Getting harder to spin TARP as a failure...

Onceler said:
I said it was good ROI. In the strictest accounting terms, it isn't, because it's still a loss.

But, in broader terms, I think the cost is negligible considering what we might have lost, and - in those terms - to me, it's a good return on investment.
Click to expand...
IMO, what we bought wasn't worth it. It could be made so, but so far there is no indication that it will.
 
Topspin said:
this is hillarious please don't stop. I love cypress, but did he even take a breath before switching from talp was great to corp welfare has to stop. LOFL sorry cypress/er Joe Dirt

Also, for you anti-business liberals. The countries productive capacity was not going to vanish overnight cause a couple fat cats didn't make good on derivative bets. NY would have taken it a little harder but without the future price tag.
And if you believe half of the ferrytale your spinning you should get full force behind regs that break up banks into a bunch of smaller not to big to fail.
Guess what, these crooks didn't all of the sudden get religeon over night.
Click to expand...

he needs to get off the brick and get chronic
 
Onceler said:
That's one way of putting it.

Another would be that it cost $42 billion to avoid "The Grapes of Wrath II: the internet years"....
Click to expand...
It simply forestalls it, it does not eliminate it.

Again, the same policies exist, the same companies (now larger and even more guaranteed by size to be bailed out the next time they suck at business), and the same leadership. Without changes to the root cause of the problem we can only buy ourselves time before the next collapse by inflating more bubbles.

I'd call it more of a success if there was any indication that we were working towards the necessary change to actually end the cycle of stupidity we set ourselves up for by dubbing companies "too big to fail".
 
Topspin said:
this is hillarious please don't stop. I love cypress, but did he even take a breath before switching from talp was great to corp welfare has to stop. LOFL sorry cypress/er Joe Dirt

Also, for you anti-business liberals. The countries productive capacity was not going to vanish overnight cause a couple fat cats didn't make good on derivative bets. NY would have taken it a little harder but without the future price tag.
And if you believe half of the ferrytale your spinning you should get full force behind regs that break up banks into a bunch of smaller not to big to fail.
Guess what, these crooks didn't all of the sudden get religeon over night.
Click to expand...


Shorty, your reading comprehensions sucks too. I said TARP was a band aid. Not a solution. Did you ride the short bus to school? English a second language for you, shorty?
 
Joe Dirt here's what you said and it's hillarious
Well, if that's true it is a remarkably cheap price tag. I think the government actually made money bailing out the S&Ls 15 years ago.

One shudders to think what would have happened if we had followed the advice of message board rightwingers: let the banks fail, continued worshipping corporate deregulation, and slashed government spending and outlays.

That said, this corporate welfare crap has to stop. Dodging bullets and putting band aids on problems that could have, should have, been easily prevented in the first place is the most prudent move. I think Bernie Sanders introduced a too big to fail piece of legislation that enables the government to break up entities that threaten the economic security of the United States, due to their sheer size. I seriously doubt any republicans, and probably a ton of democrats won't sign onto Sander's proposal.

But the fact is, these cluster fucks are a result of unrestrained, under regulated, and gi-normous corporate entities.
 
internet grapes of wrath, LOFL please bring more

that is evidence of someone who most certainly didn't take 2 college economics classes.
but thanks that was a zinger big time.
 
Damocles said:
It simply forestalls it, it does not eliminate it.

Again, the same policies exist, the same companies (now larger and even more guaranteed by size to be bailed out the next time they suck at business), and the same leadership. Without changes to the root cause of the problem we can only buy ourselves time before the next collapse by inflating more bubbles.
Click to expand...

I'm all for any stalling technique, because you never know what can happen when you buy time. While I agree that no serious effort has been made to address "too big to fail," that doesn't mean that smaller fixes aren't being addressed, and I think there are those committed to doing something about "too big to fail," who might win out before it's too late.

Beyond that, I don't think "too big to fail" was ultimately the root cause. Bad loans were. You can argue that bad loans came out of "too big to fail," but if they can address the bad loans, that is half the battle.

I will readily admit that I am not an economist, and it was never a field of study of mine. However, I know enough to know what the bigs failing last fall or earlier this year could have meant, and found it terrifying. The so-called "creative destruction" of it would have been too much for the country to absorb, imo.

I think a reading of TARP & its success depends largely on what impact people not only would anticipate without it, but what they would be willing to absorb if they agreed on how bad it could have been....
 
Onceler said:
I'm all for any stalling technique, because you never know what can happen when you buy time. While I agree that no serious effort has been made to address "too big to fail," that doesn't mean that smaller fixes aren't being addressed, and I think there are those committed to doing something about "too big to fail," who might win out before it's too late.

Beyond that, I don't think "too big to fail" was ultimately the root cause. Bad loans were. You can argue that bad loans came out of "too big to fail," but if they can address the bad loans, that is half the battle.

I will readily admit that I am not an economist, and it was never a field of study of mine. However, I know enough to know what the bigs failing last fall or earlier this year could have meant, and found it terrifying. The so-called "creative destruction" of it would have been too much for the country to absorb, imo.

I think a reading of TARP & its success depends largely on what impact people not only would anticipate without it, but what they would be willing to absorb if they agreed on how bad it could have been....
Click to expand...
Like I said, I'd be less inclined to call it a failure if we actually were working towards something that would eliminate "too big to fail".

So long as the government is willing to bow to these companies in "crisis" times we are setting ourselves up for more "crisis" periods. Companies, while run by people, will act in their own interest.

I can't believe that anybody with a modicum of belief in justice or fairness would say it was fair to give billions to "too big to fail" so they could use it to purchase smaller companies that were not necessarily in failure, while some others (not as politically connected) that were also large were "allowed" to fail. The government was picking and choosing losers and winners, and if you follow the money you can see why the "winners" were chosen.
 
now you have to look at political donations in the future when evaluating the risk of a corp. The next one might be a lot worse.
 
Damocles said:
Like I said, I'd be less inclined to call it a failure if we actually were working towards something that would eliminate "too big to fail".

So long as the government is willing to bow to these companies in "crisis" times we are setting ourselves up for more "crisis" periods. Companies, while run by people, will act in their own interest.

I can't believe that anybody with a modicum of belief in justice or fairness would say it was fair to give billions to "too big to fail" so they could use it to purchase smaller companies that were not necessarily in failure, while some others (not as politically connected) that were also large were "allowed" to fail. The government was picking and choosing losers and winners, and if you follow the money you can see why the "winners" were chosen.
Click to expand...

WIN!
 
This thread is now invalid as TARP will be a massive loss if the money is not returned to the deficit.
 
well he fell millions short on creating stimulus jobs, so what's needed is a slush fund for more jobs yet. Or is it democratic political payoffs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top