The clip above shows Franklin D. Roosevelt campaigning for the US presidency in 1933, using eerily familiar rhetoric. The clip opened the second portion of last week’s episode of The Explainer (which you can watch on YouTube), which focused on the Great Depression (in it, I asked my guest to expound on his blog post, Smartly protectionist). The Great Depression has provided a lot of grist for the mill in recent years, for example see A history lesson from the Great Depression – How the World Works – Salon.com
Today, I was going to focus on what’s going on in America but I’m down with the flu so it will have to be for next week.
For the past couple of weeks watching Bloomberg’s been a riveting experience as experts try to grapple with the goings-on in markets in the US and elsewhere. Non-experts, too: Question for a Management Class makes for quite interesting reading.
On the eve of the US House of Representatives voting on the bailout, a group of American economists released an open letter calling on representatives to reject the bailout plan. Columnist Will Hutton in The Guardian pointed out the argument at the heart of the economists’ opposition (and, by all accounts, among US voters who had House Republicans spooked about a popular backlash if they voted for the White House-proposed bailout plan):
And although some conservatives in Britain and America continue to make the ideological case against any government action as a response to the recent turmoil – governments necessarily do everything worse than the market – they have no alternative proposal about how to restore trust once it has gone. Trust is a reciprocal relationship, dependent upon a desire to be considered decent and honourable. Even in the dog-eat-dog financial markets, trust and integrity are matters of self-interest. However amoral you may be, it is in your interest to care about your reputation, because if you behave badly you will not do business with me – or others – on favourable terms again.
But the scale of the personal rewards now available in London and Wall Street – £15m-£20m at the top is the norm – along with the greed-is-good doctrine associated with extreme laissez-faire economics, has trashed the need for individuals to worry about integrity. They don’t need to be concerned about their reputations; they just need one deal or one year at the top and they need never work again. The incentive structure has so departed from one of the principal norms of fairness – proportionality between value added and reward – that it has eviscerated trust relationships and integrity.
Everybody tries to ‘game’ the system on their route to vast personal fortunes – whether short-selling, packaging up dud mortgages as prime mortgages or telling lies about their financial viability – and the result is that the system is getting wise. The best course today in any financial transaction is to presume zero integrity. Credit is drying up and with it the very lifeblood of the economy.
Worse, now that the system is in trouble, financiers are turning to taxpayers in the US and Britain for help without understanding the other key principal of fairness – that we will consider helping those who for no fault of their own get into trouble, but not those who freely created their own bad circumstances.
Hank Paulson certainly acted decisively in launching his plan, but the former Goldman Sachs CEO, who negotiated a special exemption from tax when he took the job, like his former Wall Street colleagues is not well endowed with the fairness gene. It polluted the very design of the scheme.
He knows that unless the US government does something comprehensive, the entire financial system is at stake, but his original plan was designed to bail out the system intact. It made no demands that any financial executives sacrifice pay or bonuses despite having driven their firms and wider economy to the point of bankruptcy. He does not want the government to provide new bank capital to help recapitalise a bust banking system. Instead, he wants the government to buy their toxic debt and so leave the banks unreformed. On top he wanted complete discretion to act as he chose without any oversight.
American economists of every persuasion signed a joint letter complaining not at the aim of the bail out, which is plainly vital, but for its lack of fairness. Conservative papers and politicians echoed the complaint. Suddenly, Wall Street is coming back to earth. The transactions from which it skims such riches are built on the savings of ordinary Americans to whom it has obligations, as it has to other Wall Street firms. What we know now about the yet to be agreed compromise is that Paulson has accepted Congressional oversight, will offer direct help to distressed US homeowners as well as banks, and will accept some constraints on the worst excesses of executive pay.
But the core proposal remains. The government will buy toxic debt rather than inject government funds into the banks’ capital base, in other words, reject even partially nationalising the entire US banking system as the Swedes had to in 1992. I don’t know – nobody does – whether the Paulson plan would be sufficient or whether ultimately the Americans will have to go for nationalisation. What I do know is that unless there is a radical and government-led change in ownership, structure, regulation and incentives so that the principles of fairness are put at the heart of the Anglo American financial system – proportionality of reward and fair distribution of risk – there is no chance of the return of trust and integrity upon which long-term recovery depends.
In the end the House of Representatives rejected the White House plan. FT.com / In depth – House rejects US bail-out bill, stitched the news together with failures and rescues in the UK, Benelux and Germany; and in House to Wall Street: Drop dead – MarketWatch says the Republicans were the ones who blinked:
Republicans voted against the bill by a two-to-one ratio, and in the process rejected their own leadership, who had worked for nearly a week to craft a bill that could gain a majority. Nearly 100 Democrats also voted against the bill, spurning their leadership.Many Republicans in the House were never persuaded that the credit crunch in the financial system is an impending disaster deserving of taxpayer aid. Politicians who had cut their teeth on free-market principles couldn’t accept the idea that the federal government should back up the banks who had foolishly bet everything on the housing bubble.Or they didn’t want to face the voters in six weeks and explain why a Republican would vote for the biggest government bailout ever.
In his blog, Howard Lindzom put it bluntly:
The market has been demanding a large scope bailout plan for weeks. The market has been chewing through financials one by one until it gets what it wants.
Let’s not kid ourselves, the markets are rigged. The bailout is a wimpy ass way to deal with the problem for sure, but a $1.2 trillion loss in market cap was just TODAY’s tradeoff. The market wants some extra rigging short-term and a meltdown is/was the trade-off.
The people in Washington know very little about a lot of things. That is their specialty, their claime to fame. They know shit ass less than nothing about the stock market and the MOOD of America that matters (money). Today, you saw what a bad mood can bring from traders. Tomorrow and for the next week you will see what panic brings as the selling accelerates.
This crisis though is not about the stock market, it is about THE CREDIT MARKETS. There is NO access to capital. We are shut down for business. Way worse than after 9/11 when the markets were closed. At least than, we were out shopping at the request of our President. Now we are just deer in the headlights at the whim of the House of Reps and Congress and Senate who just seem out to punish the rich. Bullshit politics. Everybody has a chance to be famous. They are really punishing everybody else.
The FED is out of bullets and we have absolutely zero leadership or hopes of any leadership soon.
On that sobering note, as the New York exchange plunged (777 points), and then Asia, too (biggest drop since 1987), An analyst on Bloomberg dryly said, “Cash seems to be the safest place to put your money now.” Commodity prices had their biggest drop in 52 years (since the index began). The Australian Prime Minister issued a statement appealing to the US Congress to pass the emergency measure, a sentiment echoed by the Japanese Finance Minister.George W. Bush will address his countrymen shortly before the markets open on Tuesday.
This seems a colossal game of “chicken,” with political leaders answerable to voters pitted on a collision course with financiers normally dismissive of nations, sovereignty, etc., demanding a bailout from the political leaders, otherwise everything comes crashing down. It’s interesting that as today wore on, the analysist began to speak rather confidently of the bailout being passed by the end of the week.
The Republican nightmare is obviously straight out of the Hollywood version of populist Huey Long’s barely fictionalized movie biopic, All the King’s Men:
Here at home, people have been nervous ever since insurance giant AIG ended up being taken over by the US government to prevent its collapse. See Business – Are my Philam investments safe? in INQUIRER.net
There are also concerns, now, over the possibility of bank runs and to head off potential panic, the Central Bank has tried to make soothing noises. See Business – How safe is my money in the bank? also in INQUIRER.net
Salve Duplito, who authored the two articles above, then goes on to point out that instead of hand-wringing, some sober planning is in order for ordinary people: Money Smarts » How are you dealing with the crisis?
As for the economists, Nouriel Roubini takes a kind of grim satisfaction in not turning out to be a Cassandra (see The Worst Financial Crisis Since the Great Depression and the subsequent The Shadow Banking System is Unravelling:Such demise confirmed by Morgan and Goldman now being converted into banks) while Roubini then looks at the proposed 700 billion dollar bailout plan and compares it to other bailouts in the past: Is Purchasing $700 billion of Toxic Assets the Best Way to Recapitalize the Financial System? No! It is Rather a Disgrace and Rip-Off Benefitting only the Shareholders and Unsecured Creditors of Banks
Whenever there is a systemic banking crisis there is a need to recapitalize the banking/financial system to avoid an excessive and destructive credit contraction. But purchasing toxic/illiquid assets of the financial system is not the most effective and efficient way to recapitalize the banking system. Such recapitalization — via the use of public resources — can occur in a number of alternative ways: purchase of bad assets/loans; government injection of preferred shares; government injection of common shares; government purchase of subordinated debt; government issuance of government bonds to be placed on the banks’ balance sheet; government injection of cash; government credit lines extended to the banks; government assumption of government liabilities.
A recent IMF study of 42 systemic banking crises across the world provides evidence on how different crises were resolved. First of all only in 32 of the 42 cases there was government financial intervention of any sort; in 10 cases systemic banking crises were resolved without any government financial intervention. Of the 32 cases where the government recapitalized the banking system only seven included a program of purchase of bad assets/loans (like the one proposed by the US Treasury). In 25 other cases there was no government purchase of such toxic assets. In 6 cases the government purchased preferred shares; in 4 cases the government purchased common shares; in 11 cases the government purchased subordinated debt; in 12 cases the government injected cash in the banks; in 2 cases credit was extended to the banks; and in 3 cases the government assumed bank liabilities. Even in cases where bad assets were purchased — as in Chile — dividends were suspended and all profits and recoveries had to be used to repurchase the bad assets. Of course in most cases multiple forms of government recapitalization of banks were used.
But government purchase of bad assets was the exception rather than the rule. It was used only in Mexico, Japan, Bolivia, Czech Republic, Jamaica, Malaysia, and Paraguay. Even in six of these seven cases where the recapitalization of banks occurred via the government purchase of bad assets such recapitalization was a combination of purchase of bad assets together with other forms of recapitalization (such as government purchase of preferred shares or subordinated debt).
In the Scandinavian banking crises (Sweden, Norway, Finland) that are a model of how a banking crisis should be resolved there was not government purchase of bad assets; most of the recapitalization occurred through various injections of public capital in the banking system. Purchase of toxic assets instead — in most cases in which it was used — made the fiscal cost of the crisis much higher and expensive (as in Japan and Mexico).
Thus the claim by the Fed and Treasury that spending $700 billion of public money is the best way to recapitalize banks has absolutely no factual basis or justification. This way of recapitalizing financial institutions is a total rip-off that will mostly benefit — at a huge expense for the US taxpayer – the common and preferred shareholders and even unsecured creditors of the banks. Even the late addition of some warrants that the government will get in exchange of this massive injection of public money is only a cosmetic fig leaf of dubious value as the form and size of such warrants is totally vague and fuzzy.
Others have tried to translate the amount in human terms:CJR: What Can You Buy For $700 Billion?
It would reimburse banks, home owners, and local governments for nearly 9 million foreclosures – It could prevent over 200 million foreclosures – It could buy 8.6 billion monthly Metrocards – The government could rebuild Katrina-ravished New Orleans and Gulf Coast… three and a half times – Roughly 538 Yankee Stadiums could be built – 5.4 million students could be sent to a public university – It equals nearly 520 times the amount of Amtrak’s current operating budget – It is $14 billion more than the U.S. spent during the Vietnam War
Another economist, Carsten Hermann Pillath, offers up an approach based on evolutionary economics and cultural science, bringing up game theory and the prisoners’ dilemma (see The financial crisis: a humble evolutionary economist’s perspective).
Over at Left Flank, you can find links to scientists weighing in with their efforts to relate the financial news with Chaos Theory! See Black Swans and Charlatans.
Jeff Jarvis, in Stewardship v. ownership of our news, money, and society took a cue from the unfolding crisis and criticizes mainstream media and it’s efforts to control how their content is processed, used, and redistributed on the World Wide Web.
The political fallout, if any, is something else, altogether. I’ve been silent for some weeks because I’ve been trying to get beyond simply reacting to the news, and instead, trying to make sense of where we are and where we ought to go; I’ll attempt to start piecing my thoughts together when I’ve recovered from the flu.
So bailout was less than 7000 billion and tax payers get rebates?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/09/why_the_bailout_bill_failed.html?hpid=topnews
Is there NO economists speaking AGAINST the bailout?
http://business.theage.com.au/business/when-is-a-bailout-no-longer-a-bailout-when-its-a-rescue-package-of-course-20081001-4s4t.html
There is a Leadership debate going on here among the Five Leader, but it is only in “French†so I’ll pass this one, but tomorrow the English Version of the debate will follow..It will be mostly on the topic of Economy as the Big Mess south will have the Bigger Impact north than in most other places. Canada Export 80% of its totals to the U.S. and it amounted in average to $200 billions and imports $150 billions, the biggest trading partners.. Thousands had already lost the high paying jobs in Auto Industry in Ontario and in related industries, although unemployment remains steady as it was absorbed in Retail and Service Sector and the inter-migration in boomtown Alberta. No Banks or financial institutions, including the Royal Bank which had a lot of dealings in U.S. is in danger of failure, but everyone of them already reporting revised smaller profits or even losses and shares are reflecting those forecasts.
But overall, election campaigns are going smooth…the Current Government called the Election, a year and few months short of its mandate reasoning that the opposition parties were no longer interested in co-operating with its Agenda, but trying to defeat it in every opportunity, yet not doing it, (thereby, it was getting to the point of being “dysfunctionalâ€Â) and to seek a new Mandate, be it another Minority, but Prefers a Majority..I rather have a Majority, because it is getting tiring to have an election….we have three already in less than four years..very expensive for us Party Members and Campaign contributors..and we are not getting our rebates until tax time…
Tongue,
“All the more reason for corporations to outsource. Going the way of cheaper labor and then cheaper taxes via BPO is a decision made in the board room. Not in DC.”
are you sure? what about international trade policy in DC? a corporation cannot just open business overseas without following trade policies, qoutas, sanctions and many more. The board room decision is only about making profit and tax consequences. Once the board room feel the tax burden , lowering their margins plus credit crunching… i’m not sure if you are right.
and tongue,
democrats do not like outsourcing.. DC has a direct role on economic policy in terms of international trade including outsourcing. democrats love protectionism. That protectionism policy will be endorsed by Obama if he wins. god bless philippines.
@leytenian
they’ll either start up a bogus company or a subsidiary to go around that regulation..
@bailout
too Republican..
@leytenian
that labor protectionism, along with higher spending on welfare, will scare business and prompt them to go to cheaper labor areas, like the Philippines 🙂 as well as discourage foreign investors considering the US.. which means good for us 🙂
I agree with Jemy that the Republican platform is, on its face, more friendly to free trade which is needed by countries like the Philippines. (That’s not necessarily the case with outsourcing and immigration though with the Lou Dobbs-type constituency who are more likely to go Republican.) However, that is taking for granted that another four years of the Republicans will not run the United States economy into the ground and take the rest of the World Economy with it.
If another four years of the Republican run the United States economy into the ground that would make things even I guess since the economy of poor countries like ours are on the ground already. I’m far from being an economist but I suppose that way the playing field would be levelled. Then we could play with them on the same plain, hehehe.
The Dems said McCain did not talked much during the meeting with Bush. Obama was in the meeting too and he talked. Who ‘grandstanded’ now?
He he he. But isn’t it a meeting? so how can you have a meeting without talking. Are you saying that Obama should just go meet with Bush and just listen.. Anong klaseng meeting naman yan. Should it be Mc Cain that should be criticize for talking less in an improtant meeting.
Id rather have Obama talk much in a closed door meeting and talked less in a press reease than Mc Cain who talk less in closed meeting but talked so much in press release.
Most recently, McCain dramatically suspended his campaign to ride into Washington to save the country from economic disaster – only to ride out of town without obvious success.
He called for the SEC chairman’s head on a platter. He threatened to skip the presidential debate – which many saw as a transparent attempt to use a crisis for political benefit. It seemed even more erratic when he turned around and debated anyway, even though no deal had been reached.
He took credit for the bailout deal before it was final – and then it spectacularly failed. Nor did his “Country First” slogan seem very credible as he amplified the House GOP leader John Boehner’s line that several Republicans had voted against the rescue bill because Speaker Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings with her speech before the vote.
Now, if that is not overtalking and grand standing the part of Mc Cain to you, please tell me how would you describe that kind of political behavior..
“If you’re not a citizen yet better work on it rego or they will kick you out.” –
————————————————————————
Will you please stop being childish. We are only discussing the qualities of these presidential candidates in relation to the coming very crucial election.
Ou imimigration staus has nothing to do with it. You may be a Citizen and Im not but its has nothing to do with the topic on hand.
I was just voicing out my disagreement on your claim and thats just it.
I am not even campaigning for Obama or MC Cain . becuase it is not yet very clear to me who is the better one. I was just saying that during the bail -out drama the past week. I strongly believe that Obama performed or behave better than Mc Cain.
“I don’t care about the VP position. Remember it’s a PRESIDENTIAL election.”
If you are really a US citizen, Im telling you you should care now becuas ethe reality is MC is a little more mature for a presidential candidate. And there is always a change that he may not be able to finsih his term.
“Maybe you didn’t watch the debate or you’re not paying attention. Obama said at least 5 times ‘Senator McCain is right blah blah blah.”
Is this your only reason why you are going for MC Cain. Im so disappointed of you.
Now I really really doubt if you are a US citizen…..
And supremo, I really really hope that your disdain for Obama has nothing to with his being Black….
rego,
“And there is always a change that he may not be able to finsih his term.”
and what made you so sure that Obama will finish his term?
“On my February 26 profile, I called Obama “the political equivalent of a sociopathâ€Â, without any derogatory intent. A sociopath seeks the empathy of all around him while empathizing with no one.
No country’s politics depends more openly on friendships than America’s, yet Obama has not a single real friend, for he rose so fast that all his acquaintances become rungs on the ladder of his ascent. One human relationship crowds the others out of his life, his marriage to Michelle, a strong, assertive and very angry woman.
It is conceivable that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama … Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for.â€Â
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JI03Aa02.html
it does look more and more likely that Obama will carry Virginia. If this is proven true come November 5/2008, then this is a significant event. Of course, there are the electoral votes. But the significance is because Virginia is a Johnny-Reb state.
rego…. it still remains the case (and it will be true for a few more decades to come) that color-of-skin is a factor. Ganoon iyon eh, different folks, different strokes.
rego,
‘I was just saying that during the bail -out drama the past week. I strongly believe that Obama performed or behave better than Mc Cain.’
Ok I’ll give Obama the Oscar for Best actor.
‘Is this your only reason why you are going for MC Cain. Im so disappointed of you.’
If you don’t get it, you’re parents will be disappointed at you because you wasted the money they spent for your education.
‘Will you please stop being childish…
Ou imimigration staus has nothing to do with it. You may be a Citizen and Im not but its has nothing to do with the topic on hand.’
Don’t worry. If I vote for Obama and he wins your taxi fare is on me.
‘I really really hope that your disdain for Obama has nothing to with his being Black….’
This is a typical response from a racist. Change your attitude rego. Your racist attitude has no place in America. Watching the movie Crash might help you understand racial issues a little bit.
As I wrote in my blog, it may be an awful time to graduate and be looking for a full-time job … but it’s amazing to be surrounded by the best academic minds in the finance world.
http://wysgal.blogspot.com/2008/10/world-serves-its-own-needs-regardless.html
Bailout bill just passed.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10056218-56.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
You’re at Wharton, wysgal? So why not just bailout the real people. If they can keep their homes, maybe they’ll continue buying stuff.
rego…. it still remains the case (and it will be true for a few more decades to come) that color-of-skin is a factor. Ganoon iyon eh, different folks, different strokes.
but UPn. I really believe that racism should stop and the only way to stop that is start discussing now.
I live with my cousin who is a US citizen and just see Obama as a black man who doesn’t deserve the presidency. Im really ly trying hard to convince him to look what each candiates has to offer for the people not by the color of the skin. And believe, I still feel that I have to try harder until now.
Supremo , feel free to believe what you want to believe…..
Still I will continue voice out my opinion anytime I disagree with you….
rego,
“And there is always a change that he may not be able to finsih his term.â€Â
and what made you so sure that Obama will finish his term?
———————————————————–
Leytenean ,
Isa ka pa. You not improving at all after all teh so many times you spent i in this blog. Did I say that Obama will surely finish his term?. The point in US presidential election you dont only look at the candidates for president. Because a vote for president is automatically becomes a vote for vice president.
Do I really need to mention that Mc Cain AND OBAMA may not be able to finish their term to stress this point?
Hay naku……
makatulog na nag lang….
Leytenian,
since you love googling.
check on the number of anti outsourcing bills archived in congress.
About not giving tax breaks to those who set shop overseas.
Many have already outsourced,so it is too late for that populist promise.
Those present here will stick to their contracts,unless of course they are a financial institution who got seized.
Concrete example:Wamu got eaten by JPMorgan chase,sure there may be retrenchments but the industry practice here is you transfer from one company to the other. If people want to stick with banking, those who used to have wamu as their account can apply to companies that cater to citigroup,hsbc, chase,ge,deutsche or they might go to any other account not related to finance,since it will only take three weeks to have a crash course on product knowledge and another four weeks of ojt.
local scene sa pinas: the economic meltdown in the us of a is just the excuse gma is looking for to declare emergency rule, martial law.
think of it fellas…america falls into recession if not depression…world economy/market tanks…philippine economy well…gets even worst…government takes over private utilities and gma declares emergency rule!
patay kang bata kang isko! walang 2010 election!
and why can’t obama finish his term if he wins (even if leytenian keeps on saying how badly he will perform)? bush made it twice and survived both terms considering how dumb he’s been (the case of the dumb and the dumber).
mccain loves to talk about his great decision making…exhibit 1: sarah palin for his VP. what do you have to say about that? sarah palin running usa if mccain for any reason becomes incapacitated( did
i get that right?).
while obama chose biden, a catholic and experienced in foreign relations. who do you is showing the gift of right and good choices?
a lot of rhetorics and posturing will get you only so far, but action speaks louder than words as they say.
listen to what they say, but also pay attention to what they do afterwards. does that make sense to my fellow pinoys na sa tate?
“and why can’t obama finish his term if he wins (even if leytenian keeps on saying how badly he will perform)? bush made it twice and survived both terms considering how dumb he’s been (the case of the dumb and the dumber).”
-and american people even being the dumbest for voting him twice to the office of the president of usa. at least he actually won in his second term and not by the supreme court ruling (florida chads).
-and pinoys being even more dumbest for putting up with gma who was never voted into the office of the president…first benefited from edsa dos…second from garci (hello ma’am).
here we go again with these doomsday predictions..
“here we go again with these doomsday predictions..”
— eh asan na ngayon ang ekonomiya ng amerika? bat nagkandarapa ang mga na amerikanong senador at presidential candidates at si bush para maipasa lang ang bail out package kahit na marami sa ordinaryong kano ayaw? is just a hallucination?
baka hallucination lang nga…di pa kasi ako kumakain dahil sa hirap sa buhay dito sa pinas! gutom pala ang tawag. pati pandesal nagmahal na! di pa pwede bumili ng gatas galing sa china dahil may malamine! may e-vat pa. may c-5 pa! ay ang sarap ng buhay sa pinas. hindi oy! sabi ni gma, gumiginhawa na daw o!
theyre down, yes..
pero ‘nagkakandarapa’?! i dont think so..
the bail out is aimed to benefit big ticket industries and businesses who should be blamed for extending credit to people who couldnt pay..
istambay..
baka naman nag hihirap ka dahil di ka nagaral ng mabuti nung bata ka pa..
o di kaya nagtatamad-tamaran ka lang..
andaming bakante sa call center bat di mo subukan dun..
sa tesda merong free scholarship for work here and abroad..
“kung gusto.. me paraan”
pero ‘nagkakandarapa’?! i dont think so..
the bail out is aimed to benefit big ticket industries and businesses who should be blamed for extending credit to people who couldnt pay..
— so anong tawag mo sa mga actions ni bush, paulson, bernanke at both party leaders sa house of congress? si mccain, willing to suspend his campaign and would have skipped the first debate just to find a compromise bill for the bail out package and now the senate by voting a new compromise bill to force the house of representative to pass the bill despite being opposed by the main street american? if desperation is not the right term.
andaming bakante sa call center bat di mo subukan dun..
–di ako masyadong magaling sa american accent!
may ilonggo accent kasi. 😉
“kung gusto.. me paraanâ€Â
— salamat sa mga payo mo liam! hayaan mo ngayon din gagawan ko ng paraan para maituwid ko ng mabuti ang aking pamumuhay alang alang sa ikauunlad ng inang bayan, pilipinas (o PI) 🙂
xempre.. paulson is an ex-wall street player, kaya ganun n lng ang worry nya for his turf.. eh baka wala na cyang babalikan pag di nya tinulungan..
there’s so much to review with the US type of big-ticket capitalism, especially to the absurdly high benefits it gives to CEOs and business executives..
sa tesda merong free scholarship for work here and abroad..
–eh kung ganun lang sana kadali, siguro lahat na mga pinoy nag-abroad na. mga politiko na lang ang mga naiwan dito sa pinas! 😉
🙂 haha yoko ng Philippine Islands, Philippines n lng pde? 🙂
hehe ako man ay hindi rin overly-optimistic sa sitwasyon ng bansa natin.. pero naniniwala ako na sa kalagayan natin, kelangan ko munang paunlarin ang sarili ko bago ko pedeng baguhin lipunan natin.. 🙂
hambal lang ni ato b’la
hambal lang ni ato b’la
— eh kung hasta lang kita sa hambal wala gid kita padulungan. kinahanglan may aksyon gid! oh di b’la?
😉
i may not be there in usa to really see and feel how bad their economy is, but just by looking how the rest of the world economy reacts to every action the american congress does is a good indicator how bad the situatiion is for everyone. for example when the lower house fail to pass the bail out package this week and us stock market was down by 777 points and the rest of the world stock went down with it.
so i think it is really bad and could very well get worse in the days to come. there is palpable sense of desperation from the americans to reverse the downward spiral. giants of wall street falling one by one is very scary. one by one large banks not just your union bank being taken over by fdic or being bought to save it. and the latest the auto industry sales down by 27%, it is a very good indicator where the economy is in the usa. and that is bad, very bad.
and this is very bad for pinas too. i don’t need to really explain why. anyone here could very well know why it is bad for us pinoys here. call me doomsayer if you will but the picture doesn’t look bright and sunny for us here.
“patay kang bata kang isko! walang 2010 election!â€Â
istambay,
your paranoia about 2010 will not deter pinoys like me from rejoicing with the thought that gma will soon be out of the picture and better days lie ahead.
si gma ato sa bacolod attend maskara. 🙂
“si gma ato sa bacolod attend maskara”
maybe she should get a permanent maskara so i don’t have to change the tv channel everytime i see her face in the news! 🙂
your paranoia about 2010 will not deter pinoys like me from rejoicing with the thought that gma will soon be out of the picture and better days lie ahead.
— that’s a very nice thought indeed, but that could be a fool’s gold or false hope.
the bailout plan includes 150B tax breaks for individuals and corporations, a John McCain’s proposal. Obama’s proposal of increase taxation will never work at this time of crisis. Bank Deposits are now temporarily FDIC insured up to $250,000.
KG,
“Those present here will stick to their contracts,unless of course they are a financial institution who got seized.”
Your assessment will ONLY apply to a stable market. You can also expect that when times are tight, those who will survive will have to cut cost.
aren’t we all excited to see the Palin-Biden debate tonight!
It’s going to be fun fun fun fun.
Palin is a fricking dimwit but she’s so adorable.
For this reason alone McCain-Palin 2008!
Readers Feedback
“Whoever picks Obama doesn’t understand the essence of balance of power. The free world cannot have a WEAK AMERICA both in terms of economy and military.
Russia is now becoming of an aggressor, an OBAMA presidency gives you a weak US military which is not good. OPEC right now is trying to blackmail the world with their OIL. There is no way to avoid an American leadership when tackling world crisis.
Iran, China as well as other countries are exerting their own will on the free world by any means. A strong America balances that and John McCain I believe posses a character that is willing to get bad reviews from American people to do that is right and Obama always wants to look good and not willing to sacrifice being ridiculed and criticized to make a very hard decision.
Obama lacks experienced needed to be the President of the world’s most powerful nation. A strong American leader wouldn’t think twice about going strong againts OPEC countries, Russia, Iran or China. Countries like Philippines have no chance against these countries, a strong America would at least not leave us all alone.”
this andrew guy is so patriotic to the Philippines. He understand the consequences of an OSAMA presidency. 🙂
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/120760/BBC-survey-suggests-Pinoys-prefer-Obama-over-McCain
“this andrew guy is so patriotic to the Philippines. He understand the consequences of an OSAMA presidency.”
agree.. wink
“””Russia is now becoming of an aggressor, an OBAMA presidency gives you a weak US military which is not good. OPEC right now is trying to blackmail the world with their OIL. There is no way to avoid an American leadership when tackling world crisis.””
Where do you get your foreign policy insights? They are brilliant and really in-depth. I am impressed.
“Iran, China as well as other countries are exerting their own will on the free world by any means. ”
Every country has the right to exert their will! What gives the USA more of a right to it (and it’s not as if they are not using ‘by any means’)???