• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NPR: Bailout clash

43st

Diamond Member
After yesterdays bailout media blitzkrieg, it's nice to see the other side of the story. It seems like Wall street is a bit of a drug problem and needs hyper-lending and credit to maintain it's habit. Just like regular people, maybe it's okay to budget for a large expense, and not rely on credit all the time.

Link
Despite warnings of disastrous consequences, the House of Representatives failed to pass the $700 billion Wall Street bailout Monday. But on Tuesday, the sun came up; people still got up and went to work; they could still go to the ATM and get money. The economic world hasn't ended, at least not yet.

Congress is still considering some form of government intervention in the troubled financial system. Dissenting experts think the economy just might be OK without a bailout at all.

That's hardly the view on Capitol Hill. After the House voted down the bill, lawmakers emerged looking shell-shocked. Rep. Barney Frank stood before the cameras and tried to make sense of it all. Frank said he had been convinced by everyone he'd talked to, including the heads of the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that the nation faced a shutdown of its credit system.

"Maybe that's wrong," Frank told reporters. "Clearly a large number of members of the House don't believe that. Some said there was no great crisis. If in fact that turns out to be the case, I very cheerfully will admit error and take the rest of the year off."

Since the Bush administration proposed the bailout this month, more than 200 economists have signed a petition opposing it.

Narayana Kocherlakota, of the University of Minnesota, calls the White House's case an unconvincing one. "I think one of the reasons why so many people were signing that is the administration has not brought forward the information that would be compelling, that yes, we are facing economic Armageddon," Kocherlakota says.

The argument that economic Armageddon could happen goes like this: With billions of bad assets on Wall Street, so many banks could go under that lending actually stops. Meanwhile, solvent bankers could become so frightened that they either lend only a limited basis at steep rates ? or stop lending altogether.

John Cochrane, a University of Chicago professor who helped organize the petition drive, says it's true that credit is harder to get. If you want a loan, you'll face higher interest rates. Cochrane says the economy is sick, but the patient is up and walking around.

"We have an unprecedented seizing up for credit markets and, as yet, no depression," he argues. "No recession." Cochrane points to the relatively steady gross domestic product figures and astronomical rates of unemployment during the Great Depression. The United States is nowhere near having 1 in 4 adults out of work, he says. Instead, the gloom and doom he's hearing sound more like a typical recession.

Look at the failure last week of Washington Mutual, Cochrane says. That was the largest federal bank failure in history. JPMorgan Chase bought the bank, and business continued.

"I still don't see what is coming over the horizon that is so absolutely awful," he says. He acknowledges suffering among ordinary consumers and Wall Street financiers alike, but he says some of it is unavoidable.

Meanwhile, the credit market is growing even tighter. Ira Jersey, of Credit Suisse, studies interest rates all day. He cites the Caterpillar manufacturing company as one example. Until a few weeks ago, Caterpillar was able to borrow money through issuing bonds with an interest rate of about 5.5 percent. Last week, the company issued more bonds ? for a full point higher.

"I would argue that spigot is slowly being turned off," Jersey says, "and has been over the last year."

The question now may be how much the credit markets will dry up, and how long they'll stay that way.

The skeptics aren't advocating that Congress do nothing. Cochrane says the government should help, by taking steps like making it easier for banks to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. But he calls the bailout bill the "nuclear option."

It's like we have a boating outing," he says, "and some of the boats are sinking. So somebody says, 'I got an idea. Let's blow up the dam and drain the lake.' OK, that will keep all the boats from sinking ? not just the three that are in trouble." In other words, Cochrane says the bailout is a broad fix for a narrow problem.

The problem for ordinary Americans is that they have no way of knowing for sure who's right.
 
Originally posted by: 43st
After yesterdays bailout media blitzkrieg, it's nice to see the other side of the story. It seems like Wall street is a bit of a drug problem and needs hyper-lending and credit to maintain it's habit. Just like regular people, maybe it's okay to budget for a large expense, and not rely on credit all the time.

Link
Despite warnings of disastrous consequences, the House of Representatives failed to pass the $700 billion Wall Street bailout Monday. But on Tuesday, the sun came up; people still got up and went to work; they could still go to the ATM and get money. The economic world hasn't ended, at least not yet.

Congress is still considering some form of government intervention in the troubled financial system. Dissenting experts think the economy just might be OK without a bailout at all.

That's hardly the view on Capitol Hill. After the House voted down the bill, lawmakers emerged looking shell-shocked. Rep. Barney Frank stood before the cameras and tried to make sense of it all. Frank said he had been convinced by everyone he'd talked to, including the heads of the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that the nation faced a shutdown of its credit system.

"Maybe that's wrong," Frank told reporters. "Clearly a large number of members of the House don't believe that. Some said there was no great crisis. If in fact that turns out to be the case, I very cheerfully will admit error and take the rest of the year off."

Since the Bush administration proposed the bailout this month, more than 200 economists have signed a petition opposing it.

Narayana Kocherlakota, of the University of Minnesota, calls the White House's case an unconvincing one. "I think one of the reasons why so many people were signing that is the administration has not brought forward the information that would be compelling, that yes, we are facing economic Armageddon," Kocherlakota says.

The argument that economic Armageddon could happen goes like this: With billions of bad assets on Wall Street, so many banks could go under that lending actually stops. Meanwhile, solvent bankers could become so frightened that they either lend only a limited basis at steep rates ? or stop lending altogether.

John Cochrane, a University of Chicago professor who helped organize the petition drive, says it's true that credit is harder to get. If you want a loan, you'll face higher interest rates. Cochrane says the economy is sick, but the patient is up and walking around.

"We have an unprecedented seizing up for credit markets and, as yet, no depression," he argues. "No recession." Cochrane points to the relatively steady gross domestic product figures and astronomical rates of unemployment during the Great Depression. The United States is nowhere near having 1 in 4 adults out of work, he says. Instead, the gloom and doom he's hearing sound more like a typical recession.

Look at the failure last week of Washington Mutual, Cochrane says. That was the largest federal bank failure in history. JPMorgan Chase bought the bank, and business continued.

"I still don't see what is coming over the horizon that is so absolutely awful," he says. He acknowledges suffering among ordinary consumers and Wall Street financiers alike, but he says some of it is unavoidable.

Meanwhile, the credit market is growing even tighter. Ira Jersey, of Credit Suisse, studies interest rates all day. He cites the Caterpillar manufacturing company as one example. Until a few weeks ago, Caterpillar was able to borrow money through issuing bonds with an interest rate of about 5.5 percent. Last week, the company issued more bonds ? for a full point higher.

"I would argue that spigot is slowly being turned off," Jersey says, "and has been over the last year."

The question now may be how much the credit markets will dry up, and how long they'll stay that way.

The skeptics aren't advocating that Congress do nothing. Cochrane says the government should help, by taking steps like making it easier for banks to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. But he calls the bailout bill the "nuclear option."

It's like we have a boating outing," he says, "and some of the boats are sinking. So somebody says, 'I got an idea. Let's blow up the dam and drain the lake.' OK, that will keep all the boats from sinking ? not just the three that are in trouble." In other words, Cochrane says the bailout is a broad fix for a narrow problem.

The problem for ordinary Americans is that they have no way of knowing for sure who's right.
I would say the 200 economists, who don't have a bias like Paulson, are right in their assertion that the problem = more narrow and he is wrong for pushing for an overarching solution that grants extraordinary power to the Treasury. I would also say that 200 economists > than the financial sector fcktards that frequent this forum and are screaming doom and gloom. But what do economists know, they only have advanced degrees on the topic, right?
 
Regretfully, I have not had time to follow this as closely as I'd like, but (just thinking out loud here), perhaps a tightened loanable funds market is exactly what this country needs.
 
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL.

200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

How is any different than McCain proclaiming "The economy is strong" a week before Bush comes asking for a $700 billion bailout? 😕
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.

Yeah, because trusting those who do have the ties has worked out PERFECTLY!
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL.

200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

How is any different than McCain proclaiming "The economy is strong" a week before Bush comes asking for a $700 billion bailout? 😕

Why are you preaching/asking the choir?
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.

Did the people ,with "ties to the capital markets" that you trust to fix this, see this coming and propose steps to stop it before it happened? If not, I don't see how those ties are evidence that you're more competent or any more likely to be right.
 
As a former economics student, I'm well aware of the concept that you can find an economist to vehemently argue just about any feasible position. The only exception to this rule was McCain's foolish idea for a gas tax suspension earlier this year.

That said, I find the argument presented here about as persuasive as the following analogy: an airplane runs out of fuel at 45,000 feet. Five minutes later it has glided down to 15,000. The economist looks out the window, says we are still way up in the air, nothing bad has happened yet, everything must be fine.
 
Originally posted by: Thump553
That said, I find the argument presented here about as persuasive as the following analogy: an airplane runs out of fuel at 45,000 feet. Five minutes later it has glided down to 15,000. The economist looks out the window, says we are still way up in the air, nothing bad has happened yet, everything must be fine.
Yep, I see a lot of that.

 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Thump553
That said, I find the argument presented here about as persuasive as the following analogy: an airplane runs out of fuel at 45,000 feet. Five minutes later it has glided down to 15,000. The economist looks out the window, says we are still way up in the air, nothing bad has happened yet, everything must be fine.
Yep, I see a lot of that.

The problem with that analogy is that it doesn't incorporate variables like human behavior. In addition to other factors, an abuse of credit was a significant contributing factor to the problem; forcing that out of the equation could allow the market to correct itself (which it will do one way or another - all we can do is delay, prolong, and distort).

Again, just thinking out loud.
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: 43st
After yesterdays bailout media blitzkrieg, it's nice to see the other side of the story. It seems like Wall street is a bit of a drug problem and needs hyper-lending and credit to maintain it's habit. Just like regular people, maybe it's okay to budget for a large expense, and not rely on credit all the time.

Link
Despite warnings of disastrous consequences, the House of Representatives failed to pass the $700 billion Wall Street bailout Monday. But on Tuesday, the sun came up; people still got up and went to work; they could still go to the ATM and get money. The economic world hasn't ended, at least not yet.

Congress is still considering some form of government intervention in the troubled financial system. Dissenting experts think the economy just might be OK without a bailout at all.

That's hardly the view on Capitol Hill. After the House voted down the bill, lawmakers emerged looking shell-shocked. Rep. Barney Frank stood before the cameras and tried to make sense of it all. Frank said he had been convinced by everyone he'd talked to, including the heads of the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that the nation faced a shutdown of its credit system.

"Maybe that's wrong," Frank told reporters. "Clearly a large number of members of the House don't believe that. Some said there was no great crisis. If in fact that turns out to be the case, I very cheerfully will admit error and take the rest of the year off."

Since the Bush administration proposed the bailout this month, more than 200 economists have signed a petition opposing it.

Narayana Kocherlakota, of the University of Minnesota, calls the White House's case an unconvincing one. "I think one of the reasons why so many people were signing that is the administration has not brought forward the information that would be compelling, that yes, we are facing economic Armageddon," Kocherlakota says.

The argument that economic Armageddon could happen goes like this: With billions of bad assets on Wall Street, so many banks could go under that lending actually stops. Meanwhile, solvent bankers could become so frightened that they either lend only a limited basis at steep rates ? or stop lending altogether.

John Cochrane, a University of Chicago professor who helped organize the petition drive, says it's true that credit is harder to get. If you want a loan, you'll face higher interest rates. Cochrane says the economy is sick, but the patient is up and walking around.

"We have an unprecedented seizing up for credit markets and, as yet, no depression," he argues. "No recession." Cochrane points to the relatively steady gross domestic product figures and astronomical rates of unemployment during the Great Depression. The United States is nowhere near having 1 in 4 adults out of work, he says. Instead, the gloom and doom he's hearing sound more like a typical recession.

Look at the failure last week of Washington Mutual, Cochrane says. That was the largest federal bank failure in history. JPMorgan Chase bought the bank, and business continued.

"I still don't see what is coming over the horizon that is so absolutely awful," he says. He acknowledges suffering among ordinary consumers and Wall Street financiers alike, but he says some of it is unavoidable.

Meanwhile, the credit market is growing even tighter. Ira Jersey, of Credit Suisse, studies interest rates all day. He cites the Caterpillar manufacturing company as one example. Until a few weeks ago, Caterpillar was able to borrow money through issuing bonds with an interest rate of about 5.5 percent. Last week, the company issued more bonds ? for a full point higher.

"I would argue that spigot is slowly being turned off," Jersey says, "and has been over the last year."

The question now may be how much the credit markets will dry up, and how long they'll stay that way.

The skeptics aren't advocating that Congress do nothing. Cochrane says the government should help, by taking steps like making it easier for banks to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. But he calls the bailout bill the "nuclear option."

It's like we have a boating outing," he says, "and some of the boats are sinking. So somebody says, 'I got an idea. Let's blow up the dam and drain the lake.' OK, that will keep all the boats from sinking ? not just the three that are in trouble." In other words, Cochrane says the bailout is a broad fix for a narrow problem.

The problem for ordinary Americans is that they have no way of knowing for sure who's right.
I would say the 200 economists, who don't have a bias like Paulson, are right in their assertion that the problem = more narrow and he is wrong for pushing for an overarching solution that grants extraordinary power to the Treasury. I would also say that 200 economists > than the financial sector fcktards that frequent this forum and are screaming doom and gloom. But what do economists know, they only have advanced degrees on the topic, right?

the entire economics faculty at my school support the bailout. Except the crazy brazilian.

Originally posted by: Thump553
As a former economics student, I'm well aware of the concept that you can find an economist to vehemently argue just about any feasible position. The only exception to this rule was McCain's foolish idea for a gas tax suspension earlier this year.

That said, I find the argument presented here about as persuasive as the following analogy: an airplane runs out of fuel at 45,000 feet. Five minutes later it has glided down to 15,000. The economist looks out the window, says we are still way up in the air, nothing bad has happened yet, everything must be fine.

nail/head. Thats exactly what our UofM professor with the crazy name in the OP just said.
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the entire economics faculty at my school support the bailout.

Not to get into a battle of schools, but where do you go? I'm just curious, because it's the opposite at my institution.
 
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the entire economics faculty at my school support the bailout.

Not to get into a battle of schools, but where do you go? I'm just curious, because it's the opposite at my institution.

North Dakota.

nothing too prestigious 😛
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.
Your assumption that these 200 economists "have no real ties to capital markets" is preposterous, where does it say that in the article? Did you look up the background of each one of the 200? Also, do you have a master's or phD in economics? If not, your peon finance job and undergrad econ classes do not qualify your assessment to be > theirs.
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.
Your assumption that these 200 economists "have no real ties to capital markets" is preposterous, where does it say that in the article? Did you look up the background of each one of the 200? Also, do you have a master's or phD in economics? If not, your peon finance job and undergrad econ classes do not qualify your assessment to be > theirs.

MBA: Finance. CFA Charterholder. Soon to be Columbia MSF student. Work at a top 10 i-bank.

Who the fuck are you?
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.
Your assumption that these 200 economists "have no real ties to capital markets" is preposterous, where does it say that in the article? Did you look up the background of each one of the 200? Also, do you have a master's or phD in economics? If not, your peon finance job and undergrad econ classes do not qualify your assessment to be > theirs.

MBA: Finance. CFA Charterholder. Soon to be Columbia MSF student. Work at a top 10 i-bank.
So Finance qualifies you as an economist? /golfclap. In any case, congrats on acceptance to Columbia and I wish you luck. Me? I'm in the middle of a career change (software engineer for gov), soon to be med school at GW. IAC, I never claimed that that my opinion was more qualified than 200 economists, that award belongs to you...
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
the entire economics faculty at my school support the bailout.

Not to get into a battle of schools, but where do you go? I'm just curious, because it's the opposite at my institution.

North Dakota.

nothing too prestigious 😛

For what it's worth, many of our professors are of the Austrian School. I have to admit I've been heavily influenced 😀 .
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.
Your assumption that these 200 economists "have no real ties to capital markets" is preposterous, where does it say that in the article? Did you look up the background of each one of the 200? Also, do you have a master's or phD in economics? If not, your peon finance job and undergrad econ classes do not qualify your assessment to be > theirs.

MBA: Finance. CFA Charterholder. Soon to be Columbia MSF student. Work at a top 10 i-bank.
So Finance qualifies you as an economist? /golfclap. In any case, congrats on acceptance to Columbia and I wish you luck. Me? I'm in the middle of a career change (software engineer for gov), soon to be med school at GW. IAC, I never claimed that that my opinion was more qualified than 200 economists, that award belongs to you...

And what does an economist know of the capital markets? They aren't finance majors, nor do they work here.

 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.
Your assumption that these 200 economists "have no real ties to capital markets" is preposterous, where does it say that in the article? Did you look up the background of each one of the 200? Also, do you have a master's or phD in economics? If not, your peon finance job and undergrad econ classes do not qualify your assessment to be > theirs.

MBA: Finance. CFA Charterholder. Soon to be Columbia MSF student. Work at a top 10 i-bank.
So Finance qualifies you as an economist? /golfclap. In any case, congrats on acceptance to Columbia and I wish you luck. Me? I'm in the middle of a career change (software engineer for gov), soon to be med school at GW. IAC, I never claimed that that my opinion was more qualified than 200 economists, that award belongs to you...

And what does an economist know of the capital markets? They aren't finance majors, nor do they work here.

:laugh:
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.
Your assumption that these 200 economists "have no real ties to capital markets" is preposterous, where does it say that in the article? Did you look up the background of each one of the 200? Also, do you have a master's or phD in economics? If not, your peon finance job and undergrad econ classes do not qualify your assessment to be > theirs.

MBA: Finance. CFA Charterholder. Soon to be Columbia MSF student. Work at a top 10 i-bank.
So Finance qualifies you as an economist? /golfclap. In any case, congrats on acceptance to Columbia and I wish you luck. Me? I'm in the middle of a career change (software engineer for gov), soon to be med school at GW. IAC, I never claimed that that my opinion was more qualified than 200 economists, that award belongs to you...

And what does an economist know of the capital markets? They aren't finance majors, nor do they work here.
Yes, wtf does Alan Greenspan (phD in econ know? Do you really want a list of people who have advanced econ degrees that you claim know nothing about capital markets? Your broad generalizations are your weakness, might want to work on that. 😉
 
Global warming deniers have gotten thousands of scientists to sign off on statements that global warming is a farce (and look at where we are now - McCain and even Bush acknowledge at least the existence of climate change, if not the root causes behind it).

Intelligent design proponents have done the same with their ideas.

It's going to take a lot more than a handful of economists all signing a statement to convince me that the bailout won't help.
 
Back
Top