People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Nope, I did not even bat an eyelash.

---

In that case, would you complain if someone here were to wish, say, a terrorist attack against a major corporation or financial institution? I think we know full well that you would consider it in bad taste and go on a rant about 'vacuous rhetoric' or some such familiar thing.

By the way, so would I consider such a thing in bad taste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What you say here is correct. However, just as the banks were starting to sort everything out, the govenment got wind of things, said "something" must be done, give us a bit to figure it out. So the credit market remained frozen while the government sorted out what "must be done". Then they came back with the cockamamie scheme of forcing the top nine banks to take billions in federal loans even if they didn't need them want them and said no to them. Then things got really interesting because you had banks which were forced to add money to their books they didn't want or need, so they ended up buying up more banks, making them not just too big to fail but too enormous to fail now. That really seemed to work out just swell. And to top it all off, employment went in the tank and hasn't even made an attempt at recovery. Credit is extremely had to get even if you have well established credit. The housing market hasn't recovered, and is still sliding in many areas. And inflation is starting to kick in.

How exactly has government intervention made things better here?

---

Are you kidding?

You realise that the CEO of Goldman Sachs along with other financial institutions actually cried as they begged for bailout money?

None of them were forced to take a penny. Do not rewrite history for your convenience.

It is the desperation that these financial institutions showed when they were on their knees contrasting with their arrogance now as they claim they didn't need the bailout money that is so distasteful.

Now you say that credit is still hard to get, how much easier would out have been if the government hadn't underwritten those banks three years ago?

Sure things are not easy with government intervention, i'm arguing things would have been worse without.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

In that case, would you complain if someone here were to wish, say, a terrorist attack against a major corporation or financial institution? I think we know full well that you would consider it in bad taste and go on a rant about 'vacuous rhetoric' or some such familiar thing.

---

No a terrorist attack is people killing people; a tsunami is an act of nature.

You could say a hurricane so strong, it sucked out all the windows in a building and leeches inside with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Sure things are not easy with government intervention, i'm arguing things would have been worse without.

---

Yep and these boys just asked for another 13 billion of our tax money.

Fannie Mae CEO Michael Williams and Freddie Mac CEO Charles Haldeman have received, along with eight other executives, a combined $13 million in bonuses for their work at the failing companies. In the hearing before the House Oversight Committee, they argued that their compensation levels are necessary to attract the talented workers needed to see the companies through difficult times.

“We need to compensate our executives and employees to ensure that we have and keep the leadership we need to continue our progress,” Williams said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Are you kidding?

You realise that the CEO of Goldman Sachs along with other financial institutions actually cried as they begged for bailout money?

None of them were forced to take a penny. Do not rewrite history for your convenience.

It is the desperation that these financial institutions showed when they were on their knees contrasting with their arrogance now as they claim they didn't need the bailout money that is so distasteful.

Now you say that credit is still hard to get, how much easier would out have been if the government hadn't underwritten those banks three years ago?

Sure things are not easy with government intervention, i'm arguing things would have been worse without.

---

On GS you are right they "needed" the money. But reports at the time, and some private conversations I have heard about, say that the government made the top 9 banks take money so that no one could know for sure which banks were ok and which were not.

You are arguing things would have been worse. Perhaps you are right, at least in the short term. But this has been dragging on for basically three years now with no end in sight. I'm not sure that once you figure in the length of this, that you can claim a short painful crash would have been "worse".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

On GS you are right they "needed" the money. But reports at the time, and some private conversations I have heard about, say that the government made the top 9 banks take money so that no one could know for sure which banks were ok and which were not.

---

Is there not some degree of good sense behind that, in that it stopped people panicking about their money (a la the absurd scenes at Northern Rock branches in the UK)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

On GS you are right they "needed" the money. But reports at the time, and some private conversations I have heard about, say that the government made the top 9 banks take money so that no one could know for sure which banks were ok and which were not.

You are arguing things would have been worse. Perhaps you are right, at least in the short term. But this has been dragging on for basically three years now with no end in sight. I'm not sure that once you figure in the length of this, that you can claim a short painful crash would have been "worse".

---

chuck, GS didn't "need" money as you put it, they NEEDED money with full capital bold underlined letters. As for your claim that the Fed forced banks to take their money I see no evidence for that although it would have added liquidity to the system. If the Fed did what the British did and charged exorbitant levels of interest (10-12% with added penalties for failure to repay) to the banks then I think those banks 'forced' to take that money would have kicked up a hell of a stink.

In the UK the government did not force anyone to take money, in fact HSBC who had run a very tight ship throughout were offended at the talk of bailouts. Barclays thought about it but turned to Arab investors instead as they were not in so much trouble. Money was lent to the banks that needed it at exorbitant rates and I'm pretty certain the government made a small profit out of that initial bailout, although it has subsequently had to take shares in two British banks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

chuck, GS didn't "need" money as you put it, they NEEDED money with full capital bold underlined letters. As for your claim that the Fed forced banks to take their money I see no evidence for that although it would have added liquidity to the system. If the Fed did what the British did and charged exorbitant levels of interest (10-12% with added penalties for failure to repay) to the banks then I think those banks 'forced' to take that money would have kicked up a hell of a stink.

In the UK the government did not force anyone to take money, in fact HSBC who had run a very tight ship throughout were offended at the talk of bailouts. Barclays thought about it but turned to Arab investors instead as they were not in so much trouble. Money was lent to the banks that needed it at exorbitant rates and I'm pretty certain the government made a small profit out of that initial bailout, although it has subsequently had to take shares in two British banks.

---

I am posting from a phone so it is extremely hard to post links. However if you simply google "banks forced to take tarp" you will get a quick education on the subject. I am not simply making it up as you suggest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Are you kidding?

You realise that the CEO of Goldman Sachs along with other financial institutions actually cried as they begged for bailout money?

None of them were forced to take a penny. Do not rewrite history for your convenience.

It is the desperation that these financial institutions showed when they were on their knees contrasting with their arrogance now as they claim they didn't need the bailout money that is so distasteful.

Now you say that credit is still hard to get, how much easier would out have been if the government hadn't underwritten those banks three years ago?

Sure things are not easy with government intervention, i'm arguing things would have been worse without.

---

:up: Agree.
Funny how some people have such short memories.