On 8/19/2014 10:32 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 8/19/2014 7:20 PM, Cheri 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?
>>>
>>> Yes, they have raised fees for checking, checks, credit cards, out of
>>> system ATM use etc. I would be nice to lower the fees once in awhile
>>> especially when holding out your hand for bailouts from the taxpayers.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>
>> The best thing they could and have done is to quit writing liar loan
>> paper.
>
> You think!
>
> Cheri
>
It's not like they weren't green-lighted by the politicians to do so...

On Monday, August 18, 2014 11:24:41 AM UTC-5, jmcquown wrote:
> On 8/17/2014 8:59 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> >
>
> > "Bryan-TGWWW" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> >> On Sunday, August 17, 2014 7:16:06 PM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> >>> "Nancy2" > wrote in message
>
> >>>
>
> >>> ...
>
> >>>
>
> >>> > Cheryl, the AARP stats you quote don't point out how many of those
>
> >>> > seniors
>
> >>>
>
> >>> > who
>
> >>>
>
> >>> > don't use the net do have access, which was the point I made earlier.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> >
>
> >>>
>
> >>> > N.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> They might have access but they might not know how or remember how to
>
> >>> use
>
> >>>
>
> >>> it.
>
> >>>
>
> >> You surround yourself with sub-normal, defective humans.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> My dad had to quit using his computer because he kept getting confused
>
> >>>
>
> >>> and doing the wrong things.
>
> >>
>
> >> When you started out stupid, getting old must be especially challenging.
>
> >
>
> > My dad was not stupid. You try having some strokes and senile dementia
>
> > and see how well you function!
>
>
>
> Bryan is just a brainless sex-obsessed twit, Julie. Best to ignore him.
>
If all the women on Earth were dog-faced like Jill, or turds in the gene
pool like Julie, I'd find a different obsession.
>
> Jill

--Bryan

"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!

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!

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?

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> On 8/19/2014 8:13 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 8/19/2014 3:24 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Bank of America wanted to charge my granddaughter $5 to cash a $35
>>>>>> check
>>>>>> drawn on their bank. No, she did not have an account there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hedging their bets. If you don't have an account and the check
>>>>> bounces, they have no recourse. If you do have an account, they
>>>>> just take it back plus a fee.
>>>>
>>>> But they know right then and there if the check is good.
>>>
>>> Oh?
>>>
>>> How?
>>
>> The check was drawn on their bank. Punch in the account number and look
>> at the balance. Takes about 10 seconds.
>
> But that does not mean it will clear.
>

and that does not mean the holder of the check is not a forger.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:20:15 -0700, "Cheri" >
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?
>
>Yes, they have raised fees for checking, checks, credit cards, out of system
>ATM use etc.

I've never paid a fee for checking or credit cards, I don't even pay
for checks, I get all I want for free... just have to keep a minimum
balance. I've never used an ATM. The bank I use in town still has
passbook accounts, I have one for nostalgic purposes, they are a good
way to save, better than a piggy bank because they pay interest... I
pride myself in using my passbook account for deposits only, never
made a withdrawal in the eleven years I have it.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:32:19 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>
>"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 8/19/2014 7:20 PM, Cheri 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?
>>>
>>> Yes, they have raised fees for checking, checks, credit cards, out of
>>> system ATM use etc. I would be nice to lower the fees once in awhile
>>> especially when holding out your hand for bailouts from the taxpayers.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>
>> The best thing they could and have done is to quit writing liar loan
>> paper.
>
>You think!
>
>Cheri

Banks don't fail, people fail... personal debt has grown out of
control... very few people have savings anymore, hardly anyone owns
anything... 95% of late model cars on the road are leased.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:17:44 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>
>"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
.. .
>> "Cheri" wrote:
>>>"Mayo" wrote:
>>>> Cheri wrote:
>>>>>>Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> They're charging you simply because they're greedy *******s.
>>>>>
>>>>> And first in line for a bailout too.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Fees? What fees? I've never been charged any fees.
>
>I don't pay the fees, but many people do. They have been in the news in CA
>for their practices.
>
>Cheri

They pay fees because they are in debt... they should pay fees, and
higher fees... I hate subsidizing the losers. If not for all the
indebted losers I'd receive much higher interest on my savings.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:38:03 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:13:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> Some years ago I knew a guy that had a hard time collecting from a
>> customer. He was given a check for about $1000 but there was not enough
>> in the account to cash it. Although the teller would not tell him the
>> balance, he asked if $100 was deposited, would the check clear? She
>> nodded yes. He made the deposit and and she gave him the cash. Losing a
>> little was better than losing it all.
>
>New law says they can't take deposits from anyone except the account
>owner.

Show me. I deposit funds into my grand's accounts all the time and my
name is not on their accounts. People transfer funds into other's
accounts every day on line, if they couldn't the entire economy would
instantly collapse. I pay several monhly bills on line, automatically
transfers funds from my account to another's; electric, heating fuel,
trash pick up, medical insurance, cable, probably more.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:41:00 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:38:03 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:13:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>> Some years ago I knew a guy that had a hard time collecting from a
>>> customer. He was given a check for about $1000 but there was not enough
>>> in the account to cash it. Although the teller would not tell him the
>>> balance, he asked if $100 was deposited, would the check clear? She
>>> nodded yes. He made the deposit and and she gave him the cash. Losing a
>>> little was better than losing it all.
>>
>> New law says they can't take deposits from anyone except the account
>> owner.
>
>I should note that mostly only applies to deposits in person. Direct
>deposits where there's a *money trail* (which is what they are
>enforcing) are fine, of course.
>
>-sw

I don't think so, people make deposit's into a spouse's account all
the time... just as easily as they can drop each other's mail in the
postbox. Banks don't care who makes deposits, only withdrawels...
many banks have night deposit facilities.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:34:04 -0700, "Pico Rico"
> wrote:

>
>"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:13:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>> Some years ago I knew a guy that had a hard time collecting from a
>>> customer. He was given a check for about $1000 but there was not enough
>>> in the account to cash it. Although the teller would not tell him the
>>> balance, he asked if $100 was deposited, would the check clear? She
>>> nodded yes. He made the deposit and and she gave him the cash. Losing a
>>> little was better than losing it all.
>>
>> New law says they can't take deposits from anyone except the account
>> owner.
>>
>> -sw
>
>you must mean cash deposits. Tenants I know deposit checks directly into
>landlord accounts.

Tenants can deposit cash too, they'd get a deposit receipt.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:31:50 -0600, Mayo > wrote:

>On 8/19/2014 8:13 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 8/19/2014 3:24 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Bank of America wanted to charge my granddaughter $5 to cash a $35
>>>>>> check
>>>>>> drawn on their bank. No, she did not have an account there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hedging their bets. If you don't have an account and the check
>>>>> bounces, they have no recourse. If you do have an account, they
>>>>> just take it back plus a fee.
>>>>
>>>> But they know right then and there if the check is good.
>>>
>>> Oh?
>>>
>>> How?
>>
>> The check was drawn on their bank. Punch in the account number and look
>> at the balance. Takes about 10 seconds.
>
>But that does not mean it will clear.
>
>> Some years ago I knew a guy that had a hard time collecting from a
>> customer. He was given a check for about $1000 but there was not enough
>> in the account to cash it. Although the teller would not tell him the
>> balance, he asked if $100 was deposited, would the check clear? She
>> nodded yes. He made the deposit and and she gave him the cash. Losing a
>> little was better than losing it all.
>
>Interesting!

Banks will give out balances in how many figures... in the case above
a teller would say the balance is in three figures, so wouldn't be
difficult to query a hundred dollars more at a time. Was probably
worth ceding the hundred dollars same a business giving a 10% discount
not to lose a sale.

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.

On 8/20/2014 8:12 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 8/19/2014 8:13 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 8/19/2014 3:24 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Bank of America wanted to charge my granddaughter $5 to cash a $35
>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>> drawn on their bank. No, she did not have an account there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hedging their bets. If you don't have an account and the check
>>>>>> bounces, they have no recourse. If you do have an account, they
>>>>>> just take it back plus a fee.
>>>>>
>>>>> But they know right then and there if the check is good.
>>>>
>>>> Oh?
>>>>
>>>> How?
>>>
>>> The check was drawn on their bank. Punch in the account number and look
>>> at the balance. Takes about 10 seconds.
>>
>> But that does not mean it will clear.
>>
>
> and that does not mean the holder of the check is not a forger.
>
>
Equally true - but the funds could be personally withdrawn before the
check can clear through.

Only cash or certified funds in bank draft form close that possibility.

On 8/20/2014 8:35 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:32:19 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>>> On 8/19/2014 7:20 PM, Cheri 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?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they have raised fees for checking, checks, credit cards, out of
>>>> system ATM use etc. I would be nice to lower the fees once in awhile
>>>> especially when holding out your hand for bailouts from the taxpayers.
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>
>>> The best thing they could and have done is to quit writing liar loan
>>> paper.
>>
>> You think!
>>
>> Cheri
>
> Banks don't fail, people fail...

Semantics.

> personal debt has grown out of
> control... very few people have savings anymore, hardly anyone owns
> anything... 95% of late model cars on the road are leased.


It would be nice if you had a clue what you're misrepresenting here.

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013...tcies_down.htm

U.S. Consumer Debt and Bankruptcies Down
August 5, 2013

https://secure.marke****ch.com/story...ain-2013-05-14

WASHINGTON (Marke****ch) — The total amount of debt held by Americans
fell again in the first three months of the year and stood at the lowest
level since the middle of 2006, the New York Federal Reserve said Tuesday.

The steady retreat in household debt is a good sign for the economy.
With fewer loans to pay off, Americans are in a better position to spend
and drive U.S. growth higher, especially if they become more confident
about the future. Many economists have cited weak household finances as
a chief cause of the slow U.S. recovery nearly four years after the
Great Recession ended.

The level of household debt in the first quarter fell by $110 billion,
or 1%, to $11.23 trillion, mainly because consumers reduced mortgage
balances and used their credit cards less.

Household debt is now 11.4% lower versus a peak of $12.68 trillion in 2008.

Mortgage debt slid to $7.93 trillion from $8.03 trillion to mark the
lowest amount since late 2006. Mortgage debt fell in the first quarter
even though more home loans were issued than in the last three months of
2012.

Lower interest rates have allowed many homeowners to refinance their
mortgages and sharply reduce their monthly payments.

On 8/20/2014 8:38 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:17:44 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Cheri" wrote:
>>>> "Mayo" wrote:
>>>>> Cheri wrote:
>>>>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They're charging you simply because they're greedy *******s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And first in line for a bailout too.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Fees? What fees? I've never been charged any fees.
>>
>> I don't pay the fees, but many people do. They have been in the news in CA
>> for their practices.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> They pay fees because they are in debt...

Not true.

> they should pay fees, and
> higher fees... I hate subsidizing the losers. If not for all the
> indebted losers I'd receive much higher interest on my savings.

I'm sorry, were you not aware that the Fed sets interest rates?

And please, not to worry, they'll be trending upward all too soon.

If you own any utility stocks, sell into the rate hike or get creamed.

"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. 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.

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?

Please...

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> 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.

you are completely missing my point. Are you doing that intentionally?

On 8/20/2014 11:50 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> 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.
>
> you are completely missing my point. Are you doing that intentionally?
>
>
Your point is completely denying the inter-dependencies in our economy
and those abroad.

The price of a full failure would have been the failure of America's
economy, period.

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> On 8/20/2014 11:50 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
>> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>>> 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.
>>
>> you are completely missing my point. Are you doing that intentionally?
>>
>>
> Your point is completely denying the inter-dependencies in our economy and
> those abroad.
>
> The price of a full failure would have been the failure of America's
> economy, period.

No, the government could have stepped in, did exactly what happened, but NOT
fail to make the shareholders take their losses and NOT keep the crooked
managers in place.

You keep referring to this as a "full failure", which it is not. You must
be a bank manager who got to keep his job if you keep pontificating that
way. BAH!

On 8/20/2014 12:28 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:38:16 -0400, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>
>> They pay fees because they are in debt... they should pay fees, and
>> higher fees... I hate subsidizing the losers. If not for all the
>> indebted losers I'd receive much higher interest on my savings.
>
> You actually think you're subsidizing poorer people though your bank?
> Just another example of how out of touch with reality you really are.
>
> -sw
>
What do you think the whole red-lining liar loan scam amounted to...

On 8/20/2014 12:28 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 8/20/2014 11:50 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> you are completely missing my point. Are you doing that intentionally?
>>>
>>>
>> Your point is completely denying the inter-dependencies in our economy and
>> those abroad.
>>
>> The price of a full failure would have been the failure of America's
>> economy, period.
>
> No, the government could have stepped in, did exactly what happened, but NOT
> fail to make the shareholders take their losses and NOT keep the crooked
> managers in place.

The shareholders losses would have included many large pension funds.

How many folks retirements do you feel should have been nuked?

> You keep referring to this as a "full failure", which it is not. You must
> be a bank manager who got to keep his job if you keep pontificating that
> way. BAH!

One of us understands the toxin of bundled debt instruments, and it
appears no to be you.

On 8/20/2014 12:34 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> I don't think
> No, you don't.
>
> -sw

Oh come on now, don't you have some women here to pick on, Yappy?

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> On 8/20/2014 12:28 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
>> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>>> On 8/20/2014 11:50 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> you are completely missing my point. Are you doing that intentionally?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Your point is completely denying the inter-dependencies in our economy
>>> and
>>> those abroad.
>>>
>>> The price of a full failure would have been the failure of America's
>>> economy, period.
>>
>> No, the government could have stepped in, did exactly what happened, but
>> NOT
>> fail to make the shareholders take their losses and NOT keep the crooked
>> managers in place.
>
> The shareholders losses would have included many large pension funds.

too bad. And that is why they diversify their investments.

>
> How many folks retirements do you feel should have been nuked?

everybody but me. If they didn't diversify, that is their problem. Just as
with any bankruptcy.

>
>> You keep referring to this as a "full failure", which it is not. You
>> must
>> be a bank manager who got to keep his job if you keep pontificating that
>> way. BAH!
>
> One of us understands the toxin of bundled debt instruments, and it
> appears no to be you.
>

as I said - the government could have done EXACTLY what happened with those
bundled debt instruments, but offed the shareholders and management.

On 8/20/2014 12:46 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 8/20/2014 12:28 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On 8/20/2014 11:50 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> you are completely missing my point. Are you doing that intentionally?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Your point is completely denying the inter-dependencies in our economy
>>>> and
>>>> those abroad.
>>>>
>>>> The price of a full failure would have been the failure of America's
>>>> economy, period.
>>>
>>> No, the government could have stepped in, did exactly what happened, but
>>> NOT
>>> fail to make the shareholders take their losses and NOT keep the crooked
>>> managers in place.
>>
>> The shareholders losses would have included many large pension funds.
>
> too bad. And that is why they diversify their investments.

When an entire sector goes down that is small safety at best.


>>
>> How many folks retirements do you feel should have been nuked?
>
> everybody but me. If they didn't diversify, that is their problem. Just as
> with any bankruptcy.

Sorry, I don't discard everyone who isn't as savvy as me just to punish
some banks, that's foolhardy.

>>
>>> You keep referring to this as a "full failure", which it is not. You
>>> must
>>> be a bank manager who got to keep his job if you keep pontificating that
>>> way. BAH!
>>
>> One of us understands the toxin of bundled debt instruments, and it
>> appears no to be you.
>>
>
> as I said - the government could have done EXACTLY what happened with those
> bundled debt instruments, but offed the shareholders and management.

No, they would have prompted a run on the banks and the complete lockup
of the credit markets.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own set of facts.

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...

snipped, finally

>>>>>>
>>>>>> you are completely missing my point. Are you doing that
>>>>>> intentionally?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your point is completely denying the inter-dependencies in our economy
>>>>> and
>>>>> those abroad.
>>>>>
>>>>> The price of a full failure would have been the failure of America's
>>>>> economy, period.
>>>>
>>>> No, the government could have stepped in, did exactly what happened,
>>>> but
>>>> NOT
>>>> fail to make the shareholders take their losses and NOT keep the
>>>> crooked
>>>> managers in place.
>>>
>>> The shareholders losses would have included many large pension funds.
>>
>> too bad. And that is why they diversify their investments.
>
> When an entire sector goes down that is small safety at best.
>
>

you don't understand the concept of "diversification", now do you?

>>>
>>> How many folks retirements do you feel should have been nuked?
>>
>> everybody but me. If they didn't diversify, that is their problem. Just
>> as
>> with any bankruptcy.
>
> Sorry, I don't discard everyone who isn't as savvy as me just to punish
> some banks, that's foolhardy.

That is how you teach people to be more diligent. That is how bankruptcy
works.

>
>>>
>>>> You keep referring to this as a "full failure", which it is not. You
>>>> must
>>>> be a bank manager who got to keep his job if you keep pontificating
>>>> that
>>>> way. BAH!
>>>
>>> One of us understands the toxin of bundled debt instruments, and it
>>> appears no to be you.
>>>
>>
>> as I said - the government could have done EXACTLY what happened with
>> those
>> bundled debt instruments, but offed the shareholders and management.
>
> No, they would have prompted a run on the banks and the complete lockup of
> the credit markets.

no it wouldn't. You tell the savers your money is safe, just as the
goverment did. Offing the investors and management would NOT have caused a
run on the banks. You are just making up your OWN set of facts.


>
> You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own set of facts.
>

ditto. in spades.

"Pico Rico" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...

>> The price of a full failure would have been the failure of America's
>> economy, period.
>
> No, the government could have stepped in, did exactly what happened, but
> NOT fail to make the shareholders take their losses and NOT keep the
> crooked managers in place.
>
> You keep referring to this as a "full failure", which it is not. You must
> be a bank manager who got to keep his job if you keep pontificating that
> way. BAH!


+1

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> On 8/20/2014 12:46 PM, Pico Rico wrote:

>> as I said - the government could have done EXACTLY what happened with
>> those
>> bundled debt instruments, but offed the shareholders and management.
>
> No, they would have prompted a run on the banks and the complete lockup of
> the credit markets.

Sort of like all of these untrimmed posts are doing to my computer?

Cheri

On 8/20/2014 12:54 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>
> snipped, finally
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you are completely missing my point. Are you doing that
>>>>>>> intentionally?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your point is completely denying the inter-dependencies in our economy
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> those abroad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The price of a full failure would have been the failure of America's
>>>>>> economy, period.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the government could have stepped in, did exactly what happened,
>>>>> but
>>>>> NOT
>>>>> fail to make the shareholders take their losses and NOT keep the
>>>>> crooked
>>>>> managers in place.
>>>>
>>>> The shareholders losses would have included many large pension funds.
>>>
>>> too bad. And that is why they diversify their investments.
>>
>> When an entire sector goes down that is small safety at best.
>>
>>
>
> you don't understand the concept of "diversification", now do you?

Which sector would have bled into every cornice of our economy?

Would it be...say..banking?

What happens when credit markets lock up?


>>>>
>>>> How many folks retirements do you feel should have been nuked?
>>>
>>> everybody but me. If they didn't diversify, that is their problem. Just
>>> as
>>> with any bankruptcy.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't discard everyone who isn't as savvy as me just to punish
>> some banks, that's foolhardy.
>
> That is how you teach people to be more diligent. That is how bankruptcy
> works.

That is how you punish the average joe in the process.

The resultant loss of wealth would have been, for most, irrecoverable.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> You keep referring to this as a "full failure", which it is not. You
>>>>> must
>>>>> be a bank manager who got to keep his job if you keep pontificating
>>>>> that
>>>>> way. BAH!
>>>>
>>>> One of us understands the toxin of bundled debt instruments, and it
>>>> appears no to be you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> as I said - the government could have done EXACTLY what happened with
>>> those
>>> bundled debt instruments, but offed the shareholders and management.
>>
>> No, they would have prompted a run on the banks and the complete lockup of
>> the credit markets.
>
> no it wouldn't.

Prove it.

What happened in the Depression?

The S&L crisis?

Well?

> You tell the savers your money is safe, just as the
> goverment did.

That does not prevent panic.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money...s-happen_N.htm

In IndyMac's case, customers withdrew an average of $100 million a day —
or more than $1.3 billion overall — from the savings and loan

> Offing the investors and management would NOT have caused a
> run on the banks. You are just making up your OWN set of facts.

No I am not, history is on MY side.

http://consumerist.com/2008/08/27/if...-out-of-money/

The FDIC currently has about $50.2 billion in its fund — 20% of which
will be depleted by the recent IndyMac failure. How many more IndyMacs
do we have to look forward too? Who knows.

>> You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own set of facts.
>>
>
> ditto. in spades.

Yet one of us consistently presents facts and expert testimonies - me.

On 8/20/2014 1:00 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> "Pico Rico" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>
>>> The price of a full failure would have been the failure of America's
>>> economy, period.
>>
>> No, the government could have stepped in, did exactly what happened,
>> but NOT fail to make the shareholders take their losses and NOT keep
>> the crooked managers in place.
>>
>> You keep referring to this as a "full failure", which it is not. You
>> must be a bank manager who got to keep his job if you keep
>> pontificating that way. BAH!
>
>
> +1

Please tell me you're not one of the outraged ones who'd have traded our
entire credit system for a spanking?

On 8/20/2014 1:05 PM, Cheri wrote:

>> No, they would have prompted a run on the banks and the complete
>> lockup of the credit markets.
>
> Sort of like all of these untrimmed posts are doing to my computer?
>
> Cheri
>
How old is your computer?

On 8/20/2014 1:00 PM, Cheri wrote:

>> You keep referring to this as a "full failure", which it is not. You
>> must be a bank manager who got to keep his job if you keep
>> pontificating that way. BAH!
>
>
> +1

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/0...ig-banks-fail/

Ali Velshi
Chief Business Correspondent

Citi is something like 20 percent of US bank assets. By contrast, back
in the Savings & Loan crisis, ALL of the S&L's COMBINED were less than
10 percent of US bank assets.

Here's what happens if a company as large as Citi fails:

- Investors and depositors, fearing failure of smaller banks, would take
their money out, triggering further bank failures across the country.

-There would be less money available for loans to support economic recovery

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> On 8/20/2014 1:05 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>>> No, they would have prompted a run on the banks and the complete
>>> lockup of the credit markets.
>>
>> Sort of like all of these untrimmed posts are doing to my computer?
>>
>> Cheri
>>
> How old is your computer?

Old enough to know better than to want to scroll through line after line
after line of text to see a one line reply. You should teach your computer
better manners.

Cheri

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> On 8/20/2014 1:00 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>> "Pico Rico" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>>> The price of a full failure would have been the failure of America's
>>>> economy, period.
>>>
>>> No, the government could have stepped in, did exactly what happened,
>>> but NOT fail to make the shareholders take their losses and NOT keep
>>> the crooked managers in place.
>>>
>>> You keep referring to this as a "full failure", which it is not. You
>>> must be a bank manager who got to keep his job if you keep
>>> pontificating that way. BAH!
>>
>>
>> +1
>
> Please tell me you're not one of the outraged ones who'd have traded our
> entire credit system for a spanking?

What I said has absolutely nothing to do with the right or wrong of the
whole banking mess. My reference was to the fact that they have the audacity
to raise fees while having had their own hands out for government bail out
money, not just the BofA either.

Cheri

On 8/20/2014 5:10 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 8/20/2014 1:00 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>>
>>> "Pico Rico" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> The price of a full failure would have been the failure of America's
>>>>> economy, period.
>>>>
>>>> No, the government could have stepped in, did exactly what happened,
>>>> but NOT fail to make the shareholders take their losses and NOT keep
>>>> the crooked managers in place.
>>>>
>>>> You keep referring to this as a "full failure", which it is not. You
>>>> must be a bank manager who got to keep his job if you keep
>>>> pontificating that way. BAH!
>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> Please tell me you're not one of the outraged ones who'd have traded
>> our entire credit system for a spanking?
>
> What I said has absolutely nothing to do with the right or wrong of the
> whole banking mess. My reference was to the fact that they have the
> audacity to raise fees while having had their own hands out for
> government bail out money, not just the BofA either.
>
> Cheri

Agreed, not just them by a long shot.

Part of the reason for that was that with tightened lending standards it
was one of the ways that could make some profits.

For a while there were almost no loans being written at some banks.

On 8/20/2014 10:12 AM, Pico Rico wrote:

>>>
>>> The check was drawn on their bank. Punch in the account number and look
>>> at the balance. Takes about 10 seconds.
>>
>> But that does not mean it will clear.
>>
>
> and that does not mean the holder of the check is not a forger.
>
>

What does that have to do with fees?
They take a thumb print too. No system is perfect but forged checks can
be handled with fees. If you forged one for $200. you'd probably not
complain if you only got $195 back.