Crise Financeira Mundial

  • 363 Respostas
  • 59470 Visualizações
*

Luso

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7463
  • Recebeu: 330 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 108 vez(es)
  • +60/-138
(sem assunto)
« Responder #15 em: Setembro 29, 2008, 10:40:08 pm »
Menino, eu não sou cidadão americano. Eu não voto nessas eleições.
E não sei se reparou mas estamos a falar do subprime e porque é que a "coisa" foi alimentada como foi. Informe-se!
Ai de ti Lusitânia, que dominarás em todas as nações...
 

*

Luso

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7463
  • Recebeu: 330 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 108 vez(es)
  • +60/-138
(sem assunto)
« Responder #16 em: Setembro 29, 2008, 10:49:44 pm »
Porque é que a imprensa não diz que isto resulta de "empréstimos sociais"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsWh5-SJ ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gek8-dI2 ... re=related
Ai de ti Lusitânia, que dominarás em todas as nações...
 

*

dremanu

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1261
  • Recebeu: 1 vez(es)
  • +3/-6
(sem assunto)
« Responder #17 em: Setembro 29, 2008, 11:07:25 pm »
Luso:

A culpa não é só dos democratas, é tambem em GRANDE parte da administração Bush. Tiveram a oportunidade durante oito anos de por termo ao crescente problema, e não fizeram nada.
"Esta é a ditosa pátria minha amada."
 

*

Luso

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7463
  • Recebeu: 330 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 108 vez(es)
  • +60/-138
(sem assunto)
« Responder #18 em: Setembro 29, 2008, 11:14:26 pm »
Citação de: "dremanu"
Luso:

A culpa não é só dos democratas, é tambem em GRANDE parte da administração Bush. Tiveram a oportunidade durante oito anos de por termo ao crescente problema, e não fizeram nada.


Não se deve negar essa evidência. A administração Bush deverá ser criticada pela lassidão a nível económico(gestão). E falo porque acompanhava os programas americanos de armamento mas não a economia americana. Um deixa andar comfrangedor.
Agora está aí à vista.

Entretanto arranjei um parecido...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1vSqF9Hm7A
« Última modificação: Setembro 29, 2008, 11:26:17 pm por Luso »
Ai de ti Lusitânia, que dominarás em todas as nações...
 

*

Luso

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7463
  • Recebeu: 330 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 108 vez(es)
  • +60/-138
(sem assunto)
« Responder #19 em: Setembro 29, 2008, 11:25:21 pm »
Outro também esclarecedor.
Vendo bem, com tudo isto o outro vídeo até não faz falta.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGnZMGDG ... re=related
Ai de ti Lusitânia, que dominarás em todas as nações...
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7355
  • Recebeu: 211 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 331 vez(es)
  • +14/-84
(sem assunto)
« Responder #20 em: Setembro 30, 2008, 11:29:50 am »
Citação de: "ShadIntel"
Citação de: "André"
Digam o que disserem eu apoio o Obama, prefiro ele a uma administração Bush parte 3, com uma galinha em forma de gente como vice ...  :roll:  :roll:


é...é uma conspiração mundial :roll: santa paciência, 8 anos de desgraça não vos chegou????
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

Luso

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7463
  • Recebeu: 330 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 108 vez(es)
  • +60/-138
(sem assunto)
« Responder #21 em: Setembro 30, 2008, 05:13:27 pm »
Citação de: "P44"
é...é uma conspiração mundial :roll:


Eu era o dos que pensava que isso seria era de maluquinhos, daquelos tipos que tinham medo dos helicopteros negros, etc.

Mas pelo que vejo já nem pestanejo.
Pessoalmente, simpatizo com o McCain, com o seu trajecto pessoal e o seu sacrifício.
Para a presidência daria o meu voto a Ron Paul, porque parece que tem as ideias muito bem arrumadas e certas. Seria uma fonte de estabilidade, isenção e... independência dos Estados Unidos face a outras... coisas.
Ai de ti Lusitânia, que dominarás em todas as nações...
 

*

Luso

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7463
  • Recebeu: 330 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 108 vez(es)
  • +60/-138
(sem assunto)
« Responder #22 em: Setembro 30, 2008, 06:31:30 pm »
O vídeo apagado pelos vistos já anda a dar que falar...
Entretanto, fica aqui uma explicação semelhante mas mais meiga:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/20 ... epression/

Citar
Who caused “the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression?”

The Root Cause

* According to Senator Chris Dodd (D. CT) the “root cause” of the problem is “the housing foreclosure crisis.”

Not 100% accurate, perhaps–it’s really a credit crisis–but close enough for government work, especially from someone who has just happens to chair the Senate Banking Committee and who, completely coincidentally, has been such a conspicuous beneficiary of preferential mortgages and who, also coincidentally, leads the list of those who have received campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Guess who comes in 2nd and 3rd?)

* But what caused the housing crisis to which Senator Dodd alludes? The housing “bubble.”

* And what caused the housing bubble? “Sub-prime,” i.e., risky, mortgages; that is, mortgages made to people who, in the normal course of things would have to pay a premium in order to obtain a mortgage (if they could obtain one at all) because

a) they had bad or non-existent credit

b) their income was insufficient or

c) both.

Packaging the American Dream

A home of your own. It’s part of the American dream. Work hard, save up for a down payment, pay your bills on time and, presto, you, too, can buy a home.

For decades the government has done things to help Americans to realize the dream, e.g., graciously allowing citizens to keep some of their own money to help pay for the interest on a mortgage (the official term for this is a “tax deduction,” but I prefer my locution since it emphasizes the fact that it is YOUR MONEY we are talking about).

But what about people who do not work hard (if they work at all)? What about people who have not saved up for a down payment? What about people who do not pay their bills on time (if they pay them at all)? Why shouldn’t they get to live the American dream?

That was the question that led to

 ”The Community Reinvestment Act” (see here for more).

* The original Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law in 1977 by Jimmy Carter. Its purpose, in a nutshell, was to require banks to provide credit to “under-served populations,” i.e., those with poor credit.

The buzz word was “affordable mortgages,” e.g., mortgages with low teaser-rates, which required the borrower to put no money down, which required the borrower to pay only the interest for a set number of years, etc.

* In 1995, Bill Clinton’s administration made various changes to the CRA, increasing “access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities,” i.e., it provided for the securitization, i.e. public underwriting, of what everyone now calls “sub-prime mortgages.”

Bottom line? It forced banks to issue $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages.

$1 trillion, i.e., a thousand billion dollars in sub-prime,i.e., risky, mortgages, in order to push this latest example of social engineering.

But wait: how did it force banks to do this? Easy. Introduce a federal requirement that banks make the loans or face penalties. As Howard Husock, writing in City Journal way back in 2000 observed: “Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A’s for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count.” Way back in 1994, for example, Barack Obama sued Citibank on behalf of a client who charged that the bank “systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.”

* In 1997, Bear Stearns–O firm of blessed memory–was the first to get onto the sub-prime gravy train.

* Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac–were there near the beginning, too.

Anatomy of a bubble

Step 1. The intoxication: “My house is worth millions!” From 1995 - 2005, the number of sub-prime mortgages skyrocket. So did the house prices.

Step 2. The hangover: “Oh my God, my house isn’t selling. What went wrong?”

Why didn’t someone try to stop it?

Someone did: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago,” The New York Times, September 11, 2003.

But someone intervened to stymie the Bush administration. Who? The New York Times reports:

Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. . . . “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Why didn’t someone else ring the alarm?

Someone else did. In 2005, John McCain  co-sponsored the “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act,” which among other things provided for more oversight of Freddie & Fannie. The bill didn’t pass. Guess who blocked it?

The bill was reintroduced in 2007. But again, no luck. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had friends in the Senate:

* Chris Dodd, a recipient of “sweetheart” loans from a Freddie and Fannie backed company.

* The junior senator from Illinois, i.e., Barack  Obama, who turned to Jim Johnson, former head (1991-1998) of Fannie Mae, to help advise him on whom to pick for the vice-presidential slot on his ticket. From 1985 to 1990, incidentally, Johnson was managing director of Lehman Brothers. Remember them?

* You might also want to check out one of Barack Obama’s other advisors: Franklin Raines, former CEO of Freddie Mac: see here , for example, or here , or here.

Towards the end of the video, we read this salutary observation: “Everyone deserves a home, not a house of cards.”

Who gave us the house of cards? Watch the whole thing here   (original link was  here). And then pass it along to everyone you know.

Se bem que eu prefiro este:

http://www.madogre.com/News.html

Citar
WTF happened today: For those that don't know, mainly by now because the video I posted yesterday has been removed by YouTube, let me catch you up. The Democrats are to blame for the financial mess America has gotten in to. Because they pushed Fannie Mae and Freddy Mack to make even more loans to those who shouldn't have gotten loans. High Risk loans, which the industry so cleverly calls “Sub Prime”. Don't want to offend the Poor, you see. Well, with eased credit restrictions, more risk was taken. A lot of risk was taken. And when they didn't take enough risk, the likes of Barack Obama sued Fannie Mae into making more loans at even greater risk. This pushed housing markets into higher prices. On top of the higher prices and inflated values... we got higher gas prices. Again, thanks to the democrats blocking energy development and generally being the moronic assholes that they are. When gas prices got too high, the poor suddenly lost the ability to pay the mortgage. These risks that were taken suddenly turned sour and the housing industry just took a giant shit. This also pulled the credit industry down with it. The Democrats then penned a chunk of legislation designed to “help”. They worked a little bit with some Republicans so they can call the effort Bi-Partisan and got some 60 to 64 or so Republicans to actually agree to it... then when everything looked great, Nancy Pelosi shit-canned the whole thing and as a result of Nancy Pelosi's bullshit, the stock market tanked hard and America lost something over a Trillion Dollars. Then Nancy Pelosi blamed the Republicans, because Nancy Pelosi doesn't give a shit about America – only caring for keeping the Democrats, and herself, in power. Because in her twisted mind, it's all Bush's fault. Look guys, America runs, not on gold or cash... but on Credit. And without it, America is screwed. The Democrats control Capitol Hill. The House and the Senate... all of Congress. They could have passed this with or without any Republican help or hindrance... but instead of helping the country – they flushed it just so they have a something else to blame the Republicans for. It's quite literally shooting themselves in the foot just so they can scream that it's the Republicans fault for giving them then, even though the Dems took the gun out of the Republican's hands. Because of this bullshit gaming, America is in a deep hurt that we don't even fully grasp yet. In one day, the Democrats set back the American economy at least a year. Many Americans have lost their shirts today. Many Americans have suffered financial losses greater than Katrina and Ike put together could have done. I'm getting reports from people who are completely ruined because of Nancy Pelosi. Mrs Speaker of the house had the power to totally trash a large portion of the American Dream, and she did it. Because she is an evil, spiteful bitch. We needed something to happen today. And it didn't happen. Regardless of what you believe about The Bailout, all of America is suffering now. I point the finger at Nancy Pelosi.

The Democrats like to say that their policies pulled us out of the Great Depression... caused by the stock market crash. Like the crash the Democrats caused today. Except that the crash that happened today is much worse than the crash that happened back in the 30's... and the Democrats didn't pull us out of it. WWII pulled us out of it.

We are completely fucked.

And the Democrats have the unmitigated gall to blame Republicans for this.

My outrage is complete. I can't even speak on this anymore.
Ai de ti Lusitânia, que dominarás em todas as nações...
 

*

ShadIntel

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1510
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #23 em: Setembro 30, 2008, 07:47:44 pm »
Citação de: "Luso"
Se bem que eu prefiro este
Eu gosto dos dois; o primeiro está repleto de factos incontestáveis fáceis de verificar, o segundo resume bem a situação, de forma simples e... explicita, para além de dizer todo o bem que eu próprio penso da Nancy Pelosi...

Sobre o fracasso do voto de ontem no congresso, também gostei destes artigos:

Citar
No one's clean in this mess
Democrats and Republicans must share the blame for the failure to pass a $700-billion bailout plan.
Jonah Goldberg

On Sunday evening, Republican House Minority Leader John A. Boehner explained his considered opinion on the $700-billion Wall Street bailout plan: It's a "crap sandwich," he said, but he was going to eat it.

Well, it turned out he couldn't shove it down his colleagues' throats. The bill failed on a bipartisan basis, but it was the Republicans who failed to deliver the votes they promised. Some complained that Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi drove some of them to switch their votes with her needlessly partisan floor speech on the subject. Of course Pelosi's needlessly partisan. This is news?

The Republican complaint is beyond childish. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, a man saturated with guilt for this crisis, nonetheless was right to ridicule the GOP crybabies on Monday. "I'll make an offer," he added. "Give me [their] names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are and maybe they'll now think about the country."

Would that Frank had been imbued with such a spirit earlier. Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has spent the last few years ridiculing Alan Greenspan, John McCain and others who sought more regulation for Fannie Mae's market-distorting schemes -- the fons et origo of this financial crisis. Now he says "the private sector got us into this mess." His partner in crime, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), a chief beneficiary of Fannie Mae lobbyists' largesse, claims this mess is the result of poor oversight -- without even hinting at the fact he is in charge of oversight of banks. They sound like pimps complaining about the prevalence of STDs among prostitutes.

And let us not forget that the Democrats, with a 31-seat majority, could not get 95 of their own to vote for the bailout, largely because it didn't provide enough taxpayer money to their left-wing special interests. Would that they thought about the country.

The one man who truly tried to treat this crisis like a crisis -- McCain -- was ridiculed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who implored him to come to Washington to help in the first place. And the news media, which now treat any Republican action that threatens a Barack Obama victory as inherently dishonorable, uncritically accepted the bald Democratic lie that McCain ruined a bipartisan bailout deal last Friday.

This is not to say that McCain knows what to do. Faced with an unprecedented financial crisis involving frozen global credit markets and a maelstrom of moral hazard, his standard response is to talk about wiping out earmarks and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Memo to Mr. McCain: Waste, fraud and abuse are the only things holding the system together at this point.

Obama is no better. The man has spent two weeks irresponsibly excoriating his opponent for saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong -- a perfectly leaderly thing for McCain to have said during a panic. Then, campaigning in Colorado on Monday, the day the market plunged 777.68 points, Obama proclaimed: "We've got the long-term fundamentals that will really make sure this economy grows."

Perhaps after Al Qaeda seizes Baghdad, a President Obama would finally declare, "Hey, we can win this thing!"

Meanwhile, President Bush, his popularity ratings stuck at below-freezing numbers, has decided to cling to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson for warmth on the grounds that the vaunted former Goldman Sachs chair has the credibility to sell the solution to a problem he's been exacerbating for 18 months. When a reporter for Forbes magazine asked a Treasury spokesman last week why Congress had to lay out $700 billion, the answer came back: "It's not based on any particular data point." Rather: "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

There's a confidence builder.

As for the reputedly free-market firebrands of the congressional GOP, with whom my sympathies generally lie, I cannot let pass without comment the fact that they controlled the legislative branch for most of the last eight years. Only now, when capitalism is in flames, does this fire brigade try to enforce the free-market fire codes without compromise.

I loathe populism. But if there ever has been a moment when reasonable men's hands itch for the pitchfork, this must surely be it. No one is blameless. No one is pure. Two decades of crapulence by the political class has been prologue to the era of coprophagy that is now upon us. It is crap sandwiches for as far as the eye can see.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... k=ntothtml

Citar
Bailout Politics
By Thomas Sowell

Nothing could more painfully demonstrate what is wrong with Congress than the current financial crisis.

Among the Congressional "leaders" invited to the White House to devise a bailout "solution" are the very people who have for years created the risks that have now come home to roost.

Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury."


Moreover, he said that the federal government has "probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing."

Earlier this year, Senator Christopher Dodd praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" when other financial institutions were cutting back on mortgage loans. He too said that they "need to do more" to help subprime borrowers get better loans.

In other words, Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd wanted the government to push financial institutions to lend to people they would not lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default.

The idea that politicians can assess risks better than people who have spent their whole careers assessing risks should have been so obviously absurd that no one would take it seriously.

But the magic words "affordable housing" and the ugly word "redlining" led to politicians directing where loans and investments should go, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and various other coercions and threats.

The roots of this problem go back many years, but since the crisis to which all this led happened on George W. Bush's watch, that is enough for those who think in terms of talking points, without wanting to be confused by the facts.

In reality, President Bush tried unsuccessfully, years ago, to get Congress to create some regulatory agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

N. Gregory Mankiw, his Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, warned in February 2004 that expecting a government bailout if things go wrong "creates an incentive for a company to take on risk and enjoy the associated increase in return."

Since risky investments usually pay more than safer investments, the incentive is for a government-supported enterprise to take bigger risks, since they get more profit if the risks pay off and the taxpayers get stuck with the losses if not.

The government does not guarantee Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but the widespread assumption has been that the government would step in with a bailout to prevent chaos in financial markets.

Alan Greenspan, then head of the Federal Reserve System, made the same point in testifying before Congress in February 2004. He said: "The Federal Reserve is concerned" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were using this implicit reliance on a government bailout in a crisis to take more risks, in order to "multiply the profitability of subsidized debt."

Chairman Greenspan added his voice to those urging Congress to create a "regulator with authority on a par with that of banking regulators" to reduce the riskiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a riskiness ultimately borne by the taxpayers.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not deserve to be bailed out, but neither do workers, families and businesses deserve to be put through the economic wringer by a collapse of credit markets, such as occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Neither do the voters deserve to be deceived on the eve of an election by the notion that this is a failure of free markets that should be replaced by political micro-managing.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.

It would be better if no such government-supported enterprises had been created in the first place and mortgages were in fact left to the free market. This bailout creates the expectation of future bailouts.

Phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would make much more sense than letting politicians play politics with them again, with the risk and expense being again loaded onto the taxpayers.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... itics.html[/quote]
 

*

André

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 3570
  • Recebeu: 2 vez(es)
  • +10/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #24 em: Setembro 30, 2008, 10:31:07 pm »
Crash
Pedro Curvelo

A crise financeira dos EUA está cada vez mais forte e ameaça afundar não só o sistema financeiro mundial como a própria economia mundial.

Perante este cenário, a administração Bush gizou um plano para limpar os balanços dos bancos norte-americanos dos activos «tóxicos», numa operação que custaria, no mínimo, 700 mil milhões de dólares aos contribuintes dos EUA. Este valor representa cerca de quatro vezes o PIB português.

Em pleno período eleitoral, o Congresso norte-americano chumbou o plano Paulson, originando fortes quedas nos mercados bolsistas mundiais. Entretanto, os resgates de bancos sucedem-se a um ritmo avassalador – após vários bancos norte-americanos, chegou a vez dos europeus Fortis, Dexia e Bradford & Bingley.

Face a tamanha tempestade, os responsáveis de vários países europeus e asiáticos desdobram-se em garantias de que os respectivos sistemas financeiros são sólidos e que não existem riscos de falência. Mas também ninguém acreditava no tsunami que varreu o sistema financeiros dos EUA...

Esta falência do sistema resulta, entre outras coisas, de atitudes irresponsáveis dos bancos, que concederam créditos a quem manifestamente não tinha condições para os pagar. O nível de vida de grande parte da população mundial tem vindo a aumentar de forma artificial, com endividamentos insustentáveis, de uma forma que não podia ter um final feliz.

Até à bonança ainda falta um longo período de mau tempo e as vítimas continuarão a auumentar...

Diário Digital

 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7355
  • Recebeu: 211 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 331 vez(es)
  • +14/-84
(sem assunto)
« Responder #25 em: Outubro 01, 2008, 08:29:27 am »
Citação de: "Luso"
Citação de: "P44"
é...é uma conspiração mundial :roll:

Eu era o dos que pensava que isso seria era de maluquinhos, daquelos tipos que tinham medo dos helicopteros negros, etc.

Mas pelo que vejo já nem pestanejo.
Pessoalmente, simpatizo com o McCain, com o seu trajecto pessoal e o seu sacrifício.
Para a presidência daria o meu voto a Ron Paul, porque parece que tem as ideias muito bem arrumadas e certas. Seria uma fonte de estabilidade, isenção e... independência dos Estados Unidos face a outras... coisas.


Luso,
o McCain é uma pessoa que eu até admirava , mas as manobras que fez e as reviravoltas que deu só demonstram que coloca a sua ambição pessoal acima de quaquer outra coisa, é apenas mais um politico vira-casacas que vende a mãe para ganhar o "tacho"...e pelo que te conheço tu detestas politicos assim
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7355
  • Recebeu: 211 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 331 vez(es)
  • +14/-84
(sem assunto)
« Responder #26 em: Outubro 01, 2008, 08:34:39 am »
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 50,00.html

Citar
The Ponzi Economy
By Michael Kinsley Thursday, Sep. 25, 2008

They keep telling us that this is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. But there is at least one difference: in the Great Depression, nobody needed to be told they were in a depression. Today, except for relatively few investment bankers and somewhat more middle-class homeowners, who would guess that things are so dire? Life goes on, reasonably normally. Maybe it's easier to get a cab in New York City--a reliable real-life indication of an economic downturn--but then maybe the effect of the financial crisis is canceled out by the effect of that other crisis, the one about energy. Now, there is a crisis you can sink your teeth into. But this? It's like some terrible, ominous dream where you're being pursued by this huge, ugly, horrible ... what, exactly?



And this $700 billion that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson wants--it sounds like a lot. But then so does the $400 billion annual deficit that the Federal Government was already heading for before this new thing came along. And yet that didn't seem to have any real-life effect either. Nor have any of the other gargantuan numbers that have floated past us in the generation since Ronald Reagan declared in his first Inaugural Address that society is like a family and has to live within its means. We took this as an invitation for our families to start borrowing like the Federal Government. So now we have the national debt, credit-card debt, student-loan debt, plus Social Security and other government promises that amount to more debt (although they aren't on the official books).

Then there is the debt that set off this crisis: mortgage debt. Overly easy mortgage borrowing financed the house-price bubble. The bursting of that bubble set off the chain reaction of financial implosions that we are experiencing at the moment. Yet you rarely hear politicians calling it a bubble. In fact, constantly rising real estate prices seems to be regarded as some kind of natural right, or at least a natural state to which we must return as soon as possible. Getting prices "moving again"--which means moving higher--is one all-but-explicit goal of the Paulson bailout. If house prices head back up, fewer mortgages will exceed the value of the asset that backs them up, foreclosures will drop, and bankers will be willing to lend again. More generally, in a nation of homeowners, people will get back that cozy feeling that they are getting richer without lifting a finger. "Confidence"--today's great missing ingredient--will be restored. The crisis will end. The dreamer awakes and takes out a second mortgage, and we all live happily ever after.

But building restored confidence on real estate would be foolish. How is the country any richer if the exact same stock of existing housing is suddenly worth, say, 20% more? Other markets produce things. They sell what they produce. When prices go up, they produce more. Not so with real estate, for the most part. This market consists primarily of trading the same thing again and again. And you know the old saw about land: They're not making any more of it. Real estate is the only major consumer market in which how much you'll pay someone depends on your belief about how much someone else will pay you. In this market, prices go up when people believe they will continue to go up. To restore confidence would mean restoring belief in the greater fool. That shouldn't be hard. It's built into human nature. This is why another term for a Ponzi or pyramid scheme is a confidence trick.

It's been obvious for years that real estate was a bubble ready to burst. Politicians and government officials deserve the pounding they are getting for failure to take action sooner. Of course, there weren't a lot of warnings that houses were becoming too valuable (or calls for greater regulation of anything) from the politicians and commentators who are now so indignant. What was not so obvious was the ability of real estate, which has always had a slightly rakish air, to drag even the most respectable and conservative parts of the economy down with it. Other problem areas, like Social Security, also have a Ponzi-scheme flavor: the claims on some pile of money exceed the size of the pile. In many of these schemes, the average American plays both the victim and Ponzi himself.

Cassandra has had a tough assignment during the past three decades. She keeps warning of catastrophe, yet things have kept getting better and better. But maybe this is her moment. Maybe this is when the economy stops being something you watch on television and starts being something you live with.
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

Luso

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7463
  • Recebeu: 330 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 108 vez(es)
  • +60/-138
(sem assunto)
« Responder #27 em: Outubro 01, 2008, 06:51:36 pm »
Dicionário da Crise Miguel Botelho Moniz @ 11:48 am

“Catástrofe” - O que acontece a banqueiros e investidores imprudentes quando os contribuintes não vêm, através de programas governamentais, salvar-lhes a pele.

“Fim do mundo da prosperidade” - O que acontece quando a realidade cai em cima de pessoas habituadas a dinheiro fácil criado pela expansão de crédito e que, por isso, vivem acima das suas capacidades.

“Pureza ideológica” - A insistência de pessoas teimosas em não pagar do seu bolso a irresponsabilidade de terceiros.

“Fim do capitalismo” - Descida de 6 ou 7% no índice DJIA. Já aconteceu uma meia dúzia de vezes nos últimos 80 anos.

“Disparar” - Verbo muito utilizado por jornalistas para descrever uma subida de 0,1 p.p. em determinado índice ou preço.

“Afundar” - Verbo contraposto ao anterior para descidas de 0,1 p.p.

“Salvação nacional” - Desculpa usada pelos poderes executivos para acumularem mais poderes para si próprios, em detrimento dos cidadãos e à custa dos contribuintes.

“Medidas urgentes” - Acções propostas pelos estados que devem ser aprovadas antes de dar demasiado tempo às pessoas para pensarem nelas. O carácter de urgência é tanto maior quanto maior a necessidade de salvação nacional (ver acima).

“Falha de regulação” - Incapacidade das autoridades em antever os problemas criados pelas suas anteriores intervenções no mercado.

“Falência” - Terrível flagelo que afecta algumas empresas nas economias de mercado. Estima-se que, todos os anos, as referidas economias vejam entre 2 e 3 milhões de empresas irem à falência.

“Capitalismo selvagem” - Sistema de organização política no qual indivíduos de matriz socialista não conseguem que os agentes económicos ajam como eles gostariam. O sistema é caracterizado por falhas de regulação e falências ocasionais (ver acima).

“Bush” - Político americano que, apesar de só ter estado oito anos no poder, consegue ser responsável por todos os erros de política económica desde - e incluindo - a extinção do sistema Bretton Woods em 1971.

“O que é teu é nosso” - Sindroma que faz pessoas que não investiram na bolsa sentirem-se prejudicadas pelos prejuízos de outras pessoas que efectivamente investiram na bolsa.

“Short-termism” - Expressão inglesa que caracteriza o comportamento de pessoas que avaliam o comportamento dos fundos de pensões de outras pessoas em função da evolução dos índices bolsistas dos últimos dias.

“Short-selling” - Pérfida prática através da qual o estado promete pagar uma reforma a cada cidadão no futuro em troca de que esse cidadão pague a reforma de um terceiro no presente.

“Inflação” - Método fiscal utilizado pelo estado para pedir mais emprestado hoje e pagar menos amanhã, sendo a diferença paga por todos cidadãos (mesmo os que não pagam impostos).

http://oinsurgente.org/2008/10/01/dicionario-da-crise/
Ai de ti Lusitânia, que dominarás em todas as nações...
 

*

AC

  • Perito
  • **
  • 398
  • Recebeu: 1 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #28 em: Outubro 01, 2008, 07:48:50 pm »
Citação de: "P44"
Luso,
o McCain é uma pessoa que eu até admirava , mas as manobras que fez e as reviravoltas que deu só demonstram que coloca a sua ambição pessoal acima de quaquer outra coisa, é apenas mais um politico vira-casacas que vende a mãe para ganhar o "tacho"...e pelo que te conheço tu detestas politicos assim


Infelizmente, é virtualmente impossível chegar a presidente ou primeiro-ministro de um país sem fazer conseções a determinados sectores do eleitorado e da máquina partidária.
Os políticos sem manchas são populares em conceito mas muito pouco votados na prática.

Aliás, considerando a sua posição no partido Republicano (e lembremo-nos, que o McCain começou na mó de baixo sem que ninguém lhe desse a menor hipótese de ser o candidado do partido Republicano), o facto de o McCain ter chegado onde chegou é perfeitamente espantoso.

As conceções à ala mais conservadora, como a escolha da Sarah Palin para VP são uma necessidade incontornável.
 

*

PereiraMarques

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 6580
  • Recebeu: 188 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 149 vez(es)
  • +10/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #29 em: Outubro 01, 2008, 09:58:11 pm »
Citação de: "Luso"
Dicionário da Crise Miguel Botelho Moniz @ 11:48 am


Brevemente, num blog perto de si, Dicionário da Democracia por Cátia Vanessa de Oliveira Salazar c34x
 

 

China pode tornar-se a 4ª maior economia mundial

Iniciado por Pantera

Respostas: 18
Visualizações: 6006
Última mensagem Abril 13, 2006, 10:31:08 pm
por Luso
Clima mundial precisa de revolução energética, dizem EUA

Iniciado por comanche

Respostas: 5
Visualizações: 3462
Última mensagem Setembro 29, 2007, 05:39:49 pm
por André
Tecnologia Robotica Mundial

Iniciado por Daniel

Respostas: 3
Visualizações: 919
Última mensagem Janeiro 25, 2018, 01:15:26 pm
por Lusitano89
Economia Mundial

Iniciado por Viajante

Respostas: 61
Visualizações: 6799
Última mensagem Hoje às 10:24:10 pm
por Lusitano89
EUA podem entrar em crise ainda este ano

Iniciado por P44

Respostas: 16
Visualizações: 6247
Última mensagem Outubro 01, 2008, 02:03:10 am
por oultimoespiao