Originally posted by sh76Is this better?
Yes, MB, everyone that half-disagrees with anything you say must be an "apologist" because you can point to a website called "darkgovernment.com."
🙄🙄🙄
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/28/uk-iceland-crisis-idUKBRE8BR0EW20121228
Perhaps I will not provide any website to confirm it next time. I'll just let you do the search, but don't complain when I leave it to you, you whiner!
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo the bankers that gamble with other peoples money are able to pay some of it back. Maybe you should go to a casino and bail them out since it is no big deal.While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, it was reported in April of 2010 that those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[2] Of the $245 billion handed to U.S. and foreign banks, over $169 billion has been paid back, inc ...[text shortened]... ments, equaling nearly 97 percent of the $418 billion disbursed under the program.[3]
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat about the opportunity cost of that $419 billion? It could have been used to mitigate the effects of the recession caused by the big banks recklessness rather than by preserving inefficient and incompetently run businesses (in fact, the steps done actually increased concentration of market share in banking to the benefit of the banks that screwed up royally). $419 billion in investment spending in infrastructure or in creating a government run investment bank to lend to consumers and businesses would have been far better uses of that money rather than lending it to banks who then cut their lending by 10% exacerbating the Great Recession.While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, it was reported in April of 2010 that those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[2] Of the $245 billion handed to U.S. and foreign banks, over $169 billion has been paid back, inc ...[text shortened]... ments, equaling nearly 97 percent of the $418 billion disbursed under the program.[3]
Originally posted by Metal BrainNo, it is not. That link says nothing about the US bank bailout or about whether the US bank bailouts were a good idea.
Is this better?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/28/uk-iceland-crisis-idUKBRE8BR0EW20121228
Perhaps I will not provide any website to confirm it next time. I'll just let you do the search, but don't complain when I leave it to you, you whiner!
I will go to links of respectable news orgs like Reuters. I would not go to the links of your conspiracy nut sites if they were the last sites on Earth.
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhy single out Bush, Obama and Geithner? Since the turn of the 20th century, almost all Presidents of both parties have supported intentional inflation and monetary degradation, by debt. They couldn't have done it except by the permission of Congress supported again by both parties.
Yes, and Americans did a little complaining but quickly assumed the position when Tim Geithner wanted them to.
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2013/01/the-illegal-geithner-leak-that-cost-normal-people-millions-but-saved-his-banker-buddies/
Bush, Obama and Geithner should be hung as traitors and all the people who defended the big banks bailout should be outed for being the idiots that they are.
The simple economic reality is that monetary degradation harms those with the least money the most. If you have a bare subsistence living, and 10% of your buying power is lost, you starve. If you are a multibillionaire, 10% loss of purchasing power may irritate you but life goes on pretty much unchanged.
Presidents of both parties have relied on a string of Wall Street guys for Treasury, so nothing really changes. The few who have consistently identified the real culprit include Dr. Ron Paul who has called for ending the Fed for decades. His son Rand continues in his father's footsteps.
Bankers are no more corrupt than car builders, or home builders. Each operates under the environment created for them. If repeatedly irresponsible failures are rewarded with bailouts, the message is "don't worry" we've got your back.
Banks are going back to business as usual, with a few minor cosmetic changes.
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe thing that triggered the bank meltdown was the derivatives which included bad mortgage paper created by Fannie and Freddie. It was a simple loss of confidence in banking per se. However, once they got the cash and the crisis passed, a whole lot of that bad paper remains on the balance sheets of banks all over the world. Nothing really changed, except that people felt better.
They are working against the interests of the American people by stealing their money and giving it to banks that are buying them off. In short "corruption".
The implication that giving American's money to bankers that caused the crisis would rescue the economy was a lie. This was all based on the false assertion that once the banks got the money they ...[text shortened]... as no need to keep the banks from failing because the money supply would contract either way.
Originally posted by sh76OK, so you don't like the source, but the real question is not how "approved" the source is but the accuracy of its story.
Yes, MB, everyone that half-disagrees with anything you say must be an "apologist" because you can point to a website called "darkgovernment.com."
🙄🙄🙄
A while back "serious journalists" scoffed at Matt Drudge who did his website from his apartment in his pajamas. Over the years, the Drudge report has a pretty good record compared to major news networks who have almost all had their accuracy scandals, some apparently intentional.
This goes to the "credentials" vs. "capabilities" issue. Until a site is completely discredited, I would suggest arguing the merits, or finding an alternative source contradicting the claim. When I say discredited, I mean by everyone on both sides of politics, not by partisan hacks of one side.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat about the opportunity cost of any expense?
What about the opportunity cost of that $419 billion? It could have been used to mitigate the effects of the recession caused by the big banks recklessness rather than by preserving inefficient and incompetently run businesses (in fact, the steps done actually increased concentration of market share in banking to the benefit of the banks that screwed up ...[text shortened]... er than lending it to banks who then cut their lending by 10% exacerbating the Great Recession.
3 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou're pretty glib and cavalier about the fact that had we taken the Icelandic option, the Great Depression would have been a cakewalk by comparison. By I can't prove that. Just like I can't prove that you would survive an 80 mph head on auto accident just as well without wearing a seat belt driving a car not equipped with air bags, than being strapped into a vehicle with all the appropriate crash mitigation technology in place.. No I'll take your word for it that I would walk away from the unrestrained wreckage scenario just as easily. Seems logical.
Yes, and Americans did a little complaining but quickly assumed the position when Tim Geithner wanted them to.
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2013/01/the-illegal-geithner-leak-that-cost-normal-people-millions-but-saved-his-banker-buddies/
Bush, Obama and Geithner should be hung as traitors and all the people who defended the big banks bailout should be outed for being the idiots that they are.
Originally posted by normbenignCorrect , shadow banking systems allowed derivative assets circulating to expand from $0 in 1990 to $600 trillion in 2008 , global production output in 2005 was $45 trillion. The debts only exist in our minds , default .
The thing that triggered the bank meltdown was the derivatives which included bad mortgage paper created by Fannie and Freddie. It was a simple loss of confidence in banking per se. However, once they got the cash and the crisis passed, a whole lot of that bad paper remains on the balance sheets of banks all over the world. Nothing really changed, except that people felt better.
Originally posted by kmax87The great depression was caused by massive deflation. That was because of a contraction of the money supply. When banks don't lend that is what happens because of fractional reserve banking.
You're pretty glib and cavalier about the fact that had we taken the Icelandic option, the Great Depression would have been a cakewalk by comparison. By I can't prove that. Just like I can't prove that you would survive an 80 mph head on auto accident just as well without wearing a seat belt driving a car not equipped with air bags, than being strapped into a ...[text shortened]... hat I would walk away from the unrestrained wreckage scenario just as easily. Seems logical.
Bailing out the banks did not resume lending as was claimed so the Federal Reserve System increased the money supply to make up for it. Letting the banks fail would have resulted in the same thing as long as the FRS took the same action. In the meantime, new banks could take the place of the failed banks.
Your assertion that another great depression would have resulted is bunk. The only way that could have happened is if the FRS did nothing to avert it.
Originally posted by Metal BrainIf the banks were allowed to fail, who would have been left in the system to administer the increased flow of Fed money. As the banks started to fall who would they have brought down with them......and on and on. A lot was said at the time to publicly justify the bailout, but just because credit did not flow on from the bailed out banks is less avarice on their part, but more the extent to which the GFC nearly levelled the whole house of cards. Contagion and Moral Hazard became buzzwords during that time. Unfortunately when those buzzwords were repeated often enough, the seriousness and embedded nature of their meanings got left behind, with the right championing Moral Hazard and the left championing Contagion.
The great depression was caused by massive deflation. That was because of a contraction of the money supply. When banks don't lend that is what happens because of fractional reserve banking.
Bailing out the banks did not resume lending as was claimed so the Federal Reserve System increased the money supply to make up for it. Letting the banks fail wo ...[text shortened]... resulted is bunk. The only way that could have happened is if the FRS did nothing to avert it.
But whatever you championed is immaterial. The market required a lot of massaging to maintain its composure. I'm not sure how failure at every turn would not have snowballed.