BillOfRights
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,181
Irrational exuberance
Economic News
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 3K
- Views: 157K
- Politics
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,689
2008 wasn't about easy money, it was about incompetent management of financial institutions. Still Greenies fault but for slightly different reasons.
- Messages
- 2,767
I respectfully disagree...
Alan's easy money in 2006 pumped the housing bubble, sub prime mortgages, and other crap ending in the collapse of financial institutions and the great recession of 2008.
Sad to say (sorta ), I benefited from this stupidity. I owned a house at the beach and sold it for an absurd price because I figured the housing bubble was going to burst.
I hope I'm wrong but the next 18 months feels like we are on track to experience another GQP presidential led disaster enabled by a capitulating Fed
- Messages
- 2,671
Yep. Remains to be seen whether this (combined with the presence of a ton of passive investors through 401ks, etc) has created a cultural cheat code where the market always goes up...or if it just means that the next time we have a crash, it could end up worse than any before.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,689
Many times there have been categories of assets that spectacularly failed. Once they brought down the financial system (1929); and once they almost brought down the financial system; and otherwise the financial system has been more or less fine.
It wasn't the failure of the assets that caused the meltdown. It was -- in 2007 and 1928 both -- inadequate regulation of leverage. Greenspan fundamentally did not understand that derivative assets can create way more leverage dollar for dollar than debt. Hence he thought the banking system was awesome when it was dying.
- Messages
- 684
Wasn’t sure where to put this.
www.kiplinger.com
Six Changes Coming to Social Security in 2026
Big changes are coming to Social Security in the year ahead, impacting everything from the size of your benefit check to your full retirement age. Here's what you need to know.
Six Changes Coming to Social Security in 2026
Big changes are coming to Social Security in the year ahead, impacting everything from the size of your benefit check to your full retirement age. Here's what you need to know.
www.kiplinger.com
Duke Mu
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,604
Powell: Trump - you've sucked just enough so it *may* be possible to lower Fed interest rates. Titrate that TACO!
- Messages
- 29,242
Corporate America’s Newest Activist Investor: Donald Trump
The president is demanding government stakes in U.S. companies and cuts of their revenue. Experts see some similarities to state-managed capitalism in other parts of the world.
Corporate America’s Newest Activist Investor: Donald Trump
The president is demanding government stakes in U.S. companies and cuts of their revenue. Experts see some similarities to state-managed capitalism in other parts of the world.
“…These developments could herald a shift from America’s vaunted free-market system to one that resembles, at least in some corners, a form of state-managed capitalism more frequently seen in Europe and, to a different degree, China and Russia, say lawyers, bankers and academics steeped in the history of hostile takeovers and international business.
And the actions are sending Wall Street’s bankers and lawyers scrambling to help companies come up with a playbook to defend against or least find ways to mollify Mr. Trump.
“Virtually every company I’ve talked to which is a regular recipient of subsidies or grants from the government is concerned about this right now,” Kai Liekefett, co-chairman of the corporate defense practice at the law firm Sidley Austin, said in an interview.…”
1moretimeagain
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,561
As has been their practice in 2025, I notice the corporate heavyweights were very quiet about the government deciding it would become the largest shareholder of Intel.
- Messages
- 29,242
Appeasement, Capitulation and Extreme Flattery (and 24 karat gold tchotchkes) are the coins of the realm.
Wasn't able to read the NY Times article. But I know one of Trump's arguments is that the shares are non-voting shares. What is the article's argument for why non-voting shares = government control?Corporate America’s Newest Activist Investor: Donald Trump
The president is demanding government stakes in U.S. companies and cuts of their revenue. Experts see some similarities to state-managed capitalism in other parts of the world.
Corporate America’s Newest Activist Investor: Donald Trump
The president is demanding government stakes in U.S. companies and cuts of their revenue. Experts see some similarities to state-managed capitalism in other parts of the world.www.nytimes.com
“…These developments could herald a shift from America’s vaunted free-market system to one that resembles, at least in some corners, a form of state-managed capitalism more frequently seen in Europe and, to a different degree, China and Russia, say lawyers, bankers and academics steeped in the history of hostile takeovers and international business.
And the actions are sending Wall Street’s bankers and lawyers scrambling to help companies come up with a playbook to defend against or least find ways to mollify Mr. Trump.
“Virtually every company I’ve talked to which is a regular recipient of subsidies or grants from the government is concerned about this right now,” Kai Liekefett, co-chairman of the corporate defense practice at the law firm Sidley Austin, said in an interview.…”
I suppose we can complain that government equity positions in corporations is a form of socialism. Me, I prefer a more direct approach. Its BAD FOR the economy. That would be my preferred talking point.
Would anyone want to fly today if Jimmy Carter had not deregulated the airline industry in 1978? Before that, the government was creating barriers to completion, involved in setting flight destinations, and even setting ticket prices. It was bad for the economy.
Its not often, that government ownership or involvement in normal economic decision making is good for an economy. Sure, you can find examples where it looks like it works. But in most cases, it eventually gets reversed or is just not worth the trouble.
Would anyone want to fly today if Jimmy Carter had not deregulated the airline industry in 1978? Before that, the government was creating barriers to completion, involved in setting flight destinations, and even setting ticket prices. It was bad for the economy.
Its not often, that government ownership or involvement in normal economic decision making is good for an economy. Sure, you can find examples where it looks like it works. But in most cases, it eventually gets reversed or is just not worth the trouble.
- Messages
- 29,242
“I wanna try to get as much as I can. People come in and they need something. As n example, as a real estate person if I have uhhh an agreement and I have a uhh I have any form of stop gap where I can stop somebody from doing something right? I have a covenant in an agreement and they come to me and they say uh I would like to do something but you have us restricted uhhh if I do that usually they have to pay.
Now in the case of Intel it was interesting but I hope I’m gonna have many more cases like it. Uh intel came in I met with a gentleman I had a lot of respect for him he came in under a little bit of a cloud uhhh I liked his story I thought he was good I think he really means to do a good job with Intel. I said I’d like to ask whether or not you’d give the United, GIVE, cause it coulda [still me? Mumbled] cause a lotta people said I invested in it, I didn’t invest but I invest my heart in it and my soul because I want the country to be strong but uh I said I’d like you to give 10% of Intel to the United States of America, not to me, to the United States of America and I said if you have them as a partner, you have the United States as a partner I think that would be a very good thing for Intel.
And he thought about it a little bit different and he said I like that idea very much we have a deal. And that’s I just made ten billion dollars or eleven billion dollars for the United States of America.”
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,689
I don't see anything about them being non-voting. The article says that the government doesn't get a board seat or any special corporate governance provisions, which would be relatively common in a commercial private equity purchase (I mean an equity purchase by a private party; not a PE fund). But if it has 10% voting control, that's not quite a controlling stake but it's pretty big and comes with a lot of power.