27 ms·

The House has passed the economic bailout bill 263 to 171

43 points by eposts 18y ago

ajmoir 18y ago
Feckless bastards
- josefresco 18y ago
  We all are feckless actually, as they (the gov) represent us.
  - Hexstream 18y ago
    or misrepresent us?
mynameishere 18y ago
Maxine Waters: When we buy up this toxic paper, we're in charge. We can do the kind of loan modifications we've been urging [the industry coalition]... Here's a clip of Maxine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6s1KVFBNg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6s1KVFBNg ...she is making a threat to nationalize the oil industry, but flubs the word. The reporters basically laugh at her, and compare her to Hugo Chavez. Guess what? The imbecile wasn't that far off... We have no real conception of how screwed we are, but we know one thing: The credit market is now fully subject to political constraints. To what degree is hard to say. But congress has already been forcing banks to give loans to unqualified people (a big part of the original problem) and so the same practice will likely continue. Except, banks know full well that every bad loan can be sold to the taxpayer at full price. An unbelievable coup.
- alecco 18y ago
  You seem to imply two false points. Chavez was elected democratically, twice. And Venezuela's oil was not nationalized. I don't like the paternalistic and interventionist style he has but he isn't Fidel Castro. In many ways, he is quite a capitalist.
  - rbanffy 18y ago
    To put it shortly, Castro is a Communist and Chavez is an opportunistic populist proto-dictator. Anyway, Venezuela is screwed.
  - mynameishere 18y ago
    "You" Rather, the reporters did. And Waters was also elected democratically. And that's not the point; the point is the media's reaction to nationalization then and now.
    - alecco 18y ago
      "[...] and compare her to Hugo Chavez. Guess what? The imbecile wasn't that far off..." To me that line makes him own the journalists's remarks about Chavez.
patrickg-zill 18y ago
We will know in about what, 4 weeks, whether this actually did what Paulson claimed it would do. If not, then all we did was line Goldman Sach's and others pockets...
siculars 18y ago
we avoid fire and brimstone! but will pay for it forever! i want to see this "investment" as a dividend in my tax return.
nihilocrat 18y ago
They misspelled Howard Coble's name. They said "Howard Cobble".
gills 18y ago
Pitckfork: $10 Torch: $15 Freedom: Priceless P.S. This is a joke...
- qqq 18y ago
  Torches are one copper piece which is much less than a pitchfork.
  - tectonic 18y ago
    'use skill create torch' when in the outer-world, dumbass. Save your money in ING.
    - qqq 18y ago
      Don't flame me, I have a torch, with umm a big flame. Hah! waves torch menacingly
kqr2 18y ago
What's the main difference between this bill and the one that was rejected last week? Is it just the pork offerings including a tax credit for racetrack owners and makers of wooden toy arrows?
- alecco 18y ago
  Goldman Sachs and Warren Buffet most likely bought billions in toxic assets during this week to sell for up to double the price to the taxpayer.
  - socmoth 18y ago
    You don't really know much about Warren Buffet. He is famous for paying unusually high taxes compared to his peers because he thinks it is the right thing for people in his position to do.
    - alecco 18y ago
      Why did he partner up with Goldman Suchs, then? I know [who he is] and besides this he is almost a financial saint. Still, he backs this bailout and will make huge profit on it. Oh, and the bailout favors his other investments. Being foreign, the bailout favors me as it helps my savings indirectly. But it is the largest scam in history.
      - cstejerean 18y ago
        AFAIK Buffet would support a bailout that involved buying assets at fair market value because he thinks the government could make a lot of money. He said that not buying at market value and instead giving the banks whatever they ask for these assets will likely lead to a wasted 700b. So at least in theory he supports doing the right thing. I don't know anything about his involvement with Goldman, but maybe he realized the government will do the wrong thing anyway so he might as well profit from it.
      - socmoth 18y ago
        I don't know anything inside or specific but I have read some books on buffet. He invests in good companies that are below market rates. His generally buys companies that have sound financials and will continue to make money. He also likes companies that make simple products (razor blades, furniture, not technology : ). Buffet has gone on record multiple times (cnn, print interviews) saying he would be the person who buys the mortgages from the banks and resales them later if he could get a 700 billion dollar or comparable loan. The mortgages are current artificially low because everyone is scared. If you can buy them low and sell them once the fear is gone, you could make a ton of money. People will make money on this situation, the government will completely mess up some aspects of this, articles will be written 'exposing' all the problems.
eposts 18y ago
Here is the roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml
biohacker42 18y ago
My $0.02 The Good: A non trivial part of the market freeze was due to the uncertainty about the bailout. Will it pass and if so at exactly what price will the Feds buy the toxic junk. Rather then sell, people were waiting. Perhaps now things can start moving again. So this may be better then doing nothing. The Bad: The may be worse then doing nothing. We may spend a whole lot of money and not make a profit on it. Steal (by inflation) from all the people who save, to give to the bankers, and the bankers could still fail. Many experts argue a better alternative would have been to pick a few winners re-capitalize them and then let everyone else fail. The core issue here is solvency not liquidity, the bailout addresses liquidity, which many consider just a symptom, not the disease. More may have to be done, like re-capitalization, yet more may not be done because while this time there are no pitch forks in DC, there may well be next time. And thus, this could be worse the doing nothing. 'Ain't economics fun.
- einarvollset 18y ago
  Right on the money.
jcromartie 18y ago
If I may paraphrase a Redditor... "So is this good or bad for the economy? Bubble: bigger Collapse: inevitable Distance to fall: farther Dollar: worthless"
- peakok 18y ago
  This plan is a disaster that will be remembered as one of the worst error in History ever. The US shot its last bullet, and it aimed at its feets. Buckle up, folks, cause the future is even more incertain now for the world.
  - astine 18y ago
    I dunno, It will be hard to top Smoot-Hawley.
    - nsimpson 18y ago
      Ripped directly from Wikipedia: The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (sometimes known as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act)[1] was an act signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels. In the United States 1,028 economists signed a petition against this legislation, and after it was passed, many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half. In the opinion of most economists, the Smoot-Hawley act was partially responsible for the severity of the Great Depression.[2][3]
      - zandorg 18y ago
        Oh dear, I can't resist. Bueller? Anyone, anyone?
        helveticaman 18y ago
        ?
rgr 18y ago
And I thought the democrats were the good guys... Now I really don't know whom to vote for. Wall St will get rich, but the political system has gone bankrupt.
- jm4 18y ago
  This is totally off topic so I'll probably get modded down. Please don't be too harsh... Thinking the Democrats were the good guys is your first mistake. The sooner we all realize neither side is good, the better. They are both equally bad in only slightly different ways. The Democrats are mostly impotent. They do nothing. They talk a great game and have some good ideas, but they almost invariably fail to execute. The Republicans know how to get things done. The only problem is it's often in the interests of a very small, elite minority. Thinking one side is the 'good guys' is a big part of the problem we have right now. Fifty one percent of the population thinks the Republicans are the 'good guys' and continue to vote party lines, despite 8 years of bad policies and low approval ratings, instead of voting based on qualifications and track records.
jobeirne 18y ago
I signed the wrong social contract. (but it's not like anywhere else is preferable)
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Did you keep your receipt? Maybe you could take it back and get another one.
lallysingh 18y ago
One of the meanest things a friend has ever said to me is "people get the government they deserve." Part of me still hates him for that.
- Chocobean 18y ago
  a democratic people get the government they deserve. those living under a monarchy or dictatorship get to say "Well I didn't vote for you~"
  - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
    The nation's control over its form of government goes beyond voting. All people have the government they deserve.
speek 18y ago
I think we're going to be the largest and richest third world country in the world because of this. Lets hope I'm wrong.
michaelneale 18y ago
This is a real low point for HN (comment wise), the subject matter is interesting but I would have expected some interesting comments.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- davidw 18y ago
  Well, like you wouldn't want to read Paul Krugman's or Tyler Cowen's opinions on programming languages, most people here don't have much that's truly insightful to say about economics and finance, with the exception, perhaps, of economics as related to software. I guess there are a few people who work or have worked as quants and know more than a thing or two about finance, but how much insight does that give you into the system as a whole, which is what broke? This remains the best thing I've ready so far, in terms of something brief and at the same time thoughtful: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/10/my-views-on-the.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/10...
  - michaelneale 18y ago
    Thats my thoughts exactly. I feel like I know less everyone else, as everyone seems to have an opinion or something to say, yet as I don't understand the system as a whole, I would rather just shut the hell up and contribute in some positive way (thats all we can really do at the end of the day). So well said !
  - alex_c 18y ago
    I would love to read what pmarca has to say about all this. Too bad he stopped blogging just when things got really interesting :-/
- netcan 18y ago
  I think the low quality of commentary (here & elsewhere) comes from (A) not understanding this relatively complicated & technical issue and (B) wanting to comment & discuss. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I don't like to see discussions deteriorate like this. But on the other hand, I feel like participating in the discussion may be a good way of gaining an understanding ultimately bringing the level back up.
MikeCapone 18y ago
Damn.
marvin 18y ago
I thought this bill was the worst idea ever, until I heard Warren Buffett speak up for it two days ago. Buffett has both integrity and economic skills, and he probably understands this proposal better than any of us. For instance, http://ph.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080924/tbs-buffett-bailout-7318940.html http://ph.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080924/tbs-buffett-bailout-7... The US government has a pretty poor track record for "emergency proposals" and other decisions these last 8 years, so I understand the skepticism. I'd vote against it myself. But there's more to the story than what you hear in most inflamed internet postings. Buffett himself says that we eventually need to roll some heads, but that it shouldn't be our first priority. They shouldn't buy them at what they're carrying, what the carrying value is, necessarily. They should buy them at the kind of prices that are available in the market. People who are buying these instruments in the market are expecting to make 15 to 20 percent on those instruments. If the government makes anything over its cost of borrowing, this deal will come out with a profit. And I would bet it will come out with a profit, actually...
- einarvollset 18y ago
  Fuck Warren Buffet. Who died and elected him grand master of the universe anyways? Note that I'm not asking whether he knows how to make money - clearly he does: witness putting $5.000.000.000 into Goldman Sachs and then lobbying like hell for the bailout of ....... ..... (guess who?)
  - einarvollset 18y ago
    Is it the swearing that gets the downmods, or the contrarian view? Either way: Any of the downmodders have further thoughts now that the Dow is taking a beating despite the bailout?

43 points by eposts 18y ago

ajmoir 18y ago

Feckless bastards

josefresco 18y ago
We all are feckless actually, as they (the gov) represent us.
- Hexstream 18y ago
  or misrepresent us?

mynameishere 18y ago

Maxine Waters: When we buy up this toxic paper, we're in charge. We can do the kind of loan modifications we've been urging [the industry coalition]... Here's a clip of Maxine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6s1KVFBNg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6s1KVFBNg ...she is making a threat to nationalize the oil industry, but flubs the word. The reporters basically laugh at her, and compare her to Hugo Chavez. Guess what? The imbecile wasn't that far off... We have no real conception of how screwed we are, but we know one thing: The credit market is now fully subject to political constraints. To what degree is hard to say. But congress has already been forcing banks to give loans to unqualified people (a big part of the original problem) and so the same practice will likely continue. Except, banks know full well that every bad loan can be sold to the taxpayer at full price. An unbelievable coup.

alecco 18y ago
You seem to imply two false points. Chavez was elected democratically, twice. And Venezuela's oil was not nationalized. I don't like the paternalistic and interventionist style he has but he isn't Fidel Castro. In many ways, he is quite a capitalist.
- rbanffy 18y ago
  To put it shortly, Castro is a Communist and Chavez is an opportunistic populist proto-dictator. Anyway, Venezuela is screwed.
- mynameishere 18y ago
  "You" Rather, the reporters did. And Waters was also elected democratically. And that's not the point; the point is the media's reaction to nationalization then and now.
  - alecco 18y ago
    "[...] and compare her to Hugo Chavez. Guess what? The imbecile wasn't that far off..." To me that line makes him own the journalists's remarks about Chavez.

patrickg-zill 18y ago

We will know in about what, 4 weeks, whether this actually did what Paulson claimed it would do. If not, then all we did was line Goldman Sach's and others pockets...

siculars 18y ago

we avoid fire and brimstone! but will pay for it forever! i want to see this "investment" as a dividend in my tax return.

nihilocrat 18y ago

They misspelled Howard Coble's name. They said "Howard Cobble".

gills 18y ago

Pitckfork: $10 Torch: $15 Freedom: Priceless P.S. This is a joke...

qqq 18y ago
Torches are one copper piece which is much less than a pitchfork.
- tectonic 18y ago
  'use skill create torch' when in the outer-world, dumbass. Save your money in ING.
  - qqq 18y ago
    Don't flame me, I have a torch, with umm a big flame. Hah! waves torch menacingly

kqr2 18y ago

What's the main difference between this bill and the one that was rejected last week? Is it just the pork offerings including a tax credit for racetrack owners and makers of wooden toy arrows?

alecco 18y ago
Goldman Sachs and Warren Buffet most likely bought billions in toxic assets during this week to sell for up to double the price to the taxpayer.
- socmoth 18y ago
  You don't really know much about Warren Buffet. He is famous for paying unusually high taxes compared to his peers because he thinks it is the right thing for people in his position to do.
  - alecco 18y ago
    Why did he partner up with Goldman Suchs, then? I know [who he is] and besides this he is almost a financial saint. Still, he backs this bailout and will make huge profit on it. Oh, and the bailout favors his other investments. Being foreign, the bailout favors me as it helps my savings indirectly. But it is the largest scam in history.
    - cstejerean 18y ago
      AFAIK Buffet would support a bailout that involved buying assets at fair market value because he thinks the government could make a lot of money. He said that not buying at market value and instead giving the banks whatever they ask for these assets will likely lead to a wasted 700b. So at least in theory he supports doing the right thing. I don't know anything about his involvement with Goldman, but maybe he realized the government will do the wrong thing anyway so he might as well profit from it.
    - socmoth 18y ago
      I don't know anything inside or specific but I have read some books on buffet. He invests in good companies that are below market rates. His generally buys companies that have sound financials and will continue to make money. He also likes companies that make simple products (razor blades, furniture, not technology : ). Buffet has gone on record multiple times (cnn, print interviews) saying he would be the person who buys the mortgages from the banks and resales them later if he could get a 700 billion dollar or comparable loan. The mortgages are current artificially low because everyone is scared. If you can buy them low and sell them once the fear is gone, you could make a ton of money. People will make money on this situation, the government will completely mess up some aspects of this, articles will be written 'exposing' all the problems.

eposts 18y ago

Here is the roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

biohacker42 18y ago

My $0.02 The Good: A non trivial part of the market freeze was due to the uncertainty about the bailout. Will it pass and if so at exactly what price will the Feds buy the toxic junk. Rather then sell, people were waiting. Perhaps now things can start moving again. So this may be better then doing nothing. The Bad: The may be worse then doing nothing. We may spend a whole lot of money and not make a profit on it. Steal (by inflation) from all the people who save, to give to the bankers, and the bankers could still fail. Many experts argue a better alternative would have been to pick a few winners re-capitalize them and then let everyone else fail. The core issue here is solvency not liquidity, the bailout addresses liquidity, which many consider just a symptom, not the disease. More may have to be done, like re-capitalization, yet more may not be done because while this time there are no pitch forks in DC, there may well be next time. And thus, this could be worse the doing nothing. 'Ain't economics fun.

einarvollset 18y ago
Right on the money.

jcromartie 18y ago

If I may paraphrase a Redditor... "So is this good or bad for the economy? Bubble: bigger Collapse: inevitable Distance to fall: farther Dollar: worthless"

peakok 18y ago
This plan is a disaster that will be remembered as one of the worst error in History ever. The US shot its last bullet, and it aimed at its feets. Buckle up, folks, cause the future is even more incertain now for the world.
- astine 18y ago
  I dunno, It will be hard to top Smoot-Hawley.
  - nsimpson 18y ago
    Ripped directly from Wikipedia: The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (sometimes known as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act)[1] was an act signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels. In the United States 1,028 economists signed a petition against this legislation, and after it was passed, many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half. In the opinion of most economists, the Smoot-Hawley act was partially responsible for the severity of the Great Depression.[2][3]
    - zandorg 18y ago
      Oh dear, I can't resist. Bueller? Anyone, anyone?
      - helveticaman 18y ago
        ?

rgr 18y ago

And I thought the democrats were the good guys... Now I really don't know whom to vote for. Wall St will get rich, but the political system has gone bankrupt.

jm4 18y ago
This is totally off topic so I'll probably get modded down. Please don't be too harsh... Thinking the Democrats were the good guys is your first mistake. The sooner we all realize neither side is good, the better. They are both equally bad in only slightly different ways. The Democrats are mostly impotent. They do nothing. They talk a great game and have some good ideas, but they almost invariably fail to execute. The Republicans know how to get things done. The only problem is it's often in the interests of a very small, elite minority. Thinking one side is the 'good guys' is a big part of the problem we have right now. Fifty one percent of the population thinks the Republicans are the 'good guys' and continue to vote party lines, despite 8 years of bad policies and low approval ratings, instead of voting based on qualifications and track records.

jobeirne 18y ago

I signed the wrong social contract. (but it's not like anywhere else is preferable)

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Did you keep your receipt? Maybe you could take it back and get another one.

lallysingh 18y ago

One of the meanest things a friend has ever said to me is "people get the government they deserve." Part of me still hates him for that.

Chocobean 18y ago
a democratic people get the government they deserve. those living under a monarchy or dictatorship get to say "Well I didn't vote for you~"
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  The nation's control over its form of government goes beyond voting. All people have the government they deserve.

speek 18y ago

I think we're going to be the largest and richest third world country in the world because of this. Lets hope I'm wrong.

michaelneale 18y ago

This is a real low point for HN (comment wise), the subject matter is interesting but I would have expected some interesting comments.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
davidw 18y ago
Well, like you wouldn't want to read Paul Krugman's or Tyler Cowen's opinions on programming languages, most people here don't have much that's truly insightful to say about economics and finance, with the exception, perhaps, of economics as related to software. I guess there are a few people who work or have worked as quants and know more than a thing or two about finance, but how much insight does that give you into the system as a whole, which is what broke? This remains the best thing I've ready so far, in terms of something brief and at the same time thoughtful: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/10/my-views-on-the.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/10...
- michaelneale 18y ago
  Thats my thoughts exactly. I feel like I know less everyone else, as everyone seems to have an opinion or something to say, yet as I don't understand the system as a whole, I would rather just shut the hell up and contribute in some positive way (thats all we can really do at the end of the day). So well said !
- alex_c 18y ago
  I would love to read what pmarca has to say about all this. Too bad he stopped blogging just when things got really interesting :-/
netcan 18y ago
I think the low quality of commentary (here & elsewhere) comes from (A) not understanding this relatively complicated & technical issue and (B) wanting to comment & discuss. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I don't like to see discussions deteriorate like this. But on the other hand, I feel like participating in the discussion may be a good way of gaining an understanding ultimately bringing the level back up.

MikeCapone 18y ago

Damn.

marvin 18y ago

I thought this bill was the worst idea ever, until I heard Warren Buffett speak up for it two days ago. Buffett has both integrity and economic skills, and he probably understands this proposal better than any of us. For instance, http://ph.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080924/tbs-buffett-bailout-7318940.html http://ph.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080924/tbs-buffett-bailout-7... The US government has a pretty poor track record for "emergency proposals" and other decisions these last 8 years, so I understand the skepticism. I'd vote against it myself. But there's more to the story than what you hear in most inflamed internet postings. Buffett himself says that we eventually need to roll some heads, but that it shouldn't be our first priority. They shouldn't buy them at what they're carrying, what the carrying value is, necessarily. They should buy them at the kind of prices that are available in the market. People who are buying these instruments in the market are expecting to make 15 to 20 percent on those instruments. If the government makes anything over its cost of borrowing, this deal will come out with a profit. And I would bet it will come out with a profit, actually...

einarvollset 18y ago
Fuck Warren Buffet. Who died and elected him grand master of the universe anyways? Note that I'm not asking whether he knows how to make money - clearly he does: witness putting $5.000.000.000 into Goldman Sachs and then lobbying like hell for the bailout of ....... ..... (guess who?)
- einarvollset 18y ago
  Is it the swearing that gets the downmods, or the contrarian view? Either way: Any of the downmodders have further thoughts now that the Dow is taking a beating despite the bailout?