|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 29, 2008 15:55:51 GMT -5
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 29, 2008 16:25:30 GMT -5
It's hard to know what to think at this point. Is the Democrat-controlled Congress sending a message to George W? Or is it simpler than that?
I don't think an all-out recession or depression will have much of an effect on those making the calls for the rest of their nation. I find it odd that those very same people making these decisions could be in the best position to benefit from the fallout.
My question is, how will this affect Canada and who stands to benefit?
It won't be me.
Cheers.
Edit: I just read that there were a number of Republicans who voted down the bill as well.
Wonder why our government has been so quiet lately? The TSX just dropped 800 points as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 29, 2008 17:25:01 GMT -5
As ridiculous as it may sound, Dis, I don't care. I don't have a lot of investments . . . a few RSPs . . . and when I first started to put a few dollars away I checked every coupla days . . . then weeks . . . but since [94?] I haven't bothered. I get my statement once a year, have a quick gander, and then forget about it.
One year the "portfolio" tanked -- I fretted and worried . . . the next year it was up -- I celebrated . . . and for the past how many years its gone up and down. But because I'm in it for the long term I like it when it goes down so my paltry few dollars buy lots so that when I retire it'll [hopefully] be up and multiplied.
Its the speculators that lose -- I don't want to bail them out. But because speculators also use other peoples money [they call themselves investment managers] I think there is a need for a bail-out.
Two more things:
1. an acquaintance of mine who worked as an investor took over his wife's portfolio a few years back [without telling her], after a quick score. He lost it all -- including his marriage.
2. my wife is more risk-averse than I am and put her RSPs into GICs. At 3.5% she's made a tidy little profit . . . compound interest is wonderful. [but I'm staying with the markets for now]
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 29, 2008 19:12:10 GMT -5
It's hard to know what to think at this point. Is the Democrat-controlled Congress sending a message to George W? Or is it simpler than that? I don't think an all-out recession or depression will have much of an effect on those making the calls for the rest of their nation. I find it odd that those very same people making these decisions could be in the best position to benefit from the fallout. My question is, how will this affect Canada and who stands to benefit? It won't be me. Cheers. Edit: I just read that there were a number of Republicans who voted down the bill as well. Wonder why our government has been so quiet lately? The TSX just dropped 800 points as well. It's the Republican part of congress that doesn't support their President nor their Presidential candidate. The story is going (from both sides) that a bunch of Republicans decided to vote against it because of a partisan speech by the House Leader, who's a Democrat. Which in essence implies that they decided to vote against it based on hurt feelings. Gimme a break. The bottom line is that only 1 in 3 Republicans backed a Republican-proposed bill, the failure of which contributed to a net loss of $1.2 trillion in assets for their constituents. Not that the Democrats are without fault on this one, but the Republican Caucus really shat the bed on this. It's a good time to be living in Canada with banks that have far more legitimate lending practices, and as such are in very little danger of foreclosing. Our economy might downturn a bit because of our dependence on American trade, but luckily lots of that dependence is based upon resources. I don't envision this economic situation turning into any great depression, and as far as I've read nobody with an actual economic background thinks so, either. But that doesn't stop the sensationalist claims by talking heads on CNN.  I'm spending the day on Wednesday with a friend of mine who's on vacation. Oh yeah, he's an investment trader who works at TD. It'll be interesting to hear his perspective on this clusterfudge. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 29, 2008 19:20:23 GMT -5
or the four party leaders chasing Harper.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 29, 2008 19:31:30 GMT -5
It isn't the speculators that are losing money. It's Wall Street collapsing from the past 10 years of illegitimate lending practices, which is freezing the credit market, which means that the businesses that need loans (for whatever) can't get them, which means those businesses won't be able to operate.
The bail-out package has to happen so several hundred thousand Americans don't lose their jobs because Wall Street lended money to people who shouldn't have ever had it, and underwrote IPOs that weren't legitimate, and packaged these faulty loans and offerings in complex financial products to hide them so they could back their losses.
It sucks, but it has to happen. Otherwise the U.S. Economy basically has to start from scratch credit-wise. No banks have assets to loan, and those that do have any assets will only lend them to the safest of safe borrowers.
IMO, a perfect opportunity for Canadian banks to get into the US marketplace (moreso than they have been already).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 29, 2008 20:04:36 GMT -5
It's a wonderful day, The weather is fine, The fools are crashing And it all will be mine! LOL! Do you guys remember how I cranked five years ago that it was going to be BAD. No, not just BAD, but REALLY BAAAAD! Well, here it is and the squirrels that saved their nuts will be buying at 50 cents to the dollar! As for the bailout, smoke and mirrors that benefited the banks and would crush the American economy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&action=display&thread=12226What is bothering me is the CONTINUES increase in personal debt. The government keeps dropping interest rates in order to fuel purchases. I just don’t understand why people spend and go into debt without ANY ability to pay for it the minute they are out of a job. Just one instance that I know about. The couple just bought an SUV and their cost is $700 for payments and insurance. That is not bad, but their overall house, cars and “normal” overhead cost is $3,000 per month, before clothes and food. Their income is $3,500 per month net. How are they going to survive if one loses their job for even a month? Their total debt load? Way over $250,000. Now, if they were an isolated instance, then I could understand, but how many people are like that to some degree. What happens if there is a strong downturn? Can the lending institutions handle such a massive loss? Is anyone There is always an economic cycle that runs up and down over seven to ten years. It serves to “rebalance” out of whack salaries or over inflated products (like housing). This has NOT happened for a long time in the US. People said there was a mild recession last few years in the states, in reality, it was more like a small hiccup. Spending and borrowing are on the increase AGAIN, massively. There is the Federal Reserve Board in the US and it's job is to look after the monetary and financial system. It sounds good on paper but in my opinion, it's policies are more for the "what is good for us NOW" with the minimum of pain versus what the US and by extension, Canada needs, for a solid economy. Case in point? They keep dropping interest rates to keep the spending going but all they are doing is increasing the debt load. What good is that? You have to let some pain work it's way through the system in order to slow down the "borrowed" spending. It’s going to burst and God help us when it does. It’s going to burst on the personal spending front before the government . And then, just when the government needs to help people, they will be nothing but debt there. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 29, 2008 20:18:56 GMT -5
As for the bailout, smoke and mirrors that benefited the banks and would crush the American economy. I'm always looking to hear other opinions on the matter, but do you care to elaborate on that? I don't really see how the bailout would crush the American economy, relative to the likely result if it doesn't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 29, 2008 20:40:49 GMT -5
As for the bailout, smoke and mirrors that benefited the banks and would crush the American economy. I'm always looking to hear other opinions on the matter, but do you care to elaborate on that? I don't really see how the bailout would crush the American economy, relative to the likely result if it doesn't happen. They are transferring personal debt into tax debt. Why? To save the banks? NOTHING will happen if they don't bail out the banks. Europe is going into a tailspin and so is Britain. It's not like people will draw their money out to find safe refuge in another Western country. The recession will hit China just as hard and THEIR market is overcapitalized already. Let the bleeding continue. Let the stupid banks bleed out and take their lumps. The banks screaming that the sky will fall is ONLY to serve THEIR interests. When the banks start selling their foreclosures at 50 cents to the dollar, people will come out of the woodwork to buy. Right now, the banks are NOT selling properties expecting the Federal government to buy them at 90 cents to the dollar. BULLPUCKS. Let them bleed. Why will it crush the American economy? Not only is consumer confidence hitting an all time low, the American government has to seriously tax people otherwise the American dollar will collapse from the bailout burdens. Simply put, the American can not borrow money from ANYONE anymore because everybody around the world are tightening their credit. So if they can't borrow, how do they pay? Print money. Massive dollar deflation. Theoretically there is an upside to massive deflation in the sense that it will feul Americn exports.....but the oil imports will eat up the exports FASTER causing even MORE dollar deflation. Bottom line. Not going for the bailout will be losing the hand....but saving the body. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 29, 2008 21:09:32 GMT -5
Interesting point of view. Last I heard, the government bill proposed buying the MBS's at 40 cents on the dollar. I could be wrong, however.
And as far as the immediate effects of not bailing out the banks would be the bankruptcy of many small-to-mid size companies, resulting in the loss of thousands upon thousands of jobs. Which would just shut the economy down. The bailout, while a bandaid solution, would at least keep jobs to pay taxes and reduce the number of foreclosures in the interim.
The bailout certainly doesn't address the real problem, which is the excessive debt that consumers have. It doesn't slap them on the wrist as hard. I just think that condemning thousands or perhaps millions of people who shouldn't have gotten loans in the first place and even some of those who should have, something I need to consider longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 29, 2008 21:31:35 GMT -5
Is it such a good idea to have interest rates at 2% and lend money to cooks and Walmart greeters so they can afford to buy $750,000 homes in California that were selling for $250,000 four years ago before the sub-prime mess.
We may need the weak and foolish to go under. It's unfortunate that a lot of pensions and life savings are going to be lost in bad investments and innocent people will be hurt.
The alternative, buy bad debts from incompetent banks and saddle the taxpayers makes no sense. It's just delaying the inevitable. My investments are killing me, but it's not as bad as the guy who will lose his job and house and life savings.
The economy will slow down, jobs will be lost, overextended companies will go under. We will have to rebuild the infrastructure, make jobs building highways, alternative power sources, small cars and stop buying christmas tree lights and lead Barbie dolls from China.
Tighten your belts and lets get to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 29, 2008 22:09:25 GMT -5
It isn't the speculators that are losing money. It's Wall Street collapsing from the past 10 years of illegitimate lending practices, which is freezing the credit market, which means that the businesses that need loans (for whatever) can't get them, which means those businesses won't be able to operate. Wall Street is fueled by speculators hoping for the big score . . . hoping to buy low sell high and make megabucks. Let's call the stock market what it really is -- another form of legalized gambling. The markets will once again sort themselves out. There was a tech bubble that we were not supposed to recover from . . . this is just another bubble and correction . . . and there'll be another, and another, ad infinitum. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 29, 2008 22:52:17 GMT -5
It isn't the speculators that are losing money. It's Wall Street collapsing from the past 10 years of illegitimate lending practices, which is freezing the credit market, which means that the businesses that need loans (for whatever) can't get them, which means those businesses won't be able to operate. Wall Street is fueled by speculators hoping for the big score . . . hoping to buy low sell high and make megabucks. Let's call the stock market what it really is -- another form of legalized gambling. The markets will once again sort themselves out. There was a tech bubble that we were not supposed to recover from . . . this is just another bubble and correction . . . and there'll be another, and another, ad infinitum. In a nut shell..... There is no such thing as borrowing oneself out of debt....or more precisly, taxing oneself out of debt. This bailout is exactly that. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 29, 2008 23:05:52 GMT -5
Interesting point of view. Last I heard, the government bill proposed buying the MBS's at 40 cents on the dollar. I could be wrong, however. And as far as the immediate effects of not bailing out the banks would be the bankruptcy of many small-to-mid size companies, resulting in the loss of thousands upon thousands of jobs. Which would just shut the economy down. The bailout, while a bandaid solution, would at least keep jobs to pay taxes and reduce the number of foreclosures in the interim. The bailout certainly doesn't address the real problem, which is the excessive debt that consumers have. It doesn't slap them on the wrist as hard. I just think that condemning thousands or perhaps millions of people who shouldn't have gotten loans in the first place and even some of those who should have, something I need to consider longer. So what if companies go out of business. In an open market, there will be new ones to replace once the need is there. As for millions of people being "condemned", please, I'm hard core fiscally conservative, I don't cry about bad decisions that I make...or others make. Nobody forced them to overextend themselves other then wanting to live dream they couldn't afford, or worse yet, speculating in order to "get rich". The hand needs to be cut off to save the body. If 10% of all business go under, there will be 90% still around to provide jobs. If 10 million people lose their jobs, there are still 143 million working. In the long term, as painful as this correction may be, as much as the media and the political sucking machines want to scream that the sky will fall, it will not "destroy" the US...and it WILL make it more fiscally conservative. |
|
|
|
Post by gy on Sept 29, 2008 23:15:34 GMT -5
Sure, Bush and Paulson are being ignored, but I'd say something has to be done. It can't just be ignored. People won't be able to buy cars or get mortgages or start businesses because there won't be banks or dealers in a position to extend them credit. What will happen to the car dealers who can't move cars off their lots? What will happen to people who were counting on their investments to carry them through their retirement? What will happen when people are unable to use their ATM cards because the bank doesn't have enough cash to stock them? I'm personally not in a money crunch but I can empathize with people who are.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 29, 2008 23:30:43 GMT -5
No matter which way it falls, it's going to take a while for matters to return closer to normal. The problem, HA, is that these Banks you're going on about are often owned in large part by small investors in their 401K's and their pension plans. Think how happy your pension plan trustee is if he owned Lehmann Bros.
I don't claim to understand finance at the interbank level, but I gather that a lot of banks lend between each other. Some are good at lending and others at deposit gathering. So one borrows from and one lends to the other and life goes on. A serious problem right now is that no one is absolutely sure who owns the crap and how much of it they own. So if you come to me to borrow some cash till payday and I'm not sure whether or not you still have a job, I'm inclined not to lend anything to you. So when banks won't move money between each other (except perhaps at very high rates of interest), it flows downhill and when you go to the bank to borrow for a plant expansion, they say sorry, we can't get the funds ourselves. Money dries up as the saying goes and the economy slows, people lose their jobs, there's even more foreclosures, housing prices fall further, causing more problems for bank balance sheets, blah, blah, etc. etc. Pick your poison.
As Redscull points out, the Canadian banks have had much better lending practices as I know from experience and we are good deposit gathering institutions, so we don't have the funding issues that investment banks for example have. I've seen some soft broker deals, but they're a very small percentage of the total book. So you won't see the severity of problems that the US is facing, but if their economy slows, ours won't keep going either as they're directly involved in about 30-40% of our total GDP.
I think what's happening down south is politicians trying to save themselves. They know a bailout is unpopular with voters, who feel shafted, and will be shafted again, so they don't want to vote in favour, with elections a month away. But they probably have also been briefed on the potential problems if a bailout doesn't take place. The devil and the deep blue sea for these guys. I think those that are voting against are hoping just enough guys vote for it to pass it, but they'd rather not be one of the yes votes. Best scenario for them....the bill passes and they can tell their constituents they voted against it and it's an evil thing. It always seems about covering your butt.
George Bush reminds me of the 3rd or 4th mate in Russell Crowe's "Master and Commander". He's the guy unlucky enough to seem to be the cause of a lot of bad luck, sometimes brought about by his own indecision and poor judgment. After the ship is stuck in the doldrums for weeks, he finally gets so depressed at the muttering of the crew about him, that he weighs himself down with cannonballs and jumps overboard. The captain has a service for him, and as soon as the service ends, the wind picks up. That's life and sometimes, there really is a Jonah, and you can't move ahead until he's gone. That's Dubbya. Nothing has gone right for the US since he's taken over. Whether you blame him or not, it is irrefutable that very little if anything good has happened on his watch. When he leaves, and especially if Obama wins, optimism will abound and confidence will be restored.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 29, 2008 23:33:32 GMT -5
Interesting point of view. Last I heard, the government bill proposed buying the MBS's at 40 cents on the dollar. I could be wrong, however. And as far as the immediate effects of not bailing out the banks would be the bankruptcy of many small-to-mid size companies, resulting in the loss of thousands upon thousands of jobs. Which would just shut the economy down. The bailout, while a bandaid solution, would at least keep jobs to pay taxes and reduce the number of foreclosures in the interim. The bailout certainly doesn't address the real problem, which is the excessive debt that consumers have. It doesn't slap them on the wrist as hard. I just think that condemning thousands or perhaps millions of people who shouldn't have gotten loans in the first place and even some of those who should have, something I need to consider longer. So what if companies go out of business. In an open market, there will be new ones to replace once the need is there. As for millions of people being "condemned", please, I'm hard core fiscally conservative, I don't cry about bad decisions that I make...or others make. Nobody forced them to overextend themselves other then wanting to live dream they couldn't afford, or worse yet, speculating in order to "get rich". The hand needs to be cut off to save the body. If 10% of all business go under, there will be 90% still around to provide jobs. If 10 million people lose their jobs, there are still 143 million working. In the long term, as painful as this correction may be, as much as the media and the political sucking machines want to scream that the sky will fall, it will not "destroy" the US...and it WILL make it more fiscally conservative. I agree with a lot of this. I think the difference between you and I is that I recognize that not everyone is smart enough to handle money appropriately. I believe (more or less) that intelligence is both nature and nurture, and I was probably gifted a large portion of my Mensa membership from my parents. Not everyone is so lucky. We live in a country where there exist some socialist standards to help the fallen (or incapable) man. The U.S. does not. In the U.S. I'd vote against this package. In Canada I'm not so sure. And as mentioned by gy above, new businesses won't be able to start up. There's no capital to lend those startups. Though I will say this. Just about 90% of people are protected with their savings up to $100,000. Federally insured. You'll have that money no matter what happens to your bank (eventually). The only question is how much that money will be worth when you get it. edit: Not that you don't recognize that people are less able to manage finances, but perhaps I put more weight in it than you, Cranky. I have very little faith in common man, and as such I am fairly jaded in my views, like you. However I give a lot of thought to the "those who are capable must take care of those who are not" dilemma. As I vote in both elections in the coming weeks (blessed and cursed with dual-citizenship) this is a moral problem with which I struggle. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 29, 2008 23:52:45 GMT -5
No matter which way it falls, it's going to take a while for matters to return closer to normal. The problem, HA, is that these Banks you're going on about are often owned in large part by small investors in their 401K's and their pension plans. Think how happy your pension plan trustee is if he owned Lehmann Bros. Are you trying to make me "feel" some sympathy? Havn't you seen my avatar? If a small investor (or trustee) put all his money in one place then he is not an investor, he is a FOOL. Seventeen, it's impossible to make me feel sorry for the US banks when they dropped their old "35% down and 35% of family salary" to cover mortgages. Banks lobbied hard in the US to be deregulate...and look where they are now. As for money drying out. Mehh...banks are far more risk averse, not profit averse. No lend, no honey. BTW, I know somebody on the net who is in banking.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 30, 2008 0:14:31 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of this. I think the difference between you and I is that I recognize that not everyone is smart enough to handle money appropriately. I believe (more or less) that intelligence is both nature and nurture, and I was probably gifted a large portion of my Mensa membership from my parents. Not everyone is so lucky. We live in a country where there exist some socialist standards to help the fallen (or incapable) man. The U.S. does not. In the U.S. I'd vote against this package. In Canada I'm not so sure. And as mentioned by gy above, new businesses won't be able to start up. There's no capital to lend those startups. Though I will say this. Just about 90% of people are protected with their savings up to $100,000. Federally insured. You'll have that money no matter what happens to your bank (eventually). The only question is how much that money will be worth when you get it. I read that if a few more banks fail, their FDIC (insurance) will go broke. If it goes that far, THAT should be bailed out, not the banks. edit: Not that you don't recognize that people are less able to manage finances, but perhaps I put more weight in it than you, Cranky. I have very little faith in common man, and as such I am fairly jaded in my views, like you. However I give a lot of thought to the "those who are capable must take care of those who are not" dilemma. As I vote in both elections in the coming weeks (blessed and cursed with dual-citizenship) this is a moral problem with which I struggle. Do you believe that people will change their borrowing habits if there is no pain? Do you believe that people wont overspend on credit cards and big houses PARTICULARLY if the nanny state protects them from their stupidity? If not, then why do you want to alleviate a bit of hard times? And do you really believe that the nanny state will make things better in the long term? As for protect..... Protecting the people who are not capable or no longer capable of feeding/housing themselves. Agreed! Protecting Joe Average from losing his shinny pick-up truck, his $300,000-mortgage-on-his-$17-an-hour-job and his 60"-plasma-TV-that-he-doesn't-have-to-pay-for-until-next-spring. Not a chance! . |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 30, 2008 0:48:01 GMT -5
Do you believe that people will change their borrowing habits if there is no pain? I don't believe that people will change their spending habits at all unless the facility to do so is removed. That happens regardless of pain. Do you believe that people wont overspend on credit cards and big houses PARTICULARLY if the nanny state protects them from their stupidity? See above. People are stupid. They'll spend if they're able. The small number of people who would take advantage of such a bailout (if they even regognize it's there) are small in comparison to those who would benefit. Stupid doesn't even begin to describe how I feel about the mass public. Individually people are reasonably intelligent. Collectively they are beyond dumb. Maybe I've just never met that bottom 10% that's dragging the rest of us down. If not, then why do you want to alleviate a bit of hard times? And do you really believe that the nanny state will make things better in the long term? I don't think that putting our collective futures at stake in the hands of another small set of individuals is a solution. That's the inherent reason that capitalism is failing here. It's one small set of people after another who profit at the expense of the masses who don't know better. Until everyone loses their money. Then it starts over again with a different set of people. To that extent, the collective intelligence of government might be better than the narrower and opportunistic knowledge of big business. I don't have the answers. Yet. Protecting the people who are not capable or no longer capable of feeding/housing themselves. Agreed! Protecting Joe Average from losing his shinny pick-up truck, his $300,000-mortgage-on-his-$17-an-hour-job and his 60"-plasma-TV-that-he-doesn't-have-to-pay-for-until-next-spring. Not a chance! If there was legislation that did just that, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately it's currently all in the same boat, because the people who've invested their (insufficient) life savings and income into housing as a real estate investment will be left without housing at all. And even United Way and all the volunteers they can get can't afford to house that many people. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Sept 30, 2008 1:42:12 GMT -5
Something I learned earlier tonight, while I have no link, is that Japan entered a milder form of this type of crisis. What Japan did was effectively legislate that banks re-negotiate each of their mortgages. I would be okay with that. It seems like a win-win. Not sure how that would work from a legislative standpoint (nor does it sound like it would be constitutional) but it would be effective. Banks would have less risky assets, and borrowers would be able to pay their loans. Not the slap on the wrist (or slit of the throat) that Cranky wants, but he can be offset with the sale of cheap foreclosure assets. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 30, 2008 5:21:51 GMT -5
As ridiculous as it may sound, Dis, I don't care. I don't have a lot of investments . . . a few RSPs . . . and when I first started to put a few dollars away I checked every coupla days . . . then weeks . . . but since [94?] I haven't bothered. I get my statement once a year, have a quick gander, and then forget about it. One year the "portfolio" tanked -- I fretted and worried . . . the next year it was up -- I celebrated . . . and for the past how many years its gone up and down. But because I'm in it for the long term I like it when it goes down so my paltry few dollars buy lots so that when I retire it'll [hopefully] be up and multiplied. Its the speculators that lose -- I don't want to bail them out. But because speculators also use other peoples money [they call themselves investment managers] I think there is a need for a bail-out. Two more things: 1. an acquaintance of mine who worked as an investor took over his wife's portfolio a few years back [without telling her], after a quick score. He lost it all -- including his marriage. 2. my wife is more risk-averse than I am and put her RSPs into GICs. At 3.5% she's made a tidy little profit . . . compound interest is wonderful. [but I'm staying with the markets for now] We've been saving since '89, Franko, so my opinion is somewhat different. Part of our portfolio is comprised of GICs and there's no high-risk funds whatsoever. Our investment person will be flying off to Cuba in a couple of weeks (thought she was already gone). She was nice enough to tell us to remain calm, but I'll be calling her later this morning to find out what she's tried to do to lessen the damage. More specifically, I want to know where she's moved her funds and if she hasn't done the same with ours she'd better have a good reason. The best GIC I ever had was at 9.5%. That was back in the early-90's. As an aside, I wonder how George W will be remembered. What will be his legacy? I know he won't be welcome in my house for a cup of coffee, not that he was in the first place. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 30, 2008 5:52:13 GMT -5
GICs and mid-risk . . . and in 5 years [or whenever this crunch ends] moving to low-risk. I want my mortgage at 3% and my investments at 13% [or better]  [1980: mortgage at 10% . . . a great rate at the time!] [1989: GIC at 12.25%] |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 30, 2008 6:48:49 GMT -5
Was listening to the radio on the way in. $700,000,000 could:
* wipe out Canada's national debt with $250,000,000 to spare,
* provide the USA with universal health care for about six years,
* provide 23 million Americans with college educations at public institutions,
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 30, 2008 7:08:07 GMT -5
When I saw this on the news last night for some reason I started to think about insider trading,....... I truly see conspiracy theories everywhere.
It is almost certain, that when this plan was hatched, that Republican and Democrat alike contacted their lobbyists and told them that they had the votes to get this passed. Every newspaper in the US and Canada had some form of "Congress to Bailout Wall Street" as their headline on Monday.
When Pelosi gave her "let's get a few pot-shots in" speech, I don't think for an instant that these Republicans changed their minds without contacting people who they previously gave assurances to.
I'd be very interested to see the selling record on Monday, and compare to the buying reocrd right before this legislation is passed .... me thinks alot of people made a MINT off of this drop in the market.
|
|
|
|
Post by gy on Sept 30, 2008 10:06:19 GMT -5
Typically, the crowd reacted to the news like lemmings. On Tuesday morning we see a counter-reaction as some of the lost ground on the market is regained, although some of the lemmings are now officially dead.
One interesting sidelight is how despite his grandstanding, John McCain had as little influence on the Republican Congressman as King Canute did on the ocean tide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Sept 30, 2008 11:52:42 GMT -5
If I am an American, the only way I support the bailout is under the following conditions:
1) Abolish the Federal Reserve - This agency is not a government federal agency. It is not a central bank. It is a group that represents banks, and hoodwinked congress years ago into passing into law their ultimate power to control the money supply, interest rates and regulate themselves.
2) Fix the value of the dollar to a precious metal - Otherwise it is just worthless paper. The past few years, trillions of dollars have been printed to help prop foolish wars, causing existing wealth to be further diluted. Everytime the money supply expands, it essentially makes everything worth less, without some backing. The worst tax is the hidden one in the form of expanded money supply induced inflation (without any real justification to the expanded money supply). The bailout will cause more of the same. It will cause a further dilution of wealth, rather than restore it, as the spinmasters are claiming (it is the same ones that said there were WMD and terrorists in Iraq).
Since we know neither of the two will ever happen, the bailout should be appropriately rejected.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 30, 2008 11:57:42 GMT -5
When my wife and I started going to a financial planner, the FIRST question asked of us was, "What is your risk level?"
We said, "Low". Over time, we loosened our seat belts a bit and went into some mutual funds and got burnt....back down to the low level we went.
RISK is just what it says it is.
Isn't a large facet of this turmoil based on the fact that people overextended themselves on over-inflated housing.....and the banks were more than ready to extend the credit? Talk about high risk on all sides.
The problem begins when people expect their jobs to pay for their lifestyles....when they should gear their lifestyles to their jobs. And when they fall for the sales pitches from banks and credit card companies, etc. Way over-extended beyond your means.
Yeah, I know there are a lot of exceptions.....
|
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Sept 30, 2008 12:22:53 GMT -5
Gotta pay to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 30, 2008 12:32:07 GMT -5
When my wife and I started going to a financial planner, the FIRST question asked of us was, "What is your risk level?" We said, "Low". Over time, we loosened our seat belts a bit and went into some mutual funds and got burnt....back down to the low level we went. RISK is just what it says it is. Isn't a large facet of this turmoil based on the fact that people overextended themselves on over-inflated housing.....and the banks were more than ready to extend the credit? Talk about high risk on all sides. The problem begins when people expect their jobs to pay for their lifestyles....when they should gear their lifestyles to their jobs. And when they fall for the sales pitches from banks and credit card companies, etc. Way over-extended beyond your means. Yeah, I know there are a lot of exceptions..... I am conservative. My heros are Warren Buffet, Ronald Reagan and John Diefenbaker. When it comes to finance, Warren is the man. He invests in good companies in stable industries for the long term. He didn't make any money in the dot com era when funds were all buying them. He didn't lose any money whan the bubble burst. His mantra is "never lose any money" because it takes twice as long just to break even. It works. Conservative. If we will have some short term pain, bad companies go under, under capitalized companies go under; the long term will be better and stronger. It's hard to tell a retiree who has lost his retirement stash that in 10 years all will be better, but that's exactly what is needed. It's hard to tell the jobless that all will be better in 10 years. It's hard to tell the hungry and homeless; but you can't make an omlete without breaking some eggs. Help the innocent and the truly needy, not the greedy CEO's that made bad decisions. My personal investments are conservative, real estate, oil companies in Canada and ,rail and automotive in the US. 30% in short term cash deposits. All stocks are hurting, but the cash reserves keep it safe. No crying in baseball and life. |
|
