825 billion dollars in new borrowing and spending

Bear Stearns
Lehamn Brothers
AIG
Bank of America
numerous Icelandic Banks
numerous UK Banks
numerous European Banks


Whats the Fed rate at the moment.....pretty low
UK official rate lowest ever

........ do I go on!

But Bank of America is doing great. In fact, it just recently purchased Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Do banks facing bankruptcy, start buying other banks?

AIG, was caused by government regulations. I have read the transcript of the president of AIG's testimony before the US Senate. The problem happened because of government regulation.

In essence, the cause of the problem was government, not the solution.

Bear Sterns was also caused by government. Bear Sterns was the first to make sub-prime loans under the direction of Community Reinvestment Act, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That would never have happened if the government hadn't set it up to begin with.

My point in all this, is that in most cases government is never a solution, but rather a problem.
 
Werbung:
............totaly agree. if Government had regulated the financial markets in such as way as to demand due diligence then this would never have happened.

No, it was regulation itself that promoted what happened.

Do you think a bank, knowing how risky sub-prime loans are, would have offered them knowing the high probability they would be screwed? Of course not.

It was due to government regulations, the promoted sub-prime lending, which in turn allowed and pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy those risky loans, which caused banks to offer them.

The banks, offered the loans, thinking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy them. Which they did. This allowed the bank to pass the risk off to Fannie and Freddie. Which is why they offered the loans. Not to mention that banks which didn't, got sued for not following the mandates of the government.

If neither Fannie % Freddie, or the CRA had existed, none of this would have ever happened. In short, if government didn't even exist, the banks, without any oversight, would have been more careful in lending.
 
I understand all this. What I'm having a problem with is how does a government program fix this?

It's never fixed it before. Why would it do so now?

Obviously we have pulled out of recession before without the need of government programs. Further, we've had government programs that have caused recessions. So the claim there is no liquidity, and thus a need for government programs, seems dubious to me.

The government spending 850 billion that they don't have on anything seems dubious to me.
 
tax all the major business more and not the consumer.

A tax on business IS a tax on the consumer, an indirect tax that's paid by those who consume the product or service supplied by the business.

The money would be better "spent" (in our case borrowed or printed) with massive tax reform: 15% flat tax on income, 15% corporate tax (down from 35%) and an immigration overhaul that that can bring 3-5 million highly skilled, highly valued, highly educated individuals into the country.

The current "stimulus" plan amounts to little more than a government giveaway to special interest groups and an expansion of the welfare state into the corporate world.

I know that there's this great hangup about "soclialism" and all that bollox...
Call it whatever you like... From my point of view, people have their biggest hangup where Capitalism is concerned, they use it as a pejorative term synonymous with corruption and greed. Capitalism always gets the blame while Government always gets a pass. Government is the poison that's making capitalism ill and the only prescription being offered is more government.

Business exists to create products and services in order to sell those products and services to its consumers at a profit. Business doesn't need the government to tell it to do so, government doesn't need to explain to them how its done, it doesn't have to provide the capital or hold anyone's hand... government needs to let go of its grip on business and get out of the way.

Business, the markets, the entire economy is being held back by the actions of the government and the politicians in charge want everyone to believe only more government action, only a tighter grip, can solve the problem... Sadly people buy into that reasoning and let the same politicians and government that created the mess be in charge of "solving" it.


if Government had regulated the financial markets in such as way as to demand due diligence then this would never have happened.
Andy is 100% correct, its government regulation at the root of the problem. You don't have to force lenders to not make high risk loans, they avoid it on their own or fail as a consequence. Its because they didn't make many high risk loans that government passed the Community Reinvestment Act, established Fannie and Freddie, ordered banks to make high risk loans and ordered Fannie and Freddie to buy them.

Was there greed on the part of lenders? Yes, government seemed to open the door for a quick buck and they walked through it. They saw that they could make high risk loans, thought they could push that risk onto Fannie and Freddie without it coming back to bite them, and make a profit on closing costs and fees in the process. At the same time, government had Fannie and Freddie slice up mortgages and repackage them so that a percentage of a high risk loan was mixed with a percentage of low and medium risk loans and then sold the volatile credit bundles on the credit market. When just one high risk loan defaulted, it negatively affected the low and medium risk loans that were now attached to that debt, dragging them all down with it. If these high risk loans had remained whole, then there would not have been the massive fallout that resulted from defaults.

One last thing I'd like to address/ask everyone... If you believe a company or industry is too big to fail, so you lend it money and they use that money to buy their competition and get even bigger... Where will you draw the line on bailing out that company or industry?

Will you ever come to the realization that if its "too big to fail" that its also too big to remain whole and IF you really must loan it money, the company should use that money to split up into multiple companies, ones small enough to fail, so that the profitable ones can survive and the rest can fail without bringing down the whole ship?

Now that companies that were too big to fail are even larger, and you're already invested so heavily, will you ever cut your losses and walk away or will you continue to double down with every loss in desperate hope of making your money back?

Politicians and the public sound like a a bunch of gamblers sitting at a roulette wheel with a plan to cover every possible bet, so they started by losing what was in their wallet, then they got out all they could from their line of credit and now they're just printing money out of thin air to throw at the wheel. They see its at 35-1 odds of paying off, so they spread their printed money around the table trying to cover all the possible bets, that way when one pays off they can rationalize it as an excuse to keep playing every bet despite losing more than what they can win every time the ball drops.

America has gone insane.
 
But Bank of America is doing great. In fact, it just recently purchased Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Do banks facing bankruptcy, start buying other banks?

I assume you had'nt seen the news when you posted that comment as the top dog at BoA seems to disagree with you on that point but.......

“I’VE had all the fun I can stand in investment banking at the moment,” said Kenneth Lewis, the boss of Bank of America (BoA), in late 2007. Investment banking had other ideas. BoA’s fourth-quarter results, a $1.8 billion loss announced on Friday January 16th, mark the first time since 1991 that the bank has dipped into the red. The losses were driven primarily by write-downs in its capital-markets divisions, although the credit risks in its loan books are also increasingly obvious.

Yet the true horror lay elsewhere: a calamitous $15.3 billion quarterly loss at Merrill Lynch, whose acquisition was only finalised this month and whose results were reported separately. The usual culprits were to blame for the carnage at Merrill—leveraged loans, mortgage-backed securities, monoline insurers and the rest—but the scale of the damage is remarkable. Never mind the shattered hopes of John Thain, the man who sold Merrill to BoA, that he might eventually succeed Mr Lewis as boss of the combined entity. Mr Lewis’s own job prospects look considerably weaker.

http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12959768&source=features_box_main
 
America has gone insane.

Well you may be right. America and probably the world has not encounter the double whammy that is sweeping the global economy at the moment. The solutions are many and varied and who knows what will work so the gamble is do something rather than do nothing and stick ones head in the sand an hope that the markets will sort themselves out because in the short to medium term they will not. The (free) market left to its own devices would have seen the collapse of the banking system as you and I know which is probably the sort of darwinism that was needed, however, if you advocate a complete crash to satisfy over simplistic political dogma then fine!

Just a thought though on your advocacy of freedom - I was wondering why the very bastions of the free market were the ones hammering on the doors of the fed to be bailed out? Why if the free market is so elastic and responsive would the likes of Madoff have any problems in conducting their financial "dealings"? There needs to be regulation otherwise there is anarchy which is pretty well what has happened in the financial markets up to now. I have a feeling that if Colt's Manufacturing Company was to enter into trade negotiations with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan there would be a slight unease within the ranks of the free traders - although it would be good business for Colt in these difficult times!

You mentioned the role of Politicians acting like gamblers with tax payers money? But that's what politicians do! Not only with money but with peoples very lives - look at Iraq or Afghanistan. Rolling the dice is their job! They will take the credit if they pull it off or blame someone else if it goes tits up!
 
The government is just "trying" things out and hoping they work. In the midst of them "trying" things out, they are lining their pockets with the very green they propose to produce.

Oh, and they're also shoving in as many pet projects they couldn't get through during the Clinton and Bush years.
Yeah....like Homeland $ecurity.

:rolleyes:
 
What? How? After the big down turn in the great depression, things started to recover, when FDR went on a spending spree, and enacted tons of government programs and crap. The result was our economy took a nose dive, and we spent many more years in the depression.
That's the talk, on the playground, huh, Skippy?? :rolleyes:

"The Works Progress Administration (renamed in 1939 to the Work Projects Administration; WPA) was the largest New Deal agency, employing millions of people and affecting most every locality in the United States, especially rural and western mountain populations.

It continued and extended relief programs similar to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) started by Herbert Hoover and the U.S. Congress in 1932. Headed by Harry Hopkins, the WPA provided jobs and income to the unemployed during the Great Depression in the United States. Between 1935 and 1943 the WPA provided almost 8 million jobs. The program built many public buildings, projects and roads and operated large arts, drama, media and literacy projects. It fed children and redistributed food, clothing and housing. Almost every community in America has a park, bridge or school constructed by the agency."
 
Infrastructure projects and "green" funding does not really create demand or create wealth.

The problem with Keynes's theories in this situation are we are taking the money out of the economy before putting it back in. We are not creating wealth. That is what will turn this around, creation of actual wealth, not simply the government moving existing wealth around.


What I take away from Obama's "stimulus" is that it is not really a stimulus at all. It is an energy bill, thrown together with a transportation bill, etc etc, all packaged together and called a stimulus.
 
That's the talk, on the playground, huh, Skippy?? :rolleyes:

But it didn't work Shaman. When WPA was enacted, the economy took a nose dive. So you can list all the blaw blaw that it did, but it still didn't save or help, or boost or improve the economy in anyway.

My grandmother lived in Portsmouth Ohio, where WPA built a massive flood wall around the city near the river. So far they have only used the wall, aka raising the flood gates along the wall, twice in the entire history of the wall. Both times, the water never actually reached the wall. In other words, millions of dollars and time and effort, as well as raised taxes, were used to build an absolutely useless wall.

Now they are saying the wall is in such bad shape, it will likely not even work anymore, assuming the water ever gets high enough to use it.

The point is, tons of money was spent, and man hours of labor used, to create many things of no real value. Maybe you remember the stories of men being ordered to move bricks across a road. After completing the job, they went home, and a second shift came, and was ordered to move all the bricks back across the same road.

Wealth is only created when money and effort is spent on something that creates value. Building a wall that is never used, or moving bricks around that nothing is built with, doesn't create value. It just wastes money and effort.

It's no wonder the economy went into a nose dive while our government was taxing the producers in our country to fund a park that wasn't needed, or some other lame government project.
 
I assume you had'nt seen the news when you posted that comment as the top dog at BoA seems to disagree with you on that point but.......

Ok, you explain that too me. How is it that BoA has been able to aquire company after company, if they really are hurting for cash?

Oh wait, maybe their using the bail-out money to buy all these other companies... well if that's the case, doesn't that prove the bail-out isn't needed? Why don't they just stop buying all these companies, and save us the tax money?

See, honestly, I think the banks are using the government like a milk cow. They are only crying about needing milk, so they can suckle mother government. If you do some research into companies that are going broke, they don't start buying up all their competitors because... (shocking) they're broke.

So you explain this to me? How is it that Bank of America, is in such dire straights, in such a hard pinch, is able to buy all these other companies?

My theory? They are not.
 
Werbung:
So you explain this to me? How is it that Bank of America, is in such dire straights, in such a hard pinch, is able to buy all these other companies?

....:)...sorry Andy you lost me....as far as I know during the current crisis its only acquisition has been Merrill Lynch which they tried to get out of. It was the Government that forced BofA into closing the deal at the last minute on the understanding that further guarantees would be avialable as the extent of Merril's CDS exposure unraveled. I don't know what other companies they've purchased in 2008/2009.

Regarding suckling from the Government, well of course they are! How else are they to obtain credit to service their debts? Interbank lending is at its lowest since god invented apples - the wholesale credit market is screwed so they need alternative sources of liquidity.
 
Back
Top