The "D" word.

[Nate Downes]

Here we go again with the Republican threat of Democrats raising your taxes.

 

And we're still cordial here, right? No one walking away? I THINK I'm being real cordial, so I'll continue on this path. And if possible, hang in there.

 

Largest institutional economic meltdown since the depression. Unbelievable unemployment. Stock market is a joke. And inflationary numbers out of this world that they've still been HIDING.

 

And government bailouts--which is the largest tax of ALL!!!

 

And now the Repubs are blaming this all on a Democratic Congress, and Bush had nothing to do with any of this.

 

What kind of alternate universe do Bush supporters live in?

I'll admit, this is one of the few honest discussions I've had as of late. We have the guy that doesn't want his taxes raised, and I don't blame him. We have the folk that are distrustful of government spending, also understandable. And yet we all are talking, rather than just yelling at each other. I call this a sign of the solidarity of america. Sure, I might not agree with everything some others might say, but you know what, I love hearing them say it in a responsible and equitable debate such as we have here.

[Francis Kuhn]

All this talk about economics is very interesting. Personally, I moved everything into cash last November when the page count of the Harley-Davidson section of the local Cycle Trader went over 200.

 

-Fran

[Saul Rodgar]

You already voted to raise your taxes actually. Weither today or tomorrow, they will be raised due to the votes of the people. We've been running on the US's Credit Card since 2001, and the bills are coming due.

 

To say "Don'/t raise my taxes" after already voting to raise them by electing people who were fiscally irresponsible is the height of arrogance. We made this mess, we need to clean it up, period, the end. You owe $87k+, thanks to the wasteful spending of the past 7 years, they will take your payment now.

 

We owe, I'm not paying for your issues, you're not paying for mine. All of us owe. Every man, woman, child, and it must be paid. We cannot cut government spending because the government has already begun cutting bone. (eg Minneapolis Bridge Collapse) Like it or not, you will be paying higher taxes. The only alternative is even more horrid, Hyperinflation. Think $4 for a gallon of gas is bad? How about $40? $400? $4000?. That is the other option.

 

You tell them, Nate.

 

[James Steven Beverly]

But please don't vote to raise my Taxes! Whether I make $20k a year or $10 million. Please vote to cut Taxes and CUT the Size and Wasteful Spending of our out of control Gov't.

 

I couldn't agree more. Let's start with the military. Let's end the war and pull our guy and gals out of Iraq. Let's start putting diplomacy before invasion, i mean how much could a few ambassadors cost compared to an invading army? Lets also quit bailing out mega financial institutions that have failed due to gross mis-management but instead keep tight over-site on them and prosecute to the absolute fullest extent of the law all those responsible for destroying the lifetime savings of those people who entrusted their money to, to encourage others to not mis-manage in the future. Lets get universal health care so that people live longer and heather lives and are able to keep working and paying their taxes and do not have to go to the emergency room to be treated for simple aliments further draining money from government subsidizes in the most wasteful manner possible. Lets regulate oil companies and force them to change to alternative fuels so America can become self sufficient and have less need to get involved in foreign disputes thus further saving tax dollars rather than letting them make billions per quarter on fossil fuels that are destroying the planet and will eventually cost the government much more than that to clean up.

 

Lets encourage big business to pay more to their employees so that they'll be more money spent and more taxes collected rather that allowing the super rich to keep 99% of the money and pay virtually no taxes while the rest of us due with less to clean of the cesspool of their greed. Let's make education a priority and not just test scores so that kids will actually be able to get good jobs and support themselves and not spend their lives on welfare. Let's get people in office that will outlaw predatory lending practices instead of letting the rich get richer by exploiting the poor so the poor can't pay their bills let alone the taxes they owe. Let's elect leaders that are actually competent rather that those who simply want to pursue ideology and a political agenda even to the extend of breaking the laws they were elected to uphold, ignoring the Constitution and lying bold faced and un-apologetically in order to lead the people down a path they would never have taken otherwise which has cost the American taxpayer so much money that our children's children will still be paying it off. Let's get someone in office who is not going to regularly be an embarrassment to us in front the the entire world there by ruining our credibility and helping to further slow our economy. How bout that? :rolleyes:

Edited September 18, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[Guest]

The good news is 58 days after 9/11 the NYSE had recovered all of its loses due the attacks.

 

What is happening now is not as bad as 9/11, I don't think.

 

I must say that after living in the USA for five years and listening to un-ending comments about how Canada is "socialist" and "every thing is run by the the gov't." I am getting a chuckle out of all these gov't bailouts in the USA. One giant company after another being taken over by the US gov't and bailed out. Hmmmm, seems the "socialist" shoe is on the other foot now :D

 

R,

 

And BTW James Steven Beverly, are you telling me you haven't watched that DVD yet?

 

Good grief it's easier to get a hardened acquisition exec in Hollywood to watch a movie than you! :D

[Saul Rodgar]

The good news is 58 days after 9/11 the NYSE had recovered all of its loses due the attacks.

 

What is happening now is not as bad as 9/11, I don't think.

 

You kidding, right? Greenspan and everyone else thinks this is the worst financial crisis in generations and some say since 1929, mind you. 9/11 was cakewalk compared to this. Front page on Yahoo, right now.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting...nd-Yet-in-Sight

 

I must say that after living in the USA for five years and listening to un-ending comments about how Canada is "socialist" and "every thing is run by the the gov't." I am getting a chuckle out of all these gov't bailouts in the USA. One giant company after another being taken over by the US gov't and bailed out. Hmmmm, seems the "socialist" shoe is on the other foot now :D

 

In this country a lot of things are subsidized: corn, oil (oil land leased from the gov't, today congress voted to allow oil drilling on the continental shelf (more public lands), etc), farming, now big banks, etc. Just don't tell that to "fiscal conservatives" that still dream the US is purely capitalist.

Edited September 18, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

[Nate Downes]

All this talk about economics is very interesting. Personally, I moved everything into cash last November when the page count of the Harley-Davidson section of the local Cycle Trader went over 200.

 

-Fran

I cashed out my 401k in Febuary, just in time before I was layed off of my job in April. Starting to put my money back in, due to seeing how low everything has gotten. Oct 2nd is my first date of insertion of funds.

[Paul Bruening]

I've spent the last couple of days jumping out of a window. I've learned some stuff. There's some info they left out of the 1930's stories: It's not the window; it's the number of floors. My ranch style house is too close to the ground. Now, my knees are all scuffed up. Dohhh!

[Nate Downes]

I've spent the last couple of days jumping out of a window. I've learned some stuff. There's some info they left out of the 1930's stories: It's not the window; it's the number of floors. My ranch style house is too close to the ground. Now, my knees are all scuffed up. Dohhh!

Oh my goodness! Dude! Next time, call me!...

 

I'll bring the camera gear over and make it a real event!

[Paul Bruening]

Someone help me with what's going on: The USA gubmit is bailing out mega-banks. It's also dumping money into the market to save it. The gubmit is our savior. That's great. Wonderful. We're saved!

 

 

 

 

 

Do I remember something about the gubmit being broke-ass-broke? The gubmit is the biggest wino, crack-head, meth junkie on the block. How is this going to work? There must be something about economics that escapes me. Didn't the Italians do precisely this before WW Duo? Anyone need a Lira?

[Guest]

And now the markets are rebounding:

 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

 

Tomorrow who knows what?

 

Why governments are bailing out billionaires and millionaires is beyond me? No one bails out the middle class or small business owners when things go wrong for them, they are left standing there wearing nothing but a barrel.

 

To add insult to injury the government comes along a turns them up-side-down to make sure they don't owe any taxes!! It's outrageous!!

 

R,

[Robert Hughes]

We cannot cut government spending because the government has already begun cutting bone. (eg Minneapolis Bridge Collapse)

A bit of good news for you "D" word naval gazers. The Minneapolis 35W bridge re-opened today! I drove across it within 2 hours of its reopening, and it's a nice bridge, it would probably be good for 200 years if they didn't dump salt on it every winter. The local, state and national governments, the construction companies and the community are all very happy with the ahead-of-schedule completion.

Edited September 18, 2008 by Robert Hughes

[Guest]

Just a snippet from CNN today:

 

The federal government, in what will be its most far-reaching effort yet to contain the financial crisis, is planning to help banks dump bad mortgages. Leaders from the House and the Senate were briefed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. Details of the plan are unclear, but CNNMoney reports it's likely the government would take on tens of billions of dollars in mortgage assets

 

HILARIOUS....translation: We banks gave money to people we should not have to fuel our greed, and now we need the American tax payer to make all the bad loans go away. So now all those "bank owned" signs on houses will switch over to "gov't owned" signs I suppose.

 

Gee America seems like a good place to do business about now. Start a company, borrow as much money as you can, run the company into the ground....then await a gov't bail out.

 

They do this sort of nonsense in Canada as well, the big three auto makers are handed billions to prop up their operations in Canada and Bombardier has received billions in public funds to build airplanes in Quebec. It's all such a crooked racket.

 

Clearly small business people across the USA and Canada are justified in not turning over their tax revenue to the government. If we do....the money is going to be handed over to a corporate CEO to subsidize their yacht, 10 homes, and private jet.

 

R,

[Stephen Williams]

Why governments are bailing out billionaires and millionaires is beyond me? No one bails out the middle class or small business owners when things go wrong for them, they are left standing there wearing nothing but a barrel.

 

Hi Richard,

 

The reason is to protect bank customers like yourself, if they did nothing there was a real possibility that the entire banking system would collapse, taking your money with it.

 

Stephen

[Guest]

Hi Richard,

 

The reason is to protect bank customers like yourself, if they did nothing there was a real possibility that the entire banking system would collapse, taking your money with it.

 

Stephen

 

Ah so billionaire bankers get a free pass for incompetence, every one else has to run their companies in an effective manner. :D

 

If only the US gov't extended this program to other companies like Enron, those thousands of people that lost their jobs would still be employed. I guess those Enron workers should have chosen bank jobs instead? What about all the WorldCom employees who saw their jobs go down the tubes, where was their bailout?

 

Oh well I'm not an American so this doesn't effect me, if I was I'd be mad as hell right now that my tax money was being used to support multi-millionaire bankers.

 

I have no idea how the US gov't could have been so impossibly stupid to allow sub-prime mortgages in the first place? The Canadian gov't did not allow sub-prime mortgages, and guess what, no financial meltdown here and the banking system is rock solid.

 

R,

 

PS: If the banking system in Canada did completely collapse I'd be ahead of the game, I owe them money than I have in the bank. I'd be in a positive position :D

[Saul Rodgar]

Hi Richard,

 

The reason is to protect bank customers like yourself, if they did nothing there was a real possibility that the entire banking system would collapse, taking your money with it.

 

Stephen

 

Indeed. However, the idiot CEO's who devised and approved the sub-prime scheme -those whose incommensurable greed got us in trouble in the first place- walk away scot-free, more often than not with a multimillion dollar bonuses to boot. Even the banks that went under are giving top execs big payouts. Now, all of it with taxpayer money, thanks to Bush and company!

 

I AM VOTING REPUBLICAN!

Edited September 19, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

[Freya Black]

You know when I saw the title I just assumed the "D" word would be digital, as opposed to like the "F" word! :)

[Saul Rodgar]

Oh well I'm not an American so this doesn't effect me, if I was I'd be mad as hell right now that my tax money was being used to support multi-millionaire bankers.

 

In 1929, the Wall Street crash wreaked havok around the world, not just in the US. That was almost a century ago. Imagine what would happen were the US economy to collapse, in the global economy we know today.

 

If anything, people around the world benefit economically from the lifeline Bush is tossing Wall Street without having to pay for it, at least directly. Cultural and economic US imperialism and war in the Middle East (US foreign policy in general) may offset having to pay taxes though.

[Thomas James]

I think the rich should give all their money to the poor.

[Stephen Williams]

I think the rich should give all their money to the poor.

 

Hi Thomas,

 

They do due to the taxation system in most countries in the world. Most very rich people do donate a large proportion to of their welalth tp charity, some rich hedge fund managers even set up a charity for Absolute return for Kids.

 

http://www.arkonline.org/?cat=3

 

Stephen

[Guest]

In 1929, the Wall Street crash wreaked havok around the world, not just in the US. That was almost a century ago. Imagine what would happen were the US economy to collapse, in the global economy we know today.

 

If anything, people around the world benefit economically from the lifeline Bush is tossing Wall Street without having to pay for it, at least directly. Cultural and economic US imperialism and war in the Middle East (US foreign policy in general) may offset having to pay taxes though.

 

The US started this mess, so I guess the US is gonna clean it up :D

 

 

I think the rich should give all their money to the poor.

 

Interesting socialist slant, where in Canada do you live? The NDP would like your vote.

 

Here's some thing fascinating, under Dwight D Eisenhower the tax rate on millionaires in the USA was 92%!!! On income and capital gains, and he was a Republican!

 

Imagine if millionaires in the USA today paid 92% tax! Right now the capital gains tax in the USA is only 15% and that's how most rich people earn their money.

 

R,

[Michael Lehnert]

Indeed. However, the idiot CEO's who devised and approved the sub-prime scheme -those whose incommensurable greed got us in trouble in the first place- walk away scot-free, more often than not with a multimillion dollar bonuses to boot. Even the banks that went under are giving top execs big payouts. Now, all of it with taxpayer money, thanks to Bush and company!

 

I AM VOTING REPUBLICAN!

 

 

Actually the sub-prime scheme was neither devised by idiot CEOs nor by the Donkey or the Elephant. In fact, it was devised as a scheme in light of by-partisan efforts to allow very poor families who wanted to own a home to excactly do that - buy a home that they would never be allowed (!) to own by banking standards so that they can settle down, have a stable environment for growing up kids, a place from which all members of the family could find a stable job and set-up a settled existence. In a way, this was a very left-wing socialist idea, one would say in some parts of the political spectrum.

 

Noone ask for example why these sub-prime mortgages default to foreclausures: because people in that market also spent money on credit card debt, which was secured against the property. As the personal spending of individuals went over the top because of a lack to knowledge on how to deal with money, or because they gave a poop and lived in the "now", or I don't know what, they were unable to repay their credit debt, couldn't pay for average living, and obviously their morgages, too.

 

As far as the big CEO/trader pay-outs are concerned: in Lehman's case, those super-duper big bonuses that the media likes to chat about and fuels so many class-war chats of the lower middle class, were mostly handed out in restricted share option, which means that up to 60% of your bonus was in that company's shares, which you weren't allowed to sell for 3 years. So it was in a way inexistent money. It was a paper bonus. Furthermore, at Lehman, bonuses were actually paid to everyone, not just the macho traders out of a bad movie, but also the mailguy, the secretary, the janitor, and the philanthropy efforts officer. So let's be a bit more nuanced.

 

I just talked to a senior board member of Lehman's here in the City (i.e. London) today. She worked at Lehman's for 25 years, and made good money (but I have seen less talented entertainment industry people earning more and living more lavish lifestyles), but right now, her entire company pension savings are completely gone, all her bonuses she ever earned are wiped-out due to the bankrupcy and invalidity of stock options, her other diversified investments are gone due to the stock falls and the run on commodities and resources and the exchange rates for foreign currency holdings, and her two properties (a house in London and a flat in Spain) are both in negative equity due to the housing bubble crash here and there. With the Lehman name in her CV, future career options are literally zero, and she is aged above 50 and female, which means that she is pretty much out of the job market anyway. With two daughters aged 10 and 12, the only thing she is thinking about now is that due to working 80 to 90 hours per week and often sleeping in the office, she hasn't seen her kids growing up.

Compared to that, my life is pretty sorted, poor as I am. So this isn't really that "those millionaraires walk away while we poor sods get shafted".

 

I do not want to give the impression of being apologetic for fat cats and people clearly ignorant and greedily stupid to device derivative products and securitised credit swaps which are just meant to fail in any economic situation eventually, and I have little sympathy for the criminal or at least "odd" behaviour all those Goldman Sachs alumni in the Wall Street, rival banks, the Fed, the US gov, let alone overseas are currently showcasing (Goldman will be the last one standing, and it will be a monolith of worrying power), but I am also fed up with simplistic comments about "those rich" and "we poor" because it really isn't that simple.

[Michael Lehnert]

In 1929, the Wall Street crash wreaked havok around the world, not just in the US. That was almost a century ago. Imagine what would happen were the US economy to collapse, in the global economy we know today.

 

If anything, people around the world benefit economically from the lifeline Bush is tossing Wall Street without having to pay for it, at least directly. Cultural and economic US imperialism and war in the Middle East (US foreign policy in general) may offset having to pay taxes though.

 

Actually, what triggered the global spread of the depression across the globe in 29 was the procectionist stance the US government took with raising tariffs that effectively halted "globalisation" of financial and . The fact that the US were financing the rebuilding of Europe after WWI on loans which they suddenly called due from countries unable to repay lead to a collape of the international trade balances and currency exchanges.

 

The idea to spin-out all the insecured debt and financial black holes into a US govt entity as proclaimed today sounds terrifying, as everyone says "the taxpayer has to pay for all this, and it's $800bn in total - wow!", which as much as the deficit "W" caused over his 8 year adinistration. So in a way, in this week, govt debt (to put it crudely) doubled.

 

On the other hand, there is no "bill" for the taxpayer, and no due-date. After WWII, several Scandinavian and Asian countries did exactly the same in order to rid their business and financial organisations of liabilities. Over the runtime of 40 years, with the repayments occuring slowly, but steadily, in the end, the taxpayer actually got a surplus (!) out of it, and made a profit that for example lies at the heart of the rather generous social systems in Japan and Sweden that exceeds any advocat of Hillarycare or the NHS could possibly imagine.

 

In a way, you are right by saying that the US is bailing out the world system it nearly brought to its end (and that was a close shave this week - so let's open a bottle of 1929 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild and drink to the next week).

(that was sarcasm)

[Michael Lehnert]

You know when I saw the title I just assumed the "D" word would be digital, as opposed to like the "F" word! :)

 

Hi Flower ;) (another F word) !

 

I am glad to posted that because that is exactly what I thought as well when I clicked on the thread!!!

 

I feared another Red here, xK there thingy. I was awestruck when I read Paul's post actually talking about the "depression" fear in the media. An important topic, and frankly more important than the newest Red sensor that even beats the new 140mm Gigabroadscreen cine-film that Arri develops for "Dark Knight II - More pseudo-psycho babble unrelated to Marvel/DC heritage, but with lots of swishing motion, dark pix with talking head actors that have no charisma but heavy make-up".

[Saul Rodgar]

Actually, what triggered the global spread of the depression across the globe in 29 was the procectionist stance the US government took with raising tariffs that effectively halted "globalisation" . . .

 

I wasn't talking about what triggered the 29' crash, but its results to the world economy. Most of the historical analyses of the '29 crash coincide in that, chief among its causes, were the speculative boom of the earlier part of the decade and the tightening of monetary policies by the fed. Your theory seems at odds with the majority of the accepted causes of the '29 crash, which can be summarized thus:

 

"The crash followed a speculative boom that had taken hold in the late 1920s, which had led hundreds of thousands of Americans to invest heavily in the stock market, a significant number even borrowing money to buy more stock. By August 1929, brokers were routinely lending small investors more than 2/3 of the face value of the stocks they were buying. Over $8.5 billion was out on loan, more than the entire amount of currency circulating in the U.S.^[9] The rising share prices encouraged more people to invest; people hoped the share prices would rise further. Speculation thus fueled further rises and created an economic bubble."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929

 

"Restrictive monetary policy by the Federal Reserve was a major cause of the recession. Some of the tightening was attributed to anti-speculative reasons, but most of the Fed?s emphasis with respect to the stock market was on moral suasion and direct pressure on banks and brokers. More important for the monetary policy tightening was the gold outflow, mainly from the United States to France."

 

http://people.few.eur.nl/smant/m-economics/crash1929.htm