Azazello1313 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 The biggest banks are 20 percent larger than they were before the crisis and control a larger part of our economy than ever. They reasonably assume that the government will rescue them again, if necessary. Indeed, credit rating agencies incorporate future government bailouts into their assessments of the largest banks, exaggerating market distortions that provide them with an unfair advantage over smaller institutions, which continue to struggle. Worse, Treasury apparently has chosen to ignore rather than support real efforts at reform, such as those advocated by Sheila Bair, the chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to simplify or shrink the most complex financial institutions. In the final analysis, it has been Treasury’s broken promises that have turned TARP — which was instrumental in saving the financial system at a relatively modest cost to taxpayers — into a program commonly viewed as little more than a giveaway to Wall Street executives. It wasn’t meant to be that. Indeed, Treasury’s mismanagement of TARP and its disregard for TARP’s Main Street goals — whether born of incompetence, timidity in the face of a crisis or a mindset too closely aligned with the banks it was supposed to rein in — may have so damaged the credibility of the government as a whole that future policy makers may be politically unable to take the necessary steps to save the system the next time a crisis arises. This avoidable political reality might just be TARP’s most lasting, and unfortunate, legacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 So was TARP good or bad? Seems to me the prevailing opinion depends very much on whether it can be used to bash Obama or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 No big surprise to me--they should have greatly limited bonuses, put into place much harsher repayment terms, and initiated a progressive tax on banks that would hinder their ability to get too large (with the tax money that was collected, put into some sort of financial crisis emergency fund). (And I still think that temporarily nationalizing the failing banks would have probably been a good idea too. Alas, some people would have screamed about socialism then... as a result, we only socialized the losses but kept the gains privatized. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 So was TARP good or bad? Seems to me the prevailing opinion depends very much on whether it can be used to bash Obama or not. It was necessary to prevent an economic disaster from occuring; however, it could have been implemented in a better fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 So as it turns out, the whole thing the money and power grab many were concerned that it was? If you believe the piece from the commie rag, it is clear the root of the problem is these too big to fail companies care about their money with a complete disregard for what is best for us and accordingly, they cannot be trusted. There weren't enough strings attached to the money, banks were not required to report to the fed, design flaws in the language were exploited, and the failure to hold the worst of the worse liable resulted in a failed program? Those are the lessons learned? We should regulate these guys much less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Max gross assets should be a function of the GDP of the home country. IOW, once you're a certain size, you can't grow faster than the local economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 So was TARP good or bad? both. it was necessary at the time, and it did work to avert a catastrophe. but then it turned into a massive corporate welfare boondoggle. I mean, I think the guy who administered it from day one says it pretty clearly and pretty well in this editorial. Seems to me the prevailing opinion depends very much on whether it can be used to bash Obama or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 both. it was necessary at the time, and it did work to avert a catastrophe. but then it turned into a massive corporate welfare boondoggle. I mean, I think the guy who administered it from day one says it pretty clearly and pretty well in this editorial. How ironic that a Republican, the lap dogs of all things corporate, should criticize a corporate boondoggle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 The problem can be boiled down to a culture of greed run amok. You hire people in government who made millions in the banking industry, what do you expect? They don't see anything wrong with giving CEOs gigantic bonuses, even after running their firms into the ground. I'm all for the free market and people getting paid whatever amount they legitimately earn, but the money these people make is truly obscene. Also there have been no true consequences for the wrongdoers nor any real reforms, so I fully expect this to happen again in my lifetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 How ironic that a Republican, the lap dogs of all things corporate, should criticize a corporate boondoggle. So...wait...Is this the new civility you lefties talk about? That's funny because it sure seem a lot like the old civility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 So...wait...Is this the new civility you lefties talk about? That's funny because it sure seem a lot like the old civility. You don't find it ironic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 both. it was necessary at the time, and it did work to avert a catastrophe. but then it turned into a massive corporate welfare boondoggle. I mean, I think the guy who administered it from day one says it pretty clearly and pretty well in this editorial. Why did it become a boondoggle? Because the banks decided to exploit and take advantage of a program designed to help, in the name of personal profit. We should regulate these guys less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Why did it become a boondoggle? Because the banks decided to exploit and take advantage of a program designed to help, in the name of personal profit. We should regulate these guys less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 THe part that irritates me is what the author pointed out at the beginning of his article... Big banks became bigger. The Govt. decided what banks would survive, they allocated monies to certain banks and allowed others to outright fail and be absorbed by these larger banks. Big banks, wachovia, wamu, national city, etc... were taken over by WellsFargo, Chase, and PNC. We have now created a definitive class of too big to fail banks, who, now, much like the auto manufacturers, will have the government bent over a barrel the next time a crisis comes along. These big banks now have almost a carte blanche licenses to be able to fleece the American people at their whim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) I just watched Capitalism: A Love Story. You guys should check it out. Bush Jr. Clinton, Reagan, and Obama are bashed. What's really ignorant is people thinking because we have the best, most free system in the world that there can't be greedy people who can manipulate it. Edited March 31, 2011 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 How ironic that a Republican, the lap dogs of all things corporate, should criticize a corporate boondoggle. I am pro-market, and I am in favor of individuals and businesses competing with each other on price and innovation. I am NOT in favor of corporate welfare, of corporate-government "partnership", of government picking winners and losers via handouts, bailouts, subsidies and every other sort of market distortion. I have always been pretty damn consistent on this, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I am pro-market, and I am in favor of individuals and businesses competing with each other on price and innovation. I am NOT in favor of corporate welfare, of corporate-government "partnership", of government picking winners and losers via handouts, bailouts, subsidies and every other sort of market distortion. I have always been pretty damn consistent on this, I think. + 1 gazillion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTheWebToedBoy Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 The problem can be boiled down to a culture of greed run amok. You hire people in government who made millions in the banking industry, what do you expect? They don't see anything wrong with giving CEOs gigantic bonuses, even after running their firms into the ground. I'm all for the free market and people getting paid whatever amount they legitimately earn, but the money these people make is truly obscene. Also there have been no true consequences for the wrongdoers nor any real reforms, so I fully expect this to happen again in my lifetime. Bingo..... At the beginning of this mess I hated the thought that we had to bail these Ionic Breezes out, but I believed that it had to be done. The more I look at it now, the way that it changed NOTHING, we should of just let them all crash and burn. It amazes me that not one criminal charge has ever issued against anyone, and that the same crooks that did this are still raking it in. Also pretty suprised that no one ever shot a couple of these guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.