Jump to content

The Economy, stupid


NorthSideSox72

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 05:57 AM)
As important as the auto industry is to the economy, it pales in comparison to the financial community. The financial system, the banks of all kinds, have to come first. Without the efficient movement of money through the financial system, no other industry matters. They are just not remotely comparable.

Whether you realize it or not, you just gave the entire reason for why we have to break these banks up and why they can never even come close to approaching this size again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 11:15 AM)
Whether you realize it or not, you just gave the entire reason for why we have to break these banks up and why they can never even come close to approaching this size again.

 

Starting with Freddie and Fannie, which are the crux of this entire problem in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 11:56 AM)
So, just how much did the Dow drop while Obama was introducing his new economic team? 130-140 points? That was interesting, to say the least.

Classic buy the rumor, sell the news. When Obama info about his team "leaked" on Friday, it ran 400 points. He announced, and it fell 150.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 09:54 AM)
Starting with Freddie and Fannie, which are the crux of this entire problem in the first place.

Except that they weren't the ones writing the majority of the bad loans the last few years nor were they the ones dramatically over leveraging on them.

 

An interesting thing to think about on your point though...if FNMA and FDMC did not exist...and we also imposed a limit on the size of banks so that we couldn't get "Too big to fail" entities...how many banks would we need to handle the mortgage market?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 01:11 PM)
Except that they weren't the ones writing the majority of the bad loans the last few years nor were they the ones dramatically over leveraging on them.

 

An interesting thing to think about on your point though...if FNMA and FDMC did not exist...and we also imposed a limit on the size of banks so that we couldn't get "Too big to fail" entities...how many banks would we need to handle the mortgage market?

 

They weren't writing them, but they were guarenteeing them. There really isn't any difference between the two. Without Freddie and Fannie around to buy this crap, these loans don't get made. The fact that there was a government entity created to back this crap up is what caused this problem. The size of the banks is a secondary problem. Then again, if they made government entities applicable to the same anti-trust standards that they want to apply to banks, this would have also never happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Switching topics a bit...2k5...your $2 trillion prediction? I think we've just blown past it by a factor of 3.85.

The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

 

The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 01:23 PM)
Switching topics a bit...2k5...your $2 trillion prediction? I think we've just blown past it by a factor of 3.85.

 

How depressing. I really am looking forward to the study that indicated how much of this would not have happened if not for Sarbane's Oxley requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 01:50 PM)
It's probably also worth noting here that the economists out there who have been closer to correct on these messes than the folks running the government seem to Hate the Citi deal, because it looks an awful lot like a blank check for which the taxpayer gets very little.

Its less of one than some of the more recent examples.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 01:15 PM)
They weren't writing them, but they were guarenteeing them. There really isn't any difference between the two. Without Freddie and Fannie around to buy this crap, these loans don't get made. The fact that there was a government entity created to back this crap up is what caused this problem. The size of the banks is a secondary problem. Then again, if they made government entities applicable to the same anti-trust standards that they want to apply to banks, this would have also never happened.

 

I thought that these mortgages were being underwritten by a bunch of private firms for years and Freddie and Fannie had to beg to be able to write them because they were losing so much business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Major indices finished up another 5 to 6% today, after big gains Friday. S&P up 11% in two days.

 

Oil up 9% today, back to the mid 50's.

 

I have to admit, my oil predictions were about $10/bbl off. I figured it would stick around the 60's, and flirt into the 50's a few times. Its been about 10 below that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I've found out in excruciating detail why exactly this crisis has befallen the U.S. economy, why the moves by the government have seemed so foolish and haphazard, why the bailout plans have seemed so corrupt, and so on. The answer is found within this paragraph.

s the financial crisis worsened, Bernanke worked more closely with Paulson, who, after becoming Treasury Secretary, in June, 2006, had established considerable autonomy in determining the Bush Administration’s economic policy. The men appeared to have little in common. Bernanke was scholarly and reserved; Paulson, an English major who played offensive tackle for Dartmouth in the seventies, where he was known as the Hammer, was gregarious. Both, however, were political moderates who liked baseball. On his desk, Paulson, a Cubs fan, kept a copy of Bill James’s “Historical Baseball Abstract,” given to him by Bernanke, a former Red Sox fan who, since moving to the capital, had adopted the Washington Nationals.
Oh. Well, that explains it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...