網路城邦
回本城市首頁 不平則鳴
市長:麥芽糖  副市長: 一葉孤鴻*Jackey*逸名blackjack
加入本城市推薦本城市加入我的最愛訂閱最新文章
udn城市政治社會政治時事【不平則鳴】城市/討論區/
討論區太公的荊洲 字體:
看回應文章  上一個討論主題 回文章列表 下一個討論主題
破筍破桶﹐何日可滿﹖
 瀏覽1,031|回應2推薦1

曾太公
等級:8
留言加入好友
文章推薦人 (1)

麥芽糖

Paulson changes tack on financial rescue

Consumer-finance sector will get help, but mortgage asset plan shelved

By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
Last update: 10:52 a.m. EST Nov. 12, 2008
 
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson laid out his plans for the next stage of the financial market rescue package, announcing he has shelved a plan to buy troubled mortgage assets and is moving his attention to non-banks and consumer finance.

綜觀人類文明史﹐以經濟為核心(改天我會談談現代法制方面的複雜可怕)﹐從以貨易貨(barter)﹐到以『錢』(money)作為交易媒介﹐再演變至『信用』(credit)﹐成為現代社會最新的融通工具﹔各種現代投資術語或 vehicle ﹐會把人給弄得眼花目眩﹐其實﹐抓本就實﹐最根本的主軸﹐還是萬變不離其宗﹐一切在價值(value)。

交易(trade)﹐根本是價值的交換。現世一般草民﹐大多只涉及現金(cash)﹐給五元﹐換得一份漢堡止饑﹐也就很自然的以台幣﹑美金這些外在形式的錢幣﹐取代價值的本体﹔而現代經濟學家﹐追求科學化﹐第一步﹐當然是要有客觀可評的『數量化』(quantification )﹐演成萬事皆以『錢(貨幣)』為準則﹐政府預算如此﹐國家毛生產額等統計﹐亦然如斯。一切經濟活動及現象﹐如果不透過市場運作﹐以貨幣價格﹐展現出其價值﹐都被視為狗屁。因此﹐家庭托兒(daycare)生產出極高的國民生產額﹐但家庭主婦﹐持家相夫教子﹐就是沒有生產性﹐在國家經濟文件數字上﹐毫無價值可言。這顯然絕不符事實﹐對吧﹖

回歸這一則新聞﹐老美破筍亂搞﹐弄得各方破敗﹐想法作為各處碰壁﹐而今似乎在焦頭爛額之際﹐開始學點基本經濟學原理﹐從救金融体系﹐轉而想在其外﹐找治療藥劑﹐有一丁點開悟乎﹖

整個國家﹑社會﹑國際社會﹐為他付出太大學費﹐比台灣為老李﹑阿扁付出更高代價﹗為政者﹐係常人﹐會犯錯﹐而且一旦似破筍般﹐玩桍子弟﹐無心在民﹐拿出七千億獅口大開的計劃﹐卻只有三頁﹐比當年太公等人﹐呈給經國總統的一般說帖﹐全文還要迷你﹐這就全民會有大禍焉。伊娘列﹗真的是司馬懿所言﹕『在將不在兵』。

金融大災難﹐一再擴大﹐從金融銀行﹐到保險﹐走到汔車工業﹐再至信用卡(美國萬通卡昨日要求三十八億融資)﹐忽現零售業求助﹔看來﹐各行各業大人﹐人人各拿各的桶子飯碗﹐都來要乞食一杯羹湯﹐就看你破筍﹐觀音請羅漢﹐有多大的家當﹖可以佈施吧﹗

太公早已說過﹐股市道瓊應該可以在一萬二千點浮動﹐但是面對破筍胡亂攪局﹐也只能說﹐天作孽猶可活﹐自作孽就沒屁股﹗前不久﹐才修正為會跌至八千五百點以下(到一九九七年﹐太公與芝加哥舅老爺首談股票的水平)﹔這是近日﹐太公數度提出﹕『揚湯止沸﹐不如釜底抽薪』﹐『給魚吃﹐不如教人魚釣』﹐想指出本源。看起來﹐破筍還是雞腦﹐伊娘的無悟﹐不知漢高祖進關中﹐三道律令『殺人者死』﹐天下大治﹐中國老祖『輕政簡刑﹐與民休息』的至理。

今天﹐太公就在此﹐把話說得更明更醜﹐請教聯網各位高人﹐拿著有破底的桶子猛灌水﹐這無底洞﹐何日可見半滿﹐情勢能穩住呢﹖您沒笨到像破筍那樣﹐不知先修補好破洞﹐至少不漏請注意這『或』一字﹐學問可大喔﹗)﹐再圖其他吧﹖

附錄﹕

Paulson lays out rescue-plan shift to consumers

But in a striking admission, Paulson said that buying up mortgage assets "is not the most effective way" to use government funding.

"This will take weeks to design and then it will take longer to get up and going," Paulson said.

*** 

Finally some VIP in power admitted his solution on the supply side of credit has not working.  For months, I keep to direct you that it is not caused by credit supply, it is the other side of the coin: demand side.  You don't believe and keep to ignore me.  Now, you say you will dramatically switch to "consumer."  Sounds it is a new direction, but I just wonder if it is the right one for you and the public!

Common, Paulson, don't just give us your bullshit by saying what "is not" and change your tone of one-day urgency into "weeks to design", after you and Ben Bernanke spent $2 trillion on the financial sector or to bailout the Wall street fat cats.  Well, Paulson, your tuition to learn basics of the science of Economy is too costly to our nation's economy.  

Instead, tell us what it is the medicine and what shall or can be done to quick fix the problem. 

Now, looking around at what we get.   We have to "enjoy" the dumb-duck Congress under leadership of Speaker Pelosi and FDIC Chairwoman Bair in banking and housing market, it seems you guys still can't see the core problem of daily reality yet; and keep your faiths in Kevin Phillips' saying "socialism for the rich."  (NOTE:  Socialism is supposed for the poor, working or middle classes.  It is so funny to see it be used for the rich.")

I gave up my hope to Paulson or GWB.  Hopefully, everything can be reversed in 50 days, if Obama can be as wise and smart as the most Americans hope for.  

 

PS: As said by Alex Merk, Merk Investments, "[Paulson's] been flip-flopping on every plan and it doesn't look like he has a plan." it is no plan at all.   All at Paulson's hands is a "hot potato."  Gee! it is great to my content since it still come up with a "P" for an idiot, even not a plan, but a potato.

   

11/12/2008 01:25 PM by E T (********)EditDelete


雲遊去了﹐有緣自聚

本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘

引用
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=50539&aid=3099565
 回應文章
政府不是CEO的管理﹐而是綱舉目張的Govern
推薦0


曾太公
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

 

Financials: Survival first
Barack Obama's most important task will be to save the financial-services industry. After that: More regulation and lower profits.
(40 minutes ago)
+2 Votes
2 Up
0 Dn

Wrong! Obama's most important job is to restore the "trust" and "confidence" of consumers. It is not a right approach to cure or solve the recent "recession" to bail out the big guys.

Looking at the bottom, those middle or working classes is trying so hard to make a living. Literally they are dying as a rotten wood.   How can the branches survive?  You guys in DC just concern about those big fats; and those automakers just claim they are the Main Street.  I agree that there would be a job loss disaster if we let them down.  But it is very clear that it is not the way to make things right.

When I listened to the news that there is a huge inventory in Long Beach Port of California, about 5 miles long cars of Toyota and Mercedes. I believe, the most important is to move their 2009 models into their dealer's lot for a good sale. But How to do that?   Good question, an idiot knows the answer.

We can give fish to anybody, including automakers.   But the better way is to teach them how to fishing to make a decent living and business.   Is it the purpose for the existence of a government?  Isn't it all the government for? 

Yesterday, even I said I am sorry to see the stock plunge below 8,000.  Since we overlook the right approach to cure the root, but keep ourselves busy in small perspective to give the branches a treat, I do expect its further falling.  Now Dow went down for another 440 point to 7,552 today.

I have no further to say, but to have my mercy toward those futrure victims if our politicians are busy in the credit "supply" side, and don't realize what they are ignoring the "demand" side of the coin.

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=50539&aid=3111237
See, I Told You So.
推薦1


曾太公
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

麥芽糖

Credit crunch due to lack of borrowers: Lacker 

By Greg Robb,  (MarketWatch) --  

The credit crunch is more about lack of opportunities for good loans than concern about bank capital, Richmond Federal Reserve Bank Jeffrey Lacker said Wednesday. "My reading of current conditions is that bank lending is constrained more now by the supply of creditworthy borrowers than by the supply of bank capital," he commented.

Lacker's remarks put him at odds with the majority of the Fed's policy-makers, who have approved an unprecedented increase in lending to shore up the financial sector. 

****

Finally, after so long waiting, someone in the FED Reserve system is so brave to speak out the truth.

Did I mention long ago what caused the problem?  It is not the "supply" side of credit crunch.  Now, you should know why I said it is on the other side of the coin: "demand" side, i.e. Lacker's "the supply of creditworthy borrowers."  That is, first, the consumers who demand a loan and secondly. they are ready, willing, effective consumers of a loan.  Why they just vaporized?  Where can we find them?  How to win them back? 

No surprise to me, that the Dow index plunged below 8,000 down to 7,997 today since I gave out that opinion to my dear girl friend-wife 10 days ago.   Some people claimed it shall be the bottom.  Sorry to say it will keep falling; and it won't hit the bottom until we can see FED take a REAL serious action to have those private investors back.  Well, so far, no good news or signal right at the corner.  Let's enjoy coolaid, wait and watch their "soap show" for now.

Why a gun shop is able to do business of more than $100,000 a day NOW? Why a dealer of Safe box has a booming sales?   Both of them would have more sales if they could have no difficult time to order enough inventory to sell?   Why people need a safe at home? Per "Nightline" report, it is surely more safe than putting those money just taken out of banks under mattress.  But why?

What the root is?  What the branch is?  Dame it, those GWB gangsters are so blind and naive (if not biased to have those Wall Street fats spoiled) that they shall be sent back to college to learn the basic of the science of Economy.  But, we paid too too much for their plans.

 

PS: I am tired to say anything now since I realized that it has been just my farting with no result.  Later, I may post 3 articles written by others with my comments, to better your understandings on what "demand" side means.

11/19/2008 05:06 PM by E T (********)Edit Delete

 

 
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=50539&aid=3109835