Financial News

[Jenksismyhero]

I believe he's talking about efficacy of their regulations, ie how well it will work, not that nobody understands the bill they wrote.

 

Then he should have said how WELL it will work, not just how it will work.

 

And I still have zero faith in these morons. They're being educated by lobbyists, they propose and sign legislation they don't fully understand or read. I completely agree that there needs to be a change in the financial system, but I guarantee you no matter who is proposing/signing the bill it's not done for the benefit of you and me.

[NorthSideSox72]

And at least to me...the fact that the financial industry lobbyists aren't the ones who have any idea what is going on and yet are the ones making all the decisions is kinda a big part of the problem.

Well that's not accurate either - I'd bet many of the lobbyists DO know what's going on, but they will frame it to protect themselves.

 

I don't expect a Senator to be an expert on everything. I do however expect them to be smart enough to know what they don't know, and have a few numbers to call in pretty much any subject area (finance, for example) to get some information from someone who gets it and is NOT a lobbyist. Further, I expect them to use the resources already available in the federal government, such as people in the regulatory bodies, to get yet more information.

 

[StrangeSox]

Then he should have said how WELL it will work, not just how it will work.

 

It may have been poorly phrased, but in context I think it's clear what he meant.

 

And I still have zero faith in these morons. They're being educated by lobbyists, they propose and sign legislation they don't fully understand or read. I completely agree that there needs to be a change in the financial system, but I guarantee you no matter who is proposing/signing the bill it's not done for the benefit of you and me.

 

I'm in agreement here.

 

[Cknolls]

There are no more dominoes to fall after prime mortgages, it just takes years for everything to work itself out.

 

 

Commercial real estate?

[Cknolls]

QE2 will entail the gov't. buying massive amounts of muni debt. What's another trillion+ on the Fed's balance sheet.

[Texsox]

A little anecdotal addition to this disussion..

 

A few doors down from us, back in 2008, someone bought a single city lot (in a slot between Bucktown and Lincoln Park), with an existing but dilapidated 2-flat, for $580k. He took out a total loan of $1.1M for the property and cost to build. Asked for a zoning variance to go 3 units, was denied due to neighborhood resistance, and decided to build a single family home. Needless to say, things didn't go well - I don't see what single family home you can build on a single lot in our neighborhood that would net you above $1.1M. The building went up, framed, but the guy lost the building in foreclosure before anything other than the frame could be finished. So there was this partially built structure just sitting there for 2 years.

 

Bank just sold the property for... wait for it... $180,000. It listed at that price from the bank, and was under contract within a week (hell, the land is worth twice that, even with the big price drops). Someone, long run, got a steal there.

 

Hopefully we won't have a derelict building there for long.

 

There was a similar story down here, but the kicker was the group that bought the lot and partially finished building was controlled by the guy who originally had it.

[Balta1701]

What's another trillion+ on the Fed's balance sheet.

I have no problem with that and think it's a good idea.

[kapkomet]

I have no problem with that and think it's a good idea.

 

 

 

Well, oh, wait...

 

 

More stimulus, Victor?

[Cknolls]

I have no problem with that and think it's a good idea.

 

 

Shocking!

[Balta1701]

Well, the good news is that you guys are going to get a test of your mantra, that what we really should be doing now is cutting back on stimulus and balancing budgets, because the world is going that way. So if you're wrong, even though we'll have a worldwide lost decade or so, at least, we'll know.

[kapkomet]

I have an idea. Let's pass 15 TRRRRRRRRRRRillion dollars worth of entitlements and then bankrupt our ass. That'll work. We've already done that.

 

Mark my words right here and now.

 

2011 is going to be BRUTAL.

 

[mr_genius]

2011 is going to be BRUTAL.

 

got any predictions?

[Cknolls]

got any predictions?

 

 

S&P low below 500. 437.88 to be exact within 18 months..

[Balta1701]

S&P low below 500. 437.88 to be exact within 18 months..

Kap...something tells me your prediction for a bad 2011 doesn't look too good suddenly...

[mr_genius]

S&P low below 500. 437.88 to be exact within 18 months..

 

that's a big prediction; in both severity and accuracy

[kapkomet]

Kap...something tells me your prediction for a bad 2011 doesn't look too good suddenly...

 

 

You're right... what am I going to do?

 

Seriously, though, it's setting up to be the worst year in modern times economically. There's several factors for it.

[Balta1701]

Seriously, though, it's setting up to be the worst year in modern times economically. There's several factors for it.

2008?

 

Anyway, the world's doing exactly what you want and refocusing on cutting back on stimulus, firing people on government jobs (i.e. teachers), and ending unemployment benefits to alleviate debt. Unless you've been completely wrong, that means the world should start growing faster.

[kapkomet]

2008?

 

Anyway, the world's doing exactly what you want and refocusing on cutting back on stimulus, firing people on government jobs (i.e. teachers), and ending unemployment benefits to alleviate debt. Unless you've been completely wrong, that means the world should start growing faster.

 

 

Yea, EXAAAAACTLY what I want. You're something else.

[Balta1701]

Yea, EXAAAAACTLY what I want. You're something else.

Oh, well in that case, thank you for your newfound support of the job bills hung up in the Senate.

[mr_genius]

2008?

 

Anyway, the world's doing exactly what you want and refocusing on cutting back on stimulus, firing people on government jobs

 

can't pay for all those $100,000 a year government admin jobs when there is a much smaller tax base. got to live within your means.

Edited June 27, 2010 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

can't pay for all those $100,000 a year government admin jobs when there is no tax base. got to live within your means.

And trying to live within your means when the fed can't lower rates any more won't work any better now than it did in 1929.

 

That's the Paradox of Thrift in a nutshell.

[mr_genius]

And trying to live within your means when the fed can't lower rates any more won't work any better now than it did in 1929.

 

That's the Paradox of Thrift in a nutshell.

 

ah yes, the 'OMG GREAT DEPRESSION FOR SURE!" tactic.

 

so, Balta, how much deficit spending do we need to avoid the Great Depression II. How many new pointless government jobs will save the economy? How much will all these jobs cost?

 

$5 trillion? $50 trillion? $100 trillion?

 

You know, we can print that much. And exactly, besides the new government jobs, where will the other jobs come from?

[Balta1701]

ah yes, the 'OMG GREAT DEPRESSION FOR SURE!" tactic.

 

so, Balta, how much deficit spending do we need to avoid the Great Depression II. How many new pointless government jobs will save the economy? How much will all these jobs cost?

 

$5 trillion? $50 trillion? $100 trillion?

 

You know, we can print that much. And exactly, besides the new government jobs, where will the other jobs come from?

First of all...I'm impressed that you can include firing 200k teachers as "pointless government jobs".

 

Secondly...if we can't keep printing more money, why do bond yields and inflation rates keep dropping?

 

And third...hypothetically, let's say we follow your path and fiscally retrench and try to rebalance budgets. Where do the jobs come from in your case? Businesses right now have enough cash to expand hiring if it is a good business decision, but none of them are doing so, because there's no demand for their products.

 

$8 trillion or so in consumer wealth was eliminated by the housing bubble. ON top of that, the average american hasn't gotten a raise in a decade, and unemployment has more than doubled. Your fiscal retrenchment proposal has an even worse problem with "where will the other jobs come from".

[kapkomet]

No demand? I thought Barackus the Great was going to fix that?

 

Now we've spent trillions and still don't have demand. Why? Because you can't create private sector demand by shifting the money into government. Huh, what a concept.

[mr_genius]

First of all...I'm impressed that you can include firing 200k teachers as "pointless government jobs".

 

you guys are the ones who want to fire the teachers. i suggest firing the pointless government administrators. but of course, the Democrats threaten to fire all the police and teachers first. who would want that!

 

Secondly...if we can't keep printing more money, why do bond yields and inflation rates keep dropping?

 

oh we can print more. so who are you going to give it to? some should go to me. i am entitled.

 

And third...hypothetically, let's say we follow your path and fiscally retrench and try to rebalance budgets. Where do the jobs come from in your case? Businesses right now have enough cash to expand hiring if it is a good business decision, but none of them are doing so, because there's no demand for their products.

 

$8 trillion or so in consumer wealth was eliminated by the housing bubble. ON top of that, the average american hasn't gotten a raise in a decade, and unemployment has more than doubled. Your fiscal retrenchment proposal has an even worse problem with "where will the other jobs come from".

 

affordable housing is a good thing. the overpriced housing market correction was inevitable.

 

there are some realities here; all those jobs are gone to modernization or outsourcing. the cost of living in the United States probably needs to be reduced. you aren't against globalization are you?

 

if you are against globalization, how could you be such a cruel protectionist?