patrick.net

Horrible, horrible analogy.

Thinking about it correctly, the bartender wouldhave served the first scotch, which the bank may have drank or may not have. However, before he ordered his next drink from the bartender, he returned the exact same brand of scotch, plus a small amount more, that the bartender was able to serve to someone else.

He then ordered his next drink. Rinse, repeat, And so on...

Dan you are better than this.

Maybe it's time for that Trillion Dollar Coin.

david1 says

Horrible, horrible analogy.

Thinking about it correctly, the bartender wouldhave served the first scotch, which the bank may have drank or may not have. However, before he ordered his next drink from the bartender, he returned the exact same brand of scotch, plus a small amount more, that the bartender was able to serve to someone else.

He then ordered his next drink. Rinse, repeat, And so on...

Dan you are better than this.

Tell you what, when I get to create $29 trillion out of thin air, lend it to the government for one year at 1% interest, pocketing the $290 billion in interest for that year, profit for doing absolutely fucking nothing and producing absolutely nothing, then I'll concede that no one has a legitimate complaint about these shenanigans. Till then, it's a massive rip-off of the American people.

errc says

By printing "money" and changing the rules of the game for the politically privileged, they in effect robbed working folk of some serious fucking increases in the purchasing power of our labor.

Exactly. When financial games are played that produce no wealth, yet bestow upon the few massive amounts of wealth, that wealth has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is ordinary people including you and me.

By stealing the purchasing power of our savings and wages, they are stealing our savings and wages. Trickery does not change the truth.

There is no mathematically possible way to bail out the gamblers when things go wrong for them except by fucking over the non-gamblers.

Dan8267 says

There is no mathematically possible way to bail out the gamblers when things go wrong for them except by fucking over the non-gamblers.

That's right, and that's the beauty about math, it just is.

Dan8267 says

Let me repeat that. You, personally, lost over quarter of a million dollars bailing out a scumbag banker who looks down at you like you are subhuman.

no... we bailed out people who overpaid overborrowed ... overvalued homes.

and they are still doing it today... bankers were not party to peoples irrational

behavior over homes prices.

You try to explain to some twit in SFBA that some shack which sold for $150-200K really cannot be

anywhere near $1m or more .... where did that come from ?

thomaswong.1986 says

Dan8267 says

Let me repeat that. You, personally, lost over quarter of a million dollars bailing out a scumbag banker who looks down at you like you are subhuman.

no... we bailed out people who overpaid overborrowed ... overvalued homes.

and they are still doing it today... bankers were not party to peoples irrational

behavior over homes prices.

I'd say we did both, not just in the spirit of compromise ;)

mell says

I'd say we did both, not just in the spirit of compromise ;)

Then both it is.. if you want to fix the problem.. then fix both !
But that other hasnt been addressed yet..

thomaswong.1986 says

bankers were not party to peoples irrational

behavior over homes prices.

Really? Did they HAVE to loan out their money to people who were buying overvalued homes?? How in the hell can you even write that banks were not party to it??

mell says

I'd say we did both, not just in the spirit of compromise ;)

Exactly. But the bank bailout wasn't for the sake of the borrowers.

If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, it's your problem. If you owe the bank a billion dollars, it's their problem.

thomaswong.1986 says

mell says

I'd say we did both, not just in the spirit of compromise ;)

Then both it is.. if you want to fix the problem.. then fix both !

But that other hasnt been addressed yet..

Um, that's because this thread's OP is about the bank bailout.

Reality says

Likewise, if the old existing banks with too much debt went bankrupt, new banks would emerge so long as banking is a service that people want, just like people still need/want roofs over their heads and twinkies.

I guarantee you that the thousands of small banks and credit unions would be immensely better off had the old dinosaurs been allowed to die. It would have created a renaissance in banking much like the Black Death caused the actual Renaissance.

The whole economic Darwinism thing and the invisible hand of the market doesn't work if government prevents big, terrible corporations from dying from fatal mistakes. And without death, there can be no growth, no change, no progress.