Lehman brothers "make out" clip

[ycartrob]

these guys "get" Highly Suspicious  ( 42 second mark)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txDWRR5WRFQ[/media]

[Angry Ewok]

AWESOME!

[Taterbug]

I saw that the other day. frickin classic  ;D.

With all this rush talk of bail outs, why do I feel as if I  just stepped onto a used car lot and the blue light special ends in 2 minutes and a fast talking salesman ( Bush ) tries to sell me an over priced piece of shit that you can't drive off the lot.

[Angry Ewok]

So what do you guys think is about to happen with our economy? What should happen with the market? Is it crashing? Should it just be allowed to crash? Are bail-outs the answer? About two trillion of our bucks are about to be spent in initial bailouts... I'm nervous about the banking sector.

Thoughts?

Any good deals to be foud on RTE meals and blankets? Anyone want to form a tribe now, in anticipation for the government collapse?

[TheBigChicken]

Taterbug that was BRILLIANT.....As for you my furry little friend they're called "MRE's". I like the tribe thing. Hell with the way things are going in construction I may need one...ie typing this at 5 in the AM.....if your not careful those MRE's will burn the SHIT out of you :-/

[bowl of soup]

That's Sal and Richard from the Howard Stern Show.  I was listening the day that they went out to do this - classic.

As far as the bailout goes.  There is not a soul alive today who comments more eliquently on these subjects than Greg Easterbrook (Tuesday Morning Quarteback on ESPN.com page 2 - I'm always pusing this guy).  Read his column and be a smarter human.  It's about half football, quarter space, quarter politica at this point.  His take (sorry for the length):

Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! Last week, TMQ asked why no one was paying attention to the fact that the national debt ceiling was quietly raised by $800 billion during the summer. Well, toss that column: The White House just asked the national debt ceiling be raised another $700 billion, for the proposed financial-sector bailout. If that happens, in 2008 alone, $1.5 trillion will have been added to the national debt: every penny borrowed from your children and their children. Stated in today's dollars, in 1979 the entire national debt was $1.5 trillion. George W. Bush and Congress have in a single year added an amount equal to the entire national debt one generation ago. And the year's not over!

It took the United States 209 years, from the founding of the republic till 1998, to compile the first $5 trillion in national debt. In the decade since, $6 trillion in debt has been added. This means the United States has borrowed more money in the past decade than in all our previous history combined. Almost all the borrowing has been under the direction of George W. Bush -- at this point Bush makes Kenneth Lay seem like a paragon of fiscal caution. Democrats deserve ample blame, too. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leaders of the Senate and House, have never met a bailout they didn't like: Harry and Nancy just can't wait to spend your children's money. Six trillion dollars borrowed in a single decade and $1.5 trillion borrowed in 2008 alone. Charles Ponzi would be embarrassed.

If you borrowed, borrowed, borrowed, you could afford to live high for a while -- then there would be a reckoning. Hmmm ... that sounds a little like what many Americans did with gimmick mortgages in 2005 and 2006. They were only imitating their political leadership! Why is it both parties in Washington think the United States can borrow, borrow, borrow without a reckoning ever coming? Bush, Reid and Pelosi seem poised to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars of borrowed public money to political insiders on Wall Street and in banking, whose bonuses will now be tax-subsidized. The capitalist maxim is, "She who reaps the gains also bears the losses." Now Washington wants those who reaped the gains to shift the losses to those who lived humbly. The young will pay and pay for these cynical ploys to insure the luxury of the powerful old. Why aren't the young outraged?


TMQ's pal Isabel Sawhill, among the leading public-policy economists of our day, says Washington does indeed need to intervene in the financial system -- the harm to the average person of letting credit markets freeze would be greater, she thinks, than the harm caused by more public debt. Fair enough. But it doesn't inspire confidence that on Sept. 12, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the financial system had been fixed and "under no circumstances" would there be further bailouts; on Friday, Paulson said the system was collapsing and another $700 billion was needed. Suddenly Paulson is insisting the country has no choice other than immediately to hand over $700 billion to Wall Street fat cats, with barely any debate or even explanation of the plan. Why should anyone believe this guy, when just one week previously he said no further bailouts would occur? It seems clear Paulson had no idea what he was talking about then, while if the problem is really as bad as Paulson says now, his past delay in facing the problem has made the cost far higher. With such a poor track record, why is the treasury secretary suddenly viewed as a superbrilliant genius whose marching orders must be followed?

It is not public intervention that is objectionable. University of Chicago Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker, among the top conservative economists, just said, "I have reluctantly concluded that substantial intervention was justified." Rather it is size of the bailout, and the hurry-up-give-the-money-don't-stop-to-think aspect, that are troubling. Much of the $700 billion will flow to investment-community friends of Paulson, Bush and other administration figures. Average Americans who behaved irresponsibly by signing gimmick mortgages may get some taxpayer aid from the Paulson proposal, and maybe they should get none. But in the end, average Americans will still be liable for most of what they owe -- that is, will still be held responsible for their actions. Wealthy, politically connected insiders who run banks and companies such as American International Group will be exempt for responsibility for their actions, and will stuff taxpayer-subsidized millions into their pockets.

On Sunday, Paulson called the self-serving actions of top Wall Street figures "inexcusable" -- yet the plan is not only to excuse them, but to shower them with free money. Paulson said Wall Street pay levels were "excessive," but should be discussed later, after the bailout is done. Now is the moment of maximum leverage! Once they are holding the public's money and laughing about how easily they got it, financial executives will have no incentive to compromise on pay. Here's an idea: Any company that participates in the bailout agrees to limit its top-tier executives to the federal minimum wage. That is, after all, the amount Washington says is enough to live on. Meanwhile, of the two jokers who drove Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground, one was paid $19.8 million in 2007, the other $14 million; each will get nearly $5 million in taxpayer-funded "retirement" bennies.

Yet there's scant outrage. Maybe this is because in an era of fiscal irresponsibility by both parties, everybody wants a bailout. Wall Street, bankers, homeowners who lied on their mortgage applications, Detroit automakers, farmers -- gimme, gimme, gimme! Rather than asking whether the $700 billion giveaway is too large or being structured in a way that benefits the rich, numerous members of Congress are instead demanding more bailouts be appended: for seniors (see below), cities, states, more "stimulus" checks, you name it. Give money to whoever will fund my re-election! The money is being forcibly extracted from the pockets of our children and their children. Every dollar borrowed today by the irresponsible old of Washington will subtract two dollars from future economic growth, leaving our children and their children a legacy of stagnation.

The 1980 Chrysler bailout, which was nationally debated for months before happening, cost $3.2 billion, in present-value dollars, and was financed by revenue rather than by borrowing. Here is the borrowing that's happened in 2008 alone, with precious little public debate:



• $29 billion to bail out Bear Stearns.



• $40 billion in the first mortgage-holder bailout.



• $80 billion for an additional year of Iraq war operations. (Another $150-$200 billion in war costs such as future veterans' disability benefits were incurred but not funded.)




• Up to $85 billion to bail out AIG.



• $153 billion to households for "economic stimulus."



• $200 billion, and possibly more, to bail out Fannie and Freddie.



• $290 billion in farm subsidies, despite agricultural prices and grains profits being at record highs.



• $700 billion general bailout of securities backed by bad debt. (The International Monetary Fund estimates this figure will rise to at least $1 trillion.)



That comes to $1.6 trillion, explaining the debt-ceiling rise, and does not include roughly $300 billion in essentially interest-free cash issued to banks by the Federal Reserve on an emergency basis, which may or may not be repaid, but which in any case make all existing money somewhat less valuable. Why is the debt aspect of the splurge barely being remarked on by the mainstream media and by politicians? Why are the young not furious? And about that $700 billion about to the shoveled to the Wall Street elite -- in 2007, George W. Bush vetoed an increase of $7 billion per year in health care spending for the poor, saying the country couldn't afford it.

[Penny Lane]

i think it's easy to say none of these bailouts are necessary and the economy should bottom out before it will get better--it's not just wall streeters who would lose (if they're losing at all)--so much of our economy is tied up in F&F and AIG--people's retirements, etc-if they were to bottom out, it would have been CHAOS in a way you've never seen-it's not so much of a bailout of one company, there are so many different levels behind this (i'm not an economist-i couldn't explain it very well) -- as for bear stearns and lehman, they were out on their own making tons of cash of abstract schemes--they shouldn't have been bailed out. my fear is that now the govt will over-regulate the market-which is not good either. Some additional regulation is necessary but now everyone wants to be the hero. i think the market needs to improve on its own. Hillary Clinton keeps promoting this oversight plan but i have to learn more about it before i tear it apart.

[bowl of soup]

i think it's easy to say none of these bailouts are necessary

Who's saying that?  Most people agree that some form of bailout is necessary to avoid catatrophic consequences.  But the people in charge of this bailout are the same folks who made the mess.  Why are we being rushed to trust their wisdom?  See again -

"Suddenly Paulson is insisting the country has no choice other than immediately to hand over $700 billion to Wall Street fat cats, with barely any debate or even explanation of the plan. Why should anyone believe this guy, when just one week previously he said no further bailouts would occur? It seems clear Paulson had no idea what he was talking about then, while if the problem is really as bad as Paulson says now, his past delay in facing the problem has made the cost far higher. With such a poor track record, why is the treasury secretary suddenly viewed as a superbrilliant genius whose marching orders must be followed?"

Why are they balking so heavily at limits to executive compensation?

[Penny Lane]

soup--we'll know in time whether it was needed so quickly--i don't think anyone can say right now--and the premise is that it's a loan (i know i know..how does anyone pay back a loan like that) the treasury has a responsbility to look out for you and me, not just the shareholders and the idiots entangled in the subprime dilemma- what's the saying? something rolls downhill? we would have paid for it no matter what (we meaning poor and middle class) this way we are paying for it w/less impact and in a more organized way. i don't know! maybe you are right--maybe he can't be trusted-especially seeing how goldman sachs will profit from this. it's info overload.

[aMillionDreams]

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife/109609;_ylt=AihYXGa_2tf9PJDeCl.2G0S7YWsA

Ben Stein breaks it down.  Here's an interesting quote:
"One might well wonder if the whole subprime fiasco was not set up just to allow speculators to profit wildly on its collapse"

This is scary, scary stuff.  Between foreign wars, natural and unnatural disasters, financial collapse, and the rise of China, I'm starting worry.

[TheBigChicken]

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife/109609;_ylt=AihYXGa_2tf9PJDeCl.2G0S7YWsA

Ben Stein breaks it down.  Here's an interesting quote:
"One might well wonder if the whole subprime fiasco was not set up just to allow speculators to profit wildly on its collapse"

This is scary, scary stuff.  Between foreign wars, natural and unnatural disasters, financial collapse, and the rise of China, I'm starting worry.

starting....been worrying

[Penny Lane]

the only thing that comforts me is that we are not experiencing this alone..china's economy has grown way too fast-and -europe is fledgling, although there are some eastern euro bloc economies growing at a steady pace---basically the glory days are over here---we hit a peak and it's downhill--environment, the economy--this country is still great but it will never once again be what it was--i think patrick bateman had it right-- it really didn't get better than huey lewis--the 80s/90s were it...the peak --our children's lives will never be what ours were, or had the chance to be. the planet --i give about 50 more good years--buy all the electric cars you want--the writing's already on the wall. -sincerely, debbie downer

[Angry Ewok]

basically the glory days are over here---we hit a peak and it's downhill--environment, the economy--this country is still great but it will never once again be what it was--i think patrick bateman had it right-- it really didn't get better than huey lewis--the 80s/90s were it...the peak --our children's lives will never be what ours were, or had the chance to be. the planet --i give about 50 more good years--buy all the electric cars you want--the writing's already on the wall.

I believe in American Exceptionalism.... No matter how terrible things may get, I'll always believe in our ability both as a collective and as individuals to make good things happen in the face of adversity. So long as capitalism and liberties exist here, America's glory days are far from over, and our children's lives can be, should be, and God willing will be better than ours were.

i think it's easy to say none of these bailouts are necessary

Some of these bailouts are to be designed to delay an inevitable collapse. By slowing the velocity of the drop, Washington is hoping to reduce the blast radius from the impact. So, some of them are necessary. The next two weeks are going to be very, very rough...

[Penny Lane]

ewok-i don't think of it so much as the downfall of our country so much as the leveling of the playing field---i'm a capitalist and a proponent of free trade--unless we have more people like T Boone Pickens out there throwing money at great ideas, i don't see us being able to maintain or compete like we used to. i mean other than hard machinery--and a few other exports that are thriving right now---what are we producing--our kids will need 3 degrees and then where will the jobs be? blue collar jobs are few and far between--white collar jobs are scaling back, even doctors can't make money because of the state of the health care system (as if socializing it even further will help). i mean i love preserving the idea of the way this country was founded--i just don't see a few people still carrying around those ideas is going to change the inevitable--i see an unemployment rate rising to 10% by 2010, also. okay, i'll stop.

[ycartrob]

History shows all great nations and empires rise and fall; every one of them. The US will not be the exception merely b/c we live here. I have said for a long time that capitalism made this nation great and capitalism will cause the ultimate demise. Power and money lead to corruption, it always has and it always will. Capitalism makes it possible for lots of people to get rich, so, the odds of corruption get higher. I mean seriously, how is setting up your "American" business overseas being "American"? Plus, America itself is a product; something you wear or fly on your car. America is starting to become the great corporation. This is sad, but it's true.

America can turn it around, but it would take unprecendented efforts, like the one's penny speaks about, but Americans are becoming more fearful as a nation, and I think it wears on our psyche. Fear of terrorists, mortgages, gas prices, fear of either political party, fear of Mexicans, rap music...and then all your basic psychological fears that we usually either don't know about consciously or can't "fix".

If you could get to the psychological roots of why power corrupts, it goes back to fear, IMO. In fact, it all leads back to fear (and there are so many unresolved issues in folks that lead to fear that create unconsious behavior, trying to resolve or deflect those issues). And when fearful people get into power, be it through government or business, you get an economic crisis like we have today. And I think it will happen more often, unless we turn it around. When a person tries to fill an emotional void with a material compound, you get crisis.
It's been my experience that the people who can do without are usually the most settled within.

The work I do is community building. I strongly believe we need stronger connections with out fellow citizens; personal connections. And connections with people who don't look like you, or have the same religious beliefs, or make the same amount of money. I heard a young gang member quote Bush about his hate for a rival gang, "You're either with us or against us," right? I am really concerned that technology has made it possible for people to work longer and feel like they are always connected to their job. My new work endeavor is trying to build community networks within work settings, giving people tools and strategies to take this stuff home to their own neighborhoods and practice with their actual neighbors as well as their co-workers. I also work with in actual community settings such as churches or rec centers, working on building community, building trust, creating sacred spaces, cutting into that fear that resides in all of us. This is my dream job, and I have begun the work using Peacemaking Circles and I think it will make the small difference, that I believe it will take, 50 million times over, that will bring us back to a place where we are more like a community and less of the fear driven, us vs them, win at all cost society that I see snowballing into oblivion.


~ peace ~

[Janet]

Dude, that video is hilarious!