Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The one thing that gets lost in all this is the massive cost of moral hazard. As stunning as this may sound IMHO there has been very little change on Wall Street. I have little doubt that we will be in another massive banking crisis within 20 years if not sooner.
The other massive cost has been that these policies are laying the groundwork for future inflation. $700 billion will look like a drop in the bucket if inflation reignites.
The one thing that gets lost in all this is the massive cost of moral hazard. As stunning as this may sound IMHO there has been very little change on Wall Street. I have little doubt that we will be in another massive banking crisis within 20 years if not sooner.
The other massive cost has been that these policies are laying the groundwork for future inflation. $700 billion will look like a drop in the bucket if inflation reignites.
And as soon as team Obama took the WH they changed the rules of the game pissing off the banks who felt like they had been sucker punched. They proceeded to repay tarp loans as fast as possible to eliminate the authority that being on the hook for those loans gave team Obama over their salaries and business practices.
Ask any banker; under Bush TARP was a bailout, under Obama it became a Trojan Horse.
Obama was pretty smart to light a fire under the feet of those TARP recipients. It's amazing how fast they want to pay the taxpayer back since Obama converted non-voting preferred shares to voting stock. Yet, it had the right wings' panties in a collective wad, with shouts of Obama's secret socialist plan to take over industry.
I also think there was enough "moral hazard" fear in the bailout, between Bear Sterns failing, and Lehman Brothers being gobbled up for chump change.
Good point. So maybe a way to reduce the moral hazard of bailouts is to attach a bunch of inconvenient strings to the package, making a bailout so unattractive to the recipient that bankruptcy would seem the better option.
TARP was an essentially bipartisan piece of legislation, in that it was crafted by the Bush administration, supported by both Democrats and many Republicans, then taken over by the Obama administration.
The anger against it, paradoxically, takes no heed of the fact that TARP, along with the broader government rescue efforts, has been arguably a success. It will ultimately cost far less than the initial $700 billion price tag that stunned a nation. Major banks are profitable and can raise capital. Credit spreadsa key measurement of riskare down to pre-crisis levels.
The White House now projects TARP will lose at most $50 billion, down from $105 billion projected earlier this year. Privately, Treasury Department officials say the U.S. may not lose a dime, and could ultimately make money depending on how some investments fare, in particular American International Group Inc. and General Motors Corp. In a $14 trillion economy, $50 billion is less than 1% of economic output.
"The incredible irony here is that TARP probably succeeded wildly beyond anybody's imagination," said Alan Blinder, a Princeton University economist who co-authored a paper crediting the administration's economic policies with preventing a second Great Depression. "Suppose the original TARP bill had been to spend $50 billion to avert a catastrophe. Would anyone have blinked?"
Bailout Ends, Not Anger - WSJ.com
thx..
the money shot imho-
TARP now appears in numerous GOP campaign commercials being run against Democrats, usually lumped in with the stimulus package and the health-care revamp as examples of government overreach. In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry repeatedly referred to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who was challenging him for the Republican nomination, as Kay "Bailout" Hutchison.
Obama was pretty smart to light a fire under the feet of those TARP recipients. It's amazing how fast they want to pay the taxpayer back since Obama converted non-voting preferred shares to voting stock. Yet, it had the right wings' panties in a collective wad, with shouts of Obama's secret socialist plan to take over industry.
What Obama did was legally wrong, and amounted to breach of contract. It reinforced an idea central to the US globally. It said to the world that America's word is not bound by law and is only as good as it's current leadership.
BUT it actually did force TARP to be wound down quickly with few losses YET to the taxpayer.
But we still don't know when AIG is gonna be solvent or how many more bailouts they may need.
Some firms ended up subsidizing the loses of others.
What court found Obama's actions to be legally wrong? What Obama did was enact the laws passed by congress.
TARP was designed to keep the banking industry afloat. It's done that
TARP was designed to keep the banking industry afloat. It's done that
that is a pov, but as Toro eluded above, not much changed. Including the existing hazards that created the brink of meltdown for the banking sector. Derivatives specifically and giant leverage risks.
Just reading the commentary above it sounds more like TARP did nothing but keep the banking industry afloat TODAY while almost assuring it faces similar crisis in the future.
In a capitalist system failing banks would fail and serve as educational devices for the next gen of MBAs. At the very least systemic risk should be dismantled now that the crisis point has passed. But since the crisis was never realized....how do we really know there was a true crisis? Can we rely on the word of the econ community who never saw it coming in the first place? Or the regulators whose job it was to prevent it?
that is a pov, but as Toro eluded above, not much changed.
TARP was designed to keep the banking industry afloat. It's done that
that is a pov, but as Toro eluded above, not much changed. Including the existing hazards that created the brink of meltdown for the banking sector. Derivatives specifically and giant leverage risks.
Just reading the commentary above it sounds more like TARP did nothing but keep the banking industry afloat TODAY while almost assuring it faces similar crisis in the future.
In a capitalist system failing banks would fail and serve as educational devices for the next gen of MBAs. At the very least systemic risk should be dismantled now that the crisis point has passed. But since the crisis was never realized....how do we really know there was a true crisis? Can we rely on the word of the econ community who never saw it coming in the first place? Or the regulators whose job it was to prevent it?
TARP was designed to keep the banking industry afloat. It's done that
that is a pov, but as Toro eluded above, not much changed. Including the existing hazards that created the brink of meltdown for the banking sector. Derivatives specifically and giant leverage risks.
Just reading the commentary above it sounds more like TARP did nothing but keep the banking industry afloat TODAY while almost assuring it faces similar crisis in the future.
In a capitalist system failing banks would fail and serve as educational devices for the next gen of MBAs. At the very least systemic risk should be dismantled now that the crisis point has passed. But since the crisis was never realized....how do we really know there was a true crisis? Can we rely on the word of the econ community who never saw it coming in the first place? Or the regulators whose job it was to prevent it?
Banks seem to have "issues" every twenty years or so. No matter what. I don't think bailouts or any set regulations will fundamentally break that cycle.
I'm barely literate when it comes to economics. So if economists from different schools are all saying the same thing, I'll take their word. Sheeple mentality at its finest.
that is a pov, but as Toro eluded above, not much changed.
But wasn't that the point of TARP? Keep the industry afloat, keeping the same banks at the top; minimize the changes that a true purging of the market would have made.
For a while. But in the long run the economy may have been far better off if things were allowed to proceed and demand correction.
that is a different stimulus than The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 President Obama's $787 billion stimulus
Recovery Act: How Obama's Stimulus Is Changing America - TIME
altho it was a stimulus and he did sign it 6 months before the election. It was only $168 billion.
Neither was big enough.
Republicans, for some odd reason, believe "tax cuts" work. Bush passed a 2.4 trillion dollar tax cut, over 52% went to the top 1% of Americans, and what happened to the economy?
It seemed to work for a minute. Because those companies that received all that money, brought Chinese and Indians over here to learn American jobs from the very Americans they were replacing. Once they learned those jobs, they were moved to those countries where workers could be paid 100 dollars a month.
To add insult to injury, Republicans made sure those companies were given subsidies.
That's right, Americans had to train the very people who were taking their jobs. How do I know? It happened at the company I worked at. Imagine getting paid to teach Chinese who go back to their country and wait for your job.
This is why Republicans fight Obama because he wants to fix it. I sincerely believe they just don't like him because he is black. It's why they call him Muslim and Terrorist and Marxist and Communist and Fascist and say he wasn't born here. They want to make him, "Not one of us".
Republicans want to vote back into office the very people who destroyed the economy.
Let me ask, "Do Republicans feel Americans should be making 100 dollars a month without any benefits or days off?" Because it seems like they do.
that is a pov, but as Toro eluded above, not much changed. Including the existing hazards that created the brink of meltdown for the banking sector. Derivatives specifically and giant leverage risks.
Just reading the commentary above it sounds more like TARP did nothing but keep the banking industry afloat TODAY while almost assuring it faces similar crisis in the future.
In a capitalist system failing banks would fail and serve as educational devices for the next gen of MBAs. At the very least systemic risk should be dismantled now that the crisis point has passed. But since the crisis was never realized....how do we really know there was a true crisis? Can we rely on the word of the econ community who never saw it coming in the first place? Or the regulators whose job it was to prevent it?
Banks seem to have "issues" every twenty years or so. No matter what. I don't think bailouts or any set regulations will fundamentally break that cycle.
I'm barely literate when it comes to economics. So if economists from different schools are all saying the same thing, I'll take their word. Sheeple mentality at its finest.
that is a pov, but as Toro eluded above, not much changed.
But wasn't that the point of TARP? Keep the industry afloat, keeping the same banks at the top; minimize the changes that a true purging of the market would have made.
argue for the status quo and it is yours!
disincentive?
I think you can thank Team Obama for this result.
Without going and looking it up, I thought Tarp and the Stimulus were the last things Bush did as President. The ONLY two things he did that worked.
8 years of failure and the only two things he did that worked are hated by his base.
Without going and looking it up, I thought Tarp and the Stimulus were the last things Bush did as President. The ONLY two things he did that worked.
The stimulus was the new Dem Majority's first move upon taking the WH. It was a pork bonanza masquerading as a recovery initiative.
You made me go look it up. Why couldn't you?
=================================
Bush signs stimulus package into law
WASHINGTON President Bush on Wednesday signed a multibillion-dollar economic rescue package on Wednesday that means $300 to $1,200 rebates for many American households.
Bush called the measure "a booster shot for our economy" to stave off a recession.
Bush signs stimulus package into law - Business - Stocks & economy - msnbc.com
I guess Bush was the only Republican who didn't want the country to fail. He only started his schemes because in his limited imagination, they worked. Funny, the last two did.
that is a different stimulus than The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 President Obama's $787 billion stimulus
Recovery Act: How Obama's Stimulus Is Changing America - TIME
altho it was a stimulus and he did sign it 6 months before the election. It was only $168 billion.
Neither was big enough.
Republicans, for some odd reason, believe "tax cuts" work. Bush passed a 2.4 trillion dollar tax cut, over 52% went to the top 1% of Americans, and what happened to the economy?
It seemed to work for a minute. Because those companies that received all that money, brought Chinese and Indians over here to learn American jobs from the very Americans they were replacing. Once they learned those jobs, they were moved to those countries where workers could be paid 100 dollars a month.
To add insult to injury, Republicans made sure those companies were given subsidies.
<snip>
.
Obama was pretty smart to light a fire under the feet of those TARP recipients. It's amazing how fast they want to pay the taxpayer back since Obama converted non-voting preferred shares to voting stock. Yet, it had the right wings' panties in a collective wad, with shouts of Obama's secret socialist plan to take over industry.
What Obama did was legally wrong, and amounted to breach of contract. It reinforced an idea central to the US globally. It said to the world that America's word is not bound by law and is only as good as it's current leadership.
BUT it actually did force TARP to be wound down quickly with few losses YET to the taxpayer.
But we still don't know when AIG is gonna be solvent or how many more bailouts they may need.
Some firms ended up subsidizing the loses of others.
The stimulus was the new Dem Majority's first move upon taking the WH. It was a pork bonanza masquerading as a recovery initiative.
You made me go look it up. Why couldn't you?
=================================
Bush signs stimulus package into law
WASHINGTON President Bush on Wednesday signed a multibillion-dollar economic rescue package on Wednesday that means $300 to $1,200 rebates for many American households.
Bush called the measure "a booster shot for our economy" to stave off a recession.
Bush signs stimulus package into law - Business - Stocks & economy - msnbc.com
I guess Bush was the only Republican who didn't want the country to fail. He only started his schemes because in his limited imagination, they worked. Funny, the last two did.
The Stimulus that you cite was signed in Febuary of 2008. The Failed Stimulus of the Big 0 was a year later. Are you intentionally trying to decieve, that is lying, or do you really not know the difference?
