Can bailout fix US economy?

ravishingshloka thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#1
The best test of whether the government's $700 billion check will be enough to save the U.S. economy is how much of that money flows back to consumers and companies . Even if the government gets Congressional approval this week to buy bad debts off banks' books, satisfying some of their cash needs, the financial sector will still need to raise money -- and investors haven't exactly been lining up to help. Unless banks can find funding somewhere, they won't be eager to resume lending, and that will leave the economy sputtering. What is your take on this?
http://utvi.myrecourl.com

Created

Last reply

Replies

10

Views

1.4k

Users

6

Frequent Posters

chal_phek_mat thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Navigator Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#2

not sure if the litmus test is how much money flows back to the consumers and companies. The real test in my opinion is stop having these practices, increased growth rate, reducing inflation etc

Also disagree the investors are there, but they are asking a high price for the troubled assets. Even the US in the bailout is and should be asking for a high interest rates on the loans provided to these companies. Yep whatever companies they take over or help out they should cap the bonuses and pay's of the execs and the CEO's. But also they shouldnt be letting go of the consumers who risked and took these mortagages. My guess they will go tough on the Rich guys but let the relatively poor scot free.

Its funny though everyone is asking for more regulation and oversight done by the people who were asleep at the wheel when this whole thing was going down, who is going to take them to task? The more you know about this the more you hate the system and we seem to be asking for more system in here
200467 thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#3

Is America becoming socialist?
21 Sep 2008, 0326 hrs IST, Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar

Socialists, like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or Indira Gandhi in India, are famous for nationalising the biggest corporations. But the US government has taken over three of its biggest corporations within two weeks. Has the US turned socialist?

American right-wingers moan that this is indeed the case. Meanwhile, Indian leftists are stunned at nationalisation in a country they view as pitilessly capitalist.

Two of the nationalised corporations, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, are by far the biggest mortgage lenders in the world, with $5 trillion of mortgages and loans on their books. That?s five times India?s GDP, to put their size in perspective. The third corporation, AIG, is the biggest insurance company in the world. No nationalisation in professedly socialist countries was ever so big.

Leftists suspect the US takeovers aim to rescue rich shareholders. Not so. The government will acquire 79.9% of the shares of these companies at virtually zero cost, pushing down the share price close to zero. So, rich shareholders have been wiped out, and the bosses of all three corporations have been sacked.

This is not a rescue of the rich. It is a rescue of ordinary people who need mortgages and a functioning housing market, which would have collapsed had Fannie May and Freddie Mac gone bust. The takeover of AIG will save millions of insurance policy holders from losing their coverage and annuities. The takeovers aim to prevent financial panic from spreading and dragging down the whole economy, as happened in the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The usual procedure in a capitalist welfare state is to let mismanaged companies go bust, penalising the shareholders and managers, and then provide safety nets to those adversely affected. But when corporations are so large that their collapse would endanger the entire financial system, it?s sensible even from a capitalist viewpoint to have a government takeover before they collapse. This is a sort of pre-emptive safety net. Moreover, preventing distress wins votes (or at least doesn?t lose them), and that?s vital in a democracy.

Does this mean the US is becoming socialist? Let?s distinguish between two meanings of the word. For many people, socialism means state ownership of the means of production, as in the Soviet Union and Mao?s China, and the US is not going in that direction. But socialism can also mean an activist state that provides basic needs for all, and creates safety nets for those hit by misfortune, old age and sickness. The US has long been socialist in this second sense, and is getting more so.

Modern capitalist states are all welfare states. Enormous bureaucracies have been created to tax the rich, regulate business, provide subsidies and special schemes to the needy, thwart environmental harm and health hazards, and so on. The list is long and keeps growing.

It could not be otherwise in democracies. Contrary to Marx?s assumptions, legislators get elected by catering to the masses, even while taking money from corporations. Legislators constantly create new rules and regulations to protect consumers, retirees, and other vote banks. Hence, the US has become a land of rising red tape.

Between 1970 and 2006, the number of pages in the Federal Register (which lists all regulations) shot up from 20,036 to 78,000. The number of regulators in the service of the federal government rose from 90,000 to 241,000. In the first six years of the George W Bush era (2000-2006), the number of pages of regulations increased by over 10,000, and regulators by over 65,000.

This is galloping socialism, often criticised as bureaucracy run amok. The US is less welfarist than European countries, but is not too far behind. The US legislators have expanded entitlements for the aged and sick so greatly that state spending on social security, Medicare and Medicaid is projected to rise from 7% of GDP today to almost 20% by 2020. So much for the myth that the US is a heartless capitalist ogre. In fact, it combines capitalism with welfarism, and often tilts toward the latter when the two conflict.

Since US politicians get elected by constantly promising to save citizens from pain, they have now saved citizens from corporate bankruptcies that would threaten the whole economy and throw millions of lives into disarray. This is no more than an extension of the safety net principle.

This is very different from Indira Gandhi socialism. Her nationalisation aimed to give the state a stranglehold on industrial production, and seize the commanding heights of the economy. These measures did not benefit ordinary folk at all, and were soon exposed as ??amiri hatao?? rather than ?? garibi hatao?? measures.

The US takeovers, by contrast, are temporary affairs, to be followed by re-privatisation once the crisis is resolved. The corporations will be obliged to sell chunks of their assets to pay off debts and attain stability. They will then be re-privatised. They will emerge greatly shrunken, and perhaps broken into smaller units.

Nationalisation is a misleading word for this process. It is better called forced restructuring by the government, as a pre-emptive safety net. It aims to save citizens from pain, but within a market economy framework.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/S_A_Aiyar_Is_US_becoming_socialist/articleshow/3508073.cms
************************************************************************************************
Sorry for the long article but it makes a good read. I am with the author on his views on American govt. and it's attempts to protect the interest of common man.
Edited by Gauri_3 - 17 years ago
jagdu thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#4
The behavior of both candidates Obama and McCain has an air of running for political cover. Neither of them need master the subteleties of credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities. But it would be reassuring to know they are capable of holding, and sticking to, a coherent position on what is now the most important issue of the campaign. When one of them becomes President, he won't have the luxury of pressing the "pause" button at the next crisis.
One can expect both of them to vote "Present"
_________
http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=941252&TPN=20
raj5000 thumbnail
20th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#5
Sharing Bush's address to the Nation on 24th Sep. It's long article. Read it, other touching points like elections etc are being dicusse in other posts not mentioning here... questions I had
Well is this the begining of the down fall of World's most powerfull country?
Economic crisis in US, will definately impact global economy this time around also, any exceptions to this?
September 24, 2008

President Bush's Address to the Nation

George W. Bush

9:01 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy. Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future. I understand their worry and their frustration. We've seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money.

We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive action. We've boosted confidence in money market mutual funds, and acted to prevent major investors from intentionally driving down stocks for their own personal gain.

Most importantly, my administration is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets. Financial assets related to home mortgages have lost value during the housing decline. And the banks holding these assets have restricted credit. As a result, our entire economy is in danger. So I've proposed that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently-needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending.

This rescue effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry -- it is aimed at preserving America's overall economy. It will help American consumers and businesses get credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs. And it will help send a signal to markets around the world that America's financial system is back on track.

I know many Americans have questions tonight: How did we reach this point in our economy? How will the solution I've proposed work? And what does this mean for your financial future? These are good questions, and they deserve clear answers.

First, how did our economy reach this point?

Well, most economists agree that the problems we are witnessing today developed over a long period of time. For more than a decade, a massive amount of money flowed into the United States from investors abroad, because our country is an attractive and secure place to do business. This large influx of money to U.S. banks and financial institutions -- along with low interest rates -- made it easier for Americans to get credit. These developments allowed more families to borrow money for cars and homes and college tuition -- some for the first time. They allowed more entrepreneurs to get loans to start new businesses and create jobs.

Unfortunately, there were also some serious negative consequences, particularly in the housing market. Easy credit -- combined with the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise -- led to excesses and bad decisions. Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford, assuming that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on.

Optimism about housing values also led to a boom in home construction. Eventually the number of new houses exceeded the number of people willing to buy them. And with supply exceeding demand, housing prices fell. And this created a problem: Borrowers with adjustable rate mortgages who had been planning to sell or refinance their homes at a higher price were stuck with homes worth less than expected -- along with mortgage payments they could not afford. As a result, many mortgage holders began to default.

These widespread defaults had effects far beyond the housing market. See, in today's mortgage industry, home loans are often packaged together, and converted into financial products called "mortgage-backed securities." These securities were sold to investors around the world. Many investors assumed these securities were trustworthy, and asked few questions about their actual value. Two of the leading purchasers of mortgage-backed securities were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk.

The decline in the housing market set off a domino effect across our economy. When home values declined, borrowers defaulted on their mortgages, and investors holding mortgage-backed securities began to incur serious losses. Before long, these securities became so unreliable that they were not being bought or sold. Investment banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers found themselves saddled with large amounts of assets they could not sell. They ran out of the money needed to meet their immediate obligations. And they faced imminent collapse. Other banks found themselves in severe financial trouble. These banks began holding on to their money, and lending dried up, and the gears of the American financial system began grinding to a halt.

With the situation becoming more precarious by the day, I faced a choice: To step in with dramatic government action, or to stand back and allow the irresponsible actions of some to undermine the financial security of all.

I'm a strong believer in free enterprise. So my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There's been a widespread loss of confidence. And major sectors of America's financial system are at risk of shutting down.

The government's top economic experts warn that without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold:

More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.

Fellow citizens: We must not let this happen. I appreciate the work of leaders from both parties in both houses of Congress to address this problem -- and to make improvements to the proposal my administration sent to them. There is a spirit of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, and between Congress and this administration. In that spirit, I've invited Senators McCain and Obama to join congressional leaders of both parties at the White House tomorrow to help speed our discussions toward a bipartisan bill.

I know that an economic rescue package will present a tough vote for many members of Congress. It is difficult to pass a bill that commits so much of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. I also understand the frustration of responsible Americans who pay their mortgages on time, file their tax returns every April 15th, and are reluctant to pay the cost of excesses on Wall Street. But given the situation we are facing, not passing a bill now would cost these Americans much more later.

Many Americans are asking: How would a rescue plan work?

After much discussion, there is now widespread agreement on the principles such a plan would include. It would remove the risk posed by the troubled assets -- including mortgage-backed securities -- now clogging the financial system. This would free banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses. Any rescue plan should also be designed to ensure that taxpayers are protected. It should welcome the participation of financial institutions large and small. It should make certain that failed executives do not receive a windfall from your tax dollars. It should establish a bipartisan board to oversee the plan's implementation. And it should be enacted as soon as possible.

In close consultation with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and SEC Chairman Chris Cox, I announced a plan on Friday. First, the plan is big enough to solve a serious problem. Under our proposal, the federal government would put up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line to purchase troubled assets that are clogging the financial system. In the short term, this will free up banks to resume the flow of credit to American families and businesses. And this will help our economy grow.

Second, as markets have lost confidence in mortgage-backed securities, their prices have dropped sharply. Yet the value of many of these assets will likely be higher than their current price, because the vast majority of Americans will ultimately pay off their mortgages. The government is the one institution with the patience and resources to buy these assets at their current low prices and hold them until markets return to normal. And when that happens, money will flow back to the Treasury as these assets are sold. And we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back.

A final question is: What does this mean for your economic future?

The primary steps -- purpose of the steps I have outlined tonight is to safeguard the financial security of American workers and families and small businesses. The federal government also continues to enforce laws and regulations protecting your money. The Treasury Department recently offered government insurance for money market mutual funds. And through the FDIC, every savings account, checking account, and certificate of deposit is insured by the federal government for up to $100,000. The FDIC has been in existence for 75 years, and no one has ever lost a penny on an insured deposit -- and this will not change.

Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th century laws. Recently, we've seen how one company can grow so large that its failure jeopardizes the entire financial system.

Earlier this year, Secretary Paulson proposed a blueprint that would modernize our financial regulations. For example, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum and ensure that their practices do not threaten overall financial stability. There are other good ideas, and members of Congress should consider them. As they do, they must ensure that efforts to regulate Wall Street do not end up hampering our economy's ability to grow.

In the long run, Americans have good reason to be confident in our economic strength. Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised. It has unleashed the talents and the productivity, and entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. It has made this country the best place in the world to invest and do business. And it gives our economy the flexibility and resilience to absorb shocks, adjust, and bounce back.

Our economy is facing a moment of great challenge. But we've overcome tough challenges before -- and we will overcome this one. I know that Americans sometimes get discouraged by the tone in Washington, and the seemingly endless partisan struggles. Yet history has shown that in times of real trial, elected officials rise to the occasion. And together, we will show the world once again what kind of country America is -- a nation that tackles problems head on, where leaders come together to meet great tests, and where people of every background can work hard, develop their talents, and realize their dreams.

Thank you for listening. May God bless you.

END 9:14 P.M. EDT

Edited by raj5000 - 17 years ago
jagdu thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#6
The rescue plan proposed by the administration would give the department of treasuryresponsibility for buying from financial firms as much as $700 billion of the souring mortgages and mortgage securities that are at the heart of the crisis. Although the treasury department would in turn hire asset managers to buy and dispose off the assets political responsibility for overseeing the contractors would lie with a new treasury secretary, assuming the plan is approved by the congress.
_____________
http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=941252&TPN=20
200467 thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#7
Indian-American to oversee US $700-bn bailout
6 Oct 2008, 2223 hrs IST, Chidanand Rajghatta,TNN
WASHINGTON: A 35-year-old Indian-American whiz, whose parents migrated from Jammu and Kashmir, is being entrusted with the task of rescuing Wall Stre
Neel Kashkari to oversee $ 700-bn bailout package
et, the US economy ? and the pretty much the entire financial world tied to its coat tails ? from a tailspin.

US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is expected to name Neel Kashkari, currently the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs in the Department of Treasury, as the interim head for its new Office of Financial Stability to oversee the $700-billion bailout program aimed at arresting the U.S economy's precipitous slide arising from the mortgage crisis.

Kashkari is one of nearly half-dozen Indian-Americans, including Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who have served in the Bush administration at Tier Two cabinet levels. But the new job clearly puts Kashkari in a different league altogether.

A long-time understudy and associate of Secretary Paulson going back to their days at Goldman Sachs, Kashkari was nominated as assistant secretary and confirmed by the Senate only in July this year in a little-noticed development at that time because it came at the tail-end of the Bush administration's eight-year run in office.

But the monumental crisis that has spooked Wall Street and the associated world has thrown the young Indian-American engineer-turned-financial expert into the spotlight. Although the prospective appointment had not been officially announced at the time of writing, the financial world and blogosphere was agog with the news of such a young man being tasked with such a huge task on a day the market continued its downward spiral.

''It seems a curious time to appoint a young acolyte from ''The Firm'' (Goldman Sachs) to run one of the most critical financial rescue programmes in US history,'' the Financial Times blog Alphaville observed, noting Kashkari's substantial science background. ''There is a small matter of experience. He is 35 years old and - if appointed and confirmed - will, as the Wall Street Journal points out, gain a 'position of substantial power' overseeing Treasury's effort to buy the financial industry's bad loans and other distressed securities.''

On a day the Dow tanked 300 points an hour after opening and went below 10,000, a wiseacre on Market Ticker forum wrote, ''Seriously? The guy overseeing the $700 billion is named 'CashCarry'? You really can't make this stuff up...'' The last time the Dow was below 10,000 was 1999.

Kashkari has a bachelor's degree in engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (birthplace of the original Internet browser Mosaic) and went to earn a master's degree in aerospace engineering to initially take up a career in sciences. He worked as the R&D Principal Investigator at the company TRW in Redondo Beach, California, where he developed technology for NASA space science missions such as James Webb Space Telescope, the replacement for Hubble, which is scheduled for launch in 2013.

But apparently, the call, or lure, of the finance world was so strong that he enrolled for an MBA at Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in 1997. He then joined Goldman-Sachs Goldman Sachs in San Francisco, where he led the firm's IT security investment banking practice, advising public and private companies on mergers and acquisitions and financial transactions, before moving to New York where he worked closely with then chairman and CEO Henry Paulson, who would go on to become Treasury Secretary. Paulson immediately drafted Kashkari as his senior advisor before he was appointed Assistant Secretary in July this this year.

Neel was born in Akron, Ohio to Chaman and Sheila Kashkari, Indian immigrants originally from J&K, who like thousands of Indian immigrants took the academic route to the United States. Chaman Kashkari, who taught at the University of Akron, is now a retired professor of engineering and Sheila Kashkari is a pathologist. Neel's wife Minal works for defense contractor Lockheed Martin. The couple has been active in Republican circles with political contributions to the party.

Kashkari is now the second Indian at the heart of the U.S and world financial crisis. Vikram Pandit heads Citigroup which is now locked in a titanic battle with Wells Fargo over the acquisition of the bank Wachovia.
Edited by Gauri_3 - 17 years ago
200467 thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#8

hmmm...I just can't get his picture to show up in my post. Well, it feels nice to see Indo-Americans involved in things of such magnitude😊 Therefore, shared the news article with y'all😳

Edited by Gauri_3 - 17 years ago
bunbutt_too thumbnail
20th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#9
I don't trust the Bush Government to fix anything ever.😡😡 Here is the new stock market lingo. We all need to get familiar with these new meanings for old words. They are interesting and sadly amusing.

CEO- Chief Embezzlement Officer

CFO- Corporate Fraud Officer

Bull Market- A random market movement causing an investor to mistake himself for a financial genius.

Bear Market- A 6 to 18 month period when the kids get no allowance, the wife gets no jewellery and the husband gets no sex.

Value investing- The art of buying low and selling lower.

P/E Ratio- The percentage of investors wetting their pants as the market keeps crashing.

Broker- What my broker has made me.

Standard & Poor- Your life in a nutshell.

Stock analyst- Idiot who just downgraded your stock.

Stock split- When your ex-wife and her lawyer split your assets equally between themselves.

Market Correction- The day after you buy stocks.

Cash flow- The movement your money makes as it disappears down the toilet.

Yahoo- What you yell after selling it to some poor sucker for $240 per share.

Windows- What you jump out of when you're the sucker who bought Yahoo at $240 per share.

Institutional investor- Past year's investor who's now locked up in a nuthouse.

Profit- An archaic word no longer in use.

chal_phek_mat thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Navigator Thumbnail
Posted: 17 years ago
#10

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

Indian-American to oversee US $700-bn bailout

yaha apna paraya koi nahi, sab ...... chor hai😆
edited to remove obscenities

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".