Dow down 504 points

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I was positive the government steps in and takes some dramatic steps of exchange regulation whenever the Dow goes beneath 500, but apparently it's 1,000. I suspect we'll be hitting it at 10,000 in a year or two. Methinks by that point we'll be having another "New Deal" resolution. Greenspan already admitted this is the worst financial crises he's ever seen.

Thank you Phil Gramm (R) for bringing forward two bills that deregulated the financial industry. Thanks to all the greedy men and women at top who thought it was a nice idea to exploit on the poor. You did a great disservice to common decency.

On a positive note I'm amused watching the media squabble over this subject. I know I shouldn't be, but the oncoming tsunami makes me giddy just because it means more "blood" in Wallstreet. I would have payed good money to be a fly on the Stock Exchange electric board. All the economists are holding knives against their throats as the regular guy watches his 401K shrivel up. Surfers should strap themselves up for the killer wave that is going to hit.

Looks like you're better off right now going old school and sitting on your money, but that will just perpetuate the problem. I think I'm going to create a garden in my backyard and go vegetarian for awhile.

[#FF0000]

I'm hiding my money in a mattress as I type this.

[Plagueround]

I'm hiding my money in a mattress as I type this.

I'm constantly fighting with my girlfriend about wanting to buy an assault rifle to protect myself as I type this. ;)

[pusher robot]

Thanks to all the greedy men and women at top who thought it was a nice idea to exploit on the poor. You did a great disservice to common decency.


I suppose it would be impolite for me to point out that this whole fracas was precipitated by lenders lending too much money to "the poor." Until the whole pyramid scheme went belly-up, it was "the poor" who benefited the most from the whole state of affairs, being able to live in housing they could not otherwise afford.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I suppose it would be impolite for me to point out that this whole fracas was precipitated by lenders lending too much money to "the poor." Until the whole pyramid scheme went belly-up, it was "the poor" who benefited the most from the whole state of affairs, being able to live in housing they could not otherwise afford.

It's not an impolite statement. But I would respond by saying that the benefits enjoyed by the poor were temporary, and these next few years are going to reverse a lot of the "assistance." The investors knew the debt would catch up eventually, but profits came before common sense. With the deregulation brought about by the '80s, most banks went straight forward insisting that you could buy the sky over an extended period. It's kind of a remarkable circumstance to think about considering how home sizes haven't really gone up too much in the past 30 years.

This whole fiasco is just a series of events built onto debt, really.

[pusher robot]

It's not an impolite statement. But I would respond by saying that the benefits enjoyed by the poor were temporary, and these next few years are going to reverse a lot of the "assistance." The investors knew the debt would catch up eventually, but profits came before common sense. With the deregulation brought about by the '80s, most banks went straight forward insisting that you could buy the sky over an extended period. It's kind of a remarkable circumstance to think about considering how home sizes haven't really gone up too much in the past 30 years.

This whole fiasco is just a series of events built onto debt, really.


Generally agree, I just want to reinforce that the investors are the ones who will suffer the vast majority of the damage. Rightfully so, of course. So we are all in agreement that they don't, in the end, profit from making these kinds of mistakes.

[IcarusAngel]

Good post.

The fact is, it's Bush-Libertarian world out there. Deregulated markets, environmental degredation and privatization, combined with huge, massive bailouts to corporations, high-unemployment levels, people continually losing their homes, increased foreclosures, people starving to death, increasing "natural" disasters, and seemingly never ending wars.

The world's a mess. It's Reaganism all over again. :laugh:

"But, at least Bush gave us a tax cut." -- Libertarian. :laugh:

I've got a friend in Texas who I believe is right where the hurricane hit and I haven't been able to get in touch with him to tell him he could come stay at my place for a while.

Really, it'll take another new deal to fix all this mess. I think the banking situation is only going to get worse as well.

The problem is the democrats are so spineless they can't even attempt a "great society" any more, and with increasing degredation of the country and more unemployment, comes more political oppression from the government.

Leftists in the US: Take care of yourselves.

[Bud Struggle]

Actually, ther LAST thing we need is another New Deal. The market took a similar hit in the 80s and the government stayed out of the mess and it cleared up in no time--the reason the Depresson lasted so long is because the government got involved in the first place.

[Plagueround]

Actually, ther LAST thing we need is another New Deal. The market took a similar hit in the 80s and the government stayed out of the mess and it cleared up in no time--the reason the Depresson lasted so long is because the government got involved in the first place.

Any era where the national debt almost triples in one presidential term should never be referenced positively where money is concerned. :laugh:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Actually, ther LAST thing we need is another New Deal. The market took a similar hit in the 80s and the government stayed out of the mess and it cleared up in no time--the reason the Depresson lasted so long is because the government got involved in the first place.

You're living in candy land if you think the government just stepped aside in the '80s. The Fed still utilized monetary policy and we adopted a debt solution platform.

Your last statement is libertarian bullshit. The New Deal did not make the Great Depression longer. There was constant growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gdp20-40.jpg) that outperformed anything seen in the '20s. What made the Great Depression longer was the inane trade policies made before FDR was president. Government intervention, yes, but not welfare intervention.

[Bud Struggle]

You're living in candy land if you think the government just stepped aside in the '80s. The Fed still utilized monetary policy and we adopted a debt solution platform.

Your last statement is libertarian bullshit. The New Deal did not make the Great Depression longer. There was constant growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gdp20-40.jpg) that outperformed anything seen in the '20s. What made the Great Depression longer was the inane trade policies made before FDR was president. Government intervention, yes, but not welfare intervention.


You could be right there--I'm no economist.:(

[JimmyJazz]

You just pretend to be one until someone calls you on your shit.

[Sendo]

that's the way you operate in any argument, bluff.

[Robert]

I'm not sure who you guys are referring to when you indict (or not) "the investors." There are several different ones I see, with varying degrees of "venality":

1. How about the average Joe who bought a house in 2001 right after 9-11, sold it in 2005 before the bubble burst, and pocketed the difference. Was he an investor?

2. Same question, but now it's an ee-vil REIT (real estate investment trust).

3. Same question, but make it your retired grandmother in Scranton, whose teacher pension invests a portion of the fund in an evil REIT;

4. How about the stockholders of Fannie, AIG, and Lehman, including granny's IRA? Clearly they invested and are now SOL (I don't mean "statute of limitations," Pusher) on their stock;

5. All the bit players who nibbled off a piece along the way, like part time real estate agents and real estate appraisers, who made those subprime loans work one way or the other? They're not investors, but their hands are less than clean in this;

6. And this one, whose ultimate fate I'm having trouble predicting: the holders of mortgage backed securities issued by Fannie (this again includes sheiks in Bahrain and your granny's IRA again). They're not guaranteed by the government, no, but they are backed by mortgages securing those subprime loans. Pusher, what do you see happening to group 6 over time?

[Comrade Looter]

I'm constantly fighting with my girlfriend about wanting to buy an assault rifle to protect myself as I type this. ;)
She'll appreciate it when shit hits the fan and you have it around when people try to steal from you.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The term investor is commonly understood to mean someone whose bulk of wealth derives from investing (flabbergasted), negating any need to work as a subordinate. Holding some stocks or making money off your house isn't enough to become a capitalist. Chances are the difference won't be much when you factor in the interest on your mortgage.

Students who were able to avoid college debt should have a great time finding a house these next few years.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm not sure who you guys are referring to when you indict (or not) "the investors." There are several different ones I see, with varying degrees of "venality":

1. How about the average Joe who bought a house in 2001 right after 9-11, sold it in 2005 before the bubble burst, and pocketed the difference. Was he an investor?

2. Same question, but now it's an ee-vil REIT (real estate investment trust).

3. Same question, but make it your retired grandmother in Scranton, whose teacher pension invests a portion of the fund in an evil REIT;

4. How about the stockholders of Fannie, AIG, and Lehman, including granny's IRA? Clearly they invested and are now SOL (I don't mean "statute of limitations," Pusher) on their stock;

5. All the bit players who nibbled off a piece along the way, like part time real estate agents and real estate appraisers, who made those subprime loans work one way or the other? They're not investors, but their hands are less than clean in this;

6. And this one, whose ultimate fate I'm having trouble predicting: the holders of mortgage backed securities issued by Fannie (this again includes sheiks in Bahrain and your granny's IRA again). They're not guaranteed by the government, no, but they are backed by mortgages securing those subprime loans. Pusher, what do you see happening to group 6 over time?

That's an interesting post--becuase--almost EVERYONE is in one way or other invested in the operation of Capitalism. Almost all of the people that make Capitalism work are small time operators--this entire real estate mess is "owned" by non-borugeois that play very little parts in the system.

It would be pretty difficult to identify any bourgeois in the entire system. Even the CEO's the these mortage companies don't "own" the mortages. they are sold to mom and pops in refirement funds and college saving plans.

This entire mess started a couple of years ago with a superheated real estate market fueled by derivatives made up of "creative financing" in the mortage sector. The real reason for starting the "creative financing" was the US government which prevented the banks and mortage institutions from red-lining poor and low income people from getting mortages. The banks were forced to give these mortages, but found if bundled correctly there would be a sufficient amount of protection from default.

Next the banks then used these same creative financing options for people across the board--and new as these five year ajustable arms and these negative amortization mortages become due--a fair number of people can't pay.

Creating the crisis. And as Bob mentioned--it will be the small investor, that gets hit. But then again America is ALL almost small investors.

The real bad guy in all of this is the US government forcing banks to loan money to poor people that cant afford to buy houses. The second bad guy is the lending institution that found that shakey mortages make more money in the SHORT term and lastly it's the idiots that bought houses that didn't have a clue what they could afford.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

this entire real estate mess is "owned" by non-borugeois that play very little parts in the system.

It would be pretty difficult to identify any bourgeois in the entire system. Even the CEO's the these mortage companies don't "own" the mortages. they are sold to mom and pops in refirement funds and college saving plans.You can't be serious.

Banks don't consist of bourgeoisie, eh?


The real bad guy in all of this is the US government forcing banks to loan money to poor people that cant afford to buy houses. False dichotomy. Who owns the US government, big guys or the poor?

And actually over half of all these shady loans (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_c risis) were not forced by the CRA.

[RGacky3]

As Comskey once said its tough love,

Love for the rich
Tough for everyone else

Huge companies are allways getting bailed out, AIG is one recent one, for billions of dollors, so theres your free market in action.

[Bud Struggle]

You can't be serious.

Banks don't consist of bourgeoisie, eh?

Banks consist of tons of guys with $3,500 in life savings. Banks consist of tons of guys that took out a mortgage on their $140,000 house. Yea, there's some big time players, I'm not denying that, but the VAST majority of people that do business with banks are small time operators.



False dichotomy. Who owns the US government, big guys or the poor? I believe we both have different answers on this question. :lol:


And actually over half of all these shady loans were not forced by the CRA.
Agreed--I mentioned that. That's where the investment banks went bad--they saw that they were getting away with doing these CRA loans and then moved uptown with "innovative" lending practices. I doubt it's even the CRA loans that are creating the crisis itself. It's the lower income people that moved into mid income housing. The "creative" loans started the housing bubble that was going on in 2004. An average house in Florida--prices around $200,000 in 2003 was appreciating $2000 A WEEK the next year.

The government started the crisis, but the mortage companies spured it on. THEN it was the securities companies that bundled and sold these mortages as derivatives that further fueled the problem. They sold these to banks that were able to give their depositers higher dividends (WaMu--a prime example)

So while everyone is to blame--the government started it off. They should stay out of the private lending market--they should regulate it. I'm not one of those guys that think the market will regulate itself. I also believe in police on the streets. Crooks are everywhere.

[Bud Struggle]

As Comskey once said its tough love,

Love for the rich
Tough for everyone else

Huge companies are allways getting bailed out, AIG is one recent one, for billions of dollors, so theres your free market in action.

These guys insured all those bad loans. If they weren't bailed out LOTS of small banks would fail. If that happened the FDIC that insures your savings would have to bail out all of those banks.

It was much cheeper to bail out AGI than it would be to bail out all those individual people with money in the bank.

Besides, they fired the head of AGI--a bastard if I ever saw one. They got some guy from Allstate to run the place. And actually it was a pretty good move--the government isn't going to run it--they'll run themselves.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I found this interesting:


, President William J. Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Clinton) signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act), which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the effects of the repeal was to allow commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Some economists have criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_subprime_mortgage_financial_crisis).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act#cite_note-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act#cite_note-8) The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup), the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_securities) and collateralized debt obligations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateralized_debt_obligations) and establish so-called structured investment vehicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_investment_vehicles), or SIVs, that bought those securities. Citigroup played a major part in the repeal. Then called Citicorp, the company merged with Travelers Insurance company the year before using loopholes in Glass-Steagall that allowed for temporary exemptions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aDSFgf3DHR_A&refer=exclusive

[Lynx]

Besides, they fired the head of AGI--a bastard if I ever saw one. Will this bastard be receiving millions more in compensation?

Capitalism is a kludge.


‘If you believe’, he shouted to them, ‘clap your hands; don’t let Tink die.’

Some clapped.

Some didn’t.

A few little beasts hissed.

The clapping stopped suddenly....but already Tinkerbell was saved...

[Robert]

Will this bastard be receiving millions more in compensation?
Yes.


http://blogs.bnet.com/ceo/?p=1182

[danyboy27]

this economic crisis still amaze me, seriously.
I think its a good think this kind of shit is happening, its gonna clean the market, and at the same time slow down the us egemony.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The only question now is: do yuppies bounce, or spread across the pavement?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I wish I could fuck up splendidly and still get over $50 million.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Dow is down 449 at closing. That's a steep fall. I predicted going beneath 10,000 in one or two years, but that may be much shorter. We're tracing our steps back to 2000 at this rate.

Methinks in a year's time it will be a perfect opportunity to invest - assuming the whole base doesn't give out on us.

Edit- Apparently the Asian indexes were mostly down as well.

[Bud Struggle]

Dow is down 449 at closing. That's a steep fall. I predicted going beneath 10,000 in one or two years, but that may be much shorter. We're tracing our steps back to 2000 at this rate.

Methinks in a year's time it will be a perfect opportunity to invest - assuming the whole base doesn't give out on us.

Edit- Apparently the Asian indexes were mostly down as well.

All in all I think the real deals are comming in Real Estate. Not quite yet--but as the housing problem gets cleared away more and more of these houses are going to come onto the market--driving the prices down further.

Right now the problems is on the financial institutions--but it will work it's way down the line--and I know housing starts are down, but they are going to fall even further and stay down.

All good. There is a glut of over priced housing on the market. So far the prices haven't fallen that much. People owe more than the house is worth--so they can't afford to do short sales--so they stay where they are. But as the conditions change and people are forced to move--there will be a glut of inexpensive houses on the market.

Now when you buy--you are going to have to hold for a while, but you can live pretty nicely. Another good investment would be rental housing. The "disposessed" are going to have to live somewhere.

As the saying goes--Bulls make money, Bears make money, Pigs make nothing. We are seeing a shake out of pigs.

And for what it was worth EVERYBODY from the commercial banks to the securities firms, to the mortage companies to the idiots who bought houses with mortages they couldn't pay KNEW this was going to come down this way.

[Lynx]

If you're renting an apartment and someone gives you the chance to move into a house with zero down, you'd be an idiot not to jump at the opportunity.

I find it odd that borrowers are asked to exhibit piety.

[Bud Struggle]

Editorial from Investors Business Daily--


They NAILED IT.


Congress Tries To Fix What It Broke

http://www.investors.com/editorial/px.gif
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 9/17/2008
Regulation: As the financial crisis spreads, denials on Capitol Hill grow more shrill. Blame an aloof President Bush, greedy Wall Street, risky capitalism — anybody but those in Congress who wrote the banking rules.

Such denials won't hold against the angry facts banging on their doors. The only question is whether the guilty party can keep up the barricade until Election Day.

A visibly annoyed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected suggestions that Democrats share blame for the meltdown. "No," she snapped at reporters who dared ask.

Stick to our narrative, she scolded: The bursting of the housing bubble was another story of market failure and deregulation.

"The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions," she said, while calling for investigations of the industry.

Only, the risk-taking was her idea — and the idea of all the other Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans, who over the past 30 years have demonized lenders as racist and passed regulation after regulation pressuring them to make more loans to unqualified borrowers in the name of diversity.

They were the ones who screamed — "REDLINING!" — and sent banks scurrying for cover in low-income neighborhoods, where they have been forced to lower long-held industry standards for judging creditworthiness to make the subprime loans.

If they don't comply, they are threatened with stiff penalties under the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, a law that forces banks to make home loans to people with poor credit risks.

No fewer than four federal banking regulatory agencies are responsible for enforcing the law. They subject lenders to racial litmus tests and issue regular report cards, the industry's dreaded "CRA rating."

The more branches that lenders put in poor neighborhoods, and the more loans they make there, the better their rating. Those lenders with low ratings can not only be fined, but also blocked from mergers and other business transactions needed to expand.

The regulation grew to monstrous proportions during the Clinton administration, obsessed as it was with multiculturalism. Amendments to the CRA in the mid-1990s dramatically raised the amount of home loans to otherwise unqualified low-income borrowers.

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama.

HUD, in turn, pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase more subprime mortgages, and Fannie and Freddie, in turn, donated to the campaigns of leading Democrats like Barney Frank and Pelosi who throttled investigations into fraud at the agencies.

Soon, investment banks such as Bear Stearns were aggressively hawking the securities as "guaranteed." Wall Street's pitch was that MBSs were as safe as Treasuries, but with a higher yield.

But they weren't safe. Everyone in the subprime business — from brokers to lenders to banks to investment houses — absolved themselves of responsibility for ensuring the high-risk loans were good.

The mortgage lenders didn't care, because they were going to sell the loans to other banks. The banks didn't care, because they were going to repackage the loans as MBSs. The investors and traders didn't care, because the MBSs were backed by Fannie and Freddie and their implicit government guarantees.

In other words, nobody up and down the line — from the branch office on main street to the high-rise on Wall Street — analyzed the risk of such ill-advised loans. But why should they? Everybody was just doing what the regulators in Washington wanted them to do.

So everybody won until everybody lost, including the minorities the government originally mandated the banks to serve.

The original culprits in all this were the social engineers who compelled banks to make the bad loans. The private sector has no business conducting social experiments on behalf of government. Its business is making profit. Period. So it did what it naturally does and turned the subprime social mandate into a lucrative industry.

Of course, it was a Ponzi scheme, because they weren't allowed to play by their rules. The government changed the rules for risk.

In order to put low-income minorities into home loans, they were ordered to suspend lending standards that had served the banking industry well for centuries. No one wants to talk about it, so they just scapegoat Wall Street. Even John McCain has joined the Democrat chorus on this.

The FBI is now investigating 24 large mortgage lenders for alleged abuses. But who will investigate the pols and the lobbyists and the community agitators who made the bad decisions that ultimately forced businesses to make their bad decisions?

http://http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=306544845091102

[Lynx]

Blaming the government won't earn Wall Street much sympathy. Nobody sees them as victims.

[Robert]

So, Lynxy dude pal o' mine, that old 401K lookin' a little better today?

Seen the futures?

[Lynx]

No 401k, no RRSP, and my Quebec Pension Plan contributions are managed by someone else. I own my own home, a house. Unlike a Wall Street portfolio, a house is much more tangible.

Are you an insider trader, Robert?

The Future by Leonard Cohen

Give me back my broken night
my mirrored room, my secret life
it's lonely here,
there's no one left to torture
Give me absolute control
over every living soul
And lie beside me, baby,
that's an order!
Give me crack and anal sex
Take the only tree that's left
and stuff it up the hole
in your culture
Give me back the Berlin wall
give me Stalin and St Paul
I've seen the future, brother:
it is murder.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant

You don't know me from the wind
you never will, you never did
I'm the little jew
who wrote the Bible
I've seen the nations rise and fall
I've heard their stories, heard them all
but love's the only engine of survival
Your servant here, he has been told
to say it clear, to say it cold:
It's over, it ain't going
any further
And now the wheels of heaven stop
you feel the devil's riding crop
Get ready for the future:
it is murder

Things are going to slide ...

There'll be the breaking of the ancient
western code
Your private life will suddenly explode
There'll be phantoms
There'll be fires on the road
and the white man dancing
You'll see a woman
hanging upside down
her features covered by her fallen gown
and all the lousy little poets
coming round
tryin' to sound like Charlie Manson
and the white man dancin'

Give me back the Berlin wall
Give me Stalin and St Paul
Give me Christ
or give me Hiroshima
Destroy another fetus now
We don't like children anyhow
I've seen the future, baby:
it is murder

Things are going to slide ...

When they said REPENT REPENT ...

[Bud Struggle]

The only question now is: do yuppies bounce, or spread across the pavement?

From the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122173471692152059.html

Stocks Soar; Banks Lead the Way

The Dow Jones Industrial Average swung in a 567-point range between gains and losses, ending 410.03 points higher, up 3.9%, at 11019.69.

Not only do yuppies bounce--they bounce back. :lol:

[Robert]

Are you an insider trader, Robert?

Nope. Only thing I ever traded was baseball cards, and I lost my ass!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

From the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122173471692152059.html

Stocks Soar; Banks Lead the Way

The Dow Jones Industrial Average swung in a 567-point range between gains and losses, ending 410.03 points higher, up 3.9%, at 11019.69.

Not only do yuppies bounce--they bounce back. :lol:

I betch'ya every country this side of the Baltic pumped billions of dollars into their markets to relieve panic. ;)

[Bud Struggle]

Meanwhile on the "other" side of the Baltic--because the market is TOO HOT!!!

Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Russia's two largest bourses halted trading at 11:05 a.m. as stocks surged upon opening, spokesmen for the RTS and Micex exchanges said.
The RTS halted stock trading for one hour, spokesmen Lev Bystrov said by telephone. The Micex stock exchange hasn't determined how long trading will be suspended, spokesman Alexei Gerasyuk said.

Damn good bounce--if you ask me.

As far as the government pouring in some cash--that's how Capitalism works these days. And as I pointed out earlier the government's "Social Programs" were the main cause of this debacle.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

And I pointed out that social programs were not the MAIN source of the problem. It was deregulation. Deregulation is not a social program.

[Dust Bunnies]

It is horrible. Talk about a free market and not helping the struggling, but then you bail out big companies in said "Free Market". I probably need to study economics more to understand.

[Bud Struggle]

It is horrible. Talk about a free market and not helping the struggling, but then you bail out big companies in said "Free Market". I probably need to study economics more to understand.

The big companies are owned by millions of little people.

The Proletarians are the Capitalists, and the Capitalists are the Proletarians. That's the magic of Capitalism! :lol:

[Dust Bunnies]

So every single prole in America just profited from the bailout?

[RGacky3]

The big companies are owned by millions of little people.

The Proletarians are the Capitalists, and the Capitalists are the Proletarians. That's the magic of Capitalism

All thats need to be done is look at wealth distribution and ownership numbers and statistics to show that, that is completely untrue.

Capitalism needs the government to keep it afloat, thats what the 30s taught us, which effectively proved fascist economic theory right, you need the State + the Capitalist to move the country forward, they work together, of coarse this screws over the poor.