WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

home | about | tracker | comics

it devolves into boys talking about sports and hardcore
Posted by G lib on 2008-09-30 12:32:05 +0000

Protecting the public interest in any economic "bailout"

From Punk as Fuck's boyfriend (she shook his hand once, and never wanted to wash it again) *Protecting the public interest in any economic "bailout"* The U.S. government has been turned into an engine that accelerates the wealth upwards into the hands of a few. The Wall Street bailout, the Iraq War, military spending, tax cuts to the rich, and a for-profit health care system are all about the acceleration of wealth upwards. And now, the American people are about to pay the price of the collapse of the $513 trillion Ponzi scheme of derivatives. Yes, that’s half a quadrillion dollars. Our first trillion dollar compression bandage will hardly stem the hemorrhaging of an unsustainable Ponzi scheme built on debt "de-leverages." Does anyone seriously think that our public and private debts of some $45 trillion will be paid? That the administration's growth of the federal debt from $5.6 trillion to $9.8 trillion while borrowing another trillion dollars from Social Security has nothing to do with this? Does anyone not see that when we spend nearly $16,000 for every family of four in our society for the military each year that we are heading over the cliff? This is a debt crisis, not a credit crisis. Just as FDR had to save capitalism after Wall Street excesses, we have to re-invigorate our economy with real - not imaginary - growth. It does not address the never-ending war on the middle class. The same corporate interests that profited from the closing of U.S. factories, the movement of millions of jobs out of America, the off-shoring of profits, the out-sourcing of workers, the crushing of pension funds, the knocking down of wages, the cancellation of health care benefits, the sub-prime lending are now rushing to Washington to get money to protect themselves. The double standard is stunning: their profits are their profits, but their losses are our losses. This bailout will not bring real jobs back to America. It will not bring back jobs that make things. It does not rebuild our schools, streets, neighborhoods, parks or bridges. The major product of this financial economy is now debt. Industrial capitalism has been destroyed. In the next few days I will push for a plan that includes equity for every American in any taxpayer investment in this so-called bail-out plan. Since the bailout will cost each and every American about $2,300, I have proposed the creation of a United States Mutual Trust Fund, which will take control of $700 billion in stock assets, convert those assets to shares, and distribute $2,300 worth of shares to new individual savings accounts in the name of each and every American. I will also insist that all of the following issues be considered in whatever Congress passes: Reinstatement of the provisions of Glass-Steagall, which forbade speculation Re-regulation of the finance, insurance, and real estate industries Accountability on the part of those who took the companies down: a) resignations of management b) givebacks of executive compensation packages c) limitations on executive compensation d) admission by CEO's of what went wrong and how, prior to any government bailout Demands for transparencey a) with respect to analyzing the transactions which took the companies down b) with respect to Treasury's dealings with the companies pre and post-bailout An equity position for the taxpayers a) some form of ownership of assets Some credible formula for evaluating the price of the assets that the government is buying. A sunset clause on the legislation Full public disclosure by members of Congress of assets held, with possible conflicts put in blind trust. A ban on political campaign contributions from officers of corporations receiving bailouts A requirement that 2008 cycle candidates return political contributions to officers and representatives of corporations receiving bailouts And, most importantly, some mechanism for direct assistance to homeowners saddled with unreasonable or unmanageable mortgages, as well as protection for renters who have lived up to their obligation but fall victim to financial tragedy when the property they live in undergoes foreclosure. These are just some thoughts on the run. You will hear more from me tomorrow. Dennis Kucinich http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2442&Itemid=1

Posted by MF DU on 2008-09-30 13:05:50 +0000
Ponzi scheme or no, if banks stop lending each oher money or charge much higher intrest rates to do so, that "Wall St" activity will filter directly down to Main St. A bailout is unfortunate, but I hope folks like the stuff that they have now because when people start going for new mortgages, small business loans, car financing etc credit is going to be very hard to come by. It's telling that so many republicans up for re-election voted against the bailout. It's not because of Peolosi's persuasiveness. It's nice to see that the first intrest of politicians isn't main st. at all, rather it appears to be getting re-elected.

Posted by tommy on 2008-09-30 15:34:34 +0000
MF DU, you know a hell of a lot about finance than I do. Maybe you can help me understand why (if) this is a good idea. You say "Ponzi scheme or no". But, if it is a Ponzi scheme, shouldn't we tear it down now? Suck up whatever problems arise, because they'll just get worse if we prop it up? I know it's not really a Ponzi scheme in the strict sense, but the feeling I get is that these guys have been continually 'leveraging' more and more. It seems like such a system will fail eventually. And, the longer it takes to fail, the worse the result. If my sense is right, then yes, I want the current system of massive leveraging to fail. It would have been better if it failed 8 years ago, but it'll be even worse to delay it for a few more years, right? In other words, does the proposed bailout do anything but prop up a system that deserves to fail, and will anyhow? Or does it really fix something? My realtively uninformed impression is the former. What do you think MF DU? I've always tried to spend less than I make. For everything I've ever paid for (except my house, but including college), I've saved the money FIRST, then bought what I could afford. That's good, right? Seems like the higher interest rates go, the more you reward "earn first, pay later", and the lower the interest rate, the more you reward "pay first, earn later". And, of course the problem with the second option is if you can pay before you earn, why earn? So, high interest rates are good (in general) right? Also, at least about mortgages... as interest rates rise, won't house prices fall?

Posted by MF DU on 2008-09-30 16:00:52 +0000
I should start off by mentioning I'm no financial wizard by a long shot - I don't even have a mortgage. I didn't mean to come off as supporting any type of a bailout that involves maintaining or re-structuring all the leveraging that currently exists in the system. I actually also want a system of massive leveraging to fail. I guess the bailout plan as it existed deserved to fail if there was not enough de-leveraging or transparency to taxpayers, but my concern is that if banks won't lend to each other very easily, they certainly won't lend to "the people". If politicians want to serve "the people" I was just amazed they were shooting this down- maybe if lawmakers are kiboshing this version, but are working on something else that will encourage more oversight and responsibility, they ultimately truly do have "the people's" interests in mind, but it just looked to me like a lot of lawmakers voted down the current plan not because it wouldn't have helped the US economy on a massive scale, but because their jobs may have been in jeopardy if they supported it. Im thinking in 2 or 3 years when I might actually fianlly be ready to try to buy a house that house prices will be cheap as a result of this, but only if I am lucky enought to find a decent mortgage - I am scared that I wont be able to find one. Ultimately, though, tommy is pretty much right about stuff: this episode in the US Economy teaches me that living within one's means is an andidote to all the complicated financial instruments and systems that have temporarily led people to believe they can continuously restructure debt with no adverse consequnces.

Posted by G lib on 2008-09-30 18:47:18 +0000
living within one's means is an andidote to all the complicated financial instruments and systems that have temporarily led people to believe they can continuously restructure debt with no adverse consequnces. here here! That, and having 27 cans of tuna fish stored in the basement, as my Grammy always did after living through 'the' depression. However, if my grandparents' experience holds water, those with jobs, good credit, and down payments are always going to be approved for loans, depression or no. Like you, MF, I'm scared that the sources of 'good debt' are going to dry up (Tuition loans and Mortgages, primarily), but would be very happy for corporations (fucking overpaid CEOS), the government (fucking war), and even people (fucking credit cards) to start being more fiscally responsible, or even frugal.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-09-30 20:41:18 +0000
So let it "filter directly down to Main St." I doubt it will, and have little fear if it does. Just like trickle down economics, this doesn't seem to happen in practice. Wall Street failures are no more important than Main Street's, and free markets only work if bad business fails. Where's the "Mom and Pop" bail out?

Posted by tgl on 2008-10-01 00:10:04 +0000
Credit crunch is a bit different then a capital gains tax cut. I'm not sure where I stand here... I think the bill was bad, but we need a bailout. Don't think we have to have it NOW NOW NOW as Paulson demands. Paulson's just a horrible public servant by the way. A two-and-a-half page memo asking for $700 billion, and his only method to get is passed is to beg on his knees before Pelosi? Sheesh.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-10-01 04:53:51 +0000
"But we need a bailout". I have yet to hear a convincing argument. Even this didn't do much for me.

Posted by tgl on 2008-10-01 13:57:00 +0000
Krugman et al. who I trust are calling a bailout necessary. Sometimes you've got to help the unjust to save the just. I'm wavering... precisely because there's no good explanation of the need and the how it will work.

Posted by tgl on 2008-10-01 14:26:43 +0000
How about no new sewers for you?

Posted by tgl on 2008-10-02 02:44:35 +0000
$700 billion plus earmarks. Way to cut fat, McCain. I'm still on the fence. Auto-sales are down, partly due to stricter lending. States and municipalities are scuttling infrastructure projects. However, I'm not sure we wouldn't be better off having the government extend loans to homeowners instead of buying securities from investment banks. Who's the HUD Secretary? Any less of a hack than Paulson?

E-mail to tgl@rideside.net to add your tumblr.
Find me on github.