US GOV'T BAILOUT of Banks

[LotsOfZeros]

I really can't believe the mess that the Bush administration has got this country in. Hopefully this bailout will fix things. But again, I wish I could say that I was optimistic.

Congratulations! You sir, are a first-post idiot. it's obvious by your response you didn't read any of this thread.

 

[guerilla]

Many economists skeptical of bailout - Avi Zenilman - Politico.com

Many economists skeptical of bailout

Many of the same economists and opinion-makers who'd provided a bipartisan sheen of consensus to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's previous moves have quickly begun casting doubts on the wisdom of a policy that would allow Treasury to purchase without oversight hundreds of billions of dollars of difficult-to-price assets from financial institutions.

Under the proposal, Paulson would not have to report to Congress until December, and the only safeguard for taxpayers was a provision that the “Secretary shall take into consideration means for — (1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and (2) protecting the taxpayer.”

Skepticism toward the plan reflected more than the predictable desires of the left to spread the wealth to Main Street or of the right to reject government bailouts, although those sentiments were also expressed.

"We need to take a bold move. In that sense I think Paulson is right," Luigi Zingales, a Professor at the University of Chicago School of Business who wrote a widely circulated short essay titled "Why Paulson is Wrong,” told Politico.

Zingales fears that the Treasury bailout would effectively turn the entire financial sector into a Government Sponsored Enterprise, complete with the same murkiness and moral hazard that sunk Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “It might achieve the final outcome, but it will do so at an enormous cost," he said. "All the troubles we’ve seen with Fannie and Freddie would be seen again and again across the entire financial sector."

President Bush is “asking for a huge amount of power,” said Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University who was among the first to predict the crisis. “He's saying, ‘Trust me, I'm going to do it right if you give me absolute control.' This is not a monarchy.” (Roubini told the New York Times that despite these concerns, he also thought the plan could help stave off a recession.)

Paul Krugman, the Princeton University economist and liberal columnist for The New York Times who had until now been cautiously supportive of Paulson's and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s efforts to prop up the system, wrote that the new plan would be a taxpayer rip-off. “I hate to say this, but looking at the plan as leaked, I have to say no deal,” he wrote on his blog at 4:46 p.m. Saturday. “Not unless Treasury explains, very clearly, why this is supposed to work, other than through having taxpayers pay premium prices for lousy assets.”

Yves Smith, a longtime banker and contributor to the influential finance blog Naked Capitalism, published an angry post there titled, "Why You Should Hate The Treasury Bailout Proposal":

"Given that continuing to buy U.S. assets will come under increasingly harsh scrutiny overseas, the U.S. needs to bend over backwards to devise a plan that at least looks credible in terms of directing the funds that come from taxpayers and lenders to their highest and best uses and implementing reforms that will restore active and prudent oversight of financial firms," she wrote. "The administration's demand for a free pass, even if Congress unwisely goes along, is likely to backfire with our foreign creditors."

Gregory Mankiw, a professor at Harvard University and a former chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers who was the economic guru for Mitt Romney's campaign, favorably linked to Smith's post under the headline "A Blank Check" and approvingly quoted a correspondent who wrote, "Has more money ever been given with fewer restrictions on how it is used? Ever?"

Sebastian Mallaby, the center-right economic columnist for The Washington Post and scholar of the modern financial system, was equally dubious. “The plan is being marketed under false pretenses," he wrote in his Sunday column, rejecting comparisons of the plan to the Resolution Trust Corporation, which the government formed in response to the savings and loan crisis to purchase and sell off the bad loans made by bankrupted thrifts.

“The administration proposes to buy up bad loans before the lenders go bust,” Mallaby noted, keeping the banks alive but doing little to solve the problem infecting the markets. “Bad loans are weighing down the financial system precisely because private-sector experts can't determine their worth. The government would have no better handle on the problem.”

Justin Fox, Time magazine's top financial writer and columnist, also worried about the lack of an upside for the taxpayer. "What I still can't figure out is how Treasury hopes to structure the bailout so there's at least a chance of getting a fair return on that risk-taking," he wrote on his blog.
"How on earth will these things be priced?" Portfolio's Felix Salmon asked about the bad debt Paulson plans to purchase. He also pointed out that Treasury would need to stock its office with bond-trading professionals. "All we know so far is that it's going to be set up as a reverse auction, but that raises more questions than it answers."

One notable proponent of the plan was The Financial Times' unsigned Lex column, which acknowledged the lack of oversight but mostly praised the plan:
"This bailout is necessary and the bill should be pushed through quickly. … Nor is the package necessarily a disaster for the taxpayer or the U.S. dollar. If the Treasury buys assets well, and confidence is restored, there is [a] chance that Mr. Paulson could win fund manager of the year."

Zingales, though, writes in "Why Paulson Is Wrong" that "For somebody like me who believes strongly in the free market system, the most serious risk of the current situation is that the interest of a few financiers will undermine the fundamental workings of the capitalist system. The time has come to save capitalism from the capitalists."

 

[hellblazer]

r3p1v, You should read up on what happened in Germany with the Mark.

Not only Germany, but Argentina, Zimbabwe, and ancient Rome all collapsed from the same ailment - hyperinflation.

And the US is doing the exact same thing - injecting more and more money into the money supply. It's debasing the currency bigtime. And if any foreign country, like Russia or China, decides to dump their dollars back onto the market because they're sick of the declining value, we're FUCKED.

As in, bye bye US economy. We'll probably drag a couple other economies down with us, but if any other country decides they've had enough and gets rid of their Dollar reserves, seeya.

 

[guerilla]

Ron Paul on Wolf Blitzer this morning.

YouTube - 9/21/2008 Ron Paul on the Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer

 

[steveyoung]

Ron Paul is an idiot. He offered no "plan" to FIX the economy except to say we couldn't fix it, unless we change our policy in the future. I believe we HAVE to try and fix it now AND change our policy. Yes, it will be on the back of the taxpayer. Yes, it will be painful. But our only alternative, and the one Paul seems to want, is to let the economy collapse . . . to let the economic bubble burst. If that happens, the dollar will buy nothing. The only economy we will have will be the barter system. I don't know about you, but I do not want to trade my watch for a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk. I'll take my financial advice from the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, not from some idiot congressman.

Oh yes, flame on.

 

[guerilla]

Ron Paul is an idiot. He offered no "plan" to FIX the economy except to say we couldn't fix it, unless we change our policy in the future.

Not true. Ron Paul outlined a fiscal plan, dubbed the "Prescription for Prosperity" that was based on already introduced legislation.

The RogueNation: The Prescription for Prosperity: We Americans have a Tradition of Rebellion

Basically, he wanted to do what I outlined above. Let the bubble break, but put the market and economy in a position to recover quickly.

Look, like it or not, the bubble will eventually break. You can blame Ron Paul, but he didn't create the problem, and the longer it goes on, the more it is going to cost you than a watch or some other goods.

Btw, the neo-primitive argument for a barter society is nonsense. There might be some barter in a dollar collapse, but other currencies will become the defacto trade standard. People will deal in Euros or something like that until a stable dollar currency can be re-established.

Btw, Paul's plan saves the dollar, it doesn't destroy it. It does however mean that people have to go back to work, and the trillion dollar overseas war machine and foreign aid packages have to come to an end.

 

[steveyoung]

I have to disagree with you. Letting the bubble burst is not the solution. The link you provide to Paul's "Prescription for Prosperity" states it was published on January 24, 2008. That was almost 9 months ago and is not applicable to the current state of the economy. Also, if the barter system is "nonsense" what are you going to do until you get Euros? I seem to be fresh out of them. I'm all for people going to work and ending most foreign aid, however, the war must continue until it can be won.

 

[guerilla]

I have to disagree with you. Letting the bubble burst is not the solution.

Look, we can debate all we want. The bubble is going to break, it is not going to go on for eternity.

What you're arguing is that cause and effect doesn't happen. That's not rational.

The link you provide to Paul's "Prescription for Prosperity" states it was published on January 24, 2008. That was almost 9 months ago and is not applicable to the current state of the economy.

Perhaps you didn't know that Paul predicted the Fannie/Freddie collapse in 2005? That's why Paul has been on TV everyday this last week. He's predicted all of this years ago, and as far as I am concerned, is the smartest member of Congress about economics. His reforms were specifically to address this situation, which was and is inevitable.

And since you don't believe the bubble should burst, I've got bad news for you. Paul is batting 1.000 on his financial predictions, and he predicts a massive dollar collapse. Take that to school in your lunchbox!



Just out, apparently the FED and Treasury now expect you to bailout and payoff Foreign banks as well. This is unbelievable.

Exclusive: Foreign banks may get help - Mike Allen - Politico.com

This is anal rapage with a sandpaper condom. And the irony is, it does nothing to stop the bubble from bursting or a dollar collapse, it just transfers all of the debt to main street, and all of the wealth to Wall Street.

 

[aim]

<narrative>

Guerilla continues to dominate the this thread with logic, common sense and facts.

...World class entertainment watching folks try to counter-argue...

</narrative>

 

[guerilla]

I'd rather not talk about Paul, so I'll put this stuff to rest.

The GSE Crisis by Ron Paul

Excerpt (2005)

Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital into housing creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

HR 1461 further distorts the housing market by artificially inflating the demand for housing through the creation of a national housing trust fund. This fund further diverts capital to housing that, absent government intervention, would be put to a use more closely matching the demands of consumers. Thus, this new housing program will reduce efficacy and create yet another unconstitutional redistribution program.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSEs' debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary and painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people are invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

 

[Albus Finch]

+rep guerilla

My understanding of the current situation has increased ten-fold by reading this thread.

 

[steveyoung]

I'd rather not talk about Paul, so I'll put this stuff to rest.

The GSE Crisis by Ron Paul

Excerpt (2005)

I see you are having a difficult time NOT talking about Paul. Now, you quote his comments from 2005 because you'd "rather not talk about Paul." What do you not understand about the word "today". In 2005, McCain also warned about this problem but the Democrates blocked his legislation. Again, that was 2005 not today.

Today, we have a serious financial problem. It does not matter who did what in 1835, 2005, or January 24, 2008. It only matters what we do from this day forward. Letting the economy go bust is like telling your doctor you want to die today rather than wait for the certain death you will face in years to come. You are wrong but I will argue with you no more. I am past the time of arguing with someone who is not going to change his views. I can only hope others will not listen to your folly.

Oh yes, and I haven't carried a lunchbox to school in over 50 years. I'll bet its been much less time for you.

 

[-Bill-]

Today, we have a serious financial problem. It does not matter who did what in 1835, 2005, or January 24, 2008. It only matters what we do from this day forward.

Well put

Oh yes, and I haven't carried a lunchbox to school in over 50 years. I'll bet its been much less time for you.

I always opted for the hot lunches... mommy didn't love me enough to pack lunches :xomunch:

 

[guerilla]

I see you are having a difficult time NOT talking about Paul. Now, you quote his comments from 2005 because you'd "rather not talk about Paul." What do you not understand about the word "today". In 2005, McCain also warned about this problem but the Democrates blocked his legislation. Again, that was 2005 not today.

I quoted Paul because you seemed to be misinformed that (1) he did not have a plan and (2) his plan was not related to the current crisis.

You were wrong on both. I settled the issue.

McCain is part of the problem, he was dirty in the S&L crisis.

Today, we have a serious financial problem. It does not matter who did what in 1835, 2005, or January 24, 2008.

This is the kind of thinking that created the mess. People who refuse to learn history, are doomed to repeat it.

Letting the economy go bust is like telling your doctor you want to die today rather than wait for the certain death you will face in years to come.

You misunderstand. The economy is going to bust. The government can't wave a magic fairy wand and change reality. The economy is cancerous. You either take the bitter therapy, or you die. This isn't an either/or situation. The economy is not asking your or George Bush's permission on what to do. The market will not-sustain massive losses like this. That is why it is called a crisis, and not a checkup.

You are wrong but I will argue with you no more.

You haven't made a single point yet.

I am past the time of arguing with someone who is not going to change his views. I can only hope others will not listen to your folly.

I can't change my views because you haven't brought anything worth changing them over to the table. You still don't get it. The bust doesn't ask permission to bust. If the government had the power to stop busts, it would have stopped the Depressions in the 30s and 70s. The Soviets would have kept the USSR together in 1989. When the bust comes, it comes.

 

[blueRAP]

You are wrong but I will argue with you no more.

You haven't made a single point yet.

That really sums it up.

+rep guerilla for Economics101

 

[guerilla]

Well put

Again, doomed to repeat history.

The details of the bailout bill are coming out.

All it does, is allow the Treasury Secretary to spend up to $700 billion at one time (yes, he can do this multiple times) to buy up bad assets from foreign and domestic firms, with the taxpayers money.

He sets the prices, and he makes these determinations all on his own. There is also a nice part that absolves him of any legal recourse later (but of course).

Essentially, Wall Street takes over the country. And this does nothing to protect the dollar or prevent the bust that Steve is worried about. It just makes sure the people and dollar go bust before the banks.

This is what I was getting at before. If you bailout the banks, you haven't removed the bad debt. All you have done is made sure the taxpayers and citizens will burn for it, not the banks. The bailout does nothing to prevent the bust.

 

[Drake]

The market is self-correcting. As long as there are not barriers to entry, monopolies cannot maintain their market share WITHOUT (this is the caveat) providing better prices and services/goods than any competitor. Which is a win for the consumer.

Well in the industries I think should have regualtion there are significant barriers to entry. One is cost of providing the goods and service. One is lack of inititaive by local people and businesses to provide an alternative. One is lack of capital. Loans are getting harder to get. Less businesses will be created. Should people get overcharged by the few companies that survive in each industry? You will be screaming for regulation if there ends up being 2 or 3 big banks in the US after this mess.

Google falls into this paradigm. Yahoo and MSN are so incompetent, and their search so useless, that Google dominates the landscape. Both Yahoo (time) and MSN (OS) have had big traditional advantages over Google. And yet they lost out.

Someday, someone will challenge Google seriously, by taking on the search engine portion. Unless Google continues to have the best search engine, in which case again, the consumer wins with Google being available and pervasive.[/quote]

Well Yahoo was overconfident by their early success and Microsoft has always been MS. Not really serious about anything until it takes off.

I dont expect a real competitor to Google anytime soon. For someone to have the human capital to design a real search engine and the resources to allow them to mimic the 50 different apps Google has would be very unlikely. Not to mention the hundreds of data centers all over the world. Also they cant get contextual ad customers without a large industry share. Google can / and is charging and acting basically how they want. If people stop using Google adwords usually they stop advertising. $10 clicks when there is no other bidder? That is not a free market.

As far as Enron, you're making my point. No regulation and deregulation are not the same thing.

Not sure how. Please explain. A company could fight for less regualtion from a point of little regulation or lots of regualtion.

So you're saying that in an industry where there is no competition, we are going to regulate it into a monopoly?

It already is a monopoly. But in some industries with high barriers to entry, and price inelasticity to demand, I think govts should prevent gouging.

Maybe there is no competition because the cost is below the price to develop an alternative? In which case, the market price (however high it may be perceived) is not higher than it should be.

Really? Always? I can think of dozens of cases where that is not true. Your idea is in a perfect world. The world is far from perfect. There are high costs, lack of initiative, barriers to entry, capital problems, human resource shortages, corruption, and bribes.

Maybe no one can compete with your electric company, because there is not enough profit in it to compete! Duplicating infrastructure may not be profitable because only a portion of the existing market will be served with 100% of the capital costs. These are just economic realities, not monopolistic agendas.

So whats your point? That the local electricity company should be protected by the economic realities and charge whatver they can get away with? Or until someone else spends millions, maybe billions and 5 to 10 years to build a competing system?

Can you imagine having multiple phone companies? Multiple cable companies? Oh wait, Cell Phones and Satellite TV.

Yes and all of those are good for the market as a whole and low power and wireless. Until electricity can be transmitted wirelessly and the equipment is not huge and expensive I dont see people having choices for electricty worldwide. I dont even know of one community where people can decide what electricity provider they can have. Let alone all communities in the USA or the world.

The market will provide if there is demand. Just because it is a hassle to duplicate infrastructure today, doesn't mean that the free market won't create new infrastructure or find a new technique around it.

The market does not always provide. Our grandparents lived in a world of one electricity company, one phone company, a few car makers, and limited food and entertainment. Should those companies be able to do whatever they want? Charge what they want, and make unsafe products?

But in order to have the profit incentive to do so, the market has to have zero artificial barriers to entry. If it's too costly to get in, then it becomes even harder to develop alternatives.

Are you speaking for all CEOs and all companies? Where do you get all this insight? There are always barriers of some sort. They just get added into the big picture. Profit and Loss, Costs and Benefits.

It's like the so-called energy crisis. You can't drill anywhere. You can't build nuclear. There are probably a million other things you can't do. So the costs are enormous to practice any R&D and establish a new company.

Yes a lot of what you see in the news is made up shit. The energy crisis, the banking crisis, the Enron crisis. The govt is pushing these and will try to make the results come out in their (or their friends) benefit. Its classic Hegelian dialect.

But you can drill in many places in the USA and abroad. If the oil companies really wanted to they would lobby for that. They are making record profits year after year. They found what works for them.

You can build nuclear. No one wants to for public relations and cost reasons. Nuclear is more expensive than the alternatives. That might change. In my hometown there are two electrcity companies as I discussed. The one with nuclear is more expensive because of inefficiencies and mismangement. Because of the nuclear plant.

So the government's solution is, spend more money. Instead, they should just cut regulatory red tape. Let people drill. Let people build nuclear. Let the market work.

Regulation and the banking crisis are two different things. You cant jsut cut red tape and ignore the other problems. The market is slow, and slow change is painful. Ask Japan, they tried to slowly right their problems and still have deflation 20 years later.

I think the banking crisis was created by not enough regualtion and not enforcing the regualtions we had. Plus they wanted it to some extant. They made tons of profits for years and the more fucked their company is now the more likely the government will bail them out.

You see this all day, every day. Right now, the banks are in trouble. The system is starved for genuine, real capital.

I think they had too much capital, with lowering fractional reserve amounts and loose lending practices. And the government is giving them tons of capital, is that good? The banks currently deciding to not lend each other money is the markets way of dealing with this. How fun would that be for a few years? Goodbye economic growth.

So the government will impose more regulations, force capital to flee to other markets and out of the currency. They will run up more debt, causing inflation, which will make it even harder for people to keep the homes they haven't bought yet.

Yes they will but this govt is regualtion crazy. Probably why this happened in the first place. They let it. They let it snowball a bit. And now are trying to get it under control. Record profits for companies and Americans get to work two jobs to keep their house.

Just becuase this admin is fucking loony does not mean I ignore economic principles and think that a truly free in all markets economy would work with this level of special interests and corruption.

When really, they should cut red tape, raise interest rates and cut spending/taxes simultaneously. That would allow the market to respond to the crisis, higher interest rates would be an incentive for people to save (savings are capital) and by cutting taxes would have the same effect. People would be more inclined to work, save and invest. The spending cuts have to come, because more debt is inflationary, so you can't cut taxes unless you cut spending, otherwise you're spinning your wheels.

Personally economically I think a slow hand on things is typically better. I have no idea what the markets reaction would be to those things. Probably disbelief of less regulation when that is what started this. Higher interest rates would probably mean less people and companies would want loans but banks would be more likely to want to issue them. Resulting in lower loaning standards. And this govt is in love with spending. They could not stop if they tried. I think they should try, but that would involve no long term bases in the Middle East which we seem to really want.

Watch what the government does over the next year or two. They will do everything assbackwards, and then blame the market, price gougers, greedy capitalists etc. All while they continue to spend spend spend, and help out their buddies on Wall Street.

Yep this admin and probably the next is stupid as shit. From the Treasury department, to the Executive Branch, to the gutless sheeple Congress.

 

[steveyoung]

I am not arguing with you. I am correcting your statements.

I quoted Paul because you seemed to be misinformed that (1) he did not have a plan and (2) his plan was not related to the current crisis.

You were wrong on both. I settled the issue.

I was wrong on neither. You "settled" nothing. My "point" is that Paul has the same "plan" for our economy as you. Let the economy go bust. Your video proves that and your writings here back it up. Your fatalistic belief that the economy will bust precludes any expectation or hope that it will not and is groundless.

It is not wrong to change what can be changed today and leave yesterday to history. One true lesson from history is that the only persons who will be "doomed" are those who do nothing. You hurl your gloom and doom prophecies and blame others for what you believe is our destiny, yet, you offer no proof other than the ramblings of a single, idiot congressman and feel secure in the knowledge that, either way it goes, you looked like a hero when you were talking your crap that no one will remember.

You still don't get it? I have more faith in our economy, in our leaders, in our country and our people than to believe you are correct. So, go live in a cave somewhere and wait for the end to come. I am certain you will be joined by many on this board. I am not worried about it in any case because I have already lived a long and full life. Unfortunately, others have not and they may actually believe you.

Now, to paraphrase you, I have settled the issue. You can have the last word, as I will post no more in this thread.

 

[erect]

I've done TONS of reading & watching about our economy, debt & upcoming recession over the weekend. There's an equal amount of misinformation out there as there are solid theories. Because money flows uphill (to the rich) you will not find any hard facts or smoking gun that support any one battle plan for fixing this mess. It's all just best guess since history has not produced a long term sustainable solution for us to follow.

If you have 3.5 hours and are interested in our history of money & how it influences interest rates, depression, the federal reserve and even war you'll totally dig this video. It touches on many of the issues discussed in this thread ... it's also a pretty accurate history lesson (done in ~'95).

You can feel some conspiracy theory vibes coming from it but I've looked up a number of quotes and events from the video, all that I looked into are quite creditable and based on true events and quotes ... but there was a ton of info thrown out there so no guarantees.

My conclusion overall is that very few know or care about the economy and how our actions influence it. This is understandable (yet unacceptable) because it's so fucking overwhelming. This is exactly why we trust people who are "smarter" than us, and then get robbed blind. It's also why we're called the sheeple!

To get us out of this rut, it seems we will need some seriously bold politicians (like better than we've seen in over a century) who are popular enough to sustain re-election while guiding the US through some hard times. However names like Jackson & Jefferson are not on the election card this year.

Obama plays the blame game and takes handouts .. McCain turns to the fed for help (WTF!?!?!?). The truth is, neither of these people are an acceptable answer and we're long overdue for a revolution.

In the end, I'm a better person because I'm much more informed about all of this. Thanks to everyone for the swift kick in the ass.

 

[guerilla]

I am not arguing with you.

I know.

I was wrong on neither. You "settled" nothing. My "point" is that Paul has the same "plan" for our economy as you. Let the economy go bust. Your video proves that and your writings here back it up. Your fatalistic belief that the economy will bust precludes any expectation or hope that it will not and is groundless.

Dude, it's not fatalistic. It's not a belief. What goes up, must come down. Cause and effect. Historical precedent.

What part of this are you not getting? Paul nor I are arguing for a bust. We know it is inevitably going to happen. So the idea is to make a soft landing, not to make the bust bigger. Paul's plan is for a swift recovery.

I know you want to think the good times can roll indefinitely, but they can't. The fundamentals are horrible. Most of the economy is built on debt, and most of the debt has gone bad. That's the indisputable facts.

My video and my points. I'm not sure if you're trying to diminish me personally, but that doesn't matter. The fundamentals are unchanged if you criticize my youtube posting. You need to get past blaming me, and start looking at what is happening, how it can be addressed and what is being done now to make it better or worse. Whether I am right or wrong, is irrelevant in an economic crisis.

It is not wrong to change what can be changed today and leave yesterday to history. One true lesson from history is that the only persons who will be "doomed" are those who do nothing. You hurl your gloom and doom prophecies and blame others for what you believe is our destiny, yet, you offer no proof other than the ramblings of a single, idiot congressman and feel secure in the knowledge that, either way it goes, you looked like a hero when you were talking your crap that no one will remember.

What gloom and doom? The FED chairman and Sec. of the Treasury told Congress last week, that if they don't act, the entire financial system will meltdown.

Also, calling Paul an idiot in no way diminishes that he has been right all along.

You still don't get it? I have more faith in our economy, in our leaders, in our country and our people than to believe you are correct. So, go live in a cave somewhere and wait for the end to come. I am certain you will be joined by many on this board. I am not worried about it in any case because I have already lived a long and full life. Unfortunately, others have not and they may actually believe you.

Your leaders are calling it a crisis and not promising it can be worked out. These are the people you put your faith in.

The idea is not to live in a cave, it is to brace personally for financially hard times, and to better understand what is being done at the top to make it pass faster or slower.

Now, to paraphrase you, I have settled the issue. You can have the last word, as I will post no more in this thread.

You should post no more because I was tempted a few times to make a couple personal attacks in response to your comments at me. I'd rather discuss the economy than get into petty games like that.