Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (52525)	3/24/2009 1:24:28 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

koan, I do not recall reading any alternatives proposed by Krugman or Galbraith et. al. Most of the consumers have money. BUt they are using it to only buy the necessary items items such as refrigerators, mattresses, dining room sets. They may not need a new car and hence are not ready to buy a new car. There may be less than 10% unemployed but is it not true that remaining 90 plus per cent are employed even though some may be under employed. Or in the worst case scenario, of the 90 plus folks, 10% per cent may not be registering in the unemployed numbers because they have stopped collecting unemployment. That still leaves 80% as employed. I know two folks (both engineers in the US construction industry) who got laid off. They are now stationed in China and India as consultants helping local companies build manufacturing facilities. Yours truly has a similar offer but had to decline because I am employed here in the US. So there will be a lot of "Simon Cowels". We all know what "Simon says". But can Simon sing?

To: koan who wrote (52525)	3/24/2009 4:24:45 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

<In short, because the plan is yet another massive, ineffective gift to banks and Wall Street. Taxpayers, of course, will take the hit > This idea that taxpayers take the hit is silly. They take the hit either way because the banks deposits are insured. Are they suggesting that you just don't have banks? Sure, wipe them out... then there are no banks for a year or so till you set up more (ie. Govt intervention there too)?? I don't know... I just think of these guys have ideas they should call Obama with them. I'm sure they'd get an audience. <The trouble with the economy is that the banks aren't lending. The reality: The economy is in trouble because American consumers and businesses took on way too much debt and are now collapsing under the weight of it. As consumers retrench, companies that sell to them are retrenching, thus exacerbating the problem. The banks, meanwhile, are lending. They just aren't lending as much as they used to. Also the shadow banking system (securitization markets), which actually provided more funding to the economy than the banks, has collapsed.> We all know that... we also know that there are GOOD COMPANIES THAT NEED CREDIT that can't get it. They seem to miss that point?? Look, these guys are probably right... we should just go into an incredibly DEEP DEPRESSION, soup lines and the whole 9 yards: most business in the US halted for a year or more... unemployment the norm... maybe 50-75% cause EVERY COMPANY depends on "on the fly, up to the minute inventory and order systems", and inventory credit, etc... there isn't a company ANYWHERE that doesn't have revolving credit... and EVERY BANK IS IN COURT!!! This is NOT an exageration, every major bank would be in court fighting over assets and legally probably couldn't make one damn loan without court permission. So, yea, I dont think these guys get that... but at the same time they're probably right and following THAT path and then we'll come out of it quicker and stronger. I agree... but why would they fool themselves into thinking anyone would go along with that??? DAK