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
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,234,367 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}}.
 
(15 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{ITN talk|3 October|2008}}
{{ITN talk|3 October|2008}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Business|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Economics|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Investment|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Finance|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Law}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=low|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=low}}
}}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2017-10-03|oldid1=803515918|date2=2018-10-03|oldid2=862316199}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes}}
<!-- Metadata: see [[User:MiszaBot I]] -->
<!-- Metadata: see [[User:MiszaBot I]] -->
Line 33: Line 34:
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)
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)
:You can go to [[Help:Editing]]. [[User:BeenAroundAWhile|BeenAroundAWhile]] ([[User talk:BeenAroundAWhile|talk]]) 02:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:You can go to [[Help:Editing]]. [[User:BeenAroundAWhile|BeenAroundAWhile]] ([[User talk:BeenAroundAWhile|talk]]) 02:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

== Video deleted ==

Was [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008&diff=455755204&oldid=prev this deletion] a good idea? I don't have time to watch it right now, and I'm not sure how good the Khan Academy is with statistics. [[User:Dualus|Dualus]] ([[User talk:Dualus|talk]]) 23:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

== Summarizing views in the lead ==

How can we get a more accurate summary than [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008&diff=499503578&oldid=499484538 this one]? [[Special:Contributions/71.212.226.91|71.212.226.91]] ([[User talk:71.212.226.91|talk]]) 21:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

:How in particular are [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008&diff=499637980&oldid=499637146 these views] not representative of all of the views expressed on the bill? [[Special:Contributions/75.166.192.187|75.166.192.187]] ([[User talk:75.166.192.187|talk]]) 20:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

::Arguments of proponents and opponents are already ''summarized'' in the paragraph prior to the one removed. Your opinion that three specific opinions of individuals, all in opposition to the act, represent ''all the views'' on the bill does not justify giving those particular individual views prominence by highlighting them in the lead. [[User:Fat&#38;Happy|Fat&#38;Happy]] ([[User talk:Fat&#38;Happy|talk]]) 20:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

:::I think it's justified by [[WP:NPOV]] in this case. This bill was reviled. Can you find any opinions of people saying good things about it to balance those quotes? [[Special:Contributions/75.166.192.187|75.166.192.187]] ([[User talk:75.166.192.187|talk]]) 04:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

== Deleted bad math ==

In the section "Interest on bank deposits held by the Federal Reserve," there's a sentence that says,

"The Congressional Budget Office estimated that payment of interest on reserve balances would cost the American taxpayers about one tenth of the present 0.25% interest rate on $800 billion in deposits."

This is followed by a table that shows estimated budgetary losses/expenditures. Then there's this, which I found problematic,

"0.25% simple interest on $800 billion is $2 billion, not $202 million as shown for 2009."

The previous sentence had said the CBO estimated that taxpayers would lose 10% of 0.25%, not the entire 0.25%. How is 0.25% of $800 billion relevant? 10% of 0.25% of %800 billion is in fact $202 million. I have deleted the sentence, "0.25% simple interest on $800 billion is $2 billion, not $202 million as shown for 2009."

⚫
[[User:Envelopment|Envelopment]] ([[User talk:Envelopment|talk]]) 15:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

== Lihaas ==

[=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-04/bernanke-says-u-s-economy-seeing-progress.html >>> Bernanke Harbors Regret on Main Street’s View of Bailout ]([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 16:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)).


== Perhaps time to call it a "good article"? ==
== Perhaps time to call it a "good article"? ==
Line 81: Line 50:
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<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]]:Online</sub></small> 10:24, 25 January 2016 (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)


== External links modified ==
== External links modified ==
Line 141: Line 110:


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)
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)

== $29 trillion estimate a cost? ==

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-->


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)

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-->

== Dead link for actions taken ==

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.

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

==Large scope for shortening and rewriting the whole article==
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.
⚫
[[User:TGcoa|TGcoa]] ([[User talk:TGcoa|talk]]) 17:10, 26 September 2021 (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"