感觉这两天美国处于一个历史的小道口上,去向如何全是事在人为。进展如何呢?美国那边有没有内部消息?
- Re: Paulson救世方案在国会辩论进展如何?posted on 09/25/2008
信心吧,现在有信心就不会崩溃.
我最近帮助民主党竞选,Obama给我们大家信心,我相信美国的民主精神,草根活动家们全都出场了。
我们现在需要leadership。
- posted on 09/25/2008
Lawmakers: Wall Street rescue accord reached
WASHINGTON - Key Republicans and Democrats reported agreement Thursday on an outline for a historic $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, but there was still resistance from rank-and-file House Republicans despite warnings of an impending panic.
“I now expect we will, indeed, have a plan that can pass the House, pass the Senate, be signed by the president and bring a sense of certainty to this crisis that is sill roiling in the market,” Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, said as members of both parties emerged from a two-hour negotiating session.
Negotiators planned to present the outline at a White House meeting later Thursday with President Bush and the rivals to replace him, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barrack Obama.
“We’re very confident that we can act expeditiously,” said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman.
Not everyone in the closed-door talks was as optimistic. Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the only House Republican in the bargaining meeting, stopped short of saying he agreed with the other lawmakers on an imminent deal.
“There was progress today,” said Bachus, the senior Republican on the House Financial Services panel.
Later, he issued a statement saying he was not empowered to strike any deals and there was “no agreement other than to continue discussions.”
Both houses’ Republican leaders, Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell, also issued statements saying there was no agreement.
Still, the White House called the announcement “a good sign that progress is being made.”
“We’ll want to hear from (Treasury) Secretary (Henry) Paulson and take a look at the details. We look forward to a good discussion at the meeting this afternoon,” said Tony Fratto, the deputy White House press secretary.
A Treasury spokeswoman said the proposal was being reviewed there.
On Wall Street, stock prices were up late in the trading day, but not by as much as earlier in the day.
The core of the plan proposed by the administration just a few days ago envisions the government buying up sour assets of shaky financial firms in a bid to keep them from going under and to stave off a potentially severe recession.
Obama and McCain called for a bipartisan effort to deal with the crisis, little more than five weeks before national elections in which the economy has emerged as the dominant theme.
McCain on Wednesday asked Obama to agree to delay their first debate, scheduled for Friday, to deal with the meltdown. Obama said the debate should go ahead.
Congressional negotiators said Thursday there were few obstacles to a final agreement, although no details of an accord were immediately available.
“There really isn’t much of a deadlock to break,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
But there were fresh signs of trouble in the House Republican Caucus. A group of GOP lawmakers circulated an alternative designed to attract private money back into the credit markets with less government intrusion.
Under that proposal, the government would provide insurance to companies that agree to hold frozen assets, rather than purchase them directly as envisioned under the administration’s plan. The firms would have to pay insurance premiums to the Treasury Department for the coverage.
“The taxpayers haven’t done anything wrong,” said Rep Eric Cantor, R-Va., adding that rather than require them to bear the cost of the bailout, the alternative “pretty much puts the burden on Wall Street over time.”
Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader, was huddling with McCain on the rescue. When asked whether the GOP presidential nominee could corral restive Republicans to support the plan, Boehner said, “Who knows?”
Bush told the nation in a televised address Wednesday night that passage of the package his administration has proposed was urgently needed to calm the markets and restore confidence in the reeling financial system.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush’s agreement with Democrats on limiting pay for executives of bailed-out financial institutions and giving taxpayers an equity stake in the companies cleared a significant hurdle.
It was not immediately clear how lawmakers had resolved differences over how to phase in the unprecedented cost — a step demanded by Democrats and some Republicans who want stronger congressional control over the bailout — without spooking markets. The idea of letting the government take an ownership stake in troubled companies as part of the rescue, rather than just buying bad debt, also has been a topic of intense negotiation.
Frank told The Associated Press Thursday both elements would be included in the legislation.
Bush acknowledged Wednesday night that the bailout would be a “tough vote” for lawmakers. But he said failing to approve it would risk dire consequences for the economy and most Americans.
“Our entire economy is in danger,” he said.
- posted on 09/25/2008
我也刚刚在BBC上看到了这个消息。美国国会议员如今的无能与无所作为让我吃惊。我想这就是为什么布什政府屡屡能随心所欲地一意孤行,使今天的美国入不敷出。
国会是美国体制的一个支柱,价值体系的实际捍卫者。如此轻易地被人要挟,真是不可思议。美国的国会也应该进行彻底的换届与大选,否则新政府上台国家的希望也不大。
原则上批准是应该的,但至少应该通过明确附加条款和修正案,来表达价值取向吧。也许财经委员会连把问题弄明白想清楚的时间都没有?有这种形同虚设的国会,金融业能不走形嘛。世上没有道德圣人,更何况是每天跟钱打交道的人。 - posted on 09/25/2008
现在是我们大家都行动的时候,争论已经来不及了,我们给这个国家这个体制给美国人最后一点顽强的信心。
令胡冲 wrote:
我也刚刚在BBC上看到了这个消息。美国国会议员如今的无能与无所作为让我吃惊。我想这就是为什么布什政府屡屡能随心所欲地一意孤行,使今天的美国入不敷出。
国会是美国体制的一个支柱,价值体系的实际捍卫者。如此轻易地被人要挟,真是不可思议。美国的国会也应该进行彻底的换届与大选,否则新政府上台国家的希望也不大。
原则上批准是应该的,但至少应该通过明确附加条款和修正案,来表达价值取向吧。也许财经委员会连把问题弄明白想清楚的时间都没有?有这种形同虚设的国会,金融业能不走形嘛。世上没有道德圣人,更何况是每天跟钱打交道的人。 - Re: Paulson救世方案在国会辩论进展如何?posted on 09/25/2008
说到底, 就是要regulation, 我早说了, 里根是作俑者。 我念上学时读的里根传,一边读,一边想,这不是胡来吗? 道理简单得很, 一个没有基本规矩的家,孩子肯定要出问题,何况国家啊。我不明白的是, 美国没有一个和我想的一样的人吗? - posted on 09/25/2008
De-regulation在当时条件下都是应该的。里跟和克林顿都有长远的战略眼光,美国的市场巨大,在里根时代却也有饱和的趋势,宏观经济发展缺乏长久和可持续的动力。所以通过这种方式搞活金融,造成虚假的繁荣泡沫,吸入全球的主要资金流,使美国成为资金中转分配中枢。最终得益的还是美国经济、企业和个人,比如很多没有固定收入来源的人也能够买房。资本最终还是要为人服务的,这世上没有什么比用别人的钱办自己的事更愉快的事情了。
这个目的几年前就达到了。但可能投资银行家或称投机银行家过于乐观了,中国新兴市场的发展,以彻底牺牲自己资源和环境为代价,换来的巨额美元储蓄,都无法填满这个无底洞。这实在搞得有些太过了。
房价下降可能只是压垮骆驼的最后一跟稻草。美国巨额预算赤字,天文数字的透支自己后人的钱,和欧元的实现与稳定,可能已经事实上早已决定今天的后果了。 - posted on 09/25/2008
令胡冲 wrote:
我也刚刚在BBC上看到了这个消息。美国国会议员如今的无能与无所作为让我吃惊。我想这就是为什么布什政府屡屡能随心所欲地一意孤行,使今天的美国入不敷出。
国会是美国体制的一个支柱,价值体系的实际捍卫者。如此轻易地被人要挟,真是不可思议。美国的国会也应该进行彻底的换届与大选,否则新政府上台国家的希望也不大。
我觉着不奇怪的,大选在即,这些人都想快快回来竞选,谁有功夫在那儿争论细节,再者这些人也都有自己的利益或者支持他们的集团利益在里面,大巫小巫,共和民主都是一样的。
我从个人的角度也支持政府救市,道理很简单,我不关心股市,所以没有及时把401k的钱撤出来,现在撤也来不及了,我当然不希望继续狂跌下去,爱谁买单谁买单。我付了那么多税,他们拿去打仗还是拿去给金融巨头反正我都管不了的,我宁愿多交些税如果真的能用到老百姓身上。讨论国事个人的立场很难跑的出个人的利益(得,再说下去我要成老A了:)。美国的问题是对利益膨胀的协调机制出了问题,现在的危机也不只是布什,自里根始。 - posted on 09/25/2008
浮生 wrote:
我从个人的角度也支持政府救市,道理很简单,我不关心股市,所以没有及时把401k的钱撤出来,现在撤也来不及了,我当然不希望继续狂跌下去,爱谁买单谁买单。我付了那么多税,他们拿去打仗还是拿去给金融巨头反正我都管不了的,我宁愿多交些税如果真的能用到老百姓身上。讨论国事个人的立场很难跑的出个人的利益(得,再说下去我要成老A了:)。美国的问题是对利益膨胀的协调机制出了问题,现在的危机也不只是布什,自里根始。
看来大家说的是一回事,那还是老问题,怎么来保证你的401K长远来讲在您退休的时候不贬得太快呢?是国会,财政部,还是大家互相通过体制制衡来达到目标呢?:)
如果这次轻易保出,下届政府主要预算就被牵制了,对内不可能再有任何大的改革作为。美元必然大幅度贬值,今天的401K在八年后可能不值101K。我们还有25年以上才退休,还有机会,现在50-60快退休的人而言,就没有赶上好时候,退休后连车可能都开不起了。一生辛勤劳动积攒起来的退休金,每年拿得钱,有没有可能还不如到时候一个大学毕业生工资的五分之一。:)
也好,你今天疯狂透支后人的钱,后人就让钱疯狂贬值,让前辈们退休金都无法养活自己。A financial war between the generations. :-)
- Re: Paulson救世方案在国会辩论进展如何?posted on 09/25/2008
克林顿和里根是不同的,克林顿知道平衡, 他还国债,知道有出有进。里根是个不管主义者,放任自流,今朝有酒就行。老布什替他擦了很多屁股, 克林顿堵了很多窟窿,没有克林顿,美国现在更糟糕. - posted on 09/25/2008
令胡冲 wrote:
看来大家说的是一回事,那还是老问题,怎么来保证你的401K长远来讲在您退休的时候不贬得太快呢?是国会,财政部,还是大家互相通过体制制衡来达到目标呢?:)
如果这次轻易保出,下届政府主要预算就被牵制了,对内不可能再有任何大的改革作为。美元必然大幅度贬值,今天的401K在八年后可能不值101K。我们还有25年以上才退休,还有机会,现在50-60快退休的人而言,就没有敢上好时候,退休后连车可能都开不起了。:)
没有办法保证,再怎样美元贬值是大势所趋。这个我就同意苦瓜上次说的了,自己养老,现金放着还是不放着都是问题,就是应该现在工作的养活退休的,将来轮到自己,哪怕多交税,就是死的早轮不到也没关心但是心安,当然这个是说大多数人,少数要致富的随便。你看,跟我讨论是没有意义的,因为我支持福利社会的大政府,我不喜欢自己管钱,我喜欢把钱交给别人替我管,只要别全管没了 :)这样是不是也就没有financial war between the generations了? - Re: Paulson救世方案在国会辩论进展如何?posted on 09/25/2008
July wrote:
克林顿和里根是不同的,克林顿知道平衡, 他还国债,知道有出有进。里根是个不管主义者,放任自流,今朝有酒就行。老布什替他擦了很多屁股, 克林顿堵了很多窟窿,没有克林顿,美国现在更糟糕.
我没有查记录,不过感觉着,克林顿是通过美元大幅度贬值来刺激经济发展达到收支平衡的。他赶上了好时候,布什一不留神把车直接给开出去了。 - Re: Paulson救世方案在国会辩论进展如何?posted on 09/25/2008
现在能借钱就借钱,黄金买不了,就买房子,至少老了有地方住,还可以租给别人。 - Re: Paulson救世方案在国会辩论进展如何?posted on 09/25/2008
克林顿在军火费上省了大钱,还的国债。 - posted on 09/25/2008
The bail out is a rip off of the middle class. The riches will likely benefit from the bailout, as CEO can keep their jobs. Buffett investment in Goldman Sachs is safe now.
The poor also benefit from the bailout, as their mortgages will be taken care by the government as long as they claim they cannot afford them.
The middle classes who work hard to pay off their mortgages are the mostly hurt. Not only they have to continue to pay their mortgages, their pay rise will not catch the high inflation that will be coming. In addition, they will be hit by a higher tax bill, anyway, who is going to pay for this bail out?
- posted on 09/25/2008
你的逻辑也不通。中产阶级本来就是美国的支柱, ceo的公司里不都是中产阶级在工作? 其实,共和党和民主党的区别在如何对待穷人和富人, 中产阶级两头都落不着。 中产阶级现在倒是被富人折腾得穷了。
pepper wrote:
The bail out is a rip off of the middle class. The riches will likely benefit from the bailout, as CEO can keep their jobs. Buffett investment in Goldman Sachs is safe now.
The poor also benefit from the bailout, as their mortgages will be taken care by the government as long as they claim they cannot afford them.
The middle classes who work hard to pay off their mortgages are the mostly hurt. Not only they have to continue to pay their mortgages, their pay rise will not catch the high inflation that will be coming. In addition, they will be hit by a higher tax bill, anyway, who is going to pay for this bail out?
- Re: Paulson救世方案在国会辩论进展如何?posted on 09/25/2008
July wrote:"中产阶级现在倒是被富人折腾得穷", how?
你的逻辑也不通。中产阶级本来就是美国的支柱, ceo的公司里不都是中产阶级在工作? 其实,共和党和民主党的区别在如何对待穷人和富人, 中产阶级两头都落不着。 中产阶级现在倒是被富人折腾得穷了。
- posted on 09/25/2008
既然浮生知道我寂寞,点了我的名,我就说几句。
1.关于养老问题。
我还是觉得实行社会主义国家包办比较好。主要原因是没有国家会对财政赤字和货币发行进行法律约束,这样币值稳定就无法保证。在几十年的时间里,国家经济很可能遇到困难,货币很可能贬值。美国的央行独立,徒有虚名,不可信的。
严谨地想,个人挣钱养老,对中产阶级和以下人员而言,基本是不可行的。我想,10年后美国这方面的问题就会暴露出来。
2。关于克林顿与布什。
里根我不太熟悉,克林顿我研究最多,布什的套路我大概也知道。
克林顿时期是冷战结束后,并且美国在信息产业有垄断优势。克林顿用自由思想和De-regulation打开全球市场,美国因此获得经济繁荣。
在外交方面,克林顿主张全球融合。
美国在信息产业的垄断优势在布什刚上台时就见顶了,因此,依我的观点,美国经济变差不能全怪布什。
但在外交方面,布什主张美国绝对优势,这是一个根本性的错误。在这种错误思想指导下,美国发动了对阿富汗和伊拉克的战争与占领,与俄国对抗。这样,美国财政赤字和货币贬值就不可避免了。
美国外交政策的失误,最大收益者是中国,因为中国就可以堂而煌之猛搞军事建设了。
3。关于新政府。
主张全球融合还是主张美国绝对优势,是新政府唯一要解决的问题。如果继续在美国绝对优势错误的道路上走下去,美国还会不断有麻烦,很大的麻烦。
如果主张全球融合,美国减少财政赤字,美国好转起来很快的。
首先,美国在资源,环境,人才,制度等方面都很好。其次,从经济学的角度看,处理金融危机是小菜一碟的事。中国的坏帐早够发生10次金融危机了。
4。关于美国价值未来演变。
经过这次金融危机,美国须检讨它的价值观。首先,不能一味排斥社会主义。其次,该管制的还得管制。最后,淡化政治意识形态,坚持科学发展观。
浮生 wrote:得,再说下去我要成老A了 - posted on 09/25/2008
abc wrote:
既然浮生知道我寂寞,点了我的名,我就说几句。
1.关于养老问题。
我还是觉得实行社会主义国家包办比较好。
哈哈,老A,难为你这么一大早的,是不是安了个软件,在咖啡搜索,一旦帖子里scan到你的名字,立即set off alarm呀?:)
这一点我同意的,我现在的理想就是怎么搬去一个社会主义国家(当然还是可以给July看房子滴),是资本主义“进化”来的社会主义,不是资本主义初级阶段的社会主义哈,可惜这些社会主义国家都不大发扬国际共产主义精神。:)
- Re: Paulson救世方案在国会辩论进展如何?posted on 09/26/2008
浮生,我现在很着迷上咖啡,比王石登珠峰还着迷。只要眼睛一睁,我第一件事就是上咖啡。这种着迷真的很爽很开心。
当大批老年中产阶级因美元贬值成为无产阶级的时候,美国会有条件地实行社会主义的,这与中国会有民主一样,科学使然。
所以,你不必去想什么国际共产主义,耐心等,在美国就会有社会主义。美国的社会主义一定会是世界上最好的。
浮生 wrote: - Re: Paulson救世方案在国会辩论进展如何?posted on 09/26/2008
我一直怀疑胡锦涛是否暗藏在咖啡里。
经过这次金融危机,美国须检讨它的价值观。首先,不能一味排斥社会主义。其次,该管制的还得管制。最后,淡化政治意识形态,坚持科学发展观。
浮生 wrote:得,再说下去我要成老A了 - posted on 09/26/2008
ruyi wrote:
我一直怀疑胡锦涛是否暗藏在咖啡里。
经过这次金融危机,美国须检讨它的价值观。首先,不能一味排斥社会主义。其次,该管制的还得管制。最后,淡化政治意识形态,坚持科学发展观。
哈哈... 锦涛同志听说已经到了呆若木鸡的最高境界,他即使能来,也不会表态说一个字。幸好我们有ABC而不是胡锦涛。
我觉得共和党参议员中坚人物一向被认为是美国传统和价值观真正的捍卫者,这次出来给比民主党还民主党好几倍的布什政府一点颜色看看,也是应该的,要不然真是形同虚设了。让人当政治笑话,名垂青史了。对于老牌参议员这种西方职业政治家而言,那可真是莫大耻辱了。东西政治文化差别于此。
民主党参议员不敢反对是可以理解的传统,但共和党can't afford to just let it go。如果今天再一波三折,才是正常的。救市其实不在乎这一两天,那完全是Paulson自杀式爆炸的危言耸听。摩根大通和高盛再倒,美国也不会伤了元气。我个人认为,保守派应该再抗争至少两周时间,一是给自己在高压下挤出一点常识性思考的时间;二是向世人表明,我不是中国人大政协那样的政府摆设,我是美国参议员,懂一点美国价值观和美国传统。:)
有下面两周的时间,共和党完全可以把辩论焦点和公共媒体注意力全部抢过来,搞成自己党内斗争。如果McCain能参与其中,通过激烈言辞驳斥步什政府,并且参与组织提出新的替代方案,即使是一个换汤不换药的方案,最后再批准通过,十月中之前也将能一举抢过救市功劳。这是一个千载难逢的跟布什政府划清界限的时候。那如果奥巴马阵营有劲使不出来,没有展示的舞台和空间,将必败无疑,选战将被共和党一举扭转过来。不用再开兵去打伊朗了。
目前是关键平衡点,去向如何有待观察。:) 不知道奥巴马阵营意识到问题的严重性没有。看他们能不能短期内召集能人,也提出替代方案来。要拿不出来,跟着共和党中任何一方走,让人家领着溜达两周以上,那也不用去辩论了,还有谁关心。:)
救市是共识,但是最后被谁救,这是政治的关键。我想在这一点上,共和党阵营每个人心理都应该清楚谁应该出面抢这个功劳。肯定不应该是布什和Paulson。 - posted on 09/26/2008
佩服,令胡冲隔岸观火,比我们看得都清楚。
摩根大通 -- JP Morgan Chase
摩根士丹利 -- Morgan Stanley
摩根大通和高盛再倒,美国也不会伤了元气
令胡冲 wrote:
我觉得共和党参议员中坚人物一向被认为是美国传统和价值观真正的捍卫者,这次出来给比民主党还民主党好几倍的布什政府一点颜色看看,也是应该的,要不然真是形同虚设了。让人当政治笑话,名垂青史了。对于老牌参议员这种西方职业政治家而言,那可真是莫大耻辱了。东西政治文化差别于此。
民主党参议员不敢反对是可以理解的传统,但共和党can't afford to just let it go。如果今天再一波三折,才是正常的。救市其实不在乎这一两天,那完全是Paulson自杀式爆炸的危言耸听。摩根大通和高盛再倒,美国也不会伤了元气。我个人认为,保守派应该再抗争至少两周时间,一是给自己在高压下挤出一点常识性思考的时间;二是向世人表明,我不是中国人大政协那样的政府摆设,我是美国参议员,懂一点美国价值观和美国传统。:)
有下面两周的时间,共和党完全可以把辩论焦点和公共媒体注意力全部抢过来,搞成自己党内斗争。如果McCain能参与其中,通过激烈言辞驳斥步什政府,并且参与组织提出新的替代方案,即使是一个换汤不换药的方案,最后再批准通过,十月中之前也将能一举抢过救市功劳。这是一个千载难逢的跟布什政府划清界限的时候。那如果奥巴马阵营有劲使不出来,没有展示的舞台和空间,将必败无疑,选战将被共和党一举扭转过来。不用再开兵去打伊朗了。
目前是关键平衡点,去向如何有待观察。:) 不知道奥巴马阵营意识到问题的严重性没有。看他们能不能短期内召集能人,也提出替代方案来。要拿不出来,跟着共和党中任何一方走,让人家领着溜达两周以上,那也不用去辩论了,还有谁关心。:)
救市是共识,但是最后被谁救,这是政治的关键。我想在这一点上,共和党阵营每个人心理都应该清楚谁应该出面抢这个功劳。肯定不应该是布什和Paulson。 - Re: Paulson救世方案在国会辩论进展如何?posted on 09/26/2008
rzp wrote:
佩服,令胡冲隔岸观火,比我们看得都清楚。
唉。为什么从来没有人主动把相片寄过来让我也给相相面呢?看来很少有人相信我有希望当一个半仙.:) - posted on 09/26/2008
Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits
Posted Sep 24, 2008, 06:55 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would be insulated from lawsuits under the $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan advanced by the administration.
Two legislators have also made bailout proposals, and one of them, advanced by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., also eliminates judicial review, the Daily Journal reports (sub. req.). Frank is chair of the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., has a proposal that would allow courts to set aside a decision by Paulson when it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law."
The Daily Journal story quotes a partner in securities class action firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins who is a critic of the lawsuit ban. "Vesting a single unelected official with the right to basically control a large part of the market is dangerous at best," said partner Darren Robbins. "To also have that person be somebody who has immunity from any private right of action is a recipe for disaster."
Antitrust litigator Maxwell Blecher of Blecher & Collins in Los Angeles told the publication that the bailout could generate many lawsuit opportunities, if they are allowed. Disputes could arise over the distribution of aid or whether government intervention in an area restricts competition.
In any event, suits would be allowed for constitutional violations under Supreme Court precedent, said constitutional law professor Jonathan Varat of UCLA law school. - posted on 09/26/2008
This is absolutely outrageous. Even I can't believe it. :)
So where is the end-party accountability for a public money of 700 + 200 + 85 Billion dollars? Does that mean Hank can use that lots of money to buy whomever and whenever he wants with whatever the price he set, but he won't take the slightiest accountability for the decisions he will make? :)
This Treasure secretary sounded like a government hijacker, and now he is trying to be a Law hijacker. Even I can be a treasure secretary who can make decisions without worrying about any consequences. :) - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/26/2008
这是我见到的令胡水平发挥最好的一次评论,一针见血,明察秋毫,平常看多少小时的美国新闻:)
今晚辩论,令胡别睡着了。 - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/26/2008
口号已经出来了: 尽管上帝7天内创造了世界, 我们不必在7天内通过Bailout Plan . - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/26/2008
令胡说得挺玄,大有看出了蝴蝶效应的意思。
救不救得了世,不是几个星期能看出来的。到目前为止,除了今天我在wamu的帐号上应该出现的一部分工资没有出现外,看不出现在的局势比一个月前格外危险。有人跳大神,就有人围观。
布什太窝囊。不过最近觉得他还不算太糟,凡事就怕对比,帕林女士这两天的表现让大家对布什多了几分体谅。帕女士被采访,采访者急得都想帮着她回答问题。老麦做事太没谱。 - posted on 09/26/2008
苦瓜 wrote:
救不救得了世,不是几个星期能看出来的。到目前为止,除了今天我在wamu的帐号上应该出现的一部分工资没有出现外,看不出现在的局势比一个月前格外危险。有人跳大神,就有人围观。
如果上周四政府不私下放风说要有全盼社会主义救援计划,今天的股市道指能回到5000-6000点,轮敦FTSE100能跌破到3000以下。你的养老金过去10年最佳情况下等于没有丝毫收益,抛去通涨,只能值十年前的三分之一以下。这不是汉克在跳大神。资本主义还在,但是它的心脏上周五夜里就停止跳动了。资本血液不再流通。人还有一口气,但就剩那一口气了。
布什太窝囊。不过最近觉得他还不算太糟,凡事就怕对比,帕林女士这两天的表现让大家对布什多了几分体谅。帕女士被采访,采访者急得都想帮着她回答问题。老麦做事太没谱。
哈哈。 - posted on 09/26/2008
其实我是希望股市回到5000点的,我认为那样比现在安全。我一直不指望我的养老金,正准备交罚款拿出来去换辆车。股市不回归,货币就贬值,都是一样的,羊毛出在羊身上。断气说还有待观察,不见棺材不落泪。
令胡冲 wrote:
如果上周四政府不私下放风说要有全盼社会主义救援计划,今天的股市道指能回到5000-6000点,轮敦FTSE100能跌破到3000以下。你的养老金过去10年最佳情况下等于没有丝毫收益,抛去通涨,只能值十年前的三分之一以下。这不是汉克在跳大神。资本主义还在,但是它的心脏上周五夜里就停止跳动了。资本血液不再流通。人还有一口气,但就剩那一口气了。
- posted on 09/26/2008
苦瓜 wrote:
其实我是希望股市回到5000点的,我认为那样比现在安全。我一直不指望我的养老金,正准备交罚款拿出来去换辆车。股市不回归,货币就贬值,都是一样的,羊毛出在羊身上。断气说还有待观察,不见棺材不落泪。
唉,这个苦瓜,股市几千都不会安全的,没有股市最安全。可惜欧美99%的正经公司(包括你的东家在内)是靠股市和银行或风险资本直接间接融资的。象微软和古狗那样自己的现金存款比银行都多,无须借钱就能大规模雇人搞研发的是少数中的少数。股市和金融垮下来,这里搞研究开发的首先失业,其次是生产,最后是服务。:)
我们公司股票要是再跌下去,两年时间回不来,十二万中得有八万失业。我们26亿英镑的医疗合同刚做了一多半,政府融资。100亿包括华为的项目还未到中途,全部是自己找银行融资。50亿英镑下一代宽带网的项目刚起步,融资意向还没全弄完。股市垮了,撑不过明年年底全完蛋。棺材来了,你也看不见了,还落啥子个泪啊。:)
所以我也由衷希望中国能搞好。西方不亮东方亮。另外,“股市不回归,货币就贬值”是无理无据之言,美国股市好坏跟货币贬值有直接关系?:) - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/26/2008
祝福中国,祝福美国。 - posted on 09/26/2008
唉,股市的不安全里面也能比较出相对安全吧。
我的东家也是不靠股市融资搞科研的公司。我以前还没注意到,这是少数中的少数,也许是真的。我东家四十多年前成立了这家公司,一直是挣一点儿钱,办一点儿事儿,远离硅谷远离华尔街。弄得自己挺有品味的样子。老头子说起来硅谷,就有些不屑一顾。但是不妨碍公司做得挺大,大到老头子要为自己死后家里人纳遗产税的问题做出一些规划,咨询的结果,能保住公司和家人的最好办法就是上市。老头子犹豫了四五年,最后只好妥协上市。我们上市的时间非常短,还不太适应华尔街。上市后的最大后遗症就是不能像以前那样由着性子做有意思的东西,每个季度都得给华尔街一个说法。但是公司的办公楼什么的,都是现金买来的。公司里雇着专人管理自己的博物馆,小小的精巧的博物馆,恬静地站在一角。公司里工作五年的员工算是刚刚warm up,十年的算是熟人,二十年左右的比比皆是。莫非这种日子已经太落后于时代了?
倒是我家老爷工作的地方,start up了十多年了,一直靠投资生存,有惊无险地穿越各种泡沫。我公公第一次来美国问儿子:你们靠什么生活?儿子回答:other people's bad investment. 这话一出口,就不回头。前几天雷曼兄弟公司申请破产,他们公司第二天也开了个大会,大家赫然发现自己公司的网页上投资人的名单里打头的就是雷曼兄弟公司,一片哗然。大会上群众争先提问,雷曼之死于我们有多大影响,领导笑曰,此雷曼非彼雷曼,如此这般,解释了半天,还是撇不清这层关系。最后只好说:然而,无论他们现在如何,投给我们的钱已经在我们的银行帐号里存着了。其实,我觉得,这家公司还凑或,要是市场真消停了,没有那么花里胡哨的东西,他们说不定出路还多一些。这么一总结,还是不怕天塌了,大不了,开个小店卖馒头,饭总得吃吧。
令胡冲 wrote:
唉,这个苦瓜,股市几千都不会安全的,没有股市最安全。可惜欧美99%的正经公司(包括你的东家在内)是靠股市和银行或风险资本直接间接融资的。象微软和古狗那样自己的现金存款比银行都多,无须借钱就能大规模雇人搞研发的是少数中的少数。股市和金融垮下来,这里搞研究开发的首先失业,其次是生产,最后是服务。:)
你们公司有12万人,这么大?如果股票不回来,项目也不会就不做了,大概需要效率高一些,人员少一些,减肥是一定的,彻底不干了恐怕不能。哪里都一样,干着干着就膨胀得厉害,如果不能经常小步伐调整就得积累到一定程度大幅度调整。股市垮也只是回归到风险相对比较低的位置,股市虚涨反而不是太好事。
硅谷红火的时候,没上市的公司租房子,房东不肯收钱,只收没有上市的股票,好像每一张股票都能变成黄金。那时候每家公司开口说需要资金,就有千百只手拿着支票冲你高呼:用我的,用我的。好像自己的钱比别人的钱长得漂亮。股市被折腾死了之后,世界上钱的流动还是会存在,那股长的劲也还在,只是不通过股市了,总会有其它渠道。路就是这么一条条被人走出来又走死的。
我们公司股票要是再跌下去,两年时间回不来,十二万中得有八万失业。我们26亿英镑的医疗合同刚做了一多半,政府融资。100亿包括华为的项目还未到中途,全部是自己找银行融资。50亿英镑下一代宽带网的项目刚起步,融资意向还没全弄完。股市垮了,撑不过明年年底全完蛋。棺材来了,你也看不见了,还落啥子个泪啊。:)
这里说的是股市虚胖,货币贬值。到底函数关系如何,还得仔细清算,大概也没有简单的算法。
所以我也由衷希望中国能搞好。西方不亮东方亮。另外,“股市不回归,货币就贬值”是无理无据之言,美国股市好坏跟货币贬值有直接关系?:) - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/27/2008
令胡热心开线,我们也祝福一下英国吧。;)
chloe wrote:
祝福中国,祝福美国。 - posted on 09/27/2008
哎,没有accountability的救市听上去更象劫市了,借恐慌和暂时回调再劫最后一大笔,然后撤离。这共党无论中美咋看上去都是殊途同归奔瑞士呢,看来这人间还真是有乐土:)但愿是我悲观,得,祝福吧,到时去投票,也就剩这一件事儿可干了。
令胡冲 wrote:
This is absolutely outrageous. Even I can't believe it. :)
So where is the end-party accountability for a public money of 700 + 200 + 85 Billion dollars? Does that mean Hank can use that lots of money to buy whomever and whenever he wants with whatever the price he set, but he won't take the slightiest accountability for the decisions he will make? :)
This Treasure secretary sounded like a government hijacker, and now he is trying to be a Law hijacker. Even I can be a treasure secretary who can make decisions without worrying about any consequences. :) - posted on 09/28/2008
浮生 wrote:
哎,没有accountability的救市听上去更象劫市了,借恐慌和暂时回调再劫最后一大笔,然后撤离。这共党无论中美咋看上去都是殊途同归奔瑞士呢,看来这人间还真是有乐土:)但愿是我悲观,得,祝福吧,到时去投票,也就剩这一件事儿可干了。
民进党的陈水扁不是剩余经费也都跑到瑞士去了吗。那听起来还真是台湾最倡导意识形态的人呢。:)
周末国会两党协商进展如何?刚看了一眼BBC说原则性协议已经达成?共和党如今真滥透了,众院的共和党如此疲软无力,让人好笑。我原来估计他们也得帮老麦一把,顶两周时间,两天就结束了?
这是老麦最后一次机会了。如果这次他操作不了,那大选中奥巴马肯定压倒性胜利,42洲的估计都是保守了。现在再刺杀奥巴马太迟了。
老麦这次的竞选班子怎么会比布什的差这么多,是不是那些家伙都受过银行家的恩典,有苦不敢说?我也很怀疑Paulson过去在高盛的大量奖金还是股份形式,没有到合法取出的时间?我觉着老麦应该把协议搞黄两周,直到高盛撑不住了举白旗为止,再同意政府与全球主权基金合作全部保出。否则对其他三家投资银行也不公平。:)
- Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/28/2008
You got completely backwards, man. The earlier congress sorts out this bailout mess, the better off McCain's campaign will be. This is no brainer. If the partisan bickering lingers on for 2 more weeks, then Obama's momentum will be unstoppable and McCain will be out before 11/4. Just look at the poll numbers since early september.
Don't blame anyone else. McCain himself ackownledged that economy is not his strong suit.
- posted on 09/28/2008
苦瓜 wrote:
令胡热心开线,我们也祝福一下英国吧。;)
伦敦离华尔街的距离,远比华盛顿离它的距离都近,更不用说加州了。伦敦这几年的战略性发展计划一直是以金融服务业为主。在公费雇来的夸夸其谈飘飘然的strategist口中,理想的伦敦应该只有两类人存在,一是Banker,二是Banker的服务人员。理想比例是1比10。除此无它。华儿街要是垮了,伦敦先傻眼,其次才是华盛顿,最后是加州。:)
刚从Times看到一则消息 ---- 原来老麦昨天已经亲自尝试过介入了,却被搞成了国会山上最不受欢迎的人。不知道这英国记者的解读是否准确。美国报纸不会这么直截了当吧。:)
老麦这回看来是当定陪练了。这种事情,要有知心朋友在国会中给他挑头搅局,那才是正确的操作。自己怎么能亲自出面火拼呢?唉。共和党士气已散,看来我有希望赌赢,老虻准备给我们大家写支票吧。这评论看了头三段就把我笑弯了腰。唉,没有一个得力的队伍,70岁的人,这是在遭罪。
民主党国会议员在全体反对老麦的任何实质性介入。看来Paulson之后肯定要叛党脱逃,成为民主党一代功臣了。
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4834478.ece
John McCain escapes south after his bullish skirmish in Washington’s china shopTom Baldwin in Washington
John McCain was forced to beat an undignified retreat from Washington yesterday after his audacious — possibly foolhardy — foray into the finely balanced congressional brokerage of a Wall Street bailout.
The Republican nominee fled to the relative sanctuary of a debate in Mississippi with Barack Obama, even though aides had previously suggested that he would not leave until a deal on the rescue plan was agreed.
Rarely, if ever, in all his 26 years as a member of Congress can Mr McCain have felt less welcome on Capitol Hill as Democrats queued up to attack his intervention. Chuck Schumer took to the Senate floor in the morning to say that President Bush should “respectfully tell Senator McCain to get out of town — he’s not helping”.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, said: “I think Senator McCain’s involvement is sort of a blip.” She said that Thursday’s White House meeting, called at his suggestion, had been “disruptive”.
Related Links
McCain backs down to attend debate
Bush sums it up: ‘This sucker could go down’
McCain falters as bailout swamps US election
Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Banking Committee, later declared: “Now that Senator McCain is safely in Mississippi we can get to serious work.”
As for Mr Obama, he was so cool he might have been auditioning for anti-perspirant advertisements, telling reporters: “My strong sense is that the best thing I can do, rather than inject presidential politics into these delicate negotiations is to go down to Mississippi.”
In vain did MCcain supporters insist that for all the talk of a deal before the White House meeting, there never was one. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat who is backing Mr McCain, was left railing against “the biggest lie” of the past 24 hours — the claim that the candidate’s intervention had wrecked negotiations.
Privately, even some of Mr McCain’s close advisers admitted that going to Washington had been a huge gamble by a candidate who has already ridden close to the rails with previous decisions, including his choice of Sarah Palin as running-mate.
When he arrived in the capital on Thursday, Mr McCain found himself caught in the crossfire of a war raging across three fronts — only one of which was his fight with Mr Obama. A palsied Bush Administration was struggling to get the deal it believed was needed to prevent catastrophe in the global economy, while Democrats and Republicans were battling for votes in November’s congressional elections.
Unusual alliances have been made. While most Senate Republicans joined the White House and a majority of Democrats in backing a modified bailout, those in the House — all of whom are up for re-election in November — conspired to thwart it.
Before his departure yesterday, Mr McCain met those in the House of Representatives revolting against the bailout. Some are motivated ideologically and have presented an insurance-based alternative that will cost less federal money. Others — under pressure from constituents — sensed an opportunity to distance themselves from both the Bush Administration and “big government Democrats”.
A few, as Democrats suspect, may even have thought that they were helping Mr McCain by setting him up to ride to the rescue. If so, that looked to have been too clever by half yesterday. Mr McCain’s message at the meeting was described by one Republican source as: “We need a deal. We need a deal. We need a deal.”
It is being suggested that so long as a “broad framework” of agreement is in place, he can still claim to have done a job. And yesterday some Republican rebels said they would not be “seen as obstructionists” provided at least party of the rescue deal was privately financed.
Roy Blunt, the Republican House whip, was dispatched to make peace with the Democrats who do not want to face voters in November “holding the bag” for the bailout deal.
“If they want to do this by themselves they can,” he said. “If they want to do this with us we are prepared to be a part of that negotiation, eager to have that negotiation.”
Mr McCain’s campaign, meanwhile, was busy pointing the finger at almost everybody else: “Americans saw a familiar spectacle in Washington. At a moment of crisis that threatened the economic security of American families, Washington played the blame game rather than work together.
“There was no deal on offer yesterday that had a majority of support in Congress. It is not enough to cut deals behind closed doors — especially when it amounts to thousands of dollars for every American family.”
His aides suggested that he might yet return to the capital to help negotiations and insisted that he had “listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution”.
Democrats, however, ridiculed Mr McCain’s performance in the White House meeting when, by all accounts, he said virtually nothing.
They say his “erratic, impulsive performance” through this bullish skirmish into the Washington china shop over the past week, has re-opened questions about his temperament — and which of the two candidates looks most presidential.
- posted on 09/29/2008
The House vote just finished:国会众院刚刚完成表决救市法案
Nay(反对): 227 (D-94, R-133) D:民主党 R:共和党
Yea(同意): 206 (D-141, R-65)
218 is needed to pass.......so there is no bailout bill for now......共和党当局和民主党众院支持的救市法案没有通过
votes are still changing.......those who voted against casted their vote in the last 4 minutes.反对票大多数在最后4分钟内才表态。
1:41pm 168 v 172, for v against
1:44pm 189 v 208, for v against
1:47pm 203 v 227, for v against
1:49pm 205 v 228, for v against
1:53pm 207 v 226, for v against
1:49pm Dow Down 500 Points.....结果一显示,道琼斯大跌500点。
1:50-2:11pm Dow Down ~600 Points, then rebounced and getting stable back to ~-520......道琼斯又在结果宣布继续下滑100点后回弹.......
明(后)天参院表决。下一步何去何从,无人知道。布殊很失望,民众很彷徨。
我现在上街打酱油。 - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/29/2008
赶紧买股票吧,明天又涨回来了,那法案死活是要通过的,一次不行,改改还要再来一次。 - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/29/2008
so there is no bailout bill for now......共和党当局和民主党国会支持的救市法案没有通过
votes are still changing.......those who voted against casted their vote in the last 4 minutes.反对票大多数在最后4分钟内才表态。
- Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/29/2008
布殊很失望,民众很彷徨。
这个竹子真逗! :-)
咱一堆互助基金都套里头啦,咋整? - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/29/2008
Look this, GOP seems really lost how the money works.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26945028#26940967
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26945028#26941948 - posted on 09/29/2008
rzp wrote:
1:50-2:11pm Dow Down ~600 Points, then rebounced and getting stable back to ~-520......道琼斯又在结果宣布继续下滑100点后回弹.......
明(后)天参院表决。下一步何去何从,无人知道。布殊很失望,民众很彷徨。
God。共和党还真要来真的?美国的国会体制果然不全是聋子耳朵,摆设。
我暂时收回上面前两天骂他们无能不如人大政协的话。
还没有来得及看新闻。但我初步希望或估计众院否它两次,参院否它一次。本周末,国会代表拿出第二搞来仍然被否。第三稿提案在下周末勉强通过,下下周一参院手下留情放过。
老麦啊老麦,希望你能抓住这稍纵即逝的机会。找到一些帮忙的人。不要输得太惨。下面我们就看共和党两院议员得了。:)
另一个正式全面出手的指标,我个人盼望在高盛撑不住了,宣布破产或被收购以后,财政部再正式开始联手东亚海湾主权基金,实行出手救世。 - posted on 09/29/2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7641733.stm
But after a several hours of impassioned debate, the bill's opponents - the majority of whom were from the Republican Party - got their way.
They had raised concerns about both the content of the plan and the speed with which they were being asked to pass it.
看这两段。果然不出所料,危机面前,共和党议员果然能坚守传统价值,不为政府要挟,不怕民众高压,更不惧华尔街的流言蜚语。好样的,历史要给这次投反对票的人记上一笔。:)
民主党议员也坚持了本党的原则。但危机面前,佩络西真是个没头的苍蝇一般,匆匆忙忙随风跑。听说她当年广场上振臂高呼革命口号,那疯狂的意识形态和精神哪里去了。看来她对中国意识形态的了解,要远胜于美国价值观的掌握。绣花枕头,让人失望。
- Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/29/2008
今天股市降了777点,但是按百分比计算,还没有进到单日下跌历史纪录的前十名。
虽然救世方案没有通过,但已经非常接近通过的票数,下面妥协的成本不会太高。希望监管机构能够在救助方案通过之前形成,否则华尔街骗公粮的技术不是街头难民多抢一袋米的儿戏,后果不堪设想。 - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/29/2008
很高兴看到这个投票结果。该掉下来的就要掉下来,托也托不住。我就不相信救市派的那套鬼话,什么“否则银行不愿意贷款出去了”。它银行有钱不放贷,捂起来生孩子么? - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/29/2008
苦瓜 wrote:It is the biggest single-day point loss in history.
今天股市降了777点,但是按百分比计算,还没有进到单日下跌历史纪录的前十名。
- posted on 09/29/2008
为什么一定就是鬼话呢?要是前些年中国政府不救市,中国的大银行都不存在了,哪里会有今天的繁荣。银行有钱,但账上没钱,也是不能放贷的。美国不是社会主义,做救市这样的社会主义行为本来就是by default被反对的,而且比中国有更多的环节要考虑。所以民主党也不愿轻易背黑锅,他们坚持要有过半共和党支持才进行众院投票。现在民主党内部也无法达成一致的意见,这种摇旗不定的局面对使到市场更加动荡,大浪淘沙后,救市计划是更加有效,还是失去了历史关键时刻的杠杆?要不是大选在即,这个局面会被控制的更好一些。希望政客们不要假借国难发政治财,这是真正国家利益当优先的时候。
八十一子 wrote:
很高兴看到这个投票结果。该掉下来的就要掉下来,托也托不住。我就不相信救市派的那套鬼话,什么“否则银行不愿意贷款出去了”。它银行有钱不放贷,捂起来生孩子么? - posted on 09/30/2008
rzp wrote:
希望政客们不要假借国难发政治财,这是真正国家利益当优先的时候。
有最新消息没有。下一步政府的对策是什么?
国会是一个民主国家的重要支柱,是美国原则和价值观延续的实际保障。这两天,我们在见证历史啊,一个辉煌帝国的成熟政治框架在遇到百年一遇的经济危机时,是如何在宏观层次上运行和对应的。你们就不觉着激动吗?我真是难以想象。:)
国家利益是一个复杂的概念。长痛不一定就比短痛更附和国家利益。这里面也没有一定之规。如果轻易放弃了过去两个世纪使帝国能够象今天一样强盛和辉煌的生存原则,那美国注定将要踏上未知之路,前途未卜。前途更加光明的几率很小。
我个人始终认为,共和党议员是保证美国成形传统的唯一依靠。他们要是不出手,美国就忘记了自己为什么会是美国。救市肯定要救,但要确保这些原则得到时间充分的讨论和贯彻之后,顺便等市场痛到快无法忍受的地步,今后50年都无法忘却这种痛的时候,再迅速出手不迟。现在全球有的是资金,大家都在虎视眈眈,钱不是问题,时机才是问题。
高盛触角广泛,全球说客如云,甚至布莱尔和Paulson都在里面有直接利益。宛若金融黑帮老大。我个人认为,这次应该至少痛到让它破产或被收购的地步。:)
- posted on 09/30/2008
这两天犹太新年,学校放假,国会也休会两天。
是很激动,盯着他们昨天投票的那半个钟头,我想起Amazing Grace里面的英国议会的辩论。
即使是昨天通过了,也将是一个长痛。只是在基本有要通过的共识下,看着他们那闹市般的会场,手机通用的条件下,居然如此为了不背以后的黑锅,互相推托而得到最后的与其愿相违的结果。简直是没眼看下去。没见事后paulson从白宫出来说话时那样的jumpy,没见晚间新闻两党互相埋怨吗。
是啊,让市场再自生自灭两天,大浪淘沙,是祸是福,只有定数。包括高盛。
昨晚newt提出不要Mark to market,这也是许多业内人士的这些天来的说法。现在的问题就是因为所有的账(信贷债劵除了单纯股票交易)都是mark to market,现在没有市了,大家手头的账就定不了价,被迫要卖的只能贱卖,一贱卖,由于mark to market,其它的同类余账也跟着亏,账一亏又被迫得卖,如此恶性循环........
令胡冲 wrote:
rzp wrote:有最新消息没有。下一步政府的对策是什么?
希望政客们不要假借国难发政治财,这是真正国家利益当优先的时候。
国会是一个民主国家的重要支柱,是美国原则和价值观延续的实际保障。这两天,我们在见证历史啊,一个辉煌帝国的成熟政治框架在遇到百年一遇的经济危机时,是如何在宏观层次上运行和对应的。你们就不觉着激动吗?我真是难以想象。:)
国家利益是一个复杂的概念。长痛不一定就比短痛更附和国家利益。这里面也没有一定之规。如果轻易放弃了过去两个世纪使帝国能够象今天一样强盛和辉煌的生存原则,那美国注定将要踏上未知之路,前途未卜。前途更加光明的几率很小。
我个人始终认为,共和党议员是保证美国成形传统的唯一依靠。他们要是不出手,美国就忘记了自己为什么会是美国。救市肯定要救,但要确保这些原则得到时间充分的讨论和贯彻之后,顺便等市场痛到快无法忍受的地步,今后50年都无法忘却这种痛的时候,再迅速出手不迟。现在全球有的是资金,大家都在虎视眈眈,钱不是问题,时机才是问题。
高盛触角广泛,全球说客如云,甚至布莱尔和Paulson都在里面有直接利益。宛若金融黑帮老大。我个人认为,这次应该至少痛到让它破产或被收购的地步。:)
- posted on 09/30/2008
rzp wrote:
这两天犹太新年,学校放假,国会也休会两天。
是很激动,盯着他们昨天投票的那半个钟头,我想起Amazing Grace里面的英国议会的辩论。
英国议会辩论是全球罕见的政府首脑每周准点跟反对党面对面对骂。不能用脏字,但可以用比脏字意味更深长有力的字。不许搞人身攻击,但可以开比人身攻击还损人身的玩笑。如果联合国全球首脑即席辩论,随便提出一个内阁来就可以稳操胜券。中国首脑则稳进倒数前十名。
是啊,让市场再自生自灭两天,大浪淘沙,是祸是福,只有定数。包括高盛。
我这个老百姓不信邪。高盛比其他四家投资银行每年分红奖金都多一倍以上,这从一个侧面暗示了事实,就是他们在次贷发生以后仍然在愚蠢而且嚣张地操作不当securities,而且有可能比其它几家有过之而无不及,他们目前手里的坏帐应该比其它家都严重。当世界各地的买家在市场崩溃一声枪响所有的鸟都一齐飞走了以后,当击股传花中鼓声突然停止,高盛也应该不幸发现一个最大的花停在自己手上。这个天文数字的大花,只借贷的利率每周就得以千万计算。。
它现在只所以能撑下来,是因为它实在人脉太广,总能每周借到大笔的钱来还贷息。我想看它能撑几周。:) - posted on 09/30/2008
LHC wrote:
我这个老百姓不信邪。高盛比其他四家投资银行每年分红奖金都多一倍以上,这从一个侧面暗示了事实,就是他们在次贷发生以后仍然在愚蠢而且嚣张地操作不当securities,而且有可能比其它几家有过之而无不及,他们目前手里的坏帐应该比其它家都严重。当世界各地的买家在市场崩溃一声枪响所有的鸟都一齐飞走了以后,当击股传花中鼓声突然停止,高盛也应该不幸发现一个最大的花停在自己手上。这个天文数字的大花,只借贷的利率每周就得以千万计算。。
它现在只所以能撑下来,是因为它实在人脉太广,总能每周借到大笔的钱来还贷息。我想看它能撑几周。:)
高盛在2007年底就把手上的次贷出空了,不单出空了,而且他的position一直是short,也就是说越跌他们越赚钱。只要有流动,他们就还能赚钱,现在是市场死了,他们才没招了。
其实做风险管理的在2007年都知道要出事了,高盛的风险管理部门有否决权,他们说不能做的,就是不能做。别的公司是谁赚钱谁老大,风险管理部门的意见被当作了耳旁风。 - posted on 09/30/2008
行人 wrote:
高盛在2007年底就把手上的次贷出空了,不单出空了,而且他的position一直是short,也就是说越跌他们越赚钱。只要有流动,他们就还能赚钱,现在是市场死了,他们才没招了。
其实做风险管理的在2007年都知道要出事了,高盛的风险管理部门有否决权,他们说不能做的,就是不能做。别的公司是谁赚钱谁老大,风险管理部门的意见被当作了耳旁风。
这是哄外人的话。鬼才相信那个。今年年初其它一线银行都顶不住的时候,高盛几乎是唯一一家还在发放巨额奖金的人。它要是手上不再流动货物,哪来的现金敢那么折腾。这一个表明他们比较自信所以麻痹,第二是他们声誉搞得很响所以其它人都还麻木地跟它生意,给它信贷。风险管理最好的公司,能是发放奖金最多的公司?这不是欺负我们老百姓常识嘛。:)
它们要真手上没有巨额次贷相关债券,就不会上周那么着急找巴菲特了,无条件廉价股权换现金了。种种迹象表明,所有买家一轰而散以后,它手上有大宝贝。当然,它表面非常镇定。
我想这也是Paulson为什么争分夺秒地要求国会早一天通过议案。这帮人什么没见过,哪来的这种慌张,一定是高盛每周都当一年过。:)
如果高盛不倒,总让人觉着这次泡沫没有挤干净。还是说只有我一个人幸灾乐祸? :) - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/30/2008
position 不容易作假,大家天天在一起做生意,你手上有多少货,还是搞得清楚的,高盛的次贷 short position 应该假不了。 - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/30/2008
行人 wrote:
position 不容易作假,大家天天在一起做生意,你手上有多少货,还是搞得清楚的,高盛的次贷 short position 应该假不了。
:) 我有兴趣拭目以待。
你不在Goldman Sach做IT开发吧? - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/30/2008
Paulson was 高盛的 CEO, he has lots, lots, lots....
I am very happy bail out was rejected yesterday. I am sure it will get passed, but as Linghu's says, let wait until last moment. - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/30/2008
令胡冲 wrote:
你不在Goldman Sach做IT开发吧?
是投行,担不是GS :) - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/30/2008
行人 wrote:
令胡冲 wrote:是投行,担不是GS :)
你不在Goldman Sach做IT开发吧?
唉,这就好。我幸灾乐祸时也少一点对不起网友的罪恶感。
:)
- Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/30/2008
July wrote:
Paulson was 高盛的 CEO, he has lots, lots, lots....
I am very happy bail out was rejected yesterday. I am sure it will get passed, but as Linghu's says, let wait until last moment.
华尔街上一百多年来最大的两股势力,一个是WASP,一个是犹太人。最后剩下的这两件投行,GS是犹太人,MS是WASP。这是最后的根了,他们要倒了,才真是连根挖了。 - posted on 09/30/2008
McCain 是支持BAILOUT 的。
From CNN:
During a campaign event in Des Moines, Iowa, on Tuesday, McCain appeared to distance himself from Monday's House vote, saying the congressional inaction had "every American and the entire economy at the gravest risk."
"Yesterday, the country and the world looked to Washington for leadership, and Congress once again came up empty-handed," he said.
But over the weekend, McCain had involved himself in the efforts to get the bailout package to the president's desk.
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the top Republican in the House, said that McCain was actively involved in lobbying Republican House members Sunday to line up behind the bailout.
"He has been making calls to members in support of this bill ... and I'm grateful for his support," Boehner said.
- posted on 09/30/2008
Paulson was Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense at The Pentagon from 1970 to 1972.He then worked for the administration of U.S. President Richard Nixon, serving as assistant to John Ehrlichman from 1972 to 1973.
He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974, working in the firm's Chicago office for Manmeet Taneja. He became a partner in 1982. From 1983 until 1988, Paulson led the Investment Banking group for the Midwest Region, and became managing partner of the Chicago office in 1988. From 1990 to November 1994, he was co-head of Investment Banking, then, Chief Operating Officer from December 1994 to June 1998;eventually succeeding Jon Corzine (now Governor of New Jersey) as its chief executive.
His compensation package, according to reports, was US$37 million in 2005, and US$16.4 million projected for 2006. His net worth has been estimated at over US$700 million.
Paulson has personally built close relations with China during his career. In July 2008 it was reported by The Daily Telegraph that: "Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has intimate relations with the Chinese elite, dating from his days at Goldman Sachs when he visited the country more than 70 times."
Conflict of interest
There has been some criticism of Paulson, with suggestions that Paulson's plan may potentially have some conflicts of interest. This is because Paulson is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, a firm that may benefit from the plan. Unlike the previous bailouts and managed liquidations of Goldman competitors Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Bros. and those of AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, in which shareholder value was largely wiped out, Goldman's stock could rise under the Paulson plan, benefiting his former partners, because it would take distressed assets off their balance sheet.
The proposed bill would give him unprecedented powers over the economic and financial life of the U.S.. Section 8 of Paulson’s plan states: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
- Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 09/30/2008
高盛也需要资金,现在不光次贷,所有的 CDS, CDO 都成垃圾了,整个市场死了。 - posted on 09/30/2008
行人 wrote:
高盛也需要资金,现在不光次贷,所有的 CDS, CDO 都成垃圾了,整个市场死了。
整个市场还在,并没有全部seize-up。这里面差距很大。花旗和摩根大通根据规定应该至少有5%储备金,而且这两家银行只要张口,世界各地的现金或信贷就会来入股。唯一麻烦的是美国政府的批准。
投资银行储备金极少,说应该有3%,很难让人相信。它们处在最前沿,撑不过几天。可以理解整个市场没有人再敢给它们信贷了。那万一破产,肉包子打狗有去无会。整个个deritives不管是CDS还是什么货物交易,一概全得积压在手里。如果知道一点内情的生意伙伴真的相信高盛的short position一说,那没有理由不跟他们做生意。:)
巴非特是赌徒。他输得起所以敢赌。我很感兴趣有多少这样的赌徒。:)
另外,能不能用常识性语言给我也讲一讲为什么高盛的平均奖金比其他投行的同行高出至少一倍半来。高盛买空卖空的规模更大,还真得是他们的个人生产效率太高。:)
- posted on 09/30/2008
给我们大家普及一下,什么叫mark to market?
昨晚newt提出不要Mark to market,这也是许多业内人士的这些天来的说法。现在的问题就是因为所有的账(信贷债劵除了单纯股票交易)都是mark to market,现在没有市了,大家手头的账就定不了价,被迫要卖的只能贱卖,一贱卖,由于mark to market,其它的同类余账也跟着亏,账一亏又被迫得卖,如此恶性循环........
令胡冲 wrote:
rzp wrote:有最新消息没有。下一步政府的对策是什么?
希望政客们不要假借国难发政治财,这是真正国家利益当优先的时候。
国会是一个民主国家的重要支柱,是美国原则和价值观延续的实际保障。这两天,我们在见证历史啊,一个辉煌帝国的成熟政治框架在遇到百年一遇的经济危机时,是如何在宏观层次上运行和对应的。你们就不觉着激动吗?我真是难以想象。:)
国家利益是一个复杂的概念。长痛不一定就比短痛更附和国家利益。这里面也没有一定之规。如果轻易放弃了过去两个世纪使帝国能够象今天一样强盛和辉煌的生存原则,那美国注定将要踏上未知之路,前途未卜。前途更加光明的几率很小。
我个人始终认为,共和党议员是保证美国成形传统的唯一依靠。他们要是不出手,美国就忘记了自己为什么会是美国。救市肯定要救,但要确保这些原则得到时间充分的讨论和贯彻之后,顺便等市场痛到快无法忍受的地步,今后50年都无法忘却这种痛的时候,再迅速出手不迟。现在全球有的是资金,大家都在虎视眈眈,钱不是问题,时机才是问题。
高盛触角广泛,全球说客如云,甚至布莱尔和Paulson都在里面有直接利益。宛若金融黑帮老大。我个人认为,这次应该至少痛到让它破产或被收购的地步。:)
- posted on 10/01/2008
Senate to vote on bailout bill Wednesday night
WASHINGTON - In a surprise move to resurrect President Bush’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan, Senate leaders slated a vote on the measure for Wednesday — but added a tax cut plan already rejected by the House.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky unveiled the plan Tuesday. The Senate plan would also raise federal deposit insurance limits to $250,000 from $100,000, as called for by the two presidential nominees only hours earlier.
The move to add a tax legislation — including a set of popular business tax breaks — risked a backlash from House Democrats insisting they be paid for with tax increases elsewhere.
But by also adding legislation to prevent more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from feeling the bite of the alternative minimum tax, the step could build momentum for the Wall Street bailout from House Republicans. The presidential candidates Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., intend to fly to Washington for the votes, as does Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the Democratic vice presidential candidate.
The surprise move capped a day in which supporters of the imperiled multibillion-dollar economic rescue fought to bring it back to life, courting reluctant lawmakers with a variety of other sweeteners including the plan to reassure Americans their bank deposits are safe.
Wall Street, at least, regained hope. The Dow Jones industrials rose 485 points, one day after a record 778-point plunge following rejection in the U.S. House of the plan worked out by congressional leaders and the Bush administration.
Before Reid and McConnell’s move, lawmakers, President Bush and the two rivals to succeed him all rummaged through ideas new and old, desperately seeking to change a dozen House members’ votes and pass the $700 billion plan.
The tax plan passed the Senate last week, on a 93-2 vote. It included AMT relief, $8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana, and some $78 billion in renewable energy incentives and extensions of expiring tax breaks. In a compromise worked out with Republicans, the bill does not pay for the AMT and disaster provisions but does have revenue offsets for part of the energy and extension measures.
That wasn’t enough for the House, which insisted that there be complete offsets for the energy and extension part of the package.
The Senate move seems aimed at jamming the House into accepting the deficit-financed tax cuts. Conservative Democrats won’t like the idea, but some Congress-watchers suspect most Democrats might be willing to go along.
Still, the House is where the problems are, and leaders there were scrounging for ideas that might appeal to a few of the 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats who rejected the proposal on Monday.
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., told reporters, “I’m told a number of people who voted ’no’ yesterday are having serious second thoughts about it.” He added, however, “There’s no game plan that’s been decided.”
The idea drawing the biggest support was to raise the federal deposit insurance limit, now $100,000 per account, to $250,000. Several officials, along with both presidential nominees, endorsed the change.
So did the agency that runs the program.
Within hours of the candidates’ separate statements, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairman Sheila Bair asked Congress for temporary authority to raise the limit by an unspecified amount. That could help ease a crisis of confidence in the banking system, Bair said.
She said the overwhelming majority of banks remain sound but an increase in the cap would help ease a crisis of confidence in the banking system as well as encourage banks to begin more lending.
Other ideas include extending unemployment insurance benefits, typically a Democratic goal, but one that appeals to some Rust Belt Republicans. Another Democratic-backed idea would double the property tax deduction taken by people who do not itemize their taxes. And another calls for more spending on transportation infrastructure projects, which would create more jobs. Budget hawks in both parties might object, however.
Monday’s House vote was a stinging setback to leaders of both parties and to Bush. The administration’s proposal, still the heart of the legislation under consideration, would allow the government to buy bad mortgages and other deficient assets held by troubled financial institutions. If successful, advocates of the plan believe, that would help lift a major weight off the already sputtering national economy.
But the proposal ignited furious responses from thousands of Americans, who flooded congressional telephones. The House voted 228-205 against the plan. Some lawmakers reported a shift in constituent calls pouring into their offices Tuesday after the record stock market decline. Many callers, they said, want Congress to do something without “bailing out Wall Street.”
Bush renewed his efforts, speaking with McCain and Obama and making another statement from the White House. “Congress must act,” he declared.
Though stock prices rose, more attention was on credit markets. A key rate that banks charge each other shot higher, further evidence of a tightening of credit availability.
Bush was talking about everyday Americans on Tuesday, not banks or other financial institutions. And no supporters were using the word “bailout.”
The president noted that the maximum $700 billion in the proposed bill was dwarfed by the $1 trillion in lost wealth that resulted from Monday’s stock market decline.
“The dramatic drop in the stock market that we saw yesterday will have a direct impact on retirement accounts, pension funds and personal savings of millions of our citizens,” Bush said. “And if our nation continues on this course, the economic damage will be painful and lasting.”
Republicans said the FDIC proposal might attract lawmakers on the left and right who want to help small business owners and avert runs on banks by customers fearful of losing their savings.
Another possible change to the bill would call on regulators to modify “mark to market” accounting rules. Such rules require banks and other financial institutions to adjust the value of their assets to reflect current market prices, even if they plan to hold the assets for years.
Some House Republicans say current rules forced banks to report huge paper losses on mortgage-backed securities, which might have been avoided.
There was a note of irony in that proposal. One Republican familiar with the discussions conceded it amounted to step toward deregulation at a time when Obama, McCain and House members in both parties are clamoring for greater controls on the financial industry.
The rescue package was Topic A on the presidential campaign trail.
“The first thing I would do is say, ’Let’s not call it a bailout. Let’s call it a rescue,”’ McCain told CNN. He said, “Americans are frightened right now” and political leaders must give them an immediate solution and a longer-term approach to the problem.
Obama issued a statement saying that significantly increasing federal deposit insurance would help small businesses and make the U.S. banking system more secure as well as restore public confidence.
The bill’s defeat in the House came despite furious personal lobbying by Bush and support from House leaders of both parties. But ideological groups on the left and the right organized against it. Even pressure in favor of the bill from some of the biggest special interests in Washington, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Realtors, could not sway enough votes.
- Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 10/01/2008
用市场价评估各机构持有证券的价值。
wenzhang wrote:
给我们大家普及一下,什么叫mark to market?
- Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 10/01/2008
abc wrote:
用市场价评估各机构持有证券的价值。
wenzhang wrote:
给我们大家普及一下,什么叫mark to market?
And all I know about it is it's non-mathematical - so it's far more complicated. :) - posted on 10/01/2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7645645.stm
However, some members of Congress continue to press for more fundamental changes, such as insurance for bad loans, rather than the removal of the loans from the books of financial companies, says the BBC's Americas editor Justin Webb.
Earlier President Bush had warned of "painful and lasting" consequences for the US should Congress fail to agree a rescue plan.
Analysts say the Senate is more likely to pass the bill because senators are not facing the same pressure from voters - who are generally opposed to the bailout - as members of the House.
All representatives face re-election in November compared with only one-third of senators.
===
我正以网上前所未有的兴趣关注着参议员们的投票。目前欧美股市迹象表明大家认为这次通过60票是应该没有问题的。大多数人将这视为一种无形的压力。不过要是参院一次通过,我会对他们很失望的。将成为60年来最无能的参议院载入史册。:)
- posted on 10/01/2008
令胡冲 wrote:
abc wrote:And all I know about it is it's non-mathematical - so it's far more complicated. :)
用市场价评估各机构持有证券的价值。
wenzhang wrote:
给我们大家普及一下,什么叫mark to market?
简单地说,现在交易部门的按市场价做账方法,相对于accrued的做账法。比如甲某买了100个刚发行面值$100债劵,假设是花了每股$100(no premium, no discount),卖方乙某的要对买家甲某post$10,000的collecteral抵押。
假设,某甲某乙生意正常,债劵在二手市场上流通。乙某定期给甲某交利息(coupon),按照accured的算法,甲某手头的债劵现在值面值100加上利息累计。但是现在市场上每一股可以卖到$105,mark to market的算法则认为甲某手头的债劵值100x$105。如果市场上最新交易是每股只卖$80,那甲某手头的债劵就值100x$80。甲某的账一下就大缩水(paper lost=100x$20)。但是如果他一定要卖手头的债劵,因为这个债劵现在不流通,没有市场,不是没有人出价,就是有出的也是个低价$5,如果他被迫卖10股,那不仅他剩下的只值90x$5(paper lost=90x$75),而且市场上所有该债劵的拥有人都按$5重新算账。甲某如果亏大于盈,而且之间差价大于它的固定资产(asset),在账上来讲就是要破产了。如果甲某能坚持到债劵到期(maturity),所有coupon都收回来,他是不一定会亏的。
对于房主来讲,也类似。举一个简单的问题房贷例子:
张三买100万房子,向乙某贷款90万,张三每月3000元按揭。如果现在房市不好,同等房子只卖80万,要是mark to market的话,乙某paper lost=10万。乙某为了不继续lost,要收回张三的房子(forclosure),实际上如果张三现在还有工作,他愿意继续付利息,但付不起10万。乙某如果能让张三继续付利息,等到贷款到期,可能是赚了的。但是如果乙某一定要收回,因为他要破产,那张三的房子也就只能被收回。
Mark to market(MTM)在没有market的时候显然行不通,如果大家都不mark to market, 那如何自我叫价呢?也没有那莫简单。所有的hedge fund(对冲)都是MTM。
p.s.两周前GS是在short sell被禁止前带头疯狂short sell(相煎!!)。
- posted on 10/01/2008
问题好像不简单是做帐。
不说债券,拿老百姓的房子来说。某甲买了50万的房子,过后,邻居家类似的房子以100万卖掉,某甲就以次为根据告诉银行,我的房子价值100万了,便向银行又借出50万,并且把这50万花掉了。经过这么一番折腾,整个市场发现房价100万根本就是虚胖,房价只好回到原来的50万。某甲如果继续还债,银行业就不会倒。问题是,利率变了,某甲还债的钱从每月5000元上升到10000元,某甲只好让银行把房子收走。银行拿着房子也卖不了100万,甚至没有办法卖。银行收不到还款,拿着有价值的房子,等市场,向政府哭穷。
这里面,明显的问题是,房价虚涨的50万被某甲花掉了,银行收了几天这50万的利息,(其实银行原本有没有这50万也还是个谜),贷款经纪人赚了几千块的手续费。这些房屋市场的参与者谁都没亏,哇哇大哭是美国人不负责任之后强词夺理的方法。倒是某乙,当初也是50万买的房子,傻呵呵地没有趁着房价虚胖的时候套现挥霍,如今依然住着房子,付着贷款。领导突然过来说,你看他们都哭了,我们得把那些房子从银行手里收过来,这些房子价值100万,迟早这钱咱们一起赚。
这不是欺负老百姓吗?
rzp wrote:
简单地说,现在交易部门的按市场价做账方法,相对于accrued的做账法。比如甲某买了100个刚发行面值$100债劵,假设是花了每股$100(no premium, no discount),卖方乙某的要对买家甲某post$10,000的collecteral抵押。
- Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 10/01/2008
众院投票前受到的电话过半是要求反对的,没通过第二天接到的过半是赞成的。也够难为那些议员的。
- posted on 10/01/2008
女儿这几天参加学校的野营活动,要在外面住几天。一般来说这种活动孩子们都会参加,少数情况孩子不够成熟,不去,也是可以的。昨天女儿回来说,班上有一个同学不去,原因不是不想去,而是有更重要的活动要参加,她爸爸要去华盛顿参加反对bailout的抗议活动,她要跟着一起见证历史。听着煞是激动人心。
昨天收到一个朋友的e,本选区的议员在周一的投票中投了yes,让人十分失望,朋友写了这个给该议员:
Dear xxx:
I am very disappointed to know that you voted for the Wall
Street bail out plan.
For many years, this country has less and less fundamental industries.
What left is just a hawky military sky-high cost healthcare system and greedy Wall
Street. We have to recognize that it is the broad base industrial strength and
stable agriculture that makes this country strong. Without these basic
elements, the country is becoming hollowed inside.
We all know that the illegitimate Iraq war is a huge drag on the US economy. The high cost of healthcare is a concern to everyone. We should also recognize
that a oversized greedy Wall Street is becoming a cancer to the US economy. The
hard created wealth generated by the US taxpayers are drained year after
year by Wall Street through millions of wages and bonuses. It is just a matter
of time that the whole economy is dragged down by this ever-growing cancer.
Today, the majority of congress grouped together to defeat
the last greedy cry from Wall Street. I see nothing wrong in letting Wall
Street to go through some reduction. The capitalism needs capital and credit
management, but there got to be a limit on the overhead of such management. The
slimmer Wall Street will be more efficient for the future.
Please do not feel compelled and cornered by the congressional
leadership and Bush administration. Doing nothing is much better than doing it
wrong. I believe that the congress has made the right choice today, and I
sincerely hope that you can re-think about you take on this issue. What is
really needed for the US?
A huge money draining Wall Street, or an efficient financial system.
XYZ
- posted on 10/01/2008
rzp wrote:
苦瓜 wrote:我不是解释现在的危机而是解释mark to market。
问题好像不简单是做帐。
我知道你解释的是mark to market,mark to market有利的一面被用过了,就看到它不利的一面了。
解决问题得把问题的各个方面都拿出来看,我就不相信当初利用mark to market的时候天下就无人看到它潜在的问题。我都揪心5、6年了,那些专家们都是吃干饭的。这个世界所有的道理都是不怕讲的,多复杂的东西,背后的实质都很简单。把问题弄复杂的唯一理由就是要欺负人,云山雾罩地把对方搞懵,趁机袭击对方。 - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 10/01/2008
苦瓜 wrote:
出而是有更重要的活动要参加,她爸爸要去华盛顿参加反对bailout的抗议活动,她要跟着一起见证历史。听着煞是激动人心。
见证历史,首要的一个条件是不能参与历史。:) - posted on 10/01/2008
大家都有苦瓜一半的聪明,就不会有危机了。
不过话说回来,危机危机,按照中国人的智慧,一半危险,一半机会。
kugua wrote:
rzp wrote:我知道你解释的是mark to market,mark to market有利的一面被用过了,就看到它不利的一面了。
苦瓜 wrote:我不是解释现在的危机而是解释mark to market。
问题好像不简单是做帐。
解决问题得把问题的各个方面都拿出来看,我就不相信当初利用mark to market的时候天下就无人看到它潜在的问题。我都揪心5、6年了,那些专家们都是吃干饭的。这个世界所有的道理都是不怕讲的,多复杂的东西,背后的实质都很简单。把问题弄复杂的唯一理由就是要欺负人,云山雾罩地把对方搞懵,趁机袭击对方。 - posted on 10/01/2008
I don't think we can attribute all the current problems to Regan who only relaxed part of the Glass-Steagal Act, a Depression-era law that restricted the activities of big financial firms, Regan's deregulation wasn't the final blow to the Act itself. It was only a few years later, the Clinton Adm.--after heavy lobbying by Wall Street, and vigorous encouragment from Greenspan, removed the last vestiges fo Glass-Steagall and subsequently opened the can of worms, highlighted by cooking books and Casino Capitalism.
By the same token, However, I don't think de-regulation is always bad for the industry, without deregulation, we stil pay a dollar a minute for our China calls, without Carter's deregulation on airline routes and fares, we surely pay more for traveling.
I like Democratics far more than Republicans, but I think we can't simplify the hard cold facts becasue of party affilation.
July wrote:
说到底, 就是要regulation, 我早说了, 里根是作俑者。 我念上学时读的里根传,一边读,一边想,这不是胡来吗? 道理简单得很, 一个没有基本规矩的家,孩子肯定要出问题,何况国家啊。我不明白的是, 美国没有一个和我想的一样的人吗? - posted on 10/01/2008
苦瓜 wrote:
昨天收到一个朋友的e,本选区的议员在周一的投票中投了yes,让人十分失望,朋友写了这个给该议员:
可是奥巴马也准备投yes。
For many years, this country has less and less fundamental industries.
What left is just a hawky military sky-high cost healthcare system and greedy Wall
Street. We have to recognize that it is the broad base industrial strength and
stable agriculture that makes this country strong. Without these basic
elements, the country is becoming hollowed inside.
赞同这段话。以前美国汽车工业有个传统,CEO必须是工程师出身,当过车间主任,知道车是怎么造出来的。后来GM发现玩钱更容易,提出了个有名的口号:“We are not in the business of making car, we are in the business of making money.“。从那以后,GM的高层全被MBA把持,工程师再也没有发言权。结果我们都看到了,这些MBA把美国汽车工业弄成了什么样子。 - posted on 10/01/2008
里根最本质的问题是超前消费来刺激生产,是虚假的繁荣,是透支,是赤字,和庞大的政府,而不是生产力。 克林顿是在国库平衡的前提下加速资金流通,克林顿用IT来带动工业的发展,是真正的生产力。
I am not talking the party, I am talking the policy.
feiming wrote:
I don't think we can attribute all the current problems to Regan who only relaxed part of the Glass-Steagal Act, a Depression-era law that restricted the activities of big financial firms, Regan's deregulation wasn't the final blow to the Act itself. It was only a few years later, the Clinton Adm.--after heavy lobbying by Wall Street, and vigorous encouragment from Greenspan, removed the last vestiges fo Glass-Steagall and subsequently opened the can of worms, highlighted by cooking books and Casino Capitalism.
By the same token, However, I don't think de-regulation is always bad for the industry, without deregulation, we stil pay a dollar a minute for our China calls, without Carter's deregulation on airline routes and fares, we surely pay more for traveling.
I like Democratics far more than Republicans, but I think we can't simplify the hard cold facts becasue of party affilation.
July wrote:
说到底, 就是要regulation, 我早说了, 里根是作俑者。 我念上学时读的里根传,一边读,一边想,这不是胡来吗? 道理简单得很, 一个没有基本规矩的家,孩子肯定要出问题,何况国家啊。我不明白的是, 美国没有一个和我想的一样的人吗? - posted on 10/01/2008
恐龙吃尽老鼠!一场资本主义惊恐剧
恐龙绝迹,原因据说是食量太大所致;吃到无物可食,所以灭种。如今华尔街的金融恐龙一一倒地,原因也是粮食不继,以致像骨牌般一个接一个“仆街”。
联合报今天“黑白集”文章指出,二房、AIG、雷曼、WAMU等等,皆是恐龙级的金融机构,从富豪吃到中产阶级,从中产阶级吃到退休人员及社会幼齿,从一贷吃到次贷,从金融商品吃到衍生性商品,从美国国内吃到世界各国;不断地膨胀信用,不断地扩大掠夺范围,不断地翻新花样,不断地操弄杠杆,一直到信用不能支撑,一夕之间就周转失灵。正如一只大恐龙,从乔木吃到灌木,从灌木吃到野草,终于吃到没有东西可吃,轰然倒地。
文章认为,这场淹没全球的金融风暴,如今回头来看,简直像是一场世界规模的老鼠会。新老鼠养旧老鼠,外国老鼠养美国老鼠,突然有一天新老鼠不继或鼠饲料亏空,整个老鼠会就告瓦解。因此,这场世纪金融风暴中,最令人怵目惊心的场面,并非华尔街上的金融恐龙尸体,而是广布全球的鼠尸遍地。
这才是这场金融风暴中令人唏嘘不置之处。那些金融恐龙皆是“法人”,过去吸饱了老鼠血的CEO们,早已名利双收;如今恐龙倒地,只须等“政府”来收尸即可。至于“政府”,也是“公法人”,格林斯潘等覆雨翻云者也早已完成了他们个人的生命传奇。触目所及,只见全世界的“老鼠们”都在抱头鼠窜,失血、失业,甚至一夕之间丧失了毕生辛勤的积蓄,人人都成了“最后一只老鼠”。
这是一场恐龙吃老鼠的资本主义惊恐剧。恐龙们可以巧取豪夺,老鼠们则连不参加游戏的余地都没有;因为,即使你不参加金融游戏,也不能幸免于被倒下的恐龙压伤。
- posted on 10/01/2008
行人 wrote:
可是奥巴马也准备投yes。
奥巴马说yes的事就不能错?我可从来没有这么高的觉悟。他的job interview已经太长了,该坐下来工作了。
以前美国汽车工业有个传统,CEO必须是工程师出身,当过车间主任,知道车是怎么造出来的。后来GM发现玩钱更容易,提出了个有名的口号:“We are not in the business of making car, we are in the business of making money.“。从那以后,GM的高层全被MBA把持,工程师再也没有发言权。结果我们都看到了,这些MBA把美国汽车工业弄成了什么样子。
上一次听到怒斥MBA,也是从一个汽车工业出来的人那里听到的。我认识的在北美的中国人,家里有孩子上大学的,几乎家家都有学经济、学MBA的。难怪伦敦街头到处都是夹着算盘的账房先生行迹匆匆。
MBA的最大问题,是以愚弄为武器,以把别人都打包卖了为目标,算得一种新型社会问题。 - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 10/01/2008
我完全同意行人与苦瓜关于MBA之类的说法。但资本导向和生意驱动,是这二十年来全球化潮流的根本动力。全球化对中国的正面和负面作用都有,但从中国的角度讲,它用高额学费买来了一个融入世界潮流的机会。
如果这次不救市场,全球化将被彻底反省,有可能终结。救市场成功,贸易保护主义也要抬头。中国可能以后要更多地靠自己的内部市场了。
参院辩论投票进展如何,全球股市强大的压力下,是不是这就举手投了算了。没用的参院。 - posted on 10/02/2008
看了BBC新闻,参院的无能表现让人失望。这种不声不响就放弃原则的投机行为让人惊诧。也许全球经济与股市给了他们太大的压力和期盼。但附加减税条款如同儿戏一般。如果真是这样,美元下面应该正式准备推出500和一千元的钞票,降低印钞票成本。
美国赖以生存的原则在布总统期间一一倒下。国会参院形同虚设,一再被政府危言耸听要挟,从反恐伊战,关塔第磨,到仓促授权救世,从萨达母能在45分中内袭击西方,到若不上周末之前救世市场就会完蛋,政府的谎言与恐吓畅通无阻,政府的投机手段和走捷径行为轻车熟路。辉煌帝国现在看来已经过了最高点了。当然,瘦死的骆驼比马大,我们有生之年,美国的体系和实力想来还是老大。:)
参院应该进行全面选举。 - posted on 10/02/2008
刚才匆忙扫了一下新闻,发现参院通过提案后股市没有什么变化,市场好象并没有那么强的信心。难道众院能顶得住这么大的压力和罪名再投反对票,这显然是不可能的事情。
我现在突然产生了一些怀疑,这两天股市的走向预测怎么会如此准确,每一次似乎都能胸有成竹地准确地判断投票结果。前两天众院投票结果尚未揭晓,股市从欧洲、英国到美国已经开始大降。难道说金融机构有专人负责侦察统计预测每一位议员的投票倾向。这一出一入short sell可是百亿计算的收入了。
众院投票期间是不是议员仍然可以使用手机等通讯设备,将自己的意向或对最后结果的估计送出去? - posted on 10/03/2008
美国的市场和中国的食品一样真.有没有听说过PNAC.
美国现在的怪都从这里来.
令胡冲 wrote:
刚才匆忙扫了一下新闻,发现参院通过提案后股市没有什么变化,市场好象并没有那么强的信心。难道众院能顶得住这么大的压力和罪名再投反对票,这显然是不可能的事情。
我现在突然产生了一些怀疑,这两天股市的走向预测怎么会如此准确,每一次似乎都能胸有成竹地准确地判断投票结果。前两天众院投票结果尚未揭晓,股市从欧洲、英国到美国已经开始大降。难道说金融机构有专人负责侦察统计预测每一位议员的投票倾向。这一出一入short sell可是百亿计算的收入了。
众院投票期间是不是议员仍然可以使用手机等通讯设备,将自己的意向或对最后结果的估计送出去? - posted on 10/03/2008
华 wrote:
美国的市场和中国的食品一样真.有没有听说过PNAC.
美国现在的怪都从这里来.
华总是能提纲挈领一针见血。佛缘使人能与现实保持距离,所以必须先得真正理解这个现实。:)
当然相对而言,假食品毒食品比假市场毒市场更可怕和低级很多。市场还有一个入不入的选择,食品没有吃不吃的抉择。
PNAC激化国家意志,强调精英力量和帝国精神,这种强国原则是值得肯定。但具体怎么执行就没有一定之规了,如果牵涉利益集团,那国家力量就被人利用了,长远反而损害了帝国的利益。
- posted on 10/03/2008
Goodness - there is an avalanche looming ahead. Belt tightened, cash ready, let's hope Dow down to 7000, and FTSE 100 down to 3800, then we will be able to invest again. :)
www.timesonline.co.uk
US banks borrow record amount from Fed
Catherine Boyle
US banks borrowed a record $367.8 billion (£208 billion) a day from the Federal Reserve in the week ended October 1.
Data from the US central bank shows how much financial institutions are relying on the Fed in its role as lender of last resort as short-term funding becomes almost impossible to find elsewhere.
Banks' discount window borrowings averaged $367.80 billion per day in the week ended October 1, nearly double the previous record daily average of $187.75 billion last week.
With interbank lending and commercial paper markets near paralysis, and a $700 billion bailout package still not cleared by the US House of Representatives, it has become increasingly difficult for banks to borrow from anywhere else.
Related Links
US bailout loaded with tax breaks
US shares plunge ahead of House vote on rescue
Aid for banks must be international
Primary credit borrowings also hit a record high of $44.46 billion per day in the latest week, up from $39.36 billion the previous week.
Primary dealers and other broker dealers' credit borrowings were $146.57 billion as of Wednesday October 1, up from $105.66 billion in the week to September 24.
Loans in the "other credit extensions" category, including loans to the stricken insurer AIG, were $61.28 billion as at October 1, against $44.57 billion on September 24.
Michael Feroli, economist at JPMorgan in New York, said: "Each time it gets more and more stunning. You're just seeing huge increases across the board. It tells you that the paralysis is massive."
The Fed’s asset-backed commercial paper money market mutual fund liquidity facility, designed to help money market funds meet escalating demands for redemptions from investors, more than doubled to $152.1 billion as at October 1, from $72.67 billion on September 24.
- posted on 10/03/2008
Project for the New American Century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded in early 1997 as a non-profit educational organization by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S President George W. Bush and strongly affected the George Bush administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4]
[edit] Background and history
On January 26, 1998, in the PNAC's open letter to President Bill Clinton, its members explicitly called for a U.S. ground campaign to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.[6]
The goal of regime change remained their consistent position throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis.[7] They followed that up with a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott.[8]
On November 16, 1998, citing Iraq's demand for the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors and the removal of Richard Butler as head of the inspections regime, William Kristol, co-founder of the PNAC and editor of The Weekly Standard, called again for regime change in an editorial in his online magazine: "...any sustained bombing and missile campaign against Iraq should be part of any overall political-military strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power."[9] Kristol states that Paul Wolfowitz and others believed that the goal was to create "a 'liberated zone' in southern Iraq that would provide a safe haven where opponents of Saddam could rally and organize a credible alternative to the present regime ... The liberated zone would have to be protected by U.S. military might, both from the air and, if necessary, on the ground."
The PNAC also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton had signed into law.[10]
In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective, questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.[11]
In September 2000, the PNAC published a controversial 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century.
From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq.[12]. On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[13][14][15][16]
On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," or regime change:
...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[17][4]
In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.[1] According to Tom Barry, "The glory days of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) quickly passed but the website is still functioning and was updated as of Feb 8, 2007.[18][19]
As quoted in Paul Reynolds' BBC News report, David Rothkopf states:
Their [The Project for the New American Century's] signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened. The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a region that has been less than susceptible to democracy. Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception and horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own ideas and the incompetence of the Bush administration.[19]
[edit] End of the Organization
PNAC appears to have stopped functioning in 2006 or 2007, although many of their goals are still being fulfilled. Gary Schmitt, former executive director of the PNAC, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and director of its program in Advanced Strategic Studies, countered that PNAC had come to a natural end:
When the project started, it was not intended to go forever. That is why we are shutting it down. We would have had to spend too much time raising money for it and it has already done its job. We felt at the time that there were flaws in American foreign policy, that it was neo-isolationist. We tried to resurrect a Reaganite policy. Our view has been adopted. Even during the Clinton administration we had an effect, with Madeleine Albright [then secretary of state] saying that the United States was 'the indispensable nation'. But our ideas have not necessarily dominated. We did not have anyone sitting on Bush's shoulder. So the work now is to see how they are implemented.[19]
On July 8, 2008, The Project for the New American Century website said: "This Account Has Been Suspended Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible." However, as of August 22, 2008, The Project for the New American Century website appears to be back up and running.
[edit] "Fundamental propositions"
The Project for the New American Century website states the following "fundamental propositions": "that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."[2]
Its original "Statement of Principles" of June 3, 1997, posted on its current website, begins by framing a series of questions, which the rest of the document proposes to answer:
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?[20]
In response to these questions, the PNAC states its aim to "remind America" of "lessons" learned from American history, drawing the following "four consequences" for America in 1997:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; [and]
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
While "Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today [1997]," the "Statement of Principles" concludes, "it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."[20]
[edit] Open letter to President Clinton on Iraq
On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.[6]
[edit] Rebuilding America's Defenses
Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century (2000), which lists as Project Chairmen Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt and as Principal Author Thomas Donnelly, quotes from the PNAC's June 1997 "Statement of Principles" and proceeds "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."[21][22]
The report argues:
The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. It has, over the past decade, provided the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth and the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself.[21]
After its title page, the report features a page entitled "About the Project for the New American Century", quoting key passages from its 1997 "Statement of Principles":
“ [What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.[21]
”
In its "Preface", in highlighted boxes, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that it aims to:
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”;
and that
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia. (iv)
A table from the second page of Rebuilding Americas Defenses which emphasizes the goal of perpetuating the post-Cold War 'Unipolar Moment' and targets East Asia as the region of new global competition.It specifies the following goals:
MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine Corps.
CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier,[23] and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.[24]
CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.
EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
• maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,
• produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually. (v)
The report emphasizes:
Fulfilling these requirements is essential if America is to retain its militarily dominant status for the coming decades. Conversely, the failure to meet any of these needs must result in some form of strategic retreat. At current levels of defense spending, the only option is to try ineffectually to “manage” increasingly large risks: paying for today’s needs by shortchanging tomorrow’s; withdrawing from constabulary missions to retain strength for large-scale wars; “choosing” between presence in Europe or presence in Asia; and so on. These are bad choices. They are also false economies. The “savings” from withdrawing from the Balkans, for example, will not free up anywhere near the magnitude of funds needed for military modernization or transformation. But these are false economies in other, more profound ways as well. The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity. (v-vi)
In relation to the Persian Gulf, citing particularly Iraq and Iran, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."[21]
One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars."[25]
[4]
[edit] Controversy
[edit] US World Dominance ("American Empire")
According to its critics, the PNAC promotes American "hegemony" and "Full-spectrum" dominance in its own publications featured on its website.[26][27][28][29]
Ebrahim Afsah, in "Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy – The Origins of the Current Neo-Conservative Revolution in US Strategic Thinking", published in the German Law Journal, cites Jochen Bölsche's view that the goal of the PNAC is world dominance or global hegemony by the United States.[30][31] According to Bölsche, Rebuilding America's Defenses "was developed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby, and is devoted to matters of 'maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests.'"[30][31]
William Rivers Pitt, editorial director of Progressive Democrats of America, writes, in an editorial published by Truthout.org, that the PNAC is motivated by an imperial agenda of US military expansionism, which will bring negative side effects to ordinary citizens of the United States, while it enriches some industries: "defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire."[32]
George Monbiot, a political activist from the United Kingdom, observes: "...to pretend that this battle begins and ends in Iraq requires a willful denial of the context in which it occurs. That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to suit itself."[33]
PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan counters such criticism in his statement during a debate on whether or not "The United States Is, and Should Be, an Empire":
"There is a vital distinction between being powerful--even most powerful in the world--and being an empire. Economic expansion does not equal imperialism, and there is no such thing as "cultural imperialism". If America is an empire, then why was it unable to mobilize its subjects to support the war against Saddam Hussein? America is not an empire, and its power stems from voluntary associations and alliances. American hegemony is relatively well accepted because people all over the world know that U.S. forces will eventually withdraw from the occupied territories. The effect of declaring that the United States is an empire would not only be factually wrong, but strategically catastrophic. Contrary to the exploitative purposes of the British, the American intentions of spreading democracy and individual rights are incompatible with the notion of an empire. The genius of American power is expressed in the movie The Godfather II, where, like Hyman Roth, the United States has always made money for its partners. America has not turned countries in which it intervened into deserts; it enriched them. Even the Russians knew they could surrender after the Cold War without being subjected to occupation."[34]
[edit] Excessive focus on military strategies, neglect of diplomatic strategies
Jeffrey Record, of the Strategic Studies Institute, in his monograph Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, Gabriel Kolko, research professor emeritus at York University in Toronto, and author of Another Century of War? (The New Press, 2002), in his article published in CounterPunch, and William Rivers Pitt, in Truthout.org, respectively, argue that the PNAC's goals of military hegemony exaggerate what the military can accomplish, that they fail to recognize "the limits of US power", and that favoring pre-emptive exercise of military might over diplomatic strategies can have "adverse side effects."[35][36][32] (Paul Reynolds and Max Boot have made similar observations.[26][27])
The Sydney Morning Herald publishes an English translation of an article published in German in Der Spiegel summarizing former President Jimmy Carter's position and stating that President Carter:
judges the PNAC agenda in the same way. At first, argues Carter, Bush responded to the challenge of September 11 in an effective and intelligent way, "but in the meantime a group of conservatives worked to get approval for their long held ambitions under the mantle of 'the war on terror'." The restrictions on civil rights in the US and at Guantanamo, cancellation of international accords, "contempt for the rest of the world", and finally an attack on Iraq "although there is no threat to the US from Baghdad" - all these things will have devastating consequences, according to Carter. "This entire unilateralism", warns the ex-President, "will increasingly isolate the US from those nations that we need in order to do battle with terrorism".[30]
Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[37][38][39] investigative journalist John Pilger, in The New Statesman,[40] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[41] all argue that PNAC members used the events as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words) in order to enact long-desired plans.[42]
"When the Towers came down," William Rivers Pitt writes in his editorial in Truthout.org, "these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy."[32]
[edit] Inexperienced in realities of war
Former US Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin and UK Labour MP and Father of the House of Commons, Tam Dalyell, have criticized PNAC members for promoting policies which vociferously support an idealized version of war, even though only a handful of PNAC members have served in the military or, if they served, seen combat.[43]
In discussing the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000), Neil MacKay, investigations editor for the Scottish Sunday Herald, quotes Tam Dalyell: "'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.'"[44]
Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"[45]
[edit] PNAC role in promoting invasion of Iraq
Commentators from divergent parts of the political spectrum––such as Democracy Now! and American Free Press, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Jody Williams and former Republican Congressmen Pete McCloskey and Paul Findley––have voiced their concerns about the influence of the PNAC on the decision by President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.[46][47] Some have regarded the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton, which urged him to embrace a plan for "the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power,"[6] and the large number of members of PNAC appointed to the Bush administration as evidence that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. [38][42][48]
The television program Frontline, broadcast on PBS, presents the PNAC's letter to President Clinton as a notable event in the leadup to the Iraq war.[49]
Media commentators have found it significant that signatories to the PNAC's January 16, 1998 letter to President Clinton (and some of its other position papers, letters, and reports) include such Bush administration officials as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abrams.[32][37][49][26]
- Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 10/03/2008
在过去不到两个小时时间里,伦敦股市场已经涨了2%。众议院看来消息外泄得大胆而且及时。美国的市场清廉透明还在初级阶段,资本主义也仍然有很长的路要走。 - posted on 10/03/2008
Now the House is trying it again.
The Bill, now has been sucessfully perceived as "The American Freedom and Anti Terrorism and Defense Of Marriage Finance Act." It was a long change from "the Wall Street Bailout", or the "Fat Cat Bailout." Many had worked hard on finding the good name for it, just ot name a few:
"The Emaciated Dog Bill" (which would probably be popular as it is the opposite of overweight felines, and you know how people love their dogs),
"The 2008 Ass Tourniquet Bill"
"The We're Going To Give You Guys The Money, But Upon Receipt, You Have To Promise To Strip Naked And March Down Wall Street Chanting We're Not Worthy Bill."
Now that the Bad Guy is being focused on Wall Street, not GOP. At 2:08, the vote started again:
Yes vs No Dow changes
2:10 70 vs 24 +287
2:11 93 vs 36 +293
2:12 108 vs 38
2:13 108 vs 41
2:14 115 vs 46
2:15 120 vs 57
half time
2:16 125 vs 60
2:17 135 vs 64
2:18 145 vs 73 +239
(3 min left)
1:20 182 vs 96 +254
1:21 194 vs 110 +268
1:22 202 vs 118
1:23 226 vs 143 +286
time's up, still coming
1:25 254 vs 167
Passed
final number:
263 vs 171
Now, what's next?
A glance at the news now:
90 years old Ohio woman killed herself in foreclosure home California may need $7 billion federal loan "The federal rescue package is not a bailout of Wall Street tycoons -- it is a lifeboat for millions of Americans whose life savings, businesses, retirement plans and jobs are at stake," Schwarzenegger said.
- posted on 10/03/2008
rzp wrote:
"The federal rescue package is not a bailout of Wall Street tycoons -- it is a lifeboat for millions of Americans whose life savings, businesses, retirement plans and jobs are at stake," Schwarzenegger said.
这届美国参众两院是耻辱的一届。They failed american people。如果真象上面这段话说得那样,那就应该加入简单的修正条款,来具体保证这一目标和原则的贯彻。
谢谢转贴,非常有趣。这两周我也感觉收益匪浅。历史关头,并不如我期盼的那样精彩刺激,却也值得一点观察的时间和兴趣。:) - posted on 10/04/2008
与令胡抬杠一下,希望这种抬杠是真金和白银而不是垃圾与污染。
从全体美国人的利益角度,美国参众两院必须通过这救市方案。如果从某种价值的角度,实际也就是政治的角度,美国参众两院不应该通过这救市方案。
美国参众两院认利益而不拘泥政治,这正是美国的根本与希望。如果美国参众两院政治挂帅,美国早完蛋了。
中国文革的教训就是政治挂帅,中国未来的希望在于现在利益是中国最大的政治。
同样一件事,我与令胡得出完全相反的结论。
-----------
这也说明了我为什么特别反感政治意识形态。
令胡冲 wrote:
rzp wrote:这届美国参众两院是耻辱的一届。They failed american people。如果真象上面这段话说得那样,那就应该加入简单的修正条款,来具体保证这一目标和原则的贯彻。
"The federal rescue package is not a bailout of Wall Street tycoons -- it is a lifeboat for millions of Americans whose life savings, businesses, retirement plans and jobs are at stake," Schwarzenegger said.
谢谢转贴,非常有趣。这两周我也感觉收益匪浅。历史关头,并不如我期盼的那样精彩刺激,却也值得一点观察的时间和兴趣。:) - posted on 10/04/2008
abc的这一杠要顶一下。事关利益,老a的确不含糊。我想令胡并不是得出相反的结论,他其实自己已经跟自己抬过这一杠了。只是叹憾美国会没有英国议会那点帝王风范。
abc wrote:
与令胡抬杠一下,希望这种抬杠是真金和白银而不是垃圾与污染。
从全体美国人的利益角度,美国参众两院必须通过这救市方案。如果从某种价值的角度,实际也就是政治的角度,美国参众两院不应该通过这救市方案。
美国参众两院认利益而不拘泥政治,这正是美国的根本与希望。如果美国参众两院政治挂帅,美国早完蛋了。
中国文革的教训就是政治挂帅,中国未来的希望在于现在利益是中国最大的政治。
同样一件事,我与令胡得出完全相反的结论。
-----------
这也说明了我为什么特别反感政治意识形态。
令胡冲 wrote:
rzp wrote:这届美国参众两院是耻辱的一届。They failed american people。如果真象上面这段话说得那样,那就应该加入简单的修正条款,来具体保证这一目标和原则的贯彻。
"The federal rescue package is not a bailout of Wall Street tycoons -- it is a lifeboat for millions of Americans whose life savings, businesses, retirement plans and jobs are at stake," Schwarzenegger said.
谢谢转贴,非常有趣。这两周我也感觉收益匪浅。历史关头,并不如我期盼的那样精彩刺激,却也值得一点观察的时间和兴趣。:) - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 10/04/2008
谢谢偌竹。 :)
rzp wrote:
abc的这一杠要顶一下。事关利益,老a的确不含糊。 - posted on 10/04/2008
令胡好,这条线一直读着, 昨天上来,有点此线无战事的感觉,就写了半句,
也算救市:)不好意思,今天接着续.
对见证历史,深有同感.这次危机,泥沙俱下,尽管无黄河之水天上来之势.
但大江东去,乱石穿云,惊涛拍岸,卷起千堆雪的阵容还是有的。
亦不知要浪淘多少风流人物.我觉得古今中外,有文字记载来的各种
东西都可以在这里洗涮一下,过去的种种学说体制事非都可加以辨别.感觉有点围魏救赵.当然魏,赵,齐是谁?看了美国现在,我更佩服中国古人:)
人生如梦,让美国折腾吧.只是老百姓可怜.不折腾死,就吓个半死,或者干脆
吓死.
想一想,如果真有说的那么严重,美国的两场战争早就该收场了.
令胡所言正是:美国是被利用了.
PNAC把美国以民主的名义变质了.有些美国知识份子认为
美国现在是真正意义上的法西斯主义.我古狗一下.大该是指:
"法西斯主义视国家为一种拥有积极权利的组织实体,而非一种设计用以保护群体和个人权利的制度,法西斯主义也不认为国家权力应该受到监督。法西斯主义倾向于否定马克思主义对于社会等级的概念,并且普遍反对阶级斗争的概念,而改强调种族间的斗争、和青壮族群推翻年迈族群的斗争。这表示法西斯主义对于民族主义和神秘主义的信念,以及认同权力和力量即为正当性的概念,赞扬以战争和胜利来决定真理和价值。这些概念也可以在社会达尔文主义里发现。这些概念都直接的与人道主义和启蒙时代的理性主义特征对立,这也是法西斯主义与自由主义和后来的马克思主义浮现主要差异的地方。
法西斯主义的特色是以极权主义的方式由国家控制所有层面的生活:政治的、社会的、文化的、和经济的。法西斯国家管理并控制生产工具。法西斯主义将民族、国家、或种族的地位置于个人、制度或组织之上,法西斯主义使用明确的民粹主义用词;呼唤英雄式的群众力量恢复过往的光辉;并要求对单一的领袖效忠—通常到达个人崇拜的程度。法西斯主义的领导人最为人所知的是他们以诉诸利他主义的宣传方式来正当化对于个体的压迫。举例而言,阿道夫·希特勒便曾说过:“由于个人已经完全将他的自我屈服于共同体的生命上,个人自我保存的本能于是便能发挥至极限,并且能在必要时替共同体牺牲他的生命。”
看这个法案通过的名义正是如此.布什就是民选英雄.当然还有一大群.
今天下午,我看我公司的股票和道琼还是
在跌,所以,这样下去还不知道会怎么样?欧盟也要出手救市了,不知怎么样?
(我的看法可能不对,但总要有人民来敲打敲打政府:)
令胡冲 wrote:
华 wrote:华总是能提纲挈领一针见血。佛缘使人能与现实保持距离,所以必须先得真正理解这个现实。:)
美国的市场和中国的食品一样真.有没有听说过PNAC.
美国现在的怪都从这里来.
当然相对而言,假食品毒食品比假市场毒市场更可怕和低级很多。市场还有一个入不入的选择,食品没有吃不吃的抉择。
PNAC激化国家意志,强调精英力量和帝国精神,这种强国原则是值得肯定。但具体怎么执行就没有一定之规了,如果牵涉利益集团,那国家力量就被人利用了,长远反而损害了帝国的利益。
- Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 10/04/2008
谢谢abc.正是这个.国内也可以古狗到,那大家怎么看待PNAC.
或者叫新美国世纪计划,新美世纪?
abc wrote:
Project for the New American Century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 10/04/2008
偌竹,你转的这个太棒了. 这样一来,大家都没有话说,也不敢说了.
也谢谢你转我的贴到咖啡.
问候楼上各位.
rzp wrote:
The Bill, now has been sucessfully perceived as "The American Freedom and Anti Terrorism and Defense Of Marriage Finance Act." ...... - Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 10/04/2008
我这两天越来越糊涂:
在国家的帮助下,华尔街把老百姓骗了,耍了,他们挣了很多钱;
华尔街找国家,说你要帮助我们,不然,你就断了人民的生路
国家用老百姓的钱去救华尔街,但是不为了华尔街,是为老百姓,不这样,老百姓就活不了了
- posted on 10/04/2008
我们区的参议员投票之前收到了9万多通电话,其中大约8万一千通是反对意见。但是投票之前,议员就宣布她会投赞成票,原因是大众不明白其中的道理。不明白道理的大众,手上都拿着选票,这得多危险?
我真诚地认为,股市掉下去,存款普遍缩水,收入普遍降低,是对地球的一种挽救。几年前参加本市一个讨论全球化问题的一个论坛,一位退休的老建筑工程师,积极参与设计新型、合理的社区。当然都是设想,哪个社区也没办法为了新设计而大批移民。我们讨论到美国人的生活方式,老头子坚定地说:无论如何我们不改变自己的生活方式。市场风暴来了的时候,不改也得改。
前几天看到一张图,显示80年到现在房价和收入之间的关系,2000年前,房价和收入之间关系比较平衡,2000年后到现在,房价指数是收入指数的数倍。说明过去7、8年的时间,美国基本上是靠房价的虚涨维持经济运作和增长。现在房价往下走,本质上是正常的,回到跟收入平衡的位置上,经济环境才会健康起来。但是现在谁也不敢说让房价一下子回到正常价位,似乎可以从人不能迅速减肥的道理中找到依据。
我感觉,无论政府怎么救,大萧条是无法避免的,政府的做法也是,谋事在人,成事在天。他们不能不做,但是做了也不会挽救市场。救市的结果,银行系统的运作大概能稍微稳定一点儿,市场还是得自己挣扎。长远来看,市场的好坏是跟经济实力挂钩的。
- Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 10/04/2008
July wrote:
我这两天越来越糊涂:
在国家的帮助下,华尔街把老百姓骗了,耍了,他们挣了很多钱;
华尔街找国家,说你要帮助我们,不然,你就断了人民的生路
国家用老百姓的钱去救华尔街,但是不为了华尔街,是为老百姓,不这样,老百姓就活不了了
是为老百姓。想想经济萧条受苦的会是谁?富人是没事的,只不过钱上有些数字上的变化而已。
商场这事儿也不少吧,欠钱的比债主厉害,呵呵。我欠了陪了你还得再追加给我钱,不然我完了,你也血本无归。 - posted on 10/05/2008
PNAC的核心思想是追求美国的绝对安全,用美国的价值统治世界。
PNAC的产生基于两个事实,1。东西方冷战美国和西方取得了绝对优势的胜利。2。1980年以来由于全球化和信息技术革命,美国经济持续繁荣,美国技术优势综合国力优势进一不扩大。而美国所有优势的取得,都被认为是美国政治制度或美国价值的结果。
在这样的背景下,美国提出PNAC战略思想是有坚实基础的。
而我则认为,冷战西方的胜利以及2000年前美国综合国力优势的扩大,不是美国政治制度或美国价值的原因,而是市场经济制度与技术进步的原因。
冷战结束后,世界各国均实行市场经济制度,美国经济的优势实际在不断减少,只是2000年美国IT泡沫破裂时才明显表现出来。
最近美国金融危机,意味美国的经济优势再下了一个台阶。
我估计,再过10年和20年,美国经济优势还要再下一个和两个台阶。
最挑战美国经济优势的是中国,主要有两个原因,1。人口是美国的5倍。2。中国市场经济制度相当完善。
市场经济制度包括看得见的手与看不见的手两个方面,而在看得见的手方面中国比许多新兴市场国家都做得出色。
到今天,市场经济学理论已经发展得很完善,因此,中国发展市场经济不会有太多经验不足的劣势,反而有一些后发优势。比如,以前大家对华尔街很崇拜,事实表明,完全用不着这样。
中国看得见的手除了大规模政府投资完善基础设施提高劳动生产力外,还大力发展航天航空等尖端技术促进中国产业技术升级。
就象举国体制可让中国拿奥运金牌第一一样,举国体制也可让中国在技术上取得惊人的进步。
再过20年,当中国有自己的空间站,有自己的大飞机,有自己的航母战斗群的时候,世界安全将是怎样的版图?
我不认为美国的两场战争是布什操纵国会的结果,相反,美国从政治家到普通百姓都自觉或不自觉地有PNAC的思想。
两场战争是美国国家利益和人民利益,国家意志和人民意志的体现。即使是现在,从美国政府到美国人民,也没多少人希望美国从两个战场完全撤军。
世界安全版图由实力而不是价值决定,这一点是毫无疑问的。
所以,我的观点正好与PNAC相反,21世纪是中国兴奋的世纪,是美国郁闷的世纪。
华 wrote:那大家怎么看待PNAC.或者叫新美国世纪计划,新美世纪?
- Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 10/06/2008
华 wrote:
今天下午,我看我公司的股票和道琼还是
在跌,所以,这样下去还不知道会怎么样?欧盟也要出手救市了,不知怎么样?
(我的看法可能不对,但总要有人民来敲打敲打政府:)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/cartoon/ - posted on 03/02/2009
恭喜令胡,半年前成功预测道指跌幅。不过“如果”两字用错了。Not if it will
happen, but when it will happen.
可以进场了吗?还是等到5000多再说?
令胡冲 wrote:
如果上周四政府不私下放风说要有全盼社会主义救援计划,今天的股市道指能回到5000-6000点,轮敦FTSE100能跌破到3000以下。你的养老金过去10年最佳情况下等于没有丝毫收益,抛去通涨,只能值十年前的三分之一以下。这不是汉克在跳大神。资本主义还在,但是它的心脏上周五夜里就停止跳动了。资本血液不再流通。人还有一口气,但就剩那一口气了。 - posted on 03/02/2009
Susan wrote:
恭喜令胡,半年前成功预测道指跌幅。不过“如果”两字用错了。Not if it will
happen, but when it will happen.
可以进场了吗?还是等到5000多再说?
谢谢苏三。我认为这是多年来我在网上得到的最佳肯定之一。:)
为什么我在股市上很少预测错了呢?因为我从来都是用自己的一点钱炒了一点点股票,所以比较上心。通读有关的消息。换了别人,比较关心,照样错不了。为什么我们听上去比fund manager还靠谱,因为一来他们炒的不是自己的钱,输赢通吃费用。二来,他们从来不敢说具体的真话,因为股市和金融市场是搏击,从来没有双赢,只有你死我才能活,你亏我才有可能赢。:)
现在不到进场的时候,中国股市到底了,美国和英国水分还很高。CDS违约率还没有到最坏的时候。实体企业还没有大规模破产保护。欧美心脏全面心肌梗塞,我真得很奇怪很吃惊道指和FTSE100能保持在这么高的水平上。如果今年9月前不跌破5000点,我真要掉眼镜的。感觉现在大多私人投资都已经撤出来了。难道退休金和公共基金能把股票市场维持在这么高的水平?我不太相信。Hold ... 如果你真把我当股半仙的话。:))
ABC不在,我就是ABC了。:)
- posted on 03/03/2009
好吧,就听你的,先hold, 等到9月前跌破5000点了,再恭喜你一次。
令胡冲 wrote:
现在不到进场的时候,中国股市到底了,美国和英国水分还很高。CDS违约率还没有到最坏的时候。实体企业还没有大规模破产保护。欧美心脏全面心肌梗塞,我真得很奇怪很吃惊道指和FTSE100能保持在这么高的水平上。如果今年9月前不跌破5000点,我真要掉眼镜的。感觉现在大多私人投资都已经撤出来了。难道退休金和公共基金能把股票市场维持在这么高的水平?我不太相信。Hold ... 如果你真把我当股半仙的话。:))
- posted on 03/03/2009
Hold? Banks may hit bottom now.
Susan
好吧,就听你的,先hold, 等到9月前跌破5000点了,再恭喜你一次。
令胡冲 wrote:
现在不到进场的时候,中国股市到底了,美国和英国水分还很高。CDS违约率还没有到最坏的时候。实体企业还没有大规模破产保护。欧美心脏全面心肌梗塞,我真得很奇怪很吃惊道指和FTSE100能保持在这么高的水平上。如果今年9月前不跌破5000点,我真要掉眼镜的。感觉现在大多私人投资都已经撤出来了。难道退休金和公共基金能把股票市场维持在这么高的水平?我不太相信。Hold ... 如果你真把我当股半仙的话。:))
- Re: Bush Bailout Plan Would Protect Treasury Secretary from Lawsuits (ZT)posted on 03/03/2009
reader wrote:
Hold? Banks may hit bottom now.
The common sense logic behind it is, in practice,even if it hits the bottom, it would have little chance of a steady rise in the following 12 months. So just hold on your cash,..., suppose your bank is not going under.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- 令胡冲
- #1 玛雅
- #2 July
- #3 令胡冲
- #4 玛雅
- #5 July
- #6 令胡冲
- #7 浮生
- #8 令胡冲
- #9 July
- #10 浮生
- #11 令胡冲
- #12 July
- #13 July
- #14 pepper
- #15 July
- #16 pepper
- #17 abc
- #18 浮生
- #19 abc
- #20 ruyi
- #21 令胡冲
- #22 rzp
- #23 令胡冲
- #24 ZT
- #25 令胡冲
- #26 玛雅
- #27 July
- #28 苦瓜
- #29 令胡冲
- #30 苦瓜
- #31 令胡冲
- #32 chloe
- #33 苦瓜
- #34 苦瓜
- #35 浮生
- #36 令胡冲
- #37 hank
- #38 令胡冲
- #39 rzp
- #40 Joey
- #41 BailOut
- #42 gz
- #43 July
- #44 令胡冲
- #45 令胡冲
- #46 苦瓜
- #47 八十一子
- #48 rzp
- #49 rzp
- #50 令胡冲
- #51 rzp
- #52 LHC
- #53 行人
- #54 令胡冲
- #55 行人
- #56 令胡冲
- #57 July
- #58 行人
- #59 令胡冲
- #60 行人
- #61 Susan
- #62 July
- #63 行人
- #64 令胡冲
- #65 wenzhang
- #66 July
- #67 abc
- #68 令胡冲
- #69 LHC
- #70 rzp
- #71 苦瓜
- #72 rzp
- #73 苦瓜
- #74 kugua
- #75 令胡冲
- #76 rzp
- #77 feiming
- #78 行人
- #79 July
- #80 zt
- #81 苦瓜
- #82 令胡冲
- #83 令胡冲
- #84 令胡冲
- #85 华
- #86 令胡冲
- #87 LHC
- #88 abc
- #89 令胡冲
- #90 rzp
- #91 令胡冲
- #92 abc
- #93 rzp
- #94 abc
- #95 华
- #96 华
- #97 华
- #98 July
- #99 苦瓜
- #100 ben ben
- #101 abc
- #102 LHC
- #103 Susan
- #104 令胡冲
- #105 Susan
- #106 reader
- #107 LHC
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation