On 8/20/2014 11:11 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 8/20/2014 10:21 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On 8/20/2014 9:46 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 8/20/2014 8:11 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On 8/19/2014 8:32 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/2014 7:02 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/2014 5:23 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/2014 1:46 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/2014 1:00 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charging you simply because they're greedy *******s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -sw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And first in line for a bailout too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we all know less damage would have happened had they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failed, yes?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which has nothing at all to do with being greedy *******s, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to their customers but expecting a bailout when things go
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their fees are ridiculous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheri
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Giving back what to their customers, less fees?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any idea where _some_ of the bailout went?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://askville.amazon.com/financial...estId=42865783
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Iberiabank, the first bank to apply to leave TARP, returned $90
>>>>>>>>>>>> million.
>>>>>>>>>>>> “We are pleased to be among the first financial institutions to
>>>>>>>>>>>> pay
>>>>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Treasury’s TARP investment,” Daryl G. Byrd, the bank’s chief
>>>>>>>>>>>> executive, said in a statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bank of Marin returned $28 million. “Given the operating
>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictions
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced as a participant, we believe this decision is in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>>>>>>> interest of our customers, shareholders and employees,” Russell
>>>>>>>>>>>> A.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Colombo, the bank’s chief executive, said in a statement. “We
>>>>>>>>>>>> feel
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> well positioned to continue lending in our community without
>>>>>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>>>>>> capital support.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but where did they get that money? Banks were given free
>>>>>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> the intent it would spur business lending. Banks instead opted
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> "carry trade" and bought longer term government bonds, and
>>>>>>>>>>> pocketed
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> yield difference. And then used that to pay back TARP. What a
>>>>>>>>>>> sweat
>>>>>>>>>>> deal!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once again, do you or does anyone here feel we as a nation would
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>> better off if they'd gone down?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they should have been nationalized (and then stock sold off so as
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> remain in government hands) and their officers and directors
>>>>>>>>> forbidden
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> working in the financial world for the rest of their lives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh no, nationalized is a VERY bad thing, given they are publicly
>>>>>>>> traded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> About how many common and preferred shareholders, pension funds,
>>>>>>>> mutual
>>>>>>>> funds and bondholders do you think you'd like to wipe out?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ever hear of downstream damage?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People invest in a stock and the company goes broke. The investors
>>>>>>> loose.
>>>>>>> Except in this case. Bad move!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, good move unless you want to destroy a nation's economy and debt
>>>>>> service capability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have any idea how many pension funds would have gone down?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have any clue what the domino effect would have been?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People run a company into the ground, and are out of a job and can't
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> hired elsewhere because of their track record. Except in this case.
>>>>>>> Bad
>>>>>>> move!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More emotional hyperbola.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Better to wipe out the investors, as should happen, rather than take
>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>> from taxpayers that had no investment. Ever hear of downstream
>>>>>>> damage
>>>>>>> due
>>>>>>> to taking people's hard earned money and giving it to someone else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you have ZERO insight as to how debt and our economy work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are volumes out there on the systemic toxins of CDOs, you would
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> well to read up on them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As it stands you demonstrate only your own lack of economic
>>>>>> background.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> no, you assume incorrectly. I understand the systemic toxins of CDOs,
>>>>> but
>>>>> those that took the risk should take the fall.
>>>>
>>>> You just contradicted yourself.
>>>>
>>>> If they're "systemic" we ALL got a bite of the risk, all of us.
>>>>
>>>>> I am not talking about
>>>>> closing down all the banks, just keep them running with new investors,
>>>>> new
>>>>> management, and new policies that make more sense.
>>>>
>>>> That IS what happened in a great many cases.
>>>>
>>>> As for "new investors", how do you go about doing what the free market
>>>> handles by itself?
>>>>
>>>> Just demand all shareholders and bondholders turn in their certificate
>>>> to
>>>> the government?
>>>
>>> yes. that is what happens when a company goes completely bankrupt.
>>> Happens
>>> all the time. why make an exception here? Because of connections in high
>>> places. Bad move.
>>
>> If the major banks had gone "completely bankrupt", this nation would have
>> defaulted on its own debt simultaneously.
>>
>> We wouldn't have an economy today, and despite what I've shown you your
>> adamant demand lingers.
>>
>> We're talking about the systematic failure of _every_ US credit market.
>>
>> We're talking runs on the banks.
>>
>> We're talking about almost all small business not being able to get
>> funding.
>>
>> We're talking a full global banking failure to due to interdependencies.
>>
>> The list is endless.
>>
>
> now it is clear you don't know what you are talking about.
>
>
Given you've explained nothing of the impacts bankruptcy would have
caused, whose word is more credible?
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/what...banks-23022009
It's hard to say what would have happened exactly, but it's likely that
the credit system in the United States, and consequently in many other
countries, would have completely shut down.
To kind of give a little chain of events that occurred in September that
scared the shit out of Bernanke and Paulson:
Lehman Brothers (an investment bank) collapsed. It consequently
defaulted on its commercial paper, which is the short-term debt that
large, generally very safe companies issue to fund their operating
expenses (primarily raw materials and wages). This lead a money market
mutual fund to "break the buck" (i.e. the current value of its holdings
fell below $1/share, so investors had lost money). Since this is a very
rare event and money market funds are generally considered extremely
safe, this caused a huge panic and a run on the money market funds,
which are essentially banks, although though they're not called banks.
(You might here the term "shadow banking system" used if you follow
economic blogs or the press. Money market funds are one of the main
components of this.) The money market funds are major (I think the
single largest) buyers of commercial paper. The market for commercial
paper consequently dried up and there was almost no lending going on.
Even banks were having a hard time getting more than overnight loans,
and there were apparently even difficulties with that.
In normal times, the issuers of commercial paper constantly roll over on
their debt. (I.e. when payment for comes due, they just issue more
paper. They generally don't pay down this debt.) With a sudden
contraction of the commercial paper market, enterprises of all sorts
(both financial and nonfinancial) would have likely defaulted even
though they were mostly solvent. This is because even though they're
assets are generally greater than their liabilities, they would've have
been able to come up with the cash necessary to settle the immediate
claims on them. So they would have been forced into default. This would
have scared commercial paper buyers even more (and again, this is
generally considered a very safe market), which would have in turn
exacerbated the contraction of the commercial paper market, which would
have amplified the problems in with the money markets, and so on.
With a complete collapse of the short-term money market all industry
would have halted very quickly. This would have very quickly lead to a
severe contraction probably far worse than anything seen in the Great
Depression.
See this short NPR article, which is a good introduction to the topic:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=95099470
If they had let Citibank or Wamu collapse, the problem would have
started all over again, probably much worse than with Lehman. It would
only be a matter of time (probably not even very much time) before there
would have been a run on all banks. I highly doubt even one major US
bank would have survived.
So in that specific sense, I think the government interventions have
been very successful. The whole credit system would have collapsed
months ago if they had just let everything go.