<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The $700 Billion Financial Bailout Failed &#8211; Good!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cleverdonkey.com/989-the-700-billion-financial-bailout-failed-good/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cleverdonkey.com/989-the-700-billion-financial-bailout-failed-good/</link>
	<description>...Musings, Commentary, Opinions, and Drivel</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:30:13 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: EngineerBoy</title>
		<link>http://www.cleverdonkey.com/989-the-700-billion-financial-bailout-failed-good/comment-page-1/#comment-288</link>
		<dc:creator>EngineerBoy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:05:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cleverdonkey.com/?p=989#comment-288</guid>
		<description>Agreed on the vicious cycle needing to end.  And it seems to me that the only surefire solution involves action by the government, even if it&#039;s to do something like roll-back previous changes.

My concern with the &quot;bailout&quot;, or perhaps more accurately, the &quot;buyout&quot;, is threefold (to say the least):

1.  The plan appeared suddenly, out of nowhere (at least to my perceptions), and the powers-that-be attempted to get it enacted instantaneously.  Perhaps it really is a case where a delay would have been disastrous, but it felt, to me, like they were trying to slip one past the court of public opinion by not giving anyone time to dig into the details.

2.  The plan included a provision that the actions of the Fed could not be reviewed by any court.  Now, one could interpret that as protection against frivolous lawsuits bogging down the process.  One could also interpret it as the Fed wanting completely autonomous powers to do who-knows-what with $700 billion without the ability for there to be any oversight, by anyone, ever.

3.  The legislation included a provision that said something to the effect that the Fed was free to involve foreign firms in the bailout/buyback.  Now, one could interpret this to mean good faith efforts with other central banks.  One could also interpret it much more ominously.  I assume the former, but fear the latter, and fall back to the old proverb:  Trust in Allah, but still tie your camel.

In short, if we had a month for peer-review of the legislation I might feel better about it, but I doubt it.  Frankly, my faith in Washington is so low that I assume that the only thing that would happen with a month to refine the legislation is that it would get worse as more hogs try to shuffle up to the trough.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed on the vicious cycle needing to end.  And it seems to me that the only surefire solution involves action by the government, even if it&#8217;s to do something like roll-back previous changes.</p>
<p>My concern with the &#8220;bailout&#8221;, or perhaps more accurately, the &#8220;buyout&#8221;, is threefold (to say the least):</p>
<p>1.  The plan appeared suddenly, out of nowhere (at least to my perceptions), and the powers-that-be attempted to get it enacted instantaneously.  Perhaps it really is a case where a delay would have been disastrous, but it felt, to me, like they were trying to slip one past the court of public opinion by not giving anyone time to dig into the details.</p>
<p>2.  The plan included a provision that the actions of the Fed could not be reviewed by any court.  Now, one could interpret that as protection against frivolous lawsuits bogging down the process.  One could also interpret it as the Fed wanting completely autonomous powers to do who-knows-what with $700 billion without the ability for there to be any oversight, by anyone, ever.</p>
<p>3.  The legislation included a provision that said something to the effect that the Fed was free to involve foreign firms in the bailout/buyback.  Now, one could interpret this to mean good faith efforts with other central banks.  One could also interpret it much more ominously.  I assume the former, but fear the latter, and fall back to the old proverb:  Trust in Allah, but still tie your camel.</p>
<p>In short, if we had a month for peer-review of the legislation I might feel better about it, but I doubt it.  Frankly, my faith in Washington is so low that I assume that the only thing that would happen with a month to refine the legislation is that it would get worse as more hogs try to shuffle up to the trough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Britton</title>
		<link>http://www.cleverdonkey.com/989-the-700-billion-financial-bailout-failed-good/comment-page-1/#comment-277</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Britton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:32:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cleverdonkey.com/?p=989#comment-277</guid>
		<description>Good article!

I certainly want minimal government intervention, so I agree with most of the thoughts here. Wall street greed, government intervention here and/or lack of proper oversight there, as well as main street (consumer) greed in many instances are all  responsible for where we are. Time to look  in the mirror and decide if we have accepted our role in this mess, even if our only fault has been to remain silent too long.

The basic problem in my opinion is the liquidity crisis is morphing into solvency issues which leads to financial institutions backing away from dealing with each other. It is a vicious cycle. Main street is just beginning to feel the effects. The Fed has injected so much money into the system its mind boggling, but the situation is still getting worse. 

We need a solution to reverse the vicious cycle. There are some free market ideas floating around. I hope they are given a try ASAP. Regardless of a government bill or not or some free market solution, main street will feel lots of pain for years to come, blue chips and potato chips alike.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good article!</p>
<p>I certainly want minimal government intervention, so I agree with most of the thoughts here. Wall street greed, government intervention here and/or lack of proper oversight there, as well as main street (consumer) greed in many instances are all  responsible for where we are. Time to look  in the mirror and decide if we have accepted our role in this mess, even if our only fault has been to remain silent too long.</p>
<p>The basic problem in my opinion is the liquidity crisis is morphing into solvency issues which leads to financial institutions backing away from dealing with each other. It is a vicious cycle. Main street is just beginning to feel the effects. The Fed has injected so much money into the system its mind boggling, but the situation is still getting worse. </p>
<p>We need a solution to reverse the vicious cycle. There are some free market ideas floating around. I hope they are given a try ASAP. Regardless of a government bill or not or some free market solution, main street will feel lots of pain for years to come, blue chips and potato chips alike.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

