The Financial Reform Bill - Good or Bad?

[Toro]

As long as the 50 billion dollar perpetual bailout fund is eliminated...it would be something I could support.

The money the banks are forced to set aside for liquidation?

The government is trying to set up an FDIC-like fund for the largest banks. The fund will be paid for by the banks.

 

[JBeukema]

I love how gambling has been cleaned up by calling it investing.

and the guys running the den are called 'bankers'

 

[Modbert]

So who am I going to believe?

Toro? Someone who knows the market, the banks, and who makes a living based in this industry?

Or Dude and Boe, armchair analysts who are warning against what ifs and crackpot theories?

Difficult choice.

 

[boedicca]

As long as the 50 billion dollar perpetual bailout fund is eliminated...it would be something I could support.

The money the banks are forced to set aside for liquidation?

The government is trying to set up an FDIC-like fund for the largest banks. The fund will be paid for by the banks.

It's window dressing. The fund is so small as to be completely inadequate to address a real crisis. There is language in the bill that allows the government to seize control of banks in order to seek "repayment" of funds provided by the government. The assumption is that there will be more bail outs with taxpayer money.

 

[boedicca]

So who am I going to believe?

Toro? Someone who knows the market, the banks, and who makes a living based in this industry?

Or Dude and Boe, armchair analysts who are warning against what ifs and crackpot theories?

Difficult choice.

You have no idea what I do for a living.

 

[Toro]

The money the banks are forced to set aside for liquidation?

The government is trying to set up an FDIC-like fund for the largest banks. The fund will be paid for by the banks.

It's window dressing. The fund is so small as to be completely inadequate to address a real crisis. There is language in the bill that allows the government to seize control of banks in order to seek "repayment" of funds provided by the government. The assumption is that there will be more bail outs with taxpayer money.

There will be more bailouts with taxpayer money, whether or not this fund exists. So why not take the first $50 billion from the banks rather than the taxpayers?

 

[boedicca]

You are making a false assumption that we should bail out banks for taking stupid risks.

The only reason to assume this is if the government is forcing them to take the risks in the first place - and thus owes them a payback. In the past crisis, that was the situation. Why we should wish to replicate it is highly questionable.

 

[JBeukema]

So who am I going to believe?

Toro? Someone who knows the market, the banks, and who makes a living based in this industry?

Or Dude and Boe, armchair analysts who are warning against what ifs and crackpot theories?

Difficult choice.

You have no idea what I do for a living.

Prostitution is the act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire.[1] In most cultures, prostitution is viewed as a deviant profession,[2] either discouraged or illegal; however, motivations vary from the implications of those potentially exposed to that activity to whether it constitutes or not an exploitative practice.[3] The word "prostitution" can also be used metaphorically to mean debasement or working towards an unworthy cause.[1]

Prostitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

I guess Bo got butthurt when I said she;s working for an unworthy cause arguing with tm

 

[boedicca]

It's clear you don't understand the topic, so you resort to misogynist insults.

Nice.

 

[JBeukema]

misogynistic?

please show where I said anything bad about the female sex

 

[boedicca]

You are intellectually dishonest to boot (unsurprisingly).

 

[Modbert]

It's clear you don't understand the topic, so you resort to misogynist insults.

Nice.

Why do you assume that prostitution is only a profession for females? In your quest to throw the sexist card at JB, you've made a sexist assumption yourself.

 

[JBeukema]

 

[Toro]

You are making a false assumption that we should bail out banks for taking stupid risks.

The only reason to assume this is if the government is forcing them to take the risks in the first place - and thus owes them a payback. In the past crisis, that was the situation. Why we should wish to replicate it is highly questionable.

Oh, I completely agree with you. We shouldn't encourage banks to take stupid risks, and in an ideal world, they should be allowed to fail. But we already do, and have done so for decades.

What I think should happen is irrelevant. What matters is what will happen. Whether or not this $50 billion fund exists, a financial crisis will happen again, and taxpayers will be on the hook again. Its best, then, for the banks to absorb the first $50 billion in losses rather than the taxpayers.