You are right about this point.

“and I don’t think he’s expressed any confusion over per capita. That was Jay over in the gub/bathtub thread. (And over there I don’t think he’s the one who was confused either.)”

And you are wrong about this one.

You’re confusing your Jays. The one you’re trying to insult here is Jay Tea, and I don’t think he’s expressed any confusion over per capita. That was Jay over in the gub/bathtub thread. (And over there I don’t think he’s the one who was confused either.)

Jay Tea: “I know several people who struggle with their mortgages, or settle for less house than they want. They’re thrilled that their taxes will be going to help out those who didn’t exercise the same good sense.”

Not making an opinion of you, JT. But you know some pretty dumb people. “Thrilled?” Really? Thrilled?

I may be willing at times to help out those with no good sense. But Never “thrilled”.

Exactly. This is not a unique situation and perhaps if the government had said to the greedy bastards before, ‘Fuck you. We are going to let you fail and we will deal with the consequences ourself.’ we would not be in this shithole now.

Jay, you are a fucking retard. You recently proved you don’t know what per capita means, so why the fuck should I care about your opinion here?

Seriously. You are dumb. There is no evidence available that convinces me that you can understand the situation, and there’s no evidence available that you will ever be able to understand the situation.

I will say that big banks should have known better. It was pure greed that got them into this situation and it is the greed that is the deal breaker here.

At which point on the continuum from individual to large bank does the rationale flip from “save them from their own bad decisions” to “let them fail?”

You have to consider, as well, that many of the bad loans were not made to people who just made bad decisions. Fraud was involved. Mortgage bankers were overstating incomes, misleading borrowers, etc.

I’m NOT for bailing out folks who made bad decisions. It only teaches them that there are no consequences and leaves those of us who ARE responsible to pay the costs that should be borne by them. I AM for nailing those who helped bring this situation about to the wall for their crimes. (And, yeah, I know the distinction between stupid/careless and criminal is hard to make.)

I’m ambivalent to bailing Bear out on its own merits. But if they are allowed to go down the toilet, it hurts EVERYBODY.

There isn’t a move out of this that won’t “hurt” folks who weren’t responsible for the debacle. But letting those who were off the hook is simply not right. Yes, lets help out those who are innocent bystanders to this. Those who may stand to lose pensions, jobs, etc. But if, and ONLY if, every last person involved in running the company not only derives zero benefit from a bail out but also forfeits and other compensation/benefits/bonuses/golden parachutes they have.

Doing absolutely nothing to help out BS would hurt a lot of “innocent” folks. But it would sure help make it far less likely this happens again. Because otherwise, it will and that would hurt EVERYONE a lot MORE. I’ll take my pain once now.

This. They don’t need a bail-out, they need turnaround.

At which point on the continuum from individual to large bank does the rationale flip from “save them from their own bad decisions” to “let them fail?”

That’s because large companies have the means to protect themselves. This is not necessarily the case for individuals.

They should be thrilled. Because if all these people lose their homes to foreclosure, it destroys the market and value of THEIR house. I took due diligence to get my home loan, no tricky financing, large downpayment, and hired a real estate attorney. I feel ambivalent to those who didn’t research what they were doing. At the same time, if they lose their house, that diminishes the value of MY house. So I’m all for helping homeowners out.

I’m ambivalent to bailing Bear out on its own merits. But if they are allowed to go down the toilet, it hurts EVERYBODY. Too bad we don’t have good anti-trust laws, but that’s the way it is. Not to mention all the Bear employees that weren’t involved in the bad decisions that will lose their jobs.

Great, but what is the government doing to correct the predatory and dangerous practices of the industry that led to this?

I know several people who struggle with their mortgages, or settle for less house than they want. They’re thrilled that their taxes will be going to help out those who didn’t exercise the same good sense.

Strowbridge seems to have a problem remembering that the government has no money of its own — just what it takes from us. I pay several grand a year in taxes, and I doubt that Joe Sixpack will send me a thank-you note for bailing him out.

J.

At the point where it goes from an individual who was just trying to buy a house to greedy bastard trying to make a huge profit.

I don’t think the government should bail out individuals who were flipping houses in order to make a profit. Nor should they bail out financial institutes who should have known better than to make these bad loans.

J.

Exactly.

Free markets are for the working class. Especially those who fall behind on payments.

The ruling class doesn’t participate in markets, they own the markets. Thus, they are never subject to the downside risks or the costs of maintaining their hold on power.

Show me one example in American history when the ruling class had to pay or incur costs for its stupidity, its corruption or its crimes.

In our current corporate climate we need more failures, not fewer. And we need the executives fired with no golden parachutes and we need the stockholders to take a bath.

If the stockmarket goes down by 1000 points, that’s less than a 10% hiccup. If you are reasonably diversified, you’ll be in fine shape. If you have a pension fund that is not diversified and goes down far lower than that, you should be seeking criminal and civil complaints against its directors.

Equity is SUPPOSED to be risky. It’s the only way the system we enjoy can work.

The real idiocy is that at the end of the month banks will be able to trade their distressed subprime loans for treasuries. That’s what you need to be outraged about.

I don’t know why it’s so easy to give them a handout when it’s only going to postone the inevitable. Giving Bear Stearns $200 billion is like giving a crack addict 50 pounds of rock so they can sustain themselves until they die.

That’s the problem with Republicans. They believe in a free market, but they don’t believe in dealing with its reprecussions when things go wrong.

Always remember that the biggest welfare whores vote Republican and own property in the Hamptons.

That may be true. But that is not the real problem with this bailout. If we have to bailout a company like this, then the taxpayers should receive controlling equity in the company and the shareholders (who took on the risk) should receive nothing. In essence, if Bear Stearns needs the money, then they are being sold to the taxpayer.

But that is not what happened here. From the economic blog Big Picture:

“If you are wondering WTF a non-recourse, back-to-back financing is, pull up a chair:

JPM gets to go the the Discount Window and borrow all the greenbacks they want; Then they loan that to Bear. In the event that Bear defaults, the NY Fed cannot go back to recover from JPM — hence, non-recourse.”

So the taxpayer pays all this money and gets nothing. That’s the real problem.

The Republican Party: Privatization of profit, socialization of risk.

The more the feds engage in behaviour to prop up these companies the worse it looks to outside investors. There is probably a link to this behaviour and the continuing troubles of the US $.