Belly,

It seems you were rather premature when you insisted that we did not share any beliefs or values. I totally agree with your post.

Country Gal,

So you are prepared to lose your house and your job, your superannuation etc to teach the capitalists a lesson. It seems to me that's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I sincerely doubt whether there are too many people who are in that position, who will agree with you.

Col

you say >> "My take, the market and the banks are the "experts",
the government, deploying scarce tax payer funds, is not.
Leave it to the experts. their mess, let them sort it out."

I agree to a point. However, if the major problem is lack of liquidity, surely we can sensibly provide that. I agree that the gov't doesn't have the experience to make the decisions on where/how to maximise investment. But assisting some of the teetering financial institutions by warehousing their bad debts is surely within the capability of gov't.

I think the average US citizen would take the option of spending $5000 to fix the problem, rather than lose their home, job and superannuation/investments.

On the edge of a possible Depression, this surely is not the time to blindy adhere to principle, regardless of the outcome.

As for those who are gung-ho on teaching those fat cats a lesson. I would point out that the lesson would be far more telling on those who have very little to start with, than on those it is supposedly aimed at.

Can someone tell me how a 'bail out' is any different to 'insider trading'?

Insider trading relates to trading in shares on the stock market. The definition varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it essentially relates to information that is likely to affect a share price, is likely to affect the share price, and that the person trading on it obtains by virtue of a privileged position.

A bail-out doesn't meet any of these criteria.

Don't bail these sharks out. Given an inch, they will take a mile and in five years time the situation will rear its head again.

Don't help them; encourage the companies to have a Receiver appointed.

Where the debt has been paid on time, when the Receiver demands that loans are repaid, have the Government step in to take over the position of lender. As lender they can charge the loan shark a fee for providing the collection service.

Where the debt has never been serviced adequately, allow the borrower to go into bankruptcy. Where they walked in on a 100% plus mortgage they had nothing and they will be no worse off.

This might sound hard but as a retired Credit Manager I take my hat off to those who have made a point of servicing their debt. They need recognition.

Finally, tighten up the loan criteria. Don't let these 100% loan sharks continue in business.

There's 2 choices, a bailout or no bailout. With a bailout it'll cost each ordinary individual American taxpayer a couple thousand dollars. With no bailout it'll DEVESTATE the ordinary American taxpayer, also their superannuation will be close to worthless for many years to come due to long term stock market collapse.

Times will be 10 times as hard without a bailout. Stock markets the world over will crash (witness the biggest Dow Jones one day fall in history on the back of the rejection of the bailout, and that's just the 'beginning'). America will witness a HUGE depression without a bailout.

An there's American politicians who don't want a bailout simply because they don't ideologically agree with the philosophy. Human stupidity knows no bounds.

No bailout equals an horrific, long standing depression and worldwide collapse of stock markets. The average taxpayer will be much worse off, not better off, if there's no bailout.

Bail them out...so that they can just continue with business as usual? Oh what a good idea (:>|

This crisis has been caused by growth at all costs, promulgated by the greedy and pitifully underegulated by government.

So what is going to change if the American taxpayer forks our $B700? Not bloody much.

It'll hurt many innocent people, but I reckon the best thing to do is not bail out the banks and let the scenario play out. Then maybe, just maybe, we will learn that unbridled growth and a grossly unsustainable economic/financial system is crackers.

If it is bailed out, the same old future-destroying methodology will just continue...with perhaps a little bit of tweaking at best...until the next, and much bigger, crash event.