Reply With Quote
Will we see more meatloaf on our tables?
I agree to an extent, but with three kids, a wife, a large mortgage, payroll....ah it, I'm well armed, and my boy goes 6'2, 205 - we'll do all right if it comes to anarchy.
(And frankly, even at 40, my wife is pretty "marketable").
Will we see more meatloaf on our tables?
Ah, to be young and in love......
Strange, in my vision, he was stuffing the bills down Stout's throat.
Wow dude. I don't even know what to say.
Manny speechless paaaa-lease
The problem is so are millions of other people. Yikes.
Where the did that nuclear fallout shelter go...?
5,000 boxes of spagetti-O's?
-Check
shotgun?
-check
s s?
-check
water purifier?
-check
Wheee!
I'm fairly certain there was some pretty widespread fraud going on. , it's already been established in prior Congressional hearings that Franklin Raines cooked the books at F so he could get his bonus each year.
On a more serious note, knowing about the mark to market rules, there is probably something somewhere in there that some of the big firms had to skirt or altogether ignore to do some of the things they were doing in reselling the MBS packages.
Just going to take some time to find it.
Last edited by Aggie Hoopsfan; 09-30-2008 at 05:57 PM.
control over the mortgage market is approving, funding, and servicing loans. That goes to the banks. However, as far as unprecedented control, have you ever heard of FHA, HUD, FNMA, FMAC? There is 10 trillion dollars in those programs. $700 billion is a lot, but please do not exagerate.
lets see fully backed by the government... oh yeah lobbying against regulation makes sense.For "essentially government agencies" they sure do a whole bunch of lobbying and donating to campaigns.
A lot more honest than bad. Nothing wrong with making a living outside of the medical industry.Honest being the operative word.
come back to reality. Default makes the problem worse. Working out a payment plan makes is better. Come on dude, you're in the medical claims business you know the deal. Getting people to payoff their debts is 100 times better than foreclosure. It sounds like you have something against these people. Calm fears, workout a reasonble payment plan. Not that hard to figure out., NOBODIES talking about paying off anyone's mortgage - this is a decidedly one-sided bailout. And you support giving loans to people who JUST defaulted on their mortgages. These are sub-prime risks; giving them MORE loans just starts the cycle over again, doesn't it? Did I misunderstand you?
No you haven't been harping on production. You're suggesting recession or even worse. The default on loans are a part of the equation, but I would say the devaluation of real estate and capital requirements are a bigger problem right now. The bailout is not about living large on credit, it's about hurting ordinary/neccessary credit practices.I am harping on production; as it; we have been consuming MUCH more than we have been producing! Loans that aren't paid back at the personal, and Federal level, amount to spending what hasn't been produced...living large on credit.
you hate how American's live. Well so do Liberals. The complexity of the problem requires a little more effort on your part IMO.I'm liberal for NOT wanting the govt. to bail out people and corps that made horrible decisions? That's liberal now? Who knew?
About the only smart thing that whottt has ever said. Although I think it might be a huge reason for his lack of intelligence.
The bailout is to save the dollar. Without us (the taxpayers) backing it the dollar will just continue to fall and fall and fall. Anything bought on the global market will just skyrocket for us. Of course you could be banking that the rest of the worlds currency will fall as well making the devaluation of the dollar not as big of an issue. But if a country (say Russia) is able to withstand it or at least whether the storm better than us (vasts amounts of oil) then you really have a problem. Their global influence will only be that much stronger.
The thing about capitalism is that it relies on the buying and selling of goods. If no people are able to buy any goods then it will cease to work. The capital that has been fueling this economy has come from loans and credit and so on. Without it people won't be able to afford to buy goods, which will demolish the way our economy is set up.
People act like all credit is bad. It's not and the people who use credit responsibly, who happen to drive this economy, are being affected for the simple fact that there's a lack of capital.
I don't know about many of you, but I grew up in a very poor family. A loan of $20 was asking a lot from my relatives. Nevertheless, I was able to purchase a business, make real estate investments, and do a little development with the help of investors and credit. Now my investors are being scared off and credit is drying up, so yes it's going to cost me. However, it will cost everyone else too. And by the way, what did I ever do except work hard, manage my money, create jobs and help people.
I was able to do the stuff I have by working weekend roomservice to pay for school (no loans) and raising capital for investments and business projects.
I thought it was to save the jobs of CEO's that are in bed with democrats.
Fine with me.
Works for me. Fixes the trade imbalance rather well if you ask me. I see it as a plus as manufacturing becomes cheaper here rather than outsourced to other countries.
Some currencies will fall a little with ours, but not linear. Russia will get stronger, regardless. They have become an oil exporter.
I don't see this being any more than a very short term event. Even if people are no longer to charge their goods, then a month or two, and people pay for with what they have on hand. There will still be credit card usage, although some rates will increase. Perhaps gone are the days of zero down loans. That was always a bad idea, and a major reason why we have these problems. They only people who should qualify for those are people who have enough disposable money they don't need to!
If loans are what fuels the economy, then we deserve to fail. I'm rather sure that loans are only a small aspect of a companies source of capitol. When I was in the loop of a small companies finances, the only time they considered taking out a loan was to expand. We have had such slow growth lately, that few places are expanding anyway. Besides, collateralized loans will still be available.
There are occasions a business needs to borrow money because of a temporary slowdown before paydays and or have unexpected expenses. Reputable businesses will still get loans. Any business always borrowing deserves to fail anyway, and now probably will because they are the ones that will be a credit risk. Most businesses should be fine, with good enough credit for unexpected needs. I don't think businesses will have too much of a difference in being able to get loans though. Different regulations involved that those that caused the financial ins utes to lose capitol.
You underestimate the economy. People will still have jobs and people will still buy things.
Remember what caused this meltdown. people not paying their mortgages. At least two varieties involved. The common factor is low down to zero down payment. With 'flipping' houses, more properties were vacant. More new houses were being built. Now we have a overage of houses, and the bubble burst. Anyone with half a brain could see this coming miles away. With property values now less than what people paid for them, they choose or cannot pay for them, and would welcome foreclosure, but now the lenders have properties worth less than the loans if they foreclose, and they lose money either way. Not having mortgage payments come in, they no longer have the capitol to operate.
I say NO to bailing them out. They should have known this would happen, in fact, I think they did no, and just are waiting to be bailed out. I fail to believe that their financial experts are that stupid.
The only way I would go along with the bailout is to bring back the standards before political correctness corrupted the system. These regulations need to be removed. Also that all the people involved in making this happen in congress and the companies involved, resign.
This is a free country. At least it's suppose to be. When regulations mandate that corporations make bad loans, then make regulations allowing the lenders make even worse loans than required because of the scheme they are allowed to setup in converting to bonds... I want those who crafted such legislation in jail. I know that won't happen, so any left in congress... Make them resign!
you're kidding right? those CEO's already have millions. Whether we pass or don't pass the bailout won't affect them nearly as much as you and I.
right, because having your money and assets worth less makes a lot of sense.Fine with me.
alright, fire up them textiles. lets get back to the good 'ol day. while we're at it why don't we bring back the pony express.Works for me. Fixes the trade imbalance rather well if you ask me. I see it as a plus as manufacturing becomes cheaper here rather than outsourced to other countries.
anything else you would like to control? zero down loans have been gone for a while and have nothing to do with today. the Credit Crises is affecting those who use credit responsibly and for good reason. The conservative use of Credit is a wonderful thing in business. That goes away and you're asking for a world of hurt.I don't see this being any more than a very short term event. Even if people are no longer to charge their goods, then a month or two, and people pay for with what they have on hand. There will still be credit card usage, although some rates will increase. Perhaps gone are the days of zero down loans. That was always a bad idea, and a major reason why we have these problems. They only people who should qualify for those are people who have enough disposable money they don't need to!
loans fund schools, hospitals, small business. If you have an idea that can make us money, I would consider loaning you some money.If loans are what fuels the economy, then we deserve to fail.
Credit is essential in Real Estate. Real Estate is arguably the backbone of our economy. IN fact, without real estate most people would be worth ziltch. you collateralized loans comment doesn't deserve a response.I'm rather sure that loans are only a small aspect of a companies source of capitol. When I was in the loop of a small companies finances, the only time they considered taking out a loan was to expand. We have had such slow growth lately, that few places are expanding anyway. Besides, collateralized loans will still be available.
for only those reasons right? who told you that, Michael Reagan? Most businesses use loans to make capital improvements (creates jobs), investments (creates jobs), Mergers&Acquisitions, and then what you mentioned. dude wake up.There are occasions a business needs to borrow money because of a temporary slowdown before paydays and or have unexpected expenses.
THERE"S A SHORTAGE OF CAPITAL!!!! THE UNDERWRITING HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUSTED.Reputable businesses will still get loans.
I see, you're making this up as you go.Any business always borrowing deserves to fail anyway, and now probably will because they are the ones that will be a credit risk.
[QUOTE}
Most businesses should be fine, with good enough credit for unexpected needs. I don't think businesses will have too much of a difference in being able to get loans though. Different regulations involved that those that caused the financial ins utes to lose capitol.[/quote] THERE'S A LACK OF CAPITAL!!!! THE UNDERWRITING HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUSTED.
Just like in Mexico.You underestimate the economy. People will still have jobs and people will still buy things.
Remember what caused this meltdown. people not paying their mortgages.way more sophisticated than that. add bad appraisals, credit rating agency failure, speculation, derivatives, the federal government, and a weakened economy.
nobody wants to invest in our banks. hence, there's a lack of liquidity.At least two varieties involved. The common factor is low down to zero down payment. With 'flipping' houses, more properties were vacant. More new houses were being built. Now we have a overage of houses, and the bubble burst. Anyone with half a brain could see this coming miles away. With property values now less than what people paid for them, they choose or cannot pay for them, and would welcome foreclosure, but now the lenders have properties worth less than the loans if they foreclose, and they lose money either way. Not having mortgage payments come in, they no longer have the capitol to operate.
who's them and what the are you talking about?I say NO to bailing them out. They should have known this would happen, in fact, I think they did no, and just are waiting to be bailed out. I fail to believe that their financial experts are that stupid.
I'm all for voting most of them out starting with the Republican Party. The size of our governement has doubled in size since '00 and it has little to do with the war.The only way I would go along with the bailout is to bring back the standards before political correctness corrupted the system. These regulations need to be removed. Also that all the people involved in making this happen in congress and the companies involved, resign.
This is a free country. At least it's suppose to be. When regulations mandate that corporations make bad loans, then make regulations allowing the lenders make even worse loans than required because of the scheme they are allowed to setup in converting to bonds... I want those who crafted such legislation in jail. I know that won't happen, so any left in congress... Make them resign!
Not fine with me. I don't want the dollar going to .
Ahhhh no it will continue to be outsourced. There are still many countries populations that big business will continue to exploit. Since there are many things that have to be bought on the world market (oil, etc.) it won't fix the trade imbalance. It will just raise prices for those goods.
Well we agree here, although not to the same extent of the more influence Russia will have. This will be a security issue for the U.S. (I know repubs love the security issue)
I don't know what you think short term is, but the selling of goods will drop dramatically. Certain things like food and energy of course will not be affected that negatively, but most industries will. I don't really see how you think this will be short term. People will lose jobs, credit will shore up, not sure where all this capital will come from to fuel the economy.
I agree that our economy is built wrong and is way to dependent on banks (credit) and market confidence. But it is what it is. There are ways to get us off of this type of economy much less drastically than just letting it collapse. And influx of capital and stricter regulations so this type of abuse won't happen again will help. Big business has been allowed to run rampant for way too long and now you want to put even less restrictions on it. Didn't you learn from this.
And most companies will not be given loans, I can't see how you think most companies won't be affected. I think you're living in a fantasy land. They will definitely be affected. Very negatively I might add.
People not paying their mortgages is not the only thing that led to this crisis we're in now. It was a main factor, but many others had a major role to play in it too. Big Business cooking books, ridiculous tax refunds to "stimulate the economy", the money being spent in Iraq, etc. These are all factors that led to our economic bubble bursting. Lets not try to place all the blame on mortgage defaults. Plus the banks being in bed with the appraisers played a big part in this imaginary raise of property value we had.
Yes they knew this would happen and they knew we would bail them out. Sucks, I know but really nothing we can do about it. We gave them way too much power and allowed them to do whatever they wanted for too long. But we are now way too dependent on them to just allow them to fail. It will cause much more economic havoc than you think.
Banks were not forced to give out bad loans. Nobody is buying it. It actually amazes me that repubs on this board continue to think that. They gave out the loans cause they wanted to make money. They even inflated the real estate market on their own. Nobody believes that the banks were force by the dems to give out bad loans to people that wouldn't pay it back. It was the banks doing all on themselves.
And once again less regulations is just stupid. Don't you guys ever learn. Can we please learn from history? If not we will always be doomed to repeat it.
you're kidding right? those CEO's already have millions. Whether we pass or don't pass the bailout won't affect them nearly as much as you and I.
right, because having your money and assets worth less makes a lot of sense.
alright, fire up them textiles. lets get back to the good 'ol day. while we're at it why don't we bring back the pony express.
anything else you would like to control? zero down loans have been gone for a while and have nothing to do with today. the Credit Crises is affecting those who use credit responsibly and for good reason. The conservative use of Credit is a wonderful thing in business. That goes away and you're asking for a world of hurt.
loans fund schools, hospitals, small business. If you have an idea that can make us money, I would consider loaning you some money.
Credit is essential in Real Estate. Real Estate is arguably the backbone of our economy. IN fact, without real estate most people would be worth ziltch. you collateralized loans comment doesn't deserve a response.
for only those reasons right? who told you that, Michael Reagan? Most businesses use loans to make capital improvements (creates jobs), investments (creates jobs), Mergers&Acquisitions, and then what you mentioned. dude wake up.
THERE"S A SHORTAGE OF CAPITAL!!!! THE UNDERWRITING HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUSTED.
I see, you're making this up as you go.
Most businesses should be fine, with good enough credit for unexpected needs. I don't think businesses will have too much of a difference in being able to get loans though. Different regulations involved that those that caused the financial ins utes to lose capitol THERE'S A LACK OF CAPITAL!!!! THE UNDERWRITING HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUSTED.
Just like in Mexico.
nobody wants to invest in our banks. hence, there's a lack of liquidity.
who's them and what the are you talking about?
I'm all for voting most of them out starting with the Republican Party. The size of our governement has doubled in size since '00 and it has little to do with the war.
Well just so you know...bailout or no, whether it works or no, it's going to happen again.
And Paulson's plan is going to leave him completely autonomous and opaque. Can you give me one good reason why he deserves that?
And it's not just American banks taking the hit...banks around the world are getting hit.
Never would have thought that would happen.
"it' is called Medicare. Yes, we are absolutely going to collapse under the strain of Medicare if nothing is done quickly.
add oversight.And Paulson's plan is going to leave him completely autonomous and opaque. Can you give me one good reason why he deserves that?
as the united states goes the world goes as simple as that.And it's not just American banks taking the hit...banks around the world are getting hit.
Well, then explain to me why we need to bail out these failed lenders when the Treasury in one form or another can lend the money instead to the remaining lender who did things right?
Never would have thought that would happen.
2Cents... You went overboard on some of the types of loans. Schools for example request a bond. That is far from the same thing here. I'm not going to waste my time with counterpoints. You have my opinions and nothing you said changes them.
reference? this contradicts what many, many, other economists and historians have said about the New Deal and the depression.
If the gov't wanted to, could it ever payoff the 11 trillion dollar debt? Soon to be 12 trillion after this bailout.
It wasn't "raising taxes" per se, it was raising tariffs that was the problem.
It was the .... anyone? anyone?
Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act
From reason.com
The Roots of the Crisis
How did Wall Street get into this mess?
Michael Flynn | October 1, 2008
The unexpected 228-205 defeat of the housing bailout in Congress yesterday threw a curveball across Wall Street. It contributed to a large sell-off on Wall Street, where the bailout had already been "priced" into the market. The Dow shed just over 6 percent, the 18th largest drop in its history. But given the dire warnings about financial chaos that would result unless there were a bailout, this seems fairly modest.
Let's be clear: This is a Wall Street crisis, not a national economic crisis. The overall economy, while a bit weak, is still growing. Some politicians are comparing the current environment to the Great Depression. But in 1932, when the federal government last moved to bail out the banking sector, economic output had fallen 45 percent and unemployment was a staggering 24 percent. Today, economic output is actually up and unemployment is a historically modest 6.1 percent.
The overall economy doesn't even face a liquidity crisis in the current turmoil. Consumer, commercial/industrial, and real estate loans are all up over last year. Main Street is doing fine. The liquidity crisis is confined to Wall Street, between and among investment banks, insurance and securities firms, and hedge funds. There is the possibility that the contagion could spread, but in a global capital market, this is hardly certain.
It is the intersection of several underlying trends that have brought us to this point, not a breakdown in any specific part of the financial sector. The fundamental flaw with the bailout approach is that it ignores these trends and simply seeks to shore up the finances of certain Wall Street ins utions.
Mortgage-backed securities (MBSes) are the principal source of pain in the current environment. Investment houses would bundle individual mortgages from several banks together into a bond-like product that would be sold to individual investors. Mortgages have historically been seen as among the safest investments. In an era of rising house values, "safe" became "guaranteed returns."
One of the major factors pushing investors into these securities was the Federal Reserve's weak money policy. Immediately after the terrorist attacks of 2001, the Fed began a sustained period of easing interest rates. Its efforts went so far that, at one point in 2003, we had effectively negative interest rates. Ins utional investments needed a place to park money and earn some kind of return. Mortgage-backed securities became a favorite investment vehicle. Under traditional models, they were very safe and, because of Fed policy, even the most conservative fund could earn better returns than they could on treasury notes.
In the early years of this century, mortgage-backed securities exploded. Their growth provided unprecedented levels of capital in the mortgage market. There was a lot more money available to underwrite mortgages. At the same time, investment houses were looking to replace the healthy fees earned during the dot com bubble. MBSes had fat margins, so everyone jumped into the game.
The additional capital to underwrite mortgages was a good thing...up to a point. Homeownership expanded throughout the decade. Over the last few decades, the American homeownership rate has been around 60 to 62 percent. At the height of the bubble, homeownership was around 70 percent. It is clear now that many people who got mortgages at the height of the bubble should not have. But Wall Street needed to feed the MBS stream.
At the same time, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going through a crisis. In 2003 and 2004, an accounting scandal was revealed. The two public-private partnerships were cooking the books to show phantom profits. The Bush administration and its allies on the Hill pushed a strong bill to reform how these ins utions operated. The measure came very close to passing, but Fannie and Freddie cut a deal. They would refocus on expanding mortgages for low-income borrowers if the feds kept out of their operations. The bargain worked. Virtually all the Democrats and a few Republicans backed the two companies and the reform effort failed.
Fannie and Freddie then went on a subprime bender. They made it clear that they wanted to buy all the subprime or Alt-A mortgages that they could find, eventually acquiring around $1 trillion of the paper. The market responded. In 2003 subprime mortgages made up less than 8 percent of all mortgages. By 2006, they were over 20 percent. Banks knew they could sell subprime products to Fannie and Freddie. Investments banks realized that if they laced ever increasing amounts of subprime mortgages into the MBSes, they could juice the returns and so earn bigger fees. The rating agencies, thinking they were simply dealing with traditional mortgages, didn't look under the hood.
Unfortunately, after several years of a housing boom, the available pool of households who could responsibly use the more exotic financing products had dried up. In short, there were no more people who traditionally qualified for even a subprime mortgage. However, Fannie and Freddie were still signaling that they wanted to buy these products. At the same time, activist groups were agitating for more lending to low-income families. Banks realized they could make even more exotic loan products (e.g., interest-only loans), get the activists off their backs, and immediately diffuse their risk by selling the mortgages into MBSes. After all, Fannie and Freddie would buy anything.
Everything worked as long as housing prices continued to rise. The most pessimistic scenarios on Wall Street showed a leveling off of housing prices; no one foresaw an actual decline in prices. Suddenly, though, there weren't enough buyers. In hot real estate markets, builders raced to bring inventory to market that they thought was inexhaustible. But at this point everyone (essentially) who could possibly qualify for a mortgage had received one. At the same time, the first wave of the more exotic mortgages began to falter. Interest rates on adjustable rate mortgages moved higher—the Fed was finally tightening the money flow—and mortgages that were initially interest-only were close to resetting, with monthly payments jumping to include principal. A not insignificant number of these mortgages moved into default and foreclosure.
The overall numbers moving into foreclosure were small. Someone simply looking at housing stats could be forgiven for wondering what all the fuss is about. Nationally, the number of mortgages moving into foreclosure is just around 1 to 2 percent, suggesting that 98 to 99 percent of mortgages are sound. But the foreclosed mortgages punched way above their weight class; they were laced throughout the MBS market.
Then the MBS market collapsed. The complexity of these financial products cannot be overstated. They usually had two or three "tranches," different baskets of mortgages that paid out in different ways. Worse, as they moved through the system—being bought and sold by different firms—they were sliced and diced in varying ways. A MBS owned by one firm could be very different when it was sold to another.
No one fully understood how exposed the MBS were to the rising foreclosures. The market for them dried up. No one traded them. The market became effectively "illiquid." American accounting standards, however, required firms to use "mark-to-market" to value their assets. This means that you value your assets based on what you could sell them for today. Because no one would trade MBSes, most had to be "marked" at something close to zero.
This threw off banks' capital requirements. Under U.S. regulations, banks have to have a certain percentage of assets to back up the loans they make. Lots of banks and financial ins utions had MBS assets on their books. With these moving to zero, they didn't have enough capital on hand for the loans that were outstanding. They rushed to raise capital, which raised fears about their solvency and compounded into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We should pause here to note that two simple regulatory tweaks could have prevented much of the carnage. Suspending mark-to-market accounting rules (you could use a 5-year rolling average instead, for example) would have shored up the balance sheets. And a temporary easing of capital requirements would have provided banks breathing room to sort out the MBS mess. Although it is hard to fix an exact price for these in this market, they aren't worth zero.
Alas, the Fed and the Treasury decided simply to provide the capital to meet the regulatory requirements. They moved into crisis mode, making a series of tactical moves to deal with specific, present challenges. The first misstep, in March, was to force a hostile takeover of Bears Stearns. The Fed put up $30-40 billion to back JP Morgan's takeover of the investment bank. In the long term, it probably would have been better to let the bank fail and go into bankruptcy. That would have set in motion legal proceedings that would have established a baseline price for MBSes. From this established price, banks could sort out their balance sheets.
It is worth noting that immediately after the collapse of Bears Stearns, rumors quickly circulated on the Street of trouble at Lehman Brothers. Lehman went on a PR offensive to beat back those rumors. The company was successful, but then did nothing over the next several months to shore up its balance sheet. Their recent demise was largely their own doing.
The collapse of the MBS market now started to pollute other financial products. (The Fed moves did nothing to deal with the MBS market, but simply provided temporary means to cope with it.) Credit default swaps and derivatives, both of which amount to hedges against the risk of bonds defaulting, came due. Suddenly, stable firms like AIG were overexposed. Insurance companies regularly sell these swaps, as an insurance policy against bonds defaulting. Traditionally they are fairly conservative investment products. These developments threw off the accounting in one division of AIG, threatening the rest of the firm. Given a few days, AIG could have sold enough assets to cover the spread, but iron-clad accounting regulations precluded this. So the government stepped in.
The one-two punch of Lehman's failure and the government's $85 billion bailout of AIG on September 16 seriously spooked the Street and the Bush administration. With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac already in government receivership, there were fears that the MBS weakness would spread through the entire financial system. There was a big sell-off on the Dow. The next day, the government announced there would be a bold rescue plan. The market rebounded. Details emerged over the weekend. On Monday, the Dow had another sell-off. But, the most important signal was the rise of oil. The spot price for October delivery of oil jumped $25 a barrel. Some of this was covering trades, but a sizable amount of this appreciation was probably a "flight to quality," a place to park money while everything was sorted out. It was also a signal that the government's plan might not work.
The original plan crafted by Treasury would authorize the department to spend up to $700 billion to buy MBSes and other "toxic" debt and thereby remove them from banks' balance sheets. With the "bad loans" off the books, the banks would become sound. Because it was assumed that the MBS market was "illiquid," the government would become the buyer of last resort for these products. There is a certain simple elegance to the plan.
Except that no market is truly illiquid. It just isn't liquid at the price you want to sell. This summer, Merrill Lynch unloaded a bunch of bad debt at 22 cents on the dollar. There are likely plenty of buyers for the banks' bad debt, just not at the price the banks would prefer. Enter the government, which clearly intends to purchase MBSes at some premium above the market price. That was the nature of the bailout that failed on Monday.
Congressional leaders have vowed to bring a new proposal for a vote, possibly as soon as Thursday, proving yet again that Washington is fertile ground for really bad ideas. But with the market rebounding—as of this writing the Dow was up almost 300 points—and public opposition hardening, signs are emerging that banks are starting to clean house. The crisis may have already peaked. Of course, Congress' ability to further screw this up can't be overstated.
Mike Flynn is director of government affairs at the Reason Foundation.
I like the summary of that article:
Everybody needs to read the article just posted, and back away from the edge.But with the market rebounding—as of this writing the Dow was up almost 300 points—and public opposition hardening, signs are emerging that banks are starting to clean house. The crisis may have already peaked. Of course, Congress' ability to further screw this up can't be overstated.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
