Taxpayer Beware: Bank Bailout Will Hurt

In other words, the paper says, if the government tries to save taxpayers money, many people will lose their jobs and the whole economy will suffer.

The research note offers a solution any banker would love: The government should "estimate the highest price it can pay for the various toxic assets on financial institution balance sheets," then pay that price to buy them.

We figured Simon Johnson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, should argue it out by phone with Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist for Deutsche Bank and the man who wrote the paper.

 

 

***  ***  ***

What you think about the above article releasing a honest Deutsche Bank economist Joseph LaVorgna's simple solution?  

Well, to me, it is telling a truth; but it is a partial truth to a banker, not the whole truth to the people.  Due to its confusion, I changed the title in my comment on other website into the topic as follows:


A Partial Truth Told: Bank Bailout Will Hurt; But Taxpayer May Avoid Being hurt
  時事評論財經 2009/03/03 09:00
     

Whom are going to be hurt by the bailout as the report claimed?  The greedy bankers at Wall Street or the prudent Joe on Main street? 

Mr. LaVorgna may have his good underlying assumptions.  However, he is too narrow himself in Finance Ivy Tower (I don't want to say he has an invested interest in it) and doesn't see the whole true picture in terms of political-ecnomic viewpoints.  Most likely, his statement is too absurd to assume CATS and PEOPLE are the same and on the same boat with the same fate. 

Not true, the big ship may sink; but the small live boats are floating to survive, right?  To me, the victims shall be those big reckless fat cats.  Unless we the people let Uncle Sam keep doing what those fat cats want as LaVorgna believes, both of us will sink.  We the people shall overcome if we can cut the ties to those too big to fail, in time.

Is there only this solution to lead the American people holding the bag?  I doubt it unless Obama is unknowingly "cooperating" with Wall Street to do those "stimulus" plans figured out by Tim Gaithner and Pelosi.

If Obama can do the right things, most of American people is not going to be hurt.  How can Obama do the right things besides his "big" socialist mouth?  Well, you tell me what you think first.   Then, I will use CDS (credit default swap) and the event of a projected event of California Monster Earthquake (or Katrina Hurricane) as example of analogy to explain the situation we are facing now.  

It is very simple for You to clearly see through the mess and understand what I mean.  You won't believe Joseph's solution by pointing out his simple-minded way of thinking and laughing at him by confidently saying: "We people won't get hurt."

It is a choice of us, or maybe Obama's. 

 

 
This post has been included in California Information Los Angeles County, CA Information
Post is included in group: Real Estate Rookie
Post is included in group: Politics And Real Estate
Post is included in group: ORANGE COUNTY, CA REAL ESTATE
Post is included in group: Everything California
Post is included in group: American Poor Folk's Egold

4 Comments on Bank Bailout Will Hurt; But Taxpayer May Avoid Being hurt

MAR
02

I think the bail out can help.  It will help to settle the housing market and create new jobs in our states.  We just could not do anything that has not been working for the past 8 years.  Mike

9:08pm • #1
MAR
03

Thank you, Mike:

Everyone deserves his opinion.  We live in a perceived world in which we believe in something.  But remember a victim believes Madoff's scam and thinks he is honest until the lies realized as a light through a heavy fog.

I am not saying we shall be suspicious about anyone or anything.  However, armed with reason and realistically checked on true facts, we are able to say a human being is "king" of animals.

8:25am • #2
250,282 Points 1 Featured Post

We the taxpayer will get hurt in the long run. 60% of the people who voted for Obama wont get hurt at all. They don't pay taxes, This whole mess started in 1992 when Barney Frank and his chronies forced lending intitutions to loan money to people they should not have. Great post.

3:21pm • #3

Thank you, Terry:

Here is a report, Where the $200,000+ Crowd Lives, I think you'd like to see some "projected" realities (since it is a projection, it may be true or false).  In it, there are 15 states will be hit hard by Obama's tax hike plan.  However, it is interesting enough to know that almost all of them voted for Obama, except Texas. 

When we have difficulty to deal with, the first thing is to find a scapegoat to point at.  I used to do that too.   But, now I am getting older, I change my approach.  Find a solution to rescue is my first. 

My approach may be different from those people trying to legally prosecute those big fat cats.  I am not go for so-called "poetic justice."  Instead, I am trying to figure out practical ways to help our national economy in general and those poor folks in particular.  My orientation is NOT focused on punishing the greedy or foolish ones, but let the nature take the course to render the final judgment on them and use the market forces to our advantage.

Greenspan may did something wrong from what we know NOW.  But, only God knows what will come as a result since no policy is perfect without a built-in possible shortcomings.   It is up to those people in power to have a good judgment.   We are just a human being and everybody makes a honest mistake out of his "limited" understandings and judgment.  To me, Alan didn't do a legally wrong-doings.  It is just his judgment is recently known "wrong" with terrible bad effects.  

However, I still don't want to point my fingers at Alan.   I don't even like to blame GWB's gang boys.  But I do believe that those powerful bureaucrats or politicians shall be directly and mainly held responsible for the current mess after their taking over the FED power from Alan.  There may not be the chaos or downturn, at least not so worse, if Alan still in power.  

What I say is they have taken wrong ways in response to the situation.  My thoughts have been long expressed here in AR that Bernanke, Paulson and Gaithner are doing the same thing in essence: to disturb the nature force of market, to constantly adopt game rule changes far enough to a very volatile (or unprecedented unstable) point that no private investor knows what the basic rules are and how to act or participate in it, and to further mess things up to unavoidable worldwide depression. 

Herewith I enclose a recent article of Mr. Sachs to confirm my observation: The Economic Need for Stable Policies, Not a Stimulus [Extended version]

4:48pm • #4

Leave a response…



(optional)
What does the graphic say?
 


Links

Archives

RSS 2.0 Feed for this blog

Find TX real estate agents and Florence real estate on ActiveRain.