- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,442
- Reaction score
- 47,480
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
People “do not really understand what we did,” said another Treasury official.
“The run was stopped, the panic was stopped, the system didn’t collapse.”
that is treasury's prediction about what would have happened without the bank bailout
do you believe that is a legitimate expectation?
was it worth the cost?
is it true that the net cost at present only amounts to $3 billion remaining unpaid?
Massive $238 billion financial bailout 5 years ago ‘avoided catastrophe,’ only $3 billion has yet to be paid back: Treasury | The Raw Story
Leaving aside the auto industry portion of the bailiouts, what I fail to understand is that, with almost all of the bad real estate loans being ultimately guaranteed by the taxpayers, didn't this really amount to the gov't bailing itself out using borrowed money?
No. Housing bubbles come and go. Those banks with bad inventory get bought up under FDIC and other federal banking regulatory provisions and life goes on.
The problem with this crisis is that the GOP deregulated CDSs (and table top brokers). CDSs spread the bad loans (initiated by unregulated table top brokers) everywhere to every bank (and even nonbanks) as they used CDSs as a purported hedge. In fact, CDSs weren't hedges but a risky derivative. People didn't know that since they were a relatively new type of derivative (which is why they should have been regulated).
So when the housing bubble burst (as they periodically do), almost every bank had CDSs in their inventory and thus there were no unaffected banks to buy up the bad banks. So government had to act to prevent a complete shut down in the credit markets which would have brought US business to a screeching halt and costs millions of more jobs than the Bush recession did.
You make it appear that there was no underlying asset, which is not the case. The underlying asset was a worthless mortgage on a federally insured property loan (mortgage) in many (if not most) cases.
that is treasury's prediction about what would have happened without the bank bailout
do you believe that is a legitimate expectation?
was it worth the cost?
is it true that the net cost at present only amounts to $3 billion remaining unpaid?
Massive $238 billion financial bailout 5 years ago ‘avoided catastrophe,’ only $3 billion has yet to be paid back: Treasury | The Raw Story
that is treasury's prediction about what would have happened without the bank bailout
do you believe that is a legitimate expectation?
was it worth the cost?
is it true that the net cost at present only amounts to $3 billion remaining unpaid?
Massive $238 billion financial bailout 5 years ago ‘avoided catastrophe,’ only $3 billion has yet to be paid back: Treasury | The Raw Story
Let them FAIL and THROW THEM AWAY.
Just like they do to us when we "fail".
And they never paid back USA.
How does Goldman sacks pay back back $10B when they only make about $1B a year? Ummmm
more magic lies of WALL STREET.
And where are the 10,000 convictions for FRAUD in the loan markets of cars, and homes??????
you have made a LOT of allegationsLOL !
Goldman Sachs ?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took the American people for over 5 TRILLION.
But not a word from the typical low information Liberal about the Democrats that ran them.
Not a word from you about the Democrats who sat in front of Republican Congressional Committees during Bush's Presidency and LIED about the health of the two GSEs.
Is it because you're ignorant of the Real reason we had a Sub-Prime Bubble and Collapse or do you know the truth amd are juststicking to the script ?
Leaving aside the auto industry portion of the bailiouts, what I fail to understand is that, with almost all of the bad real estate loans being ultimately guaranteed by the taxpayers, didn't this really amount to the gov't bailing itself out using borrowed money?
Or: Your reaction demonstrates how difficult it is to adequately prepare for a catastrophe, because when the prep works, no one notices and/or believes it was effective.Of course it avoided a massive catastrophe. The fact that we didn't have a massive catastrophe proves that it was effective. Logic like that has been a government mainstay forever.
Yeah, too bad that's not even remotely what happened with AIG.An insurance company was in a financial crisis. Letting die from its own incompetence wouldn't have worked because there weren't thousands of better insurance companies ready to take on that business.
Sort of, but not really.Leaving aside the auto industry portion of the bailiouts, what I fail to understand is that, with almost all of the bad real estate loans being ultimately guaranteed by the taxpayers, didn't this really amount to the gov't bailing itself out using borrowed money?
you have made a LOT of allegations
potentially interesting ones
but you have offered nothing to support those statements
how about adding cites/bases for your claims
Lol....I've posted proof of the Democrats complicity over and over and over....
You want a City start in Chicago, when our President as a Plaintiffs Attorney went around accusing and suing banks for supposed "redlining" ( discrimination)
Valerie Plame was neck deep in the perpetuation of the false narrative of redlining and made millions from it.
ACORN ran adds in the Chicago Sun Times encouraging people who had bankruptcy's, and forecloures, who had no money in the bank and no steady employment to contact them if they wanted a Home Loan.
The information's out there.
Or: Your reaction demonstrates how difficult it is to adequately prepare for a catastrophe, because when the prep works, no one notices and/or believes it was effective.
Yeah, too bad that's not even remotely what happened with AIG.
Most of AIG is, as you note, involved in insurance. They had a small operation in London (AIG Financial Products) that issued credit default swaps (CDS's). Initially these are structured like an insurance on an investment; if the investment fails, the policy holder receives some protection from losses. The problem is that a CDS doesn't require that you have any financial stake in the outcome -- e.g. Goldman Sachs could take out a CDS on a mortgage-backed security issued by Countrywide. In addition to changing CDS's into a form of gambling, it also increased the interconnections of the financial industry, which in turn increases the cascade effects of a major loss.
The collapse of AIG wasn't a problem in the sense that "no one would have taken up that insurance business." It's that it would have destroyed several major banks (notably Goldman Sachs), which in turn would cascade into more bank failures and cratered the global financial system -- which was exactly what produced the Great Depression.
And believe it or not, that does in fact harm Main Street -- as we already saw with the 2007 financial crisis causing a multi-year international recession. In addition to slamming the door shut on real estate sales, it cut off businesses from credit. This harms small and medium businesses far more than the large companies (many of whom are sitting on large cash reserves).
AIG made numerous mistakes. AIGFP raked in ridiculous amounts of money for years, issued far too many CDS's, and were inadequately prepared for a downturn. Their execs are arrogant and have shown little recognition of their flaws, and less remorse. That doesn't change the fact that if AIG collapsed, and received no bailouts, that would have triggered another cascade of bank failures around the globe.
I.e. you're angry because the Bactine stings, when you should be concerned about how you got the cut in the first place.
LOL !
Goldman Sachs ?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took the American people for over 5 TRILLION.
But not a word from the typical low information Liberal about the Democrats that ran them.
Not a word from you about the Democrats who sat in front of Republican Congressional Committees during Bush's Presidency and LIED about the health of the two GSEs.
Is it because you're ignorant of the Real reason we had a Sub-Prime Bubble and Collapse or do you know the truth amd are juststicking to the script ?
that is treasury's prediction about what would have happened without the bank bailout
do you believe that is a legitimate expectation?
was it worth the cost?
is it true that the net cost at present only amounts to $3 billion remaining unpaid?
Massive $238 billion financial bailout 5 years ago ‘avoided catastrophe,’ only $3 billion has yet to be paid back: Treasury | The Raw Story
No, you source right-wing blogospheres. Pure normative rants!
Taking deposits in a specific community and then denying them credit (based on address) is a form of discrimination.
that is treasury's prediction about what would have happened without the bank bailout
do you believe that is a legitimate expectation?
was it worth the cost?
is it true that the net cost at present only amounts to $3 billion remaining unpaid?
Massive $238 billion financial bailout 5 years ago ‘avoided catastrophe,’ only $3 billion has yet to be paid back: Treasury | The Raw Story
Leaving aside the auto industry portion of the bailiouts, what I fail to understand is that, with almost all of the bad real estate loans being ultimately guaranteed by the taxpayers, didn't this really amount to the gov't bailing itself out using borrowed money?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?