More TARP News

#2
#2
obviously if they weren't healthy they wouldn't have needed the money. i see this as a non issue.
 
#3
#3
The 9 instintutions that got TARP funds controlled 75% of all banking assets. That was (and still is) part of the problem.

Capitalism for all....except when it doesn't work out like you planned and you are too big to go under.
 
#4
#4
capitalism isn't the problem. It's government intrusion.
 
#6
#6
The 9 instintutions that got TARP funds controlled 75% of all banking assets. That was (and still is) part of the problem.

Capitalism for all....except when it doesn't work out like you planned and you are too big to go under.

i'd argue consumers and the american people benefit from the economies of scale of having their money at a large institution. so we bailed em out, but so far the american people have MADE BILLIONS on this investment. what's to complain about?
 
#7
#7
i'd argue consumers and the american people benefit from the economies of scale of having their money at a large institution. so we bailed em out, but so far the american people have MADE BILLIONS on this investment. what's to complain about?

When should I expect my dividend check?

This was corporate socialism and the taxpayers aren't going to see a penny of this. I guarantee if the ridiculous bets of these derivatives and credit default swaps had paid off they wouldn't want the american public to touch a single cent of it. However because they failed to materialize, they want the american public to come in and bail them out.
 
#8
#8
talk to your boy obama about getting the money. and i'm sick of this ridiculous theory that the people at these banks knew they were buying crap. this was a once in a lifetime collapse in the housing market. the housing market is the backbone of the average american. to think it wouldn't have serious consequences with our lending market is just silly.
 
#9
#9
talk to your boy obama about getting the money. and i'm sick of this ridiculous theory that the people at these banks knew they were buying crap. this was a once in a lifetime collapse in the housing market. the housing market is the backbone of the average american. to think it wouldn't have serious consequences with our lending market is just silly.

Explain this to me...what were the odds this garbage they were peddling was going to pay off? 20 to 1? 30 to 1? Is that really being responsible?

I don't care if it is a once in a million years occurence. That is beside the point. If we really are about true capitalism, then this thing should have been allowed to sink. That is what me and you and every other american is asked to do. Do I get a bailout if my investment doesn't work out because of some freak occurence? Of course not, I'm told that is the rules of the game.

I agree with MG, government intrusion only hurts things. Same with TARP, this companies should have been broken apart and restructured and instead we are in the same situation we were before because they got bailed out.
 
#11
#11
they paid off for 20 years prior. that's why they bought so many of them.

Still not an excuse. Should I get bailed out if I had an investment that paid off for 20 years, and then plummeted due to some freak occurence?
 
#12
#12
Still not an excuse. Should I get bailed out if I had an investment that paid off for 20 years, and then plummeted due to some freak occurence?

if you losing money would end up with me and 300 mil other americans losing money then the answer is yes.
 
Last edited:
#14
#14
if you losing money would end up me and 300 mil other americans losing money then the answer is yes.

Which is why I say again...9 banks controlling 75% of all banking assets is ridiculous. This is why the whole "too big to fail" argument is bogus. They shouldn't have been that big and they still shouldn't be that big.
 
#15
#15
Which is why I say again...9 banks controlling 75% of all banking assets is ridiculous. This is why the whole "too big to fail" argument is bogus. They shouldn't have been that big and they still shouldn't be that big.

so what do you suggest? break up all the banks? does the consumer benefit from that?
 
#16
#16
Which is why I say again...9 banks controlling 75% of all banking assets is ridiculous. This is why the whole "too big to fail" argument is bogus. They shouldn't have been that big and they still shouldn't be that big.

So are you advocating capitalism or not. I'm not sure what you are arguing for or against in this thread.

Capitalism = they can be as big as they want to be. If they fail though we are in deep doo doo

Regulated capitalism = we won't let them get too big. However, the government is making decisions the market otherwise would make.
 
#17
#17
So are you advocating capitalism or not. I'm not sure what you are arguing for or against in this thread.

Capitalism = they can be as big as they want to be. If they fail though we are in deep doo doo

Regulated capitalism = we won't let them get too big. However, the government is making decisions the market otherwise would make.

I am arguing for capitalism. In this case, the market was telling us that institutions being this big can't work. TARP didn't allow this correction to take place.
 
#18
#18
I am arguing for capitalism. In this case, the market was telling us that institutions being this big can't work. TARP didn't allow this correction to take place.

do you realize what allowing those banks to fail would do to this country? personally i don't want to torpedo the country based on teaching em all a lesson.
 
#19
#19
do you realize what allowing those banks to fail would do to this country? personally i don't want to torpedo the country based on teaching em all a lesson.

So what possible reason can you come up with as to why they are still as big as they are?

The system has been offically gamed to where if you get big enough you never have to worry about going under and any risk you take can be justified.
 
#20
#20
So what possible reason can you come up with as to why they are still as big as they are?

The system has been offically gamed to where if you get big enough you never have to worry about going under and any risk you take can be justified.

there are economic economys of scale that benefit the guys who have the most atms and branches and ironically their size gives their depositors a false sense of safety. consumers like having a national bank. particurally the very wealthy ones. edit: for instance who do you bank with and why?
 
#21
#21
I am arguing for capitalism. In this case, the market was telling us that institutions being this big can't work. TARP didn't allow this correction to take place.

but it also provides the mechanism for these banks to be this big.
 
#22
#22
there are economic economys of scale that benefit the guys who have the most atms and branches and ironically their size gives their depositors a false sense of safety. consumers like having a national bank. particurally the very wealthy ones. edit: for instance who do you bank with and why?

I bank with a local credit union. Although, I do have a Chase credit card.

I don't buy it, there is no reason these institutions need to be this big. Honestly...what incentive is there not to take big risks if they know when they fail the government will come bail them out?
 
#23
#23
but it also provides the mechanism for these banks to be this big.

Sure it does, but that doesn't necessarily mean exercising that mechanism is what's best. Follow the market without government intervention and this would have been a pretty harsh lesson to learn for these guys and the national economy.
 

VN Store



Back
Top