We are all been taken for a ride...Do we recall how GoldmanSachs wanted a new tax abatement and permits ?

They would have known long ago siht was about to hit the fan and scammed cityhall for these abatements knowing full well they were going to have to let staff go.

These financial intitutions that have survived have been doing everything in their powers or bribes, to shaft as many people and authorities so their fall from grace is cushioned. They lose a bit here there and win big in other areas.

It seemed like a fun idea to me when I read it, and no, I did not bother to check the math.
It just annoys me that we are giving more money to people that will just piss it away. Or sure the gov will buy the bad dept. off the banks, but when it's time to resell it, you can bet that the guys that are running it will be selling it below the market value to A) their friends or B) their own shell companies.
So in the end we get screwed again. Great!

Don't worry, the corrected, or rather revised NJDiver bailout plan will still give you enough money to get that flat screen tv out of layaway.

Although come to think of it, the way these assets were being valued by the investment firms, maybe every American's share of $85 billion really IS worth $425,000!

Quote:
But it sounded like such a great idea, why did you have to go and ruin it for me?

Quote:

We are all dumber for having read this...

Um, I think your math is off by a few zeros.

Subject: The Birk Economic Recovery Plan

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.
Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it'll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.
If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.
If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.
Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.
Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."
But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC.
And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Kindest personal regards,

From Politico.com - Link is HERE

History arrives in the gilded chamber
A dispatch from the bailout front:

The expectation is that a historic deal is being made right now, inside the gilded Foreign Relations hearing room below the Senate chamber.

A larger than usual contingent of 75 reporters, eight TV cameras, a dozen print photographers are crammed into a stuffy hallway waiting for Chairmen Dodd and Frank to emerge, along with their Republican counterparts, to announce the framework of a deal.

According to Hill aides, the language is all but written, with concessions being made on both sides. Democrats are likely to lose their push to include bankruptcy provisions, while Republicans have relented on CEO pay. The bill may also only allow the $700 billion to be spent in large chunks rather than all at once.

The markets have already factored in a deal: the Dow is up 200.

The top congressional principles have essentially done the heavy lifting this morning, and the White House meeting later today has already been downplayed by Chuck Schumer as "photo op."

If things go according to plan, Bush will have this bill on his desk by Saturday night.

Quote:Well, right. I think the guys behind the desk are more at fault than the guy with the mortgage over his head, of course. But, every one of us should be personally accountable for his/her own finances as well. And, I am really, really pissed that I am the one footing the bill here. I think self-entitlement and lack of responsibility has run rampant in this country over the past 20 years. A home is a basic necessity, something we should all be able to achieve?.At this point, what middle-income family can afford one unless you move out to nowhere land? A home is not so-much a gambling chip?But, like oil?.How high can it go? The Speculators keep speculating?And, I guess this is the reality with the Free Market ? essentially weren?t we asking Greedy people to regulate themselves??.Enter the push for regulation. Personally, I never want Government getting their hands all up in my business?And, if I want to take out an $800,000 loan on my $40,000 a year paycheck, than I don?t want Washington telling me I can?t. But, isn?t the Bank pretty dumb to give me that loan? And, am I really thinking responsibly in accepting it? But, the truth is that the Government is now the boss of me anyway?.I?m now paying to clean this up regardless. And, it?s because the Free Market didn?t want to take-on the responsibility of regulating itself?So, here we are. And, as per my usual position on most things, there is always a happy medium. And, I have my fingers crossed that these two YoYo?s running for the White House, the YoYo in the White House and the mass of YoYo?s on Capitol Hill get this thing right. It?s the most important decision affecting this Country in a very long time, and it should be a humbling lesson for us all.

an interview with Bloomberg, Gross all but pleaded for a
Bill Gross is a Capitalist?

Federal bailout of Fannie/Freddie

(U.S. Must Buy Assets to Prevent `Tsunami,' Gross Says):

The U.S. government needs to start using more of its money to support markets to stem a burgeoning "financial tsunami,'' according to Bill Gross, manager of the world's biggest bond fund.

Banks, securities firms and hedge funds are dumping assets, driving down prices of bonds, real estate, stocks and commodities, Gross, co-chief investment officer of Newport Beach, California-based Pacific Investment Management Co., said in commentary posted on the firm's Web site today.

"Unchecked, it can turn a campfire into a forest fire, a mild asset bear market into a destructive financial tsunami,'' Gross said. "If we are to prevent a continuing asset and debt liquidation of near historic proportions, we will require policies that open up the balance sheet of the U.S. Treasury.''

The government needs to replace private investors who either don't have the money to buy new assets or have been burned by losses, Gross said. Pimco, sovereign wealth funds and central banks are reluctant to fund financial firms after losses on investments they made to support the companies, Gross said. The world's biggest banks and brokers have raised $364.4 billion in new capital after more than $500 billion in writedowns and credit losses since the beginning of last year.

Quote:

I do understand what you are saying, and I didn't mean there are 500T of CDS', that's the total amount of all derivatives of all kinds. This is what's the root of these issues, that's why i think 700B is just the beginning.

I'm afraid we'll be at the same place after all that money is spent, in the way Hank and Ben want it done.

here's an idea I head this morning on WNYC from a former IMF member:

- Lending money (instead of buying those assets) and holding those as collateral, instead of outright buying

- or, as one of the posters wrote : How about buying equity in these companies, so tax dollars would own stock. Wall street won't like it, but tough sh*t.

- better yet let's just confiscate all those assets, as we're on the road to Socialization, anyway. This is what this bailout amounts to.

__________

About Bill Gross and PIMCO - He was the biggest benefactor of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout.

The WSJ noted about PIMCO:

The bond-management firm has posted good gains since the credit crunch began last year, in part by betting big on mortgage debt tied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- whose implicit government backing and relative safety compared with other securities has helped keep their bond returns in the black.

Now as both entities show continued financial weakness and many parts of the bond market remain pressured, a main challenge for Mr. El-Erian, 50 years old, will be sustaining Pimco's winning returns.

Then came the very strange commentary Bill Gross posted at the PIMCO site -- a weird, quasi-homage to Cramer, which then reiterated the expected pain of a deleveraging and asset liquidation.

Don't worry Wibbit, your investment class friends have long greased the gears of Washington. Your precious money is no doubt safe in the hands of Congress.

The proposed bailout is wealth redistribution, and nothing less. Its ensuring that poor investment decisions are rewarded with profits. It keeps money flowing from the poorest Americans into the hands of the wealthiest. But should we really expect anything else when Congress has been bought and paid for?

Just to back up to a claim a couple of people were making upthread, I think that while reckless borrowers/homeowners share some blame here, it's the smallest part of the blame.

I don't think American's magically became way more irresponsible in the last 10 years, so you have to ask WHY there was a sudden epidemic of people taking on debt they couldn't handle. I mean yes, some of it is stupidity, inadequate financial knowledge, petty personal greed, delusion etc. But going up the ladder, who do you blame most?

- The first-time homebuyer who, at the STRONG encouragement of a broker, takes on a loan he can't really afford but thinks he'll be able to afford because housing prices are going up.

- The mortgage broker who KNOWS the guy can't afford the loan but is happy to be dipping his hat into a river of money and doesn't have to worry about the consequences.

- The lender who, in spite of being in the lending business, does not do due diligence on the loans it is making

- The I-bankers who sell off packaged loans as investments, knowing that the risk assessments and ratings are based on dubious assumptions about housing prices

McCain Aide?s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac

By JACKIE CALMES and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: September 23, 2008
WASHINGTON ? One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain?s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

Mr. Davis?s firm received the payments from the company, Freddie Mac, until it was taken over by the government this month along with Fannie Mae, the other big mortgage lender whose deteriorating finances helped precipitate the cascading problems on Wall Street, the people said.

They said they did not recall Mr. Davis?s doing much substantive work for the company in return for the money, other than speak to a political action committee of high-ranking employees in October 2006 on the approaching midterm Congressional elections. They said Mr. Davis?s firm, Davis & Manafort, had been kept on the payroll because of Mr. Davis?s close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who by 2006 was widely expected to run again for the White House.

Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis & Manafortfor the presidential campaign, but as a partner and equity-holder continues to benefit from its income. No one at Davis & Manafort other than Mr. Davis was involved in efforts on Freddie Mac?s behalf, the people familiar with the arrangement said.

A Freddie Mac spokeswoman said the company would not comment.

Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for the McCain campaign, did not dispute the payments to Mr. Davis?s firm. But she said that Mr. Davis had stopped taking a salary from his firm by the end of 2006 and that his work did not affect Mr. McCain.

?Senator McCain?s positions on policy matters are based upon what he believes to be in the public interest,? Ms. Hazelbaker said in a written statement.

The revelations come at a time when Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama are sparring over ties to lobbyists and special interests and seeking political advantage in a campaign being reshaped by the financial crisis and the plan to bail out investment firms.

Mr. McCain?s campaign has been attacking Senator Barack Obama, his Democratic rival, for ties to former officials of the mortgage lenders, both of which have long histories of cultivating allies in the two parties to fend off efforts to restrict their activities. Mr. McCain has been running a television commercial suggesting that Mr. Obama takes advice on housing issues from Franklin D. Raines, former chief executive of Fannie Mae, a contention flatly denied by Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign.

Freddie Mac?s roughly $500,000 in payments to Davis & Manafort began immediately after Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in late 2005 disbanded an advocacy coalition that they had set up and hired Mr. Davis to run, the people familiar with the arrangement said.

From 2000 to the end of 2005, Mr. Davis had received nearly $2 million as president of the coalition, the Homeownership Alliance, which the companies created to help them oppose new regulations and protect their status as federally chartered companies with implicit government backing. That status let them borrow cheaply, helping to fuel rapid growth but also their increased purchases of the risky mortgage securities that were their downfall.

On Sunday, in an interview with CNBC and The New York Times, Mr. McCain responded to a question about Mr. Davis?s role in the advocacy group through 2005 by saying that his campaign manager ?has had nothing to do with it since, and I?ll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it.?

Such assertions, along with McCain campaign television ads tying Mr. Obama to former Fannie Mae chiefs, have riled current and former officials of the two companies and provoked them to volunteer rebuttals. The two officials with direct knowledge of Freddie Mac?s post-2005 contract with Mr. Davis spoke on condition of anonymity. Four other outside consultants, three Democrats and a Republican also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the arrangement was widely known among people involved in Freddie Mac?s lobbying efforts.

As president of the Homeownership Alliance, Mr. Davis got $30,000 to $35,000 a month. Mr. Davis, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have characterized the alliance as a coalition of many housing industry and consumer groups to promote homeownership, but numerous current and former officials at both companies say the two mortgage companies created and bankrolled the operation to combat efforts by competitors to rein in their business. They dissolved the group at the end of 2005 as part of cost-cutting in the wake of accounting scandals and, at Freddie Mac, a lobbying scandal that forced out its former top Republican lobbyist.

read more
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/ ... .html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

McCain is a f****ng pussy. Backing out of the debate...COWARD!

And now EVERBODY'S credit card, including the Government's is maxed out.

Time for change.

Time for Obama.

Quote:

But that mentality has been ENCOURAGED by this administration. Wasn't it GWB who told us to "go shopping" after the 9/11 attacks?

SLyng,

dont bother, the lemmings will never understand how close we came last week. If fed didnt do the bailout, morgan stanley would collapsed thurs, followed by aig over the weekend. The entire financial system would then melted, the dollar going into freefall, foreign banks as you said with trillions of us treasury debt will be in a panic to dump at a firesale, resulting in interest rate be forced up to 10-20% to stabilize the dollar, the real estate market completely destroyed as a result, credit frozen, unemloyment goes up to 30%, milk costing $10-20. THEN those idiots with their fdic insured 100k cheering the meltdown will realize how f**ked they actually are. At that point, 700B will be like trying to catch an elephant with a handkerchief, we are literally at hour zero this week.

Buffet, probably the most trusted and reasonable voice came out and strongly supported the bailout today, because all the guys in the trenches knew how close we came to the abyss last week. If this bailout doesnt go through, it will finish off last week.

Govt is not giving 700billion to evil wallstreet bankers, they are making a conservative investment. Any private equity firms will fall over each other to get the risk/reward of the deals the govt got. The aig deal they did is close to highway robbery by the govt against aig, the govt made off like a bandit NOT aig.

Everyone is pissed at the ceos and regulatory on how we got to this point, but we are here NOW and this is the only solution that MIGHT work. By doing nothing, it is guarenteed another depression at this point.

A bailout on this scale is simply rewarding the negative behaviors of the investment class. There is no incentive to look at and assess risk if you know the government will come along with a blank check. The investment firms and their insurers should feel the pain from their overly risky loans and investments. It that bankrupts them, well at least they will have learned their lesson.

Let the market collapse, and take the $700 billion and have the government build some infrastructure-- schools, bridges, mass transit, dams, and hospitals (and perhaps, lets stop sending our money to Iraq). If the problem is a lack of liquidity, or even if the problem is simply an unwillingness to loan money, then let's eliminate that part of the economic system; instead of local government borrowing money, let the federal government pay cash. Instead of requiring a corporation to borrow money on unfavorable terms, let the government pay cash. Large government contracts buying things and building services will have the same effect as bolstering private investment firms with the added value that the taxpayer (who is paying the bill and assuming the risk) actually gets services like better schools, better hospitals, better bridges and better mass transit.

If we create a special commission funded with taxpayer money, the taxpayers don't get anything but a lot of risk, a nebulous system doling out their money, and the shitheads who got us into this mess get to play with more money.

Quote:

No I've never been a supporter of that. I'm not sure that social security has a direct tie-in with this discussion of the bailout. To be honest I'm a little surprised you'd ask me of all people that if you've read any of my posts on the Barack Obama thread...

If you want to get into what we should do about social security, I'm happy to discuss that with you, but I am not sure it's topical to this thread.

Quote:

OK, fine, i agree with you 100% on point #1, they should not have ever been in this situation and yes, they should be held accountable.

The bailout is NOT a big FU to the taxpayer, especially considering they will most likely make out like a bandit on the deal they got. As for your 2nd point in your 2nd paragraph, i don't get what you're saying. Do you want the stock to go UP? If that's the case, why set such punative terms to the bailout? If you want the stockholders and everyone associated with the company to be punished, shouldn't their stock go to zero? You can't have it both ways....

What follows is a long (and some would say boring) explanation of how some of this stuff works. If you have no interest in how this bailout works and why it is occurring, just move along.

Lets start at the end of what AlexC just said:

Quote:

Price Discovery is a nice thought in theory, but I'm sorry my friend, but there is no "natural" price discovery right now. What you have right now is forced sellers vs. opportunistic (vulture) buyers. So lets use a typical scenario. I have to sell a bond, i get bids, best bid is 50 and I sell it. Now everyone else who owns a bond like mine has to "value" their security at or near 50. That triggers other who now have a huge loss to sell, so they sell except this time it sells at 40, and that triggers...........

You see where I'm going with this - it's a downward spiral. Now keep in mind that these "losses" come thru people's balance sheets, they have less capital, and now have to go to the market and raise capital (that generally means selling stock in their company or other similar securities). Selling stock dillutes the value of current stock holders which send their shares down, and pushes the prices of stock indexes (the Dow, the S&P, etc) down as well.

Now don't get me wrong, it's not just mark-to-market accounting that's causing the problems, banks won't lend to each other any more either. If i don't know what's on your balance sheet, if i think you're insolvent, why should i lend to you? If you can't get money in the door, you can't send it out and if you can't pay your debts, you go bankrupt. Something has/had to be done to stop this vicious cycle - unless you want the financial world to topple. Some of you do, i think that's probably unwise.

Ok but lets move on to the plan and how you value these securities....

Quote:

Look, you haven't seen his assumptions or his projections, so you really don't know how he is/will be valuing these securities. I will say this though, his Pimco Total Return fund is one of the best performing bond funds in the country, so he has largely avoided this fiasco, he's a smart guy with a long track record, I think i'll take his projections over yours (no offense).

But once again, these securities are backed by mortgages and as you know, people pay (or don't pay) their mortgage every MONTH. So as time goes by these securities get payments of principal and interest every month.

The point of this program is to clear these bonds off of balance sheets so that money can start flowing in the system and banks/financial institutions can start lending again. My guess is that there will also be language in the bill to help prevent foreclosures...so what does all this do? REFINANCINGS!! And why is that good for this program... Well if you buy an asset for 50-60cents on the dollar, and then the person who's mortgage you own pays you back, you just doubled your money (paid 50c and got paid back $1).

But forget about all that -- when you pay 50c for $1 in assets, you don't even need all your money back to make a good return! Think of it this way, if you pay $10,000,000 for a set of mortgages with a face value of $20,000,000 and lets say for the sake of argument that your bonds represent 100 loans and each of them was worth $200,000. Lets say half of them are deadbeats and won't pay you, OK, so you foreclose on them and now you've got their house, is their house worthless? Of course not! Ostensibly (Even if they put very little money down) it was worth more than the $200,000 loan they took out at the time of purchase, maybe it's only worth $150,000 now, maybe only $100,000 but it still has value to SOMEONE!

So you probably get half your money back on half your loans through foreclosures, short-sales, loan modifications, etc etc, but that's $5mm and presumably the other half is still paying you (for the next 20-30yrs, since they probably took out 30yr mortgages). So tell me, how is your $700mm going down the drain? If the government were paying $1 for $1 in sh*tty assets, i would have a problem with that. They simply are not.

Furthermore, given that the government will own all these securities (plus the fact that they're...the government) they'll be able to get some leverage over servicers to stop the foreclosure process for many of these borrowers, rework their loans, keep people in their homes etc etc. That will further protect the government's investment in these crappy mortgages.

I don't expect you guys to agree that this is the only/best/ideal solution, I just expect you to understand the basic mechanics of what is going on here. The Government will be paying "cash for trash" but they certainly aren't paying top dollar for the trash....

Finally if you've read this far, some housekeeping items:

Quote:

Lehman has $650bn in assets and $614bn in liabilities. They do NOT have $650bn in *mortgage* assets though. Those assets could be corp bonds, government securities, loans, etc etc. So once those assets are liquidated or divvied up, they'll be used to pay Lehman bond holders and chances are those guys WON'T be happy with what they get...

Your other number $500T of credit default swaps is vastly overstated, not sure where you got that number. That is a whole other story, but that number is more like $62T. That issues is beyond the scope of this bailout and regulation there shouldn't be very difficult to enact.

Have a great night! And if you have a better solution write your congressman or post it here on JCList. But my guess is that if it involves the financial system collapsing, you might not get very far, and for your sake, i'm hoping you've converted your FDIC insured bank account into Gold & Silver!

and an EQUITY PLAN would certainly be a whole lot easier to manage !

Cash for Trash

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 21, 2008
New York Times

Krugman is DEAD ON, though somewhat long winded about it.
Why should the taxpayer's purchase these MINCEMEAT Toxic Assets, whose value cannot even be assessed, instead of EQUITY!

Congress needs to see the plan for what it is & not be pressured/diverted by the current administration's bum's rush into thinking that they need to merely modify what is being served up.

Why not look beyond the Goldman mentality of the current designers of the plan to Other Econimists & draft a better plan based on buying EQUITY?

I have a question for Wibbit and SLyng

1. Were you two ever supporters of investing Social Security funds into the stock market?


I don't hear Republicans pushing the privatization of social security in the last few weeks, I wonder why...

This is nothing more than a massive transfer of wealth and power to the financial elite.

It's amazing to sit back and watch people who have praised neo-liberal economic policies around the globe (condeming millions to poverty) and at home when it comes to labor unions, distressed industrial companies, poor single mothers now call for the largest government intervention ever in the economy which not surpsisingly will primarily benefit the financial elite.

Ben Bernanke made his name in Academia studying the great depression. I had to sit through Econ professor after Econ professor (influenced by Bernanke's research) talk about how government intervention in the economy during the great depression (legalization of labor unions, public works projects etc) actually prolonged the depression and that the best medicine for third world countries is to de-nationalize assets and allow their currencies to float...now these hypocrites are asking for a 700 billion dollar wealth transfer.

Quote:

Absolutely, the Great Greed Meltdown 2008?from the 12 year old who thinks they?re entitled to a $400 pair of jeans, to the Middle-income guy who thinks he?s entitled to a big screen tv in his refinished basement to his stay-at-home wife who thinks she?s entitled to a $90,000 suv, ?..Surprise!!! That interest-only mortgage just kicked-in, and your payments just went from $2,000 to $6,000, to the Bank?s who handed out these loans like Kohl?s flyers, to the CEO?s and their Golden parachutes, to the Government and our ballooning debt??Where?s the accountability? .We got greedy, greedy, greedy. Of course, the guy with the mortgage over his head is no comparison to these Wall Street a**sholes?. But, there?s a price to pay. And, we?re the one?s who are gonna pay it. I say let the Fed bail them out again, but this time we should all demand a $2300 voucher to personally reinvest in the market ourselves?..Forget Warren Buffet, we should get a chance at a piece of the pie?Afterall, aren?t we the one?s who are about to rescue the world from Economic meltdown

Quote:

AIG should never have been in this predicament to begin with. So what if they have to pay a whole lot more back? Shouldn't the decisionmakers of these corporations be held accountable?

The bail out is a big FU to the taxpayers (many of whom have invested their retirement funds in the MANY mutual funds that AIG is part of). Damn right AIG should pay a stiff penalty.

I'd much rather see that 700 billion bailout / improve our education and health services for all and have a similar system as our cousins in Canada.

Is this 700 billion the government has on hand coming from savings, or are they just going to simply print more money ?

Quote:

His projections assume that the market for these instruments will recover. He is using the same models that got us in this mess in the first place : real estate values will go up.

That's a big IF. It may never recover, and the taxpayer will be on the hook. I think the $700B is just the beginning. Lehman alone had $650B of holdings that must be liquidated. There's $500 Trillion (with a T) of derivatives floating out there, a lot of which must be delevered. Debt destruction must proceed.

There must be natural price discovery - who's going to determine the price for this toxic cesspool? We should let the market sort itself out. After (IF) it blows up, we can rebuild, and there will be incredible opportunities on the other side of the equation.