Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

Not backed by the government, gamble all you want, both sides of the equation.

The government backed many of these losses after-the-fact.  What would the consequences have been of doing nothing?

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

They got their millions in bonuses for years and are pretty much walking away scot free.
The bad asset plan gets even better for the "in" crowd.
I would encourage you to watch this series of videos starting with
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ervHbKa7 … mp;index=0

I notice you didn't address my post in any way.

Watch the videos, then we'll talk about who really had any risk.
I'm really not kidding.
You need to know this if you want to discuss this intelligently.

Yes, yes, yes.

Your whole argument is like saying a team of paramedics caused a car crash because they were there to save people's lives after it happened. It makes no sense. You've made no case here.

If you can try making an actual point instead of linking to YouTube videos I sure would appreciate it.

WATCH THIS IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAPfZJLH1us

daemon wrote:

Roaring 20's
Reagan's Resolution Trust (which I think we're still bailing out)
This mess.

There's a pattern.

The S&L Crisis mostly built during the '80s, but the RTC came into being with the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of '89. So that happened on Bush 41's watch.

Does that make him an Obama precursor?

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Watch the videos, then we'll talk about who really had any risk.
I'm really not kidding.
You need to know this if you want to discuss this intelligently.

Yes, yes, yes.

Your whole argument is like saying a team of paramedics caused a car crash because they were there to save people's lives after it happened. It makes no sense. You've made no case here.

If you can try making an actual point instead of linking to YouTube videos I sure would appreciate it.

I'm not arguing and the videos explain the point so you might begin to understand what you're saying is wrong.
Listen to that man explain TARP in layman's terms, then we'll talk about who is losing and who had risk.

Yes, Kev, I watched it. In no way did it explain the cause of what's happened. Only what's being done to deal with it.

Seeing as TARP followed the crisis, I fail to see how it caused it.

My characterization of your "point" stands unless you wish to correct it. "Watch the video" is not an argument because I did that already.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Yes, yes, yes.

Your whole argument is like saying a team of paramedics caused a car crash because they were there to save people's lives after it happened. It makes no sense. You've made no case here.

If you can try making an actual point instead of linking to YouTube videos I sure would appreciate it.

I'm not arguing and the videos explain the point so you might begin to understand what you're saying is wrong.
Listen to that man explain TARP in layman's terms, then we'll talk about who is losing and who had risk.

Yes, Kev, I watched it. In no way did it explain the cause of what's happened. Only what's being done to deal with it.

Seeing as TARP followed the crisis, I fail to see how it caused it.

My characterization of your "point" stands unless you wish to correct it. "Watch the video" is not an argument because I did that already.

TARP and the scam that's turned out to be shows just exactly how the big boys really had no risk.
They get bailed out with cash that they get to turn around and use to "buy" their own bad assets plus they get to keep half the profits from future earnings.
You lost money.
I lost money.
They didn't plus we give them more profit to boot.
Everybody involved should have been on their own, the pension plans, individuals, everybody.
If you want government backed then you should have had the GSE's which wouldn't have made you much but should have been 1950's old school rock solid.

Some of you seem to think that TARP was after the fact so it didn't influence prior behavior.
Bull.
There hasn't been any major, minor or imagined crises the government hasn't rush in to "rescue" in decades.

Kev has a really odd view of cause and effect.

Did Uncle Sam also cause the meltdowns in Iceland and the Baltic countries?

Kev, Too big to fail is a justification for bad behavior both before and after the fact in addition to being a 'system' with a built in moral hazard. This is unacceptable and belongs to both parties.

This is not the wild frikkin' west. This is a developed nation where the financial system is supposed to be benefitting people and from which the market fundamentalists expect most of us to create our own retirement. Such an arrangement mandates a system which can be trusted. This is not 'socialism'. It's a call for good stewardship because the system is supposed to be trustworthy.

Farmerkev wrote:

isaly wrote:

Kev, Too big to fail is a justification for bad behavior both before and after the fact in addition to being a 'system' with a built in moral hazard. This is unacceptable and belongs to both parties.

That is all I've been talking about.

Retirement is another subject.

Wait, so now you're saying that TARP was a "justification" for bad behaviour?

Because before you were saying it was a cause of bad behaviour.

Can we agree that the latter is absurd?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

isaly wrote:

Kev, Too big to fail is a justification for bad behavior both before and after the fact in addition to being a 'system' with a built in moral hazard. This is unacceptable and belongs to both parties.

That is all I've been talking about.

Retirement is another subject.

Wait, so now you're saying that TARP was a "justification" for bad behaviour?

Because before you were saying it was a cause of bad behaviour.

Can we agree that the latter is absurd?

What I said was everyone with even a modicum of brain matter knows that the Fed always provides a bailout.
Always.
Now, which group are you in?

Pariah wrote:

The big banks ought to be broken up until no remaining part is too big to fail.


Oh, and creating a new capital crime to cover fraud in excess of 500 million dollars. Dead serious.

woo - hoo ! ! !    Flogging and beheading ! ! !

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

That is all I've been talking about.

Retirement is another subject.

Wait, so now you're saying that TARP was a "justification" for bad behaviour?

Because before you were saying it was a cause of bad behaviour.

Can we agree that the latter is absurd?

What I said was everyone with even a modicum of brain matter knows that the Fed always provides a bailout.
Always.
Now, which group are you in?

I'm in the group that's rather bored of posing questions that you refuse to even see, much less answer.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

What I said was everyone with even a modicum of brain matter knows that the Fed always provides a bailout.
Always.
Now, which group are you in?

I'm in the group that's rather bored of posing questions that you refuse to even see, much less answer.

What question would that be?

Indeed.