- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would We Have Been Better Off If The Gov't Let The Banks Bottom Out, Not Bailing Em Out?
Posted on 5/15/17 at 9:42 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Posted on 5/15/17 at 9:42 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Would have been worse than the depression. frick that. I graduated college around that time, and the economy has been a shite show. I would have lost my shite had it been worse.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 10:41 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Yes. that's how the system is supposed to work. Instead of letting the investors in the banks who didn't pay close enough attention to what they were investing in feel the pain, we stole money from future tax payers to make the problem go away. Pain is often necessary for us to learn lessons like maybe you can't trust ratings that are paid for by the companies being rated.
Basically if our government didn't have their hand in the cookie jar too there would have probably been criminal charges brought. But part of why it was so big is that so many people were busy looking the other way.
quote:
I'm not too schooled on what happened during this other than constantly hearing my dad talk shite about Fannie and Freddie and getting pissed about Barney Frank.
Basically if our government didn't have their hand in the cookie jar too there would have probably been criminal charges brought. But part of why it was so big is that so many people were busy looking the other way.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:11 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
We would be the same. Until Jesus returns, the wealthy will always be greedy and always manipulate us and the system out of money. If you stop them one way, they will figure out another way.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:14 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
As usual, LSURussian is right about the bailout money. The vast majority was paid back with interest.
The problem I have, is that we essentially did two things.
1) We set the "too big to fail" precedent. We showed that we will socialize losses (in the short term at least) but privitize gains. In line with that, we showed that companies can, for the most part, do whatever they want, and if they are a big enough part of the economy, we will bail them out.
We have created a significant moral hazard, and we didn't actually fix anything. We still have bubbles.
2) We allowed the govt to pick winners and losers. We propped up Citibank, but allowed Lehman to fail. I will never understand that.
If the govt had not gotten involved, it would have been very, very, very bad. But the bubbles would all be popped, and after 5 years of awfulness, we would have been much better off. Housing prices would now be much more in line with personal income. Lending practices would be sane. We would probably not have this college loan bubble.
The problem I have, is that we essentially did two things.
1) We set the "too big to fail" precedent. We showed that we will socialize losses (in the short term at least) but privitize gains. In line with that, we showed that companies can, for the most part, do whatever they want, and if they are a big enough part of the economy, we will bail them out.
We have created a significant moral hazard, and we didn't actually fix anything. We still have bubbles.
2) We allowed the govt to pick winners and losers. We propped up Citibank, but allowed Lehman to fail. I will never understand that.
If the govt had not gotten involved, it would have been very, very, very bad. But the bubbles would all be popped, and after 5 years of awfulness, we would have been much better off. Housing prices would now be much more in line with personal income. Lending practices would be sane. We would probably not have this college loan bubble.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:19 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Dont you even Ludwig Von Mises and Milton Friedman bro?
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:23 pm to LSUFanHouston
We also have created a culture where people care more about what the balance sheet says verses what's really there.
See First NBC's collapse. Essentially robbing peter to pay Paul and show a fat balance sheet when in reality all you had was a bunch of promissory notes that were reading as assets on the books. In reality there was no liquidity.
Irresponsible, poor investing, and greed caused the bank crash.
See First NBC's collapse. Essentially robbing peter to pay Paul and show a fat balance sheet when in reality all you had was a bunch of promissory notes that were reading as assets on the books. In reality there was no liquidity.
Irresponsible, poor investing, and greed caused the bank crash.
This post was edited on 5/15/17 at 11:32 pm
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:30 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
quote:
Long term, we probably would have been better off, but it would have been painful as frick in the short term. More so than it already was
How painful we talking here? Like Greece painful?
Greece is a bit different because it's been a long, slow slide into their current predicament. The economy and the society had time to adjust to their new norm.
This would have been dramatic and incredibly quick.
It was probably the right move, but the moral hazard it created is still hard to swallow.
If liquidity had dried like the Dead Sea, it would have been as bad as the Great Depression and maybe worse. People are still (rightfully, in a lot of cases) pissed off at the financial sector, but they're not rolling quite like they did back in the day. The 2/20 model is under a lot of pressure for the asset managers (the really big rollers), and tech is getting the glamour now and is sucking up a lot of talent that used to go to Wall Street.
This post was edited on 5/15/17 at 11:37 pm
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:31 pm to LSUSUPERSTAR
quote:
Don't forget the auto industry.
The Feds loaned money to big auto when the lending market dried up. I don't have a problem with the loans.
They "gifted" the UAW millions and millions of dollars from taxpayers because they were a political ally to Obama. That money is never coming back. I can't get over that. I cashed out my 401k to pay rent while those retired UAW frickers didn't even have to take a haircut.
I'll probably never get over that.
This post was edited on 5/15/17 at 11:36 pm
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:32 pm to Geauxld Finger
I think before it's all over, it will be shown that Ashton Ryan et al deserve a perp walk. They won't get it, of course, but I think you will be able to write text books about that story.
The bank branches were basically a storefront for mortgages, most of which were terrible, and to give a conference room to sign tax credit deals. Given the crap in the mortgage portfolio, the tax credits were essentially of little to no value.
Their balance sheet was an absolute joke... but it was so complex that few could realize that. It was the banking version of Enron.
The bank branches were basically a storefront for mortgages, most of which were terrible, and to give a conference room to sign tax credit deals. Given the crap in the mortgage portfolio, the tax credits were essentially of little to no value.
Their balance sheet was an absolute joke... but it was so complex that few could realize that. It was the banking version of Enron.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:42 pm to LSUFanHouston
Bingo. They were essentially on both sides of the transaction wth the tax credits. You just can't do that. It seems so easy to understand that you wonder how no one noticed it. It's all due to convoluted balance sheets
I wonder how much the Mannings lost? His New Orleans good ole boy network will save him.
I wonder how much the Mannings lost? His New Orleans good ole boy network will save him.
Posted on 5/15/17 at 11:57 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
My biggest thing with all this is, isn't our economy supposed to be founded on free market capitalism? So some businesses fail and some thrive. I know that there is some truth and some falseness in that statement, most likely, but what the government did seems to me to have gone pure socialist on the problem.
Posted on 5/16/17 at 12:01 am to AjaxFury
could have let AIG die. not even an USA company.
could have let all the banking companies with HQ in Caymans and Switzerland die too.
I would say that saving the US auto industry was a win.
could have let all the banking companies with HQ in Caymans and Switzerland die too.
I would say that saving the US auto industry was a win.
Posted on 5/16/17 at 12:02 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Ponder this.
If all those banks had failed, the FDIC didn't have the ability to back up all the funds. So you, the customer, go to get a $100 out there f the ATM. The ATM says, this bank is out of business, no money will be available, sorry.
Could you imagine the anarchy?
If all those banks had failed, the FDIC didn't have the ability to back up all the funds. So you, the customer, go to get a $100 out there f the ATM. The ATM says, this bank is out of business, no money will be available, sorry.
Could you imagine the anarchy?
Posted on 5/16/17 at 12:10 am to Geauxld Finger
I understand that, but to me, that's a horrible approach to that kind of problem and that's not the way that the American economy is supposed to work. Businesses fail and businesses succeed. It's not the government's place to pick and choose who fails and who succeeds. It's on the consumer.
Posted on 5/16/17 at 12:14 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
I understand that, but to me, that's a horrible approach to that kind of problem and that's not the way that the American economy is supposed to work. Businesses fail and businesses succeed. It's not the government's place to pick and choose who fails and who succeeds. It's on the consumer.
I am a pretty big free market guy, but markets (and consumers) are not always rational. Bank runs and consumer credit collapsing are classic examples. It's a prisoner's dilemma for the consumer. That's where the government can (and sometimes should) step in. Where to draw that line of stepping in is the trick (and the source of many of our political disputes).
Posted on 5/16/17 at 12:15 am to AbuTheMonkey
Between this thread and the Madoff movie, I am wanting to go cash out my accounts and hide the cash in my mattress.
Posted on 5/16/17 at 12:17 am to TigerFanInSouthland
They were desperately trying to fix a broken system run rampant with greed and cirruption, all while trying not to make 1/8 of the nations bank accounts disappear.
It would have sent the country into a depression which would have a larger impact globally than it did in the 20's
The bailouts could have been handled differently than they were. I'm typically very fiscally conservative and want very little government regulation where I put my money, BUT I'm all for the government watching over these guy's shoulders. Too much was risked with the old ways of doing things.
It would have sent the country into a depression which would have a larger impact globally than it did in the 20's
The bailouts could have been handled differently than they were. I'm typically very fiscally conservative and want very little government regulation where I put my money, BUT I'm all for the government watching over these guy's shoulders. Too much was risked with the old ways of doing things.
Posted on 5/16/17 at 12:30 am to Geauxld Finger
quote:
The bailouts could have been handled differently than they were. I'm typically very fiscally conservative and want very little government regulation where I put my money, BUT I'm all for the government watching over these guy's shoulders. Too much was risked with the old ways of doing things.
This bears repeating.
To explain it further for TFIS, the federal state is already heavily intertwined with the financial services industry as is.
Posted on 5/16/17 at 12:34 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Iceland let the banks fail, prosecuted the bankers, and bailed out the depositors. Their unemployment rate peaked at 6.3%.
Could this absolutely not have worked here?
This post was edited on 5/16/17 at 12:40 am
Posted on 5/16/17 at 12:40 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Absolutely. The trough would have been deeper, but the rebound faster and more sustainable. By bailing them out, we never solved what caused the bubble, the market never truly corrected, and we've been stuck in economic limbo ever since.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News