Bailout Fails. DOW Plunges 778 points. What do you think? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 09-29-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

View: House votes down massive bailout measure
Source: MSNBC
posted with the TFP thread generator

House votes down massive bailout measure
House votes down massive bailout measure
Debate prior to balloting showed deep reservations about $700 billion plan
BREAKING NEWS
The Associated Press
updated 2:18 p.m. ET, Mon., Sept. 29, 2008
WASHINGTON - The House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue package, ignoring urgent pleas from President Bush and bipartisan congressional leaders to quickly bail out the staggering financial industry.

Stocks plummeted on Wall Street even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was announced on the House floor.

When the critical vote was tallied, too few members of the House were willing to support the unpopular measure with elections just five weeks away. Ample no votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle.

Bush and a host of leading congressional figures had implored the lawmakers to pass the legislation despite howls of protest from their constituents back home.

Even as the electronic roll call began, Democratic and Republican leaders were uncertain about having enough votes to pass the politically unpopular plan. It's the most sweeping government intervention in markets since the Great Depression.

The bailout would have put in place an unprecedented federal program to buy up rotten assets from cash-starved firms. The goal is to free up choked credit that was threatening to cause broader market turmoil.

"Many of us feel that the national interest requires us to do something which is, in many ways, unpopular," said Rep. Barney Frank, the Financial Services Committee chairman, before the vote. "It is hard to get political credit for avoiding something that has not yet happened."

The bill was the product of marathon bargaining over the weekend among various House and Senate representatives.

President Bush urged the bill's passage, saying in a White House appearance Monday morning that "every member of Congress and every American should keep in mind that a vote for this bill is a vote to prevent economic damage to you and your community."

"With this strong and decisive legislation," he said, "we will help restart the flow of credit so American families can meet their daily needs and American businesses can make purchases, ship goods and meet their payrolls."

As debate opened, Frank, D-Mass., called the measure "a tough vote," but a necessary one to stave off a financial meltdown. It lets the government buy sour assets — mostly mortgage-backed securities — from struggling financial institutions in a bid to clear out clogged avenues of credit for businesses and individuals alike.

At the White House, spokesman Tony Fratto confirmed vigorous efforts to get the bill through.

"We're going to keep working with them right up until the vote," he said.

Fratto also said that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Treasury Secretary Paulson, White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and other top officials were contacting House members in an effort to rally support, and that the president himself had call list of "a couple dozen members."

Fratto said Bush was telling aides some of those he'd talked to were committed to voting for the bill while "others remained skeptical."

With their dire warnings of impending economic doom and their sweeping request for unprecedented sums of money and authority to bail out cash-starved financial firms, Bush and his economic chiefs have focused the attention of the world and the markets on Congress, said Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Without the bill, Ryan added, "the worst is yet to come."

"We're in this moment, and if we fail to do the right thing, Heaven help us." he said.

As Democratic and Republican leaders hunted for votes, leaning on lawmakers to take a political hit for the good of the country, Ryan said, "We're all worried about losing our jobs. ... Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it — not me.' "

Two leading players also spoke early Monday, lobbying on morning television news shows for approval of a package deeply unpopular with a public angry that taxpayer money will save Wall Street firms from heavy risk-taking. Thousands of angry phone calls, e-mails and letters have poured into Capitol Hill from constituents. Supporters essentially acknowledged that it was a hold-your-nose-and-vote matter.

Critics on the left and right said Congress was being stampeded into hasty action on a plan that wouldn't make a dent in the nation's economic woes, which have at their root a subprime mortgage meltdown and the bursting of the housing bubble, followed by a wave of foreclosures.

The legislation does not require any federal action to prevent foreclosures, although it mandates that the government try renegotiating the bad mortgages it acquires with the aim of lowering borrowers' monthly payments so they can keep their homes.

"Like the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, this bill is fueled on fear and hinges on haste," said Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett, R-Texas.

Republican Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a leading conservative, said the bill puts the country "on the slippery slope to socialism. If you lose your ability to fail, soon you will lose your ability to succeed."

The Senate planned a vote as early as Wednesday.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said that failure to act would spread the contagion of frozen credit markets even further. "This is not just about Wall Street," said the Banking Committee chairman.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., told The Associated Press: "It's one of those situations where if it passes and works, people will never know how close we were to the brink."

Still, both men said the necessity of such massive government action is a sad day for the nation. They were speaking not just to rank-and-file lawmakers who are under a spotlight in the contentious, dramatic congressional debate, but to U.S. and global markets which have displayed nervousness about Washington's determination to act.

Investors worldwide and in early trading in the United States continued to show doubt about whether the bill would go through, much less go a long way toward curing the systemic problems that have unnerved financial markets across the globe for weeks.

There was a further sign of general economic deterioration Monday as the Commerce Department reported that consumer spending was unchanged in August — even worse than the small 0.2 percent gain that economists had anticipated. It was the weakest showing since spending was also flat in February.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the bill "should help to restore the flow of credit to households and businesses that is essential for economic growth and job creation."

Bush said he "fully understands" the bailout bill was a difficult vote. He and Vice President Dick Cheney took to the phones to corral individual members of Congress.

Lawmakers wrote a number of restrictions into the pending legislation, including oversight over the operation of the program, curbs on "golden parachutes" for top executives of firms getting help, and assurances that taxpayers would ultimately be reimbursed by the companies for any losses. But the government would have broad discretion to decide how to implement the rescue.

The legislation also requires that the government take ownership stakes in companies that receive federal infusions, so it could share a piece of potential future profits.

Bush said the ultimate cost of the bailout will be much less than the $700 billion authorized.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson sought the unprecedented amount of money with little supervision.

Instead, the bill lets Congress block half the money and force the president to jump through some hoops before using it all. The government could get at $250 billion immediately, $100 billion more if the president certified it was necessary, and the last $350 billion with a separate certification — and subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval. Still, the resolution could be vetoed by the president, meaning it would take extra-large congressional majorities to stop it.

At the White House, spokesman Tony Fratto described vigorous efforts to get the bill through.

"We're going to keep working with them right up until the vote," he said.

Fratto also said that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Treasury Secretary Paulson, White House chief of staff Josh Bolton and other top officials were contacting House members in an effort to rally support, and that the president himself had call list of "a couple dozen members."

Fratto said Bush was telling aides some of those he'd talked to were committed to voting for the bill while "others remained skeptical."

What are your thoughts on the bailout? Should it have passed? What would you like to see done by the politicians?

Personally, I think that the finance institutions should have been allowed to fail. While it would be painful for everyone, it is what happens when the music stops and there isn't enough seats for everyone. The Visa card commercial comes to mind at how easy it is to just spend money, money that you don't have, money that you've not yet earned, money that your children, and your children's children have not yet earned.

Smaller institutions with better books would have picked up the pieces and started the process over.

As far as oversight is concerned, I'm not convinced that their form of regulation would be beneficial. After ENRON/Tyco/Worldcom/Adelphia fiascos, some sort of oversight is needed, but Sarbanes-Oxley is a joke and doesn't do anything but make it harder for these companies to do business.

Finally, why let only some of the few reap the benefits of profits when taxpayers will be taking on the risk and getting very little for their share of risk.

Glory's Sun · 09-29-2008, 10:36 AM

I tend to agree that the companies should just take their lumps. Of course that will make things difficult for a while, but it's not like the companies didn't know what they were doing. Can anyone honestly say they didn't think they were writing bad paper??

Jozrael · 09-29-2008, 10:36 AM

I hope we're all not out on the street in a year or three.

Leto · 09-29-2008, 10:42 AM

hmmm... should i be concerned that my RRSP's will be diminished? All the mutual funds that I invested in for my retirement are getting to be worth less as result. Or do I squint and look at the 20 year horizon.

Jozrael · 09-29-2008, 10:43 AM

Where they're worth about zero.

*Economically pessimistic currently*.

Frosstbyte · 09-29-2008, 10:48 AM

Economies need to adjust. It's part of the ebb and flow of capitalism. The US economy has been artificially supported both domestically and internationally for the last 30 (40? 50?) years through periods when it should have all but collapsed and, I think finally, the pressure is overwhelming. It's going to suck ass for a few years as lots of people lose investments and homes and jobs, but trying to maintain the illusion that everything is ok by throwing $700b at financial institutions with NO oversight is, in my opinion, a far worse situation.

You can do a lot of good (or bad) with that much money, and I really don't think I can conceive of a worse option than giving it to the very institutions who made bad choices to get themselves into that mess in the first place.

I like the health insurance for the whole country for 4 years or 2000 apple pies for everyone in the country options much better.

Willravel · 09-29-2008, 10:56 AM

I think we need a fiscally responsible plan with oversight and transparency.

roachboy · 09-29-2008, 11:03 AM

well, there are alot of problems here.

first, the bush administration presented a 2 page "bill" about a week ago after the AIG farce forced it to stop acting in an explicitly ad hoc manner and try to act in a bigger ad hoc manner.
it seems to me that neither the magnitude or the meaning of the problems that this was to address have been adequately defined.
without and adequate definition of either, no measure is going to be coherent.
the "strong" argument for passing it was that it "created confidence"----which is rapidly ebbing away.
this idea of "confidence"--something so vaporous as that--being at the core of capital flows, which typically are hedged round with the "science" of economics and the appearance of "objectivity" that follows from equations and so forth--that's a little curious.

compounding this has been the bush people's attempts to overcome their own weakness by trying AGAIN to govern from a state of emergency---panic now comrades---the Clock Is Ticking----tick tick tick--do something do something--tick tick tick.

then you have the revolt of the fundamentalists in the republican study conference, cheered on by the asshat newt gingrich. tick tick tick.

on top of this, you have a totally discredited president who cannot control his own party any more tick tick tick particularly given that mc-cain's campaign has already decided that the only possibility of winning lay with separating "republican" from "bush administration"--and republicans in the house seem to also think this is a good plan...

tick tick tick.

at this point, i think this has reached the level of the truly comic, as ideological crises can become when they play out across large-scale crises in other areas.

meanwhile, any reasonable person looking at this cannot still believe that the interests of capital and those of the rest of us are the same.

i wonder what the next installment of this drama will look like.

the dow is down 532. it is 3 pm. tick tick tick.

tisonlyi · 09-29-2008, 11:22 AM

If that bill passes, you'll end up with double digit 'official inflation' - AT LEAST - and a subset of banks that can bully the govt at any time they like. Financially unstable, over-leveraged to an insane degree and way, way, way too big to fail... but they will eventually, or keep the economy stagnating so long that... whatever. Japanification.

How people are standing by and applauding as huge banks are gobbling up the good and a part of the bad of other huge banks gone sour, while passing the buck to money supply and tax payers is beyond me.

Choices:

Weimar Republic (with US constitution Mk II) OR Great Depression II (Bigger, Harder, Shorter)

Both options mean the death of Empire.

Sorry.

DJ @ 8k by the end of the year. (that's putting it back on 20 yr trend and bleeding enormously considering inflation) FTSE 100 has lost 30% in 5 months.

So far, the printing presses are keeping the enormous wolf at the door only slowly tearing at the door. It won't stop it... You can't borrow or print your way out of debt.

[Opinions based on following Kevin Phillips, Krugman, Nouriel Roubini, Calculated Risk and Naked Capitalism fairly religiously over the past year or so, plus watching the explosion of debt in the UK and the rest of Europe with disbelief, following the insanity reigning in the US via t'interweb.]

EDIT:

This all makes me wonder if those Neo-Cons (and New Labour, Uk-sians) are, really, all incredibly deep cover socialists after all.

Viva Bush! Viva Blair!

Marx: Give capitalists enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

Manic_Skafe · 09-29-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I think we need a fiscally responsible plan with oversight and transparency.

I couldn't agree more.

They'll revise it and it will eventually pass.

roachboy · 09-29-2008, 11:53 AM

my favorite bit of debris from this so far is the republican blaming pelosi's speech delivered before the vote for the vote.
go conservatives! way to accept responsibility!

Glory's Sun · 09-29-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I think we need a fiscally responsible plan with oversight and transparency.

well the most fiscally responsible plan would be to let the banks fail. I'm sorry, and yes it sucks..and will suck, but that's what happens when you write bad paper. If I own a small business and I make dumb choices..I lose my business.. it shouldn't be any different just because you are a bank.

Why should the government bail these companies out?? All the red flags have been there for years.. nobody seemed to care.. partly because they thought they were big enough to get by.. and partly because in the back of their mind they figured the government would bail them out. I say call their bluff and let em fall. Maybe if enough pain ensues, the people will learn how to run a company.

roachboy · 09-29-2008, 12:00 PM

what exactly constitutes "fiscally responsible" in a situation that (a) threatens the global capital flow system as a whole on the one hand, but (b) cannot apparently be given a coherent or stable value on the other? no-one seems to know how big a problem this is because everyone---all the rational market actors in this the best of all possible worlds which we call capitalism 2008 stylee--everyone was lying about the values involved with these devices. so what's a "responsible" action here?

Willravel · 09-29-2008, 12:02 PM

I used open verbiage intentionally to demonstrate that the talking heads need not understand the problem to sound like they do. I doubt there are more than a handful of people in congress that have any clue about how to solve this, and I doubt many of them agree.

The only true solution to this problem is a reorganization of our entire economy. Anything less is patchwork on a crashing plane, and anything less is cowardice.

Cynthetiq · 09-29-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what exactly constitutes "fiscally responsible" in a situation that (a) threatens the global capital flow system as a whole on the one hand, but (b) cannot apparently be given a coherent or stable value on the other? no-one seems to know how big a problem this is because everyone---all the rational market actors in this the best of all possible worlds which we call capitalism 2008 stylee--everyone was lying about the values involved with these devices. so what's a "responsible" action here?

Some people believe that fiscally responsible means spending only money you have, expenses never exceed income. When capital projects are to be undertaken, either savings or generating credit lines based on reasonable debt to value ratios, and the ability for the borrower to repay within the confines of the income and expenditures.

Some people believe that fiscally responsible means using other people's money to pay your expenses and generate your income. Expenses can exceed income as in the long term income will grow over time, and borrowing at low interest rates can bridge the gap. When capital projects are to be undertaken money is borrowed and refinanced and refinanced to draw equity to pay down other expenses.

Some people believe that fiscally responsible means making sure you cover your cashflow. Income and expenses need to be generated and paid, and so long as everything juggles just right, all markers and debts are paid the absolute minimum.

At some point in time, when you stick your hand into your pocket and you can't pull out $5 bill to pay for that Matcha Green Tea latte with skim milk... I'd hope that's when you realize that fiscally responsibile means something more than paying your bills at the end of the month each and every month.

kutulu · 09-29-2008, 12:18 PM

China halts US lending:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reuters

BEIJING, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Chinese regulators have told domestic banks to stop interbank lending to U.S. financial institutions to prevent possible losses during the financial crisis, the South China Morning Post reported on Thursday.

The Hong Kong newspaper cited unidentified industry sources as saying the instruction from the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) applied to interbank lending of all currencies to U.S. banks but not to banks from other countries.

"The decree appears to be Beijing's first attempt to erect defences against the deepening U.S. financial meltdown after the mainland's major lenders reported billions of U.S. dollars in exposure to the credit crisis," the SCMP said.

A spokesman for the CBRC had no immediate comment.

roachboy · 09-29-2008, 12:23 PM

so wait...the problem is not what is implied by the notion "fiscal responsibility" in the abstract---and your view presupposes a bunch of things are true which are only true within a particular frame of reference, but i dont want to argue about that now---i meant what is "fiscally responsible" *in this context*?

i'll get back to this later...

kutulu · 09-29-2008, 12:26 PM

I hope the opponents to this are happy when their company can't give them a paycheck.

tisonlyi · 09-29-2008, 12:37 PM

Kutulu, the only thing this bill will do is delay this crisis and create a new one.

Greenspan will, throughout the ages, be known as the greatest socialist who ever lived.

Cynthetiq · 09-29-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so wait...the problem is not what is implied by the notion "fiscal responsibility" in the abstract---and your view presupposes a bunch of things are true which are only true within a particular frame of reference, but i dont want to argue about that now---i meant what is "fiscally responsible" *in this context*?

i'll get back to this later...

that's what my point is. it's so subjective.

The_Jazz · 09-29-2008, 12:47 PM

I'll keep getting paychecks. We're in a boom period despite the bad insurance market. It doesn't hurt that we're owned by one of the few banks doing ok right now. And that my company, office and team have a habit of timing things right.

In the big picture, I think that the conservatives have this right. The taxpayers aren't here to take on business risks, which is what happened with AIG (as an aside, it now looks like the US could make up to a 30% return on that loan). The bailout has no reward for the risk being taken on other than the nebulous idea that the sky will stop falling.

It is amazing what happens with a small crisis with an incredibly unpopular lame duck President. Especially since the vote broke more down philosophical lines than party ones. Crazy.

Frosstbyte · 09-29-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

I hope the opponents to this are happy when their company can't give them a paycheck.

The problem, kutulu, is that the system has already failed. As in over. As in past tense. The full effects haven't hit us because that's how the economy works, but we can't stop what's already happened from happening. No one is going to be happy, but throwing more money at a problem when all that will happen is that the country will be in more debt and the problem will only be postponed (and worsened in the meantime) isn't a solution at all.

Economies cannot be in a state of perpetual growth and ours desperately needs to contract and get rid of all of the waste, speculation, corruption and shitty investments that are clogging it.

If we're going to spend $700B on something, let's spend it on softening the impact of the collapse/recession/failure/depression/etc. on the American people as a whole instead of throwing money at banks, because they're not going to change anything, and are going to need another bail out eventually.

Plan9 · 09-29-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

Kutulu, the only thing this bill will do is delay this crisis and create a new one.

+1

I don't approve of any capitalist government that puts training wheels on private corporations. They're big boys now. They should learn to fall with some dignity. Ya know, like the dinosaurs did.

Everything is cyclical. Including epic financial failures.

*keys up "Circle of Life" tune from that old Disney flick*
-----Added 29/9/2008 at 04 : 56 : 17-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

If we're going to spend $700B on something, let's spend it on softening the impact of the collapse/recession/failure/depression/etc. on the American people as a whole instead of throwing money at banks, because they're not going to change anything, and are going to need another bail out eventually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leader of the Free World

Sevun hundrehd billion!? Heh-heh... thass almost 'nuff to declare war on them pesky Eye-rain-ee-uhns!"

highthief · 09-29-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leto

hmmm... should i be concerned that my RRSP's will be diminished? All the mutual funds that I invested in for my retirement are getting to be worth less as result. Or do I squint and look at the 20 year horizon.

If your horizon is 20 years, you're likely OK - although now is a good time to review your plan and goals and make adjustments where required. Just don't go locking in your losses and buy a bunch of GICs, that's a sure way to ruin.

alicat · 09-29-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

Kutulu, the only thing this bill will do is delay this crisis and create a new one.

This bring's to mind what I saw on "Food Detectives" yesterday about possible cures for hang-overs.

Apparently, the good 'ol "hair of the dog" doesn't cure the hang-over, it mearly postpone's it while the body works on breaking down the new alcohol before going back to work on the remaining metabolization of the initial intake. Then, welcome back to the headache, cotton mouth and all around feeling shitty.

I hear there are alot of 3 martini lunches in D.C...

O'kay, guess I got 'nuttin. Really. I don't understand much of this fiasco.

Charlatan · 09-29-2008, 02:33 PM

Can we stop with all the Bailout = Socialism nonsense... The bailout is not socialism but rather just a continuation of crony capitalism.

Socialism takes the nation's wealth an redistirbutes to the wider population. This bailout was never going to do that. It was going to benefit only those in the upper eschalons... The ones who were going to pay for it were the wider population (Public wealth into Private hands).

Frosstbyte · 09-29-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Can we stop with all the Bailout = Socialism nonsense... The bailout is not socialism but rather just a continuation of crony capitalism.

Socialism takes the nation's wealth an redistirbutes to the wider population. This bailout was never going to do that. It was going to benefit only those in the upper eschalons... The ones who were going to pay for it were the wider population (Public wealth into Private hands).

I haven't noticed that too much in this thread, but it's absolutely correct. I think there are a lot of people who love to throw around the names of various economic systems without having a clue what those systems actually mean.

Plan9 · 09-29-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The bailout is not socialism but rather just a continuation of crony capitalism.

Sweet. Totally my point.

Somebody with a superior intellect explain to me why the US gov't is such a selfless charity.

...

In other news... my IRA just farted and fell over on its knees.

blktour · 09-29-2008, 03:30 PM

i saw this a couple of days ago.

YouTube - Ron Paul on Fox Business News

this comes to mind.

let them fall and lets bring in a more stable currency.

he made a good point on another video, about how if i was to make my own money i would be called a counterfieter. but the FED RESERVE can do this all they want.

this is not a political post, but i follow a little bit, and it has come to me that if i want reasoning, i will visit here or look up Ron Paul. haha.

kutulu · 09-29-2008, 03:32 PM

I think this is a much bigger deal that you people will admit. It's gone way past bailing out some fat cats. This is about keeping the market liquid. The shit will hit the fan if the credit market freezes.

How are businesses going to get short term loans for payroll? How will they make capital purchases? This will affect us all.

Frosstbyte · 09-29-2008, 03:43 PM

I know it's a big deal. I just think that's what happens when you let this much economic pressure build up. We've done everything we can to preserve a foolish illusion that economies can always grow and that recessions/depressions can be wholly prevented. I don't think they can, and I think they're a normal and important part of a healthy economy. By redirecting that economic pressure to artificially prevent small drops, we've led to an inevitable large drop.

And, as I've said, if we can muster $700 billion, we can use it to help the entire country instead of trying to use it to "bail out" some big banks who ought to fail for being bad business. Does that create something of a credit crisis? Yes, a major one. But that's something that, at this point, I think needs to happen before we can get things back on track. You said it yourself? Where are we going to get credit? That's the problem. We're plain, fucking out of credit. This country, both the federal government and many of the citizens and businesses have run out that line as far as it goes, and eventually there's no more credit to be had. I'm not pretending this is going to be fun to get through. It won't be. But making the problem worse by adding further credit bloat by tossing more money (spirited in from...somewhere?) at it isn't what we need.

We need some politicians who have a shred of a clue about economics. We need to let the economy adjust itself. We need transparency. We need a balanced budget.

Charlatan · 09-29-2008, 04:13 PM

kutulu... I realize it is a big deal and I agree that it has gotten to the point where something like the bailout needs to happen. For me, I am sure it failed not because people disagreed on the idea of a bailout but over who would control the cash and how that bailout out take place.

Some have the idea that it should just be a handover of cash to those that fucked up. Others feel there should be some strings attached. Others... more than just strings.

Me? I can see the need for this but I don't want to see the fuckers that are responsible for this walk away with millions in their pockets. Compensation? Sure, just not the kind of golden parachute they have in mind.

tisonlyi · 09-29-2008, 05:16 PM

I'd just like to say, my comments about Greenspan being socialist were tongue in cheek... basically, this is still more of the last 35 years:

Lets borrow our way out of trouble (private and public)!

I hated Newt G [Dawg], but fairly, paying off the debt and balancing the budget were the only way to stop this insanity which REAGAN spawned.

I'm happy it's here, because, basically, there's NOTHING that can stop this system from collapsing. The only question is the velocity.

Citibank has taken Wachovia, but... give it a few months more of falling house prices and we'll more than cover the leg room Wachovia's assets have given them, bailout or no.

roachboy · 09-29-2008, 05:33 PM

despite my marxist side, i don't see collapse---i see slow motion devolution of one configuration and the gradual re-emergence of a different one.
what seems clearer and clearer that the american position in the global economy is rapidly coming unravelled, but it isn't yet obvious what that means.
there is no coherent force from the left bringing pressure from outside the system to push it in a direction that is not already implicit in the operation of capitalism itself. and if the shit really hits the fan in the states, it is still the case that any such move would probably come from the right. but i don't see that happening either at this point---the right is marginalised (in that its discourse appeals only to itself) and internally fractured. so if you look around, the likely tracking forward of this debacle is still well within the framework of capitalism.
but the situation that the united states has occupied is coming unravelled.
and if things move in a straight line from here, that unravelling could be ugly indeed.

ASU2003 · 09-29-2008, 05:59 PM

I might write in Ron Paul's name in November. I do think that some regulation is needed, however the dollar failing would be much worst than a wall street crash or anything like that.

This is a really complicated problem and it is hard to come up with what would be the best course of action. If we do nothing, what will the free market do? My house can't go down too much and I'll still have my job. But, what if your house has lost $100,000 in value? You can't sell it, you can't move, and if you lose your job or your business, your screwed. Well, actually the bank that issued you that loan is screwed if you declare bankruptcy.

tisonlyi · 09-29-2008, 06:03 PM

The reason I see collapse, eventually, is EXACTLY why you see loss of hegemony.

If the rest of the world no longer see an unipolar, American-centric world, why on earth would they continue to fund the US national debt? Why would Saudi Arabia continue to support its reputed, massive holding in DJI stocks - particularly in the US when some of those corps could easily switch base. Why will central banks around the world continue to prop up the US dollar - and make no mistake, they are in a big way - when Pax Americana is over, done, dusted, volumised and demoted from the NYT best-seller list?

Will the US happily slash its military complex down to a size that's reasonable for an independent, but not dominant nation?
Will the US be easily able to tolerate not denominating the primary currency for the global economy?
Is the US well placed to restructure it's energy supply away from oil?
Will the US be able to restructure quickly enough to tolerate the shock of it's credit lines being reduced/removed?

These things tend to go slowly, slowly, then hit a point and go for a vertical trajectory.

I've obviously some lefty leanings in this, but it's capitalist reasoning that's forcing the logic. I don't expect everything to go overnight... It'll be over a decade or so, maybe less.

For one reason why the US is no place to put financial confidence, look at the DJI.

14k to almost 10k within a year. Factor in inflation, REAL inflation, and the index looks like it's been spectacularly stagnating for the past 20 years at least. The dollar has had a bounce, only because the FED has miraculously, but no less finally maxed out its abilities to raise interest in dollar purchases while the money supply has gone through the roof.

At some point, the loonies in charge of the system have to realise the madmen are in charge of the keys.

Tully Mars · 09-29-2008, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

The reason I see collapse, eventually, is EXACTLY why you see loss of hegemony.

If the rest of the world no longer see an unipolar, American-centric world, why on earth would they continue to fund the US national debt? Why would Saudi Arabia continue to support its reputed, massive holding in DJI stocks - particularly in the US when some of those corps could easily switch base. Why will central banks around the world continue to prop up the US dollar - and make no mistake, they are in a big way - when Pax Americana is over, done, dusted, volumised and demoted from the NYT best-seller list?

Will the US happily slash its military complex down to a size that's reasonable for an independent, but not dominant nation?
Will the US be easily able to tolerate not denominating the primary currency for the global economy?
Is the US well placed to restructure it's energy supply away from oil?
Will the US be able to restructure quickly enough to tolerate the shock of it's credit lines being reduced/removed?

These things tend to go slowly, slowly, then hit a point and go for a vertical trajectory.

I've obviously some lefty leanings in this, but it's capitalist reasoning that's forcing the logic. I don't expect everything to go overnight... It'll be over a decade or so, maybe less.

For one reason why the US is no place to put financial confidence, look at the DJI.

14k to almost 10k within a year. Factor in inflation, REAL inflation, and the index looks like it's been spectacularly stagnating for the past 20 years at least. The dollar has had a bounce, only because the FED has miraculously, but no less finally maxed out its abilities to raise interest in dollar purchases while the money supply has gone through the roof.

At some point, the loonies in charge of the system have to realise the madmen are in charge of the keys.

I think the dollars hit it's high mark. Someone asked what happens when your house looses 100k in value. Well that sucks if you've been using it as a Visa card, no doubt. But what happens when your dollar on the world market is worth 25% of what it was? Compound that by the fact the US imports nearly all it's consumer good, not mention oil. The cost of consumer goods could shoot through the roof.

Charlatan · 09-29-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I might write in Ron Paul's name in November. I do think that some regulation is needed, however the dollar failing would be much worst than a wall street crash or anything like that.

Further to my comments about crony capitalism vs. socialism, I think it is important to note that the New Deal was not socialism either...

One of the main components of the New Deal was the creation of rules and regulations for the stock market... rules and regs that created a transparency in the system. These clear rules, a levelling of the playing field as it were, made the US markets *the* market in which to invest. The deregulation of the system removed much of this oversight and transparency. So much so that we now have many that do not trust the financial results being reported by US firms.

There is going to be a long climb out of this hole (a financial and an ethical hole).

tisonlyi · 09-29-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

What happens when your dollar on the world market is worth 25% of what it was? Compound that by the fact the US imports nearly all it's consumer good, not mention oil. The cost of consumer goods could shoot through the roof.

This is what started to happen to the UK in the 30's, then dramatically post-WW2 and post-Empire up until the 90's.

Empire is a curse, but a temporary one.

Eventually the power learns its lessons, pulls in its blunted claws and sets about licking its genitals.

skizziks · 09-29-2008, 06:54 PM

Before I add my thoughts, I want you all to know that I've read a few books on economics, and I am as qualified to talk about this subject as Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder are at telling me how many fingers I'm holding up (Actually, they would probably be a bit more accurate than what I have to say)

I think the market will dip further, and further, and we are going to have a market crash, a good old fashioned depression, like my grandma lived through. Even if the government "bails out" everyone, where is the money going to come from? I believe I heard they will just print more, causing inflation and devaluing of everything.

I see "poor" folks (those without investments) not noticing too much, until businesses go out of business, and they don't have jobs, and so they can't afford what little they have now.

The upside is, I think, we will start to focus on what matters and realize that not everyone needs an Escalade, a PS3, two computers, and $120 jeans. Think about it, it all stems from people thinking they have a right to things they can't afford. "I know I only make $20,000 a year, but fuck you, I'm an American and I deserve a $300,000 home, now give it to me." On a smaller scale, "i don't have the cash, but I want those shoes, so I'll just put it on credit." On a larger scale, we have a war and we borrow cash from other countries for what we want RIGHT NOW. It's back to bite us on our greedy solipsistic asses.

If somehow the market doesn't crash, we still have that massive debt. China and other countires will want their money, we won't have it, it will take it in land. They will move thier factories here and we will be cheap labor, and Chinese people will complain about and mock things "made in the USA"

We've had our time in the spotlight, we have to get off the stage and let the next act do it's thing.

Ok, I'm done. If you are still reading, thanks, but that is 1 1/2 minutes of your life you won't get back.

09-29-2008, 11:03 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, there are alot of problems here. first, the bush administration presented a 2 page "bill" about a week ago after the AIG farce forced it to stop acting in an explicitly ad hoc manner and try to act in a bigger ad hoc manner. it seems to me that neither the magnitude or the meaning of the problems that this was to address have been adequately defined. without and adequate definition of either, no measure is going to be coherent. the "strong" argument for passing it was that it "created confidence"----which is rapidly ebbing away. this idea of "confidence"--something so vaporous as that--being at the core of capital flows, which typically are hedged round with the "science" of economics and the appearance of "objectivity" that follows from equations and so forth--that's a little curious. compounding this has been the bush people's attempts to overcome their own weakness by trying AGAIN to govern from a state of emergency---panic now comrades---the Clock Is Ticking----tick tick tick--do something do something--tick tick tick. then you have the revolt of the fundamentalists in the republican study conference, cheered on by the asshat newt gingrich. tick tick tick. on top of this, you have a totally discredited president who cannot control his own party any more tick tick tick particularly given that mc-cain's campaign has already decided that the only possibility of winning lay with separating "republican" from "bush administration"--and republicans in the house seem to also think this is a good plan... tick tick tick. at this point, i think this has reached the level of the truly comic, as ideological crises can become when they play out across large-scale crises in other areas. meanwhile, any reasonable person looking at this cannot still believe that the interests of capital and those of the rest of us are the same. i wonder what the next installment of this drama will look like. the dow is down 532. it is 3 pm. tick tick tick. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-29-2008, 11:22 AM	#9 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	If that bill passes, you'll end up with double digit 'official inflation' - AT LEAST - and a subset of banks that can bully the govt at any time they like. Financially unstable, over-leveraged to an insane degree and way, way, way too big to fail... but they will eventually, or keep the economy stagnating so long that... whatever. Japanification. How people are standing by and applauding as huge banks are gobbling up the good and a part of the bad of other huge banks gone sour, while passing the buck to money supply and tax payers is beyond me. Choices: Weimar Republic (with US constitution Mk II) OR Great Depression II (Bigger, Harder, Shorter) Both options mean the death of Empire. Sorry. DJ @ 8k by the end of the year. (that's putting it back on 20 yr trend and bleeding enormously considering inflation) FTSE 100 has lost 30% in 5 months. So far, the printing presses are keeping the enormous wolf at the door only slowly tearing at the door. It won't stop it... You can't borrow or print your way out of debt. [Opinions based on following Kevin Phillips, Krugman, Nouriel Roubini, Calculated Risk and Naked Capitalism fairly religiously over the past year or so, plus watching the explosion of debt in the UK and the rest of Europe with disbelief, following the insanity reigning in the US via t'interweb.] EDIT: This all makes me wonder if those Neo-Cons (and New Labour, Uk-sians) are, really, all incredibly deep cover socialists after all. Viva Bush! Viva Blair! Marx: Give capitalists enough rope and they'll hang themselves. __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}-- Last edited by tisonlyi; 09-29-2008 at 11:52 AM..

09-29-2008, 11:53 AM	#11 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	my favorite bit of debris from this so far is the republican blaming pelosi's speech delivered before the vote for the vote. go conservatives! way to accept responsibility! __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-29-2008, 12:00 PM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what exactly constitutes "fiscally responsible" in a situation that (a) threatens the global capital flow system as a whole on the one hand, but (b) cannot apparently be given a coherent or stable value on the other? no-one seems to know how big a problem this is because everyone---all the rational market actors in this the best of all possible worlds which we call capitalism 2008 stylee--everyone was lying about the values involved with these devices. so what's a "responsible" action here? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-29-2008, 12:23 PM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so wait...the problem is not what is implied by the notion "fiscal responsibility" in the abstract---and your view presupposes a bunch of things are true which are only true within a particular frame of reference, but i dont want to argue about that now---i meant what is "fiscally responsible" in this context? i'll get back to this later... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-29-2008, 10:36 AM	#2 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	I tend to agree that the companies should just take their lumps. Of course that will make things difficult for a while, but it's not like the companies didn't know what they were doing. Can anyone honestly say they didn't think they were writing bad paper??

09-29-2008, 10:36 AM	#3 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	I hope we're all not out on the street in a year or three.

09-29-2008, 10:42 AM	#4 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	hmmm... should i be concerned that my RRSP's will be diminished? All the mutual funds that I invested in for my retirement are getting to be worth less as result. Or do I squint and look at the 20 year horizon.

09-29-2008, 10:43 AM	#5 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	Where they're worth about zero. Economically pessimistic currently.

09-29-2008, 10:48 AM	#6 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	Economies need to adjust. It's part of the ebb and flow of capitalism. The US economy has been artificially supported both domestically and internationally for the last 30 (40? 50?) years through periods when it should have all but collapsed and, I think finally, the pressure is overwhelming. It's going to suck ass for a few years as lots of people lose investments and homes and jobs, but trying to maintain the illusion that everything is ok by throwing $700b at financial institutions with NO oversight is, in my opinion, a far worse situation. You can do a lot of good (or bad) with that much money, and I really don't think I can conceive of a worse option than giving it to the very institutions who made bad choices to get themselves into that mess in the first place. I like the health insurance for the whole country for 4 years or 2000 apple pies for everyone in the country options much better.

09-29-2008, 10:56 AM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I think we need a fiscally responsible plan with oversight and transparency.

09-29-2008, 12:02 PM	#14 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I used open verbiage intentionally to demonstrate that the talking heads need not understand the problem to sound like they do. I doubt there are more than a handful of people in congress that have any clue about how to solve this, and I doubt many of them agree. The only true solution to this problem is a reorganization of our entire economy. Anything less is patchwork on a crashing plane, and anything less is cowardice.

09-29-2008, 12:26 PM	#18 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I hope the opponents to this are happy when their company can't give them a paycheck.

09-29-2008, 12:37 PM	#19 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	Kutulu, the only thing this bill will do is delay this crisis and create a new one. Greenspan will, throughout the ages, be known as the greatest socialist who ever lived. __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

09-29-2008, 12:47 PM	#21 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I'll keep getting paychecks. We're in a boom period despite the bad insurance market. It doesn't hurt that we're owned by one of the few banks doing ok right now. And that my company, office and team have a habit of timing things right. In the big picture, I think that the conservatives have this right. The taxpayers aren't here to take on business risks, which is what happened with AIG (as an aside, it now looks like the US could make up to a 30% return on that loan). The bailout has no reward for the risk being taken on other than the nebulous idea that the sky will stop falling. It is amazing what happens with a small crisis with an incredibly unpopular lame duck President. Especially since the vote broke more down philosophical lines than party ones. Crazy. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

09-29-2008, 02:33 PM	#26 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Can we stop with all the Bailout = Socialism nonsense... The bailout is not socialism but rather just a continuation of crony capitalism. Socialism takes the nation's wealth an redistirbutes to the wider population. This bailout was never going to do that. It was going to benefit only those in the upper eschalons... The ones who were going to pay for it were the wider population (Public wealth into Private hands). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-29-2008, 03:32 PM	#30 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I think this is a much bigger deal that you people will admit. It's gone way past bailing out some fat cats. This is about keeping the market liquid. The shit will hit the fan if the credit market freezes. How are businesses going to get short term loans for payroll? How will they make capital purchases? This will affect us all.

09-29-2008, 03:43 PM	#31 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	I know it's a big deal. I just think that's what happens when you let this much economic pressure build up. We've done everything we can to preserve a foolish illusion that economies can always grow and that recessions/depressions can be wholly prevented. I don't think they can, and I think they're a normal and important part of a healthy economy. By redirecting that economic pressure to artificially prevent small drops, we've led to an inevitable large drop. And, as I've said, if we can muster $700 billion, we can use it to help the entire country instead of trying to use it to "bail out" some big banks who ought to fail for being bad business. Does that create something of a credit crisis? Yes, a major one. But that's something that, at this point, I think needs to happen before we can get things back on track. You said it yourself? Where are we going to get credit? That's the problem. We're plain, fucking out of credit. This country, both the federal government and many of the citizens and businesses have run out that line as far as it goes, and eventually there's no more credit to be had. I'm not pretending this is going to be fun to get through. It won't be. But making the problem worse by adding further credit bloat by tossing more money (spirited in from...somewhere?) at it isn't what we need. We need some politicians who have a shred of a clue about economics. We need to let the economy adjust itself. We need transparency. We need a balanced budget.

09-29-2008, 04:13 PM	#32 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	kutulu... I realize it is a big deal and I agree that it has gotten to the point where something like the bailout needs to happen. For me, I am sure it failed not because people disagreed on the idea of a bailout but over who would control the cash and how that bailout out take place. Some have the idea that it should just be a handover of cash to those that fucked up. Others feel there should be some strings attached. Others... more than just strings. Me? I can see the need for this but I don't want to see the fuckers that are responsible for this walk away with millions in their pockets. Compensation? Sure, just not the kind of golden parachute they have in mind. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-29-2008, 05:16 PM	#33 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	I'd just like to say, my comments about Greenspan being socialist were tongue in cheek... basically, this is still more of the last 35 years: Lets borrow our way out of trouble (private and public)! I hated Newt G [Dawg], but fairly, paying off the debt and balancing the budget were the only way to stop this insanity which REAGAN spawned. I'm happy it's here, because, basically, there's NOTHING that can stop this system from collapsing. The only question is the velocity. Citibank has taken Wachovia, but... give it a few months more of falling house prices and we'll more than cover the leg room Wachovia's assets have given them, bailout or no. __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

09-29-2008, 05:33 PM	#34 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	despite my marxist side, i don't see collapse---i see slow motion devolution of one configuration and the gradual re-emergence of a different one. what seems clearer and clearer that the american position in the global economy is rapidly coming unravelled, but it isn't yet obvious what that means. there is no coherent force from the left bringing pressure from outside the system to push it in a direction that is not already implicit in the operation of capitalism itself. and if the shit really hits the fan in the states, it is still the case that any such move would probably come from the right. but i don't see that happening either at this point---the right is marginalised (in that its discourse appeals only to itself) and internally fractured. so if you look around, the likely tracking forward of this debacle is still well within the framework of capitalism. but the situation that the united states has occupied is coming unravelled. and if things move in a straight line from here, that unravelling could be ugly indeed. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-29-2008, 05:59 PM	#35 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I might write in Ron Paul's name in November. I do think that some regulation is needed, however the dollar failing would be much worst than a wall street crash or anything like that. This is a really complicated problem and it is hard to come up with what would be the best course of action. If we do nothing, what will the free market do? My house can't go down too much and I'll still have my job. But, what if your house has lost $100,000 in value? You can't sell it, you can't move, and if you lose your job or your business, your screwed. Well, actually the bank that issued you that loan is screwed if you declare bankruptcy.

09-29-2008, 06:03 PM	#36 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	The reason I see collapse, eventually, is EXACTLY why you see loss of hegemony. If the rest of the world no longer see an unipolar, American-centric world, why on earth would they continue to fund the US national debt? Why would Saudi Arabia continue to support its reputed, massive holding in DJI stocks - particularly in the US when some of those corps could easily switch base. Why will central banks around the world continue to prop up the US dollar - and make no mistake, they are in a big way - when Pax Americana is over, done, dusted, volumised and demoted from the NYT best-seller list? Will the US happily slash its military complex down to a size that's reasonable for an independent, but not dominant nation? Will the US be easily able to tolerate not denominating the primary currency for the global economy? Is the US well placed to restructure it's energy supply away from oil? Will the US be able to restructure quickly enough to tolerate the shock of it's credit lines being reduced/removed? These things tend to go slowly, slowly, then hit a point and go for a vertical trajectory. I've obviously some lefty leanings in this, but it's capitalist reasoning that's forcing the logic. I don't expect everything to go overnight... It'll be over a decade or so, maybe less. For one reason why the US is no place to put financial confidence, look at the DJI. 14k to almost 10k within a year. Factor in inflation, REAL inflation, and the index looks like it's been spectacularly stagnating for the past 20 years at least. The dollar has had a bounce, only because the FED has miraculously, but no less finally maxed out its abilities to raise interest in dollar purchases while the money supply has gone through the roof. At some point, the loonies in charge of the system have to realise the madmen are in charge of the keys. __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

09-29-2008, 06:54 PM	#40 (permalink)
skizziks Insane Location: out west	Before I add my thoughts, I want you all to know that I've read a few books on economics, and I am as qualified to talk about this subject as Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder are at telling me how many fingers I'm holding up (Actually, they would probably be a bit more accurate than what I have to say) I think the market will dip further, and further, and we are going to have a market crash, a good old fashioned depression, like my grandma lived through. Even if the government "bails out" everyone, where is the money going to come from? I believe I heard they will just print more, causing inflation and devaluing of everything. I see "poor" folks (those without investments) not noticing too much, until businesses go out of business, and they don't have jobs, and so they can't afford what little they have now. The upside is, I think, we will start to focus on what matters and realize that not everyone needs an Escalade, a PS3, two computers, and $120 jeans. Think about it, it all stems from people thinking they have a right to things they can't afford. "I know I only make $20,000 a year, but fuck you, I'm an American and I deserve a $300,000 home, now give it to me." On a smaller scale, "i don't have the cash, but I want those shoes, so I'll just put it on credit." On a larger scale, we have a war and we borrow cash from other countries for what we want RIGHT NOW. It's back to bite us on our greedy solipsistic asses. If somehow the market doesn't crash, we still have that massive debt. China and other countires will want their money, we won't have it, it will take it in land. They will move thier factories here and we will be cheap labor, and Chinese people will complain about and mock things "made in the USA" We've had our time in the spotlight, we have to get off the stage and let the next act do it's thing. Ok, I'm done. If you are still reading, thanks, but that is 1 1/2 minutes of your life you won't get back.