1 edit
@no1marauder saidWhat difference does it make 'when' the government did it? It is time to stop. Wait....didn't something happen in 2008 that we should talk about? And then, we should talk about a rowdy crowd on Jan 6, TWO YEARS ago!
Those Wall Street banks were bailed out BEFORE Obama became President. https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/troubled-asset-relief-program
All you fellas need to start getting up early for the news, like, now. Although I REALLY want to discuss if Trump had a hand in Jan 6, two years ago, if it would mean a hill of beans. I am truly amazed at the way you fellers parse over those times.
NOTHING will come of it. Do you think when Biden hijinks are disclosed that he will be put in a jumpsuit.?? Give it up. That was 100 years ago, the big guys are going to be fine. Hunter sleeps quite well, as guilty as sin. It is sin.
@no1marauder saidLet me get this straight ....Earll enlightens our readers, and you , that Obama did this deal, on his watch ...
What a brainwashed fool you are.
No, don't even look at the date TARP was passed.
"In October 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was signed into law by President George W. Bush. TARP was born out of this act, which was initially proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
The goal of TARP was to mend the financial situation of banks, ...[text shortened]... erybody who just reads right wing propaganda like yourself "knows" a lot of things that aren't true.
Your response??????? One of your laborious history lessons. Jesus H.
Hey, Earl......may I commend you for Marauder, for digging this up. Now he won't have to say anything.
@averagejoe1 saidEarl didn't "enlighten"; he misled.
Let me get this straight ....Earll enlightens our readers, and you , that Obama did this deal, on his watch ...
Your response??????? One of your laborious history lessons. Jesus H.
Hey, Earl......may I commend you for Marauder, for digging this up. Now he won't have to say anything.
@ullr saidDepositors are making a reasonable assumption that a very large bank is less likely to lose their money because the trickle down economists will argue they need a big government bailout to save the economy.
A rather strange and callous position you're taking here. Many of their depositors are companies that rely on those deposits to meet payroll. This won't just impact rich people but people who literally need their paycheck to pay their bills. I know this for a fact as I have a family member who was terrified because the company they work for was threatened with suddenly not be ...[text shortened]... y more employees who otherwise were facing an abrupt loss of their income that they need to survive.
@no1marauder saidI agree with you on that particular issue, but it is not a real issue. There are plenty of banks willing to buy SVB and solve the money issue so no deposits have to be insured. There must be another motive behind this.
BS. My ideology is that the rich soak up enough in this capitalist system without their errors being 100% covered by everybody else. Sad to see you don't agree with that.
Kim Iversen suggested that the powers that be want people to lose trust in smaller banks so they go for the CBDC in a flight to safety. CBDCs are a reaction to cryptocurrencies. They have competition they need to get ahead of.
https://rumble.com/v2d67ny-house-votes-to-declassify-covid-intel-bank-seizures-were-an-attack-on-crypt.html
@wildgrass saidYes, big banks more solid, in plain English. There need be about 7 big banks to compete. I know you libs hate the word 'big' , it suggests corporate power. But that number is about right for perfect competition.
Depositors are making a reasonable assumption that a very large bank is less likely to lose their money because the trickle down economists will argue they need a big government bailout to save the economy.
And if you want to get rich right on along with them, the banks, buy shares of the banks and be a part owner. Libs just do not get it.
@metal-brain saidApparently, as of yet, no other banks are willing to buy SVB. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/business/silicon-valley-bank-auction.html
I agree with you on that particular issue, but it is not a real issue. There are plenty of banks willing to buy SVB and solve the money issue so no deposits have to be insured. There must be another motive behind this.
Kim Iversen suggested that the powers that be want people to lose trust in smaller banks so they go for the CBDC in a flight to safety. CBDCs are a rea ...[text shortened]... /rumble.com/v2d67ny-house-votes-to-declassify-covid-intel-bank-seizures-were-an-attack-on-crypt.html
2 edits
@no1marauder saidThat is not true.
Apparently, as of yet, no other banks are willing to buy SVB. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/business/silicon-valley-bank-auction.html
I gave you my source of information. Larry Kudlow.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/03/13/kudlow-kevin-hassett-fdic-silicon-valley-bank/
@metal-brain saidLarry Kudlow is an idiot. The Daily Caller, started by Tucker Carlson, is another worthless right wing propaganda source.
That is not true.
I gave you my source of information. Larry Kudlow.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/03/13/kudlow-kevin-hassett-fdic-silicon-valley-bank/
The FDIC is quite anxious to sell SVB.
@averagejoe1 saidNo that's not what I wrote. If a big bank fails, the government will be forced to bail them out, so depositors will get their money back.
Yes, big banks more solid, in plain English.
Small banks would not receive such preferential treatment by the government, and would be allowed to fail and go bankrupt.
At least that's what happened last time.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidKudlow was the Director of the National Economic Council during the Trump Administration. FDIC is blocking the sale of SVB. You have it completely backwards.
Larry Kudlow is an idiot. The Daily Caller, started by Tucker Carlson, is another worthless right wing propaganda source.
The FDIC is quite anxious to sell SVB.
https://republicbroadcasting.org/news/another-scandal-biden-admin-radicals-blocked-svb-sale-nationalized-it-then-blamed-trump-for-collapse/
@metal-brain saidRather than listen to nutty ex-Trump administration officials and completely unreliable "sources" like the Daily Caller and Republic Broadcasting (which fails to mention that Barney Frank was on Signature's Board of Directors and getting paid $1 million when he supported the 2018 changes to Dodd-Frank https://www.salon.com/2023/03/14/bill-author-under-for-pushing-to-weaken-his-own-law-while-being-paid-by-signature_partner/). try this article from Marketplace which completely refutes your baseless speculation:
Kudlow was the Director of the National Economic Council during the Trump Administration. FDIC is blocking the sale of SVB. You have it completely backwards.
https://republicbroadcasting.org/news/another-scandal-biden-admin-radicals-blocked-svb-sale-nationalized-it-then-blamed-trump-for-collapse/
"Liz Hoffman is the business and finance editor at Semafor and author of the recently released book “Crash Landing: The Inside Story of How the World’s Biggest Companies Survived an Economy on the Brink.” She recently wrote about how the FDIC was approaching the sale of SVB. “Marketplace” host Kai Ryssdal spoke with Hoffman about who the FDIC hoped would buy the bank and the complexities of a sale.
The following is an edited transcript of their conversation.
Kai Ryssdal: So we’ve got the FDIC insurance over the weekend, we got the new lending facility in case of emergency over the weekend, we did not get a sale of SVB. And I want to know why.
Liz Hoffman: You know, what we reported was that the biggest banks — the ones that everyone loves to hate, but also the ones that are really the only people in a position to do something like this — were not invited in until it was effectively too late to get a deal done by Monday, which is when the market was expecting it. So, you know, I think that is now being rectified. They’re trying to sell this thing again. And I would expect bigger banks to sort of be more encouraged to participate in that process.
Sign up for the daily Marketplace newsletter to make sense of the most important business and economic news.
Ryssdal: Why were they not allowed in the door the first time?
Hoffman: Look, you’ve heard “too big to fail.” People don’t like them, and in particular, the chairman of the FDIC [Martin Gruenberg] really doesn’t like them and doesn’t want them getting bigger. And he’s talked about that a lot in the last couple of years. So it was a political calculus that this was the moment to sort of take a stand on this issue."
https://www.marketplace.org/2023/03/15/peers-not-lining-up-to-buy-silicon-valley-banks-problems-neither-are-the-giants/
So there was no almost deal like Kudlow claimed and the FDIC would prefer not to make the bigger banks even bigger (if possible).
@AverageJoe1
Remember that banks in the US have more than $600 billion in unrealized bond losses right now. And that number will keep increasing if interest rates continue to rise.
So this means that the Fed has essentially guaranteed that entire $600+ billion. Commercial banks won’t lose a penny— they can now pass their financial risks down to the Federal Reserve.
This isn’t a bailout… it’s a time bomb.
We can keep our fingers crossed and hope that this time bomb never explodes. But if it does, the Federal Reserve is going to be looking at hundreds of billions in losses… which would trigger devastating consequences for the US dollar.
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/the-federal-reserve-just-hijacked-american-democracy/