I’m not one to take a one day sampling of the stock market and make a “see-I-told-you-so” snap reaction. Â It’s pretty unreasonable to think what happened in Congress on Friday would have much of an impact today–the assumption of the passage of the bailout was already priced into the market. Â But the reaction to today’s drop is fast and furious, so I thought I’d join in with some snark.
Dow dips below 10,000—Maybe the market realized over the weekend that its new business partner is the US Federal Government?
Should the Fed cut interest rates?–That sounds like a good idea…let’s rig the system so that we canÂ borrow our way out of this. Â Why didn’t someone think of that before?
Global markets affected by the credit crisis–Duh. Â Easy fix–just set up some sort of central banking system. Â Better yet, let’s set up several.
The biggest irony of all–we continue to look to the people who cause problems to solve them and wonder why things don’t get better. Â My favorite phrase is being thrown around by fear mongers is “uncertain economic times”. Â When have we ever lived in certain economic times?
How about if I smear it all over something you do want?
Blue Collar Muse has the details on how the Senate is making an attempt to cram the bailout rescue down our throats (again) by attaching the bill to one that everyone is bound to vote for.
So they are trying another well known and highly effective tactic from the Congressional medical bag to revive the patient, attach the dead bill to a live bill that everyone likes and use the life force from the popular bill to revive the chances of the dead one.
I am a little amused that it seems like the most liberal and most conservative are coming down on the same side on this issue. Â They may have different reasons, but the end result is the same.
Because www.house.gov is slammed. Â Here’s what I got when I tried to use their site to send my Congressman a thank you for voting against the bailout rescue savior of the economy.
Messaging ServiceÂ Unavailable
The House of Representatives is currently experiencing an extraordinarily high amount of email traffic. The Write Your Representative function is therefore intermittantly available. While we realize communicating to your Members of Congress is critical, we suggest attempting to do so at a later time, when demand is not so high. System engineers are working to resolve this issue and we appreciate your patience.
I’m sure it’s just a few computer savvy Ron Paul supporters who are causing all the problems.
Brazilian President calls the bailout unfair to poor people…
“Why give $700 billion to the banks and no money to the poor guys who lost their houses,” Lula asked, according to local media. He referred to the troubled U.S. housing market.
I think he’s right, but for the wrong reasons. Poor people shouldn’t be given money either. But it’s the poor people who are going to have their precious few dollars devalued. It’s the poor people who are going to be taxed by allocating a larger portion of their income to pay for the mountain of regulation that will result in an increase in costs of goods and services.
Newt Gingrich is right too, well sorta…
“You have the former Chairman of Goldman Sachs asking for 700 billion dollars, and in his initial request, asking for it in such an un-American way that I think he should have resigned,” said Gingrich.
Paulson has to go. But he shouldn’t be given the opportunity to resign. I believe the correct term is “shitcanned”. Maybe Congress could investigate him on the possibility that he was in collusion with Wall Street too. That is, if they can squeeze it in between all the other important investigations.
Don’t expect either of the major party Presidential candidates to work towards anything but the status quo though. Â They’re going to be busy convincing you that they are miles apart on this issue.
Chinese regulators have told domestic banks to stop interbank lending to U.S. financial institutions to prevent possible losses during the financial crisis, the South China Morning Post reported on Thursday.
As a half-full guy, I’m going to read this as “US Will Stop Borrowing Money From China” and be happy. Ok, I’m not really a half-full guy. I’m more of a “you’re an idiot for using such a big glass if that’s all the water you’re going to put in it” guy. Â But still.
The real question is this…what’s Congress/Bush/Obama/McCain going to do about that?
I crack me up sometimes.
It’s at least worth looking at. Â I was listening to Dave Ramsey this afternoon, and he mentioned the possibility of suspending the mark-to-market rules for the subprime industry temporarily. Â After all, there isn’t actually a 78% default rate on mortgages is there?
In other words, mark-to-market accounting–not the reality of the economy or the actual credits–has created much of the financial turmoil that has shaken the world. Imagine if you had a $200,000 mortgage on a $300,000 house that you planned on living in for 20 years. But a neighbor, because of very special circumstances, had to sell his house for $150,000. Then, imagine if your banker said you had to mark to this “new market” and give the bank $80,000 in cash immediately (so you would have 20% down) or lose your home. Would this reflect reality? Not at all. Would this create chaos? Absolutely.
And it is happening all over Wall Street.
If you’re as disturbed as I am about having this bailout crammed down your throat based on fear, contact your representatives and mention the possible alternative of suspending mark-to-market rules temporarily. Â While that may not be the ideal situation, it’s better than every man, woman, and child in the US ponying up $2,500 of debt to bail these guys out.
I’ll update this post later with a link to a podcast that explains how this would work.Â Â Here’s theÂ Dave Ramsey Podcast
I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth here, but it seems like the Left (correctly) despises the idea of one man, the President, and more specifically the current President having too much power to regulate. They see this as a dangerous proposition to individual liberty.
I tend to agree.
Why, then, do they seem at the same time to favor giving this same power to a few hundred folks, Congress and the courts? Don’t the same principle and potential abuses apply whether the power is given to one man, one body, or *gulp* one party?
Althouse: Chemerinsky’s idea of “Enhancing Government.”.
So the liberal idea of “Enhancing Government” is about expansive federal regulatory power combined with enthusiasm for regulating business and enforcing federal rights.