TARP now estimated to cost $356 billion

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breezhnev: My God, you really don’t know how to properly argue a point, do you?

Read my paragraph that you have highlighted. Note where I say that we were “on the verge” in 1998 with LTCM and that, given the much, much larger exposure today in terms of size, that we would cause systemic collapse. Can you grasp the nettle and see the distinction?

1998 = close to collapse and with much smaller exposure and far smaller derivatives market.

2009 = collapse due to much larger exposure and far larger market. With me so far?

Using that very same example, Russia’s banking system is nowhere near the size of ours, nor does it have anywhere near the same level of complexity as ours does.

Both examples are apples and oranges and not apples and apples. Sheesh. It’s like not knowing the difference between an investment bank and a commercial bank =).

[Coronita]

Allan….

I’m not going to step in mud on this one. Although I read, I’m not going to say that reading a bunch of blogs makes me an expert in understanding the ramifications a bank failure here and a bank shortfall will be “ok”. However, have several relatives been knee deep in I-banking, I can say these derivatives and financial instruments are way more complicated than average mortals (inclusive) can understand.

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

To breezie’s credit…The difference between commercial banking versus i-banking, though, gotten quite murky since the repeal of Glass-Steagall :)…
heh heh.

BTW: Me thinks Frank Quattrone types will be back in business….with their pump on one side, dump on the other….Boy Frank dodged a big bullet, if you followed what he did. See folks, pseudo-crime does pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Quattrone

[Coronita]

Allan….

I’m not going to step in mud on this one. Although I read, I’m not going to say that reading a bunch of blogs makes me an expert in understanding the ramifications a bank failure here and a bank shortfall will be “ok”. However, have several relatives been knee deep in I-banking, I can say these derivatives and financial instruments are way more complicated than average mortals (inclusive) can understand.

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

To breezie’s credit…The difference between commercial banking versus i-banking, though, gotten quite murky since the repeal of Glass-Steagall :)…
heh heh.

BTW: Me thinks Frank Quattrone types will be back in business….with their pump on one side, dump on the other….Boy Frank dodged a big bullet, if you followed what he did. See folks, pseudo-crime does pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Quattrone

[Coronita]

Allan….

I’m not going to step in mud on this one. Although I read, I’m not going to say that reading a bunch of blogs makes me an expert in understanding the ramifications a bank failure here and a bank shortfall will be “ok”. However, have several relatives been knee deep in I-banking, I can say these derivatives and financial instruments are way more complicated than average mortals (inclusive) can understand.

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

To breezie’s credit…The difference between commercial banking versus i-banking, though, gotten quite murky since the repeal of Glass-Steagall :)…
heh heh.

BTW: Me thinks Frank Quattrone types will be back in business….with their pump on one side, dump on the other….Boy Frank dodged a big bullet, if you followed what he did. See folks, pseudo-crime does pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Quattrone

[Coronita]

Allan….

I’m not going to step in mud on this one. Although I read, I’m not going to say that reading a bunch of blogs makes me an expert in understanding the ramifications a bank failure here and a bank shortfall will be “ok”. However, have several relatives been knee deep in I-banking, I can say these derivatives and financial instruments are way more complicated than average mortals (inclusive) can understand.

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

To breezie’s credit…The difference between commercial banking versus i-banking, though, gotten quite murky since the repeal of Glass-Steagall :)…
heh heh.

BTW: Me thinks Frank Quattrone types will be back in business….with their pump on one side, dump on the other….Boy Frank dodged a big bullet, if you followed what he did. See folks, pseudo-crime does pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Quattrone

[Coronita]

Allan….

I’m not going to step in mud on this one. Although I read, I’m not going to say that reading a bunch of blogs makes me an expert in understanding the ramifications a bank failure here and a bank shortfall will be “ok”. However, have several relatives been knee deep in I-banking, I can say these derivatives and financial instruments are way more complicated than average mortals (inclusive) can understand.

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

To breezie’s credit…The difference between commercial banking versus i-banking, though, gotten quite murky since the repeal of Glass-Steagall :)…
heh heh.

BTW: Me thinks Frank Quattrone types will be back in business….with their pump on one side, dump on the other….Boy Frank dodged a big bullet, if you followed what he did. See folks, pseudo-crime does pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Quattrone

[TheBreeze]

[quote=flu]

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

[/quote]

Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?

I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.

Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?

The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.

I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=flu]

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

[/quote]

Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?

I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.

Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?

The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.

I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=flu]

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

[/quote]

Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?

I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.

Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?

The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.

I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=flu]

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

[/quote]

Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?

I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.

Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?

The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.

I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=flu]

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

[/quote]

Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?

I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.

Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?

The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.

I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.

[Coronita]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=flu]

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

[/quote]

Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?

I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.

Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?

The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.

I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.
[/quote]

Breezie. What is it that you want? Do you want a complete collapse of the U.S. economy? Do you look forward to everyone being thrown on the street, no food, no water, and everyone armed with guns, reversion back to the wild wild west in which needs/wants are satisfied the ones with the bigger guns….It’s not a question of whether or not government throwing more money is risky or not. Everything has risk. Guess what, this is the almost like General Custard’s last stand. It’s the Hail Mary, or whatever your faith calls it. Obama and this administration just traded off our future generations by how much we’re going to spend. We’re going to be spending more money on bank bailouts. You think there are better alternatives?

And BTW: this administration is doing about the just about the same in terms of deregulating, relaxing rules, and expose this country to more risk. Weren’t you one that put voted for the admin? What were you thinking when you voted for a lopsided 1 party dominated government. It was an open ticket just like how the rep’s had it for almost 8 years. 🙂

[Coronita]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=flu]

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

[/quote]

Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?

I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.

Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?

The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.

I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.
[/quote]

Breezie. What is it that you want? Do you want a complete collapse of the U.S. economy? Do you look forward to everyone being thrown on the street, no food, no water, and everyone armed with guns, reversion back to the wild wild west in which needs/wants are satisfied the ones with the bigger guns….It’s not a question of whether or not government throwing more money is risky or not. Everything has risk. Guess what, this is the almost like General Custard’s last stand. It’s the Hail Mary, or whatever your faith calls it. Obama and this administration just traded off our future generations by how much we’re going to spend. We’re going to be spending more money on bank bailouts. You think there are better alternatives?

And BTW: this administration is doing about the just about the same in terms of deregulating, relaxing rules, and expose this country to more risk. Weren’t you one that put voted for the admin? What were you thinking when you voted for a lopsided 1 party dominated government. It was an open ticket just like how the rep’s had it for almost 8 years. 🙂

[Coronita]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=flu]

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

[/quote]

Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?

I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.

Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?

The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.

I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.
[/quote]

Breezie. What is it that you want? Do you want a complete collapse of the U.S. economy? Do you look forward to everyone being thrown on the street, no food, no water, and everyone armed with guns, reversion back to the wild wild west in which needs/wants are satisfied the ones with the bigger guns….It’s not a question of whether or not government throwing more money is risky or not. Everything has risk. Guess what, this is the almost like General Custard’s last stand. It’s the Hail Mary, or whatever your faith calls it. Obama and this administration just traded off our future generations by how much we’re going to spend. We’re going to be spending more money on bank bailouts. You think there are better alternatives?

And BTW: this administration is doing about the just about the same in terms of deregulating, relaxing rules, and expose this country to more risk. Weren’t you one that put voted for the admin? What were you thinking when you voted for a lopsided 1 party dominated government. It was an open ticket just like how the rep’s had it for almost 8 years. 🙂

[Coronita]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=flu]

Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.

[/quote]

Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?

I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.

Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?

The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.

I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.
[/quote]

Breezie. What is it that you want? Do you want a complete collapse of the U.S. economy? Do you look forward to everyone being thrown on the street, no food, no water, and everyone armed with guns, reversion back to the wild wild west in which needs/wants are satisfied the ones with the bigger guns….It’s not a question of whether or not government throwing more money is risky or not. Everything has risk. Guess what, this is the almost like General Custard’s last stand. It’s the Hail Mary, or whatever your faith calls it. Obama and this administration just traded off our future generations by how much we’re going to spend. We’re going to be spending more money on bank bailouts. You think there are better alternatives?

And BTW: this administration is doing about the just about the same in terms of deregulating, relaxing rules, and expose this country to more risk. Weren’t you one that put voted for the admin? What were you thinking when you voted for a lopsided 1 party dominated government. It was an open ticket just like how the rep’s had it for almost 8 years. 🙂

[Author]

Posts