Yes, that was an idiotic remark.


The rest of them are just crooks. The whole lot of 'em.




Morrigoon ... the mortgage crisis is simply the back-breaking straw. I like your solution better than simply throwing money at buying the worthless debt. But the problem is far deeper than merely the latest symptom (mortgage-backed-securities). It's been headed this way for 30 years, and it's the entire concept of free-markets-uber-alis. Homeowner relief does nothing to address that.

It's not that I want no action taken, it's that I don't think our system is capable of taking any action that would make a difference. Look at the complete failure of Congress to agree on the band-aid. How in the world would they ever accomplish healing the disease???



We.Are.Fvcked.

If congress passes a version of the bailout plan with restrictions, then yes. Basically it would be in the form of, "If your company accepts money from the bailout fund, you will agree to these restrictions on executive compensation."

The argument in favor of those restrictions is that the executives at the companies in most need of help do not deserve to cash out on whatever compensation contracts they have seeing as they failed to do what they were contracted to do. They shouldn't be allowed to accept a bailout and then profit from it.

The argument against it is that it'll defeat the purpose of the bailout. Institutions that aren't in dire shape won't want to agree to the restrictions so they won't take the money. That leaves only the ones that are in absolute dire straits who might be willing to take it. But then taking it would be a sure sign that they're in bad shape, so people are going to be reluctant to invest in them, bailout or no, so THEY'LL be reluctant to buy into the program also.

Thanks for the explanation. Although I wouldn't be surprised down the road if someone who ends up not getting their golden parachute sues to get it anyways.

What happens if they do nothing? If they don't do any bail out at all and just the chips fall - what could happen?

The entire collapse of our economy? If so, what does that mean? That I'll be growing my own vegetables because my store won't have any? Will we all start stocking up on canned goods and hoard things? Will I not have gas for work? Or worse, will no one want what we sell and my employer will go out of business? Or will things fall then stablize before things like that happen?

Unemployment in 1933: 24.9%

Great Depression Timeline

From Goonie's link - I was not aware of this:

Basically, businesses will no longer have easy, liquid access to money. Millions of dollars of loans get approved pretty much daily to keep businesses going and able to act quickly. If the institutions that provide these loans don't stabilize, if they don't feel confident that they'll get the money they loan out back and they don't feel confident that the investments that provide them the money to loan out will continue to have value, then business can't move forward. Instead of borrowing that money, companies will have to get it from somewhere, in the form of increasing revenue and decreasing costs. Supplies will drop, prices will go up, jobs will be eliminated, shipping lines will be slowed down. Debts will be called in, credit available to consumers will start to erode away, etc. etc.

In the best case, a new balance point is found and things do stabilize. Worst case, the sh*t hits the fan, the fact that we exist on an economy of almost pure credit catches up with us, and the concept of value gets completely out of whack and we see out of control inflation.

I don't know how much of that linked timeline is true, as it does seem to be an opinion piece, but interesting if it is so. Given knowledge of people at the time, I suppose it's entirely plausible.

Wiki info on the alleged plot.