- Jul 29, 2001
I don't agree. The terrorism that banks did back in 08' "pay us or else" should have been meet with a 100% take over of their assets and companies like "Prompt Corrective Action" law demands not bailing out. Prison for fraud for it's executives in stead of financial rewards and appointments. Rewarding failure is a sure fire way to get more failure and there is quite contrary opinion whether economic doomsday would have happened anyway. We are far from out of the woods yet and these companies are just as leveraged and pulling similar shenanigans as before. I think after 2010 is done you will have a very different view that they were too big to fail as they will fail anyway.I want to point out what I think is important to remember in this.
The problem isn't the bailouts, once the choice was between bailout or financial collapse.
The government did what it had to do.
The problem is the Reagan, Clinton, Bush policies of doing what Wall Street wanted, of de-regulation, that allowed the nation to get in the situation of having to choose bailout or collapse.
Our nation should have not let Wall Street run government policy, and had government representing the public interest, by regulating Wall Street so its activities were within boundaries and not 'too big to fail'.
Had we done that, Wall Street would have had the role it has in the past and that it should have, of greasing the wheels of the economy and making 10% of the nation's profits.
Looking at the bailouts as the problem is lilke studying Hitler's mistakes starting when the allies entered Berlin.
I agree with sensible regulation born out of the great depression and wiped out with 40 years of crony capitalism aka fascism. Until those measures are fully implemented again money is not used/directed in optimum way hurting economic production, tax payers will continue being on the hook for investment bank speculation gone awry (privatizing gains socialising loses), and economy can not recover.