"The Quiet Coup"

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You make it sound like they gave away 40% of GDP to the financial sector for nothing in return. That just isn't true. I don't know that the 40% number is accurate with respect to Obama's commitments (he isn't responsible for TARP, but be is responsible for the stimulus package and PPIP), but regardless, the financial commitments have been investments much more than "bailouts." Those investments have come with heavy strings attached, so much so that the "oligarchy" which Obama is supposedly beholden to can't wait to pay the funds back (which the government would love, by the way).

The government has taken equity in the entities it has funded in the form of warrants and preferred stock. A recent analysis by the CBO indicated that, with respect to TARP (Bush's plan), the US got equity worth about $.66 for each $1.00 it invested. PPIP is designed to avoid that kind of valuation gap.

I simply find it amusing that Arch and Waters trot out the "beholden to the financial oligarchy" with Obama when Obama is actually taking many steps that Wall Street hasn't "approved."

Nothing of import.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by mikewaters

what about hinckley and jodie foster?

gbh?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Nothing of import.

That must explain why you thought he was destroying Wall Street a month ago.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That must explain why you thought he was destroying Wall Street a month ago.

He is, just not in the manner I find desirable.

We need transparency and responsiveness to a level not experienced. We don't need to price ourselves out of markets altogether.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That must explain why you thought he was destroying Wall Street a month ago.

He's never said anything coherent about the finance sector ever. That's not my area of expertise either, but if you compare what he's saying to what he said before, and what's actually happening, it's economic nonsense.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

He's never said anything coherent about the finance sector ever. That's not my area of expertise either, but if you compare what he's saying to what he said before, and what's actually happening, it's economic nonsense.

My quick observations:

The bank bailout was a failure because the toxic assets were valued too highly and transparency was not required.

The anti-stimulus package did not "stimulate" key sectors despite the economic bullshit of just doling it out the poor. We needed more targeted stimulus, not pork.

But Chino you think you think like an economist, who even as Pellagius has pointed out, are philosophically aligned with the liberal camp, so it's no wonder the group mentality is at work, and the oligarchy can control you so easily.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

My quick observations:

The bank bailout was a failure because the toxic assets were valued too highly and transparency was not required.

The anti-stimulus package did not "stimulate" key sectors despite the economic bullshit of just doling it out the poor. We needed more targeted stimulus, not pork.

But Chino you think you think like an economist, who even as Pellagius has pointed out, are philosophically aligned with the liberal camp, so it's no wonder the group mentality is at work, and the oligarchy can control you so easily.

The point of a stimulus is to get as much money flowing into the economy to stimulate activity right away. It is not to stimulate sectors. If you give $1 to the poor, he'll put all of it into the economy. Give $1 to the rich, and he'll save most of it.

Most economics departments have more dems thand pubs, but not a BYU where I got my degree.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

The point of a stimulus is to get as much money flowing into the economy to stimulate activity right away. It is not to stimulate sectors. If you give $1 to the poor, he'll put all of it into the economy. Give $1 to the rich, and he'll save most of it.

Most economics departments have more dems thand pubs, but not a BYU where I got my degree.

"more", that's an understatement.

I understand your statement and understand the basis upon which it's premised. But I believe it ignores the need to stimulate particular sectors rather than to diffuse with that bullshit belief the poor will spend because they have to. They don't stimulate all the necessary, failing sectors.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

My quick observations:

The bank bailout was a failure because the toxic assets were valued too highly and transparency was not required.

The anti-stimulus package did not "stimulate" key sectors despite the economic bullshit of just doling it out the poor. We needed more targeted stimulus, not pork.

But Chino you think you think like an economist, who even as Pellagius has pointed out, are philosophically aligned with the liberal camp, so it's no wonder the group mentality is at work, and the oligarchy can control you so easily.

First off, there is absolutely no possibility that the bank bailout can be deemed a failure or a success this soon after it occurred. It will be years before we know anything concrete. Second of all, despite my statement in the first sentence, the early indicators, for what little they are worth, seem to indicate that the bailout was helpful and is accelerating our escape from this recession. Third of all, the stimulus package can hardly be characterized as primarily doling money out to the poor. Fourth of all, doling out money into certain activities (including food stamps and other aid to the poor is actually one of the best forms of "investment" the government can make from a stimulus perspective; this is a measurable fact).

[Tex]

Stimulus jobs:

How much are politicians straining to convince people that the government is stimulating the economy? In Oregon, where lawmakers are spending $176 million to supplement the federal stimulus, Democrats are taking credit for a remarkable feat: creating 3,236 new jobs in the program's first three months.

But those jobs lasted on average only 35 hours, or about one work week. After that, those workers were effectively back unemployed, according to an Associated Press analysis of state spending and hiring data. By the state's accounting, a job is a job, whether it lasts three hours, three days, three months, or a lifetime.

"Sometimes some work for an individual is better than no work," said Oregon's Senate president, Peter Courtney.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...9EQLgD99NA4VO3