US House votes against $700bn bailout

andrew

OPENROAD wrote: »

They will come up with another bail out plan possibly later this week imo.

This may have been mentioned already, but:

http://www.myiris.com/newsCentre/newsPopup.php?fileR=20080930165336196&dir=2008/09/30&secID=livenews

This might not be that significant, I don't know.

Out of curiosity, how does anyone here actually have a qualification related to the field of Buisness/Economics? Seem like people are just posting OH **** which is making others go OH **** in fits of mad speculation. Anyway we're all gravy. Eventually, the market always goes up.

OPENROAD

Weathercheck wrote: »

but the ISEQ just got half of its losses back today (on yesterdays losses) on what basically insured Irish banks through the most turbulent times in economic history, if the people really believed this it would have soared.

Re the ISEQ, more factors at play then just what the Irish govt do or don't do, so wouldn't have expected the rise you say should have been achieved with the govts actions today. Jump in Dow primarily down to confidence that a deal will be agreed later this week, lets see where we are at on Friday re the ISEQ, though this US deal does not necessary solve everything.

SimpleSam06

dotsman wrote: »

They don't want my money. Don't worry, they don't want yours either. It is quiet safe.

Actually the banks are crying out for cold hard cash. After they sold all their brick and mortar premises in 2006 with leaseback written in (and think very carefully about the implications of that decision), they had nowhere else to turn for capital. I've gotten three calls in the last three weeks from my branch manager trying to sell me a pension. And have you noticed the surge in advertising along those lines?

They really, really want your money.

dotsman wrote: »

Will people stop using the herald etc as the basis of their understanding of this situation.:eek:

There have been many cogent and well reasoned arguments put forward throughout this discussion, and not one linked to or was sourced from the herald. Enough with the strawmen.

dotsman wrote: »

The government has given no one a blank cheque. They have given no one a single cent. In fact, it's the opposite. The government are charging the banks for this service. So as a taxpayer - technically the banks are giving you money!

You clearly have no concept of how the banking system works. Banks in most cases lend far more than they have assets to back it up, this is why a run on a bank will wipe it out. Therefore the stability of a bank and its ability to pull in further capital depend on the perception of its ability to pay it back. A guarantee like this really is a blank cheque, although only the most cracked investors would believe they can back it up.

Which leads us directly to the next point, which is that although a variety of assets might start flowing into Irish banks, they will almost certainly be the kind of toxic assets that nobody wants, and when they turn out to be sour, who will be left with the bill? Thats right. Welcome to Ireland, international dumping ground for your subprime mortgages.

The problem is that the Irish government has become far too used to making promises they have no intention of ever honouring. This time they have bitten off more than they can swallow.

dotsman wrote: »

All this is is that the government have put their name behind the banks,

Wow. If you think thats a small deal, I'd hate to see what you think of as a big deal. In point of fact the Irish government has always put its name behind its banks; this is just a licence to carry on doing whatever it was they were doing, which of course is exactly the behaviour that landed us in this mess in the first place.

dotsman wrote: »

Money/credit is the life blood of an economy and the banks are the heart. Our/global banks/economy suffered a mild stroke last year.

The system only works with careful regulation. If that regulation is loosened, in particular with regard to legislation like the Glass-Steagall act in the US, then it becomes a tumour upon the eceonomic well being of a country. What we are seeing now, very simply put, is the result of lending gone insane, and being bailed out by the taxpayer based upon, you guessed it, future earnings. Anyone see a bit of a problem with this?

I honestly do hope a few banks go completely bust, it will increase the value of everyone else's money. The main problem with deflation is that the banks have no idea what to do with it, here be monsters territory. I don't think deflation is all that bad a thing, its association with the great depression gave it a bad rap. Once its not combined with wage stagnation, and is carefully managed, it can be a positive thing imho.

dotsman wrote: »

Any hippy/anarchist who is looking at this as "bailing out a few rich old men" really don't have a clue about what's going on.

Heh. Who do you think you are talking to, exactly?

On an unrelated note, I'd have thought you would have changed your sig after our last discussion on economics. :P

SimpleSam06

OPENROAD wrote: »

Re the ISEQ, more factors at play then just what the Irish govt do or don't do, so wouldn't have expected the rise you say should have been achieved with the govts actions today. Jump in Dow primarily down to confidence that a deal will be agreed later this week, lets see where we are at on Friday re the ISEQ, though this US deal does not necessary solve everything.

I think the phrase "lipstick on a pig" may well becoming the defining comment for the next ten years.

dotsman

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Actually the banks are crying out for cold hard cash. After they sold all their brick and mortar premises in 2006 with leaseback written in (and think very carefully about the implications of that decision), they had nowhere else to turn for capital. I've gotten three calls in the last three weeks from my branch manager trying to sell me a pension. And have you noticed the surge in advertising along those lines?

They really, really want your money.

You know what I meant. This deal is not about getting funds from the taxpayers. Of course they want to continue to do business with their customers. My bank has never contacted me trying to sell me something. However, I do have the intelligence to opt out of such calls (Regulations working)

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

There have been many cogent and well reasoned arguments put forward throughout this discussion, and not one linked to or was sourced from the herald. Enough with the strawmen.

In your opinion.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You clearly have no concept of how the banking system works. Banks in most cases lend far more than they have assets to back it up, this is why a run on a bank will wipe it out. Therefore the stability of a bank and its ability to pull in further capital depend on the perception of its ability to pay it back. A guarantee like this really is a blank cheque, although only the most cracked investors would believe they can back it up.

I very much understand how the banking system works. And that is my whole point! This guarantee frees up the bankings system, allowing it to function, thus allowing our economy to function. No cashing in of any cheques required.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Which leads us directly to the next point, which is that although a variety of assets might start flowing into Irish banks, they will almost certainly be the kind of toxic assets that nobody wants, and when they turn out to be sour, who will be left with the bill? Thats right. Welcome to Ireland, international dumping ground for your subprime mortgages.

What are you talking about? Really? Are you somehow trying to say that Irish banks will suddenly decide to jump on the subprime bandwagon, when they have been so dead against it from the start?

This kind of drivel belongs on a Lisbon "No" poster.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The problem is that the Irish government has become far too used to making promises they have no intention of ever honouring. This time they have bitten off more than they can swallow.

True, but that's true of all politicians/nations. In your opinion, they have bitten off more than they can swallow. In mine, I think they pulled off a very good move - simple, free and effective.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Wow. If you think thats a small deal, I'd hate to see what you think of as a big deal. In point of fact the Irish government has always put its name behind its banks; this is just a licence to carry on doing whatever it was they were doing, which of course is exactly the behaviour that landed us in this mess in the first place.

In the grand scheme of things, it's not that big a deal (compared to what other governments are doing for their banks). I'd very much imagine any sensible bank will use this time to get their affairs sorted and bolster their balance sheet.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The system only works with careful regulation. If that regulation is loosened, in particular with regard to legislation like the Glass-Steagall act in the US, then it becomes a tumour upon the eceonomic well being of a country. What we are seeing now, very simply put, is the result of lending gone insane, and being bailed out by the taxpayer based upon, you guessed it, future earnings. Anyone see a bit of a problem with this?

Yup - red tape solves all the worlds problems.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I honestly do hope a few banks go completely bust, it will increase the value of everyone else's money. The main problem with deflation is that the banks have no idea what to do with it, here be monsters territory. I don't think deflation is all that bad a thing, its association with the great depression gave it a bad rap. Once its not combined with wage stagnation, and is carefully managed, it can be a positive thing imho.

And now your true sentiments are coming out! By the very definition, you are an anarchist. If the banks falls, the economy dies. Well, my sincere apologies for disagreeing without you and saying that I kind of like the concept of society and having a job etc.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Heh. Who do you think you are talking to, exactly?

That was aimed at all those who are actually happy to see this financial mess and think that the economy should be allowed collapse. Cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

On an unrelated note, I'd have thought you would have changed your sig after our last discussion on economics. :P

The sig stays. The sig speaks the truth:D

The_Conductor

Two very interesting articles in this morning's Indo (which I have reposted on the other thread here on AH (perhaps a mod like to merge the threads).

The first shows that were the guarantees extended to the Irish banking sector actually done on a commercial basis (as the Taoiseach tried to say they were) that they would have a net cost of between 10 and 22 billion per annum (given that the overnight rate being quoted for Irish banks is now between 2.5% and 5.8% above Euribor rates).

The second article refers to my first post on this thread yesterday- State Aid implications. The entire deal has already been forwarded to the EU Commission for consideration under State Aid rules- as the deal confers an unfair commercial advantage on an Irish institution over and above institutions in other EU countries. The fact that its the Irish taxpayer funding the deal is irrelevant- as all the National airlines discovered.

Interesting times.......

Ps- Dotsman- if it was the information I posted yesterday that you were alluding to when you suggested it was sourced from the Evening Herald, you are sadly mistaken. I'm sufficiently well qualified to give a commentary in my own right- as quite a few posters on this thread are well aware.

SimpleSam06

dotsman wrote: »

However, I do have the intelligence to opt out of such calls (Regulations working)

Hahah, of course, if you knew anything about the regulations, you would know that you can't opt out until after you have been called. Lack of knowledge seems to be something of a hallmark of your posts, in fairness.

Besides, I quite like chatting to my bank manager.

dotsman wrote: »

In your opinion.

Oho, alright so, point out to me the links to the herald like a good man. Point out to me the copy-and-paste from a herald article. Point out anything which links in any way to the herald. No? I guess you were just spouting shite then.

dotsman wrote: »

I very much understand how the banking system works. And that is my whole point! This guarantee frees up the bankings system, allowing it to function, thus allowing our economy to function. No cashing in of any cheques required.

The reason the banking system seized up is because of shoddy practices, so let me ask you this, what does this measure do to address the real issue? Nothing? So its only putting a bandage on things for a while, and making them worse by enabling further foolish practices? You don't say!

dotsman wrote: »

What are you talking about? Really? Are you somehow trying to say that Irish banks will suddenly decide to jump on the subprime bandwagon, when they have been so dead against it from the start?

This kind of drivel belongs on a Lisbon "No" poster.

/facepalm

I'd explain it to you in more detail, but I've run out of crayons.

dotsman wrote: »

True, but that's true of all politicians/nations. In your opinion, they have bitten off more than they can swallow. In mine, I think they pulled off a very good move - simple, free and effective.

For limited values of "think".

dotsman wrote: »

In the grand scheme of things, it's not that big a deal (compared to what other governments are doing for their banks). I'd very much imagine any sensible bank will use this time to get their affairs sorted and bolster their balance sheet.

Good luck with that. :pac:

dotsman wrote: »

Yup - red tape solves all the worlds problems.

Did you replace your seatbelt with optimism? No? Then realise that what you call red tape was there to prevent exactly this situation coming to pass. Since you apparently have no idea what the situation actually is, I don't expect the analogy to make a dent.

dotsman wrote: »

And now your true sentiments are coming out! By the very definition, you are an anarchist. If the banks falls, the economy dies. Well, my sincere apologies for disagreeing without you and saying that I kind of like the concept of society and having a job etc.

Yawn. You should be working on a farm, with all the strawmen you are cranking out. Who said anything about all of the banks failing?

dotsman wrote: »

That was aimed at all those who are actually happy to see this financial mess and think that the economy should be allowed collapse. Cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

A bit like those who think they are arguing a way forward for the economy and are in fact digging us deeper into a hole?

dotsman wrote: »

The sig stays. The sig speaks the truth:D

The pwnage you were handed last time speaks differently.

dotsman

smccarrick wrote: »

Ps- Dotsman- if it was the information I posted yesterday that you were alluding to when you suggested it was sourced from the Evening Herald, you are sadly mistaken. I'm sufficiently well qualified to give a commentary in my own right- as quite a few posters on this thread are well aware.

Nope, definitely wasn't referring to you. As already said, I agree in general with a lot of what you have said. I only disagree on the fact that I think that this guarantee is better than what would have otherwise happened.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Hahah, of course, if you knew anything about the regulations, you would know that you can't opt out until after you have been called. Lack of knowledge seems to be something of a hallmark of your posts, in fairness.

Actually, it is you, again, who lacks knowledge. When giving your contact details to your bank, you were able to opt-out of any marketing directives. Likewise, you can contact the bank at any time and request they no longer call you.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Oho, alright so, point out to me the links to the herald like a good man. Point out to me the copy-and-paste from a herald article. Point out anything which links in any way to the herald. No? I guess you were just spouting shite then.

OK, people seem to getting very rattled by my comment about the herald. It is merely a figure of speech:o. There has been a lot of crap spouted about on the media (mainly tabloid - eg the herald) which always tries to twist things into the government/wealthy people/Europe/The lizards are out to get you and that everything they do will fcuk the little guy over and that the sole reason for this was to help the "fat-cat" bankers and "greedy" developers.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The reason the banking system seized up is because of shoddy practices, so let me ask you this, what does this measure do to address the real issue? Nothing? So its only putting a bandage on things for a while, and making them worse by enabling further foolish practices? You don't say!

Where did I say that this was going to fix the whole problem - do yo actually read anybody's posts before responding? Do you actually think about what they are saying?

I am behind this bill, because, had nothing been done, and the banking system allowed to fail, which you have said that you want, then I believe we would have been well and truly fcuked (in a manner we cannot even imagine). By putting this guarantee in place, we have prevented a run on our banks and allowed them to continue running. It's a just a temporary fix. We've won one battle, but there are still many to come before we are out of this mess. You, on the otherhand want us to lose!

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

/facepalm

I'd explain it to you in more detail, but I've run out of crayons.

Yup, I think you used them all up while writing up your last few posts. Guess you're going to have to use a more mature form of communication. I can teach you if you want.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

For limited values of "think".

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Good luck with that. :pac:

Thanks!

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Did you replace your seatbelt with optimism? No? Then realise that what you call red tape was there to prevent exactly this situation coming to pass. Since you apparently have no idea what the situation actually is, I don't expect the analogy to make a dent.

Yup, until you explain the situation to me in the words of Simple sam, then I guess I'm going continue to be confused by your posts. Here's a bit of advice. Actually explain precisely what you are talking about rather than referring to straw men, crayons and seatbelts.

Exactly what type of regulations did/do you want? Explain exactly the wording of said regulations, how they would be policed, the cost of enforcing these regulations, and the benefit derived from these regulations. Bandying about the word "regulations" does not make a problem go away.

I pratically have to get 3 sign-offs just to take a leak at work. Regulations only work if they're good ones. Otherwise they're just ineffective and costly BS, hindering, as opposed to helping businesses.

The last thing we need out of this is another SOX

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Yawn. You should be working on a farm, with all the strawmen you are cranking out.

Again with your straws. What about the crayons? Should I be drawing on my seatbelt with my crayons?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Who said anything about all of the banks failing?

Taking the crisis that was before us on Monday. Which bank was going to fail? They've had varied lending policies in the past few years, but have all suffered pretty much the exact same. If one was to fall, then it would just be the same domino effect as in the states. The little confidence people have would be shattered.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

A bit like those who think they are arguing a way forward for the economy and are in fact digging us deeper into a hole?

How is this digging a deeper hole? You try and implement an economic recovery without a banking system. This is about putting a stall on the slaughter, allowing us to get to grips with the mess.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The pwnage you were handed last time speaks differently.

I've never been handed "pwnage" (or cranked out "straw men" etc). What's with all the cryptic posts? Are you trying to hide something?

vibe666

heard on the radio this morning that the Irish Govt. has been up all night figuring it out and has signed off on the bailout plan and even the yanks have managed to agree on their $700 billion of bandage (bondage maybe?).