• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Fed cuts rate by 3/4 point!!!

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,990
853
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh but it is. the alternative will hurt the consumer ALOT more than the tax increase.
Bullshit the loses are the same either way. The only difference is who pays.
No, they aren't. Collapsing credit and the liquidity of the entire economy will create a much larger loss.

Bailing out these companies sucks, and I think heads should roll all around, but it's still the 'better' bad alternative.
Trying to convince him about that is like convincing him that physics is true. He can't understand either.
You won't know angular momentum if it rolled over you.

Yea the loses would be immediate and felt by the banks if they where not bailed out. Instead it is felt by everyone and will be for the next 20 years like Japan.
Exactly. Japan cut their interest rates to zero, and their housing still went in the toilet, plus their economy has gone nowhere in almost two decades. In the meantime, emerging countries went through defaults and bank collapses and are now growing like gangbusters.
And Japan is still one of the most advanced and productive country's in the world, despite their problems. The alternative was that they completely trash their country, economy, banking system, major corporations, and consumers, and start all over again.

Great alternative! Sign me the fuck up!
Capitalism = creative destruction.
You want never ending government bailouts for rogue and stupid players, you are signing up for a permanently dysfunctional system. You want long term malaise over short term pain, sounds like a great plan.
So, are you ignorant, naive, trolling, or renewing your passport to move to a more socialist friendly country?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,035
5,121
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp


Capitalism = creative destruction.
You want never ending government bailouts for rogue and stupid players, you are signing up for a permanently dysfunctional system. You want long term malaise over short term pain, sounds like a great plan.
Whoa, we have somebody that loves Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand. Yay!

There are some destructions that are worse for society as a whole.
Short term. Long term, society is better off if inept and rogue players pay the price and vanish, and not bailed out to continue to take up room that a better new player can fill. That applies to big banks and coffee shops alike. If you want to perpetuate stupidity and corruption, continue having the Fed pay for it. If these companies were providing services that created value, why would they be worthless and need a Fed bailout?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp


Capitalism = creative destruction.
You want never ending government bailouts for rogue and stupid players, you are signing up for a permanently dysfunctional system. You want long term malaise over short term pain, sounds like a great plan.
Whoa, we have somebody that loves Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand. Yay!

There are some destructions that are worse for society as a whole.
Short term. Long term, society is better off if inept and rogue players pay the price and vanish, and not bailed out to continue to take up room that a better new player can fill. That applies to big banks and coffee shops alike. If you want to perpetuate stupidity and corruption, continue having the Fed pay for it. If these companies were providing services that created value, why would they be worthless and need a Fed bailout?
Sorry, did 7,000 people at Bear probably not just get the boot? OK, just checking reality, it needs you back.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,035
5,121
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh but it is. the alternative will hurt the consumer ALOT more than the tax increase.
Bullshit the loses are the same either way. The only difference is who pays.
No, they aren't. Collapsing credit and the liquidity of the entire economy will create a much larger loss.

Bailing out these companies sucks, and I think heads should roll all around, but it's still the 'better' bad alternative.
Trying to convince him about that is like convincing him that physics is true. He can't understand either.
You won't know angular momentum if it rolled over you.

Yea the loses would be immediate and felt by the banks if they where not bailed out. Instead it is felt by everyone and will be for the next 20 years like Japan.
Exactly. Japan cut their interest rates to zero, and their housing still went in the toilet, plus their economy has gone nowhere in almost two decades. In the meantime, emerging countries went through defaults and bank collapses and are now growing like gangbusters.
And Japan is still one of the most advanced and productive country's in the world, despite their problems. The alternative was that they completely trash their country, economy, banking system, major corporations, and consumers, and start all over again.

Great alternative! Sign me the fuck up!
Capitalism = creative destruction.
You want never ending government bailouts for rogue and stupid players, you are signing up for a permanently dysfunctional system. You want long term malaise over short term pain, sounds like a great plan.
So, are you ignorant, naive, trolling, or renewing your passport to move to a more socialist friendly country?
I don't think I can find one more socialist than the US when it comes to socializing losses of inept and corrupt banks or borrowers.
To every bank by their need, and from every American by their ability, that's your motto.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp

Fine, then let the Fed socialize failing banks.
So you want to be socialist? Why does it have to be all or none?
Because if losses are socialized, then so should be the banks.
You don't get to retain your equity if you want the Fed to bail you out.
I'm having trouble understanding how the "moral hazard" argument is being used considering 98% of BSC's share price has been wiped out in the last year or so, and its market cap reduced from ~$20 billion to a couple hundred million. The $2 takeunder price is probably what would be left anyway if the company was liquidated under Chapter 7 if you presume minimal value for the worth of real estate, intellectual property, trademarks and brand equity. Are those who want to stick it to those rich investment bankers so bloodthirsty that they'd rather see even that pittance of shareholder equity go to the bankruptcy lawyers instead?
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,547
651
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp


Capitalism = creative destruction.
You want never ending government bailouts for rogue and stupid players, you are signing up for a permanently dysfunctional system. You want long term malaise over short term pain, sounds like a great plan.
Whoa, we have somebody that loves Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand. Yay!

There are some destructions that are worse for society as a whole.
Short term. Long term, society is better off if inept and rogue players pay the price and vanish, and not bailed out to continue to take up room that a better new player can fill. That applies to big banks and coffee shops alike. If you want to perpetuate stupidity and corruption, continue having the Fed pay for it. If these companies were providing services that created value, why would they be worthless and need a Fed bailout?
Unfortunately, letting BSC fail would have had huge repercussions across the whole US economy and markets. It's not an isolated situation like a single coffee shop.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,990
853
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh but it is. the alternative will hurt the consumer ALOT more than the tax increase.
Bullshit the loses are the same either way. The only difference is who pays.
No, they aren't. Collapsing credit and the liquidity of the entire economy will create a much larger loss.

Bailing out these companies sucks, and I think heads should roll all around, but it's still the 'better' bad alternative.
Trying to convince him about that is like convincing him that physics is true. He can't understand either.
You won't know angular momentum if it rolled over you.

Yea the loses would be immediate and felt by the banks if they where not bailed out. Instead it is felt by everyone and will be for the next 20 years like Japan.
Exactly. Japan cut their interest rates to zero, and their housing still went in the toilet, plus their economy has gone nowhere in almost two decades. In the meantime, emerging countries went through defaults and bank collapses and are now growing like gangbusters.
And Japan is still one of the most advanced and productive country's in the world, despite their problems. The alternative was that they completely trash their country, economy, banking system, major corporations, and consumers, and start all over again.

Great alternative! Sign me the fuck up!
Capitalism = creative destruction.
You want never ending government bailouts for rogue and stupid players, you are signing up for a permanently dysfunctional system. You want long term malaise over short term pain, sounds like a great plan.
So, are you ignorant, naive, trolling, or renewing your passport to move to a more socialist friendly country?
I don't think I can find one more socialist than the US when it comes to socializing losses of inept and corrupt banks or borrowers.
To every bank by their need, and from every American by their ability, that's your motto.
Thanks for answering my question. Naive it is.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: glenn1
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp

Fine, then let the Fed socialize failing banks.
So you want to be socialist? Why does it have to be all or none?
Because if losses are socialized, then so should be the banks.
You don't get to retain your equity if you want the Fed to bail you out.
I'm having trouble understanding how the "moral hazard" argument is being used considering 98% of BSC's share price has been wiped out in the last year or so, and its market cap reduced from ~$20 billion to a couple hundred million. The $2 takeunder price is probably what would be left anyway if the company was liquidated under Chapter 7 if you presume minimal value for the worth of real estate, intellectual property, trademarks and brand equity. Are those who want to stick it to those rich investment bankers so bloodthirsty that they'd rather see even that pittance of shareholder equity go to the bankruptcy lawyers instead?
BUT BUT BUT, THEY'LL ALL KEEP THEIR JOBS!!!!!!

These people are fricking clueless. WS has already shed some 15,000 jobs, yet they think nobody has been fired and no investors or executives have lost money or jobs.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp


Capitalism = creative destruction.
You want never ending government bailouts for rogue and stupid players, you are signing up for a permanently dysfunctional system. You want long term malaise over short term pain, sounds like a great plan.
Whoa, we have somebody that loves Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand. Yay!

There are some destructions that are worse for society as a whole.
Short term. Long term, society is better off if inept and rogue players pay the price and vanish, and not bailed out to continue to take up room that a better new player can fill. That applies to big banks and coffee shops alike. If you want to perpetuate stupidity and corruption, continue having the Fed pay for it. If these companies were providing services that created value, why would they be worthless and need a Fed bailout?
Unfortunately, letting BSC fail would have had huge repercussions across the whole US economy and markets. It's not an isolated situation like a single coffee shop.
Didn't you know that thousands of people depend on coffee shops to fund their mortgages, provide markets for investments, provide brokerage accounts and sustain the capital markets.

Obviously the world can do without banks and coffee shops in the same equal proportion.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,035
5,121
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp


Capitalism = creative destruction.
You want never ending government bailouts for rogue and stupid players, you are signing up for a permanently dysfunctional system. You want long term malaise over short term pain, sounds like a great plan.
Whoa, we have somebody that loves Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand. Yay!

There are some destructions that are worse for society as a whole.
Short term. Long term, society is better off if inept and rogue players pay the price and vanish, and not bailed out to continue to take up room that a better new player can fill. That applies to big banks and coffee shops alike. If you want to perpetuate stupidity and corruption, continue having the Fed pay for it. If these companies were providing services that created value, why would they be worthless and need a Fed bailout?
Sorry, did 7,000 people at Bear probably not just get the boot? OK, just checking reality, it needs you back.
Their equity went to JP Morgan, while the risk was assumed by the Fed. You don't see anything wrong with that picture?
Maybe you need a reality check. Your ilk created this mess and now wants responsible people like me to bail you out. I say you made your bed, sleep in it.

 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp

Fine, then let the Fed socialize failing banks.
So you want to be socialist? Why does it have to be all or none?
Because if losses are socialized, then so should be the banks.
You don't get to retain your equity if you want the Fed to bail you out.
I'm having trouble understanding how the "moral hazard" argument is being used considering 98% of BSC's share price has been wiped out in the last year or so, and its market cap reduced from ~$20 billion to a couple hundred million. The $2 takeunder price is probably what would be left anyway if the company was liquidated under Chapter 7 if you presume minimal value for the worth of real estate, intellectual property, trademarks and brand equity. Are those who want to stick it to those rich investment bankers so bloodthirsty that they'd rather see even that pittance of shareholder equity go to the bankruptcy lawyers instead?
You don't get it the bail out wasn't of BS it was their counter parties. Bear was leveraged something like 30 to 1. That is who should have lost big rather then the fed.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp


Capitalism = creative destruction.
You want never ending government bailouts for rogue and stupid players, you are signing up for a permanently dysfunctional system. You want long term malaise over short term pain, sounds like a great plan.
Whoa, we have somebody that loves Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand. Yay!

There are some destructions that are worse for society as a whole.
Short term. Long term, society is better off if inept and rogue players pay the price and vanish, and not bailed out to continue to take up room that a better new player can fill. That applies to big banks and coffee shops alike. If you want to perpetuate stupidity and corruption, continue having the Fed pay for it. If these companies were providing services that created value, why would they be worthless and need a Fed bailout?
Sorry, did 7,000 people at Bear probably not just get the boot? OK, just checking reality, it needs you back.
Their equity went to JP Morgan, while the risk was assumed by the Fed. You don't see anything wrong with that picture?
Maybe you need a reality check. Your ilk created this mess and now wants responsible people like me to bail you out. I say you made your bed, sleep in it.
Whose equity went to JPM? You mean that $2 token stock price? Ohh, ok. Do you mean the pension funds that were wiped out? Ok. Do you mean the estimated 7,000 people who will be out of work, including the worst instigators?

Sorry, I didn't see that those people lost all of that. Thanks for clearing it up.
 

nergee

Senior member
Jan 25, 2000
843
0
0
If housing doesn't stabilize soon, I wonder if the Fed has enough dough on hand to keep
taking on all of the crap on these balance sheets. It looks like the Fed has 900B in credit assets
and they have shot off around half of it already. I just don't have a good feeling about this and
it seems Bernankrupt is just taking a shot in the dark here, hoping it all works out.....
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,990
853
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp


Capitalism = creative destruction.
You want never ending government bailouts for rogue and stupid players, you are signing up for a permanently dysfunctional system. You want long term malaise over short term pain, sounds like a great plan.
Whoa, we have somebody that loves Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand. Yay!

There are some destructions that are worse for society as a whole.
Short term. Long term, society is better off if inept and rogue players pay the price and vanish, and not bailed out to continue to take up room that a better new player can fill. That applies to big banks and coffee shops alike. If you want to perpetuate stupidity and corruption, continue having the Fed pay for it. If these companies were providing services that created value, why would they be worthless and need a Fed bailout?
Sorry, did 7,000 people at Bear probably not just get the boot? OK, just checking reality, it needs you back.
Their equity went to JP Morgan, while the risk was assumed by the Fed. You don't see anything wrong with that picture?
Maybe you need a reality check. Your ilk created this mess and now wants responsible people like me to bail you out. I say you made your bed, sleep in it.
So you dont give a rat's ass about the laid off employees?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,990
853
126
Originally posted by: nergee
If housing doesn't stabilize soon, I wonder if the Fed has enough dough on hand to keep
taking on all of the crap on these balance sheets. It looks like the Fed has 900B in credit assets
and they have shot off around half of it already. I just don't have a good feeling about this and
it seems Bernankrupt is just taking a shot in the dark here, hoping it all works out.....
One thing people forget, or most likely dont even know, is the thing that makes the US economy as resiliant and strong as it is, is the depth of our liquidity. All this talk of debt blah blah...the fact is we have more liquid assets as a country than you might realiZe.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,035
5,121
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp


Capitalism = creative destruction.
You want never ending government bailouts for rogue and stupid players, you are signing up for a permanently dysfunctional system. You want long term malaise over short term pain, sounds like a great plan.
Whoa, we have somebody that loves Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand. Yay!

There are some destructions that are worse for society as a whole.
Short term. Long term, society is better off if inept and rogue players pay the price and vanish, and not bailed out to continue to take up room that a better new player can fill. That applies to big banks and coffee shops alike. If you want to perpetuate stupidity and corruption, continue having the Fed pay for it. If these companies were providing services that created value, why would they be worthless and need a Fed bailout?
Sorry, did 7,000 people at Bear probably not just get the boot? OK, just checking reality, it needs you back.
Their equity went to JP Morgan, while the risk was assumed by the Fed. You don't see anything wrong with that picture?
Maybe you need a reality check. Your ilk created this mess and now wants responsible people like me to bail you out. I say you made your bed, sleep in it.
So you dont give a rat's ass about the laid off employees?
Sure I do. But I am in the tech industry, this sort of thing happens all the time here. Companies that make poor decisions go out of business. People move on and find new jobs. There is no reason for the Fed to come bail them out. They have unemployment insurance.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
4
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
one word: REFINANCE! :)

Any mortgage lenders in here happen to know the average rate offerings coming down the pike?
I'm with this dude.

How much for a 15 year fixed

 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Didn't you know that thousands of people depend on coffee shops to fund their mortgages, provide markets for investments, provide brokerage accounts and sustain the capital markets.

Obviously the world can do without banks and coffee shops in the same equal proportion.
It's called Starbuck's with a market cap of 13 billion, down from a market cap of almost 26 billion a year ago. Thousands of people certainly do depend on Starbuck's for their income. The fact that it isn't a bank or a financial company is really just a matter of arbitrary labels. But if Starbuck's went out of business, thousands of people certainly would be affected but there wouldn't be any bailout.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Wait...so the sub prime collapse is the Fed's scheme?
Where the heck have you been for the past several years during the housing bubble??
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,990
853
126
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Wait...so the sub prime collapse is the Fed's scheme?
Where the heck have you been for the past several years during the housing bubble??
Alcoa shares are pretty good right now. You should check it out ;)
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
699
126
Wow, I posted this and it's exploded into a full blown thread (with all of the thrills of flames and bashing of P&N). Nice! :D

Carry-on and let me know via PM if I need to change something in the OP or title. ;)
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh but it is. the alternative will hurt the consumer ALOT more than the tax increase.
Bullshit the loses are the same either way. The only difference is who pays.
No, they aren't. Collapsing credit and the liquidity of the entire economy will create a much larger loss.

Bailing out these companies sucks, and I think heads should roll all around, but it's still the 'better' bad alternative.
Trying to convince him about that is like convincing him that physics is true. He can't understand either.
You won't know angular momentum if it rolled over you.

Yea the loses would be immediate and felt by the banks if they where not bailed out. Instead it is felt by everyone and will be for the next 20 years like Japan.
Exactly. Japan cut their interest rates to zero, and their housing still went in the toilet, plus their economy has gone nowhere in almost two decades. In the meantime, emerging countries went through defaults and bank collapses and are now growing like gangbusters.
And Japan is still one of the most advanced and productive country's in the world, despite their problems. The alternative was that they completely trash their country, economy, banking system, major corporations, and consumers, and start all over again.

Great alternative! Sign me the fuck up!
Capitalism = creative destruction.
You want never ending government bailouts for rogue and stupid players, you are signing up for a permanently dysfunctional system. You want long term malaise over short term pain, sounds like a great plan.
So, are you ignorant, naive, trolling, or renewing your passport to move to a more socialist friendly country?
I don't think I can find one more socialist than the US when it comes to socializing losses of inept and corrupt banks or borrowers.
To every bank by their need, and from every American by their ability, that's your motto.
Thanks for answering my question. Naive it is.
Dear god man! Learn how to FING quote!
 

Lt 486

Banned
Mar 17, 2008
36
0
0
Smart people make money, evade taxes and vote for and donate to those who represent their interests.
Dumb people are working for smart people, pay taxes and vote for those who represent the interests of the smart people (coz TV and radio never lies).

That is why airlines and banks get hundreds of billions of dollars taxed from dumb guys and dumb guys get pink slip.

I think it is fair.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY