Fed Bailout

Alex_Chow

The issue we're disucssing here is not the absence or presence of regulation. It's the Fed bailout. My arguement is that the current market will correct itself without this $700B intervention. Yes, it will hurt. Yes, the economy will suffer in the short term. But it's a necessary evil to get back where we're suppose to be.

There are other ways to pump liquidity into the market, i.e. lowering interest rates, give tax breaks, federal loans, etc. without just buying possible worthless assets at an inflated price.

Regulating the banking industry is a separate topic. And by the way, I agree the free market can only flourish with the right balance of regulation. Books and PHDs has been given on this subject.

DenSter

Alex Chow wrote:

The issue we're discussing here is not the absence or presence of regulation

How on earth can you say that regulation is not relevant in a discussion about the bailout? :shock:

A completely free market, is a market without regulation, which is what you are proposing is the only right answer to let this take its natural course. The current market is broken, it is the very reason why we're in this mess in the first place.

Any talk about the bailout is a discussion about how the crisis got there, and I think that deregulation has a very big part in it. Credit regulations were canceled, the 'free market' was able to run its course, excess started happening all over the place, and look where we are today. A truly free market is not capable to have a healthy equilibrium, if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, child labor, 10 cent an hour wages, 100 hour weeks, no health care, and we can go on from there.

The discussion about regulation in relation to the bailout is very much related. How much regulation, and what kind, is a political discussion that I won't get into here. But you can't deny that deregulation is in a large part responsible for the credit mess.

Savatage

Good thing Mibuso is not a property of Microsoft. According to this new email sent out about Code Of Conduct you'd be in trouble.

This means no non-technical discussions on religion, sex, gender and/or politics.

Just another rule to put humans in a small managable box.
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/codeofconduct

Alex_Chow

DenSter wrote:

How on earth can you say that regulation is not relevant in a discussion about the bailout? :shock:

I can because the bailout and regulation are 2 separate matters. :roll:

One can argue deregulation got us where we are today. The bailout is the attempted cure out of this mess.

You got the cold because you didn't wear enough clothes. You cure the cold by taking whatever medicine you decide. How you got the cold and how you cure the cold are 2 separate issues.

We can talk about the theories about regulations after we're done talking about the bailout. The subject matter we're discussing is NOT how we got the cold in the first place, we're strictly talking about the cure. And my opinion is that I don't agree with the medicine the Fed is procuring.

DenSter

You say let the free market fix itself by doing nothing and let the market fix itself. I say free market got us in this mess in the first place so that is obviously not the right thing to do, clearly the market needs to be adjusted. One possible alternative that I enter into the discussion is to put in place new regulations as an alternative to the bailout, which MAKES it relevant. We both agree that the bailout itself is not the right answer, only we have different reasons for thinking so. All part of a discussion that goes places around a single position, and all those arguments are relevant. Don't dismiss my argument on the basis of that it wasn't in your original post topic. It is where the discussion has gone, so use real arguments. You don't agree with an argument then use a counter argument, something other than trying to distract from it.

Your tactic claiming irrelevance is not very flattering. By pointing out supposed flaws in the topic of one of my arguments, you are trying to accomplish two things. One is to discredit my credibility by claiming that I am using an irrelevant argument, and thereby dismissing the validity of what I am saying. Two, this would then create the illusion that you are a better debater, which would then support the validity of your argument. Neither one of those actually add anything to the debate. You start a discussion, but you don't like where the discussion is going. Someone uses an argument, and because you don't like their argument, you dismiss it by claiming irrelevance. Nice try, but that is style over substance.

I think I am done with this topic, it is starting to feel like politics.

<edit>added the smiley I forgot in the first place</edit>

Alex_Chow

Oi.... :-#

DenSter

We need to have a beer in Atlanta Alex

Alex_Chow

DenSter wrote:

We need to have a beer in Atlanta Alex

Seriously, this lack of sleep from waking up 2, 3, 4am is getting to me.

Savatage

I have the answer for you
http://www.cosmeticsolutions.biz/servle ... %2C/Detail

:whistle:

Savatage

So now that it passed,
the money will soon be flowing to the banks.
So they can lend it back to us and charge us interest.

Sounds brilliant :^o

David_Singleton

Great to see that money going to a good cause ...


http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gKGBkg4DguI_k2NcQm5JemW44fcA

:-#

Savatage

they say "A tiger can't change his stripes" here's another example.

I was wondering why LINE 1 of the bailout wasn't
1. If you except this money you are not allowed to spend it on crap and your own retirement.
2. If you do, we will take all of your savings, cars, yachts & homes, to sell them and help pay back the loan.

etc etc nailing them down to actually using the money for the "good" of the people.
What a joke.

I loved it when the politicians were congratulating themselves on a job well done!
as if this isn't something that should happen EVERYDAY! Getting stuff done.

DenSter

David Singleton wrote:

Great to see that money going to a good cause ...

Well they did get billions in free money, so who can blame them for celebrating? :-$

Savatage

They could of at least invited us to the party! :roll:

Alex_Chow

Savatage wrote:

They could of at least invited us to the party! :roll:

They did invite us after the party is over. Now we're stuck with the bills... :?

DenSter

That resort must not have been a very nice place, they're asking for more money
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/08/news/co ... tm?cnn=yes

David_Singleton

Actually it looks like they have decided to start cutting costs. They have all agreed to drive their company cars to the next junket instead of flying first class. This is them getting ready to leave.

ssingla

DenSter wrote:

That resort must not have been a very nice place, they're asking for more money
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/08/news/co ... tm?cnn=yes

with the fall of USSR the world thought communist era is over but it seems it will come back and by the people who opposed it the most.