Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Should we bail out US auto industry?


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

Poll: Bailout

yay o nay

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#26 nox

nox
  • 6707 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 November 2008 - 08:09 PM

QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 22 2008, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Lehman Brothers was forced to file for bankruptcy and was bought out by barclays because it could not survive, just like Bear Stearns was bought out. The government did bail out many other firms like Morgan Stanley. True, they are merging because the environment has changed now, but that doesn't mean they have "gone". They're still alive and pretty healthy.

None of you guys know what your talking about do you? tongue.gif

no..redlion is right. those investment banks are gone. LEH is far from being alive and healthy, they have no money and were bought for a little more than what their main headquarters is worth. morgan stanley&goldman sachs were the only bulge bracket IBs after sept fiasco and have sinced transformed themselves into bank holding cos regulated by the federal reserve.

morgan stanley was never bailed out..

uhhhhhhh freak do you have any idea what you are talking about?

QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 21 2008, 02:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The fall of one financial company is doing this, and had the government bailed them out this might not have been happening.

rofl...wow.. i guess not

#27 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 November 2008 - 07:59 AM

QUOTE (nox @ Nov 23 2008, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
no..redlion is right. those investment banks are gone. LEH is far from being alive and healthy, they have no money and were bought for a little more than what their main headquarters is worth. morgan stanley&goldman sachs were the only bulge bracket IBs after sept fiasco and have sinced transformed themselves into bank holding cos regulated by the federal reserve.

morgan stanley was never bailed out..

uhhhhhhh freak do you have any idea what you are talking about?


rofl...wow.. i guess not


uh Nox, do you know how to read?

I'm assuming you misunderstood my comment. Lehman brothers obviously no longer exists. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs benefited from the ECONOMIC BAILOUT and are still alive. That 700$ billion bailout was obviously geared towards companies like Morgan Stanley's whos troubled assets were all bought out.

I never said Lehman brothers was healthy. Lehmans fell before that bail out was approved and the bail out they asked for was denied. Thus they no longer exist. I said that Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs have been doing well, and they have been:

Since the bailout, Morgan Stanley has indeed converted into a bank holding company. But the bailout and whatever japanese bank bought them out, caused their shares to soar. Sachs has been doing pretty well too. (This is all relative to where they were a few months ago obviously).

A lot of smart investors who predicted this have gotten fucking loaded amidst financial crisis.


And why is that a rofl-ing matter? Pick up the times once in a while and you might learn a thing or two kiddo.

"If we knew then what we know now about the systemic shock to our economy, would we have allowed Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt? Absolutely not. If we let any of the Big Three go bankrupt, we will set in motion a chain of events that will cause us, in six months, to ask again: How did we let this happen? ".

Letting lehman go bankrupt was a mistake and most economists recognize this.....


#28 33724

33724
  • 976 posts

Posted 24 November 2008 - 10:10 AM

QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 24 2008, 10:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If we let any of the Big Three go bankrupt, we will set in motion a chain of events that will cause us, in six months, to ask again: How did we let this happen? ".

Letting lehman go bankrupt was a mistake and most economists recognize this.....


I seriously doubt that your assertion holds any credibility. Allowing Lehman Bro's to fall apart was exactly what the Govt should have done. Investing any more tax dollars into this "Titanics", knowing they will most likely fail anyway, saved us billions of dollars now and countless down the road. There are, and will continue to be, consequences that we will face for allowing the "Big 3" to ride the wave. But government intervention and investments within these companies only prolongs the inevitable.

#29 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 November 2008 - 11:49 AM

QUOTE (33724 @ Nov 24 2008, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I seriously doubt that your assertion holds any credibility. Allowing Lehman Bro's to fall apart was exactly what the Govt should have done. Investing any more tax dollars into this "Titanics", knowing they will most likely fail anyway, saved us billions of dollars now and countless down the road. There are, and will continue to be, consequences that we will face for allowing the "Big 3" to ride the wave. But government intervention and investments within these companies only prolongs the inevitable.


That wasn't my assertion, that was a quote off the NYTimes...

Allowing Lehman Brothers was a clear mistake. Lehman's fall pretty much caused a chain reaction that started with uncertainty in the market and ended with a credit crisis. Granted, there were obviously other factors that contributed to our crisis, but the effects of Lehman's demise were rather blatant.

Had the government known this would have happened, I assure you they would have made an attempt to bail them out.

Edited by Freak, 24 November 2008 - 11:53 AM.


#30 33724

33724
  • 976 posts

Posted 24 November 2008 - 12:49 PM

well if you are going to posts someone's writing at least leave a source.

#31 nox

nox
  • 6707 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 November 2008 - 01:55 PM

QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 24 2008, 10:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
uh Nox, do you know how to read?

yea
QUOTE
The government did bail out many other firms like Morgan Stanley.

this didnt happen


QUOTE
I'm assuming you misunderstood my comment. Lehman brothers obviously no longer exists. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs benefited from the ECONOMIC BAILOUT and are still alive. That 700$ billion bailout was obviously geared towards companies like Morgan Stanley's whos troubled assets were all bought out.
I never said Lehman brothers was healthy. Lehmans fell before that bail out was approved and the bail out they asked for was denied. Thus they no longer exist. I said that Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs have been doing well, and they have been:

Since the bailout, Morgan Stanley has indeed converted into a bank holding company. But the bailout and whatever japanese bank bought them out, caused their shares to soar. Sachs has been doing pretty well too. (This is all relative to where they were a few months ago obviously).

QUOTE
I'm assuming you misunderstood my comment. Lehman brothers obviously no longer exists. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs benefited from the ECONOMIC BAILOUT and are still alive. That 700$ billion bailout was obviously geared towards companies like Morgan Stanley's whos troubled assets were all bought out.

well first of all i'm not sure if you understand this but the money hasn't really been given out yet. the government themselves are unsure of th
no.. buddy, they are not, wake the fuck up... MS&GS are seeing their lowest price in 10 years. the companies are alive, but they are continuing to fall in market price. these hedge funds are continuing to sell every single asset they can to raise cash, i have no idea what you are thinking if you consider them to be in good health.

maybe, if the body constructing the bailouts was not a bunch of complete fools concentration on banker's salvation rather than job creation and benefiting the common taxpayer. if anything, a bailout bill should be for the americans, not for american bankers. every american doing the right thing, saving their money, paying their mortgage on time is being punished, while companies that are allowed to go on HUGE leverages, fail, and then get saved by the govt. even the people who's job it is to prevent things like this from happening are unable to pay attention and do their job. the SEC intentionally dropped broker/dealer leverage limits in 2004, prior to that 12:1 was the limit. every firm that has failed had double or more the leverage of that former 12:1 limit., SEC chairman Cox continued to allow naked short selling after he was given the position in 2005. naked short selling is illegal. of course by the time Cox woke up from his nap and made the ban on financial securities, the damage was already done. to save myself from reinventing the wheel, read through this article.. maybe it will give you some insight: http://www.cnn.com/2...3/paul.bailout/


QUOTE
A lot of smart investors who predicted this have gotten fucking loaded amidst financial crisis.

you are preaching to the choir. im up 175% as of march

QUOTE
And why is that a rofl-ing matter? Pick up the times once in a while and you might learn a thing or two kiddo.

pick up the times once in a while....HAHahaha... dude i read the times every day, i usually throw away most of the biz section though, no good advice in there. taking financial advice from the NYtimes is probably as bad as playing Jim Kramer's calls. anyways, it's not really a rofling matter, more concerning than anything really.. i laughed because you were talking shit but essentially have no idea waht's going on.


QUOTE
Letting lehman go bankrupt was a mistake and most economists recognize this.....

really...well those guys aren't too smart. here is a list of some intelligent university economists that signed a petition against the first bailout back in september. http://faculty.chica...age_protest.htm


it is simply not the taxpayer's duty to prop up every company that fails to survive in precarious situations. companies like toyota, honda, tesla, are surviving because they were and continue to be committed to innovation and thinking ahead. the big 3 failed to follow, especially in ways of efficiency, and only now has begun to introduce an inferior response years after competitors set the standard for what is available. their problems do not end with a poorly constructed business model though, as they have screwed up in more ways possible to count. pushing of financal/leasing paper, loses on their outstanding loans, corporate bloat, and lastly, unions. unions, specifically the UAW, are a complete fucking mess. they create instability, high costs, low productivity. "american pride" is a thing of the past. consumers want what is the best value for their dollar. if the UAW and the big 3 are unable to compete with these other firms on our own soil in a down economy then that's just too damn bad.




freak..save that holier than thou bullshit for your economics class tough guy.....cause nobody's impressed

Edited by nox, 24 November 2008 - 06:25 PM.


#32 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 November 2008 - 06:51 PM

QUOTE (33724 @ Nov 24 2008, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
well if you are going to posts someone's writing at least leave a source.


Well I said you should pick up the times..

put a block of quotes in " "

and then said a statement about economists' viewpoints..

Sorry I thought it was obvious it wasn't my writing.

To Nox:

I think you fail to understand what I mean when I say healthy, RELATIVE TO HOW THEY WERE DOING A FEW MONTHS AGO... when financial firms were looking everywhere even international banks to bail them out in order to avoid the same fates as Bear stearns / lehman. I think it's kind of fucking obvious that in the current economy, there arn't a lot of firms that are healthy.... thus my emphasis on "relative".

And I'm sorry, but I'm not going to try to decipher the rest of that blabbering nonsense tongue.gif

And I havn't said anything incorrect in my statements.. it's just been you misinterpreting them, but um relax dude. No need to get your panties in a knot, eh?

Edited by Freak, 24 November 2008 - 06:53 PM.


#33 nox

nox
  • 6707 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 November 2008 - 07:30 PM

QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 24 2008, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And I'm sorry, but I'm not going to try to decipher the rest of that blabbering nonsense tongue.gif

hahaha what a cop out.. i knew i shouldnt have bothered




QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 24 2008, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And I havn't said anything incorrect in my statements.. it's just been you misinterpreting them, but um relax dude. No need to get your panties in a knot, eh?

i only corrected you on one thing, you claimed Morgan Stanley was bailed out and they never have been. im not misinterpreting anything, these companies are doing worse than they were 2 months ago. their market value continues to tank and are still struggling immensely despite government intervention. however there's no point in me going on if you aren't going to address what i said in my last post

panties are not in a knot and im not mad.. you were acting like a smartass, and i called your bluff
QUOTE
Pick up the times once in a while and you might learn a thing or two kiddo.

QUOTE
None of you guys know what your talking about do you?

Edited by nox, 24 November 2008 - 07:31 PM.


#34 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 November 2008 - 07:42 PM

QUOTE (nox @ Nov 24 2008, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
hahaha what a cop out.. i knew i shouldnt have bothered





i only corrected you on one thing, you claimed Morgan Stanley was bailed out and they never have been. im not misinterpreting anything, these companies are doing worse than they were 2 months ago. their market value continues to tank and are still struggling immensely despite government intervention. however there's no point in me going on if you aren't going to address what i said in my last post

panties are not in a knot and im not mad.. you were acting like a smartass, and i called your bluff


cause when you type like this
"government themselves are unsure of th
no.. buddy, they are not, wake the fuck up..."

It's not worth my time trying to interpret what you wrote..

The ECONOMIC BAILOUT almost directly bailed out Morgan Stanley. That's my point. That's what I meant when I said they were bailed out, so yes.. you did misinterpret.

And I don't think it's fair to judge their status at this direct moment when the DOW is at a 6 year low.. when the bailout did pass through though, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs soared, so the bail out did help them out..

#35 nox

nox
  • 6707 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 November 2008 - 08:05 PM

QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 24 2008, 10:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The ECONOMIC BAILOUT almost directly bailed out Morgan Stanley. That's my point. That's what I meant when I said they were bailed out, so yes.. you did misinterpret.

And I don't think it's fair to judge their status at this direct moment when the DOW is at a 6 year low.. when the bailout did pass through though, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs soared, so the bail out did help them out..

almost directly? lol wtf

a temporary rally in market price has absolutely as a result of speculation has nothing to do with a company doing well. the fact that i even have to explain something like that makes it clear to me that YOU are not worth my time. and you are in college for finance? you ought to shoot your teacher. anyways, i'm not going to continue to argue with you over the semantics because i could not care less about that. your statement was taken at face value, and it was flat out wrong.
QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 24 2008, 10:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
cause when you type like this
"government themselves are unsure of th
no.. buddy, they are not, wake the fuck up..."

It's not worth my time trying to interpret what you wrote..

ok so i had a broken sentence in my post, so its illegible? oh please, lol, that is complete bullshit and im sure you know it


freak if you want to continue this i encourage you to read my previous post and respond. if not then well i think my point is clear...you are full of shit

Edited by nox, 24 November 2008 - 08:08 PM.


#36 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 November 2008 - 08:51 PM

QUOTE (nox @ Nov 24 2008, 11:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
almost directly? lol wtf

a temporary rally in market price has absolutely as a result of speculation has nothing to do with a company doing well. the fact that i even have to explain something like that makes it clear to me that YOU are not worth my time. and you are in college for finance? you ought to shoot your teacher. anyways, i'm not going to continue to argue with you over the semantics because i could not care less about that. your statement was taken at face value, and it was flat out wrong.

ok so i had a broken sentence in my post, so its illegible? oh please, lol, that is complete bullshit and im sure you know it


freak if you want to continue this i encourage you to read my previous post and respond. if not then well i think my point is clear...you are full of shit


It has nothing to do with semantics.. I was simply referring to the economic bail out.. I thought that was rather well understood given how obvious of a fucking fact that is lol.

And you're really downplaying the effects of the the bail out.. Many financial firms were able to convert their worthless piece of shit assets into much needed capital... at the time, short-term funding was in dire need... it was either that or face bankruptcy, and the bail out helped in that sense.. Goldman Sachs specifically was able to raise millions in capital almost immediately after the bail out was approved. I think they got 20 million.. you don't think that the bail out directly helped them?

And we've already allocated almost half of the $700 billion.. you obviously don't know what you're talking about lol..

It's not the 1 broken sentence.. when you type a long ass page full of "fuckign HAHAHAHA omg wtfbowsercakes.. it makes it very hard to read yet alone take you seriously.. and c'mon:
"maybe, if the body constructing the bailouts was not a bunch of complete fools concentration on banker's salvation rather than job creation and benefiting the common taxpayer" Is that even a fucking sentence? I mean you read it twice through and you get it, but it's just annoying as fuck to read through a chunk of text like that, ya know?

And the main problem here I think is that you're judging a company's performance RIGHT NOW. When we're at a 6 year low in the DOW.. (thanks largely to Lehman Brothers). Check back to the performance of these companies when they were each nearing bankruptcy.. falling down like dominoes.. and compare it to their performance a few weeks after the bail out. Their shares increased a shitload...

And obviously dude.. the bail out for lehman was criticized by a shit load of people. But I'm talking about right now.. economists that criticized that same bail out recognize this was a mistake. I mean.. it's not like I'm making this up dude.. I'm just reading through the past week's headlines all mentioning shit like that.

Edited by Freak, 24 November 2008 - 08:48 PM.


#37 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 November 2008 - 09:10 PM

QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 22 2008, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...Trust me, when they file for bankruptcy.. there will be jobs lost.. it's definite and you can't argue with that....
Bankruptcy will lead the companies to merge. And most of the current brands like Saab, Pontiac, and Saturn will be lost along with the employees these companies hire. Now that's if they file for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Depending on the decision of our government and the response by the industry, their companies may eventually fall into chapter 7 bankruptcy - liquidation, which doesn't leave such an offer available and even more jobs will be lost.

Lehman Brothers was forced to file for bankruptcy and was bought out by barclays because it could not survive, just like Bear Stearns was bought out. The government did bail out many other firms like Morgan Stanley. True, they are merging because the environment has changed now, but that doesn't mean they have "gone". They're still alive and pretty healthy.

None of you guys know what your talking about do you? tongue.gif

I got my information strait from the Economist. If anyone knows something about investment banking, it'd be them. So no, I don't know what I'm talking about. But the Senior Editors of the most respected economic journal of the last 200 years probably do.

#38 nox

nox
  • 6707 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 November 2008 - 09:17 PM

QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 24 2008, 11:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And you're really downplaying the effects of the the bail out.. Many financial firms were able to convert their worthless piece of shit assets into much needed capital... at the time, short-term funding was in dire need... it was either that or face bankruptcy, and the bail out helped in that sense.. Goldman Sachs specifically was able to raise millions in capital almost immediately after the bail out was approved. I think they got 20 million.. you don't think that the bail out directly helped them?



you are twisting your words.. you said they were "pretty healthy". clearly any sum of money will *help* them, they need to pay their bonuses somehow! not saying the bailout bill won't help these companies, no shit it will. it's taxpayer money straight to their pockets

QUOTE
And we've already allocated almost half of the $700 billion.. you obviously don't know what you're talking about lol..

umm... http://online.wsj.co...tml?mod=testMod

QUOTE
The Federal Reserve said its big rescue plan for money-market funds will be delayed until later this month.

The delay, announced Monday, presents a challenge for the $3.6 trillion money-market industry, which is struggling to sell short-term debt into tight credit markets. The Fed plans to finance purchases for as much as $540 billion of the money funds' short-term debt.

Many had expected the buying program to be up and running last week, but now the Fed says it will start on or about Nov. 24. The funds need the money to meet investor redemptions.

this is the main chunk of the bailout bill, the money-market liquidity facility which is supposed to cover $500b in paper

QUOTE
And the main problem here I think is that you're judging a company's performance RIGHT NOW. When we're at a 6 year low in the DOW.. (thanks largely to Lehman Brothers). Check back to the performance of these companies when they were each nearing bankruptcy.. falling down like dominoes.. and compare it to their performance a few weeks after the bail out. Their shares increased a shitload...

not gonna repeat myself here
QUOTE (nox @ Nov 24 2008, 11:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
a temporary rally in market price as a result of speculation has absolutely nothing to do with a company doing well. the fact that i even have to explain something like that makes it clear to me that YOU are not worth my time. and you are in college for finance? you ought to shoot your teacher.


QUOTE
and compare it to their performance a few weeks after the bail out. Their shares increased a shitload..

the actually didnt lol speculative pop then further down

http://chart.finance...o.com/c/1y/g/gs
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MS



QUOTE
And obviously dude.. the bail out for lehman was criticized by a shit load of people. But I'm talking about right now.. economists that criticized that same bail out recognize this was a mistake. I mean.. it's not like I'm making this up dude.. I'm just reading through the past week's headlines all mentioning shit like that.

if you are not making this up please show me something to back that up because i've seen nothing of the sort lol


yea ok im done this is really dumb

Edited by nox, 24 November 2008 - 09:27 PM.


#39 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 25 November 2008 - 12:50 AM

QUOTE (nox @ Nov 25 2008, 12:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
you are twisting your words.. you said they were "pretty healthy". clearly any sum of money will *help* them, they need to pay their bonuses somehow! not saying the bailout bill won't help these companies, no shit it will. it's taxpayer money straight to their pockets


umm... http://online.wsj.co...tml?mod=testMod


this is the main chunk of the bailout bill, the money-market liquidity facility which is supposed to cover $500b in paper


not gonna repeat myself here

http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table
Saying the "money hasn't really been given out yet" isn't very accurate since a large portion of the first phase has been distributed. This is the portion of the bail out that's helped financial firms so far.


the actually didnt lol speculative pop then further down

http://chart.finance...o.com/c/1y/g/gs
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MS

You can't just blame it on a temporary rally.. their brief period of growth was interrupted by economic downfall.. even triple-A rated companies are falling.. So looking at a graph of stock prices doesn't do shit for you when we're in such a disaster...
http://www.bloggings...rnment-bailout/


if you are not making this up please show me something to back that up because i've seen nothing of the sort lol
Well here's the article that I cited before by Spencer Abraham, former senator
http://www.nytimes.c...abraham.html?hp
Most of it is irrelevant, just the bottom.
"If we knew then what we know now about the systemic shock to our economy, would we have allowed Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt? Absolutely not. If we let any of the Big Three go bankrupt, we will set in motion a chain of events that will cause us, in six months, to ask again: How did we let this happen? "

I've heard the same thing said in another nytimes article and a economist magazine I think it was.


yea ok im done this is really dumb


QUOTE (redlion @ Nov 25 2008, 12:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I got my information strait from the Economist. If anyone knows something about investment banking, it'd be them. So no, I don't know what I'm talking about. But the Senior Editors of the most respected economic journal of the last 200 years probably do.


I was only pointing out 1 comment you made: "Not just the lehman brothers though. All the investment banks have gone."
All the investment banks arn't gone.. A large majority are still alive.

I guess that's where this whole debate between Nox and I arose lol. That and because I said "morgan stanley was bailed out" instead of "morgan stanley was bailed out by the economic bail out" lol.. and because Nox actually believes the economic bail out hasn't done anyting

Edited by Freak, 25 November 2008 - 12:44 AM.


#40 Fatal

Fatal
  • 3625 posts


Users Awards

Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:13 PM

I voted No, Capitalism cant work without failure.

Edited by Fatal, 02 December 2008 - 09:13 PM.


#41 nox

nox
  • 6707 posts


Users Awards

Posted 02 December 2008 - 10:58 PM

i know i originally said i was done but i just read your post, and the ignorance is overwhelming.. i am inclined to reply

QUOTE
http://projects.nyti...ecipients/table
Saying the "money hasn't really been given out yet" isn't very accurate since a large portion of the first phase has been distributed. This is the portion of the bail out that's helped financial firms so far.

my response was to this:
QUOTE
That 700$ billion bailout was obviously geared towards companies like Morgan Stanley's whos troubled assets were all bought out.

the main portion of the bailout bill, the purchase of the troubled assets has not yet occurred. what has taken place is the purchases of preferred stocks, which is aimed to restore confidence and keep these dying companies afloat.

QUOTE
You can't just blame it on a temporary rally.. their brief period of growth was interrupted by economic downfall.. even triple-A rated companies are falling.. So looking at a graph of stock prices doesn't do shit for you when we're in such a disaster...
http://www.bloggings...rnment-bailout/

hahahaha.. are you joking?

Posted Sep 19th 2008 1:14PM

the financial markets rallied and then fell days later, and have continued drop since. how could you possibly consider this a "period of growth"? economic growth doesn't take place in a day, or in a week. i am not disputing that things are bad, the consumer is dead and we are in a tough time right now. as the economy heads towards temporary deflation & an extended period of hyperinflation, throwing trillions of dollars at failing companies will only make things worse. i'm sorry freak but you are really lost here, educate yourself homie

QUOTE
A dead cat bounce is a figurative term used by traders in the finance industry to describe a pattern wherein a spectacular decline in the price of a stock is immediately followed by a moderate and temporary rise before resuming its downward movement, with the connotation that the rise was not an indication of improving circumstances in the fundamentals of the stock. It is derived from the notion that "even a dead cat will bounce if it falls from a great height".

A market rise after a sharp fall can only really be seen to be a "dead cat bounce" with the benefit of hindsight. If the stock starts to fall again in the following days and weeks, then it was a true dead cat bounce. If the market starts to climb again after the first short bounce, then the continued rise in price action would be considered a trend reversal and not a dead cat bounce. Since this distinction only becomes obvious in hindsight, the evaluation may vary depending upon the initial and final points of reference.

http://en.wikipedia....Dead_cat_bounce
anyways, i only brought up market value because you claimed these companies were healthy despite a ticker freefall, terrible earning reports, etc.




QUOTE
Well here's the article that I cited before by Spencer Abraham, former senator
http://www.nytimes.c...abraham.html?hp
Most of it is irrelevant, just the bottom.
"If we knew then what we know now about the systemic shock to our economy, would we have allowed Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt? Absolutely not. If we let any of the Big Three go bankrupt, we will set in motion a chain of events that will cause us, in six months, to ask again: How did we let this happen? "

really couldn't care less what an ex senator with a law degree has to say, i am interested in all of these economists that you spoke about. http://faculty.chica...age_protest.htm

Edited by nox, 03 December 2008 - 12:52 PM.


#42 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 December 2008 - 01:09 PM

sigh- Honestly Nox, if you'd stop debating over minute insignificant details, like the credibility of a senator or the fucking history of stock prices of a company, you would understand how thoroughly incorrect you are.

The fact of the matter is (1) Bear Stearns asked for an economic bail out. None was given and they went bankrupt.

Followed by (2) Lehman who asked for an economic bail out. Rejected again, and they went bankrupt.

Morgan Stanley was on the same path seeking a bail out from Wachovia/several other commercial banks, but then the economic bail out came along and saved their ass. You're right, I'm not sure exactly how the 700 billion bailout was distributed, but again that insignificant detail doesn't fucking matter. Regardless, the bail out handed them 20 mil in tax payers $ and that was enough to bail them out.

Notice how pre-economic bail out financial firms were falling like dominoes. And post-bail out the firms are suddenly up and running. No, they're not healthy right now. That's fucking obvious right now given we're in a 12 month long recession and amidst multiple crisis. But they're no longer on the path of bankruptcy, so imo that's relatively doing well!

And the truth is, the economic bail out probably was a royal waste of money. But you can't deny that 20 million didn't help a dying company.

Edited by Freak, 03 December 2008 - 01:15 PM.


#43 nox

nox
  • 6707 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 December 2008 - 01:38 PM

QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 25 2008, 03:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
and because Nox actually believes the economic bail out hasn't done anyting

of course it has done something, and clearly the bailout has and will temporarily help these banks, trillions of dollars in capital will help any company in need. however... this doesn't justify the deed. understand that the bad debt is not going anywhere, it does not disappear, what this does is change who will ultimately bear this default. it's disheartening to see that we have learned nothing from what happened to Japan less than 20 years ago.






QUOTE (Freak @ Dec 3 2008, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
sigh- Honestly Nox, if you'd stop debating over minute insignificant details, like the credibility of a senator or the fucking history of stock prices of a company, you would understand how thoroughly incorrect you are.

i am not hung up on insignificant details, you keep arguing ignorant points so i have continued to refute them. this is part of debate
QUOTE
The fact of the matter is (1) Bear Stearns asked for an economic bail out. None was given and they went bankrupt.

bear sterns was bailed out, first by the federal reserve, which failed.. and then they were bought out by JPM. did not go bankrupt

QUOTE
Followed by (2) Lehman who asked for an economic bail out. Rejected again, and they went bankrupt.

Morgan Stanley was on the same path seeking a bail out from Wachovia/several other commercial banks, but then the economic bail out came along and saved their ass. You're right, I'm not sure exactly how the 700 billion bailout was distributed, but again that insignificant detail doesn't fucking matter. Regardless, the bail out handed them 20 mil in tax payers $ and that was enough to bail them out.

Notice how pre-economic bail out financial firms were falling like dominoes. And post-bail out the firms are suddenly up and running. No, they're not healthy right now. That's fucking obvious right now given we're in a 12 month long recession and amidst multiple crisis. But they're no longer on the path of bankruptcy, so imo that's relatively doing well!

And the truth is, the economic bail out probably was a royal waste of money. But you can't deny that 20 million didn't help a dying company.

refer to first part of this post. i never said that bailout money will not help a company, who would ever do that? the bailout is supposed to aid the taxpayers, not the banking companies.

Edited by nox, 03 December 2008 - 01:38 PM.


#44 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 December 2008 - 04:06 PM

You ask for a source.
I give you a source from the times.
You argue that it's not a credible source.
That to me is wasting my time over insignificant details.. and the main points that we've initially been arguing have been lost in these little excursions. In particular, if you'll take a look at the thread title, you'll notice that this thread isn't even about what we've been debating.

And let's take a look at the initial arguments.

You tried to correct me with:
"no..redlion is right. those investment banks are gone."
No, Morgan Stanley is alive. So is Goldman.

"LEH is far from being alive and healthy"
I was never talking about Lehman. Misunderstanding.

"well first of all i'm not sure if you understand this but the money hasn't really been given out yet"
Well, for Morgan Stanley/Goldman Sachs it has. That's all I said in the first place.

From then, you've continuously ignored many of my main points and focused on debating over details.
And now you're arguing whether the economic bail out is justified, when all I was arguing in the first place was that it saved Stanley's ass.

So I really have no more interest in arguing over these irrelevant matters. If you'd like to discuss the auto industry, I'm game, but otherwise stop wasting my time.

#45 nox

nox
  • 6707 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 December 2008 - 09:26 PM

QUOTE (Freak @ Dec 3 2008, 07:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You ask for a source.
I give you a source from the times.
You argue that it's not a credible source.

That to me is wasting my time over insignificant details.. and the main points that we've initially been arguing have been lost in these little excursions. In particular, if you'll take a look at the thread title, you'll notice that this thread isn't even about what we've been debating.

it's not credible because you linked me to an article by a senator with a law degree, and we were talking about economists. you said "most economists" think that the bailout was a good idea. i posted a link to a petition signed by economists and then you said that most of them have since changed their mind. then i asked for a source and you linked me to said article



QUOTE (Freak @ Dec 3 2008, 07:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And let's take a look at the initial arguments.

You tried to correct me with:
"no..redlion is right. those investment banks are gone."
No, Morgan Stanley is alive. So is Goldman.

yea, they are alive but they are no longer investment banks, instead bank holding companies. that was redlion's point and i backed him up



QUOTE
"LEH is far from being alive and healthy"
I was never talking about Lehman. Misunderstanding.

i didn't misunderstand anything, you weren't clear enough
QUOTE (Freak @ Dec 3 2008, 07:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Lehman Brothers was forced to file for bankruptcy and was bought out by barclays because it could not survive, just like Bear Stearns was bought out. The government did bail out many other firms like Morgan Stanley. True, they are merging because the environment has changed now, but that doesn't mean they have "gone". They're still alive and pretty healthy.

don't blame your vague posting on me misinterpreting something..



QUOTE (Freak @ Dec 3 2008, 07:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
"well first of all i'm not sure if you understand this but the money hasn't really been given out yet"
Well, for Morgan Stanley/Goldman Sachs it has. That's all I said in the first place.

how many fucking times do i have to repeat myself...
QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 25 2008, 03:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm assuming you misunderstood my comment. Lehman brothers obviously no longer exists. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs benefited from the ECONOMIC BAILOUT and are still alive. That 700$ billion bailout was obviously geared towards companies like Morgan Stanley's whos troubled assets were all bought out.

i understand that you were talking about MS/GS, but when i said that the money hasn't given out yet i was trying to explain this:
QUOTE (nox @ Dec 3 2008, 01:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
the main portion of the bailout bill, the purchase of the troubled assets has not yet occurred. what has taken place is the purchases of preferred stocks, which is aimed to restore confidence and keep these dying companies afloat.




QUOTE (Freak @ Dec 3 2008, 07:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
From then, you've continuously ignored many of my main points and focused on debating over details.
And now you're arguing whether the economic bail out is justified, when all I was arguing in the first place was that it saved Stanley's ass.

So I really have no more interest in arguing over these irrelevant matters.


it is you who continues to bring up these irrelevant matters, you continue to argue about whether throwing money at a company will help even though i've acknowledged this like 3-4 times already and have asked u to stop.

QUOTE (nox @ Dec 3 2008, 04:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 25 2008, 03:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
and because Nox actually believes the economic bail out hasn't done anyting

of course it has done something, and clearly the bailout has and will temporarily help these banks, trillions of dollars in capital will help any company in need. however... this doesn't justify the deed. understand that the bad debt is not going anywhere, it does not disappear, what this does is change who will ultimately bear this default. it's disheartening to see that we have learned nothing from what happened to Japan less than 20 years ago.






QUOTE
If you'd like to discuss the auto industry, I'm game, but otherwise stop wasting my time.

i made two posts in this thread about the auto industry already and they were ignored. you are wasting your own time here by not reading my posts, you continue to argue the same shit that i have already responded to multiple times. the only reason i really keep comin back to this thread is because you keep posting more and more dumb shit yet retain the cocky attitude. the DOW was up 2% today, this must be a period of economic growth haha.gif rofl.gif


PS: i am sorry for all of the quotes but i refuse to repeat myself anymore

#46 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 December 2008 - 11:11 PM

it's not credible because you linked me to an article by a senator with a law degree, and we were talking about economists. you said "most economists" think that the bailout was a good idea. i posted a link to a petition signed by economists and then you said that most of them have since changed their mind. then i asked for a source and you linked me to said article

You asked for one source, because you never heard of anything. So I gave you a source. Regardless, notice how preoccupied on stupid shit like that. Hm?


yea, they are alive but they are no longer investment banks, instead bank holding companies. that was redlion's point and i backed him up

They still provide investment banking. Either way, you can't say they're "gone", because they're not.


i didn't misunderstand anything, you weren't clear enough

don't blame your vague posting on me misinterpreting something..

Nope it was a blatant misunderstanding on your part lol go read back to it.


how many fucking times do i have to repeat myself...

i understand that you were talking about MS/GS, but when i said that the money hasn't given out yet i was trying to explain this:






it is you who continues to bring up these irrelevant matters, you continue to argue about whether throwing money at a company will help even though i've acknowledged this like 3-4 times already and have asked u to stop.

I asked you to debate the original topic. You continue to stubbornly defend your mistakes. It's you, not me.

of course it has done something, and clearly the bailout has and will temporarily help these banks, trillions of dollars in capital will help any company in need. however... this doesn't justify the deed. understand that the bad debt is not going anywhere, it does not disappear, what this does is change who will ultimately bear this default. it's disheartening to see that we have learned nothing from what happened to Japan less than 20 years ago.

Ironically, you keep talking to me about the economic bail out as if I agree with it. I didn't and I think it was a waste of money, but my only point was that it helped morgan stanley. And it seems you agree, so I don't understand why you continue to argue.


i made two posts in this thread about the auto industry already and they were ignored. you are wasting your own time here by not reading my posts, you continue to argue the same shit that i have already responded to multiple times. the only reason i really keep comin back to this thread is because you keep posting more and more dumb shit yet retain the cocky attitude. the DOW was up 2% today, this must be a period of economic growth haha.gif rofl.gif

Ignored? Is it my obligation to reply to every ignorant post in this thread because I made it? tongue.gif I think not. I don't see how I'm being cocky here, especially relative to you. That's why you need to resort to personal retorts to establish yourself as superior despite your ignorance on the topic.

Quote me ever saying "economic growth" once. I was referring to Morgan Stanley's growth, not the economy's. You realize I've been repeating that shit because you keep referring to the status of the economy/financial markets, but when I mentioned "period of growth" I was clearly referring to Morgan Stanley's growth. Not that of anything else.


PS: i am sorry for all of the quotes but i refuse to repeat myself anymore

Edited by Freak, 03 December 2008 - 11:17 PM.


#47 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 December 2008 - 11:16 PM

I dont even follow the lot of you, so this isnt for max or freak, whatever trivial aspect of the subject you're on right now.

The bailouts done a little bit to help these companies, but do they deserve it by any means? Fuck no. All it's doing is prolonging the time before it finally ticks down to zero. You can either look at this like you know what the fuck you're talking about and understand the historical implications to come or you can look at this with an uncertain face about the future as if everything is doomed when this has all happened before. Except this time you can't just be like Greenspan and expect liquidity to solve all your problems.

Bernanke is a fucking douchebag. Paulson is a fucking douchebag. I hate the federal reserve with a fucking passion and a lot of the reason theres a problem to begin with can be attributed to their prolonged existence even after they essentially caused the great depression.

Edited by Athean, 03 December 2008 - 11:17 PM.


#48 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 December 2008 - 11:21 PM

QUOTE (Athean @ Dec 4 2008, 02:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I dont even follow the lot of you, so this isnt for max or freak, whatever trivial aspect of the subject you're on right now.

The bailouts done a little bit to help these companies, but do they deserve it by any means? Fuck no. All it's doing is prolonging the time before it finally ticks down to zero. You can either look at this like you know what the fuck you're talking about and understand the historical implications to come or you can look at this with an uncertain face about the future as if everything is doomed when this has all happened before. Except this time you can't just be like Greenspan and expect liquidity to solve all your problems.

Bernanke is a fucking douchebag. Paulson is a fucking douchebag. I hate the federal reserve with a fucking passion and a lot of the reason theres a problem to begin with can be attributed to their prolonged existence even after they essentially caused the great depression.


I don't think the Fed is concerned about the health of these companies. They're concerned about the health of the economy, which in well-established economies like that of the U.S., the financial systems effect directly as we can see. That's kind of what the fed does.. use tools that first effect financial markets and then indirectly effects the general population.

They've made a few mistakes, indeed. I think nobody can replace Bernanke better tho.. he's a veteran in the field and has more experience/wisdom. It's unfair to blame him tongue.gif

Edited by Freak, 03 December 2008 - 11:22 PM.


#49 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 December 2008 - 11:22 PM

QUOTE (Athean @ Dec 4 2008, 01:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Bernanke is a fucking douchebag. Paulson is a fucking douchebag. I hate the federal reserve with a fucking passion and a lot of the reason theres a problem to begin with can be attributed to their prolonged existence even after they essentially caused the great depression.
I'm interested on your point there. I've heard it attributed to monetary policy before, but never directly to the federal reserve. How so?

#50 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 December 2008 - 11:23 PM

Honestly, I can't even follow this damn argument anymore lol.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users