It seems you have JavaScript disabled.

Ummm.. Yeah... I'm going to have to ask you to turn Javascript back on... Yeah... Thanks.

Fannie/Freddie Bailout “Socialism For The Rich” at Trader’s Narrative

Jim Rogers and Warren Buffett are on different sides of the recent government bailout. Rogers calls the US more communist than China, adding that the Fed bailout is “socialism for the rich“:

If the video doesn’t show up, you can see it here.

Buffett sees things differently: “I wouldn’t change anything in the plan myself,” adding in his own interview with CNBC. “It’s the best deal and the most sensible deal available now.”

More relevant links at

Enjoyed this? Don't miss the next one, grab the feed  or 

                               subscribe through email:  

5 Responses to “Fannie/Freddie Bailout “Socialism For The Rich””  

  1. 1 garyro

    of course, the bailout is “socialism” in nature. A pure free market would let meltdown occur and vultures sweep in and pick up perhaps a trilion dollars worth of property for next to nothing.

    Either that or perhaps the beginnings of another great depression is my take on the current news of this pending crisis. And no, this is not the bottom and perhaps the beginning of other meltdowns in the market. Free market economy is a scam the way it is currently ran and there will be individuals making millions out of this bailout.

    What saddens me is this “proposal” is a bailout of the “institutions” (owned by rich individuals and corporations for the most part) and not the average folks, some in desperate situations. This should come as no real surprize to the average American whom is seeing the results of mismanagement, greed and foolishness on all levels of government and wall street.

    This is not “Monopoly” money being taken from the pockets of taxpayers. Privatize Social Security anyone? Anyone believe “tax cuts” will solve this problem?

  2. 2 Babak

    garyo, if you owe the bank $10,000 that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $10 billion, that’s the banks problem ;)

  3. 3 garyro

    Hi Babak.

    If I owed the bank $10B, one would wonder if bank was insane to allow me to owe that much in the first place. Good idea though. : )

    As a matter of fact, with the “bailouts” I suddenly owe thousands more as a taxpayer and citizen. My share of the federal debt now exceeds what I owe on all credit cards and mortgage debt combined.

  4. 4 Babak

    garyo, well you have to make it sound incomprehensible, through out a lot of buzzwords, acronyms like CDOs, etc. it also doesn’t hurt to have a PhD in finance.

    re your new found debt, you’re assuming the $700 B tally is the final number. It never is, if history is any guide.

  5. 5 garyro

    Hi Babak

    Just having some fun and no intent to confuse folks. I am no phd in econmics, but I do know a bit of politics.

    This sort of “program” is socialist in nature. Massive bailouts by the government are following “socialist” models is my understanding.

    I have no problem with Socialism, but again; let’s do it right. Many folks hurting over this “buble bursting” and merely bailing out the big institutions does not set well with me. Details of the program are not yet finalized, but some wish to help the “defaulting” folks stay in their homes. who knows where that is going.

    you are correct, the total costs have not been calculated and probably not know as I type this. Hopefully the taxpayers do not foot the entire bill. Some costs will never be known.

    The “misery costs” if only banks bailed out will be great. That of course is not calculated in any study. Middle class folks joing the ranks of the homeless is not a pretty vision.

    Are any of the pundits of the media or government talking anything but buzzwords?
    I suspect the “spin-masters” of cable news will futher muddy our understanding long before this crisis is over.

Leave a Reply