Bankers get $4 trillion gift from Barney Frank

[elprincipe]

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a48c8UpUMxKQ

Instead, it supports the biggest banks. It authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for “no-more-bailouts” talk. That is more than twice what the Fed pumped into markets this time around. The size of the fund makes the bribes in the Senate’s health-care bill look minuscule.

If this passes in its present form, we get TARP/Fed meddling in perpetuity. Why is Congress' answer to everything socialized risk? If you're going to do this, just propose nationalizing the banks. Then at least taxpayers would get the profits in addition to the losses.

 

[fullmetalfan720]

[quote name='elprincipe']If you're going to do this, just propose nationalizing the banks. Then at least taxpayers would get the profits in addition to the losses.[/QUOTE]

This is what we should have done in the first place. We had done it before, and if these banks really were "Too Big To Fail," that's what would should have done again. The plan that was put in action instead, of creating trillions of dollars to bail out and "stabilize" the banking industry was just pure corporatocracy, and really didn't even help fix the financial industry.

 

[JolietJake]

If you want to get upset about banks and the government being in bed with each other, start at the source.

That's Alexander Hamilton btw.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']This is what we should have done in the first place. We had done it before, and if these banks really were "Too Big To Fail," that's what would should have done again. The plan that was put in action instead, of creating trillions of dollars to bail out and "stabilize" the banking industry was just pure corporatocracy, and really didn't even help fix the financial industry.[/QUOTE]

Of course what they really should have done is let the banks fail and go into bankruptcy. That would be the free-market result. It would hurt people, sure, but the problems created by the operational impotence of the banks in trouble needed to be dealt with. What would have happened is smaller, well-run banks would have bought up the assets of large, bankrupt, poorly-run banks at a low cost and made money as a result of their sound business practices.

Instead, the government rewarded the big bankers (who partially own the Republican and Democratic Parties) who ran their banks into the ground at the expense of the smaller banks which didn't have such problems. And now Congress wants to make this arrangement a permanent fixture. I don't support nationalizing the banks, but even that undesirable solution is way better than fattening up the fat cats even more.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='elprincipe']Of course what they really should have done is let the banks fail and go into bankruptcy. That would be the free-market result. It would hurt people, sure, but the problems created by the operational impotence of the banks in trouble needed to be dealt with. What would have happened is smaller, well-run banks would have bought up the assets of large, bankrupt, poorly-run banks at a low cost and made money as a result of their sound business practices.[/QUOTE]

"It would hurt people, sure"

How glib.

I wonder what horrors the second great depression would have brought, especially given our vastly upgraded military.

 

[fatherofcaitlyn]

[quote name='camoor']I wonder what horrors the second great depression will bring, especially given our vastly upgraded military.[/QUOTE]

Fixed. We're not collectively out of the woods yet.

 

[thrustbucket]

[quote name='camoor']"It would hurt people, sure"

How glib.

I wonder what horrors the second great depression would have brought, especially given our vastly upgraded military.[/QUOTE]

Don't you worry, we'll find out. It's juts a matter of how much we delay the inevitable at the cost of magnifying the upcoming second great depression with each bailout.

Your post confuses me coming from you though. Aren't you one of the dudes on here so AGAINST the 'man' and big corporations screwing the little guy? It's odd to hear your justification for the rewarding the worst corporate behavior on the largest scale in this countries history - simply because you fear letting them finally get their due would somehow be worse. It's essentially paying off a bully. Your teaching him to keep being a bully because it pays well.

It's going to be very difficult to take your future corporate hate and blame posts seriously.

 

[UncleBob]

It is an interesting point.

If I say perpetual social welfare creates a system where individuals take greater risks because they know the government is there to save them, then I'm an ass hat because I'm okay with letting people fail on their own.

But if Krugman was to come out and say that creating a corporate welfare creates a system where corporations take bigger risks because they know the government is gong to be there to bail them out, then Krugman deserves a shrine.

 

[Msut77]

Yes Bob, people should feel bad for brushing up on economics by reading what an economist has written instead of just tuning into an ignorant radio personality.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='UncleBob']It is an interesting point.

If I say perpetual social welfare creates a system where individuals take greater risks because they know the government is there to save them, then I'm an ass hat because I'm okay with letting people fail on their own.

But if Krugman was to come out and say that creating a corporate welfare creates a system where corporations take bigger risks because they know the government is gong to be there to bail them out, then Krugman deserves a shrine.[/QUOTE]

I think when you win a Nobel, they build one for you and you can espouse with impunity forever. They do the same thing for Democrats too.