Jump to content
The Education Forum

Black Monday


Mark Stapleton
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It seems that Bush has come under tremendous pressure from the electorate when he decided to nationalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was thought that this action would destroy the Republicans in the November elections. This was why Bush refused to bail out Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank in the US. However, the new policy did not last too long and today the US Federal Reserve has announced an $85bn (£48bn) rescue package for AIG, the country's biggest insurance company, to save it from bankruptcy. AIG will get an $85bn loan, in return for an 80% public stake in the firm.

Bush had no option but to do this. If he hadn't there would have been totally meltdown on the markets. The reason is that AIG insures deals and investments across the globe. Were the company to fail, many banks and investment funds in the US and around the world would lose their insurance cover at a time when defaults on payments are likely to rise. If AIG went, so would other leading banks in the US. Is Bush the new FDR? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that Bush has come under tremendous pressure from the electorate when he decided to nationalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was thought that this action would destroy the Republicans in the November elections. This was why Bush refused to bail out Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank in the US. However, the new policy did not last too long and today the US Federal Reserve has announced an $85bn (£48bn) rescue package for AIG, the country's biggest insurance company, to save it from bankruptcy. AIG will get an $85bn loan, in return for an 80% public stake in the firm.

Bush had no option but to do this. If he hadn't there would have been totally meltdown on the markets. The reason is that AIG insures deals and investments across the globe. Were the company to fail, many banks and investment funds in the US and around the world would lose their insurance cover at a time when defaults on payments are likely to rise. If AIG went, so would other leading banks in the US. Is Bush the new FDR? :)

What you're witnessing is an attempted bailout of the $300 trillion derivatives markets. This current policy has nothing to do with the action and policy of FDR.

The Bush administration is trying to bail out the speculators. They're pumping huge amounts of liquidity into the banking system. This is crazy and it will not work. With perhaps as much as $600 trillion in derivatives world wide there is simply no way to bail out the system.

If current President Bush wanted to act like FDR then he would declare the system bankrupt and freeze everything.

But what you're seeing these last few weeks is a money pumping operation to end all money pumping. It is insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all the bail-outs by the U.S. government going on, I would like to propose a new national anthem (to the tune of "He's in the Jailhouse Now"):

They're being bailed out now

They're being bailed out now

I warned 'em once and I warned 'em twice

That mortgage loans are like shootin' dice

They're being bailed out now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all the bail-outs by the U.S. government going on, I would like to propose a new national anthem (to the tune of "He's in the Jailhouse Now"):

They're being bailed out now

They're being bailed out now

I warned 'em once and I warned 'em twice

That mortgage loans are like shootin' dice

They're being bailed out now

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/09/17...-greenspan.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said on many occasions, I'm a financial numpty. It seems silly to stop the "free market" from acting appropriately. On the other hand, many people would be adversely affected by a collapse (job losses, loss of assets, etc), so it may be better to "help them over a rough patch".

What are the pros and cons of just letting these institutions fail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said on many occasions, I'm a financial numpty. It seems silly to stop the "free market" from acting appropriately. On the other hand, many people would be adversely affected by a collapse (job losses, loss of assets, etc), so it may be better to "help them over a rough patch".

What are the pros and cons of just letting these institutions fail?

The free market is acting appropriately. This collapse is the result of the so called "free market". America was not founded on free trade, free market dogmas. You are thinking of Adam Smith and the "invisible hand". The current system should be placed into bankruptcy reorganization by governments.

http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3522crash_...e_election.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said on many occasions, I'm a financial numpty. It seems silly to stop the "free market" from acting appropriately. On the other hand, many people would be adversely affected by a collapse (job losses, loss of assets, etc), so it may be better to "help them over a rough patch".

What are the pros and cons of just letting these institutions fail?

The free market is acting appropriately. This collapse is the result of the so called "free market". America was not founded on free trade, free market dogmas. You are thinking of Adam Smith and the "invisible hand". The current system should be placed into bankruptcy reorganization by governments.

http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3522crash_...e_election.html

It has also being described as "socialism for the rich" as they continue to plead for more nationalisation.

Where has Craig Lampson gone? Maybe he has taken a lie down in a dark-room with Tim Gratz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said on many occasions, I'm a financial numpty. It seems silly to stop the "free market" from acting appropriately. On the other hand, many people would be adversely affected by a collapse (job losses, loss of assets, etc), so it may be better to "help them over a rough patch".

What are the pros and cons of just letting these institutions fail?

The free market is acting appropriately. This collapse is the result of the so called "free market". America was not founded on free trade, free market dogmas. You are thinking of Adam Smith and the "invisible hand". The current system should be placed into bankruptcy reorganization by governments.

http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3522crash_...e_election.html

It has also being described as "socialism for the rich" as they continue to plead for more nationalisation.

Where has Craig Lampson gone? Maybe he has taken a lie down in a dark-room with Tim Gratz.

The name Lamson, and for some reason my posts are not getting posted. Have a look see jonny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans are headed for truly hard times. I fear that we could see something worse than the Great Depression. Neither of the two nearly identical political parties will address the real issues. Terry mentioned free trade; any mainstream presidential candidate has to express slavish devotion to free trade, which is exemplified by the disaster that is NAFTA. What kind of country continually cuts deals and formulates plans that ensure the demise of all its industry? Ross Perot tried to point this out back in the 1990s.

Because of these deals, which allow our markets to be flooded with imports, while other countries are allowed to place significant restrictions on what we can export to them, America now makes virtually nothing substantial. While we may not make many clothes, electronic products or automobiles in our country anymore, we do lead the world in "consultants," "analysts," and "vice presidents in charge of looking out the window." We are increasingly becoming a have and have not society, with the middle class being squeezed out of existence. With bloated plutocrats like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates having enough wealth themselves to make hundreds of thousands of families millionaires, a reemergence of Huey Long's "Share The Wealth" movement, which was wildly popular in the early to mid 1930s, is long overdue.

People's pensions, 401K plans and IRA investments are all in jeopardy now. We need a massive redistribution of wealth, as well as a recognition that workers have to be paid enough to meet the costs of living. As it stands now, the cost of living is rising much more rapidly than the meager raises (when there are any at all) most working people receive annually. Combined with the ticking time bomb of Social Security, and we are in dire straits unless our corrupt and incompetent leaders don't finally act in the public interest.

If only I could get my name on the ballot....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of these deals, which allow our markets to be flooded with imports, while other countries are allowed to place significant restrictions on what we can export to them, America now makes virtually nothing substantial. While we may not make many clothes, electronic products or automobiles in our country anymore, we do lead the world in "consultants," "analysts," and "vice presidents in charge of looking out the window." We are increasingly becoming a have and have not society, with the middle class being squeezed out of existence. With bloated plutocrats like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates having enough wealth themselves to make hundreds of thousands of families millionaires, a reemergence of Huey Long's "Share The Wealth" movement, which was wildly popular in the early to mid 1930s, is long overdue.

I have long thought that the US needs someone like Huey Long. However, look what happened to him when they thought he would become president.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlongH.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans are headed for truly hard times. I fear that we could see something worse than the Great Depression. Neither of the two nearly identical political parties will address the real issues. Terry mentioned free trade; any mainstream presidential candidate has to express slavish devotion to free trade, which is exemplified by the disaster that is NAFTA. What kind of country continually cuts deals and formulates plans that ensure the demise of all its industry? Ross Perot tried to point this out back in the 1990s.

Because of these deals, which allow our markets to be flooded with imports, while other countries are allowed to place significant restrictions on what we can export to them, America now makes virtually nothing substantial. While we may not make many clothes, electronic products or automobiles in our country anymore, we do lead the world in "consultants," "analysts," and "vice presidents in charge of looking out the window." We are increasingly becoming a have and have not society, with the middle class being squeezed out of existence. With bloated plutocrats like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates having enough wealth themselves to make hundreds of thousands of families millionaires, a reemergence of Huey Long's "Share The Wealth" movement, which was wildly popular in the early to mid 1930s, is long overdue.

People's pensions, 401K plans and IRA investments are all in jeopardy now. We need a massive redistribution of wealth, as well as a recognition that workers have to be paid enough to meet the costs of living. As it stands now, the cost of living is rising much more rapidly than the meager raises (when there are any at all) most working people receive annually. Combined with the ticking time bomb of Social Security, and we are in dire straits unless our corrupt and incompetent leaders don't finally act in the public interest.

If only I could get my name on the ballot....

A very high percentage of Americans believe that this nation was founded under the rubic of Adam Smith's "Free Trade" doctrine. This is false. America was founded under the "American System of Political Economy". Lincoln, FDR and JFK were all practitioners of the American System. So we havent had any economic growth in physical terms since the mid 1960's. Monetary values have exploded but there has been no increase per capita in the physical wealth of the nation.

And Don I don't subcribe to our problems being the result of a few bad leaders. The problem lies with the population, they are the real problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...