or below who lose everything when their companies go out of business. These people have little or no financial cushion. But the brokers and traders of Wall Street were not making median income (~$47,000, I think) or below. Their yearly earnings were 6 figures and above. Often well above these last years. They weren't able to save a bit from all that money? Whatever happened to self-reliance and personal responsibility?

On a less snarky note: If JPM changes their offer what does that do to the Fed guarantees? Would it void them? I certainly don't see why taxpayers who are paying full income tax rates should guarantee Bear Sterns shareholders any money - much less more. Especially when the same greedy incompetents who destroyed the company are still in charge and would also benefit from the increased buy-out price.

Those of us in great fly-over country, who have seen our industries and and communities destroyed by these speculating fat cats, know the Fed isn't riding to our rescue. Our sympathy is limited in the extreme.

As a class, this is the group that has been sticking its thumb in the eye of displaced American workers and asking them to like it because unrestrained capitalism is a good thing for them in the long run, even if they lose everything they own in the short term. So they upbraid Costco for treating its workers well and adore Walmart for the opposite reason. Until, of course, Mr. Market comes around and bites them in the rear end, and then, "Oh, the unfairness of it all . . ." ignoring, as you say, that an unrestrained and unreprentant Mr. Market without gov't tempering probably would have delivered them next to nothing.

Can we all agree that unrestrained capitalism has its problems, which are best dealt with by intelligent regulation?

If the house of cards needs to fall down, so be it.

BSC is trading at $12.10. I suppose that the market figures if it worked once, it's gotta work again.

JPM needs to walk away and the Fed needs to call in the loan. This is just outright extortion.

...and this, friends, is what "moral hazard" looks like.

In 1929 folks were jumping from the windows...BS stockholders need to be pushed.

I'm sorry but they all should go bye,bye and yes when times were great I didn't see them handing any money out. Just bigger planes, boat, and meals. Here's a little vid a friend just sent and it's how I feel. Please do not have a drink in your hand. Thanks again Ian

http://www.averagjoe.com/clips/Job_Market.wmv

People, people, we're forgetting the first item on the list... Their Manhattan headquarters. That's square footage, people! Wired and ready to go!!! Some say it's worth a billion dollars. But the Fed sets the price of the company to $250 million. Hence, the company was really worth a nice whopping negative $750 million!!

That's what the shareholders are saying: "But we own a really really big building. Good views baby!!!!"
--
Hongpong.com

Why not let the U.S. financial system collapse? Can't we save the economy without it? The U.S. financial system is not really providing any net addition of value to the economy. It's more parasite that anything else at this point.

Would the collapse of Bear Stearns have brought down the whole economy? Or just the financial system?

It seems to me that this problem is being approached the entirely wrong way.

First. What do we need to accomplish? We want to ensure that credit is flowing to people who need it to conduct real economic activity. If a bunch of speculators and hedge funds are unable to get credit, why should anyone care? They are not going to use it for real economic activity.

So, let the financial system collapse. Is there not a way that we can force the trillions of dollars sloshing around the globe looking for the highest return to become “patient” and start pouring into the “green” rebuilding of the U.S. industrial economy, such as building mass transit systems that will help free us from fossil fuel dependency, or helping everyone replace their current vehicle with either hybrids or with high mileage vehicles, like the Aptera, which get 240 miles per gallon (yes, two four zero).

As it stands, Bear Stears is saved and the financial system lives on to keep playing its funny money games, while the underlying problem is not addressed, and is not being addressed: the credit mechanism of the economy is being mis-used for speculation, rather than for funding real economic activity. Which means that another financial crisis is inevitable. So lets start asking questions “outside the box” with a view to radically transforming the financial system and forcing it to start doing something useful.

something on living under a bridge with an Ipod and old music. You'd be doing that if BSC failed.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

interesting... consider:

1) bear sterns's derivitaves are so tightly wound into the market, if BSC collapsed, the market would collapse

2) therefore, the fed would be FORCED to step in to prevent a massive depression,

3) therefore, BSC has every incentive to push its leverage beyond 10:1, beyond 30:1, even beyond 1000:1.

If you can count on a buyout when the shit hits the fan, where's the incentive to play by the rules?

--
http://bexhuff.com
Of COURSE you can trust the US Government! Just ask the Indians.

when setting up our company. Banks routinely foreclose when your loan is $2,000, but hesitate a little bit when the loan is $200,000 and make deals with you to lower payments or make the loan more affordable for you to repay when it reaches $2,000,000 and forgive some $200,000,000 loans.

Scale makes a lot of difference.

The fed fears a run on banks, and for very good reason. The obvious solution is that banking regulation in the United States is desperately needed or the feds will keep bailing out predatory lenders time and time again with the middle class being stuck with the tab.