NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/01/17/business/20070117_LEONHARDT_GRAPHIC.html

A rather amusing little graphic from the New York Times. This rather puts the proposed bailout of Wall Street into perspective.
Funny how we're apparently more concerned with giving a bunch of businessmen a nice, fat, check than fighting the EBIL TURRORISTZ.

Link originally from Consumerist.

Maybe I'm the wacko, but I still wonder who is ultimately going to end up with the money. :p

Unless the underlying problems are also delt with, won't we just be back in the same spot a little way down the road?

Still, I can understand the desire to keep these companies afloat. The last Great Depression helped loose Hitler on the world, after all.

Keynesian economics = fail. Let's go toward the Austrian School! Let's just stop government bailouts, protectionist tarriffs, etc etc etc.

It'll be rough, but I think the outcome will be worth it. Otherwise, we'll be right back here in another collapse before long.

Unless the underlying problems are also delt with, won't we just be back in the same spot a little way down the road?

Still, I can understand the desire to keep these companies afloat. The last Great Depression helped loose Hitler on the world, after all.

No it really didn't. The treaty that ended WWI did that. Not enough to break Germany, but enough to really piss 'em off.

Maybe I'm the wacko, but I still wonder who is ultimately going to end up with the money. :p
at my house we think that paulson is insisting on the no oversight no lawsuit provision so that HE can take the money and buy the bahamas with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/01/17/business/20070117_LEONHARDT_GRAPHIC.html

A rather amusing little graphic from the New York Times. This rather puts the proposed bailout of Wall Street into perspective.
Funny how we're apparently more concerned with giving a bunch of businessmen a nice, fat, check than fighting the EBIL TURRORISTZ.

Link originally from Consumerist.

More importantly - for the price we're spending annual on a war in Iraq, we could have universal healthcare, education for preschoolers, world immunisation, etc... and yet, somehow, the same voices that complain about money being taken out of their pockets to fund such 'social' programs, seem far less inclined to object to blowing shit up for no real gain.

No it really didn't. The treaty that ended WWI did that. Not enough to break Germany, but enough to really piss 'em off.

Their were a lot of causes. WW1 was another big one. However, this is going off topic.

More importantly - for the price we're spending annual on a war in Iraq, we could have universal healthcare, education for preschoolers, world immunisation, etc... and yet, somehow, the same voices that complain about money being taken out of their pockets to fund such 'social' programs, seem far less inclined to object to blowing shit up for no real gain.

Everyone loves explosions, as long as they're not the ones exploding.

More importantly - for the price we're spending annual on a war in Iraq, we could have universal healthcare, education for preschoolers, world immunisation, etc... and yet, somehow, the same voices that complain about money being taken out of their pockets to fund such 'social' programs, seem far less inclined to object to blowing shit up for no real gain.

Maybe we should rename war. We could call it 'Socialized Combat'. Just to see what happens. ;)

Everyone loves explosions, as long as they're not the ones exploding.


For 140 billion a year you could have city class fireworks (http://www.grucci.com/info.html) displays in every town,city,village and municipalities in the united states (according to the 2000 census) every single day the whole year!

Thats way more explosions in a way better location for me to see them in ...

Your mom's hot sex, 700 billion times.


Or alternatively, I'd buy 700 billion lottery tickets. I wonder how much I could make off of that.

About a zillion barrels of oil, which you can then sell and rebuy for MAXIMUM MONEYS ^_^

Or alternatively, I'd buy 700 billion lottery tickets. I wonder how much I could make off of that.


You lose. Do you really think that the state uses the lottery to give away money? Best-case scenario, you get back maybe 2/3 of your investment.

You lose. Do you really think that the state uses the lottery to give away money? Best-case scenario, you get back maybe 2/3 of your investment.

I'll buy away your logic with my money, so that way I still win.

200 billion a year is a strong understatement - it probably includes only the main appropriations.

Other sources put actual total cost between $1.5 and $3 trillion.
(For instance (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece))

Maybe we should rename war. We could call it 'Socialized Combat'. Just to see what happens. ;)

Oooh, this I like.

Will the hatred of all things red, or the love of blowing shit up, win out?

Actually, another use could be to beat the "most expensive sex line call ever" record that that German bloke set. 7,000 Euros is, eh 10,000 or so dollars, for one day. You could probably just call that number and watch the generations of lasses telling you how horny they 'are' come and go. Call it a multi-generation Sociology project. You'd probably get a Nobel or whatever.

*ponders*

200 billion a year is a strong understatement - it probably includes only the main appropriations.

Other sources put actual total cost between $1.5 and $3 trillion.
(For instance (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece))

Are you allowing for the fact that they're breaking down total expenditure (including projected costs) into a 'per annum' figure?

Actually, another use could be to beat the "most expensive sex line call ever" record that that German bloke set. 7,000 Euros is, eh 10,000 or so dollars, for one day. You could probably just call that number and watch the generations of lasses telling you how horny they 'are' come and go. Call it a multi-generation Sociology project. You'd probably get a Nobel or whatever.

*ponders*

I like where your head is at.

Everyone loves explosions, as long as they're not the ones exploding.

I'll be taking that, thankyou. :)

Are you allowing for the fact that they're breaking down total expenditure (including projected costs) into a 'per annum' figure?
Yeah. Still, the war isn't a 15-year affair... At least I hope so.

Funny how we're apparently more concerned with giving a bunch of businessmen a nice, fat, check than fighting the EBIL TURRORISTZ.
It's not about a bunch of businessmen. A stock and banking collapse would harm everyone. And if you think just nullifying the debts hurts no one, keep in mind that it will also nullify the savings, including retirement plan ones.

Yeah. Still, the war isn't a 15-year affair... At least I hope so.
You're absolutely right. It'll probably be more like 20 or 30 years.

Yeah. Still, the war isn't a 15-year affair... At least I hope so.

No, we can hope not - but we'll be paying for an ever increasing 'Vet' package, as well - that won't go away just because we finally stop bombing sandcastles.

(I say 'ever increasing' because we have unusually high troop turnover - normally you can kind of 'recycle' your veterans through a couple of wars before having to pay for the longterm medical care. This war is maintaining the number of active bodies by pushing more units through - thus, far greater AFTERcosts).

No it really didn't. The treaty that ended WWI did that. Not enough to break Germany, but enough to really piss 'em off.


They had a right to be pissed off about that.



I also heard Iraq cost well over 400 billion for a year, I would like to know where they got that 100 billion for universal health care, seems a tad low. Because if that number is true anybody who thinks it is to expensive to have is a damn liar and twit.

Going on to the 700 billion, kinda needed to avoid a collapse and I think Bush caved on the democrats demands for tougher oversight.

They had a right to be pissed off about that.

I also heard Iraq cost well over 400 billion for a year, I would like to know where they got that 100 billion for universal health care, seems a tad low. Because if that number is true anybody who thinks it is to expensive to have is a damn liar and twit.


I believe the link cites the 100 billion figure for adding care to give universal healthcare for those who are not otherwise covered - which is smaller than funding an ENTIRE national healthcare policy.

EDIT: Although - that said - there could be a substantial reduction in the main figure, too - if it wasn't organised through the ridiculous insurance/pharmacy monopoly.

I also heard Iraq cost well over 400 billion for a year, I would like to know where they got that 100 billion for universal health care, seems a tad low. Because if that number is true anybody who thinks it is to expensive to have is a damn liar and twit.
It's only for those who don't have it yet, and, probably, just on the next basic level above ER.

True universal healthcare at current prices would be about $2.5 trillion a year:
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

They had a right to be pissed off about that.



I also heard Iraq cost well over 400 billion for a year, I would like to know where they got that 100 billion for universal health care, seems a tad low. Because if that number is true anybody who thinks it is to expensive to have is a damn liar and twit.

Going on to the 700 billion, kinda needed to avoid a collapse and I think Bush caved on the democrats demands for tougher oversight.

100 billion is really expensive. After 8 years of watching Bush spend money like his wallet was on fire we're less shocked by huge sums.

You're absolutely right. It'll probably be more like 20 or 30 years.



I supported the war and still believe it was the right thing to do..I never changed that view and still have reasons for it not related to WMD Bush never proved were there. But coming from a war supporter...WE NEED TO END THE WAR NOW! The current economic problem has done one thing above most, slapped americans in the face and forced us to accept we can't be world policemen, at one point in time we had the money to do it, not anymore. The world is changing and Americans need to accept that fact and start focusing 100% on our own mess and stop this America Fuck Yeah lets fix the planet attitude. Any less and we fall behind, I now support bringing home all american troops anywhere in the world. There maybe something to isolationism.

You can buy a night of sweet sweet loving from me. I await your cheque.

100 billion is really expensive. After 8 years of watching Bush spend money like his wallet was on fire we're less shocked by huge sums.

Well we have revenue of over $2.5 trillon a year and if you go back to Clinton's taxes over $3 trillion a year. $100 billion in that context doesn't sound like much.

You can buy a night of sweet sweet loving from me. I await your cheque.

Now there's an offer that I can NOT refuse. :D

It's only for those who don't have it yet, and, probably, just on the next basic level above ER.

True universal healthcare at current prices would be about $2.5 trillion a year:
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml



Then you will never get it, pass it on to Obama.

EDIT: Although - that said - there could be a substantial reduction in the main figure, too - if it wasn't organised through the ridiculous insurance/pharmacy monopoly.
Yes, that's the problem, US healthcare is overpriced.

And just to those fast to decry it as a failure of capitalism... It's not a failure of capitalism, it's a failure of mixing market and command economy, i.e. capitalism and regulation. Such a mix is always vulnerable to exploitation, which is what happened, with a quasi-market monopoly rising prices at will.


One or another would avoid that. Universal state healthcare would have doctors' earnings comparable to teachers, understaffed hospitals, compromises on quality, but far lower costs. Pure capitalism would have several levels of healthcare quality depending on how much one can pay, from uncertified immigrant doctors in basements to high-end expensive clinics.

Yes, that's the problem, US healthcare is overpriced.

And just to those fast to decry it as a failure of capitalism... It's not a failure of capitalism, it's a failure of mixing market and command economy, i.e. capitalism and regulation. Such a mix is always vulnerable to exploitation, which is what happened, with a quasi-market monopoly rising prices at will.


Are you complaining about high prices in a country full of greedy fat pricks? We need a change in economic status, too bad Microsoft won't stand for it.

I supported the war and still believe it was the right thing to do..I never changed that view and still have reasons for it not related to WMD Bush never proved were there. But coming from a war supporter...WE NEED TO END THE WAR NOW! The current economic problem has done one thing above most, slapped americans in the face and forced us to accept we can't be world policemen, at one point in time we had the money to do it, not anymore. The world is changing and Americans need to accept that fact and start focusing 100% on our own mess and stop this America Fuck Yeah lets fix the planet attitude. Any less and we fall behind, I now support bringing home all american troops anywhere in the world. There maybe something to isolationism.

Replacing one extreem policy(American dominance across the entire world) with another (complete isolationism) will not help anything. Their are times when keeping out of something is a good idea, and times when its necissary to get involved. And also times when some thing is the right thing to do, but executed in a horibbly incompitant manner.

Yes, that's the problem, US healthcare is overpriced.

And just to those fast to decry it as a failure of capitalism... It's not a failure of capitalism, it's a failure of mixing market and command economy, i.e. capitalism and regulation. Such a mix is always vulnerable to exploitation, which is what happened, with a quasi-market monopoly rising prices at will.

Rubbish. The US insurance industry is pretty much exempt from regulation law, and the pharmacy industry is basically self regulated (since it is regulated mainly by the FDA, which it owns).

It is a failure fo trying to mix the free-market with an essential product/service, which creates an effective monopoly, added to the fact that it's poorly regulated (if at all). It's the essential nature of healthcare that makes it so vulnerable to exploitation.

I supported the war and still believe it was the right thing to do..I never changed that view and still have reasons for it not related to WMD Bush never proved were there. But coming from a war supporter...WE NEED TO END THE WAR NOW!
Ironically I have the exactly opposite viewpoint. The war was started on false grounds, but we ought to stay for two reasons - one, to make sure that Iraq doesn't just fall on its arse completely, and two, to get oil flowing out of there again, which was, after all, the point.
The current economic problem has done one thing above most, slapped americans in the face and forced us to accept we can't be world policemen, at one point in time we had the money to do it, not anymore. The world is changing and Americans need to accept that fact and start focusing 100% on our own mess and stop this America Fuck Yeah lets fix the planet attitude. Any less and we fall behind, I now support bringing home all american troops anywhere in the world. There maybe something to isolationism.
Playing isolationist will not help you to get out of a massive debt problem.

Replacing one extreem policy(American dominance across the entire world) with another (complete isolationism) will not help anything. Their are times when keeping out of something is a good idea, and times when its necissary to get involved. And also times when some thing is the right thing to do, but executed in a horibbly incompitant manner.


I think you maybe confusing military isolationism with diplomatic isolationism.

It's only for those who don't have it yet, and, probably, just on the next basic level above ER.

True universal healthcare at current prices would be about $2.5 trillion a year:
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

5th paragraph:


Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.

Playing isolationist will not help you to get out of a massive debt problem.



It will lead to the massive cut in military spending. Not getting military involved in conflicts and focusing on diplomacy. It will also lead to all troops being brought home..Why do we still have them in Europe? South Korea as well, ignoring the fact people don't want us there.

Canada pays approx 10% of GDP towards health care, 10% of America's GDP = 1.38 Trillion, not the 2.5 trillion that is floating around.

It will lead to the massive cut in military spending.
I'm sure all of the contractors and, more importantly, thousands upon thousands of jobless soldiers will be fucking elated about that -_-
Not getting military involved in conflicts and focusing on diplomacy.
Isolationism isn't about diplomacy, it's about sticking to your internal economy by putting up massive tariffs on foreign products and generally not talking too much with other people.
It will also lead to all troops being brought home..Why do we still have them in Europe?
Because you have bases there to help your NATO allies, and because the German government knows that US bases keep the local economy going in such areas.
South Korea as well
So that US economic interests in the region are protected.

Rubbish. The US insurance industry is pretty much exempt from regulation law, and the pharmacy industry is basically self regulated

So one can practice medicine without professional licenses and certifications, in any conditions he deems suitable, and without filling any other paperwork than basic tax? And use whatever drugs he deems necessary, certified or not?

I'm sure all of the contractors and, more importantly, thousands upon thousands of jobless soldiers will be fucking elated about that -_-


Would you rather we keep playing world policemen? I'm pretty sure we can take policies to help soliders survive.

Isolationism isn't about diplomacy, it's about sticking to your internal economy by putting up massive tariffs on foreign products and generally not talking too much with other people.


Again some people misunderstand different types of isolationism, the type I back is military isolationism, not diplomatic or economic.

Because you have bases there to help your NATO allies, and because the German government knows that US bases keep the local economy going in such areas.


Most of them are relics of the Cold War, and by NATO I assume you mean France has troops here as well? I also know about Germany pissed when Bush called those troops home, I am sure Germany will survive.

So that US economic interests in the region are protected.


And we need Military forces to do that because? Is China going to invade if we leave? South Korea can't defend itself?

5th paragraph:

In a world where the government spends a million dollars for a pair of washers I find it dubious at best to think they could do better than the private system.

In a world where the government spends a million dollars for a pair of washers I find it dubious at best to think they could do better than the private system.

You sure those expense aren't called that to mask what they really are?

Would you rather we keep playing world policemen?
Not really. Do I think it's sensible to lay off tens of thousands of people in a very short space of time, both directly and indirectly? No.
I'm pretty sure we can take policies to help soliders survive.
I'm sure they'd do fine financially regardless, it's just that having thousands upon thousands of pissed off ex-soldiers is not a good thing.
Again some people misunderstand different types of isolationism, the type I back is military isolationism, not diplomatic or economic.
No, I think what happened was that you just said "isolationism", which is an umbrella term.
Most of them are relics of the Cold War
No shit.
and by NATO I assume you mean France has troops here as well?
... no, where on earth did I talk about that?

NATO is essentially an agreement that the US is going to defend Western Europe from attack by the Russians. The militaries of Europe don't have bases in the US because a third of people in the US own guns and the US military has a staggeringly large budget.
I also know about Germany pissed when Bush called those troops home, I am sure Germany will survive.
Absolutely, but I also know that without bases inside central and eastern Europe, US influence there will dwindle, which will tip the diplomatic scales hugely in favour of the Russians, affecting Quite A Lot Of Things in that whole region.
And we need Military forces to do that because? Is China going to invade if we leave? South Korea can't defend itself?
No. Are the South Korean and Japanese public going to get a bit shakier about things in general? Yes. Is North Korea going to get more belligerant? Probably.

You sure those expense aren't called that to mask what they really are?

Nope, really not. I find the possibility that the government feigns incompetence fiscally to fund off the books stuff entirely plausible.

They way congress is handling it. About two or three months if you are very lucky.

Not really. Do I think it's sensible to lay off tens of thousands of people in a very short space of time, both directly and indirectly? No.

Not overnight, We should do it over a period of years to make sure they can survive. The soilders not the contractors.

I'm sure they'd do fine financially regardless, it's just that having thousands upon thousands of pissed off ex-soldiers is not a good thing.

Not without help, which is what I would want to provide them.

No, I think what happened was that you just said "isolationism", which is an umbrella term.


And I apologize for that, I should have said military isolationism not the umbrella term. I won't do that again.



... no, where on earth did I talk about that?

Because they are in NATO and obligated to protect others in it. Not that we need it.

NATO is essentially an agreement that the US is going to defend Western Europe from attack by the Russians. The militaries of Europe don't have bases in the US because a third of people in the US own guns and the US military has a staggeringly large budget.


I think NATO has changed since then, I don't see Russia invading Europe anytime soon and if so the EU can protect themselves and don't need us.

Absolutely, but I also know that without bases inside central and eastern Europe, US influence there will dwindle, which will tip the diplomatic scales hugely in favour of the Russians, affecting Quite A Lot Of Things in that whole region.

You maybe understating the EU. I am sure the EU can protect themselves as they should do. But economically our influence there would remain as we trade a lot with those nations and some things are traded in our currency. And we would still back EU over Russia and retain the right to return to those bases at a later date.


No. Are the South Korean and Japanese public going to get a bit shakier about things in general? Yes. Is North Korea going to get more belligerant? Probably.


I am sure they will get shaky, but my main focus is my own country right not and it not going into a depression. China won't invade anybody anytime soon and Japan and SK need to protect themselves against any known threat. NK is getting belligerant already, they know we can't do anything military wise to them, by drawing back and fixing our own mess it will allow us to better address these problems at a later date. But we are stretched beyond reasonable means right now and Iraq has caused too much damage as is.

Not overnight, We should do it over a period of years to make sure they can survive. The soilders not the contractors.
By which time this whole credit crunch pish will have basically disappeared. Making it seem like you're scaling down the US military with any point in doing so.
Not without help, which is what I provide them.
Eh what help, at what cost, for how long, and do you pay for their education and the like in a similar manner to how your previous system would have worked with the whole GI thing.
And I apologize for that, I should have said military isolationism not the umbrella term. I won't do that again.
No worries, I oughtn't have been so rude.
Because they are in NATO and obligated to protect others in it. Not that we need it.
If the US mainland was attacked, you'd have EU troops there helping. No doubt. But as you say, in peacetime it is completely unnecessary.
I think NATO has changed since then, I don't see Russia invading Europe anytime soon and if so the EU can protect themselves and don't need us.
I personally think that NATO is now a complete waste of time, and that since we have a very few arms manufacturing companies nowadays, they could probably form internal agreements about calibres etc. so that countries needn't worry about sharing supply dumps.
You maybe understating the EU. I am sure the EU can protect themselves as they should do. But economically our influence there would remain as we trade a lot with those nations and some things are traded in our currency. And we would still back EU over Russia and retain the right to return to those bases at a later date.
Aye, hopefully we'll have a proper EU army in 15-20 years' time.
I am sure they will get shaky, but my main focus is my own country right not and it not going into a depression. China won't invade anybody anytime soon and Japan and SK need to protect themselves against any known threat.
Sadly, the Japanese aren't allowed to, and the South Koreans don't have the capability.

Also, the main reason to keep US forces always present is that it basically guarantees that those countries will essentially pay tribute via trade agreements. Your country needs that kind of thing to help them through undoubtedly shitty economic times.
NK is getting belligerant already, they know we can't do anything military wise to them, by drawing back and fixing our own mess it will allow us to better address these problems at a later date. But we are stretched beyond reasonable means right now and Iraq has caused too much damage as is.
Having a belligerant North Korea and a South about to fall into economic collapse, and then pulling out US troops does not sound like a recipe for success.

So one can practice medicine without professional licenses and certifications, in any conditions he deems suitable, and without filling any other paperwork than basic tax? And use whatever drugs he deems necessary, certified or not?

No. That's the funny thing, hysterical extremes are almost never the definitive answer. Strange that.

Keynesian economics = fail. Let's go toward the Austrian School! Let's just stop government bailouts, protectionist tarriffs, etc etc etc.

It'll be rough, but I think the outcome will be worth it. Otherwise, we'll be right back here in another collapse before long.

wait wait wait 8 years of those tactics brought you to this point and now you wanna stick with em? Keynesian economics= the only thing keeping the stock market afloat. . . .thank you bush.

I'd buy a penguin that can fly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JsZbSzMi08&feature=related

Maybe I'm the wacko, but I still wonder who is ultimately going to end up with the money. :p

The thing is, they have it already!

It used to puzzle me that "merchant banks" could make so much money doing something of zero social utility (actually, I'd call merging big corporations into virtual monopolies NEGATIVE social utility, but it's debatable) ... now it turns out that in fact they weren't even making money. They were losing it, and lying to maintain their stock price.

It was always going to come to this, and it's not played out by any means. Money made only from money is basically theft from everyone else who uses money, and the stock market devices available now amount to a parallel currency ... and should be illegal.

Money made only from money is basically theft from everyone else who uses money, and the stock market devices available now amount to a parallel currency ... and should be illegal.
The money made isn't made "from money", but for a service: moving money to its most productive uses. You can argue that they fail at that, but that's not nearly as principled a rejection as what you're proposing right now.

At any rate, these $700 billion aren't a lump sum payment. Some of that will be recovered, just as several other bail-outs came not as payments but as guarantees or loans. If you use the same money for healthcare, or shooting bullets out of guns, you don't get anything back. At least not directly into the government's bank account.

What the actual cost will be is something for economists to write papers about ten years from now.

No. That's the funny thing, hysterical extremes are almost never the definitive answer. Strange that.
So then it is regulated. Which means you need expensive approved equipment, conditions, specialists and procedures, and can't legally do it on the cheap.

And that's what leads to the current situation, healthcare is a for-profit industry, but at the same time there's just enough regulation so that no cheaper competition to the current system is possible.


If the US mainland was attacked, you'd have EU troops there helping. No doubt. The doubt is rather about whether US would notice it.

*snip argument*

At any rate, these $700 billion aren't a lump sum payment. Some of that will be recovered, just as several other bail-outs came not as payments but as guarantees or loans. If you use the same money for healthcare, or shooting bullets out of guns, you don't get anything back. At least not directly into the government's bank account.

That's a worthwhile perspective. If I have it right, the "bailout" is really a forced acquisition by government ... and if the companies have any value, they can be sold again.

If they don't have the value that the government paid for them, though ... they should have been left to fail, or to be bought at fire-sale prices by other big banks.

Now I know you dislike government spending of all sorts. But if government spending on the welfare of the people (either their health or their physical security) is money wasted, it's a bit of a puzzle how Western democracies haven't collapsed from (a)citizens voting for the disbandment of Government, or (b)economic failure.

They really haven't. Government gets the money wherever it can, and spends it where its most needed ... and that works in the long term.


What the actual cost will be is something for economists to write papers about ten years from now.

Yes, it could appear only as Government's last attempt to forestall the Second Great Depression ... hmm?

So then it is regulated. Which means you need expensive approved equipment, conditions, specialists and procedures, and can't legally do it on the cheap.

And that's what leads to the current situation, healthcare is a for-profit industry, but at the same time there's just enough regulation so that no cheaper competition to the current system is possible.


Yes, because the whole world really is absolutely clear cut. If you have regulation, everything must be regulated... and if it's not, you haven't got any regulation. There is no middleground.

Your argument is (well, bullshit, but also) backwards, because it claims that - due to the fairly minimal regulation on the hospital end - there must be a NEED for the equipment, conditions, specialists, procedures (and, one assumes, drugs?) to be so expensive. But of course, reality is exactly the opposite - those products are so expensive because there is so little regulation on the insurance system, which means that there is no inherent price accountability. The insurance companies actually collude with the pharmacies AGAINST the healthcare industry - like - requiring AS PART OF YOUR terms and condiditions, that you have to use certain policies/products IN ORDER to retain cover. Which is what REALLY makes off-label prescription such a problem. (Your insurance company will argue with the medical facility, and so will THEIRS).

Because we need healthcare (not want - this is an actual need, which is why this DOESN'T fit the usual 'freemarket' paradigm), the service can charge whatever it can get. Because the structure we have relies on insurance, those prices can be inflated further, because an insurance company won't balk at figures a consumer would... they'll either pay for it, or they won't). Because the pharmacies are complicit, they'll price their product at whatever the insurance company (not the consumer) will pay.

Which means - the price scheme is NOT within the reach of the consumer. Most consumers - on their own - cannot buy healthcare. It is beyond the reach of market forces.

Simple as.

And that means, the 'free market' doesn't work on this service.

That's a worthwhile perspective. If I have it right, the "bailout" is really a forced acquisition by government ... and if the companies have any value, they can be sold again.
Obviously the plan hasn't reached final stages yet, but the idea is basically this:

The government buys all the mortgage-backed securities the banks can't get rid of. That should then allow them to get their liquidity and balance sheets back in order and resume business. The price is obviously the most difficult part, because there is no working market for these things.

Because that would come with moral hazard issues, there needs to be some punishment. Suggestions were equity stakes in the firms by the government which would erode the value to current share holders, things about executive pay and so on are also likely to make it into a final draft.

The problem is that if you make the conditions too punishing, banks won't go for it - but the government needs them to for this to work. So realistically, the punishments will be of a token form, to appease the voters more than anything else.

If they don't have the value that the government paid for them, though ... they should have been left to fail, or to be bought at fire-sale prices by other big banks.
They won't buy them at any price, that's the problem. That's why the government is left as the only possible buyer.

Now I know you dislike government spending of all sorts. But if government spending on the welfare of the people (either their health or their physical security) is money wasted, it's a bit of a puzzle how Western democracies haven't collapsed from (a)citizens voting for the disbandment of Government, or (b)economic failure.
In this case, I was just making the point that in terms of actual money in actual government accounts, this isn't the same accounting exercise as spending on goods and services would be. Some of the money will come back, in cash. If it was spent on other programs, the economic benefit might be there for society as a whole (or individuals with good lobbies), but that won't replenish the government's coffers.

Yes, it could appear only as Government's last attempt to forestall the Second Great Depression ... hmm?
We'll see, but I don't think we're at the stage yet where we'll call it a Depression. It will however be a very long and very deep recession.

It really is a matter of speed too. The longer the banks are in this trouble, the longer the economy goes without capital going into investments, the longer the fall-out is going to last.

You could buy me for $700 billion

I do anything, *whispers* anything.

The problem is that if you make the conditions too punishing, banks won't go for it
Then screw 'em, let them go down.

Obviously the plan hasn't reached final stages yet, but the idea is basically this:

The government buys all the mortgage-backed securities the banks can't get rid of. That should then allow them to get their liquidity and balance sheets back in order and resume business. The price is obviously the most difficult part, because there is no working market for these things.

Because that would come with moral hazard issues, there needs to be some punishment. Suggestions were equity stakes in the firms by the government which would erode the value to current share holders, things about executive pay and so on are also likely to make it into a final draft.

The problem is that if you make the conditions too punishing, banks won't go for it - but the government needs them to for this to work. So realistically, the punishments will be of a token form, to appease the voters more than anything else.

Hmm. Interesting.

They won't buy them at any price, that's the problem. That's why the government is left as the only possible buyer.

Now I thought you would have strong opposition to that. Not only is Government investing in a big-money market, but they're doing it irrationally? Doing what no financial institution would do in its own interest?

Command economy!

In this case, I was just making the point that in terms of actual money in actual government accounts, this isn't the same accounting exercise as spending on goods and services would be. Some of the money will come back, in cash. If it was spent on other programs, the economic benefit might be there for society as a whole (or individuals with good lobbies), but that won't replenish the government's coffers.

Your point is taken.

I imagine that some would claim the Iraq war will show returns in the long-term (in oil security say, investment opportunities in the Iraqi market perhaps ... or even as a real-world test of the "defense value" the US govt gets for it's military spending) and could be similarly offset in cash terms.

We'll see, but I don't think we're at the stage yet where we'll call it a Depression. It will however be a very long and very deep recession.

It seems to me that we've been staving it off for years. But I tend towards doom-saying.

It really is a matter of speed too. The longer the banks are in this trouble, the longer the economy goes without capital going into investments, the longer the fall-out is going to last.

The fact that it started with sub-prime mortgages being revealed as bad investment shows that investment is not always positive.

Low interest rates have a downside ... it's that every good investment has been made already, and all that remains are bad investments which will lose money, risky investments in shaky economies, or investment in abstractions of the stock market which we can only hope will "move money to it's most productive uses."

(I should be posting in "Nightmare on Wall Street" instead of this copycat thread ... but so much to read!)

Your point is taken.

I imagine that some would claim the Iraq war will show returns in the long-term (in oil security say, investment opportunities in the Iraqi market perhaps ... or even as a real-world test of the "defense value" the US govt gets for it's military spending) and could be similarly offset in cash terms. Speaking of military spending, it's up from eighty-one billion to 141 billion on just the Army alone.

Watching the Daily Show on the topic of what could be bought with $700 billion Jon Stewart posed the following question that I know only LG should be able to answer:

"How powerful is a Hydrogen Bomb? Well, let's put it in terms of Tacos!"

So, LG, I'm looking at you... ;)

Speaking of military spending, it's up from eighty-one billion to 141 billion on just the Army alone.

Yep, military spending on that scale is nothing less than deliberate government stimulation of the economy. Worked for the Nazis ...

Now I thought you would have strong opposition to that. Not only is Government investing in a big-money market, but they're doing it irrationally? Doing what no financial institution would do in its own interest?


Effectively, they're an "investor of last resort", stopping critical economic infrastructure going to shit.

The problem with 'investor of last resort' status is - by the time that situation rolls around, it's too late. You've already GOT to the point of 'last resort', which means everything is fucked.

Critical infrastructure (including economic infrastructure) should never be allowed to get into that bad a shape without some pretty serious moderation jumping into action a hell of a lot sooner.

Then screw 'em, let them go down.
If that were an option, I'd say the government would gladly take it. Unfortunately, if they go down the rest of the country goes with them, and the world follows shortly after.

I'm not sure whether you have any credit cards, or ever use the ATM, but all these things are made possible by banks. As are your sources of money in the form of employment. If those things disappear, you better hope you've got a plane out of there.

Now I thought you would have strong opposition to that. Not only is Government investing in a big-money market, but they're doing it irrationally? Doing what no financial institution would do in its own interest?
That's what government is for. Anything that would be done by anyone in their own interest can basically be done by that someone. Maybe some laws or regulations can direct them more effectively, but if there's a self-interested reason for someone to be doing it, someone will be doing it.

In this case however, nobody wants to do it, but it looks like if it doesn't get done, we're all in much deeper shit than otherwise. Much like with policing, the government jumps in at that point, precisely because its violent nature means it doesn't have to earn a return on everything it does.

I'm not an anarchist. I see the government for what it is - a necessary evil. Because it's the latter, I oppose it in many things it currently does. Because it's the former, I support this action now.

I imagine that some would claim the Iraq war will show returns in the long-term (in oil security say, investment opportunities in the Iraqi market perhaps ... or even as a real-world test of the "defense value" the US govt gets for it's military spending) and could be similarly offset in cash terms.
That sounds a bit dubious to me, though I guess it all depends on what discount rate you use to compare future returns to current expenditure.

But despite what some people might say, that wasn't their reason for doing it.

It seems to me that we've been staving it off for years. But I tend towards doom-saying.
There isn't anything wrong in principle with living with a big current account deficit. But it's all based on the continuing ability to borrow from the outside world, which in turn requires the trust that the debts can be paid back. The US economy is huge, its people are well-educated and its consumers are the wealthiest in the world (as a group, certainly). It's got all the ingredients needed to repay its debts, and if the trust is there, to roll them over for a long, long time yet.

The Chinese have made this process easier and faster, and they're the ones who are still putting their trust into the US at the moment. Nonetheless, this crisis (though not directly related to the deficits and trade positions) will have hurt their confidence. Once this is over, and they can act without causing more panic, you'll see them buying assets denominated in other currencies in other countries to hedge. And as this continues, the cost for US consumers of continuing to live on debt will rise beyond what this current crisis means for them directly. And those will be difficult readjustments - the dollar will fall in purchasing power significantly, a lot of households will have to stop spending, a lot of people will lose their jobs. Maybe there will be enough pressure to cause deflation, as Lacadaemon has been saying for ages. And with that come social issues as well, as Japan found out in the nineties (though of course cultural factors come in as well, and with a bit of luck the financial resolution can be reached quicker because the cronyism in the US is nowhere near as bad as it was in Japan).

But whatever happens, you're probably right, in that a gradual switch has been prevented by the past decade or two. So now it'll happen more quickly and involve bigger transition costs. But even more interesting than what happens in the US will be how the Chinese handle it all.

Low interest rates have a downside ... it's that every good investment has been made already, and all that remains are bad investments which will lose money, risky investments in shaky economies, or investment in abstractions of the stock market which we can only hope will "move money to it's most productive uses."
That's all correct, but if no investment is made, then machines fall to pieces and no new ones are build, businesses tighten their belts to try and survive, and people will be losing their jobs and not finding any new ones. That's what happened in the Depression.

That's the whole idea of monetary policy - you try and keep rates in the sweet spot, where investment is being done, but not so much that it has to seek out what little return there is to have had no matter what.

According to my quick math, you could get 250,000 solid gold Kate Moss Statues for $700 billion. Then you'd still have enough money left over to hire a psychiatrist to figure out what sort of bizarre brain disorder motivated you to buy 250,000 solid gold statues of Kate Moss. I'm betting on a "Midas-complex," being involved.

According to my quick math, you could get 250,000 solid gold Kate Moss Statues for $700 billion. Then you'd still have enough money left over to hire a psychiatrist to figure out what sort of bizarre brain disorder motivated you to buy 250,000 solid gold statues of Kate Moss. I'm betting on a "Midas-complex," being involved.

Couldn't I just rent Kate Moss and cover her in gold-colored cocaine for less?

Watching the Daily Show on the topic of what could be bought with $700 billion Jon Stewart posed the following question that I know only LG should be able to answer:

"How powerful is a Hydrogen Bomb? Well, let's put it in terms of Tacos!"

So, LG, I'm looking at you... ;)

:eek:

*tosses container of crazy purple knockout gas and vanishes*

Couldn't I just rent Kate Moss and cover her in gold-colored cocaine for less?
But then you wouldn't have 250,000 of her. Imagine it: 250,000 super models, just sort of standing there, being made of gold.
What can the real one do that going completely insane in an eternal labyrinth of greed and lust can't cause you to imagine is happening?

700 Billion Dollars is enough money to buy every man, woman and child in the United States a hooker like the one the Governor of New York had. *nod*

700 Billion Dollars is enough money to buy every man, woman and child in the United States a hooker like the one the Governor of New York had. *nod*

We can get more for less if we outsource the hooker jobs to Mexican women.

Just sayin...

Things you can buy for $700 billion.

28 manned round trips to Mars.

Several billion monthly Toronto transit passes.

Criminal prosecutions for Bush, Congress, and Bush appointees.

Also for $700 billion, I could convert Lake Michigan entirely to butterscotch pudding. I did the math. *nod*

Also for $700 billion, I could convert Lake Michigan entirely to butterscotch pudding. I did the math. *nod*

As I recall, your proposal only failed because of an injunction filed by the tapioca lobby, who claimed your plan was racist.

You can get a reasonably hot woman in Adelitas Bar in Tijuana Mexico for $60 + $12 for the room, or get the room all night for $35 + $5 key deposit.

It seems like a volume discount is in order.

You can get a reasonably hot woman in Adelitas Bar in Tijuana Mexico for $60 + $12 for the room...


Given the climate, that might be counterproductive.

How much for a reasonably cool one, instead?

Given the climate, that might be counterproductive.

How much for a reasonably cool one, instead?

That's easy, don't tip, and they become quickly quite chilly.

This is in answer to the question that is the title of this thread: If the government decides to fund these massive bailouts by printing more money, then $700 billion MIGHT get you a candy bar.

Maybe I'm the wacko, but I still wonder who is ultimately going to end up with the money. :p

No, for a change, YOU are not the wacko.

Keynesian economics = fail. Let's go toward the Austrian School! Let's just stop government bailouts, protectionist tarriffs, etc etc etc.

It'll be rough, but I think the outcome will be worth it. Otherwise, we'll be right back here in another collapse before long.

Not quite. Keynesian economics does equal a fail, and the government shouldn't use taxpayers' money to bailout private businesses, but eliminating tariffs is NOT the answer; the answer is to REINSTATE tariffs, because the absence of tariffs is why our jobs are going overseas.

the answer is to REINSTATE tariffs, because the absence of tariffs is why our jobs are going overseas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff

Good call! We need to remember the mistakes that caused the great depression so we don't repeat them.

the answer is to REINSTATE tariffs, because the absence of tariffs is why our jobs are going overseas.
And you would really want to do these jobs of Chinese workers? 10 hours in poor conditions for a pay of under $1/hour?

And you would really want to do these jobs of Chinese workers? 10 hours in poor conditions for a pay of under $1/hour?



If they stayed here the conditions and pay would be better...A LOT better.

And you would really want to do these jobs of Chinese workers? 10 hours in poor conditions for a pay of under $1/hour?

Pay rates per hour aren't a useful guide to what the money means to that Chinese worker.

Exchange rates y'know. The product is made on Chinese wages and sold at US prices, due to a trade advantage from that currency exchange rate. In fact, the US is pretty unhappy with the Chinese for pegging their currency at such a low level ... it's no more a fair trade position than tariffs are.

(I'm in an awkward position here, since I think currencies should "float" -- adjust according to the balance of trade -- but I can't imagine a mechanism for that other than international currency trading, which is the sort of activity which huge financial institutions have the advantage in.)

Exchange rates y'know. The product is made on Chinese wages and sold at US prices, due to a trade advantage from that currency exchange rate. In fact, the US is pretty unhappy with the Chinese for pegging their currency at such a low level ... it's no more a fair trade position than tariffs are.
But let's all get on our knees and beg the gods that they don't stop it.

http://media.economist.com/images/20070811/D3207WW0.jpg

(I'm in an awkward position here, since I think currencies should "float" -- adjust according to the balance of trade -- but I can't imagine a mechanism for that other than international currency trading, which is the sort of activity which huge financial institutions have the advantage in.)
If it makes you feel any better, the empirical evidence seems to suggest that short-term speculation on the currency markets with their own money doesn't earn banks a profit. The movements are so random in these short timeframes that even with their role as conduits, market makers and information sinks, they can't make it work to their advantage.

If they stayed here the conditions and pay would be better...A LOT better.
Until the point where they actually had to produce goods, and you'd discover that for the same price you would get far less goods.

Which means goods would cost way more. And that pay wouldn't be worth as much. The term is "inflation".


Pay rates per hour aren't a useful guide to what the money means to that Chinese worker.
Under $1/hr is what they get PPP-adjusted. The life conditions in China are seriously poor.

If they stayed here the conditions and pay would be better...A LOT better.

Have you considered that for each job a Westerner might be replaced with more than one lower-paid job in a poorer country?

...

Nationalism -- not quite in the trash-bin of history, but selling for a buck in the end-of-line stores.

Under $1/hr is what they get PPP-adjusted. The life conditions in China are seriously poor.

But a factory job is better than a farm job.

Industrial revolution. Mgiration to the cities. Industrialized agriculture. Unsustainable consumer economy.

US. Grown-from-seed industrial economy. Sustainable agrarian base, alienated from previous owners by ... force of numbers.

So it goes.

Not quite. Keynesian economics does equal a fail
Not really.
and the government shouldn't use taxpayers' money to bailout private businesses
Why not? If it saves literally millions of taxpayers' homes and livelihoods, it's worth doing.
but eliminating tariffs is NOT the answer
Yes, yes it is.
the answer is to REINSTATE tariffs, because the absence of tariffs is why our jobs are going overseas.
No it isn't. The reason that jobs are going overseas is because a US citizen is not somehow better as a worker in a shitty factory job than a Chinese citizen, and demands far higher wages. If you put tariffs up, people will just formally relocate to places like India and China, and money will run out of the US even quicker, not to mention the inevitable reciprocal tarriffs which would be put up.

Under $1/hr is what they get PPP-adjusted. The life conditions in China are seriously poor.

Ahhh... I've never been so proud. They grow up so fast!

:eek:

*tosses container of crazy purple knockout gas and vanishes*
*purples out*