Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
hugoestr
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
|
Quote Reply
Topic: US Financial Crisis Posted: 14-Jul-2008 at 03:04 |
Yet another good point, gcle. We keep forgetting that, if the war is being run on a credit card, there isn't any real money to bail the FMs out.
|
|
Leonidas
Tsar
Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jul-2008 at 03:33 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
I doubt the US taxpayer will pay for bailing out he FMs. It'll be done by creating new money and therefore inflating. Which means it won't be just the taxpayers but anyone holding dollars. |
this proccess is already well under way. The Feds treasury is about half spent according to JP Morgan.
Hugo in a fiat monetary situation there is no such thing as 'real' money. its just what you print.
Edited by Leonidas - 14-Jul-2008 at 03:34
|
|
Panther
General
Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jul-2008 at 23:13 |
Seeing that i readily concede that i am no economists, i would like to submit for the readers veiwing pleasure, an interesting link that covers the debate of the US economy in quite a bit more context and perspective, from the Instapundit website:
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 10:48 |
Originally posted by instapundit
saying that it's a recession because you're worried about the economy
is like demanding antibiotics because your child feels bad, without
waiting for a diagnosis. People do it, but it's not smart.
|
People being worried about the economy (i.e. about their own futures) is a major cause of economic depression. The whole financial system depends on faith in it.
|
|
Leonidas
Tsar
Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 14:04 |
Geez everyone is watching the Freddie and Fanny show, i am learning more on more about US Financials as this train wreck slide along. These guys are kinda a like our big four banks in importance (but are not retail). For us Aussies, this is like CBA and NAB tanking and Suncorp already belly up. So far and its seem it will be the case going forward, the shareholder get screwed but debt holders will be guaranteed.
Freddie Mac said earlier this year that it planned to
raise $5.5 billion selling new equity. However, the company hasn't
managed to do that yet and has said more recently that any offering
wouldn't take place until some time in August. By contrast, Fannie
raised $6 billion earlier this year.
Both companies may need
more equity capital because they have huge mortgage exposures. They own
or guarantee more than $5 trillion in home loans and borrow money to
invest in mortgage securities. Since the credit crisis erupted last
year, they have financed almost three-quarters of all the mortgages
originated in the U.S.
The government is
stepping in because these companies are crucial to the mortgage market,
but also because they're so connected with the rest of the financial
system.
Fannie and Freddie are
major counterparties in the derivatives market, with roughly $2.3
trillion of notional exposure built up by efforts to hedge the
interest-rate risk of their mortgage operations. The companies also
have about $1.5 trillion in debt outstanding, much of which is owned by
foreign governments. www.marketwatch.com
|
in US dollars and yes faith in the system is paramount, we just saw a bank run on IndyMac and now people are starting to doubt the Feds room for maneuver. Printing money is going to hurt the US in so many other ways, inflation, devaluation of the USD (and assets). Its hurting us with that dam Oil price
Edited by Leonidas - 15-Jul-2008 at 14:05
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 15:39 |
The Financial Tsunami: The Next Big Wave is Breaking Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and US Mortgage Debt
The announcement by US Treasury Secretary
Henry Paulson together with Federal Reserve chief Bernanke, that the US
Government will bailout the two largest guarantors of housing mortgage
debt—the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—far from calming financial markets,
has confirmed what we have said repeatedly in this space: The Financial
Tsunami which began in August 2007 in the relatively small "sub-prime"
high risk US mortgage securitization market, far from being over, is
only gathering momentum.
As with the Tsunami which devastated Asia in
wave after terrifying wave in December 2004, the financial Tsunami we
are witnessing is a low-amplitude, long-wave phenomenon of trillions of
dollars of financial securities being unwound, defaulted on, dumped on
the market. But the scale of the latest wave to hit, the collapse of
confidence in the two Government-Sponsored Entities, Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae, is a harbinger of worse to come in what will be the most
devastating financial and economic catastrophe in United States
history. The impact will be felt globally...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9588
|
|
Panther
General
Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 21:10 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by instapundit
saying that it's a recession because you're worried about the economy is like demanding antibiotics because your child feels bad, without waiting for a diagnosis. People do it, but it's not smart.
|
People being worried about the economy (i.e. about their own futures) is a major cause of economic depression. The whole financial system depends on faith in it.
|
Yes... and what happens when that faith is manipulated, knowingly used and abused for political ends? AFAIK... there is economic reality and then there is paranoia. We are more acquainted with the latter then the former!
|
|
Panther
General
Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jul-2008 at 21:34 |
Originally posted by Leonidas
Geez everyone is watching the Freddie and Fanny show, i am learning more on more about US Financials as this train wreck slide along. These guys are kinda a like our big four banks in importance (but are not retail). For us Aussies, this is like CBA and NAB tanking and Suncorp already belly up.
So far and its seem it will be the case going forward, the shareholder get screwed but debt holders will be guaranteed.
Freddie Mac said earlier this year that it planned to raise $5.5 billion selling new equity. However, the company hasn't managed to do that yet and has said more recently that any offering wouldn't take place until some time in August. By contrast, Fannie raised $6 billion earlier this year.
Both companies may need more equity capital because they have huge mortgage exposures. They own or guarantee more than $5 trillion in home loans and borrow money to invest in mortgage securities. Since the credit crisis erupted last year, they have financed almost three-quarters of all the mortgages originated in the U.S.
The government is stepping in because these companies are crucial to the mortgage market, but also because they're so connected with the rest of the financial system.
Fannie and Freddie are major counterparties in the derivatives market, with roughly $2.3 trillion of notional exposure built up by efforts to hedge the interest-rate risk of their mortgage operations. The companies also have about $1.5 trillion in debt outstanding, much of which is owned by foreign governments. www.marketwatch.com
| in US dollars
|
There is more here, and the corruption it is exposing it getting politically ugly!
and yes faith in the system is paramount, we just saw a bank run on IndyMac and now people are starting to doubt the Feds room for maneuver. Printing money is going to hurt the US in so many other ways, inflation, devaluation of the USD (and assets). Its hurting us with that dam Oil price
|
Bank run on IndyMac? No thanks to NY Senator "Not my fault" Schumer.
"IndyMac was one of the most poorly run and reckless of all the banks," he said. "It was a spinoff from the old Countrywide, and like Countrywide, it did all kinds of profligate activities that it never should have. Both IndyMac and Countrywide helped cause the housing crisis we're now in."
I found his mentioing of Countrywide interestingly ironic, as also contributing to our housing problem, which the company is also in the middle of political corruption scandal involving members from both parties!
If there is a problem, then why don't they shut the hell up, kick out the corupt a--holes and fix the darn thing already! It's enough too cause me to vote for the Libertarian party candidate, or atleast an Indpendent! WTF!!!!
Edited by Panther - 15-Jul-2008 at 21:35
|
|
Leonidas
Tsar
Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 04:37 |
^ Indy was very suspect all along in the financial press. Lets face it; massive subprime/atl A exposure in california, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to work out the outcome of that one. That website i linked to, had some very disturbing figures back in May, so what he said was stating the obvoius. however, agreed he should of keeped his mouth shut so not to panic depositors, who dont read that type of press.
The is no politcal independance, as long as campaigns are externally funded and prohibatly expensive or lobby group success has more to do with the financial/political clout of its backers over public interest. That is a whole new subject.
|
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 05:44 |
Why the Bail Out of Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae is Bad Economic Policy
By MICHAEL HUDSON http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson07152008.html
|
|
ulrich von hutten
Tsar
Court Jester
Joined: 01-Nov-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3638
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 07:30 |
After reading the latest news about these tremors at the us-banks, after trying to look behind these implications (what's nearly impossible), after comparing this crisis to similar previous crisis one can only come to one conclusion.
The capitalistic economy is ruled by banks, companies and economic elites. No government of the world has realy influence to this gangsters or do even arrange these matters in common with them.
A simple but true phrase: The richs are getting more rich at these crisis and the poor, no surprise, are getting poorer.
The economy is like selfservice market for the shareholder ( mostly banks and their spin-offs). If there will be a crisis, it will not be a crisi for the possesing-and upper-class but for the middle- and lower class.
Capitalism only follows it's own and always preseverative rules, like the good old Marx had already found out. And if we go on blaming about these without trying to change it, we stay on sitting like a rabbit in the face of a snake, stock-still, waiting for the moment the capitalstic snake will swallow us again.
Again and again, there is only one conclusion. Disappropriation and socialisation of the key-industries and banks.Smash the capitalism, all power to the councils.
|
|
|
Cezar
Chieftain
Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 12:58 |
Originally posted by ulrich von hutten
Again and again, there is only one conclusion. Disappropriation and socialisation of the key-industries and banks.Smash the capitalism, all power to the councils. |
That was done. It didn't worked. Not that I love the actual capitalism but though we seem to go from one crisis to another we are not going beyond the catastrophic limit. Not that something like that would be impossible. Socio-economics are way to complicated for anything else than short term predictions.
|
|
ulrich von hutten
Tsar
Court Jester
Joined: 01-Nov-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3638
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 13:06 |
Originally posted by Cezar
Originally posted by ulrich von hutten
Again and again, there is only one conclusion. Disappropriation and socialisation of the key-industries and banks.Smash the capitalism, all power to the councils. |
That was done. It didn't worked. Not that I love the actual capitalism but though we seem to go from one crisis to another we are not going beyond the catastrophic limit. Not that something like that would be impossible. Socio-economics are way to complicated for anything else than short term predictions. |
If you mean the so called real excisting socialism, it worked as much as the capitalism works. It's always a questions of your point of view. Capitalism will go down, you can bet your last Leu on it, if you don't use it for your marriage.
Edited by ulrich von hutten - 21-Jul-2008 at 20:56
|
|
|
Cezar
Chieftain
Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 14:33 |
Originally posted by ulrich von hutten
Originally posted by Cezar
Originally posted by ulrich von hutten
Again and again, there is only one conclusion. Disappropriation and socialisation of the key-industries and banks.Smash the capitalism, all power to the councils. |
That was done. It didn't worked. Not that I love the actual capitalism but though we seem to go from one crisis to another we are not going beyond the catastrophic limit. Not that something like that would be impossible. Socio-economics are way to complicated for anything else than short term predictions. |
If you mean the so called real excisting socialism, it worked as much as the capitalism works. It's always a questions of your point of view. Capitalism will go down, you can bet your last Leu on it, if you don't it for your marriage.
|
Oh, I know that socialism works (I don't mean what we had here for socialism and I guess you think the same). The point is that, like you say, it works "as much as the capitalism works". The capitalism looks in a rather fluctuating state of health. Socialism looks better but growing bureaucracy is a tough problem to deal with since it eventually affects repartition of funds.
I'm pretty sure eventually capitalism will come to an end but I'm not sure socialism is the proper solution or the following system.
And I'd rather use my money to get married indeed than betting for capitalism. It'll probably last longer than me so what's the point of such a bet? Not to mention of what will come from the part of my fiance .
|
|
hugoestr
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 14:46 |
For those worried about bureaucracies:
In socialism, bureaucracy increases in the government.
In capitalist, it increases in the private sector.
In either one, you will give them your money to support them.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 15:00 |
Originally posted by hugoestr
For those worried about bureaucracies:
In socialism, bureaucracy increases in the government.
In capitalist, it increases in the private sector.
In either one, you will give them your money to support them. |
I Agree with this. We are screwed either way, and complex human organizations, whether government, corporate bodies or academia, just exist to justify wastefulness and job security.
EDIT: Oops, forgot to add ego inflating and empire building to the justifications.
Edited by pikeshot1600 - 16-Jul-2008 at 21:52
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 19:13 |
In fact the general lesson is that all systems fail. The root problem is the belief that simple concepts that lend themselves to sloganising are ever enough.
(For instance, nationalising the banks makes no difference to the fact that the banks create money, and, particularly in a socialist democracy, they do so with an eye to electoral popularity - hence the inevitabilty of inflation. And for another instance, it has been screamingly obvious for a decade and more that the US needs to pay more in taxes - but is any politician who wants to be re-elected going to increase them?)
For a number of reasons, not least the inadequacy of information available to decision-makers, the economy is essentially out of human control. Riding it in a situation like now is essentially like captaining a full-rigged ship in a gale - patching and reeving everything that breaks or tears, and waiting and hoping for the wind to die down and the sun to come out.
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 19:59 |
Regulation regulation regulation. Bring on the depression. Oh yes.
Edited by Zagros - 16-Jul-2008 at 20:04
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 02:35 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
People being worried about the economy (i.e. about their own
futures) is a major cause of economic depression. The whole financial
system depends on faith in it. |
Originally posted by gcle2003
In fact the general lesson is that all systems fail. The root problem
is the belief that simple concepts that lend themselves to sloganising
are ever enough.
(For
instance, nationalising the banks makes no difference to the fact that
the banks create money, and, particularly in a socialist democracy,
they do so with an eye to electoral popularity - hence the inevitabilty
of inflation. And for another instance, it has been screamingly obvious
for a decade and more that the US needs to pay more in taxes - but is
any politician who wants to be re-elected going to increase them?)
For
a number of reasons, not least the inadequacy of information available
to decision-makers, the economy is essentially out of human control.
Riding it in a situation like now is essentially like captaining a
full-rigged ship in a gale - patching and reeving everything that
breaks or tears, and waiting and hoping for the wind to die down and
the sun to come out. |
Fantastic posts! In fact, I have always suspected this but never been convinced enough of my understanding of economics to really believe it.
|
|
ulrich von hutten
Tsar
Court Jester
Joined: 01-Nov-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3638
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jul-2008 at 07:05 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
the economy is essentially out of human control.
|
Can't agree. The economy is subject to legality, like any other matter on this planet. Yes, there are fluctuations and variances, but in general the main course is obvious.
A redistribution of wealth, mostly in one direction, bottom-up, takes place. It's would be foolish to belive, that only a planned economy has guidelines. The capitalistic one is dominated by the joint-stock companies and follows the rules of their leader and their henchmen.
The lobbyists are the coxs, to stay at gcle's anlaogy, the politicans are the mates, and the workers are the oarsmen.
It' time for a mutiny.
|
|
|