[IWE] Galbraith's OpEd on what should be done about the Bailout.

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:01:43 -0400

----------MB_8CAED60AA95210D_450_4AB3_WEBMAIL-MC11.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

 My purpose of an artificial floor for? buyout purposes would allow those who are afraid to buy these securities put a hard bottom price, the free market should be willing to buy these things at above the floor price knowing that the risk is measurable, and that they can be sold? at least the floor value to the feds. May promote some trading in these things. May be well wrong tho
thanx,
bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Tilly <btilly@gmail.com>
To: iwe@warhead.org.uk
Sent: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [IWE] Galbraith's OpEd on what should be done about the Bailout.

On 9/25/08, williamoxley@aim.com <williamoxley@aim.com> wrote:
>
>  Ben,
>  thanks for your input. I realize the problem is liquidity caused by the
> uncertainty of the real value of the portfolio's that are being marked down.
> I dont think giving Paulson a check will fix it without establishing a floor
> in advance.  Whether that floor is 50-70% of todays booked value it would
> allow the fed to be the buyer of last resort. Once owned a RTC type of

I don't see how a floor matters.  Also talking about today's booked
value is difficult, since the market for these bonds has dried up, the
value to book is highly debatable.

> institution could unwind and sell the underlying assets hopefully with
> enough to recover a lot of the funds expended. Handing Paulson a check is
> printing money, I hate to see the inflationary spiiral that is going to come
> in the next few years as the war costs and the bailouts hit. How much and

I agree that handing Paulson a check is printing money.  However right
now money is being destroyed at a prodigious rate.  If you just took
the current economy and simply added $700 billion, we wouldn't have to
worry about inflationary effects because more money has been destroyed
than added.

The only way we'd have an inflationary prospect is if we did this and
then the money creation process restarted and ran away.  Given how
much money has disappeared already, that isn't something I'd worry
about at the moment.

> some rules need to be spelled out quickly by the congress to allow the
> interbank lending to go forward. I know tech is busy right now but if
> companies gannot factor invoices its going to be hard to meet payroll. Not a
> good time at all.

And right there you have the critical issue that most people don't
see.  Given a soft Christmas, a lot of companies that *depend* on
Christmas to get by will come up short on cash.  Given a bad lending
environment, they won't be able to make payroll next year.  The
general public won't see this coming until they get laid off.

Moving to the other side of the equation, we're going to have a soft
Christmas.  That's a guarantee at this point.  The question is how
soft.  People who are concerned about the sudden disappearance of
their retirement portfolios spend less than people with that nest egg
mostly intact,  So a drop on Wall St that this disaster is coming will
make Christmas even worse, which will cause much more pain.

I wish us all good luck...

Ben
_______________________________________________
IWE mailing list
IWE@warhead.org.uk
http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/iwe

----------MB_8CAED60AA95210D_450_4AB3_WEBMAIL-MC11.sysops.aol.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<div> My purpose of an artificial floor for&nbsp; buyout purposes would allow those who are afraid to buy these securities put a hard bottom price, the free market should be willing to buy these things at above the floor price knowing that the risk is measurable, and that they can be sold&nbsp; at least the floor value to the feds. May promote some trading in these things. May be well wrong tho 
thanx, 
bill 
 
</div>

<div> <br>
</div>

<div> <br>
</div>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Ben Tilly &lt;btilly@gmail.com&gt;<br>
To: iwe@warhead.org.uk<br>
Sent: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 3:53 pm<br>
Subject: Re: [IWE] Galbraith's OpEd on what should be done about the Bailout.<br>
<br>

<div id="AOLMsgPart_0_5b6c30a9-d147-4e6e-a2c0-f4e7eaf5d290" style="margin: 0px; font-family: Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">

<pre style="font-size: 9pt;"><tt>On 9/25/08, <a href="mailto:williamoxley@aim.com">williamoxley@aim.com</a> &lt;<a href="mailto:williamoxley@aim.com">williamoxley@aim.com</a>&gt; wrote: 
&gt; 
&gt; Ben, 
&gt; thanks for your input. I realize the problem is liquidity caused by the 
&gt; uncertainty of the real value of the portfolio's that are being marked down. 
&gt; I dont think giving Paulson a check will fix it without establishing a floor 
&gt; in advance. Whether that floor is 50-70% of todays booked value it would 
&gt; allow the fed to be the buyer of last resort. Once owned a RTC type of 
 
I don't see how a floor matters. Also talking about today's booked 
value is difficult, since the market for these bonds has dried up, the 
value to book is highly debatable. 
 
&gt; institution could unwind and sell the underlying assets hopefully with 
&gt; enough to recover a lot of the funds expended. Handing Paulson a check is 
&gt; printing money, I hate to see the inflationary spiiral that is going to come 
&gt; in the next few years as the war costs and the bailouts hit. How much and 
 
I agree that handing Paulson a check is printing money. However right 
now money is being destroyed at a prodigious rate. If you just took 
the current economy and simply added $700 billion, we wouldn't have to 
worry about inflationary effects because more money has been destroyed 
than added. 
 
The only way we'd have an inflationary prospect is if we did this and 
then the money creation process restarted and ran away. Given how 
much money has disappeared already, that isn't something I'd worry 
about at the moment. 
 
&gt; some rules need to be spelled out quickly by the congress to allow the 
&gt; interbank lending to go forward. I know tech is busy right now but if 
&gt; companies gannot factor invoices its going to be hard to meet payroll. Not a 
&gt; good time at all. 
 
And right there you have the critical issue that most people don't 
see. Given a soft Christmas, a lot of companies that *depend* on 
Christmas to get by will come up short on cash. Given a bad lending 
environment, they won't be able to make payroll next year. The 
general public won't see this coming until they get laid off. 
 
Moving to the other side of the equation, we're going to have a soft 
Christmas. That's a guarantee at this point. The question is how 
soft. People who are concerned about the sudden disappearance of 
their retirement portfolios spend less than people with that nest egg 
mostly intact, So a drop on Wall St that this disaster is coming will 
make Christmas even worse, which will cause much more pain. 
 
I wish us all good luck... 
 
Ben 
_______________________________________________ 
IWE mailing list 
<a href="mailto:IWE@warhead.org.uk">IWE@warhead.org.uk</a> 
<a href="http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/iwe" target="_blank">http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/iwe</a> 
</tt></pre>
</div>

<div id='u8CAED60AA89355A-450-248A' class='aol_ad_footer'><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">Find phone numbers fast with the <A title="http://yellowpages.aol.com/?NCID=emlweusyelp00000001" href="http://yellowpages.aol.com/?NCID=emlweusyelp00000001" target="_blank">New AOL Yellow Pages</A>!</FONT> </div>

----------MB_8CAED60AA95210D_450_4AB3_WEBMAIL-MC11.sysops.aol.com--