The Myth That Sold the Wall Street Bailouts
September 16, 2014Financial Fear-Mongering
The Myth That Sold the Wall Street Bailouts
by Dean Baker
This week marks the sixth anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. The investment banks bankruptcy accelerated the financial meltdown that began with the near collapse of the investment bank Bear Stearns in March 2008 (saved by the Federal Reserve and JPMorgan) and picked up steam with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going under the week before Lehmans demise. The day after Lehman failed, the giant insurer AIG was set to collapse, only to be rescued by the Fed.
With the other Wall Street behemoths also on shaky ground, thenTreasury Secretary Henry Paulson ran to Capitol Hill, accompanied by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner. Their message was clear: The apocalypse was nigh. They demanded Congress make an open-ended commitment to bail out the banks. In a message repeated endlessly by the punditocracy ever since, the failure to cough up the money would have led to a second Great Depression.
The claim was nonsense then, and its even greater nonsense now.
To be sure, without the helping hand of the government, most of the major Wall Street banks would have quickly collapsed. There was a full-fledged run on the big five investment banks. With Bear Stearns and Lehman already having faced bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs were certain to follow suit in the very near future. Citigroup and Bank of America were also bound to fail, by anyones calculations.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/16/the-myth-that-sold-the-wall-street-bailouts/
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)newthinking
(3,982 posts)unlimited play money.
Disgusting.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)B.S. Dean Baker ... You can't say:
At best, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo might have survived, but even these two relatively healthy banks could well have been caught up in the maelstrom. This would have meant the demise of Wall Street as we know it. But would it have meant a second Great Depression, defined as a decade of double-digit unemployment?
And,
We don't know that! We didn't know it at the time; nor, is it clear, now.
Nor, can you note:
and:
Finally, you can't say:
Spend what money?
This is not to suggest that Banking, in general, and Investment Banking, in particular, do not require much more forceful regulation; but to pretend that the bail-outs were not the best, short-term, alternative for the global economy, because you SUSPECT there wouldn't have been financial devastation is speculative, at best.
(On a side note: Punditry, has got to be the best job in the world ... you can postulate whatever you wish, especially with the benefit of hind-sight, knowing that there is little price to pay, if you get/got it wrong!)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The goal was to save Wall Street. And guess who got volunteered to pick up the $16 trillion tab?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Crewleader
(17,005 posts)polynomial
(750 posts)The incredible American economic experiment is becoming simple common sense. Americas basic Constitutional values have never been unleashed. Americans have been punked from the get go.
As the famous saying goes it does not matter who is president as long as the money is controlled by someone else I believe that was Vanderbilt that made the quote or Rothschild. These are people with a great deal more experience than me, figuring how to skim every nickel from the citizen.
However, today with the unexpected diversity in the Internet communications that one percent that usually enjoyed the media control its conflation, obfuscation with all the advantages in the amalgamation is starting to reveal a temper in the way of showing ignorance with that history of obvious deception. Right wing lies are running wild.
That famous quote can be expanded from not just the president but to those of the Supreme Court, a Cabinet, Congress, Governors, and legions of corporate leaders and appointed judges.
It will become obvious someday to halt any screw up will be to simply reverse the concept in the mortgage as Americans are people and corporations are people will be challenged.
If the common citizen is a people and people are a corporation there should be legal symmetry in what the average corporation does and the same should apply to the citizen.
Actually the whole concept of eminent domain is about to be challenged. In the most common sense the common citizen should be able to have Cayman Island accounts or secret Swiss banking too. Or be able to sell and trade stocks and bonds on ebay.
Crewleader
(17,005 posts)I look forward to your future posts friend.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)GM
Chrysler
AIG
BS
Lehman
Fred
Fannie