I have no problems with the House vote today even though the conservative Republicans probably had some philosophical reasons for doing it – you know, like let the market work. You can’t fix stupid+stubborn. And I resist this notion that is being sold by everyone everywhere that something has to be done soon. That’s the same rationale that got us the USA Patriot Act and the Iraq war. I doubt that caution and prudence will make things worse.
A couple of ideas are out there, but not seriously considered. They have to do with making the people caused the mess clean it up. One would be a surtax on high income taxpayers to pay for the bailout. The second idea is a small tax, say a quarter percent (.0025) on all stock transactions. It would raise about $150 billion per year, and would make Wall Street pay for Wall Street’s problems.
These are reasonable ideas that address the idea of personal responsibility. But so powerful is our financial sector, so much influence does it wield on the hill, that they are not even considered.
We’re a long way from out of this mess. As Ravi Batra suggests, the current bailout package could make our economy even sicker than it is by increasing interest rates for all borrowers. And anyway, it is probably just enough to get us through the election. Then it happens all over again.
Note: If your 401K has taken a big hit, remember that John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. He wants equal distribution of misery (Churchill’s definition of socialism).
Note: Hank Paulson, while at Goldman Sachs, collected $38 million in bonuses while his company increased its leveraged debt from $20 billion to $100 billion. I’d say his pocket is a good place to start when looking for money for this fix. Why not just give it back to us?
Piece of Mindful 
Let’s see, a tax stock transactions…
Most mutual funds turn over their portfolios about 1.5X per year. Would you exempt those since the “owners” are mostly invested through 401Ks.
Secondly, John McCain proposed an opt in for about 1/4th of SoSec contributions. Neither he or Bush has ever called for the total privatization of the system. You’re being a Dem shill by repeating it.
LikeLike
Let’s see – I’m being a Dem shill by supporting proposals that the Dems don’t support. Like your logic.
And I like the idea of taxing stock transactions because it removes incentive from idle speculation (versus company value), and is small enough that it’s impact on small investors is barely felt.
McCain’s opt out is a foot in the door. the system survives as an all-in proposition. That’s why it’s been successful.
LikeLike
No, you’re being a shill by misrepresenting the truth using Dem talking points. So keep up the good work.
Secondly, why is speculation bad?
Next, If the average portfolio turns over 1.5 times that’s 3 trades per position which would be .75% extra cost to the consumer. Time value that .75% over 40 years and tell me it’s a little cost. (oh, I forget, you’re old so to hell with the kids getting started.)
Last, I just love your paranoia.
LikeLike
Dem talking points are emphasis of things they don’t support. you’re not really very familiar with Dem politics, are you?
Speculation revolves around the stock price, while investment revolves around the value of a company. Speculators are like voyeurs. They are not really a part of it. We’re not hurt by their absence.
.75% per year over the life of the average consumer can build to a significant number. Since you’re against mutual funds in principle, I find you to be completely posing here. I’ve little to say except that we’re in agreement that the market reams small investors.
I’m a student in how humans really behave. We’re all mostly in denial.
LikeLike
What difference does it make if I’m against mutual funds? Investing in them is “how humans really behave.”
Secondly, Isn’t the value of a company reflected in its stock price? Speculators provide an important function on the market by increasing liquidity and price discovery. Furthermore, since the future can’t be predicted any investment has a level of speculation in it. I don’t know how really really differentiate between the two.
LikeLike
The presumption is that those who speculate will also engage in machinations to influence the price, you know, like short-selling or planting bombs in the news, like Steve Job’s health problems. It has nothing to do with the underlying value of the company. It’s purely for speculative gain.
What we have seen these past thirty years is greed untethered, and it has culminated in the current meltdown. Your patrons are at the center of this crisis, and are largely responsible for it. I do wish, now that we have seen your philosophy in full bloom, that you would kindly recede into the shadows once more.
LikeLike
Breaking the rules is on thing. Making profit is quite another.
One more thing. You don’t know anything about my patrons so, if I were you, I’d leave that subject alone.
Govern yourself accordingly.
LikeLike
Taxing mergers and acquisitions might help pay for the cost of “too-big-to-fail” institutions out to control greater market share, and ultimately (fixed) prices. When it’s diffucult to grow revenue and profit, market share moves center stage. Where are the rules for this greed?
LikeLike
Ah, the warning from on high. Not too long ago you suggested I shut up about economic matters entirely. I thought about that and realized that you’d be the only one talking, and you’re so misguided.
LikeLike