Are there any economic beneffits from global corporations ?

[CultureCitizen]

Well , then banks should keep their MBS, I have no trouble with that.

TARP
Their capital was the same after the Fed bought the guaranteed MBS, as before.
So if you have a good answer for that bailout question, let me know.

TARP

Yeah, those short term loans that were repaid, at a profit of tens of billions to the Treasury.

Just awful. LOL!

The returns were 8.2 over 2 years. I wonder how many home owners had such a low interest rate and weren't subject to predatory lending.

The returns were 8.2 over 2 years.

You'll have to explain what this means. And maybe provide a link?

I wonder how many home owners had such a low interest rate

TARP rates were kinda high. I could show you.
If you're a homeowner and haven't refied since QE dropped rates into the basement, you're hopeless.

Bank Bailout Returns 8.2 Beating Treasury Yields - Bloomberg Business

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

TARP
Their capital was the same after the Fed bought the guaranteed MBS, as before.
So if you have a good answer for that bailout question, let me know.

TARP

Yeah, those short term loans that were repaid, at a profit of tens of billions to the Treasury.

Just awful. LOL!

The returns were 8.2 over 2 years. I wonder how many home owners had such a low interest rate and weren't subject to predatory lending.

The returns were 8.2 over 2 years.

You'll have to explain what this means. And maybe provide a link?

I wonder how many home owners had such a low interest rate

TARP rates were kinda high. I could show you.
If you're a homeowner and haven't refied since QE dropped rates into the basement, you're hopeless.

Bank Bailout Returns 8.2 Beating Treasury Yields - Bloomberg Business

Thanks for the link.

The government has earned $25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurance companies, an 8.2 percent return over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

And the return was actually higher, because much was repaid before the 2 years.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

TARP

Yeah, those short term loans that were repaid, at a profit of tens of billions to the Treasury.

Just awful. LOL!

The returns were 8.2 over 2 years. I wonder how many home owners had such a low interest rate and weren't subject to predatory lending.

The returns were 8.2 over 2 years.

You'll have to explain what this means. And maybe provide a link?

I wonder how many home owners had such a low interest rate

TARP rates were kinda high. I could show you.
If you're a homeowner and haven't refied since QE dropped rates into the basement, you're hopeless.

Bank Bailout Returns 8.2 Beating Treasury Yields - Bloomberg Business

Thanks for the link.

The government has earned $25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurance companies, an 8.2 percent return over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

And the return was actually higher, because much was repaid before the 2 years.

What's the return after $trillions spent bailing out failed liberal individuals?

Oh, and of course we don't need global corporations as per op!! We should start growing our own bananas at $10.00/ lbs rather than buying them for $.05/lb from global corporations!!

 

[danielpalos]

Yeah, those short term loans that were repaid, at a profit of tens of billions to the Treasury.

Just awful. LOL!

The returns were 8.2 over 2 years. I wonder how many home owners had such a low interest rate and weren't subject to predatory lending.

The returns were 8.2 over 2 years.

You'll have to explain what this means. And maybe provide a link?

I wonder how many home owners had such a low interest rate

TARP rates were kinda high. I could show you.
If you're a homeowner and haven't refied since QE dropped rates into the basement, you're hopeless.

Bank Bailout Returns 8.2 Beating Treasury Yields - Bloomberg Business

Thanks for the link.

The government has earned $25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurance companies, an 8.2 percent return over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

And the return was actually higher, because much was repaid before the 2 years.

What's the return after $trillions spent bailing out failed liberal individuals?

Oh, and of course we don't need global corporations as per op!! We should start growing our own bananas at $10.00/ lbs rather than buying them for $.05/lb from global corporations!!

The left gets to listen the the right complain the poor in the US are not really poor enough. It depends on whether or no you want to grow your own banana tree.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The returns were 8.2 over 2 years. I wonder how many home owners had such a low interest rate and weren't subject to predatory lending.

whats the return on bailing out millins of failed individuals besides crippling generations of Americans who will need more and more welfare ?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

subject to predatory lending.

to a liberal there was only predatory lending but not predatory borrowing? The banks got screwed and lost billions while predatory borrowers just walked away.

A liberal imagines people still die in debtors prison!!

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[CultureCitizen]

subject to predatory lending.

to a liberal there was only predatory lending but not predatory borrowing? The banks got screwed and lost billions while predatory borrowers just walked away.

A liberal imagines people still die in debtors prison!!

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

So , If I make a bad ca

subject to predatory lending.

to a liberal there was only predatory lending but not predatory borrowing? The banks got screwed and lost billions while predatory borrowers just walked away.

A liberal imagines people still die in debtors prison!!

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

"We have reminded the boards of banks that their primary fiduciary duty is to ensure the safety and soundness of the national bank or federal savings association. This responsibility involves focus on the risk and control infrastructure. Directors must be certain that appropriate personnel, strategic planning, risk tolerance, operating processes, delegations of authority, controls, and reports are in place to effectively oversee the performance of the bank. The bank should not simply function as a booking entity for the holding company. It is incumbent upon bank directors to be mindful of this primary fiduciary duty as they execute their responsibilities"

http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/congressional-testimony/2013/pub-test-2013-45-written.pdf

 

[Andylusion]

Poor (working) people don't transfer wealth to the rich. They rent their capital for a fee, and are certainly not forced to do that. It's not a wealth transfer but agreement that benefits both parties. Generally poor people are the ones who DO NOT work, in which case your point becomes even more absurd. You can't transfer something that doesn't exist.

Labour is not Capital. Better get your basic economic definitions straight first.

Human capital - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Human capital is the stock of knowledge, habits, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value.

 

[Andylusion]

"We have reminded the boards of banks that their primary fiduciary duty is to ensure the safety and soundness of the national bank or federal savings association. This responsibility involves focus on the risk and control infrastructure. Directors must be certain that appropriate personnel, strategic planning, risk tolerance, operating processes, delegations of authority, controls, and reports are in place to effectively oversee the performance of the bank. The bank should not simply function as a booking entity for the holding company. It is incumbent upon bank directors to be mindful of this primary fiduciary duty as they execute their responsibilities"

http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/congressional-testimony/2013/pub-test-2013-45-written.pdf

This is one of those moment, when I wonder if I am talking to a rational thinking individual.

All of that is irrelevant. Do you think the banks care what the government says is their "primary fiduciary duty" is?

That's like going to a prison, and reminding the criminals that their "Primary Civic Duty is to uphold the law". Yeah that'll work. There's a left-wing plan of action. There we go... we said it was their duty, so they will now do it, because we said so. Left-wing Government at work.

You can make up all the "duties" and claims about what they "should do" until the end of time. You can pass all the regulations you want, until you choke to death on your own red tape.

In the end, every person is going to react to any situation, for their own self interest. You can either accept that, and harness it for our benefit, or deny that to our harm.

There is no such thing as predatory lending. All lending involves giving someone money, and getting more back, than you gave. Interest rates depend on risk. Just because you don't like how much interest they charge, doesn't mean it is any more predatory than any other loan. No one forces anyone to take a loan.

Now if you don't want high interest loans... great. Let's cap interest rates at 10%. That's fine.... but understand, people are not going to be able to get loans. If you are ok with people being denied loans across the country, great. Let's do it. I'm actually ok with this. But I am not in denial that somehow we can cap interest rates, and people will still get the loans they want. They won't.

The people on the left, seem to live in a fantasy world, where they can dictate interest rates, and yet have no reduction of loans. As if the banks are going to make lowest interest, high risk loans, because of their "primary fiduciary duty" to society. BULL. They are not. Higher risk loans, means higher interest rates. If you can't have a higher interest rate, then you don't make the loan.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Poor (working) people don't transfer wealth to the rich. They rent their capital for a fee, and are certainly not forced to do that. It's not a wealth transfer but agreement that benefits both parties. Generally poor people are the ones who DO NOT work, in which case your point becomes even more absurd. You can't transfer something that doesn't exist.

Labour is not Capital. Better get your basic economic definitions straight first.

Human capital - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Human capital is the stock of knowledge, habits, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value.

Andy ,
You are just telling that "human capital" refers to a set of skills that are realized when labour is performed, not that :
a) Capital is the same as human capital or
b) Labour is capital ... which could only be true if you are a slaver.

 

[CultureCitizen]

All of that is irrelevant. Do you think the banks care what the government says is their "primary fiduciary duty" is?

That's like going to a prison, and reminding the criminals that their "Primary Civic Duty is to uphold the law". Yeah that'll work. There's a left-wing plan of action. There we go... we said it was their duty, so they will now do it, because we said so. Left-wing Government at work.

Andy,
Let's just put it this way . If a chip producing company sells on credit and the customer doesn't pay, because it doesn't have the means to pay. Then
a) The customer is clearly commiting some sort of fraud
b) The vendor clearly made a bad business decission .
c) Nor a or b are excuses to bailout any of the involved parties.

Now , it doesn't bother me so much that they were bailed out , but the fact that some people think banks were entitled to it... the same people who think investing in education or R&D is a waste of money.

 

[Andylusion]

Poor (working) people don't transfer wealth to the rich. They rent their capital for a fee, and are certainly not forced to do that. It's not a wealth transfer but agreement that benefits both parties. Generally poor people are the ones who DO NOT work, in which case your point becomes even more absurd. You can't transfer something that doesn't exist.

Labour is not Capital. Better get your basic economic definitions straight first.

Human capital - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Human capital is the stock of knowledge, habits, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value.

Andy ,
You are just telling that "human capital" refers to a set of skills that are realized when labour is performed, not that :
a) Capital is the same as human capital or
b) Labour is capital ... which could only be true if you are a slaver.

No, slavery would be if you are not a capitalist system, and do not own your own labor, like say.... Stalin's Russia, or Nazi work camps, or Mao's Collective.

In those non-capitalist system, you don't own your own labor. The communist party says "you work there", and that's that. You work there. The Maoists say "You work in the rice patty", and you work in the rice patty.

Under a Capitalist system, you own your own labor. You own it. You can sell it. I sell my labor to my employer, and he pays me for my labor. It's my capital. Everyone in a Capitalist system, owns their own labor, and thus is a capitalist.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

subject to predatory lending.

to a liberal there was only predatory lending but not predatory borrowing? The banks got screwed and lost billions while predatory borrowers just walked away.

A liberal imagines people still die in debtors prison!!

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

So , If I make a bad ca

subject to predatory lending.

to a liberal there was only predatory lending but not predatory borrowing? The banks got screwed and lost billions while predatory borrowers just walked away.

A liberal imagines people still die in debtors prison!!

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

"We have reminded the boards of banks that their primary fiduciary duty is to ensure the safety and soundness of the national bank or federal savings association. This responsibility involves focus on the risk and control infrastructure. Directors must be certain that appropriate personnel, strategic planning, risk tolerance, operating processes, delegations of authority, controls, and reports are in place to effectively oversee the performance of the bank. The bank should not simply function as a booking entity for the holding company. It is incumbent upon bank directors to be mindful of this primary fiduciary duty as they execute their responsibilities"

http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/congressional-testimony/2013/pub-test-2013-45-written.pdf

Dear, as long as the Feds were printing money and housing prices always rose it seemed responsible to expect that in the future. It was called "The Greenspan Put".

There are many books on how the libcommies distorted the market so no one could really know what was happening. Do you want a list??

 

[Andylusion]

All of that is irrelevant. Do you think the banks care what the government says is their "primary fiduciary duty" is?

That's like going to a prison, and reminding the criminals that their "Primary Civic Duty is to uphold the law". Yeah that'll work. There's a left-wing plan of action. There we go... we said it was their duty, so they will now do it, because we said so. Left-wing Government at work.

Andy,
Let's just put it this way . If a chip producing company sells on credit and the customer doesn't pay, because it doesn't have the means to pay. Then
a) The customer is clearly commiting some sort of fraud
b) The vendor clearly made a bad business decission .
c) Nor a or b are excuses to bailout any of the involved parties.

Now , it doesn't bother me so much that they were bailed out , but the fact that some people think banks were entitled to it... the same people who think investing in education or R&D is a waste of money.

A: The customer is not committing fraud if they believe they can pay.
B: The vendor is not making a bad business decision, if they believe they will end up with a property of higher value then how much they lent. Which was the case for awhile.
C: There is never a reason to bailout anyone.

They *are* entitled to it, if you say they are.

I say they are not. I do have a problem with it. No one, anywhere, ever, should get money from the government for making bad choices.

And investing is R&D is not a waste of money, but shouldn't be done by the government.

Again, you complain about rich getting richer, and poor getting poorer, and then support policies that do exactly that?

Years ago I worked at a company that was doing R&D on power systems for hybrid buses. In 2007, they had a company meeting where among other things, they announced plans to start this project.

In 2008 they had another meeting, and the project was put on hold. I asked the CEO of the company, why the project was not moving forward. He claimed that recent governmental changes, indicated they could get funding from the government, to fund the project.

Obviously the "changes" was that Obama was elected, and he openly said he intended to give more money to "green-energy" research. Our CEO figured he could get the tax payers to fund the project, boosting his income by a ton.

People on the Left, pushing R&D research money, paid for his now sports car. My CEO thanks you. It is a waste of money. We would have funded and done the research and design on that power system without a penny from the government. But if you stupid enough to hand out money to rich people, they will take it!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now , it doesn't bother me so much that they were bailed out ,

bother you???libcommies love to bailout failed individuals and have no hope of ever being repaid

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

t some people think banks were entitled to it..

Actually not one person!! but all intelligent people think the world's economy needed to be saved from depression