On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:07:56 -0600, John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I did not attempt to construct an argument for the bailout but merely
> refuted your 10 "good arguments" against the bailout.
You have not refuted his arguments. You are just yelping like an angry chihuahua.
> The difference between what I did and what you claim I tried to do is
> quite large.
> You're apparently not much better at comprehending what people post than
> Dymtri.
> Perhaps the fact that you believe elves can construct a compelling case
> for anything is where you're first tripping up?
More shrill noise from John.
> Why not define what you mean by "It won't work.", a meaningless
statement.
It will not prevent either poverty nor homelessness from rising the US.
Please give us a timeline, and some clear indicators to use inorder to see what you think will "work."
> Do you believe that given two more weeks a better bailout would have
> been offered?
No, I never expected the US Goverment to do anything other then orchestrate an opportunistic cash grab, but that doesn't mean that I should pretend a racket is not a racket just because racketeers are making the calls.
> If so what that has ever transpired under this
> administration gives you reason to believe this?
> Do you believe that time was not of the essence and that three months or
> more was available to craft a better bailout? If so, based on what?
> What damage is done to the US Govt. and financial sectors credibility by
> this bailout?
Because orchestrating an opportunistic cash grab in the face of serious fundamental difficulties gives very little reason for International interests to feel confident in holding or buying US equities at artificially propped up, and therefor precarious, prices, indeed the inevitable short rise in the US dollar as bears create a liquidity crisis may inspire profit taking in the form of foreign central banks reducing their reserves, since it is clear the US is not planning on addressing the balance of payments issue any time soon. Actually, only Chin's (and therefore the SCO-block's) soft landing doctrine prevents this from becoming a mass sell off.
> Since some of your problems with the bailout are that it "avoids
> addressing the underlying problem" and "puts off the problem to
> tomorrow" yet addressing these are not goals of the bailout package
> suggests you don't really know enough to form an argument one way or the
> other.
Then please educate us on this argument you claim is so clear, alluding that the information is out there is just as idiotic as claiming we should endorse the actions of the government simply because it is the only action the government will undertake. Not that I imagine anybody is holding their breath waiting for you start making sense anytime soon.
-- Dmytri Kleiner editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net