wall street welfare

Cypress

Well-known member
What he said. Never again do I want to hear cons, robber barons, and libertarians mock regulation, and government intervention as "socialism".

After giving tens of billion of dollars to bail out failing investment firms, never again to I want to hear a con sing the praises of Bush's bankruptcy bill which restricts and punishes average people from escaping their debt.

After spending upwards of one trillion dollars on a failed and unneccessary war in Iraq, never again do I want to hear cons complain about federal spending, or about 5 billion additional dollars for children's healthcare.

The Street on Welfare


By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008; Page A19

Never do I want to hear again from my conservative friends about how brilliant capitalists are, how much they deserve their seven-figure salaries and how government should keep its hands off the private economy.

The Wall Street titans have turned into a bunch of welfare clients. They are desperate to be bailed out by government from their own incompetence, and from the deregulatory regime for which they lobbied so hard. They have lost "confidence" in each other, you see, because none of these oh-so-wise captains of the universe have any idea what kinds of devalued securities sit in one another's portfolios.

So they have stopped investing. The biggest, most respected investment firms threaten to come crashing down. You can't have that. It's just fine to make it harder for the average Joe to file for bankruptcy, as did that wretched bankruptcy bill passed by Congress in 2005 at the request of the credit card industry. But the big guys are "too big to fail," because they could bring us all down with them.

Enter the federal government, the institution to which the wealthy are not supposed to pay capital gains or inheritance taxes. Good God, you don't expect these people to trade in their BMWs for Saturns, do you?

In a deal that the New York Times described as "shocking," J.P. Morgan Chase agreed over the weekend to pay $2 a share to buy all of Bear Stearns, one of the brand names of finance capitalism. The Federal Reserve approved a $30 billion -- that's with a "b" -- line of credit to make the deal work.

I don't fault Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, for being so interventionist in trying to save the economy. On the contrary, Bernanke deserves credit for ignoring all the extreme free-market bloviation. He doesn't want the economy to collapse on his watch, so he is willing to violate all the conservatives' shibboleths about the dangers of government intervention. As a voter once told the legendary political journalist Richard Rovere: "Sometimes you have to forget your principles to do what's right."

But if this near meltdown of capitalism doesn't encourage a lot of people to question the principles they have carried in their heads for the past three decades or so, nothing will.

We had already learned the hard way -- in the crash of 1929 and the Depression that followed -- that capitalism is quite capable of running off the rails. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was a response to the failure of the geniuses of finance (and their defenders in the economics profession) to realize what was happening or to fix it in time.

As the economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted of the era leading up to the Depression, "The threat to men of great dignity, privilege and pretense is not from the radicals they revile; it is from accepting their own myth. Exposure to reality remains the nemesis of the great -- a little understood thing."

But in the enthusiasm for deregulation that took root in the late 1970s, flowered in the Reagan era and reached its apogee in the second Bush years, we forgot the lesson that government needs to keep a careful watch on what capitalists do. Of course, some deregulation can be salutary, and the market system is, on balance, a wondrous instrument -- when it works. But the free market is just that: an instrument, not a principle.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../03/17/AR2008031702154.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
 
Too bad, I will continue to complain as I have throughout this. I stated long ago that we should suck it up and take our medicine for letting it get this far. That:

1. Foreclosure is not the end of the world, or even the end of your credit.

2. We shouldn't bail out any of these banks.

So, I plan on continuing complaining about this, and future idiots who give our money away freely as if it was theirs, even if you don't want me to.
 
Yeah, but the best part about the FED, the lender of last resort to regulated banking institutions, bailing out non-regulated non-banks is that there will be no accompanying regulation of the so-called shadow banking industry and the resulting moral hazard incentivizes further recklessness.

But god forbid if a family with granite counter tops gets some federal funds to help pay for healthcare for their children. After all, that would create such negative incentives that the government would go broke.
 
Oh, and another thing, the FED can do whatever the fuck it wants with no Congressional action so piss off you socialist fucks with your god-damned regulations.
 
Oh, and another thing, the FED can do whatever the fuck it wants with no Congressional action so piss off you socialist fucks with your god-damned regulations.
Really? It seems the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the FED, and in fact the Congress had to give it their authority to print money to enable it to exist. They most certainly can act.
 
Really? It seems the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the FED, and in fact the Congress had to give it their authority to enable it to exist. They most certainly can act.


I didn't say that Congress can't regulate the FED, I sad that the FED can do what it wants to bail these fuckers out without any Congressional action. There's a difference and it's a big one. As it stands now, the FED can take action without getting Congressional approval. Congress is in a reactive role, where legislation would have to be passed to stop the FED from doing something. Getting such a bill passed and signed by the President is basically a non-starter.
 
I didn't say that Congress can't regulate the FED, I sad that the FED can do what it wants to bail these fuckers out without any Congressional action. There's a difference and it's a big one. As it stands now, the FED can take action without getting Congressional approval. Congress is in a reactive role, where legislation would have to be passed to stop the FED from doing something. Getting such a bill passed and signed by the President is basically a non-starter.
Only because past Congresses gave them the authority. If this Congress wants to take it from them it can by simply taking the reigns of its constitutional authority and using the power they are given by that document.

This is not an excuse for inaction if you believe what they are doing is wrong.

They don't need legislation to retain and use constitutional authority.
 
Only because past Congresses gave them the authority. If this Congress wants to take it from them it can by simply taking the reigns of its constitutional authority and using the power they are given by that document.

This is not an excuse for inaction if you believe what they are doing is wrong.

They don't need legislation to retain constitutional authority.


Thanks for the civics lesson, professor.
 
those "banks" are not really banks but investment firms.
This fiasco should teach us that perhaps bigger is not better. Lots of smaller corps would be better in times like these.
But what do we do ? Bail them out and let them get even bigger.
We are still heading in the wrong direction.

it is very telling that the fed used depression era regulations....
 
those "banks" are not really banks but investment firms.
This fiasco should teach us that perhaps bigger is not better. Lots of smaller corps would be better in times like these.
But what do we do ? Bail them out and let them get even bigger.
We are still heading in the wrong direction.

it is very telling that the fed used depression era regulations....


That's the thing, the FED is typically the lender of last resort to banks that operate under strict regulations. The FED shouldn't have bailed out the non-regulated entities and should have just let them sink.

. . . adding, in the alternative the FED should have at least imposed new regulation of these entities as a condition to receiving taxpayer funds.
 
Last edited:
That's the thing, the FED is typically the lender of last resort to banks that operate under strict regulations. The FED shouldn't have bailed out the non-regulated entities and should have just let them sink.

Yep. the "investors" claim they take the big risks so should get the big rewards. where is the risk if the feds bail you out ?
Yet another reason to do away with their tax breaks.
 
Yep. the "investors" claim they take the big risks so should get the big rewards. where is the risk if the feds bail you out ?
Yet another reason to do away with their tax breaks.


Socialize the risk, privatize the profit. Here are the bonuses that firms like BSC paid over the past several years:

2007 -- $38 billion

2006 -- $23.9 billion

2005 -- $20.5 billion

2004 -- $18.6 billion

2003 -- $15.8 billion

2002 -- $9.8 billion

2001 -- $13.0 billion

2000 -- $19.5 billion


And now we get to bail them out.
 
Cypress, fuck you!

Libertarians spend more time bitching about the war and as much on corporate welfare (which regulation is a part of including the FED) than they do on any other topics.

Why on earth should we allow some dumbass that thinks the stock market is the sum and total of capitalism silence us?
 
Bailing out firms and people in mortage crisis's isn't a bad thing.

Japan went through a generation of recession because they refused to see that their economy was crumbling.
 
Bailing out firms and people in mortage crisis's isn't a bad thing.

Japan went through a generation of recession because they refused to see that their economy was crumbling.


Bailing out firms without imposing regulations on them to prevent their future need for bailout is a very serious problem with very negative consequences. The message the industry receives is that they can be reckless and the FED will bail them out.
 
Back
Top