Some preliminary notes on Bailout II

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
RussB's picture
RussB
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 9 2008
Posts: 101
Some preliminary notes on Bailout II

I just wanted to suggest some notes on this ongoing bailout offensive, now at Part II of how many?

I'm riffing on this overview from today's NYT: 


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/business/09bailout.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

U.S. Bank Bailout to Rely in Part on Private Money
Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Some preliminary notes on Bailout II

Russ -

Thanks for the link - I think.  I made the mistake of reading through the material while trying to listen to the President make his snake oil pitch tonight.

I did find out that the structural integrity of my cardiovascular system is pretty good - I didn't stroke out or bust an anuerysm.

This one got me going but good:

If investors previously underestimated the risks of such mortgage-backed securities, they now may be overstating their toxicity — at least in the view of some of the banks that hold them.

So now we have both the poison pill and its antidote all at once?

And this one - my favorite:

The securities are complex and hard to evaluate, and there is little public information about precisely which assets are owned by each bank. And some prospective purchasers say banks are not making many available for sale, or have refused to accept the prices being offered.
Whatever happened to last man standing?  Valuation by survival and mere existence - if your bank makes it, there was value.  If it doesn't there wasn't.  I agree with your assessments and I find that comments such as these, to the taxpayer and about the taxpayer, to be condescending.  Do these folks think we are all stupid?
Thanks again for the link - I think.
DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Some preliminary notes on Bailout II
RussB wrote:

But this does not mean that this system has to exist at all,
or can exist indefinitely, or that it's possible to have an infinitely
"self-sustaining expansion". In fact, all of these are false, and money
spent now to chase this will'o wisp will be spent for nothing.

You really struck two different important fundamentals here -

Does it have to exist?

What I think we are seeing is an obviuos attempt to perpetuate and grow a system (more specifically; the benfactors and controllers of the system) rather than promoting prosperity and saving the people.  There is never any discussion for an alternative system - to the contrary; the media won't even discuss the merits of a private federal reserve bank.  Imagine the outcry if people really understood the federal reserve (and the central banking scam).

In fact, all of these are false, and money
spent now to chase this will'o wisp will be spent for nothing.

Agreed - it would be bad enough if they simply lied about the numbers (US GDP, CPI, M3, unemployment, etc.) but they go a step further in sending us on wild illusions.  My opinion is that they are extending the system and moving as many liabilities as possible from their balance sheet to ours - and they are cherry picking our assets at a nickel on a dollar.

Larry

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments