Why Fannie/Freddie is so stupid, but will probably happen

Pyramid Scheme. Just that simple.

Yes, this is a great idea. And the those top 5 foreigners are also the top holders of US Treasury debt, so let's default on that too. And there's no reason to consider the largest domestic holders, i.e, pension funds. Because why shouldn't grandma and grandpa be forced to work a little longer? I never thought there was any social positives to come out of promoting home ownership. Why do people need home loans anyway?

And I didn't realize Cayman Islands and Luxembourg were just tax havens for the rich, it's a good thing we have a back-office clerk on these boards to clear things up!

"back-office clerk"

you think the "clerks" set these offshore admins up?

and even though i'm not a back office clerk, what's with the superiority complex? what are you, a some sort of front office lord?

why do these "my dick is bigger than your dick" self-reinforcing pat-on-my-back attitudes keep resurfacing? must be a combination of self-confidence/anxiety issues.

btw Goldie, you do bring up very valid points. there are options besides a full head-on bailouts as Roubini has astutely delineated on his blog:

"Of course most of Wall Street, domestic and foreign investors and Congress are already screaming and begging “Bail us out, bail us out!” as their $5 trillion holdings of agency debt will take a significant hit if the insolvency hole of the GSEs – after the shareholders are wiped out – is filled not with public bailout money but rather with an haircut on the bonds held by Fannie and Freddie creditors. On top of bondholders not wanting to take a hit almost every politician – including McCain that in a former life was one of the shamed and corrupt members of the Keating Five club when he facilitated the S&L scam – is now clamoring for a bailout of Fannie and Freddie under the argument that not rescuing them would lead to a collapse of the mortgage and housing markets. But these screams of “the sky will fall” if we don’t rescue Fannie and Freddie are vastly exaggerated and incorrect for a number of reasons.

First, notice that the hit that bondholders will take will be limited in the absence of their bailout. With a debt/liabilities of about $5 trillion and expected insolvency – as of now and in the worst scenario of $200 to $300 billion – the necessary haircut is relatively modest: either a reduction in the face value of the claims of the order of 5% (if the mid-point hole is $250 billion) or – for unchanged face value – a very modest reduction in the interest rate on their debt after it has been forcibly restructured.

Second, a 5% haircut is much smaller than the 75% haircut that the holders of Argentine sovereign bonds suffered in 2001-2005, much smaller than the haircuts that holders or Russian and Ecuadorean debt suffered after those sovereign defaults, and much smaller than the 30% haircut that holders of corporate bonds suffer on average when a corporation goes into Chapter 11 and its debt is restructured. So why should Uncle Sam – i.e. eventually the U.S. taxpayer – pay that $250 billion bill when investors in the U.S. and around the world can afford it? The same investors are getting a fat subsidy of $50 billion a year (whose NPV is much bigger than $250 billion) for holding claims that now provide a 100bps spread above Treasuries and are under the implicit guarantee of a full bailout.

Third, of the two options we need to pick one: either we formally guarantee those claims and start paying the Treasury yield on that debt saving the tax payer that $50 billion subsidy; or if we maintain the subsidy a credit event in the form of a small haircut because of insolvency would be the fair cost that such investors pay for earning the extra spread over Treasuries.

Fourth, while the haircut would reduce the market value of such agency debt and inflict mark to market losses to investors such losses are already priced by the fact that the widening of the agency debt spread relative to Treasuries – from 10bps to about 100bps – has reduced the mark to market value of such agency debt. So, in the current legal limbo of insolvent GSEs whose debt is however not formally guaranteed the persistence of the spread would lead to those $250 billion mark-to-market losses regardless of a formal default, restructuring and haircut on that debt. We may as well resolve that insolvency and restore the positive net worth of the GSEs by doing the haircut.

Fifth, a haircut on the debt of the GSEs does not need to destroy their business, the mortgage market or the housing market. The best debtor is a solvent debtor that has restructured and reduced its unsustainable debt burden: that is why firms coming out of a Chapter 11 process that reduces their debt burdens are viable businesses ready again to produce goods and services in a viable and profitable way. The worst thing that can happen to the GSEs is to remain as zombie comatose insolvent institutions whose debt burden is not restructured and who are barely propped by an implicit government lifeline. Do we really believe that GSEs with unrestructured debt kept alive in a zombie government “conservatorship” (the solution now most likely preferred by the U.S. administration) could function properly and continue their service of supporting the mortgage and housing market? Lets instead clean them up first and make them financially viable – after an out-of-court Chapter 11 style debt reduction – so as to ensure that they keep on providing the public goods that they are alleged to give.

Sixth, the existence of GSEs and the implicit subsidy that they provide to the housing sector and mortgage market is a major part of the overall U.S. subsidization of housing capital that will eventually lead to the bankruptcy of the U.S. economy. For the last 70 years investment in housing – the most unproductive form of accumulation of capital – has been heavily subsidized in 100 different ways in the U.S.: tax benefits, tax-deductibility of interest on mortgages, use of the FHA, massive role of Fannie and Freddie, role of the Federal Home Loan Bank system, and a host of other legislative and regulatory measures.

The reality is that the U.S. has invested too much – especially in the last eight years – in building its stock of wasteful housing capital (whose effect on the productivity of labor is zero) and has not invested enough in the accumulation of productive physical capital (equipment, machinery, etc.) that leads to an increase in the productivity of labor and increases long run economic growth. This financial crisis is a crisis of accumulation of too much debt – by the household sector, the government and the country – to finance the accumulation of the most useless and unproductive form of capital, housing, that provides only housing services to consumers and has zippo effect on the productivity of labor. So enough of subsidizing the accumulation of even bigger MacMansions through the tax system and the GSEs.

And these MacMansions and the broader sprawl of suburbian/exurban housing are now worth much less – in NPV terms – not only because of the housing bust and the fall in home prices but also because: a) the high oil and energy prices makes it outrageously expensive to heat those excessively big homes; b) households living in suburbian and exurban homes that are far from centers of work, business and production that are not served by public transportation are burdened with transportation costs that are becoming unsustainable given the high price of gasoline. So on top of the housing bust that will reduce home values by an average of 30% relative to peak high oil/energy prices make the same large homes in the far boonies of suburbia/exurbia worth even less – probably another 10% down – because of the cost of heating palatial MacMansions and because of the cost of traveling dozens of miles to get to work in gas guzzling SUVs. Thus, it is time to stop this destruction of national income and wealth that a cockamamie decades long policy of subsidizing the accumulation of wasteful and unproductive housing capital has caused."

That was a most excellent last post MMafia.

Lot's of good stuff in here MMAfia. You know how I feel about Roubini, but these two paragraphs say it all. I couldn't agree more.

"The reality is that the U.S. has invested too much – especially in the last eight years – in building its stock of wasteful housing capital (whose effect on the productivity of labor is zero) and has not invested enough in the accumulation of productive physical capital (equipment, machinery, etc.) that leads to an increase in the productivity of labor and increases long run economic growth. This financial crisis is a crisis of accumulation of too much debt – by the household sector, the government and the country – to finance the accumulation of the most useless and unproductive form of capital, housing, that provides only housing services to consumers and has zippo effect on the productivity of labor. So enough of subsidizing the accumulation of even bigger MacMansions through the tax system and the GSEs.

And these MacMansions and the broader sprawl of suburbian/exurban housing are now worth much less – in NPV terms – not only because of the housing bust and the fall in home prices but also because: a) the high oil and energy prices makes it outrageously expensive to heat those excessively big homes; b) households living in suburbian and exurban homes that are far from centers of work, business and production that are not served by public transportation are burdened with transportation costs that are becoming unsustainable given the high price of gasoline. So on top of the housing bust that will reduce home values by an average of 30% relative to peak high oil/energy prices make the same large homes in the far boonies of suburbia/exurbia worth even less – probably another 10% down – because of the cost of heating palatial MacMansions and because of the cost of traveling dozens of miles to get to work in gas guzzling SUVs. Thus, it is time to stop this destruction of national income and wealth that a cockamamie decades long policy of subsidizing the accumulation of wasteful and unproductive housing capital has caused."

Well MMafia, I, like many people on this site, listen to your drivel, which mainly consists of posting someone else's article to support some nonsense idea. I wasn't making any statement on haircuts, investments, McMansions or SUVs. But I was stating that your original thesis that we shouldn't bail out the agencies because it's only foreign investors that gain, is complete nonsense. The reality is those offshore investors include American money, like pension plans. The problem is that you don't understand that because you have little financial knowledge. I also stated your argument regarding foreign ownership of agency bonds holds even better for US Treasuries (foreigners now own more than 50% of US Treasuries) and by your reasoning, we should also default on our US Treasury obligations. You also ignore the costs to domestic investors, which is a serious omission.

The reality is you can't justify your original comments, I don't disagree with Roubini, it just has little to do with your thesis.

Nice try Goldie,

But did you read the title of this post? did you not notice that the title says "... but will probably happen"? as in, the BAILOUT WILL PROBABLY HAPPEN?

If I had my way, we WOULDN'T BAIL OUT these investors and let them suffer. If you didn't know what you were getting into with your money, if you put them in risky asset classes dealing with mortgages that were clearly a ponzi scheme, then guess what? Why should the taxpayers bail you out???

Easy- they shouldn't. Otherwise they should bail me out when I go play blackjack at the casino and lose.

Finally, don't try to make it seem that I only post other people's drivel and don't contribute to this forum. Ask JuiceMan. Read the thread where I cleared up some serious confusion about elasticity with respect to demand, supply and pricing. Now that wasn't a cut and paste job there now was it?

As far as my little financial knowledge goes- that's your perception. Everyone is entitled to their own.

To CLOSE THIS, the original post wasn't even mine to begin with. Do you see how I ended it by thanking GMeli?

Do I post copy and paste content? Yes- when I feel it is relevant and that people on this board should be aware. Do I ONLY post copy and paste content?

NO. If you issues with my "drivel", just click on that "ignore this person" link Goldie. No one is forcing you to read why I write, or what I copy and paste from other informative blogs.

Juice, I agree- those two paragraphs were very well written. Exactly why I thought posting it here would be beneficial to those who might not happen to be members of Roubini's blog.

Goldie, why didn't we bail out Enron's employees? They had their retirement in company stock- many thousands of people lost their life savings in one fell swoop. Where was the government there?

Where is the consistency? You think the ex-Enron employees think it's fair? I tell you, go talk to some of them and see how they feel. CHEATED. AND NO BAILOUT.

Ask yourself this question:

How come now, the government is trying to crack down on the "EVIL" speculators driving up commodity (namely oil) prices up? Why the House pass the bill to force the CFTC to use all measures, including emergency powers to QUELL these evil speculators?

But where were they with the speculators who drove up the DotCom bubble? Or how about the Housing bubble?

What, those speculators where all of a sudden, not evil?

Again, where is the consistency? Where is the fairness, equality and justice here?

That's right. It's not here. And that is the reality of the world and this country where we live.

"The reality is that the U.S. has invested too much – especially in the last eight years – in building its stock of wasteful housing capital (whose effect on the productivity of labor is zero)"

I wonder how blogging effects "the productivity of labor"?

80sMan, negatively. =D

MMAfia looks like Wall Street is not buying the FRE and FNM's line that all is okay. Both are down today.

Goldie, since you think I have no financial knowledge,

how about Jim Rogers? He came out today saying the same thing:

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?N=av&T=Rogers%20Calls%20Fannie%2C%20Freddie%20Rescue%20Plan%20a%20%60Disaster%27&clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vIQvD7yNni2I.asf

Clearly I couldn't have copy and pasted his interview since it didn't happen until today.

Do you think he has financial knowledge?

Spunky, yes, you are right- it's hard to tell though because quite frankly, this is uncharted territory and the market really does not know what to do... we shall see in the coming weeks, but for now, uncertainty is very high.

MMafia, I think it's through these posts that you're trying to compensate for being forced to sit at the kiddie table when the adults discuss economic issues. But there's a reason they sit you there and you really need to learn to quit when you're behind. Your senseless original rant argued Freddie and Fannie shouldn't be bailed out because it was only foreigners who would gain.

You can post other people's comments to your heart's content but no competent person is going to support your argument that we shouldn't bail out the agencies because it only helps the foreigners. And yes, a hedge fund manager with a short agency position is the perfect person to get an unbiased view on what the government should do.

It's these kind of posts that will ensure you remain at the kiddie table. Is it hot dogs or chicken fingers tonight?

Goldie why is it absolutely necessary that the government bail this company out. I realize that if you work for FNM and FRE it certainly would be a hardship. I also understand that both these companies were given special tax breaks and incentives by the government and the biggest beneficiaries were the CEO and other executives. In fact I also understand that one the strategic growth plans was to elect past Democratic and Republic congressman on their board of directors. Our government should of required both these companies to have the financial backup and reserves to protect themselves against unforeseen write downs. Why in the world should the taxpayers continue to bail out these mismanaged companies run by excessively high paid executives.

I agree with spunky. Many large companies trade to 0 and the world doesn't end. Both agencies could reorganize and continue to operate, or both could disappear and a newly created agency could come in and perform the same function, but with stricter regulations. Why does the government have to buy shares in the open market, which will do nothing whatsoever. Someone put me in my place if I'm wrong.

Fannie & Freddie now account for over 80% of the new mortgage business now that the banks are shoring up their balance sheets. It would be naive to believe banks will be back in the mortgage business anytime soon, they've got too much capital to raise, and investors aren't exactly lining up to give them money. This is one reason why Freddie and Fannie exist, to provide loans when banks can't. If Freddie and Fannie go under that would be the end of home sales. We could potentially be looking at a 1930's recession or worse. While this isn't a certainty, this scenario has some probability and no politician wants to be associated with causing a depression. Therefore it is obvious Fannie and Freddie will be bailed out, adding to government debt is much more politically palatable than causing a depression.

I'm torn on whether they should be bailed out, I have no problem with investors losing their money, they should, they took a risk and bet wrong. This is what capitalism is all about. But the consequences of agency bankruptcy could be very ugly. Policymakers need to choose between the lesser of two evils and they're going to get criticism either way.

Well said Goldie

Suggest we let Fannie and Freddie and other government-related institutions fail, default on Treasuries next, and even cancel old U.S. Dollars.

This way we will have fiscal discipline which will be encouraged by perpetually higher interest rates and costs of capital and forever lower regard for the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

LIke I have been saying, Nothing like we have ever seen. If everyone spoke the truth and laid their cards on the table, it would send shock waves through the global financial world. The lies are becoming worse by the day and can't be hidden for much longer.

uh, ok, helpful posting.

Just curious if the gov bails FNM and FRE how much do you think they would pay per share? I think 2 bucks is way to high

If you believe former St. Louis Fed president and long-time agency critic William Poole, the agencies are technically bankrupt. But he didn't detail his calculations. The value of the agencies' assets and liabilities will be more of an art than a science and mortgage markets are incredibly volatile, wait until you hear the stories shareholders are going to spew about the quality of those assets. The top rationale is going to be that most of the agency mortgages were originated years ago and default rates on those securities are much lower than the recent 2006 and 2007 vintages. They'll gloss over the fact that there are no buyers for these mortgages and risk appetites have vanished.

I long for the days of $1,000 government toilet seats, they're going to seem like a bargain versus tomorrow's government spending.

If you believe former St. Louis Fed president and long-time agency critic William Poole, the agencies are technically bankrupt. But he didn't detail his calculations. The value of the agencies' assets and liabilities will be more of an art than a science and mortgage markets are incredibly volatile, wait until you hear the stories shareholders are going to spew about the quality of those assets. The top rationale is going to be that most of the agency mortgages were originated years ago and default rates on those securities are much lower than the recent 2006 and 2007 vintages. They'll gloss over the fact that there are no buyers for these mortgages and risk appetites have vanished.

I long for the days of $1,000 government toilet seats, they're going to seem like a bargain versus tomorrow's government spending.

If you believe former St. Louis Fed president and long-time agency critic William Poole, the agencies are technically bankrupt. But he didn't detail his calculations. The value of the agencies' assets and liabilities will be more of an art than a science and mortgage markets are incredibly volatile, wait until you hear the stories shareholders are going to spew about the quality of those assets. The top rationale is going to be that most of the agency mortgages were originated years ago and default rates on those securities are much lower than the recent 2006 and 2007 vintages. They'll gloss over the fact that there are no buyers for these mortgages and risk appetites have vanished.

I long for the days of $1,000 government toilet seats, they're going to seem like a bargain versus tomorrow's government spending.

If you believe former St. Louis Fed president and long-time agency critic William Poole, the agencies are technically bankrupt. But he didn't detail his calculations. The value of the agencies' assets and liabilities will be more of an art than a science and mortgage markets are incredibly volatile, wait until you hear the stories shareholders are going to spew about the quality of those assets. The top rationale is going to be that most of the agency mortgages were originated years ago and default rates on those securities are much lower than the recent 2006 and 2007 vintages. They'll gloss over the fact that there are no buyers for these mortgages and risk appetites have vanished.

I long for the days of $1,000 government toilet seats, they're going to seem like a bargain versus tomorrow's government spending.

Wow- 4 posts in a row!

"I think it's through these posts that you're trying to compensate for being forced to sit at the kiddie table when the adults discuss economic issues. But there's a reason they sit you there and you really need to learn to quit when you're behind."

Ahh.. anyways... Goldie Oldie? Back to your superiority complex issues once again.. first it was the back office clerk, now it is the kiddie table. lmao. seriously, you should learn from petrfitz if you want to continue to play that game.

Eschewing your immature characterizations:

1. Did you read the title of this post? The title of this entire thread says "...but will probably happen".

Now, how am I naive when the Title of this entire thread essentially says that I think they will get bailed out? Clearly I am talking not about reality (since I thought that they would get bailed out) but more of a matter of principle.

2. Your analysis of "But the consequences of agency bankruptcy could be very ugly" is the same analysis applied to when the Fed essentially bent the rules to bail out Bear Stearns, due to the "potential unraveling" of derivatives.

A better analysis would be "what are the consequences of these bail outs, and do they really solve the problem or merely postponing the inevitable which just keeps growing into a bigger and nastier problem with each attempt to delay?"

3. First you mock my financial understanding, but then, when someone else who is a recognized investment professional speaks of the same analysis, all of a sudden you pull the "oh but it's a conflict of interest" justification to dismiss the analysis. Quite convenient. Also, quite rudimentary- I was expecting more from you.

4. When did I ever say that only the foreign investors would benefit? Didn't I say $1.3 trillion are held by foreign investors? What happened to the rest of the $5 trillion? Did I give you too much credit to realize that $1.3 trillion does not make up the entire bond portfolio? Perhaps I did.

You cannot resolve all the problems we have today by trying to re-inflate because inflating is what caused the problem to begin with. To the Fed's (and other Central Banks) credit, they are trying mightily hard to re-inflate and jump start things, but clearly, the private sector is having none of it as credit supply has shrunk dramatically amidst the massive re-inflation.

It's like the first time you told a lie as a kid. You start telling other lies to support the original, digging yourself deeper and deeper into your grave, until finally, the cycle cracks and the truth comes out and you suffer a lot more pain than if you had just admitted to the truth earlier.

BOTTOM LINE: the financial system needs to take a dump badly. we all know what happens when we keep it in. that's right, it's just that much worse when we inevitably take the dump later on. is that analysis elementary enough for me to merit my lack of financial understanding Goldie?

Let's see who will be next to file Bankruptcy (outside Financials).

My guess is General Motors. Yes, you heard it first here.

manhattanguy, that's on the short list, no pun intended.

manhattanguy,

You sound like you are parroting cnbc.

Looks like Jim Rogers is getting quite the media exposure since yesterday:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25684069

His message is getting out to more and more people. As far as conflicts of interest goes, this guys has been shorting those two GSE's for many years now. He's already made his huge profits since most of the decline has already happened and makes a convincing case that he simply thinks it "just bad for America".

"parroting cnbc"
last time I watched CNBC (last fall), I thought it was a cheerleading network for Bulls

Now Roubini getting some primetime exposure on CNBC... message spreading further:

http://clicks.skem1.com/v/?u=b7f735a57e1e55e511316be276bd3850&g=1933&c=444&p=e251feeaa0655dd39f49239902affbd6&t=1

... this bailout plan is socialism for the rich, the well connected and Wall Street...

Since he's a professor, you can't really use the "conflict of interest" scapegoat here. You can use the "he's just a perma-bear" scapegoat. Problem is, he's been right so far.

Uhh MMafia, I'll make a few points about your original post:

1) the title is senseless
2) the original design of the agencies was flawed, you can't have capitalists earn returns on what is basically a business driven by a government guarantee. Everything works well until we find out the cost to taxpayers of that government guarantee. That's why no one should have any sympathy for equity holders. Or the senior managers of these agencies who were making private banking salaries from a government business. You didn't understand these were the original problems.
3) your analysis that agencies shouldn't be bailed out because it would only help foreign bond investors to whom we've been paying a premium is about the dumbest thing that's ever been posted on this site. If foreign investors weren't supporting our bond markets, we'd be paying much higher interest rates, the dollar would be weaker and inflation would be higher. We need foreign investors, particularly as we're running record deficits.

Explain to us MMafia, aside from printing money and causing inflation, where you think the cash is going to come from to fund our record deficits. And while you fail to understand the level of domestic bank exposures to the agency bonds, please tell us why this isn't anything policymakers should concern themselves over.

Obviously a person of your intelligence has the answers, the world needs to hear your words of wisdom. No need to post other people's thoughts, why not try and answer something on your own? And while I thank you for posting other people's articles on this site, I have one that may interest you.....

http://www.sesameworkshop.org/sesamestreet/games/pottytime/flash.php?contentId=16805504

Ahhh Goldie Goldie...

1) no comment if you can't read

2) these agencies have existed for over 70 years. only recently did they turn into the mess that they have become. if they were flawed from the beginning, they would have failed much earlier. but of course, you wouldn't be able to explain that now would you? however, we are absolutely on the same page regarding the equity holders and senior managers who should be jailed.

3) agencies, including foreign bond investors should not be completely bailed out. they must pay the some price. the 'haircut' approach is realistic one. never did i say that we wouldn't have problems. stop putting words in my mouth. we WILL have problems. what you cannot seem to get through your thick skull is that the problems we'd have by biting the bullet now (weak dollar, high interest rates and high inflation and a painful recession) is the lesser evil than if we continue to bail everyone out and postpone the inevitable.

"Explain to us MMafia, aside from printing money and causing inflation, where you think the cash is going to come from to fund our record deficits."

That's exactly the point that you're missing! There won't be cash to fund the record deficits, so that the cycle is finally broken, American Treasury ratings get downgraded, we go into a recession and perhaps a bout of deflation, and clean out all the excesses that we have accumulated over the decades by living well beyond our means using borrowed money and revert back to an environment where people spend what they have instead of what they can borrow and actually have a positive savings rate. We can't keep on inflating/printing worthless paper money to sustain our over-extended borrowing habits which eventually feeds into larger trade deficits and the self-feeding cycle. Every hear of hyper-inflation?

"And while you fail to understand the level of domestic bank exposures to the agency bonds, please tell us why this isn't anything policymakers should concern themselves over."

Please, spare me the attempts to paint me as someone who doesn't understand the "level of domestic bank exposures to the agency bonds". Okay, okay, we all get it. You think I'm a back office clerk who is a kiddie addicted to Sesame street. Must be embarrassing to get rebuffed by a little kiddie now is it? ROTFLOL!!!

"No need to post other people's thoughts, why not try and answer something on your own?"

Why don't you re-read this post to try and get what I posted through your thick skull? Come on, if a little kiddie can get, so can you Goldie Oldie!!

MMafia Jimmy Rogers wears a bow tie that in itself is reason to hate this man.

LOL spunky... totally. i never did like the bowtie. i remember, one of the portfolio managers i used to work with back up in Boston used to wear a bow tie (pink nonetheless) and i would grimace the entire time i was in meetings with him. ugh.

Roubini is worse than the a bow tie -- a democrat!!!!

Interesting catch phrase... Fannie and Freddie "too chinese to fail"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=arWnu82MRqQk&refer=home

Jim Rogers is telling everyone to invest in China. How is that doing these days?

Ahh, I'm out of town for a few days and I see Wile E Coyote aka MMafia has come up with another genius set of thoughts! But now I realize I made a mistake in encouraging him. Yes, the solution is for Treasuries to get downgraded, maybe default, have a little minor recession and then magically "clean out all the excesses." Should work out well. Can anyone else picture MMafia E Coyote, a match and a rocket packed with explosives?

Pure genius!

Ohhh Goldie Oldie...

Back to your kiddie references aren't we? Now it's Wile E Coyote? LOL. I used to love his dedication.

But back to reality, aside from the immature characterizations, do you have anything to substantive to say? that's it? Come on, you can do better than that...

Hmmmm... I know you can do better than Paulson can then...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFDlOzJGriI

Even the Wile E Coyote could put on a better string of responses than that!

lmao jprx

Yes, Bunning, that financial genius, good thing we have him on the case. Between the two of you, we'll resolve this with little trouble. Nice touch.

As nice a touch as this article which is currently on the front page of marketwatch.com (which i hate, but still is a sign of how the ideology is changing in mainstream media):

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/eleven-reasons-america-new-top/story.aspx?guid={D23E1901-728E-4A3C-99D1-7E80F74C3AE3}

Number 1 on the list?

"1. Dumber than a fifth grader with cognitive dissonance
Kids know what it means. They know most adults today can't see past the end of their noses. Liberals tune out candidate McBush for being lost in the past. Conservatives can't hear Obama without seeing that turban.
Cognitive dissonance simply means most brains cannot see past their own narrow ideologies. They dismiss any data that contradicts their old ideologies. Whether you're a conservative Republican or liberal Democrat, you only hear what you already know is "true." All else is tuned out. "

Quite ironic Goldie Oldie that apparently fifth graders can see further than you... that's right, keep focusing on what's on the tip of your nose. inflate all problems away as we have continually done so in the past to get us in this massive mess we're in today. suuuure, there's gonna be consequences, but we need to solve today's problems NOW no matter what the cost in the future!!!!

C'mon Oldie, I know you've got something better than that weak "nice touch" comeback.

MMafia, you really need to do yourself a favor and stop embarrassing yourself. Your knowledge of basic economics is weak and your postings are unstructured rants, which is why you need to resort to posting what other people say. Sad really.

Ahhh Goldie, that's it? Sad, I had higher hopes for you. Ok then, go back to sticking your head in the sand then. We'll pull you out after the smoke clears.