Hmmmmm

[R13]

Not really 2/3s, about half-- own stock - through mutual funds and directly in brokerage accounts. But it really does affect a lot of people. Still I wish they were using that 700 bil for a direct benefit of Americans who really need it.

[greencrest1272]

Yes really, over 2/3's of people in America with a job own some form of stock, bond, etc...

Yes, and by investing this we lost our butt. Move away from the old system. And if I have to bail them , to keep what I already paid them once....we all start to look like Barney Fife.

[CoeburnCane]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: greencrest1272</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes really, over 2/3's of people in America with a job own some form of stock, bond, etc...</div></div>

Most via a stock proxy that is in turn owned by a large investing firm which makes up part of their clientele. Even if you're in a 401K and choosing mutual funds--those funds are managed by large firms and the more funds they manage for more people--the larger they get and the more weight they have to effect the market.

You don't see Joe Coalminer trading hardcore and buying stocks himself one-on-one with Wall Street.

Plus, yes--over 2/3 of American workers own some form of stock/bond/etc, but who still owns the most? Large financing companies, corporations, investment firms, etc...that's a HIGHLY misleading statistic that you quoted twice in a row w/o thinking it through.

Don't forget who's got the power in that hustle, it ain't your every day average American worker. It's Big Money that greases the wheels and makes the moves that have our collective arses in a sling right now.

Ask yourself--why do the government types, especially Republicans, encourage us as average Americans to invest in the market and trade stocks/bonds? Ever wonder what benefit they're seeing out of it besides the BS they tell you about "consumer confidence in American markets"? Gotta ask yourself those questions in this economic environment--why am I screwed and why are they sitting pretty still when things have went all to hell?

[greencrest1272]

So the guy picking up the garbage is going to rely on the $500 a month Social Security check for retirement?

Yes the big guy is in control, that's what I was saying that affects everyone, especially the little guy. I don't know what was misleading about a fact. That's all the more reason that a bailout is necessary. Because like it or not if affects everyone.

The only thing the working class can hope for is a comfortable retirement through investments. People can no longer live on Social Security alone until they retire.

[neutral88]

To me the problem that started in the early 90's is easy to see....

If you lone a family that brings in $1200 a month, enough money to buy a house, chances are you are gonna go broke, cause they aren't gonna pay up...

[sup-rbeast]

I'm totally against the bailout....all it does is transfer wealth from the working class to the financial sector making them even richer. Let those who make risky investments fail....they're no better than the rest of us.

[sup-rbeast]

Wow..just found a page that agrees..lol..from Time magazine:

Let Risk-Taking Financial Institutions Fail
By Ari J. Officer and Lawrence H. Officer Monday, Sep. 29, 2008

The Administration and Congress have felt compelled to do something about the "financial meltdown," so an inefficient and inequitable "bailout plan" has been rushed through the legislature despite harsh criticism from the right and left. That's unfortunate. Both presidential candidates were stalling by qualifying the plan. Whichever candidate had had the courage to reject outright this proposal would have had the better claim to be President.

Do not be fooled. The $700 billion (ultimately $1 trillion or more) bailout is not predominantly for mortgages and homeowners. Instead, the bailout is for mortgage-backed securities. In fact, some versions of these instruments are imaginary derivatives. These claims overlap on the same types of mortgages. Many financial institutions wrote claims over the same mortgages, and these are the majority of claims that have "gone bad."

At this point, such claims have no bearing on the mortgage or housing crisis; they have bearing only on the holders of these securities themselves. These are ridiculously risky claims with little value for society. It is as if many financial institutions sold "earthquake insurance" on the same house: when the quake hits, all these claims become close to worthless "? but the claims are simply bets disconnected from reality.

Follow the money. Average Joes and Janes are not the holders of the other side of complicated, over-the-counter derivatives contracts. Rather, hedge funds are the main holders. The bailout will involve a transfer of wealth "? from the American people to financial institutions engaging in reckless speculation "? that will be the greatest in history.

Rescuing financial institutions is not the best solution. Yes, banks are needed to provide capital to businesses. But it is not necessary to spend $1 trillion to maintain liquidity. If the government is to intervene, it should pick and choose which claims to purchase; claims that are directly tied to mortgages would be a good start.

Let financial institutions fail, merge or be bought out. The faltering institutions will see their shares devalued and will be likely to be taken over by stronger institutions "? as has already started happening. This consolidation of the financial sector is both efficient and inevitable; government action can only delay the adjustment.

The government should not intervene. It should leave overleveraged financial institutions to default on their derivatives obligations and, if necessary, file for bankruptcy. Much of the crisis has arisen from miscalculating the risks involved in a large book of positions in these derivatives. It is only logical that these institutions pay for their poor management.

Rather than bailing out Wall Street, we propose that the government should buy up the actual mortgages in question and do nothing else. The government should not touch any derivatives; that is, claims that do not directly tie into the actual mortgages. If money becomes too tight, then the Fed can certainly increase its loans to financial institutions.

Let the poorly managed, overly risk-taking financial institutions fail! Always remember that Wall Street and the real economy are not the same thing.

"? Ari J. Officer has completed his master of science degree in financial mathematics at Stanford University. Lawrence H. Officer is a professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

[NotSoSilentBob]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">all it does is transfer wealth from the working class to the financial sector </div></div>

Yet you've no problem with the opposite.

[CoeburnCane]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NotSoSilentBob</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">all it does is transfer wealth from the working class to the financial sector </div></div>

Yet you've no problem with the opposite.</div></div>

If there's one truth in economics, it's that not one particular type of economic theory works all the time--especially if the extreme is used/believed all the time as principle...

Even extreme capitalism, Bob. Extreme capitalism is just as bad if not worse than extreme socialism. May want to keep that in mind. Those extreme demand side economists are just as bad as those extreme supply side economists--a happy medium has to be found to get us back to middle ground where we all can prosper.