![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 52. Go back in thread:
Posted by Sigismund on September 26, 2008, at 18:18:45
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy... » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on September 26, 2008, at 16:32:00
The debate must be soon.
Perhaps it will be on TV tonight.
Posted by llurpsienoodle on September 26, 2008, at 23:04:08
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy... » Dinah, posted by Sigismund on September 26, 2008, at 18:18:45
Dear Sigi,
Won't you come and educate our young Americans about the American political scene?We can send McCain down to educate your Aussie youth about Forin Politicks.
-Ll
Posted by Sigismund on September 27, 2008, at 16:03:13
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy... » Sigismund, posted by llurpsienoodle on September 26, 2008, at 23:04:08
I'd like someone to educate me about how FDR or Lincoln would have handled 9/11 and the financial thing happening now.
Here is some of what FDR had to say during the Great Depression.....
"This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure, as it has endured, will revive and will prosper ..."In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunk to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income ... More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment ...
"The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit ... If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize, as we have never realized before, our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take, but we must give as well."
Posted by Sigismund on September 27, 2008, at 16:12:38
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy... » llurpsienoodle, posted by Sigismund on September 27, 2008, at 16:03:13
We had a GG who talked like that.
Howard just hated it.
We shouldn't be too hard on Bush with his 'this sucker could come down'.
It's a sign of the times.
Isn't it?
Posted by Toph on September 29, 2008, at 18:21:28
In reply to Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Nadezda on September 26, 2008, at 10:06:07
A house built on sand will fall. So, too, an economy which rewards excess and whose foundation is an illusion cannot survive the tremor. We'll rebuild, hopefully with a wiser architect.
Posted by Sigismund on September 29, 2008, at 21:34:55
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Toph on September 29, 2008, at 18:21:28
There's a figure been mentioned which is something like the sum of all the salaries in the last year paid to CEOs of companies that have gone under.
It was a lot, as you can imagine. I was going to say 3 trillion, which HAS to be wrong, so it must be a few billion.The head of Telstra here was given a bonus of $40,000,000 last year. The argument was that if you wanted decent CEOs, you had to pay them. Then someone found out that the head of the Japanese equivalent (but twice the size) received $325,000 pa.
I'd make a bet that he lives in a relatively modest old house too.
Posted by Bobby on September 29, 2008, at 22:25:13
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Toph on September 29, 2008, at 18:21:28
Put your seatbelts on everybody. I'm trying (rather unsuccessfully)to muster up some sympathy for the movers and shakers---but I keep conjuring up images of an endless Frat boy party----tapping the keg over and over---in a drunken orgy of profit. We've been led to believe that's always the bottom line--right? All "us now " and not "them later." I do feel sorry for their kids--on many levels. It's just that I'm more concerned for my kids. I do believe that we're not beyond redemption---but it's going to take a major shift in priorities---domestic and foreign. There are a lot of folks learning that their sevants are their masters right about now. I still can't figure out who to vote for.
Posted by Bobby on September 29, 2008, at 23:06:25
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Bobby on September 29, 2008, at 22:25:13
Posted by Sigismund on September 29, 2008, at 23:22:55
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Bobby on September 29, 2008, at 23:06:25
So the vote was against?
Posted by Nadezda on September 29, 2008, at 23:30:50
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Sigismund on September 29, 2008, at 23:22:55
Good grief. I can't believe they didn't pass this bill. I mean, maybe it's not the best bill, but it's the only bill we've got. Can anyone really believe that a deep recession won't be devastating to "ordinary" people who lose their jobs, and their health care, and are already in debt for mortages, credit cards, etc?
Nadezda
Posted by Sigismund on September 29, 2008, at 23:38:45
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Nadezda on September 29, 2008, at 23:30:50
I actually managed to read this, which is unusual.
Posted by Sigismund on September 30, 2008, at 0:09:11
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Sigismund on September 29, 2008, at 23:38:45
This is from an article by Guy Rundle, an Australian journo in the States.......
In a coffee shop near the Capitol building, the vote had the same effect as a hurricane, prompting strangers to talk to each other.
"You gotta put your money in silver and gold," said one guy at the counter. Another snorted.
"Silver and gold? Guns and food man, guns and food."
Someone rushed in -- "I just heard that ATM's will be shutting down by this evening," he said breathlessly. Everyone looked at each other, and went back to their coffee, the TV. And then a couple of people quickly paid their cheque and quietly slid out...
At a quarter to five, after the market had closed 777 points down -- spooky -- Treasury secretary Henry Paulson addressed a press conference outside the White House and said, well nothing, what could he say: "I will be continuing to work with Congressional leaders to get a deal they can all support..."
He sounded hoarse like he'd spent the past 72 hours on the phone -- or the past three shouting at people.
The principal question: "Was anything resembling his plan dead in the water?"
...he stonewalled. And then let slip: "Our banking system has been holding up very well, considering the pressures."
Read that again -- he's actually saying the whole banking system could go. Not "our system is solid" but "it's holding up very well".
And it's only Monday.
Posted by Bobby on October 1, 2008, at 1:00:02
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Sigismund on September 29, 2008, at 23:38:45
Thanks for posting that sig-----makes a lot of sense at the moment. Anger is the best word here on main street. I've no doubt that heads will roll come November. I also agreed with posters who suggested we take the money away from the super rich and put them in a chain gang for a while. they waded into this mess with their eyes and pockets wide open. I find it absurd that they could come up with a plan to "save us" in about a week that would remedy almost a decade of
wreckless and (morally)criminal activity. something has to be done--no escaping that---but the public is sick and tired of finacial whoremongers repeatingly stepping in piles of cowsh_t and coming out smelling like a rose.Oops! do I sound touchy? Civil? I don't tend to be a conspiracy theorist---but manufactured crisis wouldn't surprize me. I do have hope. I'm reminded of the words of the Japanese commander right after the attack on Pearl Harbour, "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant." The giant being the american public---if we're lucky. Ok I'll quit preaching or pretending to make sense!
Posted by Sigismund on October 1, 2008, at 3:36:56
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy... » Sigismund, posted by Bobby on October 1, 2008, at 1:00:02
Satyajit Das (a risk analyst) apparently predicted this in
"Traders, Guns and Money. Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives"
and was on the wireless here (I could understand him), saying that this is what de-leveraging an economy looked like, and that the best that could be done was to erect barriers to the storm on an ad hoc basis.
Posted by fayeroe on October 1, 2008, at 14:30:40
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy... » Sigismund, posted by Bobby on October 1, 2008, at 1:00:02
Fayeroe here! I agree with you!!
Posted by Nadezda on October 1, 2008, at 16:41:59
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy... » Bobby, posted by fayeroe on October 1, 2008, at 14:30:40
I don't believe it was a conspiracy; it was a combination of greed, irrational belief in the upside of bad loans, and unsecured debt, and looking the other way when problems arose. Inevitably, luck ran out, and the riskiness of years of bad business decisions finally led to this outcome. Years of decreasing to no regulation and the long period of economic expansion, led to the downturn's devastating swiftness, because the people involved lived in their own little bubble of profits and infatuation with risk.
It's hard to know what would happen if this weren't going to affect everyone-- not only wall street-- but what people on "main street' don't see is the impact of this whole thing on their lives. I'm not sure why it hasn't been adequately explained-- maybe the blindness of many people in power to the perspective of everyone else--or the shocking swiftness of the unraveling of the system.
Nadezda
Posted by Sigismund on October 1, 2008, at 17:13:10
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Nadezda on October 1, 2008, at 16:41:59
You have an election (when?) so soon, and members of the House of Reps may be aware of the anger of their constituents?
When did the deregulation start, anyway? Reagan? Clinton?
This is the way we deal with this sort of thing here.
Australia's richest man, Kerry Packer, who lost 40M one night gambling, appeared before the Senate and explained to the senators that he paid no tax and made no apologies for it because he could spend the money much better than they could. When he died we gave him a state funeral, with Russell Crowe officiating. Those are our values.
Posted by Sigismund on October 1, 2008, at 17:20:08
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Nadezda on October 1, 2008, at 16:41:59
If a market keeps rising quickly enough there may not be such a thing as a bad loan?
You think?
And vice versa, if a market is falling all loans can become bad.
Maybe?
Posted by caraher on October 1, 2008, at 22:59:07
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Sigismund on October 1, 2008, at 17:13:10
> You have an election (when?) so soon, and members of the House of Reps may be aware of the anger of their constituents?
Election is in November, same day as the presidential election. They're aware, all right - it's safe to say that direct constituent pressure resulted in the vote Monday, which is heartening as far as there still being some responsiveness to constituents among Congress.
> When did the deregulation start, anyway? Reagan? Clinton?
Yes.
The Reagan years were the beginning of "regulation is bad" ideology among people with government power. Some of the specific restraints relevant to this were removed while Clinton was president with a Republican Congress. Clinton arguably brought about changes that no Republican president could have simply because he was a Democrat; "welfare reform" springs to mind as something that would have caused a Republican to be raked over the figurative coals.
Posted by Sigismund on October 2, 2008, at 14:56:32
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by caraher on October 1, 2008, at 22:59:07
This
http://www.truthout.org/100208A
is probably bad news.
And what is a reverse auction?
Posted by Sigismund on October 2, 2008, at 17:22:53
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Sigismund on October 2, 2008, at 14:56:32
Here's talking:
Most of my constituents did not earn a $38 million bonus in 2005 or make over $100 million in total compensation in three years, as did Henry Paulson, the current secretary of the Treasury, and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Most of my constituents did not make $354 million in total compensation over the past five years as did Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers. Most of my constituents did not cash out $60 million in stock after a $29 billion bailout for Bear Stearns, after that failing company was bought out by J.P. Morgan Chase. Most of my constituents did not get a $161 million severance package as E. Stanley O'Neill, former CEO Merrill Lynch did.
From Bernie Sanders' speech in the senate.
Posted by Nadezda on October 2, 2008, at 18:08:46
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Sigismund on October 2, 2008, at 17:22:53
About a reverse auction. I'll ask my bf tonight. Usually he gives me a pretty clear answer about this stuff. It's not right up his alley, but he might know.
About the absurageous salaries of Wall Street Execs. Yeah. It's kind of absurageous. I personally think we should all be incensed. But then-- we are. And it doesn't seem to change a thing.
Maybe Robert Reich has a point about the new populism.
Nadezda
Posted by Nadezda on October 3, 2008, at 11:37:31
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy..., posted by Sigismund on October 2, 2008, at 14:56:32
There are several forms of reverse auction, but the simplest one is pretty much what it sounds like.
The usual auction-- other than on Ebay, which uses a modified form of it-- is the "English call-out auction"-- where bidders are in a room and each one calls out their bid, from the low bid to the high bid each outbidding the last bidder. Bidding ends when no one bids. The basic form of the auction is that any bidder can make multiple bids, bidders know what other bidders have bid, there's no limit on the number of bids, by each bidder, and the price goes higher as the bids are put into place.
A reverse auction (this type) uses a bidding system where there are multiple lots (rather than one individual item) on offer. During the auction period, each bidder puts in one bid, and only one bid, for a specified number of the items. All bids are offered within the bidding period without any knowledge of the bids of other bidders-- so the bidder has to bid enough to insure that s/he wins the number of items wanted. This puts pressure on bidders to bid their highest (reservation) price, so they'll be assured of getting the items they want. Low-ball bids put them in danger of losing out on desired items.
When the bidding period ends, all bidders who have the bids above the "market-clearing" price-- the price at which all items have been sold-- will receive his or her items. So bidders at the top get all of their items, and bidders who bid less may get fewer, or none of the items they bid for.
For example, if there are 50 items, and
bidder 1 bids for 20 items at $70/item, and
bidder 2 bids for 20 items at $60.00 per item, and
bidder 3 bids for 20 items at $50/item, and
bidder 4 bids for 10 items at $50/item and
bidder 5 bids for 10 items at $40./itembidder 1 will get 20 items, at $70/item
bidder 2 will get 20 items, $60/item,
bidders 3 will get 2/3rds of the remaining items
at $50/item,
bidder 4 will get 1/3rd of those remaining items at $50/item
bidder 5 will get no items
(there are several formulas for the pricing of items, but this is one common one)Hope this explains the general idea.
Nadezda
Posted by Dinah on October 3, 2008, at 12:35:20
In reply to Re: Oops-- there goes the economy... » Sigismund, posted by Bobby on October 1, 2008, at 1:00:02
I've been fussing about this for years. Unfortunately, there is more than enough "blame" to go around. It's not just a few greedy superrich. People believed real estate was always safe. People may have been encouraged to borrow more and pay more for homes, but they did choose to do it. There are shows on "flipping houses". It's considered a good way to make money to borrow money to buy a house and resell it. People forgot the seventies. I can't understand that, because it was almost thirty years ago exactly. Not so very long.
Real estate is not always safe. No one should invest more in the stock market or in their home than they can afford to leave invested for the very long term. Being bullish is not always good. Being bearish is not always bad.
When there is a crisis, panic can make what's bad even worse in a market economy.
Leverage works both ways. It's like a teeter totter. The potential for gain is great. But every bump in the personal or national or global economy has the potential to be a disaster.
FDIC insurance rates are the same whether a bank invests conservatively or speculatively. They should be risk adjusted. If a financial institution is willing to take risks to get greater gains, they should have to bear the burden of the risks through higher premiums. High enough to actually negate the value of higher risks. Speculative ventures have no business being funded by financial institutions. They should be the purview of private individuals who are willing to personally shoulder the risk.
Deregulation is risky. The last time this happened was after the deregulation of the savings and loans. The deregulation (which started Pre-Reagan) came about for good reasons. The high interest rates savings and loans were paying out compared with the low interest rates on older home loans (not to mention the growing foreclosure rates as interest went up) led to looming disaster. So deregulation gave these entities a way to get higher rates of return to offset the low rates of return on older traditional mortgages. It was seen as a chance to survive. But savings and loans were skilled in being savings and loans. Not nearly as skilled at being banks. It's easy to think about it in terms of greed. But not all executive decisions have to do with greed. Some have to do with optimism and poor judgment. Others have to do with fear and poor judgment. Poor judgment, moreover, that masquerades as good judgment. Don't you feel darn stupid for putting your money in a low paying investment when higher paying investments are all around you and the recent past would indicate that they aren't all that risky?
We recently had the same situation. I don't know the particulars of it, admittedly. But I have heard enough from newly minted banks to know that suddenly other types of financial entities were becoming "banks". And I vaguely remember hearing something about laws being changed to allow that.
I told my son that in around thirty years, someone was going to try to convince him to buy a bigger home than he could afford. They'd tell him what an excellent investment real estate was. They'd make it seem like the most natural thing in the world. And when they did, he should remember that apparently thirty years is longer than people can remember.
Bubbles burst.
It's easy to point fingers. But doing so has the potential of shifting attention away from the lessons that people have to learn to prevent this happening again. Making it the fault of a few greedy supperrich minimizes the widespread nature of the problem. Awareness is key, and perhaps government monies would be well spent on public service announcements about basic economic theory for the foreseeable future. Do you know how many ridiculously expensive homes there are in my area? Do you know how few people make enough money to actually buy (with comfort and room for economic hiccups) homes that expensive? Believe me, in this area anyway it just doesn't match up.
This isn't a manufactured crisis. At least not manufactured as part of a conspiracy. It's been years in the making, and I have complained about it every step of the way. It was just a matter of time.
It seems to me that the important thing now is to restore confidence enough to prevent another 1929 (although it is highly unlikely to be quite on the same scope) and then enact laws to re-regulate. Maybe put in an explanation for the laws *into* the laws with stern reminders of what happens when the history is forgotten.
Just my opinion, of course. But I do remember the late seventies, early eighties. I remember the savings and loan bailout and the anger at the "greedy" individuals who were supposedly to blame. I also remember that it was a heck of a lot more complicated than that. A few people who got a lot of press did some bad things. But most others were just caught up in the market forces prevailing at the time.
People think of "Wall Street" as being the rich. Wall Street is anyone with money in a 401K or a mutual fund. I wish this crisis could easily be reduced to a late night TV joke, or a sound bite, or a political talking point. But it can't. I'm not given to panic at all. But this is a problem. A serious problem. And one we're doomed to live over and over and over again if we don't learn the lesson we should have learned thirty years ago.
The bailout is going to pass because it has to pass. They're arguing the particulars. And hopefully the cost will not be as great as it appears. This isn't a gimme. They're buying assets. Failing mortgages. Our mortgages. Those are backed by homes. Real homes. These aren't just pieces of paper. Should the government have to do this? Of course not. But why blame just the people who lent and ignore the people who borrowed? FNMA might not have been brilliantly run. But it failed because of the mortgage crisis. Not because of executive salaries.
Posted by Sigismund on October 3, 2008, at 16:26:24
In reply to Re: Reverse auction » Sigismund, posted by Nadezda on October 3, 2008, at 11:37:31
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.