tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post2522784223560357198..comments2008-10-01T11:59:31.870-04:00TraderMarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06241756200482130281noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-39865967669760811992008-10-01T11:59:00.000-04:002008-10-01T11:59:00.000-04:00why not more transparency?<BR/><BR/>why not say to every bank over a certain size to come to the table and say it is historic times and as your US regulator we want you to show the world your entire asset list. Then we will be fully transparent. Then we will have trust to lend to each other.<BR/><BR/>Why not?<BR/>Because if the world knew how impaired the banks were, we'd go from lack of confidence to full blown panic.TraderMarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06241756200482130281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-12471471187469292642008-10-01T11:20:00.000-04:002008-10-01T11:20:00.000-04:00so why have Paulson and Bernanke if we don't utilize their background? The issue isn't more capital. The issue is confidence. Nobody has confidence as long as teh toxic assets sit on the balance sheet. Its just easier for a bank to not do business then explore into the balance sheet to figure out if a bank is safe.Stonefoxcapitalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00583540825602471042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-1480703015192172412008-10-01T09:50:00.000-04:002008-10-01T09:50:00.000-04:00I think this is anyways not a domestic bailout, but a bailout for foreign lenders. Japan and China are the biggest holders. Guess they would otherwise not lend us more or help prevent the dollar from sinking. If they are bailed out, probably also means we will need them a lot more in the future.bettybluehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15203459022482601990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-91030047672717242602008-10-01T05:46:00.000-04:002008-10-01T05:46:00.000-04:00More details coming to light: Toxic paper from all over the world is going to be dumped on the US taxpayer. Pay for the housing mess in Spain, the UK, China - you name, you get it. <BR/><BR/>http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/596-The-TRUTH-About-The-Bailout.htmlpostpone.judgementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03551208774621541386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-26684791266506891162008-10-01T01:33:00.000-04:002008-10-01T01:33:00.000-04:00I remember reading many years ago that 70% of Congress had a law background... I just checked a few sites and it would appear that the percentage has dropped to about 50% legal background.. If you've ever been involved in a suit, then you now understand why nothing moves too quickly on the Hill. maybe I'm too cynical.. Lord knows I wouldn't want to go into politics.<BR/><BR/>jeganjeganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05850061548373752817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-21152728498356269202008-09-30T18:33:00.000-04:002008-09-30T18:33:00.000-04:00Counterpoints and varying views? That would mean that our leaders could decipher good and bad info. I was listening to congressman Pete Starks on NPR this morning, he said they needed more time because most delegates don't have banking experience or an economics background. So what 'expertise' do our political leaders bring to the table (aside being chosen as best candidate to drink a beer with)?crappyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17601884181311375715noreply@blogger.com