Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdduuuude
ParticipantGenerally, I think it affects the price of the house, but not the total cost of ownership. You’ll pay less for the house, but more in taxes.
ParticipantGenerally, I think it affects the price of the house, but not the total cost of ownership. You’ll pay less for the house, but more in taxes.
ParticipantGenerally, I think it affects the price of the house, but not the total cost of ownership. You’ll pay less for the house, but more in taxes.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[quote=briansd1]
Had the banks been allowed to fail, the FDIC would have taken them over which equates to wholesale nationalization (like the Northern Rock nationalization in Britain).
[/quote]The gov. does not continue to run the bank forever, though. Assets get liquidated, the FDIC moves on.
Also, it seems that banks aren’t paying enough for their FDIC insurance. If they had to pay more for it, it wouldn’t have been abused.
Nationalization as a stepping-stone to eliminating weaker banks without hosing the depositors seems a reasonable thing.
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.
Participant[quote=briansd1]
Had the banks been allowed to fail, the FDIC would have taken them over which equates to wholesale nationalization (like the Northern Rock nationalization in Britain).
[/quote]The gov. does not continue to run the bank forever, though. Assets get liquidated, the FDIC moves on.
Also, it seems that banks aren’t paying enough for their FDIC insurance. If they had to pay more for it, it wouldn’t have been abused.
Nationalization as a stepping-stone to eliminating weaker banks without hosing the depositors seems a reasonable thing.
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.
Participant[quote=briansd1]
Had the banks been allowed to fail, the FDIC would have taken them over which equates to wholesale nationalization (like the Northern Rock nationalization in Britain).
[/quote]The gov. does not continue to run the bank forever, though. Assets get liquidated, the FDIC moves on.
Also, it seems that banks aren’t paying enough for their FDIC insurance. If they had to pay more for it, it wouldn’t have been abused.
Nationalization as a stepping-stone to eliminating weaker banks without hosing the depositors seems a reasonable thing.
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.
Participant[quote=briansd1]
Had the banks been allowed to fail, the FDIC would have taken them over which equates to wholesale nationalization (like the Northern Rock nationalization in Britain).
[/quote]The gov. does not continue to run the bank forever, though. Assets get liquidated, the FDIC moves on.
Also, it seems that banks aren’t paying enough for their FDIC insurance. If they had to pay more for it, it wouldn’t have been abused.
Nationalization as a stepping-stone to eliminating weaker banks without hosing the depositors seems a reasonable thing.
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.
Participant[quote=briansd1]
Had the banks been allowed to fail, the FDIC would have taken them over which equates to wholesale nationalization (like the Northern Rock nationalization in Britain).
[/quote]The gov. does not continue to run the bank forever, though. Assets get liquidated, the FDIC moves on.
Also, it seems that banks aren’t paying enough for their FDIC insurance. If they had to pay more for it, it wouldn’t have been abused.
Nationalization as a stepping-stone to eliminating weaker banks without hosing the depositors seems a reasonable thing.
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.
ParticipantI saw it in a movie. It must be true.
-
AuthorPosts
