Sign out
Bimmerpost
Login
BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  
Go Back   BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-02-2009, 12:56 PM   #23
cagenicolas121
Banned
0
Rep
44
Posts

 
Drives: BMW E36
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New Jersey

iTrader: (0)

make sure that common people does not suffer.............
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2009, 02:42 PM   #24
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
398
Rep
4,760
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
In the context of the financial sector, the government operates in a similar role as the NFL, or the NHL, or the NBA does in sports. (Before you get stupid, it is NOT an exact analogy, it is just a tool for explanation.) The gov't provides the rules and the refs to provide a playing field where anyone joining the game can compete to the best of their abilities. This ENABLES players to CHOOSE to compete, each to their own abilities.

If you don't want to play in an organized league, you can play street ball if you want. You just can never be a champion, or be part of the big leagues (or even minor leagues). You can't play against players who have CHOSEN to play by the rules in any of these leagues. And if you are fouled, tough luck. If being fouled involves a 2X4 or a tire iron, even tougher luck. If you don't like it, you could have CHOSEN to play in a local league where that sort of thing is regulated.

The US government provides a set of rules and refs that ENABLES the free market to operate for those who CHOOSE to compete in that market, each to their own abilities. The gov't provides structures such as the ability to incorporate, courts for settling disputes, a monetary unit for trade, and rules and regulations for those who CHOOSE to participate on this playing field.

If you don't like the rules, you are perfectly welcome not to participate. Don't seek gov't protection under the laws of incorporation. Don't use the court systems for settling disputes. Don't trade in exchanges where all the rest of the participants have CHOSEN to trade under a set of rules. Don't trade in other companies or products who have CHOSEN to offer their company shares and financial products for sale in these regulated exchanges.

You can conduct your business as an unincorporated individual, with all your agreements being conducted through private contracts with arbitration clauses that specify a private arbitrator instead of the courts. You can work as far off the reservation as you choose.

If you really want to play in a league without any rules at all, move to Nigeria. Because it is a perfect example of the relative success of nations that do not provide these gov't regulated financial structures where businesses can participate. Nations like these are all failures.
On the face of it, I agree with everything you said here except your cutting remark in the parentheses. If you dropped such drivel as that, then your posts might have some merit. Personal attacks are unacceptable and close the mind to accepting what substance may be in your argument.
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2009, 05:10 PM   #25
Nixon
Banned
40
Rep
1,396
Posts

 
Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
On the face of it, I agree with everything you said here except your cutting remark in the parentheses. If you dropped such drivel as that, then your posts might have some merit. Personal attacks are unacceptable and close the mind to accepting what substance may be in your argument.

I'm sorry you have closed your mind to my arguments. I personally find that on the internet as a whole, I have to divide people's posts into sections.

Generally on the internet, parts of people's posts on the internet contain both valid arguments, and other parts contain sarcasm/insults/baiting/etc. It's just the way the internet goes.

I respond on both sides of people's posts.

1) The part of the post that contains valid arguments gets a part of my post that counters those arguments with valid counter-arguments of my own.
2) The part of the post that contains sarcasm/insults/baiting/etc also gets a part of my post that responds with the same. Often I will put a divider line when switching, like this:
-----------------------------------------------------------

If there is nothing of substance in a post, or if the post is completely disingenuous in nature, it only gets the later.

Unfortunately this is the reality of how the internet works a lot of the time. And there is no substitute for learning how to divide and separate out parts of people's posts and respond appropriately to each part. If you allow yourself to be completely distracted by the sarcasm/insults/baiting/etc, you will fail to be able to respond to the valid parts of people's posts, and you will lose arguments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In the spirit of getting down to the issues, let's get back to the substance of one of the valid points/questions that you had closed your mind to earlier. I think we agree that the dead bill that started this thread currently has no merit because right now TARP money is currently being paid back with up to 15% interest. But what is your response to the following statements?

1) That the money spent saved the free market from massive collapse due to the market's inability to avoid collapse itself.
2) That there is a VALUE of keeping our banking system from collapsing that is just as much a part of the equation as dollar-for-dollar returns.
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2009, 07:03 PM   #26
Nixon
Banned
40
Rep
1,396
Posts

 
Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Septro View Post

Oh and thanks for pointing out that Bush saved us from the Depression since all the key interventions happened on his watch...

BooyAH BITCHES!!

Wait, you guys said it was John McCain who saved the economy by suspending his campaign and rushing straight to the Senate and solved everything?

Isn't that the Booshit yAH BITCHES were trying to sell us?
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2009, 08:32 PM   #27
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
398
Rep
4,760
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
In the spirit of getting down to the issues, let's get back to the substance of one of the valid points/questions that you had closed your mind to earlier. I think we agree that the dead bill that started this thread currently has no merit because right now TARP money is currently being paid back with up to 15% interest. But what is your response to the following statements?
What percentage of the money has been paid back? Do you have those numbers? Will AIG ever pay back the 180 Billion they have taken?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
1) That the money spent saved the free market from massive collapse due to the market's inability to avoid collapse itself.
Too early to tell. Throw enough money at a problem and it will look OK for awhile. What will happen in the years ahead is speculation at this point. I lean toward the idea that TARP and other measures have delayed the inevitable and perhaps prolonged the problem to ultimately make it worse. It also set a precedence that is antithetical to my beliefs about the role of U.S. government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
2) That there is a VALUE of keeping our banking system from collapsing that is just as much a part of the equation as dollar-for-dollar returns.
Some institutions should perish. Then the stronger institutions will survive. I don't wish for the big banks to fail, but I would rather they fail than put the entire populace into an impossible debt. There are many speculations and projections about where the crisis can lead. It has been too many years a patch the balloon and reinflate it mentality. Painful as it may be, maybe it's just time to start over.

I advocate a constitutional form of government. In practice, this does not exist in America today.
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter
Appreciate 0
      09-02-2009, 08:36 PM   #28
TexAg06
Second Lieutenant
10
Rep
231
Posts

 
Drives: 2007 E90
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, TX

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
Probably going nowhere, but it came up in a trading room.

H.R. 1068: Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on certain securities transactions to the extent required to recoup the net cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

2/13/2009--Introduced.
Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act of 2009 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to require securities trading facilities to pay an excise tax on a specified percentage of the value of securities and commodities transactions sufficient to recoup the net cost of carrying out the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
anybody that thinks this is a good idea knows very little about economics and business in general. TARP was garbage. This is garbage.
Appreciate 0
      09-03-2009, 02:08 AM   #29
Nixon
Banned
40
Rep
1,396
Posts

 
Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
What percentage of the money has been paid back? Do you have those numbers?
Don't have time to deal with all the points in your email tonight, so I'll hit this easy part first, then address the rest of your post tomorrow.

dividends paid on loans: 12 Billion (12,445,591,592).
http://bailout.propublica.org/main/list/dividends

loan/warrent repayments: 72 Billion (71,628,089,000)
http://bailout.propublica.org/main/list/refunds

Announced intent for repayments this fall (pending Gov't approval): 46 Billion
Bank of America: 20 Billion
Wells Fargo: 25 Billion
Morgan Stanley: 1 Billion

Total funds actually lent out so far from TARP + Fanny/Freddy: 393 Billion (392,589,699,131)
http://bailout.propublica.org/main/list/index


So the math is roughly 130 Billion out of 393 billion of TARP and Freddy/Fanny funds that have actually been loaned out have either been repaid, or are planned to be repaid once the gov't approves.

Roughly about a third of these funds already lent, have been returned and/or are in the pipeline for being returned. Which I consider very impressive considering it is just a year since this began, and just a few months after the economy hit it's most recent bottom.

Some folks may grumble, "it's just the stronger banks that are paying back these funds", but that just doubly proves how valuable TARP was. Because if the entire banking system would have been allowed to collapse, NONE of these banks would exist today. Much less have the "strong banks" in such healthy positions they are in today.

Last edited by Nixon; 09-03-2009 at 12:49 PM..
Appreciate 0
      09-03-2009, 12:41 PM   #30
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
398
Rep
4,760
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
Don't have time to deal with all the points in your email tonight, so I'll hit this easy part first, then address the rest of your post tomorrow.

dividends paid on loans: 12 Billion (12,445,591,592).
http://bailout.propublica.org/main/list/dividends

loan/warrent repayments: 72 Billion (71,628,089,000)
http://bailout.propublica.org/main/list/refunds

Announced intent for repayments this fall (pending Gov't approval): 46 Billion
Bank of America: 20 Billion
Wells Fargo: 25 Billion
Morgan Stanley: 1 Billion

Total funds actually lent out so far from TARP + Fanny/Freddy: 393 Billion (392,589,699,131)
http://bailout.propublica.org/main/list/index


So the math is roughly 130 Billion out of 393 billion of TARP and Freddy/Fanny funds that have actually been loaned out have either been repaid, or are planned to be repaid once the gov't approves.

So roughly about a third of the funds already lent, have been returned and/or are in the pipeline for being returned.
Cool. I am glad some of it has been repaid. I am concerned about what has not been repaid and more concerned about what likely will not be repaid. (Not to revisit right now my other concerns about the role of government).
__________________
2007 BMW 335i E92, Montego Blue on Cream Beige, MT, ZSP, ZPP, CA, PDC, CWP and Style 188 for winter
Appreciate 0
      09-03-2009, 09:54 PM   #31
Nixon
Banned
40
Rep
1,396
Posts

 
Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post

Too early to tell. Throw enough money at a problem and it will look OK for awhile. What will happen in the years ahead is speculation at this point. I lean toward the idea that TARP and other measures have delayed the inevitable and perhaps prolonged the problem to ultimately make it worse. It also set a precedence that is antithetical to my beliefs about the role of U.S. government.
It isn't too early to tell if the collapse of the banking system was avoided in the fall of 2008. We very much did avoid it. That was the moment of decision, and the decision was made to act.

Had we followed your chosen path, for the government not to step in at all, there would have been a string of Lehman's one after another. At first stronger banks bought out smaller failed banks (which is GOOD). But that well had run dry by the time Lehman collapsed, and no one would buy them. That was where we were at when the Congress stepped in.

If more banks had crashed in that way, their assets would have been auctioned off. But without banks to finance the purchase of these assets, or banks to purchase these assets themselves, the value of these assets would tank. The problem is that all the rest of the banks were holding the EXACT SAME type of assets, and once they tanked in value at auction, the value of these assets would have tanked everywhere. This would instantly trigger even more banks to crash as their nightly leveraged calls were all called in and they didn't have enough CASH to cover 15 to 1 or 30 to 1 leveraged positions. The downward cycle ends in complete crash of the entire financial sector. That is what we avoided by providing CASH liquidity so banks could survive nightly calls on their leveraged positions if they were called in.

Since you are against gov't involvement, money market accounts would have collapsed too. (Those were going under too).

Without the gov't FDIC protections, there would have been a quick run on banks. That would have taken out nearly all the rest of the banks that were left, and left the majority of depositors pennyless.

This isn't just my theoretical, this is known historical fact based upon how banking crisis after banking crisis have played out in nation after nation over centuries. We saw it here in the US back when local banks all printed their own money, and when a bank went bankrupt, their bank notes instantly became worthless. When other local banks were stuck with too many of these notes from depositors, they too crashed. Which then triggered other banks that held too many bank notes of these TWO banks to crash. This cycle isn't new, and there was no "free market" way of STOPPING the crash.

The "free market" solution was to allow that crash to happen in order to punish the bankers for their failed business. But in punishing the bankers, the entire country would have been thrown into a deep depression much worse than what we have right now.

Is this what you support? Punishing the entire nation for the failures of a small group of businessmen?

Having a gov't allow that to happen when they have the power to stop it just doesn't sound like MY beliefs about the responsibility of the Government to her citizens.
Appreciate 0
      09-03-2009, 10:13 PM   #32
Nixon
Banned
40
Rep
1,396
Posts

 
Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
Cool. I am glad some of it has been repaid. I am concerned about what has not been repaid and more concerned about what likely will not be repaid. (Not to revisit right now my other concerns about the role of government).

Even if only 75% of the rest of this pool of money is paid back (roughly the current value of the warrants and the holdings in the banks left to pay back their loans), we would still recover around 85% of our money from this group of loans. I would be satisfied with that.

But let's apply this same standard to something you've supported in the past. Tax cuts for the Rich.

I'm wondering is when the billions of Bush tax cuts are going to be paid back? They were supposed to increase how much money the Treasury collected by stimulating the wealthy to put their money into play and create businesses. That's the whole "supply-side" economics thing.

But they haven't. They've horded their money, and are keeping it OUT of the economy. Normally the Fed Bank holds around 25 billion in private deposits. But right now the Fed Bank is holding 800 billion in private deposits!

The tax cuts that were supposed to pay for themselves by stimulating the economy are not paying for themselves as promised. I would love to see them pay back even the 33% that the TARP-freddy/fannie is returning after just a single year.
Appreciate 0
      09-03-2009, 10:31 PM   #33
Nixon
Banned
40
Rep
1,396
Posts

 
Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
Some institutions should perish. Then the stronger institutions will survive. I don't wish for the big banks to fail, but I would rather they fail than put the entire populace into an impossible debt. There are many speculations and projections about where the crisis can lead. It has been too many years a patch the balloon and reinflate it mentality. Painful as it may be, maybe it's just time to start over.
I agree, a lot of institutions should perish. Many should go through bankruptcy reorganization in order for them to become profitable again. Others need to be broken up until they are no longer "too big to fail".

But all that has to happen in an ORDERLY manor. Not all at once in a massive collapse in such a way that it triggers a domino effect of collapses in perfectly good businesses. Like businesses that were seeing their credit lines frozen so they couldn't make payroll. That sort of disorderly destructive collapse takes out the good with the bad.

The best thing the gov't intervention did was to ALLOW an orderly dismantling of some businesses, and the orderly bankruptcy of others.

For example, AIG is in the process of spinning off their successful sections, and shrinking their size. So instead of the entire operation crashing, the successful parts will survive. Yes, we will lose money on AIG that will have to be offset by gains from other companies. But they will be dismantled in an orderly way that won't trigger a domino effect. Citi is doing the same thing.


Again, the problem with letting the bad banks fail is that if they had been allowed to fail all at once in a catastrophic mannor, the good banks you want to survive would have been taken down too.

And the problem with massive failure, is that the very people you don't want to have to pay for these bailouts, are the exact same people who would be financially destroyed when their holdings and deposits in the banks, and their employers/jobs were all wiped out. It doesn't make sense to punish these people for the failures of bankers.

It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to let the US banking system collapse and take out other sectors with it, just to avoid having to temporarily provide funds to a few banks to AVOID the collapse.

Especially when these funds have a chance of being paid back -- perhaps in part, in full, or with profits.
Appreciate 0
      09-03-2009, 11:19 PM   #34
TexAg06
Second Lieutenant
10
Rep
231
Posts

 
Drives: 2007 E90
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, TX

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixon View Post
I agree, a lot of institutions should perish. Many should go through bankruptcy reorganization in order for them to become profitable again. Others need to be broken up until they are no longer "too big to fail".

But all that has to happen in an ORDERLY manor. Not all at once in a massive collapse in such a way that it triggers a domino effect of collapses in perfectly good businesses. Like businesses that were seeing their credit lines frozen so they couldn't make payroll. That sort of disorderly destructive collapse takes out the good with the bad.

The best thing the gov't intervention did was to ALLOW an orderly dismantling of some businesses, and the orderly bankruptcy of others.

For example, AIG is in the process of spinning off their successful sections, and shrinking their size. So instead of the entire operation crashing, the successful parts will survive. Yes, we will lose money on AIG that will have to be offset by gains from other companies. But they will be dismantled in an orderly way that won't trigger a domino effect. Citi is doing the same thing.


Again, the problem with letting the bad banks fail is that if they had been allowed to fail all at once in a catastrophic mannor, the good banks you want to survive would have been taken down too.

And the problem with massive failure, is that the very people you don't want to have to pay for these bailouts, are the exact same people who would be financially destroyed when their holdings and deposits in the banks, and their employers/jobs were all wiped out. It doesn't make sense to punish these people for the failures of bankers.

It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to let the US banking system collapse and take out other sectors with it, just to avoid having to temporarily provide funds to a few banks to AVOID the collapse.

Especially when these funds have a chance of being paid back -- perhaps in part, in full, or with profits.
what you call orderly manner, we call delaying the inevitable.
Appreciate 0
      09-03-2009, 11:55 PM   #35
Nixon
Banned
40
Rep
1,396
Posts

 
Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexAg06 View Post
what you call orderly manner, we call delaying the inevitable.
How do you count innocent businesses that are perfectly healthy being killed by a catastrophic collapse of the entire banking system "inevitable"?

Because that is why Congress acted. To prevent those companies whose collapse was NOT inevitable from being taken down. There is nothing "inevitable" about the collapse of these businesses.
Appreciate 0
      09-04-2009, 02:11 AM   #36
Los Angeles
Steve Forte Rio
No_Country
94
Rep
2,396
Posts

 
Drives: 08' 328i
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 90036

iTrader: (0)

I ain't payin for shit!
Appreciate 0
      09-04-2009, 03:02 AM   #37
sayemthree
Major General
sayemthree's Avatar
393
Rep
5,063
Posts

 
Drives: 2014 x1 for sale Warranty
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa so cal , AZ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Los Angeles View Post
I ain't payin for shit!
so you are not paying taxes?
__________________
2014 BMW X1 xDrive2.8i 64k miles, Le Mans Blue Sand Beige Leather, warranty until 4/2022 or 94,800 miles. Los Angeles area. PM me
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:25 AM.




5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST