Jump to content

Talk:Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cleanup talk page templates &add WPUS using AWB (7351)
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,234,128 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Business}}, {{WikiProject Economics}}, {{WikiProject Finance}}, {{WikiProject United States}}.
 
(34 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talkpage}}
{{Talk header}}
{{ITN talk|3 October|2008}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Economics|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Investment|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Finance|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Law}}
}}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2017-10-03|oldid1=803515918|date2=2018-10-03|oldid2=862316199}}
{{ITNtalk|3 October|2008}}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes}}
<!-- Metadata: see [[User:MiszaBot I]] -->
<!-- Metadata: see [[User:MiszaBot I]] -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 3
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadsleft = 10
|algo = old(21d)
|algo = old(21d)
|archive = Talk:Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}


==Tautological sentence==
== Tautological sentence ==


The second sentence on the introduction is tautological. "The bailed-out banks are mostly U.S. or foreign banks (...)"
The second sentence on the introduction is tautological. "The bailed-out banks are mostly U.S. or foreign banks (...)"
Author of the article, please correct.
Author of the article, please correct.


==What agency?==
== What agency? ==


The open letter from economists include the mention of an agency: ''Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear''. Is this an agency which the Paulson plan proposes to establish? __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]])
The open letter from economists include the mention of an agency: ''Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear''. Is this an agency which the Paulson plan proposes to establish? __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]])


== Tenses in descriptions ==
==Cost of bailout has risen to $2T==


It seems like this article was written in Fall/Winter 2008/2009 and it is rife with statements such as "recently" and "A key part of the proposal is". Shouldn't that be "was"? Also "The maximum cost of a $700 billion bailout would be".... seems to imply that the bailout has yet to happen. Shouldn't that also be "was"? Anywhere I can look for tips on how to clean this mess up? [[User:Audiodude|audiodude]] ([[User talk:Audiodude|talk]]) 07:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Bloomberg says that the cost of the bailout has risen from $700B to $2T without requiring the approval of Congress[http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4yRwdg0Oz.Q] This info should probably be added, but it doesn't say how this happened!? [[User:Cojoco|cojoco]] ([[User talk:Cojoco|talk]]) 03:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:You can go to [[Help:Editing]]. [[User:BeenAroundAWhile|BeenAroundAWhile]] ([[User talk:BeenAroundAWhile|talk]]) 02:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
: I believe this to be a measure announced on Oct. 14 together with the deal with nine banks for capital injection of $250 bn, see [http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/hp1206.htm Joint Statement by Treasury, Federal Reserve and FDIC] under "Second". It states there that the [[FDIC]] will guarantee new senior debt as well as deposits in noninterest-bearing accounts, which as the [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/business/economy/15bailout.html?_r=1&em=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1224152715-WLGaO+xm0ZZ5M4MFINEVQg New York Times] points out, amounts to $2 trillion. The press release, "after receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, and consulting with the President, Secretary Paulson signed the systemic risk exception to the FDIC Act" clearly indicates that Paulson did not need approval of Congress for the measure as this is part of an existing law. It does belong to the total rescue package of the banking system though. Both Bloomberg and House Republican leader [[John Boehner]] have already called for a Freedom of Information Act request (see [http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4yRwdg0Oz.Q Boehner Demands Fed Identify Recipients of Loans]). (I will leave implementation of this information to an English native speaker).


== Perhaps time to call it a "good article"? ==
: On a slightly diffent note, it is now quite clear that Mr. Paulson shifted his ways away from purchase of bad assets to direct capital injection and possibly, investments in consumer credit facilities. Probably he's not going to buy troubled assets at all - or leave the second trench of $350bn to the next administration. He's called to Congress to account for this move today. While this is a commonly acknowledged fact, your article goes a little further by stating "although this wasn't reported in the media or known to many congressmen, [Treasury is authorized to] make capital injections into banks". I find it a little hard to believe that after so much turmoil, the House approved of a direct capital injection bill that they didn't know about. Although I have read summaries of the Act and many comments, I'd like to see proof of this by someone with good knowledge of the entire text. The Guardian quote used to reinforce the statement sounds more like a comment to me than definite proof. On the other hand, if Mr. Paulson's move is ''not'' in the text as approved by Congress, the whole thing comes close to being misleading. - [[User:Art Unbound|Art Unbound]] ([[User talk:Art Unbound|talk]]) 16:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


What do u say? --[[User:Mats33|Mats33]] ([[User talk:Mats33|talk]]) 21:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
::The Bloomberg article refers to amounts loaned by the Federal Reserve, and not to amounts appropriated by EESA. In other words, although the Fed loans are part of the broad governmental effort to bail out the economy, they are not directly related to the bailout bill itself. [[User:John M Baker|John M Baker]] ([[User talk:John M Baker|talk]]) 23:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
::: For the record, this change from Treasury buying troubled assets to Treasury investing in banks is known (in the recently published GAO report) as the [[Capital Purchase Program]]. But the larger question is whether "the bailout" should be referred to as all crisis-related CONGRESSIONAL money spent or if it includes all money spent by FEDERAL RESERVE and SECRETARY OF THE TRASURY (or other executive and quasi-governmental agencies). I mean at some point the bailout is just regular old management of the money supply system but during a financial crisis. Am I being clear here? [[User:MPS|MPS]] ([[User talk:MPS|talk]]) 17:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
==Section 128, allowing the Fed to pay interest on banks' deposits==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
[http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/monetary20081006a1.pdf Section 128 was a mistake] which locked in the [[credit crisis]]; for details see [http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f53/midtowng/reserves-1.png this graph] from [http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/12/155056/91/449/659578 this analysis]. There is [http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20081006a.htm more info] from the Fed, but it's not what I would call forthright. This is all it took:


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=701579545 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
:<center>'''SEC. 128. ACCELERATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE.'''</center>
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130629101059/http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081001/NEWS07/81001087/1009 to http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081001/NEWS07/81001087/1009
:Section 203 of the [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2856 Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006] ([http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/461.html 12 U.S.C. 461]) is amended by striking `October 1, 2011' and inserting `October 1, 2008'.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
That needs to be fixed fast, or the U.S. economy can kiss any incentive for banks to loan their money goodbye. Why risk anything on loans when the zero-risk Fed is paying interest? [[User:GetLinkPrimitiveParams|GetLinkPrimitiveParams]] ([[User talk:GetLinkPrimitiveParams|talk]]) 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
:Section 128 did not lock in the credit crunch. In fact, it gives the Fed more control over interest rates, which is considered a pro-stabilization move. Banks can make more money by lending to each other than by putting excess reserves at the Fed, and inter-bank loans are temporarily risk-free. [[User:John M Baker|John M Baker]] ([[User talk:John M Baker|talk]]) 23:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 10:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
::What does it matter whether inter-bank loans are risk free if the banks are just going to lend to each other more money to put on deposit with even less risky interest-bearing Fed accounts paid for by taxpayers who no longer have a commercial paper market that they've depended on for business viability over the past few centuries? Do you have a source supporting your statement that "inter-bank loans are temporarily risk-free"? [[User:GetLinkPrimitiveParams|GetLinkPrimitiveParams]] ([[User talk:GetLinkPrimitiveParams|talk]]) 01:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:::Banks' willingness to make inter-bank loans is considered a key measure of the tightness of money, because inter-bank loans normally are quite low-risk (and, currently, no-risk); if banks won't even lend to each other, they must not have the money to lend. The [[TED spread]] is the usual metric. Because inter-bank lending rates are more than the Fed will pay for excess reserves, banks will not borrow just to get interest from the Fed (though they may, of course, borrow in order to have enough required reserves).


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::The FDIC [http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2008/pr08100.html announced] a program on October 14, under which newly issued senior unsecured debt issued on or before June 30, 2009, would be fully protected in the event the issuing institution subsequently fails, or its holding company files for bankruptcy. [[User:John M Baker|John M Baker]] ([[User talk:John M Baker|talk]]) 16:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:24|one external link|24 external links}} on [[Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=756326610 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::::The TED spread doesn't say much about volume. The [http://news.hereisthecity.com/news/business_news/8474.cntns $400 billion of government paper] is failing to replace the [[Commercial paper|$1.8 trillion commercial paper market]] that just , which is why [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/business/economy/20econ.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin the economy is deflating] and the sectors of the goods economy dependent on commercial paper (e.g. shipping, manufacturing, and parts) are in the process of collapsing. Can the FDIC program handle $1.4 trillion by the end of the week? [[User:GetLinkPrimitiveParams|GetLinkPrimitiveParams]] ([[User talk:GetLinkPrimitiveParams|talk]]) 17:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080930/credit_markets.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/wall_street.html?
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/sep/25/cu-economist-us-financial-system-reaching-point/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080922/oil_prices.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=bc9e1711-37fe-451a-a0e5-dbbf53a60fce&rss=102
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://vestpocketconsultant.entrepreneur.com/2008/09/22/memo-to-uncle-sam-small-business-needs-your-help-too/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/08/recession-depression-keynes-oped-cx_nr_1009roubini.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/amend_001_xml.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/summary_of_the_eesa2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120429172133/http://afp.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5h40yrrEcqeJEeVRgcrDXB7egDo2A to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h40yrrEcqeJEeVRgcrDXB7egDo2A
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1177.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sonnenschein.com/pubs/e-alerts/Congress_Passes_New_.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
:::::Actually, yes, the FDIC program coincidentally is expected to cover about [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FundLaw/message/1200 $1.4 trillion of bank debt]. Of course, the bank debt covered by the FDIC guarantee has multiple purposes, so you can't just think of this as a dollar for dollar replacement of the commercial paper market, even though it's true that many commercial paper issuers have turned to bank borrowings instead.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
::::::Great! Does Treasury approve? What happens to the existing commercial paper underwriters? [[User:GetLinkPrimitiveParams|GetLinkPrimitiveParams]] ([[User talk:GetLinkPrimitiveParams|talk]]) 06:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 13:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Treasury is on board with the FDIC program, which was announced on a coordinated basis with Treasury and Fed measures to protect the economy. The existing commercial paper underwriters are, of course, getting less business, though some of the larger commercial paper issuers don't use underwriters anyway. [[User:John M Baker|John M Baker]] ([[User talk:John M Baker|talk]]) 18:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::::::::Okay, and how about shipping, the primary economy's goods markets, and the additional unemployment - who will be paying for the damages to those? [[User:GetLinkPrimitiveParams|GetLinkPrimitiveParams]] ([[User talk:GetLinkPrimitiveParams|talk]]) 15:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
==Treasury Asset Relief Program versus [[Troubled Assets Relief Program]]==


I have just modified 9 external links on [[Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=788845843 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
The balance sheet at the bottom of the article currently lists [[Treasury Asset Relief Program]] which I think is a mistake (Treasury vs Troubled) but google returns several hits... is there some history I am unaware of here... Also I wikified [[Commercial Paper Funding Facility]] and am wondering if the other entries in the balance sheet require a sililar wikification. Are there articles on these other initiatives, such as the "[[Automotive industry crisis of 2008|proposed bailout of the automakers]]"??? Peace, [[User:MPS|MPS]] ([[User talk:MPS|talk]]) 06:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/wall_street.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001214431/http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/452.pdf to http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/452.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/08/barrbailout-from-hell/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924140545/http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm to http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080930230606/http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press092808.shtml to http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press092808.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002080846/http://www.winknews.com/news/local/29862524.html to http://www.winknews.com/news/local/29862524.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080930230606/http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press092808.shtml to http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press092808.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h40yrrEcqeJEeVRgcrDXB7egDo2A
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122154841/http://www.rgemonitor.com/financemarkets-monitor/254725/why_exactly_does_the_fed_pay_interest_on_reserves to http://www.rgemonitor.com/financemarkets-monitor/254725/why_exactly_does_the_fed_pay_interest_on_reserves
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20081001%2FNEWS07%2F81001087%2F1009
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://bailoutsleuth.com/2009/01/-the-treasury-departments-latest/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
==[[Saturn Corporation]]==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
the article Saturn talk about the [[US Congressional hearings]]. Is it possible to have an article or some reference to what this is? Anyone game to make some correlation with the emergency funds... and the baillout? --[[User:CyclePat2|CyclePat2]] ([[User talk:CyclePat2|talk]]) 20:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 20:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
==This edit seems extremely unjustified==


== $29 trillion estimate a cost? ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008&diff=268969579&oldid=268964826 This] edit erased a huge amount of stuff that I have added to the article. If you look at the edit history of the person who made this edit, they are stalking me and following me around and attacking many things that I wrote in many articles. This edit is completely unwarranted and I am undoing it. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 22:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:This article isn't your [[WP:SOAPBOX|soapbox]] to preach your point of view about issue. Given other edits you've made at [[Presidency of Barack Obama]] and [[Internal Revenue Service]], you are only here to push your agenda. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]</sup>'''<sub>[[User:Grsz11/Review|<font color="black">'''Review'''</font>]]</sub> 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
::I am reporting the facts and citing reliable sources. The way the bailout money is being spent is extremely relevant to the bailout article. I asked you on your talk page to explain why the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the bailout article, but you never answered. So I'll ask you again: why is the way the bailout money being spent not relevant to the bailout article? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


The opening section says "Estimates for the total cost of the bailout to the government are as much as $29 trillion." I read the abstract of the paper, and it sounds like $29 trillion was the bailout commitment. But does a commitment to extend loans mean a loss? I don't think so, but I didn't want to delete this sentence unilaterally. Any thoughts? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tedsanders|Tedsanders]] ([[User talk:Tedsanders#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tedsanders|contribs]]) 04:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Now [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008&diff=prev&oldid=269039202 this edit] is also extremely unjustified. The way the bailout money is being spent is extremely relevant to the article. Or did you think we should just believe everything the government says about this law, and ignore what actually happens in the real world after the law is passed? Everything I put here was cited by national media sources. All of this stuff received extensive media coverage. These things are facts, not opinions. I am not pushing a point of view. The things I added to the article are verifiable facts. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 01:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


:Again, wikipedia isn't a forum for you to air your opinions. It doesn't matter whether your criticisms of the bill are valid or your opinions correct, [[WP:SOAP|Wikipedia is not a soapbox.]] Further, not only did the added material stray quite far from [[WP:NPOV]], but it violated the basic writing style of wikipedia. You can't state opinion as fact, and certainly not as a whole series of separate sections with subject headers like "Bank of America throws $10 million Super Bowl party" (which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article anyway). Instead of violating [[WP:3RR]], why don't you try to get consensus before adding the material. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 02:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


yeah, my response is anything over $1 trillion is a joke and based on multiple cases of triple, quadruple counting. If I have $5 to loan and I loan out that $5 ten times, have I loaned out $50??? Nope. Still just $5. [[User:Oscardoggy|Oscardoggy]] ([[User talk:Oscardoggy|talk]]) 19:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
::How can you say the $10 million Super Bowl party has nothing to do with the bailout? They threw the party right after they received bailout money. Here and on your talk page, I have repeatedly asked how you can say the way the bailout money is being spent has nothing to do with the bailout, but you keep refusng to answer. And now I see you have placed a warning on my talk page threatening to ban me. You keep saying that I am pushing POV. You are mistaken. People who read the article about the bailout are going to want to know how the bailout money is being spent. And this has received extensive news coverage in the national media. Everything that I posted was accurate and verified by reliable sources. Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent has nothing to do with the bailout? And why do you keep refusing to answer that question? Why do you think we should just believe everything the government says about the bailout, instead of looking at what is actually happening in the real world? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


Yes, you have loaned out $50, at least from the perspective of the people getting the loans. You could frame it as $5 or $50 depending on what point you're trying to make. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.140.199.156|74.140.199.156]] ([[User talk:74.140.199.156#top|talk]]) 18:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I'm with Grundle2600. The criticisms seem appropriate and notable. [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|<span style="font-family: Times">II</span>]] | ([[User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed|t]] - [[Special:Contributions/ImperfectlyInformed|c]]) 02:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


== Dead link for actions taken ==
:Thank you! [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


The link at:
To those of you who disagree with me on this: Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Why do you continue to refuse to answer this question? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 14:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008#cite_note-160
Now another person, [[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper]], has erased it, without answering my question: Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Why do you continue to refuse to answer this question? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


Is dead and even the Wayback Machine (going back to 2011) doesn't appear to have a copy of it. Searching for the title and author on Google, I find no copies of the content. I think we need a whole new citation, here, sadly.
Funny how you people keep threatening to ban me over the "3R" rule instead of answering a simple question: Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 15:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


Every source that I cited has mentioned the bailout, so how can you people say my sources are not relevant to the bailout? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 15:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Miskaton|Miskaton]] ([[User talk:Miskaton|talk]]) 13:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


==Large scope for shortening and rewriting the whole article==
Still no answers to my question. Just more censorship to the article, and more threats to ban me. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 15:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The whole article is quite confused and confusing. I was an economist in the markets at the time, and I remember events fairly well. This article however is at certain points a hotchpotch of writing that might have made sense at the time, but no longer does.


In particular the timeplot and description of events in Sep-October 2008 is confused and incomplete. The tenses are often wrong, using the present, future or conditional tenses when the past tense would be apprporiate.
I just got another threat to be banned, and another request to take this discussion to the article's talk page. Well, I have taken it to the talk page - many times. I have asked the question on the talk page many, many times, but no one has answered it. They just keep threatening to ban me instead. Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


So there is large scope for deleting a fair amount of the article and rewriting the rest. This is a fine example of how piecemeal editing by different people at different times with differing levels of understanding has failedto do an adequate job, in contrast to most other Wikipedia articles, with easier to understand subject matter. Rewriting the article however would be a mammoth job and would need to be done by a person or people that have a certain understanding of finance.
:It is not about censorship and your repeated accusations (here and on other talk pages) about "''threats to ban me''" are out of line, wrong and can be seen itself as a serious offence since they have no merit at all. A courtesy notice of [[wp:3rr]] is a standard rule that can and mostly is given to any editor who disobeys it (and might not be aware of it). The result can be a temporary block which in comparison to a ban is timely restricted.--[[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|The Magnificent Clean-keeper]] ([[User talk:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|talk]]) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
[[User:TGcoa|TGcoa]] ([[User talk:TGcoa|talk]]) 17:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

::Every person who erased my entries told me to take it to the talk page. But when I took it to the talk page, they repeatedly refused to answer my questions. Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

::Why answer my questions, when they can give me a "temporary block" instead? Why do the very people who told me to take it to the talk page, refuse to answer my questions on the very talk page they told me to ask the questions on? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 16:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

:: Threatening a temporary block instead of answering my questions is not a "courtesy." If they wanted to be "courteous," they would answer my questions instead of threatening to block me. Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 16:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

:::You're not listening [just repeating yourself] and therefore I give you one last link:[[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Please start reading ALL the links I provided you (here and on my talk page) before you keep on like this.--[[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|The Magnificent Clean-keeper]] ([[User talk:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|talk]]) 17:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

===Please explain how these deleted entries are not relevant to the bailout===
All of you who erased my entires told me to take it to the article's talk page. So here I am on the article's talk page. Please explain to me how this has nothing to do with the bailout:

Government officials overseeing bailout don't know how it's being spent

A December 31, 2008 Associated Press article stated, "Government officials overseeing a $700 billion bailout have acknowledged difficulties tracking the money and assessing the program's effectiveness." [198]

A January 29, 2009 article from bloomberg.com stated, "Bloomberg News asked the Treasury Department Jan. 26 to disclose what securities it backed over the past two months in a second round of actions to prop up Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. Department spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Jan. 27 she would seek an answer. None had been provided by the close of business yesterday." [199]

Banks won't say how they are spending bailout money

A December 22, 2008 Associated Press article stated, "The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what's the plan for the rest? None of the banks provided specific answers... Some banks said they simply didn't know where the money was going." [200]

A review of investor presentations and conference calls by executives of some two dozen US-based banks by the New York Times found that "few [banks] cited lending as a priority. An overwhelming majority saw the bailout program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future." [201]

Federal government paid $254 billion for assets that were worth only $176 billion

On February 5, 2009, Elizabeth Warren, chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel, told the Senate Banking Committee that during 2008, the federal government paid $254 billion for assets that were worth only $176 billion. [202]

Bailout recipients spent $114 million on lobbying and campaign contributions in 2008

On February 4, 2009, it was reported that during 2008, the companies that received bailout money had spent $114 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. These companies received $295 billion in bailout money. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of The Center for Responsive Politics, said of this information, "Even in the best economic times, you won't find an investment with a greater payoff than what these companies have been getting." [203]

Bank of America throws $10 million Super Bowl party

A February 2, 2009 ABC News article titled, "Bailed Out Bank of America Sponsors Super Bowl Fun Fest" stated that Bank of America sponsored a Super Bowl event at a five star resort in Palm Beach, which was described as "... a five day carnival-like affair... 850,000 square feet of sports games and interactive entertainment attractions for football fans..." Although the bank refused to answer ABC News' questions about the cost of the event, a confidential source told ABC that the cost was approximately $10 million. [204]

$1.6 billion in salaries and bonuses for executives

A December 21, 2008 Associated Press article stated, "Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals. The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government rescue... Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal securities documents found. The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines." [205]

[[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

*How about adding an "other" section in "Views from the public, politicians, financiers, economists, and journalists" to include some of the (short-living?) trivia? Just a thought (to put this to rest).--[[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|The Magnificent Clean-keeper]] ([[User talk:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|talk]]) 18:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:Or creating a sub article (even so I'm not sure if it would survive an [[wp:afd|AFD]]) and link it in the "see also" section"?--[[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|The Magnificent Clean-keeper]] ([[User talk:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|talk]]) 18:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

::Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent constitutes "trivia"? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Please try to restrain yourself from your own point of view (as I try to do when I edit WP). Compared to the overall money spent a "few millions" get lost in trivia. It's like if you'd have 100 $ and lost a nickel; you wouldn't pay much attention to that, or would you?
:::Besides you didn't respond to my two proposals above yet complaining quite a while "for not getting a response" about one of several questions of yours. Are your questions and your input more important than those of other editors? I'll take away the answer from and say: No.
:::And here another question that only you can answer: Is a potential compromise even an option from your side? I'm not going to comment further till some other editors respond to this thread. At the end this is not just between you and me but the whole WP community. I see it as a time waster and kind of forum soaping going on like this.--[[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|The Magnificent Clean-keeper]] ([[User talk:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|talk]]) 19:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

::::The Super Bowl party is relevant because it proves they aren't as poor as they claim. The other things were about much bigger amounts of money. Neither the politicians who supported the bailout, nor the corporations that received the bailout money, have been willing to tell reporters how the bailout money is being spent. That's $350 billion. How is that not relevant to the article on the bailout? How is that "trivial"? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 00:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well, for starters, the first of your statements there is [[WP:SYNTH|Original synthesis]]. You can't put A and B together to conclude C. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]</sup>'''<sub>[[User:Grsz11/Review|<font color="black">'''Review'''</font>]]</sub> 00:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::Then perhaps someone should change the wording to make it better, instead of erasing it. The government gave $350 billion to the banks. The politicians and banks are not willing to tell reporters how the banks are spending the money. How is that "not relevant" to the article? How is that "trivia"? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 00:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Grundle. You got more questions than answers which is basically not a bad thing but if you agree with my observation you should stop asking questions for the moment and digest responses. After that you might have some smarter questions if it all. Besides that, you could propose different wording by yourself.--[[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|The Magnificent Clean-keeper]] ([[User talk:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|talk]]) 02:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

===Why are my entries "not relevant" and "trivial"?===
The government gave $350 billion to the banks. The politicians and banks are not willing to tell reporters how the banks are spending that money. How is that "not relevant" to the article? How is that "trivia"? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made thousands of edits here at wikipedia, and I've never erased anything that was well sourced and relevant to the article that it was in. I want these articles to have as much well sourced, relevant information as possible. Wikipedia is supposed to be about openness and transparency. This article has lots of information about the intent of the bailout bill, and that's a good thing. But it should also have lots of information about the actual real world results of the bailout, too. It is extremely relevant that the banks who got the $350 billion are not willing to tell the media how they are spending it. It is also extremely relevant that the politicians who oversaw the bailout are also not willing to tell the media how this money is being spent. This information has been well publicized by many reliable, mainstream news sources. For you people to say that it's "not relevant" and "trivial," and then for you to refuse to answer my questions about why it is "not relevant" and "trivial," and for you to threaten to give me a temporary suspension, is a complete insult to the very principles of openness and transparency that wikipedia is supposed to be about. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 13:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

===I have removed it from this article, and put it in another article instead===
I have removed the stuff from this article, and put it in [[Troubled Assets Relief Program]] instead. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

===I have removed the neutrality tag from the article===
I have removed everything that you people claimed was "not relevant" and "trivial," and I am now done editing this article, so I removed the neutrality tag. Please quit stalking me and erasing my stuff at other articles. Good bye. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 11:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

:For what it's worth, I think your information was reasonable, just worded in a slightly non-encyclopedic way. I will try to put it back paraphrased later. [[User:GetLinkPrimitiveParams|GetLinkPrimitiveParams]] ([[User talk:GetLinkPrimitiveParams|talk]]) 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks. I've been rewording it for the other article, but the same people have followed me there and they keep erasing it. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 16:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

==no mention of the IRS changes==

We received a notice that financial institutions are not required to send their 1099 forms until February 17 due to this law. There should at least be mention of this. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.191.142.8|76.191.142.8]] ([[User talk:76.191.142.8|talk]]) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==rollcall vote==

Thanks for a great article. The link for the roll call votes in the house goes to the official house website, which is not very usefull - just an alphabetical list of yeas and nays.
is their a better list (eg, broken down by state and party /) the link to the senate vote is an example.
I would be willing to enter data if somoene call help me set up the table(s) - I don't know enough about the wiki markup language to do this[[User:Cinnamon colbert|Cinnamon colbert]] ([[User talk:Cinnamon colbert|talk]]) 16:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

==Interest on bank reserves==

"China’s central bank moved late Friday to reduce lending to companies and individuals by requiring large commercial banks to increase the amount of cash they park with the central bank. The move, which came earlier than most economists had expected, was meant to slow China’s breakneck economy and inflation." - Bradsher, K. (February 12, 2010) [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/business/global/13yuan.html "China’s Central Bank Hits Brake on Hot Economy"] ''New York Times''

If China increases excess reserves to slow their economy, does that mean that Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner were all wrong about the wisdom of interest on reserves? Why can't [[Sheila Bair]] call them on it? Is she not pressing [http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/18/business/fi-bair18 her $24B asset detoxification plan] because she believes her party's assertions that Obama is a bad leader? Please discuss at [[Talk:Excess reserves#China]]. [[Special:Contributions/99.27.200.196|99.27.200.196]] ([[User talk:99.27.200.196|talk]]) 21:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

==Tenses in descriptions==

It seems like this article was written in Fall/Winter 2008/2009 and it is rife with statements such as "recently" and "A key part of the proposal is". Shouldn't that be "was"? Also "The maximum cost of a $700 billion bailout would be".... seems to imply that the bailout has yet to happen. Shouldn't that also be "was"? Anywhere I can look for tips on how to clean this mess up? [[User:Audiodude|audiodude]] ([[User talk:Audiodude|talk]]) 07:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:36, 14 February 2024

Tautological sentence

[edit]

The second sentence on the introduction is tautological. "The bailed-out banks are mostly U.S. or foreign banks (...)" Author of the article, please correct.

What agency?

[edit]

The open letter from economists include the mention of an agency: Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. Is this an agency which the Paulson plan proposes to establish? __meco (talk)

Tenses in descriptions

[edit]

It seems like this article was written in Fall/Winter 2008/2009 and it is rife with statements such as "recently" and "A key part of the proposal is". Shouldn't that be "was"? Also "The maximum cost of a $700 billion bailout would be".... seems to imply that the bailout has yet to happen. Shouldn't that also be "was"? Anywhere I can look for tips on how to clean this mess up? audiodude (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to Help:Editing. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps time to call it a "good article"?

[edit]

What do u say? --Mats33 (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

$29 trillion estimate a cost?

[edit]

The opening section says "Estimates for the total cost of the bailout to the government are as much as $29 trillion." I read the abstract of the paper, and it sounds like $29 trillion was the bailout commitment. But does a commitment to extend loans mean a loss? I don't think so, but I didn't want to delete this sentence unilaterally. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedsanders (talk • contribs) 04:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


yeah, my response is anything over $1 trillion is a joke and based on multiple cases of triple, quadruple counting. If I have $5 to loan and I loan out that $5 ten times, have I loaned out $50??? Nope. Still just $5. Oscardoggy (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have loaned out $50, at least from the perspective of the people getting the loans. You could frame it as $5 or $50 depending on what point you're trying to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.199.156 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The link at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008#cite_note-160

Is dead and even the Wayback Machine (going back to 2011) doesn't appear to have a copy of it. Searching for the title and author on Google, I find no copies of the content. I think we need a whole new citation, here, sadly.

Miskaton (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Large scope for shortening and rewriting the whole article

[edit]

The whole article is quite confused and confusing. I was an economist in the markets at the time, and I remember events fairly well. This article however is at certain points a hotchpotch of writing that might have made sense at the time, but no longer does.

In particular the timeplot and description of events in Sep-October 2008 is confused and incomplete. The tenses are often wrong, using the present, future or conditional tenses when the past tense would be apprporiate.

So there is large scope for deleting a fair amount of the article and rewriting the rest. This is a fine example of how piecemeal editing by different people at different times with differing levels of understanding has failedto do an adequate job, in contrast to most other Wikipedia articles, with easier to understand subject matter. Rewriting the article however would be a mammoth job and would need to be done by a person or people that have a certain understanding of finance. TGcoa (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008&oldid=1207106710"