Economist Dean Baker put these principles in print for the bailout, and I am quoting them:

"The Fed and Treasury are right to take steps to avert this disaster. While there is an urgency to put a bailout program in place, there are several important issues that Congress should address in the context of bailout. While there is not time to prepare all the details of the financial restructuring that will follow after the bailout, there can be an agreement on the outlines that this restructuring should take. This list of suggestions is presented in that context:

"Principles to Guide the Bailout

"1) Financial institutions should be forced to endure the bulk of the losses with taxpayer funds only used where absolutely necessary to sustain the orderly operation of the financial system.

"2) The bailout must be designed to minimize the opportunity for gaming.

"3) The bailout should be designed to minimize moral hazard.

"4) In the case of delinquent mortgages that come into the government's possession, there should be an effort to work out an arrangement that allows the homeowner to remain in her house as owner. If this proves impossible, then former homeowners should be allowed to remain in their homes as renters paying the market rent. This should be done even if it leads to losses to the government.

"5) There should be serious efforts to severely restrict executive compensation at any companies that directly benefit from the bailout."

No doubt. A bit of levity always tends to defuse a tense situation ... as does calling out inappropriate behavior (at least in civilized company)

And my thanks to those who do!

Dr.J.

No, just the most impotent, which goes to the first explanation, not the last.

YOu quote a story about old news, and blogs?  Get real!  It does prove one thing.  The opposition is the one that keeps bringing it up.  Seriously, get new material.  Your jokes are lame, and you sir are no Obama.

Too bad.  You may have heard something you did not want to hear, but then we dont expect that now do we?

Yup, and there's a reason for that: much of what is happening there is happening here in Oz (other parts of the Word)... some of it a domino effect resulting from political/financial events in the US: some of it because our politicians haven't the balls to tell Bush 'NO': some of it because of global trade agreements/markets causing our domestic manufacturing going into decline, thus increasing imports, decreasing exports while reducing employent and the GDP.

I may not completely understand the intricate web woven into the fabric of the US Constitution and/or politics, but I sure as hell understand when it screws us at the same time it is screwing you over.

We have exactly the same situation here... not one of the upper echelon of the McQuarie Bank is less than a millionaire - most are multi-millionaires - and in its wisdom, the McQuarie Board has seen fit to award billions in bonuses in recent years to already obscenely rich board members/high level employees.  At retirement (including bonuses of 26 million), one such board member got a 37 million dollar handshake goodbye, thus propelling him into the top 100 richest in Australia with 170+ million. It's totally obscene when so many are strugging to put food on the table/gas in the tank... he's never ever going to be able to spend it in (what remains of) his lifetime... and (underworked overpaid) he certainly never earned it.. at least not honestly.  I mean, what makes his 40 hour week, *expertise* more valuable than *say* a life saving brain surgeon who puts in 50 hours for 100th of the pay.

Some will say it is the right of capitalists, but when corporate entities trample/stomp all over anything and everything in their paths to succeeed/dominate; lobby governments to legislate in their favour/turn a blind eye to that which is not in the common good; and richly reward themselves with fat *unearned* bonuses at the expense of everyone, particularly the 'have nots' - then capitalism is not a good economic model... and less so when corporations deny workers employment/the means to live by moving operations/manufacturing offshore to minimise costs by exploiting cheap (sometimes child) labour in Third World countries, thus eroding our standard of living by paying Third World workers a pittance, even by their own standards, for work we can do ourselves to support ourselves.

Neither your government or ours has done anything to stem the flow of jobs heading offshore/to help reconstruct a sustainable economy based on 'real' productivity rather than electronic money tied up in stocks and shares that fluctuate too far too frequently to provide economic stability... and that's why big business and government should never sleep in the same bed.  They're too busy scratching each others backs to notice/care that they are effing up millions of lives.

Too bloody right. What happened to the Social Contract? You know....the realization and committment to the fabric of "We will care for eachother" and the realization that without our committment to eachother's welfare we have a predatory, all consuming horde of ravenously greedy animals not humans?

Value is different from cost: The value of people is that they care for eachother. The cost of not doing so is the mess we are "living" in (I'm not dealing in dictionary definitions here). That is the reason punitive action is needed now for the insatiably greedy people NT mentioned in his post.

I believe the absence, in part, is the 'I gave at work' syndrome. As Government has 'taken' (taken, because it was never part of this country's founder's plan) on the role of giving welfare (also known as redistribution of wealth) to those it deemed 'needy', the common man's commitment to each other's welfare has fallen off.

Ironically, or perhaps understandably, those that promote the State welfare over personal giving tend to give less to their common man in the form of charities, etc. according to many reports I've seen. Joe Biden comes to mind.

After all, they gave at work.

I think you fall victim to a matter of classic diversion.  CEO contracts, like any other contracts are based on a competitive employment market place.  The shareholders are presented with options for leadership.  They are more than willing to pay enormous bonuses to earn enormous reward.  " I have a proven track record of success.  I will make you 100 billion dollars, but if you want me, it will cost you 10 billion dollars" and the shareholders say YES.  An like any other competitive contract, the employee can build protections for him/hers self shoould thing not work out and the shareholders say YES.  Tom Brady will be paid a fortune this year even if the Pats loose the rest of the games and he doesn't play at all.  JUst part of what it took to get him to sign up.  CEO's at the investment banks or any other corporation do the same, no more no less.  Yet, I see no rage or cries of greed at the football player who wants $400 million dollar contract. But if everyone is focused on the horrible greed of these CEO's than they will not focus on the people(CONGRESS) that put all the laws in motion in 1999, and again in 2003 that changed the structure of lending in this country and ultimately led to the current debacle.

Like wise with the blame on 'Wall STreet".  A lot of resentment about "bailing out " the fat cats on Wall Street.  I would like to know who exactly it was that got bailed out/  Certainly not the 5 investment banks that have ceased to exist or their employees.  Even the most successful, Goldman and Morgan Stanley got painted with the same brush and have had to turn themselves in regular commercial banks with enormous staff cutbacks and a world of new regulations to follow.

Actually, the people with investments held by thse concerns are the ones that got bailed out.  That is you my friend if you have a pension, a 401k, a profit sharing plan, a retirment account, an insurance annuity, a car loan, a mortgage and any other items that requires a world of reliable credit.  You may well believe that you did not have an account with any of the firms mentioned, but it is more than likely that they were involved in your life one way ot another just as your mortgage is bundled up and sold to someone else.

The diversion of Main Street vs Wall Street (they are joined a the hip in reality)merely diverts your attention away from the gov and congress where the real blame has it home and then ultimately to each of us for passively watching it all take place ot just blaming it all onGeorge Bush and figuring if he is gone so will be all the problems.   Why should not the whole congress be thrown out on their ear as well? Diverdsion, diversion, diversion.  Meanwhile we'll go on and on about the evil fat cats.

Hi Ken! Good to be able to discuss things with one of the main populators of my desktop!!! Now to destroy you bwahaha (lol...I really am just joking! You know how I feel about you). What you described with the capital YES is the licensure of unbridled, unsustainable greed. The same goes (and I've said so to my friends on many occasions) for the Pro athletes who are the beneficiaries of the advertising people...it all boils down to consumer/stockholder driven economics which if unregulated (by laws and conscience) yield the current incredible mess.

I am speaking about punitive action for ruining these people's (and many more) lives: For causing them to be homeless (non speculators) and jobless. I also believe punitive action is justified for the CEO's (Reagan, Clinton, Bush x 2) who propagated this irresponsible bubble and who abrogated their public duty. Can you honestly believe that they did this out of ignorance? No, their motives were pecuniary and power related. I do not find J.Q. Public innocent either: We the people have abrogated our duty to our country. We therefore have ended up with the government we so richly (lol) deserve. I do not wish to enumerate or list all the things I see or feel are wrong.

I am not surprised, therefore that we agree yet again about things (I say 'again' because I bet you think your walls are beautiful also!) see above and your final paragraph. Believe me, Ken: It isn't easy to fool an old Doc. We've seen alot,

Thanks again for this opportunity to share thoughts with you, and on a more personal note, thank you for adding beauty to this and my world, Ken.

Doc

[quote]it all boils down to consumer/stockholder driven economics which if unregulated (by laws and conscience) yield the current incredible mess.[/quote

I just think one has to be consistant in approach.  If one is a believer in the less regulation the better, than one should also be against any bail out and let the chips fall where they may however ugly that may be. 

Likewise if one favors regulation,  it must require the effort of proper oversight and accountability not only after the fact.

As for conscience well that is my least favorite thing to ever rely on for public good.

Good chating with you Doc and thanks for the kind words as well!

Cheers!

I'll throw a couple lines in here as I really don't like to type...

I'am for regulating certain things...Utilities...Banks...Governments. state, local and federal.  And I say let the chips fall but I also see that if we do that, the shit will really hit the fan.  These profiteers should be jailed and not in a country club setting, a real jail for raping the companies.

Our electric company was given the right to buy the gas (ng)company.  So the electric co. buy gas from their ng gas co. and sets the price high so our electricity cost goes up and if you use natural gas, that price goes up.  Ya get screwed both ways.  That was deregulation.  Screw all the little people.

Thats not just the presidents that get the blame, the house and senate had to vote on that deregulation bill.  Thats one reason I say what ever party has the presidency, the other party has to control either the house or senate to keep the checks and balances in order.

Crap, tired of typing.

WOM:

We agree. I am in favor of much more regulation.

Being an old Doc, I have come to see the negative while holding on to the positive. I can't get away from the feeling that laziness, greed and corruption are at the base of this stuff. We've witnessed it endlessly since the beginning of the world!

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

"Greed is good." - Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas - "Wall Street")

These folks need to be taken out behind the woodshed. Their rapacious profits need to be "redistributed". Watch and see how that won't happen. If you or I tried that crap, we'd sit in an 8x6 for decades. Them? "Which sized yacht this time, sir?"

"It's not enough that Justice be done. It must be seen to be done." - Oliver Wendell Holmes (I think).

Oh yes!  Most important to feed the greed of the underclass, how else we will get them in the game!

Heheheheheheh!