Thread: Stop the Bailout

I guess I'd have to ask who is this guy and why should I listen to him instead of to Warren Buffet?

There is actually very little on Karl Denninger on the web, beyond some posts that identify him as a blogger with a background in tech. He's evidently not a financial professional.

Interesting, though, that he couples the end of the world as we know it to problems with preferred stock. In other words, he says he's worried that we won't protect preferred stock (such as the stock one would find in the severance packages of the grifters who got us into this situation) by laying the losses off onto common stock (such as that which would be owned by you or me). Who's being protected here? (Just a question.)

Interesting point of view, but not a slam dunk in my book.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

I guess I'd have to ask who is this guy and why should I listen to him instead of to Warren Buffet?

There is actually very little on Karl Denninger on the web, beyond some posts that identify him as a blogger with a background in tech. He's evidently not a financial professional.

Interesting, though, that he couples the end of the world as we know it to problems with preferred stock. In other words, he says he's worried that we won't protect preferred stock (such as the stock one would find in the severance packages of the grifters who got us into this situation) by laying the losses off onto common stock (such as that which would be owned by you or me). Who's being protected here? (Just a question.)

Interesting point of view, but not a slam dunk in my book.

j

Is Warren Buffet investing $5 Billion of his own money, or is that the money of his investors?



BTW I wrote my congressman and senator last week....

I must be missing something here????? It is my understanding that 98% of the Americans polled have said NO to a bailout with our money, but despite that, our "Representatives" in Washington are going ahead with it anyway..... Do I have that wrong?????

That my friends is "taxation without representation" somewhere I have heard that phase before.....

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I must be missing something here????? It is my understanding that 98% of the Americans polled have said NO to a bailout with our money, but despite that, our "Representatives" in Washington are going ahead with it anyway..... Do I have that wrong?????

That my friends is "taxation without representation" somewhere I have heard that phase before.....

No, sadly you don't have it wrong. This is again a case of the people we send back to do our bidding thinking they know more about our own lives than we do. Funny, if I'm your employer and you don't do what I say I get to fire you, but people are so easily swayed by the "us vs. them (the rich/white/male/liberal/feminist/etc.)" argument that politicians drag out for another round every election cycle that nothing really changes. IF this is REALLY a bolster to help the economy and boost international confidence in the American markets, there's a simple solution that wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime: Repeal the capital gains and inheritance taxes. But no. Orrin Hatch knows much more about what's best for me than I do. Thank the Lord above I have him to guide and direct me, otherwise I might not have sense enough to come in out of the rain, or I might start buying up all sorts of consumer credit debt all will-they-nil-they with a "What, me worry?" grin on my face. Good thing he's there to stop me, being so enlightened. You too, Matheson. Turds.

Originally Posted by maplemaker

IF this is REALLY a bolster to help the economy and boost international confidence in the American markets, there's a simple solution that wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime: Repeal the capital gains and inheritance taxes.

Actually, this is a plan to free up credit for businesses that's increasingly freezing up. I don't understand at all how decreasing a capital gains and inheritance tax fixes this at all.

It will increase investing, which in turn will bring the market back up, which will open more capital flow which will give business more solvency. Everything I'm hearing is about how if we don't do it, international investor confidence will be lost, the stock market will crash, the moon will turn to blood and a plague of locusts will cover the earth. OK, so, boost the confidence. Don't socialize insurance and mortgage firms. Just for the poops and laughs files, the money they're talking about paying would be enough to pay every single American roughly 2 million dollars each. Tell you what, congress, give me that money. I'll spend it much more wisely than you or AIG can...

Originally Posted by maplemaker

Just for the poops and laughs files, the money they're talking about paying would be enough to pay every single American roughly 2 million dollars each. Tell you what, congress, give me that money. I'll spend it much more wisely than you or AIG can...

I am not sure what money you are talking about, but the $700 billion bailout amounts to about $2,300 per person in the USA, not $2 million. $700,000,000,000 / 302,000,000 - that is the bailout divided by the population (approximate).

That is not to say it is good or bad, just that it is a few orders of magnitude smaller than you stated.

Lou

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Is Warren Buffet investing $5 Billion of his own money, or is that the money of his investors?...

Both. Berkshire-Hathaway is investing the $5 billion, and Buffet owns something like 38% of Bershire-Hathaway.

The current $700 billion Paulson bailout plan has brought to the forefront a new class of what must be called American Oligarchs and oligarch wannabes. Some may have originally earned their wealth by supplying consumers with desired goods, but at some point they crossed over to the dark side to use government as a vehicle to take from the poor and the middle class to give to themselves. Others, never produced an honest product and have been career long parasites on the working classes.
An oligarchy is generally considered any form of government where a small elite segment of society, be they from royalty, wealth, family or military, rule. The most current day popular meaning associates an oligarch with an extremely wealthy person who acquires his wealth, or increases it significantly, by incorporating the use of government influence. Oligarchs are not the only ones who become rich, but their success and secretive influence over governments put them into a separate class.
Paulson's "bailout" plan has little to do with bailing out banks in trouble. In fact, if his plan is approved by Congress, it is likely the number of banks that will be in trouble will hardly decrease. Billions more in real bailout money will be needed to bail these banks out. This $700 billion may end up in many places, but it doesn't appear it is going to bail out many troubled banks. This could be news to many Americans, since it also appeared to be news to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who is something of Paulson's lapdog. Bernanke tends to follow Paulson's lead and doesn't generally get out of order, but he even barked as he was figuring out what Paulson was up to.
The Paulson plan breaks the government hold over the nation. It takes considerable power away from Congress and puts it in the hands of the Treasury. No one even notices the absence of the President— we just assume Treasury’s got this one. I’m not saying any of this is a good thing, I’m merely observing that far from centralizing the power, it breaks government into sharply competing... fiefdoms.
Hard times are coming folks.

Take a look at what Dr. Paul had to say.

YouTube - Ron Paul risk was shifted to the people from the corportions