are doing a better job is not being borne out by any sort of evidence. To the contrary, nearly 20MM migrant workers are unemployed and the Chinese government has openly admitted that if they don’t keep unemployment below 8%, they’re facing serious social and economic “dislocation”.

Various economists have opined as to alternatives, but, after looking them through, nearly all of their plans have serious flaws as well.

So? What do you think? Hopefully, it’s not, “Oh, the hell with it, let ’em all fail!”, which I really don’t believe is a viable alternative, in spite of the quasi-laissez faire rhetoric spouted by Breeze.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

PR: In your opinion, and I’m guessing you’re dead set against the FED and Administration plans, what is the better alternative? And, yes, that is a serious question.

Like I said, I don’t have any particular genius here; I’m simply trying to figure out a way we don’t pile this thing into a wall. To be honest, I’m not seeing it.

Admittedly, both the FED and Administration plans are fraught with peril and, as of late, neither has imparted a huge amount of confidence. But, what’s the alternative?

I’m watching the EU and the ECB fumble this thing even worse than we are. The notion that the Chinese are doing a better job is not being borne out by any sort of evidence. To the contrary, nearly 20MM migrant workers are unemployed and the Chinese government has openly admitted that if they don’t keep unemployment below 8%, they’re facing serious social and economic “dislocation”.

Various economists have opined as to alternatives, but, after looking them through, nearly all of their plans have serious flaws as well.

So? What do you think? Hopefully, it’s not, “Oh, the hell with it, let ’em all fail!”, which I really don’t believe is a viable alternative, in spite of the quasi-laissez faire rhetoric spouted by Breeze.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

PR: In your opinion, and I’m guessing you’re dead set against the FED and Administration plans, what is the better alternative? And, yes, that is a serious question.

Like I said, I don’t have any particular genius here; I’m simply trying to figure out a way we don’t pile this thing into a wall. To be honest, I’m not seeing it.

Admittedly, both the FED and Administration plans are fraught with peril and, as of late, neither has imparted a huge amount of confidence. But, what’s the alternative?

I’m watching the EU and the ECB fumble this thing even worse than we are. The notion that the Chinese are doing a better job is not being borne out by any sort of evidence. To the contrary, nearly 20MM migrant workers are unemployed and the Chinese government has openly admitted that if they don’t keep unemployment below 8%, they’re facing serious social and economic “dislocation”.

Various economists have opined as to alternatives, but, after looking them through, nearly all of their plans have serious flaws as well.

So? What do you think? Hopefully, it’s not, “Oh, the hell with it, let ’em all fail!”, which I really don’t believe is a viable alternative, in spite of the quasi-laissez faire rhetoric spouted by Breeze.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

PR: In your opinion, and I’m guessing you’re dead set against the FED and Administration plans, what is the better alternative? And, yes, that is a serious question.

Like I said, I don’t have any particular genius here; I’m simply trying to figure out a way we don’t pile this thing into a wall. To be honest, I’m not seeing it.

Admittedly, both the FED and Administration plans are fraught with peril and, as of late, neither has imparted a huge amount of confidence. But, what’s the alternative?

I’m watching the EU and the ECB fumble this thing even worse than we are. The notion that the Chinese are doing a better job is not being borne out by any sort of evidence. To the contrary, nearly 20MM migrant workers are unemployed and the Chinese government has openly admitted that if they don’t keep unemployment below 8%, they’re facing serious social and economic “dislocation”.

Various economists have opined as to alternatives, but, after looking them through, nearly all of their plans have serious flaws as well.

So? What do you think? Hopefully, it’s not, “Oh, the hell with it, let ’em all fail!”, which I really don’t believe is a viable alternative, in spite of the quasi-laissez faire rhetoric spouted by Breeze.

[patientrenter]

Allan, some things and some ideas and some people need to hit the wall, but I agree that we don’t want excessive collateral damage. I just think that wanting no collateral damage is unrealistic.

In practical terms, I’ve thought that our govt should:

1. Identify the weakest 40% or so of the banks and some % of some other financial institutions.

2. Guarantee the obligations of all financial institutions for a transition period (of, say, 6 mos)

3. Wind down (liquidate) the weakest institutions over that transition period. Move any remaining operations that must continue (not the underlying financial assets or liabilities) to the remaining institutions.

4. Top up the capital of the remaining institutions by just giving them a govt handout equal to a fairly level % of their assets. Let real market asset prices become public and prevailing, and adjust the capital handouts to give the remaining institutions a healthy start.

5. After this is done, the remaining fin’l institutions will be profitable and well-capitalized. The ones that managed best will be the best capitalized and capable of handling all the legitimate business that needs doing, and the ones that were very marginal will be the least well-capitalized and will have to improve to survive. Most should survive, because only 60% are left.

6. While the fin’l sector is being ‘right-sized’, extend and increase unemployment benefits. No homeowner bailouts or other channeling of money in support of unproductive activity (buying ever-bigger houses).

The idea is that the real economy needs to change, and the number one need is to get many people out of the business of “managing assets” into other activities. When asset prices are rising, it is easy to believe that “managing assets” is productive even if it is not. So don’t resist the quick downsizing of financials.

Don’t resist the drop in asset prices. The drop in asset prices is just the economy’s signal that we can’t afford to have 1 baby boomer pensioner on the golf course in 2025 for every 2 workers. As baby boomers see their asset prices decline, they will have to plan to work longer, which we need. Baby boomers in their 70’s and 80’s are going to have do much of the work of providing other baby boomers with the services and goods they need. It’s just not going to work to have a huge generation of people living comfortably on fat 401ks and other people’s labor instead of continuing personal contributions and paychecks.

I am no left-winger, but I do think Obama is on the right track with his (stated) focus on reducing the cost of health care, and reducing our energy imports from “people who don’t like us”. So I am all for hard-nosed efforts in that direction too.

[patientrenter]

Allan, some things and some ideas and some people need to hit the wall, but I agree that we don’t want excessive collateral damage. I just think that wanting no collateral damage is unrealistic.

In practical terms, I’ve thought that our govt should:

1. Identify the weakest 40% or so of the banks and some % of some other financial institutions.

2. Guarantee the obligations of all financial institutions for a transition period (of, say, 6 mos)

3. Wind down (liquidate) the weakest institutions over that transition period. Move any remaining operations that must continue (not the underlying financial assets or liabilities) to the remaining institutions.

4. Top up the capital of the remaining institutions by just giving them a govt handout equal to a fairly level % of their assets. Let real market asset prices become public and prevailing, and adjust the capital handouts to give the remaining institutions a healthy start.

5. After this is done, the remaining fin’l institutions will be profitable and well-capitalized. The ones that managed best will be the best capitalized and capable of handling all the legitimate business that needs doing, and the ones that were very marginal will be the least well-capitalized and will have to improve to survive. Most should survive, because only 60% are left.

6. While the fin’l sector is being ‘right-sized’, extend and increase unemployment benefits. No homeowner bailouts or other channeling of money in support of unproductive activity (buying ever-bigger houses).

The idea is that the real economy needs to change, and the number one need is to get many people out of the business of “managing assets” into other activities. When asset prices are rising, it is easy to believe that “managing assets” is productive even if it is not. So don’t resist the quick downsizing of financials.

Don’t resist the drop in asset prices. The drop in asset prices is just the economy’s signal that we can’t afford to have 1 baby boomer pensioner on the golf course in 2025 for every 2 workers. As baby boomers see their asset prices decline, they will have to plan to work longer, which we need. Baby boomers in their 70’s and 80’s are going to have do much of the work of providing other baby boomers with the services and goods they need. It’s just not going to work to have a huge generation of people living comfortably on fat 401ks and other people’s labor instead of continuing personal contributions and paychecks.

I am no left-winger, but I do think Obama is on the right track with his (stated) focus on reducing the cost of health care, and reducing our energy imports from “people who don’t like us”. So I am all for hard-nosed efforts in that direction too.

[patientrenter]

Allan, some things and some ideas and some people need to hit the wall, but I agree that we don’t want excessive collateral damage. I just think that wanting no collateral damage is unrealistic.

In practical terms, I’ve thought that our govt should:

1. Identify the weakest 40% or so of the banks and some % of some other financial institutions.

2. Guarantee the obligations of all financial institutions for a transition period (of, say, 6 mos)

3. Wind down (liquidate) the weakest institutions over that transition period. Move any remaining operations that must continue (not the underlying financial assets or liabilities) to the remaining institutions.

4. Top up the capital of the remaining institutions by just giving them a govt handout equal to a fairly level % of their assets. Let real market asset prices become public and prevailing, and adjust the capital handouts to give the remaining institutions a healthy start.

5. After this is done, the remaining fin’l institutions will be profitable and well-capitalized. The ones that managed best will be the best capitalized and capable of handling all the legitimate business that needs doing, and the ones that were very marginal will be the least well-capitalized and will have to improve to survive. Most should survive, because only 60% are left.

6. While the fin’l sector is being ‘right-sized’, extend and increase unemployment benefits. No homeowner bailouts or other channeling of money in support of unproductive activity (buying ever-bigger houses).

The idea is that the real economy needs to change, and the number one need is to get many people out of the business of “managing assets” into other activities. When asset prices are rising, it is easy to believe that “managing assets” is productive even if it is not. So don’t resist the quick downsizing of financials.

Don’t resist the drop in asset prices. The drop in asset prices is just the economy’s signal that we can’t afford to have 1 baby boomer pensioner on the golf course in 2025 for every 2 workers. As baby boomers see their asset prices decline, they will have to plan to work longer, which we need. Baby boomers in their 70’s and 80’s are going to have do much of the work of providing other baby boomers with the services and goods they need. It’s just not going to work to have a huge generation of people living comfortably on fat 401ks and other people’s labor instead of continuing personal contributions and paychecks.

I am no left-winger, but I do think Obama is on the right track with his (stated) focus on reducing the cost of health care, and reducing our energy imports from “people who don’t like us”. So I am all for hard-nosed efforts in that direction too.

[patientrenter]

Allan, some things and some ideas and some people need to hit the wall, but I agree that we don’t want excessive collateral damage. I just think that wanting no collateral damage is unrealistic.

In practical terms, I’ve thought that our govt should:

1. Identify the weakest 40% or so of the banks and some % of some other financial institutions.

2. Guarantee the obligations of all financial institutions for a transition period (of, say, 6 mos)

3. Wind down (liquidate) the weakest institutions over that transition period. Move any remaining operations that must continue (not the underlying financial assets or liabilities) to the remaining institutions.

4. Top up the capital of the remaining institutions by just giving them a govt handout equal to a fairly level % of their assets. Let real market asset prices become public and prevailing, and adjust the capital handouts to give the remaining institutions a healthy start.

5. After this is done, the remaining fin’l institutions will be profitable and well-capitalized. The ones that managed best will be the best capitalized and capable of handling all the legitimate business that needs doing, and the ones that were very marginal will be the least well-capitalized and will have to improve to survive. Most should survive, because only 60% are left.

6. While the fin’l sector is being ‘right-sized’, extend and increase unemployment benefits. No homeowner bailouts or other channeling of money in support of unproductive activity (buying ever-bigger houses).

The idea is that the real economy needs to change, and the number one need is to get many people out of the business of “managing assets” into other activities. When asset prices are rising, it is easy to believe that “managing assets” is productive even if it is not. So don’t resist the quick downsizing of financials.

Don’t resist the drop in asset prices. The drop in asset prices is just the economy’s signal that we can’t afford to have 1 baby boomer pensioner on the golf course in 2025 for every 2 workers. As baby boomers see their asset prices decline, they will have to plan to work longer, which we need. Baby boomers in their 70’s and 80’s are going to have do much of the work of providing other baby boomers with the services and goods they need. It’s just not going to work to have a huge generation of people living comfortably on fat 401ks and other people’s labor instead of continuing personal contributions and paychecks.

I am no left-winger, but I do think Obama is on the right track with his (stated) focus on reducing the cost of health care, and reducing our energy imports from “people who don’t like us”. So I am all for hard-nosed efforts in that direction too.

[patientrenter]

Allan, some things and some ideas and some people need to hit the wall, but I agree that we don’t want excessive collateral damage. I just think that wanting no collateral damage is unrealistic.

In practical terms, I’ve thought that our govt should:

1. Identify the weakest 40% or so of the banks and some % of some other financial institutions.

2. Guarantee the obligations of all financial institutions for a transition period (of, say, 6 mos)

3. Wind down (liquidate) the weakest institutions over that transition period. Move any remaining operations that must continue (not the underlying financial assets or liabilities) to the remaining institutions.

4. Top up the capital of the remaining institutions by just giving them a govt handout equal to a fairly level % of their assets. Let real market asset prices become public and prevailing, and adjust the capital handouts to give the remaining institutions a healthy start.

5. After this is done, the remaining fin’l institutions will be profitable and well-capitalized. The ones that managed best will be the best capitalized and capable of handling all the legitimate business that needs doing, and the ones that were very marginal will be the least well-capitalized and will have to improve to survive. Most should survive, because only 60% are left.

6. While the fin’l sector is being ‘right-sized’, extend and increase unemployment benefits. No homeowner bailouts or other channeling of money in support of unproductive activity (buying ever-bigger houses).

The idea is that the real economy needs to change, and the number one need is to get many people out of the business of “managing assets” into other activities. When asset prices are rising, it is easy to believe that “managing assets” is productive even if it is not. So don’t resist the quick downsizing of financials.

Don’t resist the drop in asset prices. The drop in asset prices is just the economy’s signal that we can’t afford to have 1 baby boomer pensioner on the golf course in 2025 for every 2 workers. As baby boomers see their asset prices decline, they will have to plan to work longer, which we need. Baby boomers in their 70’s and 80’s are going to have do much of the work of providing other baby boomers with the services and goods they need. It’s just not going to work to have a huge generation of people living comfortably on fat 401ks and other people’s labor instead of continuing personal contributions and paychecks.

I am no left-winger, but I do think Obama is on the right track with his (stated) focus on reducing the cost of health care, and reducing our energy imports from “people who don’t like us”. So I am all for hard-nosed efforts in that direction too.

[LuckyInOC]

Willens must be Rip Van Winkle and just woke up from his nap…

Senate Republicans brake rush to tax AIG bonuses
By Laurie Kellman and Sephen Ohlemacher,
Associated Press Writers
Sat Mar 21, 5:35 am ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_go_co/aig_bonuses

…

Robert Willens, a corporate tax lawyer in New York, said the Senate bonus tax bill would still allow bailout beneficiaries to negotiate higher salaries with employees to compensate for lost bonuses. The Senate bill authorizes the Treasury to issue regulations preventing firms from masking bonus payments as salaries, but it does not prevent firms from handing out raises.

“If the vast majority of bonuses become fixed salaries that would harm the institutions because they would have higher fixed costs,” Willens said. “What happens if the bank suffers through a poor year? It has all these fixed obligations they have to meet. That’s the beauty of the bonuses.”

Although the premise is correct, the application is horrible to say the least. I would think that one would get a 100% concurrence that AIG is having a ‘poor year’, YA THINK… Could AIG be having a extremely terrible year?

One would think, this could be why people are upset.

Maybe we should start a ‘Worst Quotes of the Banking Crisis’ thread.

BTW, I think this is a diversion to keep the masses from the real stories.

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

Willens must be Rip Van Winkle and just woke up from his nap…

Senate Republicans brake rush to tax AIG bonuses
By Laurie Kellman and Sephen Ohlemacher,
Associated Press Writers
Sat Mar 21, 5:35 am ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_go_co/aig_bonuses

…

Robert Willens, a corporate tax lawyer in New York, said the Senate bonus tax bill would still allow bailout beneficiaries to negotiate higher salaries with employees to compensate for lost bonuses. The Senate bill authorizes the Treasury to issue regulations preventing firms from masking bonus payments as salaries, but it does not prevent firms from handing out raises.

“If the vast majority of bonuses become fixed salaries that would harm the institutions because they would have higher fixed costs,” Willens said. “What happens if the bank suffers through a poor year? It has all these fixed obligations they have to meet. That’s the beauty of the bonuses.”

Although the premise is correct, the application is horrible to say the least. I would think that one would get a 100% concurrence that AIG is having a ‘poor year’, YA THINK… Could AIG be having a extremely terrible year?

One would think, this could be why people are upset.

Maybe we should start a ‘Worst Quotes of the Banking Crisis’ thread.

BTW, I think this is a diversion to keep the masses from the real stories.

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

Willens must be Rip Van Winkle and just woke up from his nap…

Senate Republicans brake rush to tax AIG bonuses
By Laurie Kellman and Sephen Ohlemacher,
Associated Press Writers
Sat Mar 21, 5:35 am ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_go_co/aig_bonuses

…

Robert Willens, a corporate tax lawyer in New York, said the Senate bonus tax bill would still allow bailout beneficiaries to negotiate higher salaries with employees to compensate for lost bonuses. The Senate bill authorizes the Treasury to issue regulations preventing firms from masking bonus payments as salaries, but it does not prevent firms from handing out raises.

“If the vast majority of bonuses become fixed salaries that would harm the institutions because they would have higher fixed costs,” Willens said. “What happens if the bank suffers through a poor year? It has all these fixed obligations they have to meet. That’s the beauty of the bonuses.”

Although the premise is correct, the application is horrible to say the least. I would think that one would get a 100% concurrence that AIG is having a ‘poor year’, YA THINK… Could AIG be having a extremely terrible year?

One would think, this could be why people are upset.

Maybe we should start a ‘Worst Quotes of the Banking Crisis’ thread.

BTW, I think this is a diversion to keep the masses from the real stories.

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

Willens must be Rip Van Winkle and just woke up from his nap…

Senate Republicans brake rush to tax AIG bonuses
By Laurie Kellman and Sephen Ohlemacher,
Associated Press Writers
Sat Mar 21, 5:35 am ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_go_co/aig_bonuses

…

Robert Willens, a corporate tax lawyer in New York, said the Senate bonus tax bill would still allow bailout beneficiaries to negotiate higher salaries with employees to compensate for lost bonuses. The Senate bill authorizes the Treasury to issue regulations preventing firms from masking bonus payments as salaries, but it does not prevent firms from handing out raises.

“If the vast majority of bonuses become fixed salaries that would harm the institutions because they would have higher fixed costs,” Willens said. “What happens if the bank suffers through a poor year? It has all these fixed obligations they have to meet. That’s the beauty of the bonuses.”

Although the premise is correct, the application is horrible to say the least. I would think that one would get a 100% concurrence that AIG is having a ‘poor year’, YA THINK… Could AIG be having a extremely terrible year?

One would think, this could be why people are upset.

Maybe we should start a ‘Worst Quotes of the Banking Crisis’ thread.

BTW, I think this is a diversion to keep the masses from the real stories.

Lucky In OC

[Author]

Posts