Well, I'm scared, now

Be careful with that.

The executives with the multi-million-dollar earnings are not included. Federal, state, and local employees, including the elected, are not included. And still more, for various and sundry reasons that do not occur to me, are not included.

I think you mean a subset. The number will be larger compared to the past, if it comes to pass, but an improvident, debt-based less than the whole nevertheless.

a bad package deal? The way it was laid out did not address some key issues, and put the burden on the masses!

If the plan included taking something from those responsible for the mess to at least help pay it back, then it would not be as bad (my opinion).
Also, what about giving people that made bad choices a bailout, to keep their homes. I didnt buy because I thought that the loans offered sucked (and other reasons). People fell for these plans, why should they be forgiven and keep their homes because they expected the world to end before they had to pay it off?

This plan as it was laid out fell short of real goals other than having the govt. spend much, much cash which it does not have. The rejection was part of the process of making changes to the plan, and make it more worth it to the American people, not just the upper class.
I personally am not worried about this rejection, they plan to revisit with changes later this week or early next week.

Why should we, the taxpayers, just keep spending on bailouts when there is no reprocussions for those who cause the failures? It is like an open checkbook. It's time to show businesses that it is not going to go unpunished.

A) Allow the free market and the Invisible Hand to take hold and work the market. That means outside investors, most likely from the EU, Russia, China, and Australia, will most likely buy companies in a fire sale. While we will feel the pain short term, long term means a stronger economy and a far stronger dollar

B) The "Bail Out" is going to turn that debt into "our" debt. This means that the free market could care less about it. So that means that not only are we stuck with it forever, but that we will never be paid back by Wall Street. Short term we will feel no pain, but long term the dollar will continue to shrink and we'll feel more pain due to our service economy focus.

The Bail Out is a boondoggle, do NOT buy into the hype!
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

The root of the problem is not that institutions are going down, rather the root is that there is little left of our manufacturing base to pull us back up. Being a consumer nation, we need to consume the products our nation produces. If we produce more and consume our own products, then we provide the jobs that would help in lifting us from our present position. If we continue to consume products from other countries, then we ship our means to recover oversea's.

Your choice.

NCB is THE strongest bank in it's class right now due to the massive influx of capital recently. It is fully invested and was one of the first banks to take measures to fix the problems all the banks are facing.

... financial institutions should payback every last penny borrowed to them by government, with interest! About the shoe is on the other foot!

and make them pay it back with interest! I like that idea. Along with restricting bonuses (for execs) for doing a poor job in the first place.
Comapany wide bonuses should not be taken away completely, but should be capped, and only given when they have met a goal for payback.

being hypothetical :)

proposal sit with you? This is from the last draft of the bailout plan:

(d) TRANSFER OF A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS.?
(1) DEPOSITS.?Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2)
(2) USE OF DEPOSITS.?Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1)
(A) 65 percent shall be deposited into the
Housing Trust Fund established under section
1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568);
and
(B) 35 percent shall be deposited into the
Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).

"Those who live in glass houses, should never throw stones" Those in Wall St and LSE threw away others hard earnt money and now realise they need money themselves!

Enough!

Let the chips fall where they may, and get the gvt OUT of the business of business.

If I was Joe Bloggs working in the private sector I would be worried, very worried.

More so if I was Joe with the big morgage, car and lifestyle that is about to be eaten up.

Perhaps Joe's predicament is reward for living life outwith his means.

More fool Joe.

If there is one good thing about this is watching Fat Cats sweat and go pop.

When a bank goes bad, and depositors can't get all of their money back. When the banking system goes bad, nobody can borrow any money, and the whole economy tanks. The overvalued homes and insolvent homeowners make for a huge pile of bad assets, much larger than the liquid cash that routinely flows through the system.

Once the doomsday machinery starts rolling, it can also drive down the price of perfectly good assets. Suppose you have a 30-year $200,000 mortgage on a $300,000 house. You have $100k in equity, so you are in great shape. Then two dozen homes in your neighborhood get foreclosed and boarded up, weeds growing in the yard, and it's the same for communities all around you. You get tossed out of work and ask the real estate agent how much you can get for your house, and she says, maximum $150,000, if you can find a buyer and if they can find a loan. You now owe more than the place is worth, and you can't afford it. Would you keep it, or walk? A lot of people could be facing that question.

As to the guilty parties. It's not likely that the bad mortgages are held by any of the companies that originated them, and rarely the case that they are still held by the securitizer (the firm that combined individual home mortgages into a bond.) These mortgage-backed bonds were bought by banks, pension funds, and other investors. The defaults and dropping values are killing off banks already; the first to go are the gamblers and the especially unlucky. More will follow.

That's what some people are saying, but I wouldn't be so sure. What I say is this: Beware of the prophets of doom and gloom.

And considering the fact (yes, a fact) that government meddling caused this in the first place, why should we believe more government meddling will get us out of it? After all, Congressional approval ratings are hovering at around 10 percent. Why should we trust people who only 10 percent of us trust?

This is a case in which we are faced with two bad choices. When faced with such a dilemma, what does a person do? Make the best bad choice, or fall back on a core principle and let the chips fall where they may? Should we make the choice for short-term gain, but one that might potentially result in long-term pain; or should we endure the short-term pain for the benefit of long-term gain?

Personally speaking, I'm faced with the prospect of losing a lot of retirement savings money (and considering I'm in my mid 50s, that's not something easily overcome). Moreover, considering the small size of my company, in the event of future layoffs because of financial difficulty, I'd also probably be one of the first people to go.

Nonetheless, regardless of the outcome of all this, who do I want looking out for my best interest, me or the government? There used to be a joke about the guy who said, [i]I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you[/i]? To that, I say no thanks. You've [i]helped[/i] me enough already.

I've been warning about excessive government meddling for years, so in the very least, I'm entitled to a HUGE [i]I told you so[/i]. This is a fine mess all you big-government proponents got us into. Go ahead, blame [i]greedy[/i] Wall Street all you want - and they're not entirely free from blame. But their blame for this pales in comparison to where the bulk of it should be placed.

[i]The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Bailing out Wall street will only encourage them to continue to write more bad loans. The US taxpayers are getting really tired of being used by the big investors. The mortgage companies and the cronies they had working with them in the banks are the real cause of the crisis. The banks caused this and now want us to help them. In their quest to increase the cash coming in, they didn't look beyond the eventuality that the loans they wrote on the adjustable scale wouuld reach the point where those who got those loans would walk away rather than pay those high rates. The other problem was that with the ever increasing gains in equity year after year was a real invitation for those who saw it as an investment instead of a place to live. They took their equity and ran, leaving the banks with homes that have loans much bigger than the actual assesed value. Because the banks made bad deals, we, the average citizen with good loans and have allowed the equity to remain on the books are now being asked to pay more and get less. What about all the people who have paid off their loans or those who rent. Should they be required to help support those who got into homes they couldn't afford? Why?

Don't want to see it fail.

is a global market that is different to anything we have dealt with before. Has Congress (or the whole USA) missed the point that money knows no boundaries?

The sort of conditions where banks have no cash to lend - or are unwilling to lend it - can kill the hedge funds that have been bouncing the market around. If the hedge fund backers ask for their money back, you might not cry for them, but if they're forced to liquidate quickly it will force down investments in a way that will damage other financial firms.

What's needed is some sign that the White House and Congress do have the ability to mend ailing US banks.

If you just SAY you're going to do it, you probably won't have to.

First, a couple of points:

I'm not [i]scared[/i], Delbert, because I have faith in myself to face any crisis I'm faced with. And I give the same credit to others. But I am mad - hopping mad! - because I was forced into a system I found abhorrent, but one from which I simply could not opt out.

And I'm not in favor of no government oversight, but rather reasonable government oversight. When does reasonable become excessive? I'm not exactly sure how to define it, but I'll know it when I see it - and I've been seeing it for years.

What I consider a good course of action:

1. Approve a specific government bailout plan WITH NO SPECIAL EARMARKS, CONDITIONS, OR POLITICAL PANDERING. Reduce it from 116 pages to a more precise 16 pages.

2. Issue special long-term bonds to finance the bailout, ensuring that NONE OF THIS will add to budget deficits or increase the national debt.

3. Use the funds from the sale of those bonds to buy the bad debt the government guaranteed in the first place. The government simply cannot back down and renege on its guarantee, but it must implement it the right way.

4. Larry Kudlow spells out the specifics much better than I could. This does sound reasonable:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWE3ZTg5MDZjOTI2MDA4MjYxMGQ3ZDg1YzI5MTBmOWE=

Another voice of reason:

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/09/30/bailout_politics?page=full&comments=true

5. Privatize (or abolish) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Let the mortgage market operate on free market principles, and stop the nonsense of government guaranteeing the loans.

6. Repeal the Community Reinvestment Act and any other past government attempts at social engineering, home ownership for those who cannot afford it, etc.

7. Make a profit! We were faced with a similar dilemma in the early 1980s with the savings and loan bailout. When all the dust settled, the government actually MADE MONEY on the deal. However, instead of taking the profits to pay down the debt, the government spent it on even more social programs. In this case, ALL profits from this [i]investment[/i] should, by law, go towards paying down our current debt.

8. When faced with an apparent insurmountable problem, one method for solving it is to focus on the opportunities. With ANY problem, there ARE opportunities that present themselves. In this case, assets held as collateral for this bad debt could actually be purchased (by the taxpayers) for pennies on the dollar - maybe discounted 50 percent or more. The plan should be an attempt to maximize the return on that investment. It might cost 700 billion, but over time, could double - or triple - in value. The key would be to keep governments greedy and scummy hands off that profit, and pay down the debt instead.

To boil this down to it's basics.....

The whole world is floating one huge check.

This is fine, unless someone tries to cash it.

Panic will cause people to try to cash it.

LEADERSHIP will mitigate the effects of panic.

There is no leadership in Washington....

We're screwed unless they agree to do something, even if that something is to sit it out.

Right now, the financial markets don't know what the rules are because of DC playing "DEAL OR NO DEAL"

If they don't know what the rules are, they can't value anything.

If they can't value anything, the market is driven by wild speculation.

If the market speculates incorrectly at what 'deal' DC comes up with, there will be massive instability in the markets.

I've been reading your posts and it sounds like you have put a lot of thought into this instead of panicing. I'm curious as to what you and/or others think about suspending(at least temporarily) mark-to-market valuation in favor of something like a 3 year average like discussed in this article:
http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/29/mark-to-market-oped-cx_ng_0929gingrich.html

I am just like that.

Using the "bail out" money to pay out bonuses is just BS.

Economy is tight, and their reward is if they work hard to turn the company around, they will have a job for when it IS profitable again.

It has been a few years since my last raise, and while other people around me are getting laid off, I am not about to ask for one.

has hardly been along party lines, with many Republicans pandering to the "throw money at it" approach with all the side deals Dems are trying to leach onto it.

Passing a bad resolution with earmarks and little oversight is hardly in our best interests at this time.

Why are the oversight committees not being cleaned out from top to bottom?

And it would limit the effects of panic on the market.

Anything that limits liquidity in the market, reduces the market's efficacy in generating wealth.

What the fools in DC are pushing is the 'broken window fallacy'.

A French economist came up with this one.

A banker arrives to work and sees his window is broken and is upset that he has to pay 100 dollars to fix it.

The crowd starts saying that this might actually be a good thing because it will generate work for the glass maker, as well as for the handyman who will have to install it and they in turn will buy things with the money they make from the banker, and the economy will be stimulated by this.

The REALITY is that the banker started the day with $100 dollars and a window, and at the end of the day will have neither. Yes, he will have a new window, but the old one AND his money will be gone. That is a tricky concept, but it's called 'economic cost'. An economic cost is the cost to do something plus the cost of what you have to sacrifice.

So, in the banker's case, his economic cost was the window, his money and what he was going to buy with his money, such as a suit or a watch, or a ring, or what have you.

Rather than creating wealth, the broken window has only re-directed the expenditure from one source to the other.

The net effect of this scenario is the glass maker and the handyman gain business, but the tailor or jeweler loose business and an article of wealth (the glass) is gone.

The bailout is essentially the same thing, only it would be the government breaking another window in the process.

Bonnie can testify before Clyde, but the DA can still prosecute for perjury.

We have seen it in falling export market. However I can't help but wonder, they don't have a penny to give the school boards when they beg for help, and yet they were prepared to just rip 700 billion out of their pockets if needed to bail out the banks.

I suppose priorities are a bit warped in the government's mind, I wonder how THAT happened? :D

In free markets, the most efficient and ruthless companies drive others out of business at which point there is no competition, monopolies form and prices rise. We peons take what we can get.

You reckon that the less government regulation, the freer the market and the better it will perform? The economy that serves us all - in the US and the UK - has layers of regulation formed over decades to meet specific needs with general approval from most of us. After the Great Depression, we got bank deposit insurance and dozens of other things that go against a free market that most people still reckon we should have. The market is heavily relulated. There hasn't been a free market for 150 years and no one was comp[laining at all until about a year ago.

When it comes to investing capital and running a business, I agree that its probable that a company which is solely defined by the profit motive will spend its resources more wisely than a government bureaucracy answerable to politicians. However, when we get widescale problems, markets tend to seize up because all of those who work to rationally protect their own interests will never agree what is best for the system as a whole.

In the current crisis, banks with money to lend are hanging on to it, fearful that borrowers might default. No free market mechanism would ever persuade banks to start lending again for the good of the overall economy. Any free market answer to THIS mess would be long drawn out and bloody destructive in its implementation because every participant would fight to get as much as he can for himself. It would also be wasteful of companies and human resources. It HAS to be the remit of government to intervene and act as a mediator to get the best solution for everybody. Letting various interests fight to the death will kill us.

If we truly had a free market, it would cost far more than $700bn to dig us out. A pure market solution would allow hundreds of companies to fail, with no safety net for the suddenly unemployed, bank depositors, creditors, or anybody else brought down by widespread economic failure. Another Great Depression would be what we would get.

There are very few free market supporters, except among ignorant politicians, that are arguing that we should repeal layers of existing regulation and return to a truly unregulated market.

Major retailers, Target, WalMart, Toys R Us and others, rely on billion dollar loans to pick up their Christmas stock each year.

The goods are ready to ship and sitting in China today, but nobody can borrow money to buy them.

Without wealthy banks, America's economy tanks. (okay I'll make up that picket sign later, it has a ring to it).

Mortgages are one thing, and people entering dodgy deals should NOT be bailed out unless it is proven to be fraudulent.

But the rest of the economy gets dragged down too, nobody can borrow money, nobody can MAKE money.

those that have only American currency and a small amount, or those that have various currencies, and sh!tloads of them?

Even devalued, the currency will be worth something, if you have more, you are still less poor than those who have less. And with the amounts from said big-shots, they are (I would be certain) to have several different currencies along with plenty of gold/silver/etc., which would still be worth more than the paper dollar would be. In other words, they will still have more valuable assets than the rest of us.

[i]how many people would strive to work harder without even a chance of a bonus?[/i]

And a good part of what caused the problem in the first place. Bonuses are for [b]exceeding[/b] goals, not for making them. That's what your paycheck is for.

I was yelling at the a** on TV - newsreporters promulgating 'financial FUD', and my wife apparently didn't understand what FUD meant. (She's not in computer industry). I had to explain that it means 'Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt', which is what Frankenstein Paulson is hyping, along with our sub-moronic president.

Happily they voted it down. Unhappily they will probably still vote a package thru, and bail out the fatties on wall street who greedily and stupidly sucked up bad debt.

Horray for socializing risk! Let the fatties bet stupidly with their money, hopefully they will become big enuf that they are 'too big to fail' and the govt will bail them out.

Helped along by pressure from foreign govts who have retarded economies and hold our bonds / excessive national debt over our head. The perfect storm!

That Keyport NJ just gave their retiring superintendent a 3/4 million dollar buyout.

President "Bobby": Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?
[Long pause]
Chance the Gardener: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
President "Bobby": In the garden.
Chance the Gardener: Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.
President "Bobby": Spring and summer.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
President "Bobby": Then fall and winter.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
Benjamin Rand: I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we're upset by the seasons of our economy.
Chance the Gardener: Yes! There will be growth in the spring!
Benjamin Rand: Hmm!
Chance the Gardener: Hmm!
President "Bobby": Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I've heard in a very, very long time.
[Benjamin Rand applauds]
President "Bobby": I admire your good, solid sense. That's precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill.

The 'needs' that regulations have been addressing our primarily those that line the pockets of politicians and the companies who's lobbyists donate to their campaigns.

REAL needs, change, regulations don't.

Economics 101 time:

No nation's government in the history of the world has ever;
Taxed,
Subsidized,
Regulated,
or depleted it's public coffers to bring about prosperity.

History is rife with examples to the contrary, however.

It was these damn regulations that pushed banks, under threat of confiscation of thier funds and imprisonment of their officers, to make loans that they knew would be too risky.

They made a bet, which may yet prove to be the right one, that participating in such folly would be less costly than following basic business sense and getting fined out of existance.

The people are mad as hell.

An interesting website:

www.buymyshitpile.com

No true red-blooded capitalist ever did anything for anyone but himself.

So, you're happy with ubridled capitalism? Think it will make you rich? I think we've had this conversation before and I reckoned then as I reckon now, that you'd get chewed up and spat out.

I don't suppose that you know too much about Marx other than as some sort of economic bogeyman; maybe check under your bed for him? Am I supposed to take it as some sort of insult?

I'm not a believer in Marx but I guess that I'm pretty pink from your perspective.

Marx? The working population's share of national income remained constant for 100 years as the economy grew, giving the lie to Marx's theory that only capitalists benefit from capitalism and that workers are exploited. However, there has been a significant decline in that share in all wealthy countries in the past 20 years. As the enconomy has grown further, the rich are getting richer, but those at the lower end are no longer improving their lot as quickly as the capitalists. So, Marx is not looking so wrong.

China has a splendid example of capitalism in the raw. It's the 21st century in Hong Kong and Shanghai and elsewhere along the coastline, but three quarters of the Chinese are living in the eighteenth century. A British cotton mill owner of 1780 would feel right at home. Dark, Satanic mills and soot. From Barnsley, sheffield, Rotherham, the Good Lord deliver me...

These days, we don't employ children to run among the spinning jennys rewinding the bobbins when the thread breaks. still, I would guess that some of the CEOs have no idea why some people are as furious with them as others were with their counterparts in the days of the Chartists. You get a corporate takeover where outgoing CEOs get $50 million settlements and 5,000 workers are made redundant. H1Bs and outsourcing? All good stuff and you reckon that these guys don't need a leash?

Gordon Gecko? Yeah. Free market? Let's do lunch.

So because select schools have been proven to mismanage the budget, unlike the government which ALWAYS handles the budget responsibly, then no other schools can get funding for academic programs.

Very nice view.

But it does explain a lot, whenever you don't want something, you can easily discount it as irresponsible or unworthy. While if you Do want something, regardless of how irresponsible or unworthy they are, it is acceptable; nice double edged sword you fight with.

As for bailing out irresponsible mortgage lenders and the unqualified people who were given those mortages, that is an act of utter responsibility and they should be finded to get them out of the mess they created.

Th epoint is not schools, the point is that there are countless other worthy organizations who really do need and could put to good use just a miniscule portion of that money and were denied as fundsing was simply impossible. Bring Americas loan corporations into the picture and they are treated like the golden child who needs and deserves a helping hand.

Hundreds of bilions on an unjust war, no problem.

hundreds of billions to bail out a poorly managed mortgage lender, no problem.

A few million to support America's youth and future, its a complete waste of money and they need to better manage their funds.

great ideals you hold.

.....for assuming that when you said [i]they don't have a penny to give the school boards when they beg for help[/i], that you didn't mean for it to be a comment about a [i]lack (of) existing school funding.[/i]

I guess I need to learn to speak Canadian.

.....for anyone but himself? Are you serious?

Okay, your punishment for making that comment is to write a paper outlining the philanthropic efforts of the following:

The Bill and Melissa Gates foundation, Andrew Carnegie, Eli Lilly, Henry Ford, and every capitalist TR member who contributed to Tigger's cause.

"Why? Due to deregulation and corporate greed, we are in this mess (free market), so let the free market get us out of this mess."

Do you actually trust the ones who got us into this mess to get us out of it?

Alfred Nobel, creator of the NOBEL PRIZE
Bill Gates & Melinda Gates, & their foundation.
Remember the column, "THanks a million" Percy Ross gave away ALL of his money, one person at a time.
Andrew Carnagie
Milton Hershey
J Paul Getty
Li Ka-Shing
Michael Bloomberg
Warren Buffet
Henry and Edsel Ford
Johns Hopkins
Walt Disney
John D MacArthur
Steve Wozniak
The Vanderbuilts
The Rockerfellers
Ruth Lilly
The Jacobs(Qualcom founders)
Bernard Marcus
George Soros
Arthur Blank

Let's see, each year SLATE publishes the slate 60

http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2006/

Is this the trouncing you were going to give me?

The schools in America have so much money that this kind of Malfeasance CAN go on.

Silly me, I want accountability.

Hong Kong was before China took it back.

And what was Hong Kong like then?

Despite having no natural resources of it's own, it had one of the highest standards of living in the world and it was little more than a city state.

Can you name me a time in history where a free market has led to starvation? I can name plenty where a highly regulated economy has.

I'd have thought that the side by side comparisons of N vs S Korea and E vs W Germany would have ended all debate, but not for you, eh Tovarisch?

The quoted names are, indeed, philanthropic individuals but whether they are all "red-blooded capitalists" in the mould of Gordon Gecko is entirely different given the mixed economy that is currently extant in the US.

How many peers are red-blooded capitalists is another subject for discussion also. I could pick out a couple in this thread who would, I reckon, sell my grandmother into slavery for a few dollars. perhaps even their own.

As for capitalism in general, we are in trouble. We, you and us, have relied too much on it ideologically. The last few years, however, have changed the playing field. In the 1980s, US CEOs were paid around 40 times the average salary of a production worker.

Then we had globalisation and the corporations were able to exploit the inability of governments and any organisations acting for the workers to act outside of their borders. Corporations can now play one government off another and one workforce off another.

The collapse of Communism gave another ideological push for capitalism. Governments need to keep the corporations sweet else they move investments offshore to other countries dangle all sorts of incentives and tax breaks.

Where does that get us? well, in 2006 the average total monies paid to CEOs of the top 400 US companies was 400 times higher than the average salary of the an American production worker.

That was the point I was trying to make about Marx's statement that "capitalism is for the capitalists" and how it is coming to be true as capitalism escapes the regulatory reach of governments.

Capitalism does some things very badly. Agricultural research was left to the private sector and the result is genetically-modified seeds that can only produce one crop. New seeds must be purchased for next year's crop. Great for the corporate bottom-line, but stupidity for food security in general.

I could go on but it's nearly bedtime over here. I may post some more on the failings of the Wall Street variety of capitalism tomorrow. I may not have to as it may be visible for all to see.

Neil :)

p.s. We wont mention how much higher is the US CEO's salary when compared with the salary of a Chinese production worker in the same company.

I was talking about "unbridled capitalism" chewing you up.

Whatever...

Twisting is not my thing, though it is rampant in your posts when yuo realize you are wrong and yet wish to sidle into a semi correct post, seen it from you many times now. If I chose to bring in teh legalities of the terms you use, that would also result in your sidling along to make you semi correct again, so there's no point in wasting my time on it.

But to be clear, you accuse eth school boards of malfeasance and spew your BS about acocuntability. You DO realize that we are discussing 700 BILLION dollars that was wanted due to people NOT being acocuntable for their investments?

You do realize that your government is the most unaccountable organized crime syndicate on the planet.

You do realize that accountability is NOT an issue when you screw up and ask for 700 billion dollars to get otu of hot water right?

And yet you try and defend that against a a group of schools seeking to improve computer networks at a cost of 25 million?

yeah, you have your priorities straight and certainly have a grip on accountability.

:D

because he seems to get away with it.