GatewayRedbirds.com

Arthur Dent wrote:Now both Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Alan Greenspan of all people have endorsed temporary nationalization of banks. I don't think this is politically impossible.

In other news, Lindsey Graham ate a few small children this morning. It went mostly unnoticed by the media.

Arthur Dent wrote:Now both Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Alan Greenspan of all people have endorsed temporary nationalization of banks. I don't think this is politically impossible.

Aren't we, in effect, already there?

Hungary Jack wrote:

Arthur Dent wrote:Now both Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Alan Greenspan of all people have endorsed temporary nationalization of banks. I don't think this is politically impossible.

Aren't we, in effect, already there?

Not really. We're still in the, "we'll cover your loses, you can keep the gains phase." TARP preferred shares didn't even get real voting rights.

Freed Roger wrote:any guesses/rumors on next big retailers to fail?

I'm thinking one of the big office supply stores will go away, and one of the big-box hardware stores.

It's not really being reported, but the Hardware stores have supposedly been trying the circuit city method of cutting costs by getting rid of their most competent (and therefore highest paid) sales associates.

planet pujolsian wrote:So they're giving everyone $400? That's pointless.

I think I've heard today what you were referring to, that working couples will be receiving around an extra $40 in their bi-weekly checks? At first I was thinking, that's not much. But, really, that might be better (for the economy) than if Americans as a whole received a lump sum check. It's more likely to be spent if you've got just a little more in your check every couple of weeks. I'd guess most people saved or paid off debt with their checks handed out last summer. Given the overall news, if people are given too much, they'll tend to "hoard" it. The best thing people can do is spend just a little bit - if they feel they can afford to. (Please note that I'm trying to speak in generalities about 'people'. Most outside this board are not as informed of the details as I've been reading from posters here. I've learned, and felt I needed to pay attention to, a lot of this. I couldn't be a part of this discussion in any of my immediate social circles, except maybe my older siblings. In typing the above, I'm thinking the expression that a person is smart/logical, people are dumb/panic.)


I keep seeing on all these news programs of people saying, "What about me? The government needs to pay "X" off for me." But the government can't afford to 'bailout' everybody. They're trying to keep the economy moving so there's jobs, money to lend, solvent businesses, etc. The idea isn't just to hand out money, it's to put money where it's supposed to help the overall economy the best. Whether they did, or will, is the better debate.

Arthur Dent wrote:

Hungary Jack wrote:

Arthur Dent wrote:Now both Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Alan Greenspan of all people have endorsed temporary nationalization of banks. I don't think this is politically impossible.

Aren't we, in effect, already there?

Not really. We're still in the, "we'll cover your loses, you can keep the gains phase." TARP preferred shares didn't even get real voting rights.

There aren't any gains to keep. The economists tell us the banks have to be recapitalized in some fashion, but how we do it ultimately isn't an economic issue. I don't want to give my money to those psychopaths so they can go back to business as usual or some temporarily/mildly modified version of business as usual. I want to see real change, and the clearest change would be splitting up these mega banks with the pieces auctioned off to the highest bidder. It's a lot simpler than worrying about the language of the debt covenants or preferred stock conditions about bonuses and office re-decorations, knowing that these twits will spend all their waking hours looking for end-arounds.

greenback44 wrote:There aren't any gains to keep. The economists tell us the banks have to be recapitalized in some fashion, but how we do it ultimately isn't an economic issue. I don't want to give my money to those psychopaths so they can go back to business as usual or some temporarily/mildly modified version of business as usual. I want to see real change, and the clearest change would be splitting up these mega banks with the pieces auctioned off to the highest bidder. It's a lot simpler than worrying about the language of the debt covenants or preferred stock conditions about bonuses and office re-decorations, knowing that these twits will spend all their waking hours looking for end-arounds.

I won't disagree with that. As you say, they are keeping "gains" in the form of salary/bonuses and dividends. The fact that share value for some of these banks is greater than $0 probably reflects shareholders expectations that they will be given taxpayer welfare and get to keep their banks. I also wouldn't be surprised if a real nationalization results a quicker resolution as the current ownership will try to hang on as long as possible pretending that they haven't lost their capital.

KyCardinalFan wrote:I think I've heard today what you were referring to, that working couples will be receiving around an extra $40 in their bi-weekly checks? At first I was thinking, that's not much. But, really, that might be better (for the economy) than if Americans as a whole received a lump sum check. It's more likely to be spent if you've got just a little more in your check every couple of weeks. I'd guess most people saved or paid off debt with their checks handed out last summer. Given the overall news, if people are given too much, they'll tend to "hoard" it. The best thing people can do is spend just a little bit - if they feel they can afford to.

That's an interesting theory, and I hope it works. I expect that these tax rebate things don't work at all expect for households living paycheck to paycheck. What fraction does that? Maybe half?

If they want people to spend the money, why don't they just issue vouchers that can be spent / redeemed just about anywhere and they have an expiration date?

clement wrote:If they want people to spend the money, why don't they just issue vouchers that can be spent / redeemed just about anywhere and they have an expiration date?

I think it's just one part of the plan, getting people to spend at retailers. Investment in infrastructure is another part, for example.

Besides, it would be bureaucratic nightmare to create a voucher that would essentially be a gift certificate to whatever your needs might be. So then the next closest thing would be issuing a check, which didn't work out last year. Slip a few bucks into each paycheck, you feel a little richer, but see it as for every day expenses.