• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Four More Years? Of This?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
K1052 said:
Not even close to the same thing.

Getting the money back out of a failed bank's assets can take years and you'll still only net about fifty to seventy cents on the dollar best case. Hell they're still trying to unwind the shitplile over at Lehman and it's been five years.

If you want to get into banking reform that will again separate the I banks from the commercial banks, impose more capitalization requirements, and curb speculation from the I'm wholly in favor. Those kinds of topics should not be debated while the industry burns however.
Click to expand...

If any banks assets are currently worth 50-70 cents on the dollar than they are currently insolvent and the FDIC should have stepped in long ago. Furthermore, a mistake of that magnitude constitutes fraud and the people responsible should have the full force of the justice department come down on them. Even better, if the FDIC follows the law and rules set for it they should almost never lose money and if they do it should be a very small amount.

Then again, we did recently make accounting fraud legal, just for the banksters of course, as another step to "solve" this crisis. I mean everyone knows that simply pretending you have more money always solves the problem of not having enough money, right...
 
K1052 said:
Why is that inconceivable? People will hoard cash during economic turmoil and that will be magnified by the severity. You also just wiped out all stockholders of financial institutions everywhere. It would be impossible to float a public bank on the stock market so you'll end up with private banks and even less transparency. Raising capital would also be highly problematic without access to the stock market.

It would take years (or decades) to lay off those assets and get any amount of money back while every other dead bank is trying to do the same thing.
Click to expand...

You are basically assuming that all the banks in the nation will have virtually no liquid capital and the assets will be unsellable and therefore worthless overnight. That is what would be required for the FDIC to ever take a 100% loss on the money they are insuring. Sorry if I find that inconceivable.

And for the record, you sure are making a really damn good argument for the reinstatement of Glass-Stegall. Funny that we didn't include that in the bailout when we had the banksters by the balls don't ya think?
 
Obama has been able to show a slow but significant recovery with a Republican controlled congress hell bent on obstructionism. I'm hopeful that enough Republicans get voted out to allow congress to actually do it's job.

I don't care if they are replaced by Green's, Libertarians, Democrats, Constitution, Independants or Whigs. I'm sure the end result will be a thousand times better irregardless as long as they aren't Republicans.
 
Agent11 said:
Obama has been able to show a slow but significant recovery with a Republican controlled congress hell bent on obstructionism. I'm hopeful that enough Republicans get voted out to allow congress to actually do it's job.

I don't care if they are replaced by Green's, Libertarians, Democrats, Constitution, Independants or Whigs. I'm sure the end result will be a thousand times better irregardless as long as they aren't Republicans.
Click to expand...
What Obama wants to do NEEDS to be obstructed. Cap and Trade would be a huge job killer, he wants it, can't have it. The tax rates he wants would be a job killer as well. Don't forget that he had two years with house money and he didn't do anything about the economy. The stimulus was a sugar high if anything.

Sometimes doing something is worse than nothing.
 
Throckmorton said:
Fine, let's reduce the size of government gradually through attrition and raise taxes to cover Medicare and Social Security.

But the demand that conservatives are making that the president cut deficit spending to zero, and somehow that will help the economy, is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Social Security is mostly self funding and with some tweaks can continue to be so.

Medicare/medicaid is the issue and you obviously didn't understand the math in my last post. We are going to see a huge increase of growth per capita enrolling into medicare/medicaid as the boomers become eligible but lets forget about that for the time being. Lets just use the historical data of 9% a year increased cost.

Federal year 2012 total budget: $3,600B
Federal year 2012 Medicare/medicaid combined $835B (23% of total budget)

At 9% increase per year in 10 years medicare and medicaid alone will cost approximately 2,000 billion dollars or $2T

In 20 years it will cost 4.7 trillion dollars

We can not increase taxes enough to cover the current deficit yet you somehow think we can raise them enough to cover 2 trillion in medicare/medicaid alone in 10 short years???? Please show me your math on this because I am extremely curious. I have shown you mine, your turn.
 
buckshot24 said:
What Obama wants to do NEEDS to be obstructed. Cap and Trade would be a huge job killer, he wants it, can't have it. The tax rates he wants would be a job killer as well. Don't forget that he had two years with house money and he didn't do anything about the economy. The stimulus was a sugar high if anything.

Sometimes doing something is worse than nothing.
Click to expand...

Has Obama actually tried to push through a cap and trade bill?
 
dank69 said:
Those people pay other taxes. Paying more and labeling it 'income tax' isn't going to magically make them start thinking about the government's budget.
Click to expand...

Oddly yall never mention that when talking about taxing the rich. See, as a percentage of GDP, the federal revenue has been close but not at their historical norms but when you count all taxes, again as a percentage of GDP, the tax rate has been withing .2 of the highest in the last 3 decades and probably US history (doubt we have reliable numbers that far back).....
 
Darwin333 said:
We can not increase taxes enough to cover the current deficit yet you somehow think we can raise them enough to cover 2 trillion in medicare/medicaid alone in 10 short years???? Please show me your math on this because I am extremely curious. I have shown you mine, your turn.
Click to expand...
We'll just raise taxes to 99% and the rich will just gladly give over their fortunes year after year.🙄

We are already spending $1.5 to $1 TRILLION more than we are taking in on a yearly basis. We've had the first two downgrades in our credit rating over the last few years. Not only are we spending too much our debt is about to get much more expensive when interest rates go up.

In ten years we won't be able to have these programs if we don't do something about it. Raising taxes to cover the gap just won't work even if you could take all the money from rich people year after year.
 
DominionSeraph said:
LOL, I like how you three can't even read.

>admits that GDP is growing

Fern: They are wrong. GDP has been shrinking lately
Click to expand...

>federal deficits estimated to be cut in half
Fern: Bwuhahahah
Click to expand...

>recession shown to be over
Fern: Possibly, but possibly not. Govt statistics say with that with the two quarters of GDP under 2% we have just experienced means an approx 50% recession ahead.
Click to expand...

Also:
>recession ending corresponds to stimulus.
Fern: So correlation=causation now?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Fern
 
Riight.
So rather than the normal business that the republicans have obstructed in 'the real world' you channel Obama's thoughts and intentions rather than actions for your justifications.
 
Darwin333 said:
If any banks assets are currently worth 50-70 cents on the dollar than they are currently insolvent and the FDIC should have stepped in long ago. Furthermore, a mistake of that magnitude constitutes fraud and the people responsible should have the full force of the justice department come down on them. Even better, if the FDIC follows the law and rules set for it they should almost never lose money and if they do it should be a very small amount.

Then again, we did recently make accounting fraud legal, just for the banksters of course, as another step to "solve" this crisis. I mean everyone knows that simply pretending you have more money always solves the problem of not having enough money, right...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Darwin333 said:
You are basically assuming that all the banks in the nation will have virtually no liquid capital and the assets will be unsellable and therefore worthless overnight. That is what would be required for the FDIC to ever take a 100% loss on the money they are insuring. Sorry if I find that inconceivable.

And for the record, you sure are making a really damn good argument for the reinstatement of Glass-Stegall. Funny that we didn't include that in the bailout when we had the banksters by the balls don't ya think?
Click to expand...

In the midst of 2008 it appeared to be a very real possibility. If the major banks folded while they were so far over leveraged whatever cash was on hand would vanish in an instant. The mid size and smaller banks wouldn't stand a chance in hell since they would be a total run on all banks if all the big banks folded...provided the CDS fallout didn't kill them first. It is a worst case scenario that was only prevented with government intervention.

Consolidation was one of the only ways to help preserve the system without dumping in even more than TARP had authorized. After the danger had passed I would have fully supported a reinstatement of G-S along with some updated rules for our present banking system.
 
Darwin333 said:
Shrug, I am one of those silly people that think politicians are almost always lying so instead I pay attention to what they do versus what they say. I know that you obviously disagree so we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Click to expand...
If he doesn't favor cap and trade then he has a funny way of showing it.
 
Throckmorton said:
Your demand is based on the assumption that it's an issue of political will. It's not, it's an issue of sustaining the economy or destroying it.

I want him to show me where we can cut spending from without putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work and taking their spending, mortgage payments, tuition payments, and savings out of the economy.
Click to expand...

Government spending should never have been the major source of work for a major chunk of the population in the first place. This is a big problem in of itself.
 
K1052 said:
In the midst of 2008 it appeared to be a very real possibility. If the major banks folded while they were so far over leveraged whatever cash was on hand would vanish in an instant. The mid size and smaller banks wouldn't stand a chance in hell since they would be a total run on all banks if all the big banks folded...provided the CDS fallout didn't kill them first. It is a worst case scenario that was only prevented with government intervention.

Consolidation was one of the only ways to help preserve the system without dumping in even more than TARP had authorized. After the danger had passed I would have fully supported a reinstatement of G-S along with some updated rules for our present banking system.
Click to expand...

The banksters used leverage to fuck us, why in the hell would you waste the leverage you had on them and wait till after "the danger had passed" to reinstate something that would have prevented this very problem altogether?
 
Darwin333 said:
The banksters used leverage to fuck us, why in the hell would you waste the leverage you had on them and wait till after "the danger had passed" to reinstate something that would have prevented this very problem altogether?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Texashiker said:
Nobody is driving the banks of out business, its a decision they made.

Isn't that the basis of a free market society? Company A goes out of business, which opens an opportunity for Company B.
Click to expand...

What is going way over your head is that Company B would eventually be exactly the same as Company A, minus the evolved meta-trading, because the core practices of Company A are already extraordinarily well refined. So why put the entire world into a depression and then go through the inefficient birthing process of recreating the entire banking system when you can skip all of that by just keeping Company A slotted in its niche?
There isn't a new niche there. There's no reason to switch Company A out for a new startup to do the same damned thing.

You are tying two things together and saying that they should fail as a group because you have the retarded belief that the universe is designed around your system of justice and so believe that, if you think an outcome is just, it must always work out for the best to follow it. Sorry, but the universe doesn't work this way. The universe works by mechanistic principles and the core mechanics of banking simply work. They have nothing to do with the practices that inflated the bubble, so why would you think that we need to throw them all away in search of a new peak?

Grow up.

And please never vote again. You are too stupid to be making any sort of consequential decision.
 
Last edited:
Texashiker said:
The people wanted change, they got change, just not the change they were expecting.
Click to expand...

The only real change I noticed was that we can't get dicked over by health insurance companies anymore and my tax dollars aren't killing Iraqis. Aside from that, its been 12 years of Bush and proto-fascist corporate kleptocracy. Hope always dies last and change comes from within.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top