Oh great. I was taking a shot every time someone said Main Street...

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet:
This is from Charles Schwab after today's closing: .....

Could you please put up a link for the whole thing from where that comes please.

TIA.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Tong BBP:
Any idea how much the people who got us into this mess earn?

Dave, this article is incorrect.

The average Goldman employee brings in 622,000$ / year in revenue for the company.

Goldman tho will set aside about half that for it's employee compensation.

quote:

Originally posted by Maverick:

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet:
This is from Charles Schwab after today's closing: .....

Could you please put up a link for the whole thing from where that comes please.

TIA.

There is no link. I receive an email from them after the close of each trading day commenting on the market.

quote:

Originally posted by StarV100:
Now that I've gotten perspective from both sides of the Northern border, I've decided that if McCain wins and then God forbid, dies while in office, I'm moving back to Canada.

McCain can't talk to the American people with a straight face and say he's for "Country First", when he chooses the Alaskan Boob as potential POTUS. Nope, he was behind in the polls and he took a gamble, put it "all in" to either win it all or lose big. But there was no "Country First" in that decision.

If McCain wins, I will be more than glad to start a fund raiser to pay for your one way ticket out of this county. No joking about this either. Best yet, why don't you just gtfo now.

quote:

Originally posted by VT2IT:
The House voted down the plan!!! What the hell is wrong with these morons?

It was a bad bill. Plus Nancy Pelosi being the "classy" old witch she is certainly did not help by calling the Republicans unpatriotic. When she did that, she hurt the bill a lot, but there was funding for foreign banks as well as a radical leftist group known as ACORN.

starv100,

It is more correct to say that 100% of Candians pay for health care, but access is not universal for a number of reasons. Additionally, this system is far from satisfactory in the minds of many Canadian citizens. Behind every anecdotal story that we are all familiar with is a human being, whether it be a senior citizen waiting months in pain and relative disability for a hip or knee replacement, to patients dying on surgery waiting lists to the woman who had to be flown to a small town in Montana to deliver her babies because the hospital in her large metropolitan Canadian city lacked the technological infrastructure or physicians capable of handling the situation.

Additionally, are Federal Revenues higher or lower after the tax cuts? Just facts, please. If you would like to send in extra money to support government bad behavior, be my guest, but your admiration for a socialist society is unappealing to me.

Paulson, Cox and Bernanke should be asked to resign. If the refuse, they should be fired.

quote:

Originally posted by cdr:
It is more correct to say that 100% of Candians pay for health care, but access is not universal for a number of reasons. Additionally, this system is far from satisfactory in the minds of many Canadian citizens. Behind every anecdotal story that we are all familiar with is a human being, whether it be a senior citizen waiting months in pain and relative disability for a hip or knee replacement, to patients dying on surgery waiting lists to the woman who had to be flown to a small town in Montana to deliver her babies because the hospital in her large metropolitan Canadian city lacked the technological infrastructure or physicians capable of handling the situation.

That's because the Canadians (and British) pay (per capita) about HALF of what the US pays. And yet they live longer. If you want to continue this topic please do so in a more appropriate thread.

quote:

Originally posted by StarV100:
To my mind, the only thing that could topple the Canadian financial system is that the US will simply drag Canada (and other countries) with it. The interconnectivity of all banking systems could cause global havoc if the US system goes down.

This is exactly what I was implying, no fault of the bank, fault of who they are in bed with.

quote:

Originally posted by cdr:
Paulson, Cox and Bernanke should be asked to resign. If the refuse, they should be fired.

cdr, I think you should be the one to fire Cox. It would be exactly as effective as if W did it.

quote:

Originally posted by cdr:
Paulson, Cox and Bernanke should be asked to resign. If the refuse, they should be fired.

Blame the 3 people that for all intensive purposes inherited the problems at hand?

I am more inclined to call for Cox's head since the SEC has done the least to stop the bleeding and yet he wields the power to suspend mark to market, especially since many of the these distressed assets have no market to determine a "real" price. He's also been in office the longest (2005).

Cox has to go, Bernanke can be given a little more time, Paulson seems to be the only person in DC with a clue.

quote:

Originally posted by PetiteSyrahFan:

quote:

Originally posted by StarV100:
Now that I've gotten perspective from both sides of the Northern border, I've decided that if McCain wins and then God forbid, dies while in office, I'm moving back to Canada.

McCain can't talk to the American people with a straight face and say he's for "Country First", when he chooses the Alaskan Boob as potential POTUS. Nope, he was behind in the polls and he took a gamble, put it "all in" to either win it all or lose big. But there was no "Country First" in that decision.

If McCain wins, I will be more than glad to start a fund raiser to pay for your one way ticket out of this county. No joking about this either. Best yet, why don't you just gtfo now.

Good to see that the liberty and freedom of expression are so well enamoured and cherished and that civilized debate by civilized individuals still abounds in California.

Dave Tong, I responded to a previous post, so piss off.

Paulson allowed corporate officer - a private citizen - from Goldman in the room during his initial negotiations, and Goldman stands to get $20 Billion from the original plan - that is not the kind of thing a person with a clue does. It is the kind of thing a corrupt politician does. He needs to go.

quote:

Originally posted by Mimik:

quote:

Originally posted by VT2IT:
Mimik I have disagreed with all of your posts that have had any hint of politics to them. But I have never felt so strongly that you are completely wrong then in this case. When Canadian banks start to fail, and they soon will, maybe you will see the light. With no credit, no functioning banking system, there can be no capitalistic free market economy. Wait, is that what you want? Once again, the plan in no way, shape or form proposed to have "National Treasury give taxpaper dollars to private firms." Maybe you should read up on it a bit more before you form an opinion.

I disagreed with my post as well. That's why I deleted it. But curious, do you support the bailout?

If I understand the problem in the US, this has to do with the subprime market, which is less than 3% of the market here. People deal directly with the big Banks. So while the effects on the markets are worldwide including Canada, the impact maybe different.

Yes I overwhelmingly support the federal government doing all they can to stop the world financial markets from grinding to a complete halt. While I am sure you have noticed that I am to the right side of the political spectrum, I hope that I am also pragmatic enough to know when to drop my beliefs for an emergency situation. Unfortunately it does not seem as if the Republican members of the house share that trait. I really wish the term bailout were not used. I firmly believe it is a prime reason why so many that don’t study this situation in particular or finance in general are opposed to the plan.

quote:

Originally posted by Mimik:

quote:

Originally posted by PetiteSyrahFan:

quote:

Originally posted by StarV100:
Now that I've gotten perspective from both sides of the Northern border, I've decided that if McCain wins and then God forbid, dies while in office, I'm moving back to Canada.

McCain can't talk to the American people with a straight face and say he's for "Country First", when he chooses the Alaskan Boob as potential POTUS. Nope, he was behind in the polls and he took a gamble, put it "all in" to either win it all or lose big. But there was no "Country First" in that decision.

If McCain wins, I will be more than glad to start a fund raiser to pay for your one way ticket out of this county. No joking about this either. Best yet, why don't you just gtfo now.

Good to see that the liberty and freedom of expression are so well enamoured and cherished and that civilized debate by civilized individuals still abounds in California.

He is the one who said he would move back to Canada, not me. When one makes such a bold statement, they should be prepared to back it.

A very reasonable response VT2IT and it makes sense. Good to see that logic can prevail over partisan politics.(CDR can learn a lot from you. )

But I'll take it one step further. While maybe you're correct that this intervention is required, are you opposed to having the govt. set up a more stringent regulatory framework which would prevent such crises to occur in the first place in the future? Or does such a measure seem ideologically indigestible for you?

What I am saying is do you think that having a 700 billion aid to stabilize the market is less palatable for the taxpayer when a regulatory framework(as is the case in other countries) would have prevented this crisis to occur in the first place?

quote:

Originally posted by Mimik:

But I'll take it one step further. While maybe you're correct that this intervention is required, are you opposed to having the govt. set up a more stringent regulatory framework which would prevent such crises to occur in the first place in the future? Or does such a measure seem ideologically indigestible for you?

What I am saying is do you think that having a 700 billion aid to stabilize the market is less palatable for the taxpayer when a regulatory framework(as is the case in other countries) would have prevented this crisis to occur in the first place?

way too ideological for me. I'll take it one step back. This country as a collective net worth lost 1.2 trillion today. It ain't the rich folk losing the 1.2 trillion. It's the mom and pops that own stocks like Altria, Coca Cola, Mcdonalds, IBM, that collectively lost 1.2 trillion. I've heard a number thrown around how the bailout would cost me 3k$ ... nice to know that a single day in "safe" recession stocks can lose me alot more.

I'm far from convinced that more regulation is needed. Enforce the laws already on the books and remove some of the misguided ones. The problem with more regulation as I see it is that it will just cause ever more complex methods being used to get around them.

quote:

Originally posted by g-man:
This country as a collective net worth lost 1.2 trillion today.

Yup, even taking that the "bailout" would cost $700 mill (which I highly doubt) we are still half a trillion in the hole already.

Mimik,

You just couldn't pass up taking a shot.
And for the 50th time, I am not a republican. It is actually not logical to throw one's support behind a $700 BILLION plan without a thoughtful analysis of the pros, cons and potential unintended consequences, both for and against. Nor is it logical to throw one's support behind a group of politicians and members of an industry responsible for the situation when they offer to "solve" it. Being a lefty, I assumed you would appreciate my deliberate, nuanced approach.

VT2IT, the democrats have a sufficient majority that they could have passed it with no republican votes. Republicans were hearing from their constituents that they did not know enough about this "plan," and were deeply concerned because these guys negotiated behind closed doors and were never honest about the details. Over 90 democrats voted "no" as well. It is a bad plan.

Let's get some day light on it, be thoughtful and come up with something that minimizes danger to the taxpayers and keeps corruption out of the process. I do not think that is too much to ask for screwing our kids into paying for all of our mistakes, do you?