Quote from Tsing Tao:
The banks believe they can trade their way back. Actually, to call them banks is rather misleading, as many do not have the traditional model. Can you tell me where the nearest Goldman Sachs branch is so I can open a checking account?
They call themselves banks to get bank treatment. But they're really hedge funds with direct Fed access. Borrow all the money you want at near zero rates and use it to buy Treasuries that yield a point or two higher. It's free money - quite literally. Then take that money and speculate on commodities and the stock market. Rinse/repeat. Why lend when you take a risk on not being repaid? The Fed has encouraged this behavior, despite claiming the opposite.
If they had not been bailed out, we would have had a much deeper, much shorter recession, and been on our way to prosperity by now. Rigged markets simply do not work.
Those are my thoughts exactly. I simply don't buy the argument that the economy would somehow have collapsed. If you were a business owner relying on credit to meet payroll, for example, what is stopping you from establishing a new line at any one of possibly hundreds of other banks (real banks)?
Also I understand that these aren't traditional banks, though I didn't make that clear. But what strikes me as irrational is that people continue to use the big hybrid institutions like BAC, C , JPM for simple depositing. Why would u want your money in these places where you know they are taking more risk than traditional banks? Its not like as a depositor they get to share in the profits.. I don't see the upside for the avg American to bank at these institutions.
On a related note, in antitrust's post in this thread: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=244779&perpage=6&pagenumber=4 there are some quotes that blow my mind. Does this mean that every loan created by a bank essentially diminishes purchasing power of US$? That is retarded, i've heard also, but don't know if this is true.. if a bank receives a 100k deposit and reserve min is 10% they obviously get to loan out the 90k remaining BUT then they get to count that 90k loan as an asset basically and loan out 90% of it and so on.. does anyone know for sure if this is how it works? If any of this is true then our system really is unsustainable, what sense is there in banks being able to lend money they don't have, money that doesn't even exist?
the fractional reserve system is the flaw where all other problems stem from imo. Banks should only be able to loan out what they have, that would diminish credit greatly and also stop the inflation that this lending creates, which would be a much more sustainable (realistic) system.