graphics of the global financial crisis

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Who pays for the US financial bail-out?



"Many Americans probably won’t pay a cent of the cost of this bailout. That’s because a rapidly increasing percentage of U.S. households legally pay no income taxes, and many others pay so little in taxes that they already get back more from the federal government in services than they send to Washington. The number of taxpayers who generate a surplus for the federal government — that is, pay more in taxes than they receive in services — is small and shrinking, which is why the only way that the folks on Main Street will pay for this bailout will be if Main Street is where the mansions are in your town…"​
Where'd you snag this info?

Americans are already paying for this bailout, it's called the "deficit" and the "national debt", both of which were increased tremendously by the failed economic and foreign policies of the Bush administration. Thanks to the deficit and the debt, the government was in just about the worst position it could've been in when the credit bubble splattered all over the world. In an era of futile wars ostensibly about WMDs that never existed, easy credit, and massive defrauding of the American people by banks and credit agencies, Americans are paying for the bailout in lost homes, bankruptcies, lost jobs, lost 401Ks, defaulted loans, homelessness, and the worst class mobility in 70 years. Because look at the Dow today--the bailout isn't working.
 

vimothy

yurp
Tax Foundation via NYT Economix blog.

The US government paying for the bail-out through massive borrowing is not the same as you paying for it. In fact, I'm not even sure that the US government borrowing to pay for the bail-out even qualifies. There's surely a sense in which that is deferring payment. But if on net you receive more in services than you contribute in taxes (over 40% of tax returns if McCain or Obama's plans are actually put into action, according to this report), you're not actually going to pay for it at all.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Tax Foundation via NYT Economix blog.

The US government paying for the bail-out through massive borrowing is not the same as you paying for it. In fact, I'm not even sure that the US government borrowing to pay for the bail-out even qualifies. There's surely a sense in which that is deferring payment. But if on net you receive more in services than you contribute in taxes (over 40% of tax returns if McCain or Obama's plans are actually put into action, according to this report), you're not actually going to pay for it at all.
I guess, if not paying for it *directly* counts. But I don't really think that counts as "not paying."

Why would anyone want to justify the bailout? Oh yeah it's politically convenient...
 

vimothy

yurp
I guess, if not paying for it *directly* counts. But I don't really think that counts as "not paying."

Why would anyone want to justify the bailout? Oh yeah it's politically convenient...
I'm not trying to justify the bail-out. But banks do seem to have stopped going under. And governments now seem to be prepared to do whatever's necessary to steady the ship, which is important in the sense that it helps to restore confidence. Does it prevent a recession? No. Is it the best outcome? Probably not. It's better than complete financial collapse though.
 

mos dan

fact music


fuck going to america for xmas shopping then!

http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/GBP/graph120.html

non-graphically-speaking, i have this as my facebook status today:

"Dan is stunned that the EMF have had to bail out the Hungarian economy as well now, with a rescue package estimated to be in the region of $25bn. Unbelievable."

none of my friends think it's funny. i think it's the best thing i've ever ever come up with. are they wrong or am i?

ooh actually shd post this in the puns thread too..
 

dubble-u-c

Dorkus Maximus
I'm not trying to justify the bail-out. But banks do seem to have stopped going under. And governments now seem to be prepared to do whatever's necessary to steady the ship, which is important in the sense that it helps to restore confidence. Does it prevent a recession? No. Is it the best outcome? Probably not. It's better than complete financial collapse though.
It is just delaying the inevitable.

The banks in the US are showing no sign of using this money in a way that inspires confidence.

http://bailoutsleuth.com/
 

vimothy

yurp
It is just delaying the inevitable.
Delaying what inevitable? You think we will have a Great Depression style banking collapse, associated asset deflation and L-shaped recession regardless of what anyone does? There is literally no way to avoid it? Why?

The banks in the US are showing no sign of using this money in a way that inspires confidence.
It depends what you mean, I suppose. Monetary policy tools aren't really designed to work in this kind of crisis. So if you mean that the banks are not lending even with all the extra liquidity injected into the financial system, it's hardly unexpected -- is it?
 

dubble-u-c

Dorkus Maximus
Delaying what inevitable? You think we will have a Great Depression style banking collapse, associated asset deflation and L-shaped recession regardless of what anyone does? There is literally no way to avoid it? Why?



It depends what you mean, I suppose. Monetary policy tools aren't really designed to work in this kind of crisis. So if you mean that the banks are not lending even with all the extra liquidity injected into the financial system, it's hardly unexpected -- is it?


1) Yes. It is quite possible we will have a Great Depression style banking collapse and that giving money to the bankers who created this mess in the first place will result in a similar if not worse situation. What you just witnessed was the first wave of foreclosures on subprime loans. The next wave is coming up - Alt A resets. These are loans to a different set of people that are generally more well off financially than those affected by the subprime defaults and foreclosures. The repercussion from these loans resetting and the defaults and foreclosures that are sure to result, will more than likely have an even greater effect on the economy than the subprime disaster.

2) The bailout package in the US was explicitly designed for lending - NOT for bonuses to executives and the aquisition of other banks. If the money is not used for lending - the economy of the US will get worse leading to an ever widening set of problems in all sectors of the global economy. For the bankers in the US to hoard the money in the package and to use it for purposes other than what it was meant for is nothing short of criminal in my mind.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
1) Yes. It is quite possible we will have a Great Depression style banking collapse and that giving money to the bankers who created this mess in the first place will result in a similar if not worse situation. What you just witnessed was the first wave of foreclosures on subprime loans.
I agree that a great depression-style collapse is possible. But is it inevitable? Ok, so it's not inevitable. Why do you think the banking system will collapse -- can you point to some evidence/research/etc?

2) The bailout package in the US was explicitly designed for lending - NOT for bonuses to executives and the aquisition of other banks. If the money is not used for lending - the economy of the US will get worse leading to an ever widening set of problems in all sectors of the global economy. For the bankers in the US to hoard the money in the package and to use it for purposes other than what it was meant for is nothing short of criminal in my mind.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you thinking of something specific? (Haven't had time to follow the financial crisis in any detail this last couple of weeks).
 

dubble-u-c

Dorkus Maximus
I agree that a great depression-style collapse is possible. But is it inevitable? Ok, so it's not inevitable. Why do you think the banking system will collapse -- can you point to some evidence/research/etc?.
Your right. Instead of inevitable it is highly probable yet not absolutely certain. Inevitable was too strong of a word.

As far as research goes take a look at the real estate markets in California, Nevada, Arizona, Florida and Michigan. Then research pension funds in the US and how they relied upon CDO's etc for their investments- the results of this have not been worked out in the economy yet and when they are worked out ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/business/02global.html

I also read this for real estate info on the bubble and crash - lots of graphs, data and statistics:
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/




I'm not sure I follow. Are you thinking of something specific? (Haven't had time to follow the financial crisis in any detail this last couple of weeks).

Yes well there have been several reports of bonuses being handed out to the employees of several banks despite their poor performance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/executivesalaries-banking

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/21/compensation-bonuses-crisis-biz-wall-cx_lm_1021bonus.html

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1853846,00.html

Banks Likely to Hold Tight to Bailout Money:
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/banks-are-likely-to-hold-tight-to-bailout-money/
 
Last edited:
Top