Four More Years? Of This?

[Texashiker]

And please never vote again. You are too stupid to be making any sort of consequential decision.

I bet you are the type of person who votes for the same party over and over, then complains that nothing ever changes.

What is going way over your head is that Company B would eventually be exactly the same as Company A,

The banking system, gm, ford,,, and other mega corporations have developed a learned behavior, get big enough and the government will bail you out, everytime.

If company B will do the same as company A, where is the next enron? Where is the next circuit city?

In general, people learn from their mistakes. But unless the government lets the banks fall and skin their knee, nothing is going to change.

 

[Throckmorton]

Wrong. It is all about political will. Without it, no changes will be made... period.

Then I'm glad no one has the political will to lay off hundreds of thousands of people because some pimply nerd read a book by some Austrian about Ayn Rand or whatever.

You know what? Fine, let's end Medicare. Let's repeal Obamacare. Then we'll see how you like the 1/5 of gay men in this country with HIV dying at age 30 of AIDS, and the rest of you going uninsured because the private sector isn't stupid enough to insure such high risk individuals.

 

[Darwin333]

If you could sell the assets while not under FDIC control they'd be worth more. Why would anyone pay market rate for a distressed institution? Sometimes the FDIC sells banks and their assets for much less than that even.

That makes absolutely no sense. If anyone can hold onto an asset until they can get market value for them it is the .gov. The FDIC has been taking rather large haircuts because we made accounting fraud legal for the banksters.

 

[BoberFett]

As opposed to 4 more years of re-done Bush policies...lol

What exactly has changed since Obama was inaugurated? Seems to be we've already had 4 more years of Bush.

 

[Darwin333]

If it went sideways the economy would have melted down. Not an acceptable risk vs reward.

The financial industry has been irrevocably changed by both these events and Dodd-Frank. The smorgasbord is most decidedly over for the banks, even in their now much larger forms. They are making record profits but at pedestrian rates of return...which arguably is the position commercial banking should be in anyway.

The next thing to pop with be PE and hedge funds with cash now pouring in chasing unrealistic returns. There will be no rescue for them and their investors however.

I don't buy it for a moment that the entire system would have collapsed if they included the few page Glass-Stegall bill in Tarp with a one sentence line above it stating "to be implemented within X years of passage".

Now we have virtually no leverage as the banksters pretty much own Congress and the executive, hence no prosecutions and them pretty much writing the bills that regulate them. We both know that Dodd-Frank is more of a joke than actual regulation to prevent this from happening again.

Fun fact: Dodd-Frank, which will not prevent this from happening again, is 2,300 pages long. Glass-Stagall, which if it had not been repealed would have prevented it in the first place and WOULD prevent it from happening again was 72 pages...... Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Darwin333]

Then I'm glad no one has the political will to lay off hundreds of thousands of people because some pimply nerd read a book by some Austrian about Ayn Rand or whatever.

You know what? Fine, let's end Medicare. Let's repeal Obamacare. Then we'll see how you like the 1/5 of gay men in this country with HIV dying at age 30 of AIDS, and the rest of you going uninsured because the private sector isn't stupid enough to insure such high risk individuals.

We can have an adult conversation about the subject and maybe just maybe have an intelligent debate on what we can possibly do.

Or..... we can throw bullshit like the above around.

Personally, I prefer the former but at the end of the day you can't beat math. If my math is wrong please show me where.

 

[Darwin333]

As opposed to 4 more years of re-done Bush policies...lol

That is almost exactly what we have had for the last 4 years...... Funny how the rich have just gotten richer, including the banksters who committed untold amounts of crime, while the rest of us have continued to slide backwards.....

 

[yllus]

What exactly has changed since Obama was inaugurated? Seems to be we've already had 4 more years of Bush.

That's going a little far. Two obvious differences that Mr. Romney has pledged to repeal are the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank. Then you also have the end of DADT in the military and the first president to back gay marriage. These are all significant changes. Are they perfect? Nobody would claim that, but do you really think Bush would have done better?

 

[zsdersw]

Then I'm glad no one has the political will to lay off hundreds of thousands of people because some pimply nerd read a book by some Austrian about Ayn Rand or whatever.

You know what? Fine, let's end Medicare. Let's repeal Obamacare. Then we'll see how you like the 1/5 of gay men in this country with HIV dying at age 30 of AIDS, and the rest of you going uninsured because the private sector isn't stupid enough to insure such high risk individuals.

 

[K1052]

I don't buy it for a moment that the entire system would have collapsed if they included the few page Glass-Stegall bill in Tarp with a one sentence line above it stating "to be implemented within X years of passage".

Now we have virtually no leverage as the banksters pretty much own Congress and the executive, hence no prosecutions and them pretty much writing the bills that regulate them. We both know that Dodd-Frank is more of a joke than actual regulation to prevent this from happening again.

Fun fact: Dodd-Frank, which will not prevent this from happening again, is 2,300 pages long. Glass-Stagall, which if it had not been repealed would have prevented it in the first place and WOULD prevent it from happening again was 72 pages...... Why do you suppose that is?

I said there wasn't sufficient time to include that level of reform. We may not have gotten everything we want from the modified Volcker Rule but it and D-F overall have really put a damper on the sector as a whole, which is desirable from it's wild west days. Why do you think those bank execs are whining about fair to middling returns?

 

[gotsmack]

There would have been no "Bank B" is what you are failing to grasp. Once the big four go down you'll have an unmanageable run on the remaining institutions which will all also fail (provided they aren't killed by CDS debacle first).

Credit unions are in no way a replacement for commercial banking and I question the sanity of anyone who says they are.

The government can do direct lending until a new system is set up in place where companies self finance. This will slow growth, but growth will be sound. There is already a modern example of this happening, Hong Kong. Marc Faber likes to give this example.where the Hong Kong real.estate market collapsed by something like 70% and none of the developers went out of business because all of their projects were self financed.

 

[K1052]

The government can do direct lending until a new system is set up in place where companies self finance. This will slow growth, but growth will be sound. There is already a modern example of this happening, Hong Kong. Marc Faber likes to give this example.where the Hong Kong real.estate market collapsed by something like 70% and none of the developers went out of business because all of their projects were self financed.

The Fed stepped in and took care of the commercial paper market:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Paper_Funding_Facility

It is questionable if all companies could stockpile enough cash in the middle of a massive downturn to self finance all their operations.

 

[Darwin333]

I said there wasn't sufficient time to include that level of reform.

Are you serious? How much time do they need? I could have printed Glass-Stegall up, along with my single line addition, and flew it to Congress my damn self with enough time to be included in the bill.

We may not have gotten everything we want from the modified Volcker Rule but it and D-F overall have really put a damper on the sector as a whole, which is desirable from it's wild west days. Why do you think those bank execs are whining about fair to middling returns?

You don't expect them to be publicly jumping for joy right now while they do very well and the rest of America continues sliding backwards do you?

For fucks sake they are still allowed to legally commit accounting fraud, which puts US the taxpayer at huge risk of loss, AND we have proven that we will not hold them to black letter criminal laws.

 

[werepossum]

If it went sideways the economy would have melted down. Not an acceptable risk vs reward.

The financial industry has been irrevocably changed by both these events and Dodd-Frank. The smorgasbord is most decidedly over for the banks, even in their now much larger forms. They are making record profits but at pedestrian rates of return...which arguably is the position commercial banking should be in anyway.

The next thing to pop with be PE and hedge funds with cash now pouring in chasing unrealistic returns. There will be no rescue for them and their investors however.

I wouldn't take that bet. When you have cubic dollars, chances of buying yourself a bailout are always good. You simply have to put your bug in the politicians' ears.

I don't buy it for a moment that the entire system would have collapsed if they included the few page Glass-Stegall bill in Tarp with a one sentence line above it stating "to be implemented within X years of passage".

Now we have virtually no leverage as the banksters pretty much own Congress and the executive, hence no prosecutions and them pretty much writing the bills that regulate them. We both know that Dodd-Frank is more of a joke than actual regulation to prevent this from happening again.

Fun fact: Dodd-Frank, which will not prevent this from happening again, is 2,300 pages long. Glass-Stagall, which if it had not been repealed would have prevented it in the first place and WOULD prevent it from happening again was 72 pages...... Why do you suppose that is?

Dodd-Frank principally burdens smaller companies, and ignores the reasoning behind Glass-Steagall which was to ensure that a collapse in one sector could not take down the entire economy. Instead we abolished the last tattered remains of Glass-Steagall and barely a decade later, a collapse in one sector takes down the entire economy. Now the banks are still unconstrained, are even bigger, and are burdened with more overhead without the separation that would allow us to let major banks fail if needed.

 

[Darwin333]

If he doesn't favor cap and trade then he has a funny way of showing it.

By only paying it lip service? Shrug, if you say so.

 

[K1052]

I wouldn't take that bet. When you have cubic dollars, chances of buying yourself a bailout are always good. You simply have to put your bug in the politicians' ears.


Dodd-Frank principally burdens smaller companies, and ignores the reasoning behind Glass-Steagall which was to ensure that a collapse in one sector could not take down the entire economy. Instead we abolished the last tattered remains of Glass-Steagall and barely a decade later, a collapse in one sector takes down the entire economy. Now the banks are still unconstrained, are even bigger, and are burdened with more overhead without the separation that would allow us to let major banks fail if needed.

They have no deposit protection and are outside the scope of most traditional regulation because of their nature. Low limits on how much capital banks can invest into PE and hedge funds will mostly isolate them from the fallout when the bubble pops. In fact I-banks what are now rolled into the big boys stand to gain enormous inflows of cash when that money flees the hedge/PE world. If bailing out the auto industry was a tough sell bailing out hedge funds would go nowhere fast.

Restrictions on leverage, caps on risky investment vehicles, and new standards for assessing/reporting risk will be the most important areas going forward.

 

[Darwin333]

Dodd-Frank principally burdens smaller companies, and ignores the reasoning behind Glass-Steagall which was to ensure that a collapse in one sector could not take down the entire economy. Instead we abolished the last tattered remains of Glass-Steagall and barely a decade later, a collapse in one sector takes down the entire economy. Now the banks are still unconstrained, are even bigger, and are burdened with more overhead without the separation that would allow us to let major banks fail if needed.

The sick irony is that they "had" to be bailed out because they were too big to fail so we go ahead and help them get even bigger using, at least partially, taxpayer money. Its bad enough that we have yet to do anything to ensure that they have the ability to hold us at gunpoint again but instead we gave them a bigger freakin gun. On top of that Congress got on their knees in front of the banksters and made accounting fraud legal for them which allows them to, as if absolutely nothing bad can happen from them saying assets are worth more than they really are (gee, where did we see that before?).... Brilliant.

And at this point I highly doubt anything will get done because the banksters own Congress as well as the executive and we have already blown all the leverage that we had on them.

 

[Fern]

That's going a little far. Two obvious differences that Mr. Romney has pledged to repeal are the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank. Then you also have the end of DADT in the military and the first president to back gay marriage. These are all significant changes. Are they perfect? Nobody would claim that, but do you really think Bush would have done better?

Both Obamacare (The ACA is only one of two pieces of HC legislation) and Dood-Frank should be repealed and replaced. neither does what it was supposed to do.

Dood-Frank has had the opposite effect of what was intended. Instead of preventing 'too big to fail' it has been accelerating banking consolidations/mergers. The compliance costs are so high federal regulators have been encouraging smaller banks to sell to larger banks because they cannot remain profitable with the added compliance costs. DF also has stuff in it completely unrelated to banking, which has no business in that bill.

Obamacare does not solve the underlying problem of high, and growing, HC costs. We need something that does.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

For the non-believers:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/gray-dodd-frank-helps-big-banks-at-expense-of-smal/

Democrat failure knows no bounds. Unless of course Dodd-Frank was actually a gift to the Democrats bank buddies...

 

[jman19]

For the non-believers:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/gray-dodd-frank-helps-big-banks-at-expense-of-smal/

Democrat failure knows no bounds. Unless of course Dodd-Frank was actually a gift to the Democrats bank buddies...

I don't think Dodd-Frank was enough to bring big banks under control and that a lot more needs to be done. We certainly don't need more TBTF banks. However, that article doesn't present enough compelling facts to support the argument against Dodd-Frank (there are other interesting arguments - in fact the author of the article is filing a suit against Dodd-Frank on the grounds of constitutionality, which I think is interesting).

The SIFI designation was put in to place in order to specifically impose more restrictions on said banks, not to formally suggest a permanent government backstop (though at this point many believe it to still exist; hopefully the living will provision can help get to that point).

 

[alzan]

Four More Years? Of This?

Love it.

In the five minutes it takes to read this article the national debt will have increased $14 Million.

You know it! Obama and his apostles are gonna take all of your precious money from you, come hell or high water.

Don't like it? Move to Somalia with nehalem256!

 

[gotsmack]

The Fed stepped in and took care of the commercial paper market:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Paper_Funding_Facility

It is questionable if all companies could stockpile enough cash in the middle of a massive downturn to self finance all their operations.

There can be a transition period to wind down lending, maybe something like 20-30 years. That should be enough time.

What I don't understand is why a company like Apple who has 100+ billion (117?) in the bank needs to borrow short term money.

 

[JEDIYoda]

What exactly has changed since Obama was inaugurated? Seems to be we've already had 4 more years of Bush.

nothing due to most of the elected republicans vowing to not work with obama.....

\Sounds good what you said but it is very misleading...

 

[Smoblikat]

Bush
Dog on roof
Europe
War
Horse tax break
Free shit

Pick any one of these and substitute it in as an explanation. Its all that Obama does.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't think Dodd-Frank was enough to bring big banks under control and that a lot more needs to be done. We certainly don't need more TBTF banks. However, that article doesn't present enough compelling facts to support the argument against Dodd-Frank (there are other interesting arguments - in fact the author of the article is filing a suit against Dodd-Frank on the grounds of constitutionality, which I think is interesting).

The SIFI designation was put in to place in order to specifically impose more restrictions on said banks, not to formally suggest a permanent government backstop (though at this point many believe it to still exist; hopefully the living will provision can help get to that point).

Again, Dodd Frank is 2,300 pages long.

Glass-Stegall was 72 pages long

The latter would require absolutely no backstop because if the I-banks fucked up, as they did to get us into this situation, they can fail without bringing the rest of us down with them. Instead we got the former and are here talking about bullshit living wills that will be absurdly padded or us backstopping them again.

Why do you suppose that is?