Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   "Why Propping Up Banks Will Not Rescue a Debauched Financial System." Oh, c'mon -- nobody says "debauched" anymore. Yeesh   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line
160
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5973 clicks; posted to Main » and Business » on 01 Oct 2008 at 1:02 PM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



160 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
xanadian [TotalFark]
2008-10-01 12:30:13 PM  
I loooves me some debauchery! WHO WANTS TO GET DEBAUCHED WITH ME!?
 
xanadian [TotalFark]
2008-10-01 12:31:32 PM  
On a more serious note: But with the President's ratings so low, few would let him leave the House with anything more than small change. Congress asked, not unreasonably: "If you guys know so much about banking, how come we are in such trouble?"

I can't help but wonder what Congress' approval ratings look like now...
 
xanadian [TotalFark]
2008-10-01 12:36:24 PM  
Oh, here's an answer to my own question (new window). 10% Wow. I, personally, am GLAD Congress did what it did. It shows they're NOT totally beholden to the fat cats of Wall Street. Why their approval rating would sink to 10% baffles me...probably because they can't come up with ANY solution.

And, I don't think there is one, except to let it burn.
 
quickdraw
2008-10-01 12:39:11 PM  
Apparently they still use big words in Britain.
 
snocone [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2008-10-01 12:48:03 PM  
Contact you Representatives and Senators!!

Link (new window)

Keep the pressure on. Repeat your stand each and every day.
Threaten their job! Be firm, not rude.

Once they quit fighting among themselves, you want them to think about keeping that ELECTED position.
This deal is far from dead.
Contact them again today.
 
ThatGuyGreg
2008-10-01 12:52:17 PM  

xanadian: Why their approval rating would sink to 10% baffles me


The people that liked the status quo are now mad that Congress failed to protect it, per their agreement. The last 10% are not aware of the word "no".
 
Control_this
2008-10-01 12:55:38 PM  
It will make things worse.

The bailout will require the Treasury to print more money. This will cause declining dollar in world markets, so investors will require higher yields on Treasurys to fund the federal deficit, meaning interest rates go up. Higher interest rate means more defaults, credit tighter, business slowdown, layoffs, more foreclosures, banks fail anyway.

FARK!
 
Nocens
2008-10-01 1:06:39 PM  

xanadian: On a more serious note: But with the President's ratings so low, few would let him leave the House with anything more than small change. Congress asked, not unreasonably: "If you guys know so much about banking, how come we are in such trouble?"

I can't help but wonder what Congress' approval ratings look like now...


They were between 9-11% before all this crap even started. They like to harp on Bush's approval but it's still over double that of Congress'.
 
hachijuhachi
2008-10-01 1:06:58 PM  
Anyone else think that said "douchebag" at first?
 
The Black Spy
2008-10-01 1:08:43 PM  
Every citizen in the U.S. should be allowed to print their own money. That will solve everything.
 
Compulsive Liar 1986
2008-10-01 1:08:50 PM  

hachijuhachi: Anyone else think that said "douchebag" at first?


debauchery and douchebaggery are close cousins.
 
skabbo
2008-10-01 1:08:52 PM  

Nocens:
They were between 9-11% before all this crap even started.


Rudy?
 
moosen
2008-10-01 1:10:07 PM  

quickdraw: Apparently they still use big words in Britain.


Why Propping Up Banks Will Not Rescue a Debauched OWNED Financial System.

FTFY LOL

/yeah
 
mark12A
2008-10-01 1:10:32 PM  
We need a Nuremburg style trial where we round up the Wall Street pigs and the Congresscritters responsible for this and hang them.
 
WarriorMatron
2008-10-01 1:10:32 PM  
I came for the debauchery, and was overwhelmed by the X-rated horror video.
 
vernonFL
2008-10-01 1:10:45 PM  
nobody says "debauched" anymore

You obviously haven't seen my criminal record.
 
moosen
2008-10-01 1:10:54 PM  

hachijuhachi: Anyone else think that said "douchebag" at first?


disregard my post, this sums up Fark more efficiently.
 
Shaggy_C
2008-10-01 1:11:18 PM  
...while letting them fail almost guarantees the next Great Depression.


I sometimes wonder if Bernanke is actually enjoying the fact that he gets to be at the helm while this happens. He loves the Great Depression and now has his chance to prove that if he had been in charge he could have prevented it. *Adjusts tinfoil hat* I also wonder if maybe he actively aimed to put us in this situation on purpose.
 
foxyg
2008-10-01 1:11:25 PM  

skabbo: Nocens:
They were between 9-11% before all this crap even started.

Rudy?



By the time they're done, it'll be like 9-11% times a thousand.
 
TheNintendoKid
2008-10-01 1:11:30 PM  
From Rep. Boyda (D-KS) (new window)

"I have spoken to so many economists in this past week, four of them personally. And every time I ask the question, 'Do you think this will work?' They look away. They actually break eye contact with you and come back and say they're not sure. I'm not asking for a guarantee, only 'Do you think it will work?' And not one will say they even think that this will work. What every economist agrees on is there are several other options that have a higher probability of success, at less risk to the taxpayer."
 
fifthhorseman
2008-10-01 1:11:40 PM  
I'm spent,baby!
 
Dr.Zom
2008-10-01 1:12:05 PM  
If they are truly debauched I will be needing some gamahouche.

/as long as we're throwing around Victorian sex terms
 
Sin_City_Superhero
2008-10-01 1:12:17 PM  

xanadian: I loooves me some debauchery! WHO WANTS TO GET DEBAUCHED WITH ME!?


*checks profile* Not me

/not that there's anything wrong with that...
 
The_EliteOne
2008-10-01 1:12:57 PM  

Nocens: xanadian: On a more serious note: But with the President's ratings so low, few would let him leave the House with anything more than small change. Congress asked, not unreasonably: "If you guys know so much about banking, how come we are in such trouble?"

I can't help but wonder what Congress' approval ratings look like now...

They were between 9-11% before all this crap even started. They like to harp on Bush's approval but it's still over double that of Congress'.


10/10, or 3/10 if unintentional.
 
The Black Spy
2008-10-01 1:14:00 PM  
Buggery for sure.
 
Oznog
2008-10-01 1:14:13 PM  
bp2.blogger.comView Full Size

You will rue the day you tried to rescue your debauched financial system, mister!

media.collegepublisher.comView Full Size

"Debauched financial system"? Who talks like that?
 
Stavr0
2008-10-01 1:14:22 PM  
Subbie: Oh, c'mon -- nobody says "debauched" anymore. Yeesh

Speak for yourself, puzzlewit.
 
philotech
2008-10-01 1:14:29 PM  
I called my Senators and Representative to let them know they have lost my vote for trying to change the name of my country to the United Socialist States of America.
 
TraeHova
2008-10-01 1:14:53 PM  

xanadian: Oh, here's an answer to my own question (new window). 10% Wow. I, personally, am GLAD Congress did what it did. It shows they're NOT totally beholden to the fat cats of Wall Street. Why their approval rating would sink to 10% baffles me...probably because they can't come up with ANY solution.

And, I don't think there is one, except to let it burn.



This is pretty much my philosophy. After hearing the terms CRA, ARM and credit derivative thrown around so much, I decided to do some homework...

As a non-economist and semi-intelligent American my conclusion is: let it burn.

Maybe US citizens and Congress will come to realize how stupid messing around with housing is (*cough* CRA *cough* Freddie/Fannie *cough*). I am certain no more citizens will be stupid enough to overextend themselves or, probably, sign up for ARM's. And, if we're lucky, banks and brokers will learn from their folly by tightening up lending practices (on their own) and getting off the derivative bandwagon before that bubble bursts too.

"Classical" economics: Survival of the fittest.
 
Marketing_Freak
2008-10-01 1:15:03 PM  
I think they did mean douchebag.

My spell checker went to debachery when I put in douchebag
 
TaDaaa
2008-10-01 1:15:20 PM  
If the Fed keeps printing money, other countries will start calling in their loans; that's when the real fun should start.
 
texastag
2008-10-01 1:16:26 PM  

Nocens: xanadian: Congress asked, not unreasonably: "If you guys know so much about banking, how come we are in such trouble?"


How come we're in so much trouble?

Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which passed in Congress with a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives, before being sent to conference committee; the final bipartisan bill (Senate: 90-8-1, House: 362-57-15) was signed by President bill clinton.[1][2]


That's why.
 
gorgor
2008-10-01 1:17:41 PM  
APPROVES (new window)
 
amoricanCrowe
2008-10-01 1:17:45 PM  
NO BAILOUT!



/off to fax Senators Cantwell and Murray... Again!
 
Least Extreme Elimination Challenge
2008-10-01 1:18:36 PM  
"Predictably, the refuseniks have been pilloried as ill-informed nihilists."


stltoday.comView Full Size



Approves


/it's like Raskolnikov filibuster deoxymonohydroxinate
 
snocone [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2008-10-01 1:18:48 PM  
"Forty-five percent (45%) say Congress should take action, but 44% say Wall Street and the financial industry should take care of their own problems. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided"
Link (new window)
 
Gussie Fink-Nottle
2008-10-01 1:18:49 PM  
Can't get more debached than cow patties with marshmallow ...
 
Kongressman Grandma
2008-10-01 1:18:53 PM  
Hey Wall Street, hey Fed.
lightsout.onestop.netView Full Size
 
rufus-t-firefly
2008-10-01 1:19:02 PM  
Yesterday we had "puzzlewit" and "honeyfugler." Now we have "debauched." I like where this trend is going.

i221.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
Shaggy_C
2008-10-01 1:19:40 PM  

texastag: Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed



That's not the crux of the matter. It's because bank asset holdings were allowed for the first time in 70 years to include volatile investments. So, rather than buying bonds with their vault cash, banks bought into mutual funds, MBSs, and commodities. Things that don't necessarily retain their value in the medium-term.
 
overslacked
2008-10-01 1:19:42 PM  
I guess we'd better all chip in to get TaDaaa tickets to Wall St and D.C., we can't have a brain like that sitting idle on Fark!
 
wrightb71
2008-10-01 1:20:02 PM  

foxyg: skabbo: Nocens:
They were between 9-11% before all this crap even started.

Rudy?


By the time they're done, it'll be like 9-11% times a thousand.


so 90 to 110
 
Bagelox-99
2008-10-01 1:20:13 PM  

Shaggy_C: I sometimes wonder if Bernanke is actually enjoying the fact that he gets to be at the helm while this happens. He loves the Great Depression and now has his chance to prove that if he had been in charge he could have prevented it. *Adjusts tinfoil hat battered felt fedora*


FTFY.

/once I built a FAILROAD
//now it's done
///brother, can you spare $1,000,000,000,000
 
Schmehar
2008-10-01 1:20:40 PM  
Its a perfectly cromulent word
 
MindStalker
2008-10-01 1:20:58 PM  

xanadian: Why their approval rating would sink to 10% baffles me..


Because half of them support this bailout, and all of the leadership does.
 
snocone [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2008-10-01 1:21:40 PM  

TaDaaa: If the Fed keeps printing money, other countries will start calling in their loans; that's when the real fun should start.


That would be part of what is presently happening.
 
dagnambits
2008-10-01 1:21:50 PM  

texastag: Nocens: xanadian: Congress asked, not unreasonably: "If you guys know so much about banking, how come we are in such trouble?"


How come we're in so much trouble?

Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which passed in Congress with a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives, before being sent to conference committee; the final bipartisan bill (Senate: 90-8-1, House: 362-57-15) was signed by President bill clinton.[1][2]


That's why.


pfft...yea

/thats my two cents for the day
 
theigorway
2008-10-01 1:22:38 PM  

texastag: How come we're in so much trouble?

Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,


Compliments of Phil Gramm, John McCain's economic advisor and in line to replace Paulson should McCain become the next President.
 
RadicalArcher
2008-10-01 1:22:45 PM  
I clicked on this thread hoping for a Real Genius reference, and I am not leaving disappointed.

Thanks, oznog! ^_^

/And as far a debauchery goes:
//"What about that time I caught you naked with a bowl of Jell-O?"
 
JohnBigBootay
2008-10-01 1:24:54 PM  

theigorway: Compliments of Phil Gramm, John McCain's economic advisor and in line to replace Paulson should McCain become the next President.


You're doing it wrong - if it happens while Clinton is president you're supposed to blame Clinton. If it happened while Bush is president you should seek some tangential relationship to a democrat.
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Come check out what's behind the curtain.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.