Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because they privatize the profits and socialize the losses. We as tax payers do not get any part of the dividends but they wanted us to bail them out with all their extreme bonuses to the top management. Screw the bastar ds.
Isn't that the American way? We privatize our earnings when we have them and then socialize our losses by collecting entitlements.
No Lehman, Pan Am, Edsel, Circuit City to name 4..all liquidated..that is the American way when a corp fails.
Tell that to the people on Welfare....
In all seriousness, the government invested in the banks that got bailed out and were paid back with profit in direct relation to the investment. They weren't just given free money like welfare recipients are.
In all seriousness, the government invested in the banks that got bailed out and were paid back with profit in direct relation to the investment. They weren't just given free money like welfare recipients are.
Wrong!! Loans were paid back; most gov't money never will be, most was to set an artificial value on these bankrupt corps equity. Paying $50 a share for a stock selling under 50 cents and NOT calling it a loan, or corp welfare, is what Uncle Sam did.
than he loaned them 5% of that as repayable loans, and bragged when the nickel was paid back. You fell for it, though.
Wrong!! Loans were paid back; most gov't money never will be, most was to set an artificial value on these bankrupt corps equity. Paying $50 a share for a stock selling under 50 cents and NOT calling it a loan, or corp welfare, is what Uncle Sam did.
than he loaned them 5% of that as repayable loans, and bragged when the nickel was paid back. You fell for it, though.
You'll have to support that. As far as I know is that TARP was paid back with federally borrowed funds that are STILL outstanding.
Regardless, however, is that it's hypocritical to hate banks and not people when people are guilty of doing the same thing.
In all seriousness, the government invested in the banks that got bailed out and were paid back with profit in direct relation to the investment. They weren't just given free money like welfare recipients are.
How could they ever lose? They were giving them as much as needed to remain solvent until the inevitable monetary recovery. Let me counterfeit money so I can by a real business and then pay it back with "my earnings" . Sign me up for that.
Yes, I do get it that the greed and sleaziness of big banks were one factor in the economic meltdown of this country in 2007/2008. I, too, retain a bad taste in my mouth about that.
And yes, I also get it that people whose homes were foreclosed on would resent the banks who gave them their loans which shouldn't have been granted in the first place, in many cases.
And yes, I also get it that the resentment of the "too big to fail" banks and their federal bailouts is a natural thing even though the bailouts have been largely repaid, and I even share that resentment. Hundreds of smaller banks were allowed to fail, so where is the fairness?
Yes, I too have moved some of my banking business to locally owned banks and credit unions as a statement of my views.
However, having said all that, I have been brought up short time and time again by the virulence of the hatred of the big banks as expressed here on City-Data, both in the Economics main forum and in the Personal Finance sub-forum. I am talking about foaming-at-the-mouth, exaggerated, bitter anger. Who can help me explain it? Have some people who have lost their jobs and suffered greatly on a personal level focused on the big banks as a sole cause?
There must be something more that I am not taking into account.
Every aspect of our governmental structure is dominated by Wall Street.
They shouldn't have allowed Lehman to fail...I still don't understand. Govt. used Lehman to set an example and it backfired.
Anyway recession is not banks fault entirely. They just got most of the blame b/c the prez attacked them the hardest in the media. The media also had a field day with them. The main perpetrators are in order:
Uncertainty caused a "bank run" and well recession started
Yes banks packaged and sold securities to IB, but brokers made the deals. IB did create credit w/o a safety net, but it was the govt. that got rid of Glass-Steagall Act. It was also, the govt. that decided everyone should own a home and asked banks/ brokers to loosen their standards (Clinton era). When govt. allowed Lehman to fail, no1 told the rest of the world to sell, sell, sell.
All of the above too complicated for public to understand so solution...blame banks. Simple easy cop out answer. Public took the bait. If you ask me, I think most of the blame should go to the IB...yeah they knew it was risky heck that is what they do. They also knew what would happen if things went south. Poor judgement call, this was a simple case of moral hazard.
Last edited by MilksFavoriteCookie; 01-17-2013 at 03:04 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
