TPS

Tomorrow will be interesting too. The cds contracts on Lehman will be settled. A few bloggers have speculated this is what has the market on edge. Very likely a couple more institutions are taken down because of the losses here.

Read the first page of the thread I started on futures speculation last may: futures speculation

As I posted, the bailout was supposed to assuage the fears of the markets (financial markets), but didn't. I said nothing related to what you said I think.

It's a better option than what they previously touted and something I mentioned in one of the discussions about the bailout. Supposedly, "we are the government." It creates a greater likelihood of a "return on our investment" of $700 billion. When we're through this mess in a few years, the government can sell its equity stake--by low, sell high!

the markets obviously think it sucks. For those who supported it and essentially called the average American idiots for not supporting it, why didn't it have any positive impact on the markets?

Christ, you must be drunk from all of your distilling! And I am surprised the "cognoscenti" here bought into this one--ok I'm not, it fits right into what the right believes. This idiot--you finknotaclue--is taking averages and making generalizations. The 11%...what is the average income of the 11%? Of course they pay more in taxes than the average amount that they "consume" in government services--they take in 50% of the income!!! Example: Two different people--Warren Buffet and you. He's got billions of $s worth of assets, and you, well who knows, but let's assume $100K. Should Warren pay the same $20K to the government to protect his assets as you? Who has more to lose? Think of it as insurance. Would you pay the same amount to insure your $100K vs. Warren's $1 billion? If you have more to lose, you damn well better be paying more to "insure against the loss of your assets." And could you please explain what the hell you mean by "the price of higher taxes for more spending programs"?

Sorry, I disagree on that. The rate cuts are a signal to the markets that the world's policymakers realize this is serious, and they intend to do whatever's necessary.

I guess the European Central Bank should change its name to avoid any confusion then...

Hmmm...and just a couple months ago they were predicting $200... That speculative bubble got pricked quick.

I'm sure glad we passed this much needed bailout bill to solve the crisis... About that bet gg...

AS I recall, you were (and still are?) in the "it's only a crisis if you panic camp,"...

Blame Paulson for worsening this crisis. You posted this link in one of the earlier threads: counterparty risk This was back in May. When Paulson and Bernanke decided to let Lehman go, there was an exponential expansion of the crisis.

OOps! Sorry I misinterpreted this thread. I thought someone was going to post some excerpts where she actually spoke coherently...my bad...

you are so yesterday's news. try and keep up with what's posted here...

Even that is an understatement...

Back to your question: if the losses are already recognized, then it will only restore (some) capital if Paulson buys the assets at a premium...gee, wonder who he's going to "represent" in this case? Apparently the stock market isn't impressed either.

Depends where the assets are located. Are they buying bad assets off the balance sheet, or are the banks going to be off-loading assets from off-balance sheet holdings? Also, I don't know if this will get banks start to lending again? Does it end the confidence problem?

I have a feeling things are going to happen too quickly, so I'll post-pone the bet until after the election; which should actually save you, unless you insist on making the bet now...?

Check out Roubini's blog and a conference call discussion below. Some serious sh--. As I posted in another thread, it looks like some type of nationalization of banks may be the "final solution." Roubini blog

I'm fine with it focused on Wall Street, including all FIs. Are you fine with "any additional (past the $700) monetary bailout" of the financials?

No, rather, WE are acting more like Congress--you want to throw out the FDIC obligation, I want to include any rescue plan that might include tax cuts, which is a cost to the public. How about anything targeted at bailing out Wall Street? Which could include another AIG-type bailout?

A terrible plan gets worse... here's an alternative: since this bailout already implies that we're moving toward socialism, why not take a couple $100 billion and buy a few banks across the country (like Wachovia, WaMu, et al), Paulson should be able to oversee them , then use the remaining $500 billion as "lines of credit" for these banks, let them start lending--to good creditors of course. As these publicly owned banks start lending, that should start unclogging the credit markets. Then, similar to the risk that we'd take if we bought all the bad mortgage debt, the government sells its shares at some point in the future. The rest of Wall Street can go fck themselves...

So we have to ignore any trillion dollar taxpayer liability that goes through the FDIC, and the only thing you're willing to bet against is that Paulson, or whoever the T-Sec is, won't come back to Congress with a tin cup? The only wrench at the moment in this bet is who wins the election. But, since I'm really playing with your $50, then I'm willing to bet that, within 6 months after inauguration, the next administration will need to put together another costly rescue package. Can we include another stimulus package of tax cuts as part of that resuce?

Yes, she has talent. Linda Lovelace had talent too....

Which means you wouldn't take a bet of half a trillion without the FDIC?