Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

JohnnyMM

Published Letters: 230
Editor's Choice: 11

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 07:35 PM

Anbody think this would work?

Define a new standard of corporate governance/accounting (make it optional of course), but make it address things like executive pay and severance, stock dividends, options, pensions, etc.

If you could certify that a company adhered to these standards, wouldn't that make it a little more attractive as an investment since you would have at least some safeguards that the company won't get looted by the people in charge. That should make it easier to raise money and you could make it a little more attractive by providing some sort of incentive like a tax break at the corporate level or on the dividends.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 08:11 PM

Establish parallel markets regulated/unregulated

Then make one ironclad guarantee: The US govt (aka tax payers) will NEVER bail out the investors in the unregulated market. No matter what. OK guys go play, have fun.

Then of course some investors would absolutely be forbidden to invest in the unregulated market - like pension funds, banks, insurance companies (things that we need to be solid for our society to function). How about hedge funds? Go ahead go for it, the casino is open.

Could we decouple responsible investors from reckless speculators? Would this be feasible?

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 08:21 PM

Who knew the Fed had so much authority? Or do they?

Does teh Fed really have the authority to approve contracts for 10s of billions of dollars that tax payers are on the hook for? I'll bet there aren't any legal precedents there. Could it be challenged in the future?

Thursday, September 18, 2008 09:34 PM

What if the ratings of the quality of these debts had been accurate?

Wouldn't that have taken care of everything?

Sunday, September 21, 2008 09:35 PM

OK, so we have to do something...

Should we:

  • buy the stinkiest liabilities off of these companies, no questions asked
  • loan them money, that they can use as they see fit, but that they have to repay
  • buy stakes in the companies, so that if they make money selling stuff we get our money back, then say ok guys fix your mess, you made it

Are we buying:

  • risky mortgages (a tangible asset that may lose value, but does have some actual value), or
  • are we buying the debts represented by the losing sides of poorly understood derivatives, which have NO VALUE and are pure liability?

One thing we all MUST do (it might not change anything, but at least we can try, and we need to direct our outrage that is being vented here into something meaningful), is call or email your congressmen and senator and tell them you demand that they get the best possible deal for the taxpayer out of this bailout, and that they pursue accountability to punish any willful wrongdoing, and aggressively demand appropriate regulations to prevent this kind of travesty from repeating.

Sunday, September 21, 2008 09:54 PM

So here's what I emailed to my congressman

To my congressman the Honorable Ed Perlmutter,

I recognize the need for decisive action to protect our financial system and demand that my interests as a citizen and taxpayer are fully represented.

Any legislation regarding the Treasury's proposed bailout of Wall Street financial firms MUST get the best possible deal for US taxpayers.

It MUST pursue accountability to punish any willful wrongdoing.

It MUST provide for appropriate regulations to prevent this kind of travesty from repeating itself in the future.

Please do not allow yourself to be rushed to action. Ask for justification of the need of any and all stipulations contained within the proposed legislation on my behalf! I am counting on you to protect and represent my interests at this historic and critical time.

Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:03 PM

Anybody know the answer to this?

If all of the mortgages that are in default were actually paid up, and nobody was late, would we still have a problem?

Another blog I read said YES! Because there are 2 problems:

  • defaults on mortgages
  • companies listing these highly leveraged credit swap dohickeys as assets

If both parties in these highly leveraged credit swaps/derivatives list the same transaction as an asset on their balance sheets, one of them is totally screwed when their bet turns out to be wrong. Right? Is that the real problem? Meaning that even if all of the mortgages were paid up, 50% of the assets that represent bets on whether the mortgage will or will not be paid are bad bets. AND leveraged ~30 to 1 or something like that, meaning the bet is NOT covered by cash on hand?

Is that the SHIT the Treasury wants us to buy from these high rollers?

Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:35 PM

So if you are still reading this and haven't shouted out to your reps...

Here is how:

for congress go to:

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

pick your state, then type in your full zip code (utility bills probably have that), you get a form that lets you email them a message. Tell them how you feel!

for senate go to:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

After you choose a state, you get links to contact your 2 senators (at least I did for Colorado). Speak up!

You could copy and paste the message I sent to my Congressman into the form to email yours in about the same amount of time it takes to read one of the longer posts you might have looked at on this thread, so ....? Do you care enough about what your country's government does to do that?

Sunday, September 21, 2008 11:29 PM

Illegal plan means not legal to restrict review of any aspects?

adnoto: I was wondering the same thing, is this all legal? If not, do any of the provisions apply? I thought if you enter into a contract that is illegal from the outset, that all provisions of the contract are moot.

Sunday, September 21, 2008 11:54 PM

The Tarpit posting makes me wonder

adnoto: I am normally not much for conspiracy theories, but that posting is chilling.

http://wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/winter/?p=1918

It IS a stretch to believe that such an absurd situation has gone on for so long, seemingly driven by simple and obvious child-like greed without much squawking from the financial sector. Surely the guys at the top knew what was going on all along, and the risks that were threatening their very livelihoods. Maybe it is greed, just not so obvious, and not at all simple.

Monday, September 22, 2008 10:25 AM

Don't blink, make Wall St give the citizens some concessions

They might choose not to participate in a $700 billion plan designed to save them...

A man with his pants fire is running towards a gas tank, and somebody demands that you spray him with water. NO! not tapwater - Perrier. Give me a break, these guys are insane.

Most Active Letters Threads

738

The commendably missing element from Obama's speech

There was no pretense that human rights is our goal, or the likely outcome, in escalating the war
688

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
338

America's regression

It's almost impossible to find a nation with as many torture advocates as the U.S. has.
329

Yes, it's Obama's war now

An uninspiring speech sells a dubious policy, but progressives who feel betrayed have only themselves to blame
198

The poster boy for progressive self-delusion

Read Hayden's 2008 Obama endorsement to remember the way the left sold our centrist president to itself

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon