To keep the bill more ethical - Do not pass the bill. Let the banks fail without throwing more money into the losses.
Paulson’s track record for Treasury Intervention is about 100% - 100% overstated and wrong.
Chris wrote "What I am referring to is that the proposed oversight committee for the bailout funds was to be composed of the Treasury Secretary and 4 other folks of his choosing. Period. Nobody from Congress or the Senate. Given that the Treasury Secretary is appointed by the President, this means that the largest single appropriation of money would be effectively overseen only by people directly under the control of the executive branch. Who want to reward this particular administration at this time with that power? "
The powers contemplated under this plan (and any future amendments once enacted since this is precedent setting) will also extend to the next administration. The Yea’s were figuring that their guy is going to win and the Nay’s were anticipating their guy would lose. If so, this may provide better insight than INTrade betting.
Show me the place in the enumerated powers of Congress, where they are given the authority to expend public money for private gain. It don’t exist.
Indeed, it’s criminal. Parliamentary immunity does not extend to embezzlement, larceny, robbery, racketeering and treason.
Although ‘they’ are gonna keep coming at us, don’t forget to thank those who defended We the People against the hooligans and looters. Guys – USE ARMED FORCE NEXT TIME!
Thanks for the reference, and I find your suggestions to be sound, just, and frankly - what the long term needs. BUT, the founding fathers, who foresaw this coming, are spinning in their graves right now. Why? Because they were in it for for the people they served, for principle, and for the greater good. They didn’t get into politics to start a company, nor did they simply inherit the political family business (Kennedy, Bush, etc.) In order for your plan to work - and I believe it would - requires capital hill to grow a pair of big ones. Sadly, too many are there for the power and the pensions (which by the way will be completely unaffected by ANY financial catastrophe).
Lets hope we can hang on long enough for the market to run its course, allowing the cream to rise to the top on its own.
Greetings. My question is this: If the FED is forced to hyperinflate (print money), and that money evaporates upon its creation, is it still considered monetary hyperinflation… and will it have the same effect on the dollar?
It seems like a bottomless pit and this money is only disappearing; the FED have been pumping money into the system in the face of sell offs, and the dollar is stronger, not weaker. My concern is deflation, and a ruinously super strong dollar. The dollar is already up vs the euro, pushing .70, and holding 105 vs yen. If the money is not disappearing, then could it be a twisted manipulation to achieve deflation by removing it from the money supply, under the guise of "adding liquidity to the system"?
-
"credit-debt money" erosion as banks go under and consumer credit is retracted. cash become increasingly important for merchant transactions, as credit loses credibility.
-
China’s motivation to keep the yuan weak.
-
Fed motivation to stay in power; strong dollar their best defense…if they deflate, then assets tank and they can "conspire" with their banking cartel before they hyperinflate. I agree hyperinflation has to happen, but before a major deflation trend?
Thanks,
JD
Sorry, I am not really sure what it is you are asking/saying.
liquids evaporate, not dollars. If the treasury decides to monetize it’s debt then you will see inflation, correction, more inflation.
I think it is very difficult to make any prediction based on the current strength/weakness of the dollar. Don’t forget it is not just US banks and markets that are suffering, the euro is looking pretty shaky too, its been falling.
-
This is why the government keeps putting more and more into the money auctions, to keep the banks lending, which as we can all see is failing.
-
To export. China is strong enough to control its own economy, it does not need co operation from the US.
-
Banks will still be around, don’t worry about that, unless of course America becomes a totalitarian state, and even then
I do not think the fedres, president or the banks are really able to control things as much as we hope/fear they can. I doubt there will be a superstrong dollar, no evidence to suggest this.
hope my answer helps, I have a feeling it will not.
Gary
I was thinking exactly the same thing this afternoon. Guess we will have to wait for Pelosi’s biografy in a few decades time to find out. If she can get it in print by then…
Banks are going the way of the dino, but look who has survived:
Citi
Merril
JPM
These firms have gotten fatter and fatter and they control a lot of the economy.
Wachovia died and Citi took over it. Whatever happened to anti trust laws? Does no one suddenly care or we are too deep in crap to care?
This is not good…
thanks, im just wondering what people think, i appreciate the answer…
Let me reword the question: lets say if the fed created or printed dollars, then stashed them in Uncle Ben’s mansion, is there still monetary inflation? would the dollar react? im just curious about the actual measure of monetary inflation…
thanks
bang on! Same happened in the great depression.
I heard this listening to Andy Gause, currency historian–> The Fed created a "Sucker Run" to boost the value of the dollar recently: The Fed used 10 billion euros from the ESF to buy dollars, knowing that many banks and investors were shorting dollars. The buy back using the euros increased the value enough to send shorters to buy back positions. This trigger effectively removed 1 trillion dollars from circulation. This was done in preparation for the bailouts that have ensued recently. It is amazing what a few powerful people can do to the market.
That explains the recent increase in the USD index. It won’t last however as we all know…
I think Merrill Lynch was merged into Bank of America.
and Morgan Stanley,also Goldman Sachs became regular banks.
The big become much bigger.
problem with that is she’s on the record as voting for it…how can she explain that? people like me are wonder why the party of the people vote counter to the will of the constituency and voted in favor. Now she’s gonna have hell to pay, and its ammo against her et. al. in the coming election.
Keep up the good work, Chris; they keep trying.
Trust in the wisdom of crowds (aka American citizen) calling their representatives in a 20:1 or better ratio against the plan.
Dave
http://www.islandersoftware.com/weblog/2008/09/27/just-say-no-to-the-bailout-plan/
The Senate has seen fit to pass the Bailout Bill, which I promptly contacted my represenative and bluntly told him that he won’t get my re-election vote. But what he doesn’t know is that I never vote for incumbents anyway.
Now th Bailout Bill is to be sent back the House for their vote, which I have quickly contacted my Congressmen and told him that I don’t want it passed. Hopefully he will listen.
On another topic, when I was in college back about 20 years ago my Financial Management profressor stated that he predicted that at some point in the future there will only be 4 major banks in the United States and all small banks would be eliminated. Seems to be doing that now. What are your thoughts Chris about this theory?
Thanks for the great work and I am letting everyone I know to go to your website and learn.
Lorena
In the end there will be only 4 major banks and very few if any small banks left in the U.S.