Article

2008-09-29 Home Front Economy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2008-09-29 13:51|| || Front Page|| [10325 views ] Top

#1 And the market didn't collapse.

Posted by phil_b 2008-09-29 14:00|| 2008-09-29 14:00|| Front Page Top

#2 link goes to posting page.

Posted by Betty Grating2215 2008-09-29 14:06|| 2008-09-29 14:06|| Front Page Top

#3 The market was already falling before the vote, I thought I read.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-09-29 14:09|| 2008-09-29 14:09|| Front Page Top

#4 The public is not amused that the pockets of the many are being picked for the few -- especially since the few include mostly the rich and the uncreditworthy. And by "uncreditworthy" I mean both the stupid (Golden West, Wachovia, etc.) and the poor who can't make their payments. It doesn't help that the bail out designers are some of the same idiot politicians who precipitated this and/or failed to address it three years ago. Perhaps the bail out is going to have to be smaller, a bit more phased, and a bit more supervised.

Posted by Darrell 2008-09-29 14:10|| 2008-09-29 14:10|| Front Page Top

#5 WTF is a motion to suspend the rules and pass?

Posted by 3dc 2008-09-29 14:11|| 2008-09-29 14:11|| Front Page Top

#6 Tell us your killing CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) and we will support your stupid bill.
.

Posted by OregonGuy">OregonGuy 2008-09-29 14:14|| http://oregonguythinks.blogspot.com/]">[http://oregonguythinks.blogspot.com/] 2008-09-29 14:14|| Front Page Top

#7 This socialistic bailout bill failed. It could not fail without the votes many Democrats going against their party and "real" conservative Republicans. It is also a rebuke of a bill that would create a Treasury Czar--which is very anti-democracy.

The Congressmen and women must have heard the sound of their constituents throwing them out. Now if the real culprits such as Dodd and Frank, etc. could be prosecuted for malfeasance and impersonating a Congressman we would do well.

Posted by JohnQC 2008-09-29 14:24|| 2008-09-29 14:24|| Front Page Top

#8 Kucinich said on commie linkTv, today, that he was voting against it.

Posted by 3dc 2008-09-29 14:32|| 2008-09-29 14:32|| Front Page Top

#9 We barely avoided a centralized economy via the Soviet Union style. Too close.

Posted by DarthVader 2008-09-29 14:34|| 2008-09-29 14:34|| Front Page Top

#10 See here.

The bill failed in the House 228-205. Yes, the stock market was falling already. Per AP: Ample no votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. It will be interesting when names can be attached to those numbers. Tomorrow is the Jewish New Year, so if they don't put something to a vote before about 5pm today, there won't be another vote until tomorrow at 10 pm or so, more probably Wednesday.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2008-09-29 14:38|| 2008-09-29 14:38|| Front Page Top

#11 How could Pelosi bring it to a vote without knowing it would fail? Why not wait a day or two and let the Dow drift down to scare people and give more time to craft a bill enough could support? What a dolt!

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-09-29 14:38|| 2008-09-29 14:38|| Front Page Top

#12 Now if there is a depression -- or even merely another couple of bank failures -- the honourable Representative Pelosi can blame the Republicans, no matter how untrue.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2008-09-29 14:42|| 2008-09-29 14:42|| Front Page Top

#13 I don't think so. There were enough donk votes to put it through if she wanted to crack the whip.

She needs to worry about holding her majority. Remember, every rep is up for re-election in 5 weeks and 205 of them voted to do something the majority of the people thinks is very stupid. They have to defend that vote starting now.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-09-29 14:45|| 2008-09-29 14:45|| Front Page Top

#14 And the market didn't collapse.

Even if the market had collapsed in the manner of 1987 - 20+% in one day, followed by another 10% the next - we need to remember that it ultimately recovered. Without us having to ban short-selling. Or mount a $700b handout plan. Paulson and Bernanke thought they could pull the wool over our eyes. As it turns out, we - liberals and conservatives alike - understood fully the nature of this handout, and made this known to our representatives in Congress, who quailed in fear.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-09-29 14:46|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-09-29 14:46|| Front Page Top

#15 NS, I think we've pretty well established that Pelosi is a fundamentally incompetent parliamentary manager. I thought that was why they brought in her arch-enemy, Hoyer, as her second - to provide someone who could organize a caucus.

Apparently I gave the pair of them too much credit. Wow, what a mess. Don't bet on the market not dying just yet.

Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H. 2008-09-29 14:47|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2008-09-29 14:47|| Front Page Top

#16 This is unfortunate. We could have used some aggressive deficit spending.

Posted by Mike N. 2008-09-29 14:49|| 2008-09-29 14:49|| Front Page Top

#17 Are there names attached yet? Anyone got an official link site to the house that can go through right now? I keep getting redirected to a stupid ask.com spider. I beginning to loathe ask.com.

Posted by Betty Grating2215 2008-09-29 14:50|| 2008-09-29 14:50|| Front Page Top

#18 Mike N, congratulations on being the worlds last Keynesian.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-09-29 14:55|| 2008-09-29 14:55|| Front Page Top

#19 Here's the roll vote

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2008-09-29 14:56|| 2008-09-29 14:56|| Front Page Top

#20 Tell us your killing CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) and we will support your stupid bill.
OregonGuy, I agree 100%, but why stop there?
Throw in GSE's and mark-market rules and you have the foundation for a much more efficient capital market.

Posted by tipper 2008-09-29 14:57|| 2008-09-29 14:57|| Front Page Top

#21 Interesting speculation on why it failed:

Boehner speaking (saw on MSNBC). Pelosi apparently gave such a vile, hate-spewing attack of Bush and the Republicans on the House floor, blaming the current financial problems on "Eight years of this administration and its allies in Congress" that, according to one report, the heads of some Repubs who heard it 'exploded' and they 'went berserk.' The attack was so ugly that several dozen Dems bolted, too. That smarmy, bug-eyed old Stalinist ("Riches for me; misery for you") just couldn't keep her bile bottled-up long enough for the vote. All bets are off now.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-09-29 14:57|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-09-29 14:57|| Front Page Top

#22 Whats the matter with Kansas? bipartisan No from the reps.

Posted by bman 2008-09-29 14:58|| 2008-09-29 14:58|| Front Page Top

#23 mark-market rules

The whole point of mark to market rules is to make the company's solvency transparent on a regular basis. Which is then used as an excuse for levering up (i.e. borrowing more money). Banks that don't hold mortgages as securities don't mark to market. But then again, they also don't lever up 30 to 1.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-09-29 15:01|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-09-29 15:01|| Front Page Top

#24 It ain't over yet. Another handout bill is coming down the pike.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-09-29 15:02|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-09-29 15:02|| Front Page Top

#25 I am very pleased that this bill was not passed. Something will take its place no doubt, but I hope that something is more sane.

And maybe some of our congress-critters aren't all bad.

Maybe.

Or maybe they weren't getting enough of a cut.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2008-09-29 15:12|| 2008-09-29 15:12|| Front Page Top

#26 If we had had short selling in place, there would be a lot of them out there buying to cover their shorts now.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-09-29 15:21|| 2008-09-29 15:21|| Front Page Top

#27 Futures Movers: Oil drops 9% as bailout plan fails, feeding demand worry

Too bad.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-09-29 15:24|| 2008-09-29 15:24|| Front Page Top

#28 Crude Oil futures drop 9%...dollar goes up. Sky fails to fall. Franks and Paloosi blame "W" and Republicans.

Posted by Besoeker 2008-09-29 15:27|| 2008-09-29 15:27|| Front Page Top

#29 > Crude Oil futures drop 9%...dollar goes up

The markets were expecting that the bill for the 700 Bailout of wall Street would have been paid for in the worst possible way, via inflation.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-09-29 15:32|| 2008-09-29 15:32|| Front Page Top

#30 Not Keynesian. I think the government should always deficit spend.

Posted by Mike N. 2008-09-29 15:32|| 2008-09-29 15:32|| Front Page Top

#31 Pelosi is spinning this on blaming the R's.
(95) Dems voted against it -
(12) Reps were going to vote Yea, but her
five minute speech before the vote must have ticked them off and they voted Nae.

Only 60% Dems voted for the bill.

Posted by Tom- Pa 2008-09-29 15:43|| 2008-09-29 15:43|| Front Page Top

#32 Pelosi's speech was 16 minutes -- I just watched it over at MSNBC (sorry, the only place I found it)

They woman was over the brink... Hands waving, hands punching -- hateful speech... she wasn't selling the bail-out package -- she kept repeating the 700 ---- HUNDRED-----BILLION.... and of course, who wants to say, I voted for 700 Billion.

Oh, and thanked Barney Franks for his leadership, knowledge, prudence and judgement!

Yea, she really did.

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2008-09-29 15:58|| 2008-09-29 15:58|| Front Page Top

#33 Problem -- now folks are saying she will bring back the bill, with all the hands-out ACRON, etc... and ram it through, on a majority rule by Dems ---
From Kudlow:
As this scenario goes, the House Democrats need 218 votes, and they have to pick up a number of black and Hispanic House members who jumped ship because the Wall Street provisions, in their view, were too benign. So things like the bankruptcy judges setting mortgage terms and rates, the ACORN slush-fund spending, the union proxy for corporate boards, stricter limits on executive compensation, and much larger equity ownership of selling banks through warrants will all find itself back in the new bill. Of course, this scenario will lose more Republican votes. But insiders tell me President Bush will take Secretary Paulsons advice and sign that kind of legislation.

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2008-09-29 16:00|| 2008-09-29 16:00|| Front Page Top

#34 Right, which means 40% of the Dems voted against the bill! How is it possible that Pelosi did not know that she didn't have 40% of her own party onboard here?

It's simply not possible - Pelosi planned this one so she could blame the whole thing on the Republicans. Her level of hate is so extreme she's willing to dump the whole country into depression, socialize the economy, nationalize the banking system, and take the first steps towards Obamessiah's and the Speaker's socialist dictatorship.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2008-09-29 16:03|| 2008-09-29 16:03|| Front Page Top

#35 I seems that the SEC mark-to-mark accounting has resulted in companies being overvalued and consequently enabled these firms to borrow more money, i.e. leveraged their funds up.

It also seems like this rule is also undervaluing some companies and driving them into bankruptcy and a firesale. They can't attract investors because they are shaky about in investing in something on the way down and out. They either get sucked up by some other firm for nothing like what they are really worth or go out of business. Should make for some good investments if they don't go out of business. This rule doesn't seem to do anything right. If an investor buys today, you don't know what the heck you are getting for your money.

Posted by JohnQC 2008-09-29 16:04|| 2008-09-29 16:04|| Front Page Top

#36 Sherry, That assumes Pelosi can turn the 95 donks who voted against the measure to vote for a new pork laden version. I suspect these 95 voted against it because they know how much their constituents are against it and they don't want to have to justify a vote for it for the next five weeks of campaigning. These are conservative districts the donks took in 2006 by acting middle of the road to conservative. Getting them to change their votes isn't going to get any easier, especially if the way it is done is pork. I'm not sure San Fran Nan gets another vote, espcially as the market did not tank. Down 700 isn't great, but it's not tanking.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-09-29 16:11|| 2008-09-29 16:11|| Front Page Top

#37 Her level of hate is so extreme she's willing to dump the whole country into depression

I think we need to get a grip here. The failure of this handout bill isn't going to dump the country into depression. Bush is letting Paulson and Bernanke talk him into a hysterical frenzy. This is a new and different kind of financial panic that is similar to every other previous financial panic in one way - when those other panics occurred, they were new and different, too*.

* If they weren't new and different, the ingredients for those panics wouldn't have materialized. If there's one things humans do well, it's learn from history. This is why we're no longer subsisting on raw berries and roots and dressed mainly in animal skins like our ancestors. So why do we have financial panics? The difficulty with learning from financial history is that every panic is qualitatively different from the last. But they do have one other thing in common - none of them required $700b in taxpayer-funded handouts, and none of them led to the collapse of the republic.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-09-29 16:13|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-09-29 16:13|| Front Page Top

#38 Her level of hate is so extreme she's willing to dump the whole country into depression

Just to be clear on the historical context, we have had financial panics every few decades since the founding of the republic. Like other financial panics, this panic is merely another instance of the unwinding of an asset bubble.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-09-29 16:16|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-09-29 16:16|| Front Page Top

#39 FOTSGreg:

Good observation. But there are still a bunch of blue dog donks and dems with tight races that will not be swayed by the left-wing add ons. What also got the gall was the Senate playing scaredy cat and waiting until Wednesday to see how the chips fell in the House. Chicken shits all of them.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2008-09-29 16:17|| 2008-09-29 16:17|| Front Page Top

#40 Bush is letting Paulson and Bernanke talk him into a hysterical frenzy.

"W" needs to FIRE these two clowns today. Oil is GOING DOWN! Which means economic CORRECTION! It means the wealth transfer to foreigners is slowing! Let the market and the economy fix itself. Keep the government OUT OF IT!

Posted by Besoeker 2008-09-29 16:18|| 2008-09-29 16:18|| Front Page Top

#41 Those of you crowing that the bailout failed . . . what likely happens next is that Pelosi and company come back with a more left-wing version--the slush fund for ACORN, bankruptcy judges givenb the power to rewrite mortgage contracts, more government intrusion in the financial system--and it passes on a party line vote. You think the bill that failed was socialism? Wait'll you see this one!

If it gets through, the MSM then eagerly picks up on the meme that Bush got us into this mess and only the Dems are getting us out. Obama wins the election, has two Dem houses of congress to work with . . . well, do I need to keep going?

Posted by Mike 2008-09-29 16:25|| 2008-09-29 16:25|| Front Page Top

#42 The market tanked (only)777 because the other World markets are closed(??). GWB wanted this passed today because tomorrow is the end of the quarter/month and tied to the Hedgefunds. I think the numbers might be worse tomorrow??

Posted by Tom- Pa 2008-09-29 16:25|| 2008-09-29 16:25|| Front Page Top

#43

Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.

Posted by Depression 2008-09-29 16:27|| 2008-09-29 16:27|| Front Page Top

#44 RE: Pelosi wins tomorrow by losing today.

That doesn't make any sense
So the theory is that she turns around, re-injects the ACORN and other pork into it and all the Dems pass it without the Republican votes???

Were back where we were last week, when it wouldnt get passed because the Dems didnt want to take ownership of the bill.

So, the Dems will take ownership of a pork-laden bill that may or may not help "Save America"?

Posted by Anon4021 2008-09-29 16:36|| 2008-09-29 16:36|| Front Page Top

#45 Respectfully disagree Mike. When Paloosi and Franks get wrangled and nervous, we should all celebrate. Watch the price of crude oil. The stock market did not die today, it may well be stabilizing. Look at the bank ratings, Bank Implodeo-Meter, Bank Rate, etc. Bad banks (big city loaners) are tanking, as they should. Rural fly-over banks remain STRONG! The American people have spoken. They don't want any part of a bail out.

Posted by Besoeker 2008-09-29 16:40|| 2008-09-29 16:40|| Front Page Top

#46 McCain or Bush or any other prominent Republican could have tied this bail out around the Democrat's necks like an anchor and thrown them overboard. Plenty of prominent Democrats played a major part in precipitating this mess and in not cleaning it up three years ago. Instead the Republicans were mum. Pelosi and Franks and Obama et al could have kept their mouths shut and gotten a pass, but they didn't. Big mistake. The longer this goes on, the more people are going to find out who started this mess. And that is good.

Posted by Darrell 2008-09-29 16:43|| 2008-09-29 16:43|| Front Page Top

#47 These 95 donks are worried about re-election methinks.

Posted by JohnQC 2008-09-29 16:43|| 2008-09-29 16:43|| Front Page Top

#48 I seems that the SEC mark-to-mark accounting has resulted in companies being overvalued and consequently enabled these firms to borrow more money, i.e. leveraged their funds up.

It also seems like this rule is also undervaluing some companies and driving them into bankruptcy and a firesale. They can't attract investors because they are shaky about in investing in something on the way down and out. They either get sucked up by some other firm for nothing like what they are really worth or go out of business. Should make for some good investments if they don't go out of business. This rule doesn't seem to do anything right. If an investor buys today, you don't know what the heck you are getting for your money.

Actually this rule is fine. The whole point of the mark-to-market rule is to allow companies to lever up, via making bondholders (who lend them money) comfortable with the value of the assets on the companies' books.

What has happened is that the assets on those books - in many cases, mortgage-backed securities and other bonds or bond-like instruments guaranteed by bond insurance companies like Ambac, AIG, et al - have started having problems with coupon and principal repayments. These companies have started marking to fantasy in order to avoid financial collapse. Short sellers have driven the stocks of these companies down after pointing out that the so-called AAA-rated (i.e. highly-rated) assets on their books are really junk assets that may only be worth ten cents per dollar of face value. Bondholders (i.e. the creditors) in these financial institutions are taking note of the fact that short-sellers don't think everything is on the up-and-up. They are taking a closer look at the marked-to-fantasy portfolios and don't like what they see. Bond ratings companies like Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's are starting to fess up that they had no idea what they were doing in providing AAA ratings to the assets on these financial institutions' books. The ratings companies are starting to change their ratings on those assets from AAA to junk in one leap. This is spooking the bondholders of those financial companies, and anyone who might be in line to buy those bonds. The upshot? These financial companies are having serious problems borrowing money for anything less than interest rates in the teens, which would put them out of business. And they're not able to raise significant sums of money via stock sales, because the market correctly values shares in those companies as worth nothing.

The moral of this isn't that mark-to-market is bad. In fact, without mark-to-market, bondholders at these financial institutions would probably get nothing back in a liquidation, as financial institutions continued losing money while reporting that they were making money. (The current situation is that they are getting something less than $1 back for every dollar of face value, but that's still better than nothing).

It's that financial institutions should know what they're buying before they buy them, and not merely rely on the crutch of the ratings agencies. Because of their huge leverage compared to non-finance companies, financial institutions need especially strong internal controls to make sure that the revenue generators are actually generating profitable revenues, rather than accounting entries that will have to be reversed in the future because of actual economic losses.

There's a whole laundry list of items (that I'm too tired to think up and enumerate) that companies need to do in order to avoid getting themselves into these fixes. The major problems with Paulson's handout program is that (a) it primes the surviving financial institutions to think that Joe Taxpayer will always come to the rescue and (b) it transfers cash from innocent taxpayers to the financial institutions that incautiously made these losing bets. Companies need to be careful with their investors' money. A financial panic is the market's way of teaching financial companies prudence. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the market. The fact is that markets go up AND down.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-09-29 16:50|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-09-29 16:50|| Front Page Top

#49 The Congress has a lower approval rating than George Bush - by 11 points in the latest polling. It ain't getting higher because of this mess.

There's more than four weeks left in the election season, and yes, there's early voting, too.

If the Dems want to play political games by allowing this vote to be defeated so that they can lard up the "rescue" bill with ultra-lib pork, then they'll have run on their record. I such a bill is presented in the House, not a single Republican should vote for it. Let the Dems win on a party-line vote. Nancy and Steny WILL have to whip and win that one at any cost.

Take a deep breath. The sky is not falling, gas prices are.

Posted by mrp 2008-09-29 16:50|| 2008-09-29 16:50|| Front Page Top

#50 Her level of hate is so extreme she's willing to dump the whole country into depression

If my memory is any goos she desperately needs the bail out or she will lose loooooooots of money

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-09-29 16:51|| 2008-09-29 16:51|| Front Page Top

#51 The longer this goes on, the more people are going to find out who started this mess. And that is good.

Amen and AMEN! And, the longer it goes on...tomorrow and the next, the more the American people are going to see market CORRECTION... without government (taxpayer) intevention! This thing is bigger than the United States, it is global. The OIL component is the key.

"APPRECIATE*AMERICA! The enemy from within is TWICE as dangerous as the one from without. REPORT ALL Un-American activities to your superior officer or director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. DO YOUR SHARE"

Posted by Besoeker 2008-09-29 16:51|| 2008-09-29 16:51|| Front Page Top

#52 From a commenter at The Corner:

The bailout failed because of pure political cowardice. I used the Rothenberg Political Report to find the House incumbents who are in tough races (i.e. ones they could lose). There were 44 House members listed 20 Democrats and 24 Republicans. Of those 44, only eight voted for the bill.

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2008-09-29 17:12|| 2008-09-29 17:12|| Front Page Top

#53 It drives me nuts that Dems like Frank and Dodd are not being run out of town on a rail covered in tar and feathers. I was listening to the 2004 hearings with the head of the group responsible for oversight of fannie/ freddie. It was all dem cover. Maxine Water (spit) was lauding Frank Raines, and saying everything was on track with new desktop loans and 100% loans. They should all go to jail.

Posted by remoteman 2008-09-29 17:16|| 2008-09-29 17:16|| Front Page Top

#54 Political cowardice sounds a lot like "listening to voters" to me.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-09-29 17:29|| 2008-09-29 17:29|| Front Page Top

#55 From a commenter at The Corner

Rich Lowry had dictated the party line at the National Review on this handout. The fact is that no porked up handout bill could pass over Bush's veto. As he did with the amnesty bill, though, Bush will support this misbegotten handout bill over conservative resistance. But that's good - Democrats in conservative districts are going to have serious problems. A smaller Democratic majority in Congress combined with an Obama presidency might actually be superior to having a bigger Democratic majority and McCain as president.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-09-29 17:30|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-09-29 17:30|| Front Page Top

#56 Political cowardice sounds a lot like "listening to voters" to me

Which, in a Republic, is political cowardice.

Posted by Mike N. 2008-09-29 17:52|| 2008-09-29 17:52|| Front Page Top

#57 Good - My congressman voted NO!

Posted by 3dc 2008-09-29 17:53|| 2008-09-29 17:53|| Front Page Top

#58 So did mine 3dc - and he's a Democrat!

Posted by CrazyFool 2008-09-29 17:55|| 2008-09-29 17:55|| Front Page Top

#59 you know, it seems to me that there's a hole in our constitutional balance of powers that needs addressing...oversight of Congress. The evil deeds of the executive branch are grist for congressional hearings but what venue keeps the legislative branch in line? Federal/Supreme courts rule on the constiutionality of laws but not Congress's actual behavior. Perhaps a standing independent counsel (consul?, tribune?) appointed by the Supreme Court with powers to investigate Congressional activity with Supreme court approved recommendations going to Justice Dept for any criminal charges that need to be laid.

Start with the history and genesis of the meltdown. Include as appetizers the the quid pro quos that Stevens, Young and Murtha have been getting for ear marks. Willy "the Fridge" Jefferson, next. OK, so maybe we'll need a few extra tribunes to start.........

Posted by Mercutio 2008-09-29 17:56|| 2008-09-29 17:56|| Front Page Top

#60 I would said what you said a couple of comments earlier--except I didn't know all that. Thanks for the info; you make things easier to understand.

Posted by JohnQC 2008-09-29 17:56|| 2008-09-29 17:56|| Front Page Top

#61 Referring to Zhang Fei comments #48. Always lots of stuff to learn at Rantburg. It is one of my favorite sites.

Posted by JohnQC 2008-09-29 17:59|| 2008-09-29 17:59|| Front Page Top

#62 I'm against the bailout. Yes, lots of people are going to be hurt by not doing it. That has to be counterbalanced against the tremendous number who will be hurt by the debasing of the U.S. currency. It sucks that we're here, but we are. Now we have to deal with the way things are, not how we wish they were. No bailout, pay the piper for the excesses, and keep the currency sound.

Then drill, drill, drill, and drill some more!

Posted by Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-09-29 18:11|| 2008-09-29 18:11|| Front Page Top

#63 Further thought.

Congress is "self-regulating" - just like the investment houses.... nuff said

Posted by Injun Javilet9170 2008-09-29 18:12|| 2008-09-29 18:12|| Front Page Top

#64 How will this play out? The dems, and in particular Pelosi, will be seen as the cause. John McCain will, in a day or so, come up with an alternative bill that will pass.

He will be seen as the candidate that solved this mess, and will win the election as a result.

And historians will scratch their heads in the future, wondering if George Bush had planned it all, to ensure a Republican returned to the White House.

And the left will say "Nah. Bush is stupid.... isn't he?"

Posted by Bunyip 2008-09-29 18:21|| 2008-09-29 18:21|| Front Page Top

#65 If it did pass the currency would be debased enough for $6 to $8 / gallon gas from the get go.

Posted by 3dc 2008-09-29 18:27|| 2008-09-29 18:27|| Front Page Top

#66 If you print additional money to replace money that's been destroyed, is it really more money?

Posted by Minister of funny walks 2008-09-29 18:32|| 2008-09-29 18:32|| Front Page Top

#67 A smaller Democratic majority in Congress combined with an Obama presidency might actually be superior to having a bigger Democratic majority and McCain as president.

That is, until Iranian nukes start wiping out american cities.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-09-29 18:42|| 2008-09-29 18:42|| Front Page Top

#68 That is, until Iranian nukes start wiping out american cities.

The bozos on the other side talk a good game. But the fact is that the Ayatollah Khomeini ended a war with Iraq that Iran did not start because he was afraid of mere defeat, never mind nuclear incineration (which is what we would deliver upon them if they actually tried to nuke American cities). These people are using a facade of religious faith to amass power by fooling the credulous into supporting them. Uncle Sam went into Iraq on the mere suspicion that they were connected with 9/11 in some way. They *know* that we will kill them dead if they mess around with nukes on American soil.

Note that they have had decades to conduct terrorist attacks against Americans on US soil. Timothy McVeigh showed it just isn't such a big deal to organize a terrorist attack that kills hundreds of people. But since we shot down their passenger airliner in the Persian Gulf in the 80's, Iranian proxies have conducted a single attack - on Dhahran in Saudi Arabia against an American military target. Iran's leaders have geopolitical ambitions, rather than religious ones - watch what they do, not what they say.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-09-29 18:58|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-09-29 18:58|| Front Page Top

#69 Should this economic "crisis" push the price of oil downward significantly, then perhaps we will see the Iranians pulls some shenanigans that give the impression they are less than stable. Think of a tanker hitting a mine or some Iranian speedboats making more threatening moves at a US Navy vessel.

Posted by remoteman 2008-09-29 19:12|| 2008-09-29 19:12|| Front Page Top

#70 Pubbies screwed the pooch.

Posted by anonymous2u 2008-09-29 19:36|| 2008-09-29 19:36|| Front Page Top

#71 Doesn't low oil prices hurt the Russian economy, too?? If ME goes unstable, disrupt production/ world deliveries raise them again?? Didn't Chavez just visit Russia??

Posted by Tom- Pa 2008-09-29 19:38|| 2008-09-29 19:38|| Front Page Top

#72 at loudobbs.com

Do you believe today's Congressional vote against the Wall Street bailout is a victory for the American people and a rejection of the attempted extortion by corporate and political elites?
Yes 75% 5177
No 25% 1689

Posted by 3dc 2008-09-29 19:43|| 2008-09-29 19:43|| Front Page Top

#73 These guys can milk self-generated crises all they want. The fact is that when the oil price hit the unsustainable level of $38 in 1981, the world economy came to a shuddering halt. That price level in today's dollars is about $65. Even without the financial crisis we face, oil was set for a crash. When you factor in the financial crisis, I think the Iranians are due for some lean years ahead, exacerbated by the artificial crises they generated to push up oil prices.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-09-29 19:44|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-09-29 19:44|| Front Page Top

#74 Zhang Fei, Don't get me wrong. I think the bailout bill is a terrible idea. My surprise and disgust is that Pelosi and company didn't know that 40% of their membership wasn't going to vote with them so it's all the Republicans fault.

They're going to come back with something that will be far, far worse IMO.

I just can't believe they didn't take a poll of their own membership and knew what was going to happen beforehand so they could blame it all on the Republicans.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2008-09-29 20:01|| 2008-09-29 20:01|| Front Page Top

#75 pubbies brought a pocketknife to a chicago gunfight.

Posted by anonymous2u 2008-09-29 20:05|| 2008-09-29 20:05|| Front Page Top

#76 FOTSGreg---Pelosi and Co did not do their homework. They suffered from hubris, big time. She, in her isolated position, assumed that the Dem rank and file would line up like good little ants. What she did not count on was the absolute outrage of the district constituents, emailing and ringing the phones off the hook of their representatives. She has lost a lot of value in her holdings, esp with AIG, and that contributed to the wigging out at the end for 16 minutes. As the Russians say, tough schitskis.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2008-09-29 20:17|| 2008-09-29 20:17|| Front Page Top

#77 Like her pension won't be enough to live on...

Posted by Darrell 2008-09-29 20:26|| 2008-09-29 20:26|| Front Page Top

#78 Pelosi, Frank, Reid, Obama, Schumer, Dodd, Kerry, etc. need serious adult supervision.

Posted by JohnQC 2008-09-29 20:30|| 2008-09-29 20:30|| Front Page Top

#79 Alaska Paul,
Pelosi and Co did not do their homework

Or maybe they did. They may well come back with the old larded-up version next time. Today's vote may have merely been a political maneuver. The liberal bill would not have passed today - but Thursday it probably would, and Bush would have to sign it.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2008-09-29 21:48|| 2008-09-29 21:48|| Front Page Top

#80 The whole point of mark to market rules is to make the company's solvency
Agree Zhang Fei... up to a point, but it can clog up the system , due to different business cycles.
I see Newt has come out with a plan for ridding the market of this accounting rule.

Posted by tipper 2008-09-29 22:15|| 2008-09-29 22:15|| Front Page Top

#81 Goodbye mark to market.

Posted by newc">newc 2008-09-29 23:25|| 2008-09-29 23:25|| Front Page Top

23:58 trailing wife
23:57 bman
23:53 ryuge
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:32 Barbara Skolaut
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:25 newc
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:14 Linker
23:10 Steven
23:02 trailing wife
22:55 Jolutch Mussolini7800
22:29 Anonymoose
22:15 tipper
22:13 CrazyFool
22:09 WTF
22:06 mom
22:06 Anonymoose
22:00 Alaska Paul
21:55 Alaska Paul
21:52 Frank G
21:51 JosephMendiola
21:48 JosephMendiola
21:48 Glenmore