I think after this economic downturn, the government should say that all non-fixed assets must be booked according to market price to let the banks know what they really have.
WHen you talk about a bank maring their assets to $500m forcing other banks to do likewise - how do you know, as an investor with limited transparency - that such a writedown would be appropriate for the other banks? If other banks simply claim to be holding more senior tranches in the CDOs then they could argue that such arge writedowns are not aplicable to them and an investor would not be none the wiser.
Good news.. Some politicians wants tax cuts for corporations.. to replace the money that wont be taxed.. they will ask for a 700billion loan to China or Saudi Arabia. Again.. who's these guys work for?
you say let the back go belly up and let the government lend to the producers of goods and services money directly. but what about the people who have money with the banks. they should not get punished right? the share holders. yeah punish them. lenders to the bank yea. punish them. but what about the people who have money with the bank? i think thats one side of the moral hazard you did not discuss. i liked the way you explained the facts ... your opinions ... well i dont agree completely ...
@mintoo2cool Quoting Sal: "Savers are not effected if the banks go under. Their deposits are insured (and I think it is good that they are). Also, I am talking generally about commercial and *investment* banks (like Goldman and Morgan Stanley which, until recently, were not commercial banks and therefore did not take traditional deposits" Hope it helps.
The reason Governments are not wanting to help out Joe public directly with bailout money...
q) Where do you think the principal cash is coming from to fund the bailouts in the first instance?
a) The central bank.
q) What is a central bank?
a) A consortium of private banks.
What are the implications? It doesn't take an above average intellect to work it out! This is not just a scam, this is a scam of the highest order, the mother of all scams....
I am not an economist and I do not understand the financial world very well, but about the rescue fund; it ignores the international trade. Now, this has spread to all countries. This is reducing the interantional trade. if you give money to the real world business, but there is not market(not exports) , it is bankruptcy for the small business owners, or a very slow growth. Thats my opinion.
Your point is brilliant!. The government creates an economic rescue fund dedicated solely for the lending of capital to the "real" world businesses. The let the cards fall where they may. Why is this NOT being looked at!
Same way a private bank does. In fact, a smart politician would hire the bankers whose institutions were NOT compromised by Toxic assets. The idea is that the goverment provide the cash to an found a new entity whose banking business is based on traditional banking standards. How it is used or misused will depend on us. We must be always be vigilant as the founding fathers warned. Actually I like what, Nicolas Taleb Nassim suggests. Create a two tier system, Banking and Risk taking entities.
"hire the bankers whose institutions were NOT compromised by Toxic assets" why not just put the equity the government wants to create directly in those institutions?
Yes that would work as well. The idea is to create or nurture a sound banking system untainted by toxic assets. I think Sal mentioned that possibily as well in his videos.
I still think raising the mortgage interest tax credit would have been a better way to artificially prop up the housing market for long enough to allow the banks to unwind their exposure without artificially depressing prices by rapidly de-leveraging the banks and grossly exacerbating the real underlying problem.
Sal, you are doing a great job...figure out a way to increase your exposure! they have these guitar wannabee's with 6 million hits and you are actually presenting video with substance....this country has a severe disconnect between education/awareness and real-world preparation.
AFAIK, if a company goes bankrupt, preferred share holders get dibs first, when it comes to paying out the money to share holders (so, still *after* the debt holders get their money). Also, they often get a higher divident pay out or somesuch.
You did a very nice job of explaining the effects of the bailout. I'll add a couple. One, let's look at the providers of the capital: the taxpayers. A bailout forces the taxpayers to transfer their wealth to the presumptive risk takers. Two, I can't believe all the gov't people are idiots because your points are well known by all economists, including Bernanke. So, one is left to think this is a knowing attempt to take over (socialize) an economic sector. It's not just misguided.
IMO the last point made about lending to main street makes the most sense, however decideing who on mainstreet needs the money the most would be a extremely time consuming at best. In a fast falling economy the government has chosen the quickest (maybe not the best) route. They could be very desperate because they see a collapse somewhere we dont.
The FDIC doesn't even really have the funds to cover everyone's savings. It may claim it does, but has everyone ever heard of a "run on a bank". The exact same thing would happen to the FDIC. The FDIC practices the same money manipulation that banks do, "fractional reserve banking". The FDIC only covers a certain percentage of total savings just like a bank only covers a certain percentage of its depositors. DUH!!
wrong, the government is bailing out the banks and not main street because bailing out the banks is cheeper for the government then bailing out main street. Furthermore, letting the banks fail would cause a total collapse of the hedge fund industry.
Another moral hazzard. Why any venture capital firm stay in businnes if the most rewarding investment/bank activity is realestate finance. They will switch too, to this business....
Toxic assets size...Wachovia's equity is worth zero. 122 billion of pick-a-pays are carried at 96c in their books, when transactions of similar assets have been
Thanks for thinking about it and actually coming up with a third alternative. When someone has only one idea it that is not an option itis a dictatum. In other words a switch to dictatorship.
No, No, No, that won't work. How would lending directly to the farmer, factory builder etc pay back the foriegn creditors? I think this is the real sinister plan. Good luck getting a loan in future. Good luck even going into foreclosure in future. I bet there will be a law passed very soon to prevent those upside down walking away from their mortgage. How will this be done? We'll the IRS arm of the FED will simply tack your mortgage onto your income taxes.
That exactly his point, if you pay to the farmer, you know who you pay. You see when you give money to the banks it will disappear through the cross-lending...crosspaying. If you lend to the farmers, you have to show up in a government office. And basically present your business plan. You can practicaly close out all the foreigners.
These government banks we be sold down the line when the economy picks up, and the government will make some profit for the taxpayers. This newly privatized bank will have a pristine balance sheet since they did not take huge risks when loaning out. Foreigners will be happy to give loans to these banks.
Direct loans will essentially turn the feds into a bank, at least until these banks come back in 5 or so years. The government can earn interest revenue and then can pass some tax cuts. This takes away all of the relevant moral hazard. This still keeps the economy running, supporting our mom and pop farmers, while rightfully penalizing Wall Street for taking huge risks. I don't see significant inflation coming out of this.
Moral Hazard: Sal, mum and dad savers who are *lenders to the bank* are "greedy capitalist pigs who deserve punishment"??, *nobody* will ever save again if you talk like this. Savers have got bugger all interest. Speculators got the rewards. You need to separate out the "evil bank lenders" from the savers who for example want to have something for retirement. Please focus more on the equity holders rather than the savers and other ordinary depositors who the bank is liable to return money.
Savers are not effected if the banks go under. Their deposits are insured (and I think it is good that they are). Also, I am talking generally about commercial and *investment* banks (like Goldman and Morgan Stanley which, until recently, were not commercial banks and therefore did not take traditional deposits).
I was with you through videos 1-9, however I have to take issue with the position put forth that the fed or the Government (not sure which you were referring to) should lend directly to the consumers (farmer etc). The fed will have to print this money which would create massive inflation. They are getting this $700B from the Fed guarunteeing a line of credit. It's hard to promote the invisible hand of the market without denouncing the invisible foot of the Government!
I agree with you. I don't think direct loans would be a good idea either. I just think that it would have just as good chance of working and at least it wouldn't be as "morally hazardous". Frankly, I don't think we can legislative ourselves out of this.
@khanacademy bottom line is interest[usury] is the root cause of this problem which is rightly ban in all the major religion and very specifically in islam.i think the system is evil from its core.may god bless you
His mission not talk nice but tell the math what is behind this mess. Don't forget people who told you what you want to hear created this mess. But ok, just for you 2 x 2 = 10 if this makes you happy.
Yep. Let the casino burn. A few banks will remain standing and (especially with cheap Fed money) they will lend to the real economy and make a killing. Goldman laid off CDO risk via CDS's with AIG and when AIG looked like it couldn't make good as a counterparty, voila. First Goldman gets outta jail with LTCM counterparty risk, now AIG.
I don't buy, that $5T in assets is worthless. The folks paying the CASH flow to support them might be, but part of cowboy capitalism is to wait until they suffocate.
Instead of buying the paper, the govt should be buying the property.
But I wonder why you say that the CDOs may be worth "nothing, zero". Isn't it that their value is equal to the money the bank can get back by selling them (for the most part, they are mortgages) ?
Your argument would be true for most mortgage back securities. Remember, CDO are MBS's sliced up so many of these CDOs may be the riskier tranches (or buckets) that get wiped out only if you have a 10% loss on the underlying assets (or collateral)
MBS issued by SPV's I get this. The SPV collects the payments and pays these out as dividends to the Securities holder.
Who holds the mortages. Are there say 1000 separate mortages locked away in a vault somewhere? Are the riskier tranches based directly on the risker subset of mortages in a larger pool?
next video please?? and these CDO's that you speak of... what happens if it is worth 0$, and those people that needs to pay mortgage and these companies go bankrupt?? who collects the monthly payment and what happens to those who cannot afford them?
Very well explained and informational. I want you to congratulate on your series. But I have to disagree with you in one point. How do you want to lend money directly to the whole real economy. Banks are not just holding mortgages or corporate loans but also credit card loans,student loans and I don´t know how many other type of loans etc. The administration necessary to provide 700 bill. to the real economy without banks monitoring etc. is huge.
These Lectures on bailout are simply great and explanatory.. but i wonder What does Warren Buffet meant when he said that the derivatives Market is "Financial Weapon of Mass Destruction" does he Meant MBS/CDOs ?. and what is Credit default Swap? this word is also pretty common in CNBC or other business channel talk shows?
I would like to see a video which explains what might happen if they print the money out of thin air to do the bail-out, and what the effect on the tax payer etc might be.
awesome thanks for explaining this horrible mess. but i say we should let these criminals suffer the conseqences of their unscrupulous actions, they should be brought up on charges of financial fraud, market manipulation an whatever, bunch of crooks robbing us blind from top to bottom now we write them a big fat check to thank them for screwing us all over back to front.
Out of all the videos I have watched on your channel, this one is the most provocative because it addresses the implications of what the government is attempting to do and leaves an impression that the bailout is everything against the interest of the public. This is disconcerting information considering that the government is supposed to be a public service.
I always knew you were a genious, now you just proven it again. If only half of our American population could have 1/10 of 1% of your brain. The politicians would need for their IQ to be raised to the minimum human operational level.
sal thanks for the videos ....Sarah Palin should take some time out of her campaign to watch them cause shes under the impression that the bailout some how relates to health care /watch?v=0PwQdzpMdEI&feature=related
Thank you! That's the same conclusion I gathered after watching the other videos! The government should loan directly to Main Street and therefore keep the economy moving. But you know what I really think; since I always thought George Bush is a liar due to the contrived invasion for WMD's, is that Paulson and George are saving their own asses because they are the investors who have the most to lose from this collapse. I understand that their investments are in a trust but c'mon for real?!
Main street was the one that started the problem in the first place. I'm so sick of people portraying Wall Street as the great villain behind the disaster when it actually is the biggest victim of it. Has everyone forgotten that this mess began with a heap of bad mortgages made by American consumers who never came within a hundred miles of Wall Street? Why not blame them instead?
I disagree. Someone gave out the loans and as far as I can tell the only people who gave out these unsecured loans were the financial institutions. The reason they gave them out was because they saw this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It was a feeding frenzy that went unabated and unregulated.
Mr. Khan, if you can make a video on Eurozone debt crisis or at least Greek debt crisis, it will be great. Thanks
TheMailprasad 4 weeks ago
There needs to be less politicians meddling in economics and more Sal!
flyingbeagles 9 months ago
has anyone shown this to obama? i'm not sure he's aware of what's going on...
ladicius 9 months ago
I think after this economic downturn, the government should say that all non-fixed assets must be booked according to market price to let the banks know what they really have.
dalcde 1 year ago
WHen you talk about a bank maring their assets to $500m forcing other banks to do likewise - how do you know, as an investor with limited transparency - that such a writedown would be appropriate for the other banks? If other banks simply claim to be holding more senior tranches in the CDOs then they could argue that such arge writedowns are not aplicable to them and an investor would not be none the wiser.
arlenschmidt 1 year ago
Good news.. Some politicians wants tax cuts for corporations.. to replace the money that wont be taxed.. they will ask for a 700billion loan to China or Saudi Arabia. Again.. who's these guys work for?
nalcow 1 year ago
you say let the back go belly up and let the government lend to the producers of goods and services money directly. but what about the people who have money with the banks. they should not get punished right? the share holders. yeah punish them. lenders to the bank yea. punish them. but what about the people who have money with the bank? i think thats one side of the moral hazard you did not discuss. i liked the way you explained the facts ... your opinions ... well i dont agree completely ...
mintoo2cool 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mintoo2cool Quoting Sal: "Savers are not effected if the banks go under. Their deposits are insured (and I think it is good that they are). Also, I am talking generally about commercial and *investment* banks (like Goldman and Morgan Stanley which, until recently, were not commercial banks and therefore did not take traditional deposits" Hope it helps.
java0317 1 year ago
@mintoo2cool The FDIC takes care of people the bank's account holders, up to $250,000 per account.
jmuench420 1 month ago
Sal, you should do some videos as a postmortem to your suggestions. Use the losses through CIT as an example of the real moral hazard.
personova 2 years ago
The reason Governments are not wanting to help out Joe public directly with bailout money...
q) Where do you think the principal cash is coming from to fund the bailouts in the first instance?
a) The central bank.
q) What is a central bank?
a) A consortium of private banks.
What are the implications? It doesn't take an above average intellect to work it out! This is not just a scam, this is a scam of the highest order, the mother of all scams....
PickledRed 2 years ago 2
...i luv your accent haha
riotsas 2 years ago
I am not an economist and I do not understand the financial world very well, but about the rescue fund; it ignores the international trade. Now, this has spread to all countries. This is reducing the interantional trade. if you give money to the real world business, but there is not market(not exports) , it is bankruptcy for the small business owners, or a very slow growth. Thats my opinion.
But again, Sal, you are the most brillian person,
Thank you for the videos
checoavalos 2 years ago
Your point is brilliant!. The government creates an economic rescue fund dedicated solely for the lending of capital to the "real" world businesses. The let the cards fall where they may. Why is this NOT being looked at!
RvNYC 3 years ago 2
But how does the government run a bank? Wouldn't it most likely be used for political purposes?
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Same way a private bank does. In fact, a smart politician would hire the bankers whose institutions were NOT compromised by Toxic assets. The idea is that the goverment provide the cash to an found a new entity whose banking business is based on traditional banking standards. How it is used or misused will depend on us. We must be always be vigilant as the founding fathers warned. Actually I like what, Nicolas Taleb Nassim suggests. Create a two tier system, Banking and Risk taking entities.
RvNYC 2 years ago
"hire the bankers whose institutions were NOT compromised by Toxic assets" why not just put the equity the government wants to create directly in those institutions?
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Yes that would work as well. The idea is to create or nurture a sound banking system untainted by toxic assets. I think Sal mentioned that possibily as well in his videos.
RvNYC 2 years ago
I still think raising the mortgage interest tax credit would have been a better way to artificially prop up the housing market for long enough to allow the banks to unwind their exposure without artificially depressing prices by rapidly de-leveraging the banks and grossly exacerbating the real underlying problem.
ananiasacts 2 years ago
Thank you Sir. Great video
Prophetess7 3 years ago 2
Sal, you are doing a great job...figure out a way to increase your exposure! they have these guitar wannabee's with 6 million hits and you are actually presenting video with substance....this country has a severe disconnect between education/awareness and real-world preparation.
-So Say We All
Chromatype 3 years ago
Are preferred share holders liability holders too? what is the difference between a common and preferred share?
pamens88 3 years ago
AFAIK, if a company goes bankrupt, preferred share holders get dibs first, when it comes to paying out the money to share holders (so, still *after* the debt holders get their money). Also, they often get a higher divident pay out or somesuch.
ninjapie 3 years ago
CDO's are companies in name only (at least the mortgage backed ones).
Let them go backrupt. Period.
The losers are the shareholders and we move on.
MrFrankBullitt 3 years ago
Excellent explanation!
dozzyg 3 years ago 2
You did a very nice job of explaining the effects of the bailout. I'll add a couple. One, let's look at the providers of the capital: the taxpayers. A bailout forces the taxpayers to transfer their wealth to the presumptive risk takers. Two, I can't believe all the gov't people are idiots because your points are well known by all economists, including Bernanke. So, one is left to think this is a knowing attempt to take over (socialize) an economic sector. It's not just misguided.
AdamSmith102938 3 years ago
IMO the last point made about lending to main street makes the most sense, however decideing who on mainstreet needs the money the most would be a extremely time consuming at best. In a fast falling economy the government has chosen the quickest (maybe not the best) route. They could be very desperate because they see a collapse somewhere we dont.
painswitch 3 years ago
good video. nice explanation. the only problem with ur solution is that then the government starts owning a company!!! thats wat happened 2 russia
pbeasr 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lets chat
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TALK TO ME S1
3n7w7xth 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i liked this video :)
looking for friends Dq
123456789mattb 3 years ago
The FDIC doesn't even really have the funds to cover everyone's savings. It may claim it does, but has everyone ever heard of a "run on a bank". The exact same thing would happen to the FDIC. The FDIC practices the same money manipulation that banks do, "fractional reserve banking". The FDIC only covers a certain percentage of total savings just like a bank only covers a certain percentage of its depositors. DUH!!
milatyme36 3 years ago
The biggest transference of wealth in recorded history. Liberty my ASS!!
milatyme36 3 years ago
Thank you for explaining this to us Sal, it's very helpful. You should be the next economic adviser :)
CelestialTina 3 years ago
wrong, the government is bailing out the banks and not main street because bailing out the banks is cheeper for the government then bailing out main street. Furthermore, letting the banks fail would cause a total collapse of the hedge fund industry.
smallbighorn 3 years ago
Sal for president!
KoffKofy 3 years ago 11
In other words, the Paulsen plan is to SOCIALIZE RISK while PRIVITIZING GAIN.
Think about that. You and I get to cover the potential losses, so that people that are making the bad investment still get the reward.
phoenixshade3 3 years ago 10
Another moral hazzard. Why any venture capital firm stay in businnes if the most rewarding investment/bank activity is realestate finance. They will switch too, to this business....
Toxic assets size...Wachovia's equity is worth zero. 122 billion of pick-a-pays are carried at 96c in their books, when transactions of similar assets have been
Misuci 3 years ago
Thanks for thinking about it and actually coming up with a third alternative. When someone has only one idea it that is not an option itis a dictatum. In other words a switch to dictatorship.
Misuci 3 years ago
No, No, No, that won't work. How would lending directly to the farmer, factory builder etc pay back the foriegn creditors? I think this is the real sinister plan. Good luck getting a loan in future. Good luck even going into foreclosure in future. I bet there will be a law passed very soon to prevent those upside down walking away from their mortgage. How will this be done? We'll the IRS arm of the FED will simply tack your mortgage onto your income taxes.
ozziindaus 3 years ago
That exactly his point, if you pay to the farmer, you know who you pay. You see when you give money to the banks it will disappear through the cross-lending...crosspaying. If you lend to the farmers, you have to show up in a government office. And basically present your business plan. You can practicaly close out all the foreigners.
Misuci 3 years ago
I was being sarcastic with the first two sentences
ozziindaus 3 years ago
These government banks we be sold down the line when the economy picks up, and the government will make some profit for the taxpayers. This newly privatized bank will have a pristine balance sheet since they did not take huge risks when loaning out. Foreigners will be happy to give loans to these banks.
brco2003 3 years ago
Direct loans will essentially turn the feds into a bank, at least until these banks come back in 5 or so years. The government can earn interest revenue and then can pass some tax cuts. This takes away all of the relevant moral hazard. This still keeps the economy running, supporting our mom and pop farmers, while rightfully penalizing Wall Street for taking huge risks. I don't see significant inflation coming out of this.
brco2003 3 years ago
Brilliant.I've learned so much. Thankyou. Best video's on youtube regarding this topic. Keep up the gr8 work.
hipbas 3 years ago
Moral Hazard: Sal, mum and dad savers who are *lenders to the bank* are "greedy capitalist pigs who deserve punishment"??, *nobody* will ever save again if you talk like this. Savers have got bugger all interest. Speculators got the rewards. You need to separate out the "evil bank lenders" from the savers who for example want to have something for retirement. Please focus more on the equity holders rather than the savers and other ordinary depositors who the bank is liable to return money.
andrewedwardjudd 3 years ago
Savers are not effected if the banks go under. Their deposits are insured (and I think it is good that they are). Also, I am talking generally about commercial and *investment* banks (like Goldman and Morgan Stanley which, until recently, were not commercial banks and therefore did not take traditional deposits).
khanacademy 3 years ago 6
I was with you through videos 1-9, however I have to take issue with the position put forth that the fed or the Government (not sure which you were referring to) should lend directly to the consumers (farmer etc). The fed will have to print this money which would create massive inflation. They are getting this $700B from the Fed guarunteeing a line of credit. It's hard to promote the invisible hand of the market without denouncing the invisible foot of the Government!
mimarino9 3 years ago 5
I agree with you. I don't think direct loans would be a good idea either. I just think that it would have just as good chance of working and at least it wouldn't be as "morally hazardous". Frankly, I don't think we can legislative ourselves out of this.
khanacademy 3 years ago 8
@khanacademy bottom line is interest[usury] is the root cause of this problem which is rightly ban in all the major religion and very specifically in islam.i think the system is evil from its core.may god bless you
drzakir123 1 year ago
@drzakir123 Cite me the passages in the bible and koran that mention interest please
parklinkin52 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drzakir123 allah is great...may peace be upon him.
IowaEngineering 8 months ago
His mission not talk nice but tell the math what is behind this mess. Don't forget people who told you what you want to hear created this mess. But ok, just for you 2 x 2 = 10 if this makes you happy.
Misuci 3 years ago
@andrewedwardjudd douche
oneyedo 10 months ago
Yep. Let the casino burn. A few banks will remain standing and (especially with cheap Fed money) they will lend to the real economy and make a killing. Goldman laid off CDO risk via CDS's with AIG and when AIG looked like it couldn't make good as a counterparty, voila. First Goldman gets outta jail with LTCM counterparty risk, now AIG.
sgentry777 3 years ago
Excellent. Thank you.
rosihantu1 3 years ago
I don't buy, that $5T in assets is worthless. The folks paying the CASH flow to support them might be, but part of cowboy capitalism is to wait until they suffocate.
Instead of buying the paper, the govt should be buying the property.
NO equity is worth ZERO.
Yourdeadmeat69 3 years ago
Aside the wall street bad decision makers, what is forgotten is that America's 401K's, which are held by 70% of America ARE not separable.
There is no moral hazard, if reregulation surfaces that defines and curtails, risk taking to professionals.
These undertakings where the govt lends to private industry should not come without strings.
Yourdeadmeat69 3 years ago
Fantastic series of video, Sal, thank you !
But I wonder why you say that the CDOs may be worth "nothing, zero". Isn't it that their value is equal to the money the bank can get back by selling them (for the most part, they are mortgages) ?
gambuzo 3 years ago
Your argument would be true for most mortgage back securities. Remember, CDO are MBS's sliced up so many of these CDOs may be the riskier tranches (or buckets) that get wiped out only if you have a 10% loss on the underlying assets (or collateral)
khanacademy 3 years ago 4
MBS issued by SPV's I get this. The SPV collects the payments and pays these out as dividends to the Securities holder.
Who holds the mortages. Are there say 1000 separate mortages locked away in a vault somewhere? Are the riskier tranches based directly on the risker subset of mortages in a larger pool?
RvNYC 2 years ago
Man these are freaking great!!!!!
joulian0720 3 years ago
next video please?? and these CDO's that you speak of... what happens if it is worth 0$, and those people that needs to pay mortgage and these companies go bankrupt?? who collects the monthly payment and what happens to those who cannot afford them?
tnguyen603 3 years ago
Especially given the fact that there is only a limited timeframe for this to happen before the real economy starts to get hurt
Slaughtermaster111 3 years ago
Very well explained and informational. I want you to congratulate on your series. But I have to disagree with you in one point. How do you want to lend money directly to the whole real economy. Banks are not just holding mortgages or corporate loans but also credit card loans,student loans and I don´t know how many other type of loans etc. The administration necessary to provide 700 bill. to the real economy without banks monitoring etc. is huge.
Slaughtermaster111 3 years ago
These Lectures on bailout are simply great and explanatory.. but i wonder What does Warren Buffet meant when he said that the derivatives Market is "Financial Weapon of Mass Destruction" does he Meant MBS/CDOs ?. and what is Credit default Swap? this word is also pretty common in CNBC or other business channel talk shows?
sayyedsalman 3 years ago
Great Work Great Teacher. Keep it up. i am so proud that we have some thing in common Thas the Name...lol
sayyedsalman 3 years ago
I would like to see a video which explains what might happen if they print the money out of thin air to do the bail-out, and what the effect on the tax payer etc might be.
The relationship to the T-Bill..
etc
yogiudo 3 years ago
I disagree.
rosewood223 3 years ago
Thanks for this explanation.
ArdieVerde 3 years ago
awesome thanks for explaining this horrible mess. but i say we should let these criminals suffer the conseqences of their unscrupulous actions, they should be brought up on charges of financial fraud, market manipulation an whatever, bunch of crooks robbing us blind from top to bottom now we write them a big fat check to thank them for screwing us all over back to front.
vote Kahn for president!
OtakuRonin 3 years ago
Out of all the videos I have watched on your channel, this one is the most provocative because it addresses the implications of what the government is attempting to do and leaves an impression that the bailout is everything against the interest of the public. This is disconcerting information considering that the government is supposed to be a public service.
jdrizd2 3 years ago
I always knew you were a genious, now you just proven it again. If only half of our American population could have 1/10 of 1% of your brain. The politicians would need for their IQ to be raised to the minimum human operational level.
lazmedina 3 years ago
NICE VEDIO THANKS
309years 3 years ago
Thanks for the videos!
imorerobot 3 years ago
sal thanks for the videos ....Sarah Palin should take some time out of her campaign to watch them cause shes under the impression that the bailout some how relates to health care /watch?v=0PwQdzpMdEI&feature=related
shiv86 3 years ago
lol
pongman 3 years ago
/watch?v=npUMUASwaec
shiv86 3 years ago
great series
beornborg 3 years ago
Thank you! That's the same conclusion I gathered after watching the other videos! The government should loan directly to Main Street and therefore keep the economy moving. But you know what I really think; since I always thought George Bush is a liar due to the contrived invasion for WMD's, is that Paulson and George are saving their own asses because they are the investors who have the most to lose from this collapse. I understand that their investments are in a trust but c'mon for real?!
pongman 3 years ago
There is no such thing as a blind trust unless George Bush, Paulson and Bernanke gave me their money to hold and let me play with it. lol
pongman 3 years ago
Main street, pongman? Seriously?
Main street was the one that started the problem in the first place. I'm so sick of people portraying Wall Street as the great villain behind the disaster when it actually is the biggest victim of it. Has everyone forgotten that this mess began with a heap of bad mortgages made by American consumers who never came within a hundred miles of Wall Street? Why not blame them instead?
stretchyrubberbands 3 years ago
I disagree. Someone gave out the loans and as far as I can tell the only people who gave out these unsecured loans were the financial institutions. The reason they gave them out was because they saw this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It was a feeding frenzy that went unabated and unregulated.
pongman 3 years ago
By Main Street people mean the real economy. However, a fair question is...Do we have a real economy in the United States of America?
mongobobo 3 years ago
IN KHAN WE TRUST!
masakmerah 3 years ago
Thank youuuuuuuuuuuuuu KHAN
Waranle 3 years ago