for my next trick….

[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1][quote=sdduuuude]

The Q is – do you want to continue to rely on banking institutions which are so unsound that they would have collapsed without a bailout ? Or do you want to have available to you a stronger breed of bank who weathered the recent storm on their own ?[/quote]

In theory, I agree with you…

But that would have caused a huge recession that would have thrown millions into poverty.[/quote]

That hasn’t not happened with the current plan. Just been pushed down the road a bit, or possibly spread out over years and years, not prevented. It is a cost we will somehow have to incur to get out of the mess we are in.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]
Nationalization as a stepping-stone to eliminating weaker banks without hosing the depositors seems a reasonable thing.
[/quote]

I also agree.

But in the beginning, policy makers did not grasp the gravity of the fraud that had taken place, and defaults about to take place.

Economic philosophy was such that any mention of nationalization was unthinkable. That led us down the path of no return.

It would also have been an admission of the failure of the deregulation regime that was put in place since Reagan.

[quote=sdduuuude]
The current situation with all the bailouts and backstops IS more like nationalization than anything, except without the benefits. The govt is sharing the risk, but not the rewards of the bank. It’s the worst of both worlds, really. If the banks fail, the taxpayers are hosed, but if they make money, the taxpayers don’t make any money.[/quote]

Again, I agree, the private banks hold all the cards and their are using them to their advantage, to our collective detriment.

So for those of you who don’t like the Bush-Bernanke-Paulson-Geithner plan, you should support the Volcker plan.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]
Nationalization as a stepping-stone to eliminating weaker banks without hosing the depositors seems a reasonable thing.
[/quote]

I also agree.

But in the beginning, policy makers did not grasp the gravity of the fraud that had taken place, and defaults about to take place.

Economic philosophy was such that any mention of nationalization was unthinkable. That led us down the path of no return.

It would also have been an admission of the failure of the deregulation regime that was put in place since Reagan.

[quote=sdduuuude]
The current situation with all the bailouts and backstops IS more like nationalization than anything, except without the benefits. The govt is sharing the risk, but not the rewards of the bank. It’s the worst of both worlds, really. If the banks fail, the taxpayers are hosed, but if they make money, the taxpayers don’t make any money.[/quote]

Again, I agree, the private banks hold all the cards and their are using them to their advantage, to our collective detriment.

So for those of you who don’t like the Bush-Bernanke-Paulson-Geithner plan, you should support the Volcker plan.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]
Nationalization as a stepping-stone to eliminating weaker banks without hosing the depositors seems a reasonable thing.
[/quote]

I also agree.

But in the beginning, policy makers did not grasp the gravity of the fraud that had taken place, and defaults about to take place.

Economic philosophy was such that any mention of nationalization was unthinkable. That led us down the path of no return.

It would also have been an admission of the failure of the deregulation regime that was put in place since Reagan.

[quote=sdduuuude]
The current situation with all the bailouts and backstops IS more like nationalization than anything, except without the benefits. The govt is sharing the risk, but not the rewards of the bank. It’s the worst of both worlds, really. If the banks fail, the taxpayers are hosed, but if they make money, the taxpayers don’t make any money.[/quote]

Again, I agree, the private banks hold all the cards and their are using them to their advantage, to our collective detriment.

So for those of you who don’t like the Bush-Bernanke-Paulson-Geithner plan, you should support the Volcker plan.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]
Nationalization as a stepping-stone to eliminating weaker banks without hosing the depositors seems a reasonable thing.
[/quote]

I also agree.

But in the beginning, policy makers did not grasp the gravity of the fraud that had taken place, and defaults about to take place.

Economic philosophy was such that any mention of nationalization was unthinkable. That led us down the path of no return.

It would also have been an admission of the failure of the deregulation regime that was put in place since Reagan.

[quote=sdduuuude]
The current situation with all the bailouts and backstops IS more like nationalization than anything, except without the benefits. The govt is sharing the risk, but not the rewards of the bank. It’s the worst of both worlds, really. If the banks fail, the taxpayers are hosed, but if they make money, the taxpayers don’t make any money.[/quote]

Again, I agree, the private banks hold all the cards and their are using them to their advantage, to our collective detriment.

So for those of you who don’t like the Bush-Bernanke-Paulson-Geithner plan, you should support the Volcker plan.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]
Nationalization as a stepping-stone to eliminating weaker banks without hosing the depositors seems a reasonable thing.
[/quote]

I also agree.

But in the beginning, policy makers did not grasp the gravity of the fraud that had taken place, and defaults about to take place.

Economic philosophy was such that any mention of nationalization was unthinkable. That led us down the path of no return.

It would also have been an admission of the failure of the deregulation regime that was put in place since Reagan.

[quote=sdduuuude]
The current situation with all the bailouts and backstops IS more like nationalization than anything, except without the benefits. The govt is sharing the risk, but not the rewards of the bank. It’s the worst of both worlds, really. If the banks fail, the taxpayers are hosed, but if they make money, the taxpayers don’t make any money.[/quote]

Again, I agree, the private banks hold all the cards and their are using them to their advantage, to our collective detriment.

So for those of you who don’t like the Bush-Bernanke-Paulson-Geithner plan, you should support the Volcker plan.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]

That hasn’t not happened with the current plan. Just been pushed down the road a bit, or possibly spread out over years and years, not prevented. It is a cost we will somehow have to incur to get out of the mess we are in.[/quote]

Again, I agree. Future generations will pay for it.

If you don’t borrow and live only using your cash earnings, your kids will have a nice inheritance when you pass away.

If you borrow and spend, you have nothing to give your kids; and they may have to sell your house to pay off your debts when you pass away.

The same principle applies to the country. We are sacrificing future generations to maintain our current standard of living.

As I said before, debts and financial engineering only allows us to front-load consumption. You have to pay for it eventually.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]

That hasn’t not happened with the current plan. Just been pushed down the road a bit, or possibly spread out over years and years, not prevented. It is a cost we will somehow have to incur to get out of the mess we are in.[/quote]

Again, I agree. Future generations will pay for it.

If you don’t borrow and live only using your cash earnings, your kids will have a nice inheritance when you pass away.

If you borrow and spend, you have nothing to give your kids; and they may have to sell your house to pay off your debts when you pass away.

The same principle applies to the country. We are sacrificing future generations to maintain our current standard of living.

As I said before, debts and financial engineering only allows us to front-load consumption. You have to pay for it eventually.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]

That hasn’t not happened with the current plan. Just been pushed down the road a bit, or possibly spread out over years and years, not prevented. It is a cost we will somehow have to incur to get out of the mess we are in.[/quote]

Again, I agree. Future generations will pay for it.

If you don’t borrow and live only using your cash earnings, your kids will have a nice inheritance when you pass away.

If you borrow and spend, you have nothing to give your kids; and they may have to sell your house to pay off your debts when you pass away.

The same principle applies to the country. We are sacrificing future generations to maintain our current standard of living.

As I said before, debts and financial engineering only allows us to front-load consumption. You have to pay for it eventually.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]

That hasn’t not happened with the current plan. Just been pushed down the road a bit, or possibly spread out over years and years, not prevented. It is a cost we will somehow have to incur to get out of the mess we are in.[/quote]

Again, I agree. Future generations will pay for it.

If you don’t borrow and live only using your cash earnings, your kids will have a nice inheritance when you pass away.

If you borrow and spend, you have nothing to give your kids; and they may have to sell your house to pay off your debts when you pass away.

The same principle applies to the country. We are sacrificing future generations to maintain our current standard of living.

As I said before, debts and financial engineering only allows us to front-load consumption. You have to pay for it eventually.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]

That hasn’t not happened with the current plan. Just been pushed down the road a bit, or possibly spread out over years and years, not prevented. It is a cost we will somehow have to incur to get out of the mess we are in.[/quote]

Again, I agree. Future generations will pay for it.

If you don’t borrow and live only using your cash earnings, your kids will have a nice inheritance when you pass away.

If you borrow and spend, you have nothing to give your kids; and they may have to sell your house to pay off your debts when you pass away.

The same principle applies to the country. We are sacrificing future generations to maintain our current standard of living.

As I said before, debts and financial engineering only allows us to front-load consumption. You have to pay for it eventually.

[gandalf]

An interesting conversation, nice thread. I honestly have no idea what the right answer was to the financial crisis. I’m grateful the economy seems to have stabilized. Deeply frustrated by the moral hazard aspects of the bailout.

[gandalf]

An interesting conversation, nice thread. I honestly have no idea what the right answer was to the financial crisis. I’m grateful the economy seems to have stabilized. Deeply frustrated by the moral hazard aspects of the bailout.

[gandalf]

An interesting conversation, nice thread. I honestly have no idea what the right answer was to the financial crisis. I’m grateful the economy seems to have stabilized. Deeply frustrated by the moral hazard aspects of the bailout.

[gandalf]

An interesting conversation, nice thread. I honestly have no idea what the right answer was to the financial crisis. I’m grateful the economy seems to have stabilized. Deeply frustrated by the moral hazard aspects of the bailout.

[Author]

Posts