Taffer36 on 30/9/2008 at 22:55
theBlackman, I heard about that too, how every adult in the US could receive roughly $300,000. They would spend it, obviously, which would stimulate the economy. It won't be done, of course, because greedy fuckers would rather see all of the money go to them instead. Free Capitalism is a joke and regulation is obviously necessary, otherwise we end up with a bailout that is... what's the word? Socialist? Whoops, let's pretend it isn't though and pretend we're still Capitalist.
It's probably for the best that the bailout was turned down, even though a different sort of bailout will probably eventually be the course they take. Let's not forget that Henry Paulson, the current Secretary of the Treasurey who wrote the bailout, was previously CEO OF GOLDMAN SACHS. Or how about this line in the act? “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
Edit: Gah, I didn't read the post, I just went off of something I heard.
heywood on 30/9/2008 at 22:57
Old news, but still funny that some of the media fell for it last week (the long scale math that is).
Gryzemuis on 30/9/2008 at 23:05
Quote Posted by theBlackman
Our population is
about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman
and child. So
200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
....
So divide 200
million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.
Two problems with this computation.
A small one and a big one.
The small one.
According to (
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html)
it seems more like the U.S. has 225 million people of 18+ years.
Bigger problems.
$85B / 200 million people = $425. No zeros at the end.
If you adjust that to the more correct number of 225 million adults, you get $378 per adult. Still a lot of money to bail out one broken insurance company, I agree.
Regarding the bigger $700B bailout. Divide that by 225 million adults, and you'll see every adult in the US will pay $3111 for the plan. Outrageous, imho. I can't believe there are no other/better solutions available. Some solution that would let the biggest criminal organizations go bankrupt, but still protect mortgages, savings and pensions.
theBlackman on 30/9/2008 at 23:09
True, fuzzy math and fuzzy logic, but a giggle for all of that. :)
D'Juhn Keep on 30/9/2008 at 23:15
Well the formatting of the post matched the maths at least
Scots Taffer on 30/9/2008 at 23:27
Quote Posted by Thief13x
The Dow Jones jumped 260 points at opening this morning (unfortunately they say this is from talks of a refined bailout plan.) As far as I'm concerned, I would LOVE if the Dow continued to climb. It would be the biggest slap in the face to GWB and the boneheads in Washington who want us to think the sky is falling unless we sell what's left of our souls to corporate America
Y'know, until the bounceback (caused by people snapping up shares on their low prices) dries up when those companies have no liquidity and y'know...go broke.
Chade on 1/10/2008 at 01:04
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
Regarding the bigger $700B bailout. Divide that by 225 million adults, and you'll see every adult in the US will pay $3111 for the plan.
I am curious as to why everyone seems to think the bailout will cost the US government a net loss of $700 billion?
heywood on 1/10/2008 at 01:38
Quote Posted by Chade
I am curious as to why everyone seems to think the bailout will cost the US government a net loss of $700 billion?
Not sure what your point is. The net loss is impossible to quantify because the true value of these assets is not known.
In the end, the net loss could be less than $700b or it could be more. We're proposing to buy assets whose true value is not known, but we're going to buy them for considerably more than their market value. The government will probably end up writing off some of them completely but may even make a profit on others. Most will end up somewhere in between.
In order to finance this plan, the government will borrow more money, mostly from the Middle East, the Chinese government, and Japanese banks. The interest on this debt will take many years to pay off, and servicing the increased debt will require additional borrowing as long as we're running a deficit. That's why the net loss could easily be much bigger than $700b.
Tocky on 1/10/2008 at 01:55
We could always just loan the troubled companies money at a low rate and then adjust it higher and foreclose and take a loss when they can't pay. If we cut them up and sell them off we might make a profit and be corporate pirates. Yarr we be fucked.
Thief13x on 1/10/2008 at 01:57
Quote Posted by heywood
That's why the net loss could easily be much bigger than $700b.
and that, is why I emailed 4 senators tonight regarding their vote on wed. Apparently the House was flooded with emails prior to the vote and, given the narrow margin, could have had some influence. I would urge you all to do the same.
(
www.senate.gov) senate.gov
