At what point will Bernanke give up? Or Paulson? Or get fired?

[StageLeft]

Link

I see nothing good coming from gov. One could argue that without their actions, we'd be worse off, but nothing they're doing is having any kind of a long term positive effect on the economy, at least not yet.

Believe it or not, another ex Goldman Sachs guy (at the ripe old age of 35) is now charged with managing the entire $700B bailout, which I think is going to be woefully insufficient to do what was so yapped about last week.

Has a 35 year old ever been given $700B to go on a spending spree? That's bigger than the GDP of most countries.

 

[ayabe]

We've got no one on deck, that's the problem.

 

[Farang]

I'm not sure how much blame Bernanke really deserves. Paulson you're faulting for being in the industry before but what exactly did he do wrong?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

I see nothing good coming from gov. One could argue that without their actions, we'd be worse off, but nothing they're doing is having any kind of a long term positive effect on the economy, at least not yet.

Believe it or not, another ex Goldman Sachs guy (at the ripe old age of 35) is now charged with managing the entire $700B bailout, which I think is going to be woefully insufficient to do what was so yapped about last week.

Has a 35 year old ever been given $700B to go on a spending spree? That's bigger than the GDP of most countries.

Your bolded is amusing. Long term effect is 1 week in your world?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

I see nothing good coming from gov. One could argue that without their actions, we'd be worse off, but nothing they're doing is having any kind of a long term positive effect on the economy, at least not yet.

Believe it or not, another ex Goldman Sachs guy (at the ripe old age of 35) is now charged with managing the entire $700B bailout, which I think is going to be woefully insufficient to do what was so yapped about last week.

Has a 35 year old ever been given $700B to go on a spending spree? That's bigger than the GDP of most countries.

Your bolded is amusing. Long term effect is 1 week in your world?

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that only a week ago the fed started buying up bad debt/companies. My bad

I'm not sure how much blame Bernanke really deserves.

He's gone in front of the podium countless times talking up the economy oblivious to its weakness with a wanton disregard for the reality of it. Touting the "we may be able to avoid a recession" until the bitter end. I think a person who is totally broadsided has lost credibility to find a solution.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

I see nothing good coming from gov. One could argue that without their actions, we'd be worse off, but nothing they're doing is having any kind of a long term positive effect on the economy, at least not yet.

Believe it or not, another ex Goldman Sachs guy (at the ripe old age of 35) is now charged with managing the entire $700B bailout, which I think is going to be woefully insufficient to do what was so yapped about last week.

Has a 35 year old ever been given $700B to go on a spending spree? That's bigger than the GDP of most countries.

Your bolded is amusing. Long term effect is 1 week in your world?

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that only a week ago the fed started buying up bad debt/companies. My bad

I'm not sure how much blame Bernanke really deserves.

He's gone in front of the podium countless times talking up the economy oblivious to its weakness with a wanton disregard for the reality of it. Touting the "we may be able to avoid a recession" until the bitter end. I think a person who is totally broadsided has lost credibility to find a solution.

Never fully trust what the fed chairman says about the economy. It would be highly irresponsible of him to make people fearful with dire market predictions.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I will admit to stating and believing that Bernanke is/was one of Bush's shining moments as POTUS. He chose someone that was a proven and accomplished economist to handle a post that has to be ideologically clear of partisanship.

I still think that Bernanke meets those qualifications. I'm not really sure how much any one person can know (including the Fed chief) about the inner workings and books of private/public corporations and the risks that they are exposed to. Could he have been a little more aware of the sub-prime practice earlier and put regulations and/or proposals in place to slow this train wreck down? Perhaps. But when you are dealing with companies that have perfected the art of creative accounting....some things are just going to blindside you.

I still stand by my praise of GWB for his choice of Bernanke who appears to be the victim of policies that he had no say or part in.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

I see nothing good coming from gov. One could argue that without their actions, we'd be worse off, but nothing they're doing is having any kind of a long term positive effect on the economy, at least not yet.

Believe it or not, another ex Goldman Sachs guy (at the ripe old age of 35) is now charged with managing the entire $700B bailout, which I think is going to be woefully insufficient to do what was so yapped about last week.

Has a 35 year old ever been given $700B to go on a spending spree? That's bigger than the GDP of most countries.

Your bolded is amusing. Long term effect is 1 week in your world?

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that only a week ago the fed started buying up bad debt/companies. My bad

I'm not sure how much blame Bernanke really deserves.

He's gone in front of the podium countless times talking up the economy oblivious to its weakness with a wanton disregard for the reality of it. Touting the "we may be able to avoid a recession" until the bitter end. I think a person who is totally broadsided has lost credibility to find a solution.

Never fully trust what the fed chairman says about the economy. It would be highly irresponsible of him to make people fearful with dire market predictions.

If we're supposed to have a healthy dose of cynism when he talks, how can we trust what he says when arguing for the need/benefit of $700B?

I would ask people: What has the fed done this year that has clearly had a positive effect that lasted longer than a rally of a few days (like what we see after rate cuts)? This feels to me like a doctor who doesn't know what my ailment is so he keeps prescribing meds hoping that one will work. None do and I keep suffering new side effects from them.

 

[Jaskalas]

After spending 4 or 5 trillion and sinking the entire wealth of our nation.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I will admit to stating and believing that Bernanke is/was one of Bush's shining moments as POTUS. He chose someone that was a proven and accomplished economist to handle a post that has to be ideologically clear of partisanship.

I still think that Bernanke meets those qualifications. I'm not really sure how much any one person can know (including the Fed chief) about the inner workings and books of private/public corporations and the risks that they are exposed to. Could he have been a little more aware of the sub-prime practice earlier and put regulations and/or proposals in place to slow this train wreck down? Perhaps. But when you are dealing with companies that have perfected the art of creative accounting....some things are just going to blindside you.

I still stand by my praise of GWB for his choice of Bernanke who appears to be the victim of policies that he had no say or part in.

It's certainly complex and difficult. Bernanke may be a great heart surgeon but suck at brain surgery. In any case, it's not as if many others hadn't seen this mess coming for years, because they had. I would like to see one of them doing something instead of somebody who was in denial for so long.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

If we're supposed to have a healthy dose of cynism when he talks, how can we trust what he says when arguing for the need/benefit of $700B?

I would ask people: What has the fed done this year that has clearly had a positive effect that lasted longer than a rally of a few days (like what we see after rate cuts)? This feels to me like a doctor who doesn't know what my ailment is so he keeps prescribing meds hoping that one will work. None do and I keep suffering new side effects from them.

Your analogy fails in the sense that there are a limited number of causes for the symptoms that you are experiencing.

When talking about the economy, the number of factors that can steer it in any direction at a given time are astronomical and no person, including the Fed chief can control even more than a small portion of them.

I think that Bernanke has done a fairly decent job of keeping the markets as solvent as they are (even though they appear to be in the shitter) without forcing us into some major inflationary situation.

 

[Budmantom]

Welcome to socialism.

I can't wait for government run health care.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I see nothing good coming from gov.

Welcome to planet Earth.

 

[LegendKiller]

I can't believe they are putting a 35/yo VP from Goldman, who has a whole 2 years of I-Banking experience, in charge of the largest investment fund ever created.

That's got to be the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever seen.

 

[techs]

It all goes back to Greenspan, who was supposedly "independent".
He signed on to the Bush economic plan. He said at the time that its up to the President to make economic policy. From that point on, Greenspan was Bushes lackey, and Bernanke was chosen because he subscribed to Greenspans philosophy.
Greenspan kept the fed rate incredibly low, and Bernanke continued that policy.
Free money for all.
That's why we need a new administration in Washington.

p.s. Bush fire someonone for incompetancy? Never happened.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I can't believe they are putting a 35/yo VP from Goldman, who has a whole 2 years of I-Banking experience, in charge of the largest investment fund ever created.

That's got to be the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever seen.

Government-managed economy FTL?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I can't believe they are putting a 35/yo VP from Goldman, who has a whole 2 years of I-Banking experience, in charge of the largest investment fund ever created.

That's got to be the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever seen.

BUSH-managed economy FTL?

Fixed.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I can't believe they are putting a 35/yo VP from Goldman, who has a whole 2 years of I-Banking experience, in charge of the largest investment fund ever created.

That's got to be the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever seen.

BUSH-managed economy FTL?

Fixed.

:roll:

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

I see nothing good coming from gov. One could argue that without their actions, we'd be worse off, but nothing they're doing is having any kind of a long term positive effect on the economy, at least not yet.

Believe it or not, another ex Goldman Sachs guy (at the ripe old age of 35) is now charged with managing the entire $700B bailout, which I think is going to be woefully insufficient to do what was so yapped about last week.

Has a 35 year old ever been given $700B to go on a spending spree? That's bigger than the GDP of most countries.

Your bolded is amusing. Long term effect is 1 week in your world?

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that only a week ago the fed started buying up bad debt/companies. My bad

I'm not sure how much blame Bernanke really deserves.

He's gone in front of the podium countless times talking up the economy oblivious to its weakness with a wanton disregard for the reality of it. Touting the "we may be able to avoid a recession" until the bitter end. I think a person who is totally broadsided has lost credibility to find a solution.

Never fully trust what the fed chairman says about the economy. It would be highly irresponsible of him to make people fearful with dire market predictions.

Yeah, this is true. If things are bad and its your job to fix them, yelling "holy shit...we're all fucked...get to the choppah!" will just make it worse.

The guy pretty much has to lie and say everything is doing awesome...perception is everything.

 

[Moonbeam]

I like coming in to P & N and watch people play pin the tail on the donkey. Why do people insist on making order out of what is too complex for them to understand. Is somebody going to whip you if you don't know anything?

I know nothing. I hear the problem is trust. I hear that everyday normally huge sums are borrowed and lent short term between companies against future earnings for vitals and at a small percent and that no borrowing, blammo, companies start going under. No lending is a mater of trust, is what I'm told, so the government is stepping in to restore confidence and supply, short term, the money for those loans.

You get stung by a bee and your folks try to assure you it's going to be all right so you don't hide in your bedroom for the rest of your life. Confidence can be lost in a second but it never returns so easily as it is lost. The government is trying to fill in during the bedroom phase, it seems to me. And it seems if everybody takes their ball and goes home at the same moment, we're screwed, no?

And long term we're all dead.

 

[winnar111]

It's not like Bush can put anyone in Paulson's place at this time.

 

[Dufusyte]

The goal of Bernanke and Paulson is to increase the power of the financial elite, destroy the competitors of the same, and have the taxpayer fund it all.

They are doing a smashing job and will be richly rewarded by their masters.

(until they die, at which point they may be eaten by demons for all eternity)

 

[Pliablemoose]

Paulson will be gone soon enough, he's said he has little interest in remaining after the elections, I can't fault helicopter Ben too badly, he inherited this mess and is doing pretty well IMHO. He's actually the right guy at the right time.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I can't believe they are putting a 35/yo VP from Goldman, who has a whole 2 years of I-Banking experience, in charge of the largest investment fund ever created.

That's got to be the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever seen.

It could be worse. It could be a former intern at Goldman with the words "Fall Guy" tattooed on his forehead. But then I guess that would be too obvious when the inevitable investigation into mismanagement comes along.

 

[Lemon law]

What did Paulson do wrong????????? Let me counts the ways. But ole Hank, as treasury secretary only has the best available fact finding and economic analysts in the USA. Its his very job to constantly monitor
the economy and fix little problems before they become big problems. And that is the only theory that fits the facts is that Paulson was asleep at the switch and was probably hoping to sneak out of office before the problem blew up in his face. Because dealing with a democratic congress was something he was loathe to do.

Then the sneaky bastard sent down a plan to make himself into an economic dictator accountable to no one while rewarding his CEO buddies.

Paulson should have been fired a year ago. And any rationality demands that he should have resigned before submitting any plan to congress.

If we could buy Paulson for what he is worth and then sell Paulson for what he thinks he is worth, we could bail ourselves out of this problem. But sadly, Paulson is worth nothing, and has proved to be one of the most dangerous parasite known to man.