paulson saved wall street and burned main street

[zdreg]

because paulson, a republican and wall street, lead the way obama thinks he can turn america into a socialist country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/business/economy/the-feds-rescue-missed-main-street.html?hp

 

[jayre]

Quote from zdreg:

because paulson, a republican and wall street, lead the way obama thinks he can turn america into a socialist country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/business/economy/the-feds-rescue-missed-main-street.html?hp

The idea that rescueing the big banks was not important is without merit.
If the US would have let BAC, AIG, Citibank follow Lehman, the result would have been the following.
-Every other bank, insurance co, brokerage, financial institution, would have been in danger
-LIBOR would have frozen completely
-Loans to consumers and business would be noneexistent
-The economy would have come to a standstill.
I can agree that wall street are crooks, have taken too much risk, and mabye some CEO's should have gone to jail. But to let the whole economy colapse because of that, is a STUPID argument.

 

[nutmeg]

Quote from jayre:

The idea that rescueing the big banks was not important is without merit.
If the US would have let BAC, AIG, Citibank follow Lehman, the result would have been the following.
-Every other bank, insurance co, brokerage, financial institution, would have been in danger
-LIBOR would have frozen completely
-Loans to consumers and business would be noneexistent
-The economy would have come to a standstill.
I can agree that wall street are crooks, have taken too much risk, and mabye some CEO's should have gone to jail. But to let the whole economy colapse because of that, is a STUPID argument.

I agree and also add, political implications around the world, if other countries lost confidence in our banking system based on the reasons our own country would not support financial inst of all kinds, confidence would be lost.

How did TARP morph into tax breaks for makers of wooden arrows. Paulson's didn't come up with various give aways unrelated to the funding?

 

[zdreg]

Quote from jayre:

The idea that rescueing the big banks was not important is without merit.
If the US would have let BAC, AIG, Citibank follow Lehman, the result would have been the following.
-Every other bank, insurance co, brokerage, financial institution, would have been in danger
-LIBOR would have frozen completely
-Loans to consumers and business would be noneexistent
-The economy would have come to a standstill.
I can agree that wall street are crooks, have taken too much risk, and mabye some CEO's should have gone to jail. But to let the whole economy colapse because of that, is a STUPID argument.

your scenario is not a given. the assets of the big banks would have been bought pennies on the dollar by better capitalized entities. the law could have been changed to allow non banking entities to become owners of banks. many competent economists believe that a reorganization of these failed entities would have been resulted in a better allocation of resources.

furthermore even if your scenario had turned out been correct the country would have been better off to let these entries fade away. . yes there might have been a great deal of short term pain but the business cycle would
have renewed itself with an upswing as the previous excesses were washed out of the system. instead these entities continued to exist and are being run by the same people who created the mess in the 1st place. the economy does not revive because these overvalued assets are kept on the books and act as an overhang on the economy which could last for years. the US has increased its debts by trillions of dollars which will hinder the growth of the economy for years if not decades to come.

it is a very similar to the following question do u prefer a broken bone which recovers or a dull lingering pain in a limb which does not go away.

 

[Butterball]

Walker F. Todd, a research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research and a former assistant general counsel and research officer at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland:

“What is the benefit to the American taxpayer of propping up a Belgian bank with a single New York banking office to the tune of tens of billions of dollars?”

So Dexia just had a single NY branch so this idiot figures it couldn't possibly have caused much of a shi*storm were they allowed to blow up?! You can't make this up.

 

[jayre]

Quote from zdreg:

your scenario is not a given. the assets of the big banks would have been bought pennies on the dollar by better capitalized entities. the law could have been changed to allow non banking entities to become owners of banks. many competent economists believe that a reorganization of these failed entities would have been resulted in a better allocation of resources.

furthermore even if your scenario had turned out been correct the country would have been better off to let these entries fade away. . yes there might have been a great deal of short term pain but the business cycle would
have renewed itself with an upswing as the previous excesses were washed out of the system. instead these entities continued to exist and are being run by the same people who created the mess in the 1st place. the economy does not revive because these overvalued assets are kept on the books and act as an overhang on the economy which could last for years. the US has increased its debts by trillions of dollars which will hinder the growth of the economy for years if not decades to come.

it is a very similar to the following question do u prefer a broken bone which recovers or a dull lingering pain in a limb which does not go away.

Changing laws.. gred deal of short term pain.. new business cycle.. previous excesses were washed out of the system..
I think we did all of this..
"IN 1933"
Do you think the outcome was better then? if yes heads off

 

[empee]

Quote from jayre:

The idea that rescueing the big banks was not important is without merit.
If the US would have let BAC, AIG, Citibank follow Lehman, the result would have been the following.
-Every other bank, insurance co, brokerage, financial institution, would have been in danger
-LIBOR would have frozen completely
-Loans to consumers and business would be noneexistent
-The economy would have come to a standstill.
I can agree that wall street are crooks, have taken too much risk, and mabye some CEO's should have gone to jail. But to let the whole economy colapse because of that, is a STUPID argument.

Once again, we're dealing with a failed government. Its a failure of government to allow any institutions to become so big or powerful that they can't fail without destroying the whole economy.

Glad we fixed that!

 

[trefoil]

Quote from empee:

Once again, we're dealing with a failed government. Its a failure of government to allow any institutions to become so big or powerful that they can't fail without destroying the whole economy.

Glad we fixed that!

Yes, something like a Glass-Steagall needs to come back.
I guarantee you that the free marketeers on ET would be against that too, 'cuz it, you know, interferes with the free markets. Look at the reaction to Dodd-Frank, which is a watered-down version of it.
To these people, 1932-1933 never happened. Or it happened because of too much gov't intrusion. Someone will be along any minute now to explain that one (away).

 

[RewriteQuran]

Fed regulates the reserve ratio of all banks.
SEC should also regulate the market capitalization of listed companies to twice their quarterly income.

 

[zdreg]

Quote from empee:

Once again, we're dealing with a failed government. Its a failure of government to allow any institutions to become so big or powerful that they can't fail without destroying the whole economy.

Glad we fixed that!

assumption of too big to fail is not true. if handled properly the reorganization of the bankrupt entity would not sink the economy.

politicians and management and current workers are pulling the veil over the public's eyes. they want to fool u to save themselves.