# If the bailout is not a bail out do we bail out?



## Glen48 (26 September 2008)

If the USSA bail out is not forthcoming or slowed down or only some of it goes through Congress what happens then?


----------



## Green08 (26 September 2008)

You could ask the white house at 

comments@whitehouse.gov

or 

Vice President Richard Cheney: vice_president@whitehouse.gov 

let us know how you go


----------



## refined silver (26 September 2008)

If it goes through we are all screwed. If it doesn't go through we all screwed.

Nothing will change that.


----------



## ice (26 September 2008)

refined silver said:


> If it goes through we are all screwed. If it doesn't go through we all screwed.




Yes but if it doesn't go through we will be screwed much faster. 

ice


----------



## nunthewiser (26 September 2008)

Personally thinks a quickie much better than dragging out all this foreplay , crashnburn and let us move on


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (26 September 2008)

Well if they bailout on the bailout, causing others to bailout, and finding no one to bail in, so everyone bails out, and assuming that you haven't already bailed out, and those others that haven't bailed out might bail out, causing a general and widespread bailout which is a deeper bailout than the current bail out we've seen....

 *GASP*

:fan


What was the question again?

Sir O


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 September 2008)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Well if they bailout on the bailout, causing others to bailout, and finding no one to bail in, so everyone bails out, and assuming that you haven't already bailed out, and those others that haven't bailed out might bail out, causing a general and widespread bailout which is a deeper bailout than the current bail out we've seen....
> 
> *GASP*
> 
> ...




good one Osis  lol

gg


----------



## Glen48 (27 September 2008)

So if they don't bail out and  and go ahead  with the bailout we can assume things will pick up for awhile but keep a good eye on when to bail out of the bail out.
It will be good to get back to dealing with Nigerian scammer again.
Wonder what their code  is maybe buy into them at least you know who you are deaaling with.


----------



## baer (27 September 2008)

Sometimes it is easier to show what is happening with a picture http://www.gocomics.com/claybennett/2008/09/24/


----------



## mayk (27 September 2008)

baer said:


> Sometimes it is easier to show what is happening with a picture http://www.gocomics.com/claybennett/2008/09/24/




Well figured!


----------



## Glen48 (27 September 2008)

1. The U.S. credit engine is already melting down. In fact, just this week, the all-important market for short-term commercial paper has come to a virtual standstill. This is precisely the market we warned you about. Now it's collapsing. And if this pattern continues, it's likely to drive many corporations that depend on this instant cash into instant bankruptcy. 

2. Although a massive federal bailout might help rally the stock market temporarily, it is not ”” and will not ”” reverse the credit meltdown.

3. Quite to the contrary, fear is now spreading throughout the banking industry, driving many Americans to pull their money out of the financial system entirely. Yes, it makes sense to shift from weak to strong institutions, and that's rational. But the behavior we're beginning to witness is both irrational and dangerous. 

Looks like we might miss out on  a recession:


----------



## MrBurns (27 September 2008)

I guess you all know about this, in the interview he was most definite, if the bailout doesnt go ahead it will mean depression, this must also mean if the bailout doesnt work it will mean depression, this is the most telling and candid admission from a very credible source and in my mind this means we will get a depression, scary but you cant ignore the facts, there's no way this bail out will work except to shore up short term confidence so, we are screwed so prepare yourself.




> ANZ boss warns of US depression if bailout plan fails, with huge knock-on effect
> 
> 
> ANZ Banking Group Ltd chief executive Mike Smith says if US Congress doesn't pass a proposed $US700 billion ($A835.25 billion) rescue package, the US banking system will fall into depression.
> ...


----------



## noirua (27 September 2008)

MrBurns said:


> I guess you all know about this, in the interview he was most definite, if the bailout doesnt go ahead it will mean depression, this must also mean if the bailout doesnt work it will mean depression, this is the most telling and candid admission from a very credible source and in my mind this means we will get a depression, scary but you cant ignore the facts, there's no way this bail out will work except to shore up short term confidence so, we are screwed so prepare yourself.




This bail out will go through with sticking plater all over it.  Problem is, that US$700 billion is not nearly enough to bail out the several thousand small lenders throughout America. 
The UK threw in another US$185 billion (£100 billion) last week to help lending. The US situation needed nearer US$1.2 trillion or maybe as much as US$1.4trillion, so they'll be back for more to take over all this complicated loan book.


----------



## nunthewiser (27 September 2008)

Heres my thoughts about  the matter , listen , dont listen , who really cares , just another textual opinion in my book ... but here it is......... we get a bailout= 15% rise followed by 30-40 % fall .......  no bailout  = 20% fall quickly ........ dont ask how i came by these numbers as no mathematician ...just giving my 2 cents on what im seeing ........

all the best 
nunthewiser


----------



## MrBurns (27 September 2008)

> This bail out will go through with sticking plater all over it.




I agree it would be unlikely if it didn't.

The net effect of all of the bailout scenarios is that it will slow the crash down but not stop it.

When you think about it it's nonsence to imagine that you could bailout anything this big.

I may be best just to let it go and start to rebuild using the billions to help the most disadvanteged, the bailout way is just death by a thousand cuts.


----------



## misterS (27 September 2008)

Drought conditions that coincided with the last great depression found many people driven off the land, looking for work, shelter and food on the road - those who read Steinbeck will know of the "Oakies".

What would happen now? Many large cities are crowded, impersonal places, already saddled with many problems.  It is a curious feature of the 'global village' that with populations so large now, even if the proportion of people who have no particular interest in the well-being of others or in the notion of self-sacrifice is the same as it was in 1930, the numbers are much greater.  

In the USA there are many heavily armed people for a start and it seems fewer with much time for those outside their gated community, race, or "like-mindedness".

Governments are right to be terrified of the consequences of a serious Depression.  It won't be belt-tightening and a few old swaggies and pitiful families begging a feed off Dad and Dave.  The behaviour of people in the aftermath of Katrina at one stadium might be a glimpse of what would be in prospect in America.

If some major 'event', natural or otherwise should occur in the midst of it all, what then? 

I've read that the US government is readying armed forces to 'assist the populace' in the event of some emergency event (post-Katrina) and any rational modelling of the consequences of another great depression must surely consider preparing for the possibility of serious outbreaks of social disorder.

I don't think it is paranoic to consider that the consequences might be truly terrible and plunge usually civil parts of the world into sporadic social chaos.  Your modern native (including us) seem less prone to accept poverty or lack of social services. 

Losing your job, your home and finding what money you have losing value in an environment where all the existing social problems start multiplying with the supports and treatments for them failing at the same time is a deeply unattractive scenario.

Even if the $700 billion may be a tad more than a "hapworth of tar", adjusted for inflation, if it averts an abrupt depression, then I applaud their willingness to spend it.


----------



## MrBurns (27 September 2008)

> Even if the $700 billion may be a tad more than a "hapworth of tar", adjusted for inflation, if it averts an abrupt depression, then I applaud their willingness to spend it.




This problem is beyond me and unfortunately beyond the people charged with fixing it but as a general rule I would rather see $700B go toward helping those most affected by whats to come and I don't mean the bankers.


----------



## misterS (27 September 2008)

I don't pretend to entirely understand it, but you pick up a bit reading the business papers and all the informative threads.  Enough to recognise that the blame-storming seems a bit of a side-issue in implementing the solution. 

Some pilloried shorters, but Chops, Wayne and other rightly point out the role of shorting in the market. (Although you can have too much of a good thing apparently, or we would have welcomed all the shorters at a loose end in the rest of the world, instead of having a 30 day break, wouldn't we?) 

I think it was Chops who pointed out the various other parties involved in creating this monster in the first place. 

The "spreading of risk" that all these derivatives was intended to do has certainly done that in spades! 

Bit of the sorcerer's apprentice effect at work in the whole thing. You keep hiring people to make ninja loans and churn out CDOs with monoline insurers and Credit agencies in support and by heck that's what they do.  Even in Australia you couldn't open a bank account to trade shares without them asking if you would like a home loan with that.

As an aside, I idly wonder if the long-term successful effort to bring down the USSR by massively outspending it was a contributing "environmental" factor in tolerating this kind of supercharged credit economy, when it might have otherwise been prompted to intervene sooner.


----------



## chops_a_must (27 September 2008)

misterS said:


> I think it was Chops who pointed out the various other parties involved in creating this monster in the first place.



Certainly wouldn't have been me...


----------



## misterS (28 September 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Certainly wouldn't have been me...




Chops, Sorry - not only not you, but even mistaken about the context of the remark I thought I was referring to, which is poor recall. 

It was actually Wayne L on the topic of an old geezer who lost a lot...

"These are the sort of people who buy shares as throughout their life as a pension and don't really sell. They are used to riding ups and downs and have faith that the latest fundamentals, analyst and broker advice and guidance from execs reflects the truth. They are not analysts themselves.

Then they learn the real truth the hard way. They were lied to by an entire industry. This is far more evil than any short selling."


----------



## BradK (28 September 2008)

nunthewiser said:


> Heres my thoughts about  the matter , listen , dont listen , who really cares , just another textual opinion in my book ... but here it is......... we get a bailout= 15% rise followed by 30-40 % fall .......  no bailout  = 20% fall quickly ........ dont ask how i came by these numbers as no mathematician ...just giving my 2 cents on what im seeing ........
> 
> all the best
> nunthewiser




Sounds like the rough curve Im working with too.


----------



## BradK (28 September 2008)

MrBurns said:


> This problem is beyond me and unfortunately beyond the people charged with fixing it but as a general rule I would rather see $700B go toward helping those most affected by whats to come and I don't mean the bankers.




AGREEE!!!!!!


----------

