General Discussion

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)

85. That's basically assuming something that wasn't, in the event, tested.

Reply to coalition_unwilling (Reply #64)

Wed May 23, 2012, 11:41 AM

May 2012

And the socialisation of risk reflects the relative importance to the overall economy; it's appropriate given that the consequences of mass bank failures would have been catastrophic for the entire economy (due to the loss of capital and the fallout of investors and depositors losing everything or only getting pennies on the dollar); this is what happened in 1929-1933, this is why we have the FDIC and fractional reserve rules now. Foreclosure is something that affects individuals, perhaps many individuals, but still compared to the economic consequences of mass bank failures and the long-term damage to the economy that would cause? there is no comparison, and there's no valid argument for collectivising individual risk in taking out a mortgage vs the collective risk of putting your money in a bank along with millions of other depositors. I'm sorry you can't wrap your head around this.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

182 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A question for Obama and\or his supporters here: [View all] coalition_unwilling May 2012 OP

yes. DCBob May 2012 #1

So, maybe the obvious next question is, is it appropriate coalition_unwilling May 2012 #3

yes, given.. DCBob May 2012 #7

We would probably be better off if this wretched system collapsed. white_wolf May 2012 #116

Any evidence to support that assertion? tabasco May 2012 #181

What's the alternative? randome May 2012 #17

You act this this is something new Freddie Stubbs May 2012 #47

Hunh? Possibly garbled syntax in your response. But I'm in the process coalition_unwilling May 2012 #65

You asked a H2O Man May 2012 #89

Double amen, Mr. H2O Man sad sally May 2012 #130

Another natural follow-up question is, Marr May 2012 #106

The FDIC doesn't have enough to bail out a big bank. dkf May 2012 #2

Not sure what the FDIC has to do with the question I raised, since the FDIC coalition_unwilling May 2012 #5

Not so much quaker bill May 2012 #15

Not if the account is FDIC-insured and less than $250,000. Or coalition_unwilling May 2012 #68

The FDIC=bank bailouts with your money Red Knight May 2012 #144

Money is money quaker bill May 2012 #145

If the FDIC did not have enough funds to rescue the banks under its charter, then coalition_unwilling May 2012 #146

Nice concepts, but not actually true quaker bill May 2012 #172

Actually, Congress appropriated funds for TARP, somthing in the coalition_unwilling May 2012 #178

What irritates me about your question is that it's highly divisive. vaberella May 2012 #4

Wow, I must have touched a nerve without really intending to. I meant that coalition_unwilling May 2012 #6

Simple Choice louis c May 2012 #22

Your position is basically ignorant, I'm afraid Spider Jerusalem May 2012 #48

Don't intend to get into a name-calling tit-for-tat here, but coalition_unwilling May 2012 #64

That's basically assuming something that wasn't, in the event, tested. Spider Jerusalem May 2012 #85

Actually, I can wrap my head around your position (I think). You're coalition_unwilling May 2012 #88

The big "bailout" was done under the Bush* Administration Bandit May 2012 #135

We need to be able to discuss problem even in an election year Marrah_G May 2012 #34

Thank you for the compliment. After I posted the thread in the coalition_unwilling May 2012 #70

"talking" online is never easy Marrah_G May 2012 #71

Thank God for the 'sarcasm' emoticon :) - n/t coalition_unwilling May 2012 #73

I'll bookmark this and get back to you as I was writing a book to answer here, LOL. freshwest May 2012 #8

"A question for Obama supporters here" grantcart May 2012 #9

To be fair Horse with no Name May 2012 #10

To be even fairer. great white snark May 2012 #11

Oh yes Horse with no Name May 2012 #12

You are correct, horse. eom truth2power May 2012 #175

lol cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #24

The problem I have with castigating people in the latter category Skidmore May 2012 #14

The problem I have with that line Marr May 2012 #108

He will get my vote Marrah_G May 2012 #37

Nonresponsive treestar May 2012 #173

what a steaming load of bullshit. dionysus May 2012 #179

Thank you lunatica May 2012 #18

+1 n/t FSogol May 2012 #32

+1 JoePhilly May 2012 #41

Thanks grantcart goclark May 2012 #56

It amazes me how many people on DU are to the Right of Bush on this issue. ieoeja May 2012 #63

Marxist Historical Materialism. Let the world burn. joshcryer May 2012 #149

Wow, just wow. You're creating a strawman Marx and a strawman coalition_unwilling May 2012 #155

No I'm not. I'm attributing that to the authoriarian left. joshcryer May 2012 #157

Not once did Marx advocate to "let the world burn." Marx was coalition_unwilling May 2012 #163

TARP was roughly $50 billion (losses) all said and told. joshcryer May 2012 #165

The IMF estimates that the global banking crisis cost in the neighborhood coalition_unwilling May 2012 #167

Those "toxic assets" were overvalued. joshcryer May 2012 #168

I plan to vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils in November. But coalition_unwilling May 2012 #72

You won't get a good answer because you're dealing with people who fundamentally do not understand.. girl gone mad May 2012 #147

Thanks. I know that these are difficult issues to comprehend for all of us sometimes. I do think coalition_unwilling May 2012 #150

Nationalizing everything is unconstitutional without just compensation. joshcryer May 2012 #151

I'm not talking about 'nationalizing everything' (at least in the context of coalition_unwilling May 2012 #152

Do you have a link to Stiglitz's article? joshcryer May 2012 #156

Sorry, it's not an article, it's a great book called "Freefall". I just coalition_unwilling May 2012 #161

Thanks, looking at it. joshcryer May 2012 #162

I think you have put your hands on a dark truth, that some coalition_unwilling May 2012 #164

I found the quote: joshcryer May 2012 #169

The FDIC nationalizes banks on a regular basis. girl gone mad May 2012 #158

The losses would've been enormous. joshcryer May 2012 #160

Stiglitz supported pre-privatization at the time. girl gone mad May 2012 #154

Thanks to Grantcart Sheepshank May 2012 #74

The WAMU runs.. girl gone mad May 2012 #153

Well, actually, I was asking why the banking segment of society received preferential coalition_unwilling May 2012 #159

lol well the shareholders of WAMU don't agree and in court arguing exactly the opposite. grantcart May 2012 #166

The bailout was bipartisan. It was begun under Bush and continued under Obama. The HiPointDem May 2012 #13

You forget, perhaps conveniently, that Obama fought to help the American people too lunatica May 2012 #16

Well said! nt One of the 99 May 2012 #33

Thoughtfully put. Robb May 2012 #35

+1 uponit7771 May 2012 #40

+1 JoePhilly May 2012 #44

Exactly GObamaGO May 2012 #62

I grant you that Obama has faced an obstructionist Congress the coalition_unwilling May 2012 #76

If I'm not mistaken..... kurtzapril4 May 2012 #136

Just like they threatened to not raise the debt ceiling right? lunatica May 2012 #143

Shareholders/Bondholders = Depositors... KharmaTrain May 2012 #19

+1 JoePhilly May 2012 #45

Exactly, banks contain collection of all our funds treestar May 2012 #69

The average "Joes and Janes" you reference were already coalition_unwilling May 2012 #78

FDIC Only Covered Up To $250,000 KharmaTrain May 2012 #99

Actually, it's those who own shares of stock in banks who are the 'owners' of the banks, not coalition_unwilling May 2012 #105

This isn't about Obama, this is about the economy itself MrScorpio May 2012 #20

Foolish, divisive question. The banks are the repository of society's wealth.... Scuba May 2012 #21

Wow, why don't you alert on the thread if you're coalition_unwilling May 2012 #79

I may be confused but why ask Obama Supporters? fredamae May 2012 #23

Well, the policy of bank bailouts begun under Bush continued coalition_unwilling May 2012 #80

I responded to this on a separate post Sheepshank May 2012 #113

You know, upon reflection, I think you are 99% correct here and I was 99% incorrect. Specifically, coalition_unwilling May 2012 #139

Yeah, Fuck Detroit, don't bail out the autoworkers! boppers May 2012 #25

Nobody bailed out "the autoworkers"; the UAW contract was broken, and "dual tier" wages were Romulox May 2012 #28

+1 Octafish May 2012 #90

Two tiers was better than no tiers. boppers May 2012 #137

Is is a bailout if they paid it back? n/t B2G May 2012 #26

Banks generally charge a premium ("interest") for the use of money. Paying back the principle Romulox May 2012 #29

Principle was paid back with interest, don't see this as a bail out uponit7771 May 2012 #42

Not *Market rate* interest. That was the entire point in having the gov't intervene; Romulox May 2012 #59

A question for you. Ikonoklast May 2012 #27

SENATOR Obama was a huge supporter of the bankster bailouts. Do you think people don't remember? Romulox May 2012 #30

can you provide the actual Bill Number? n/t fredamae May 2012 #46

I don't have the bill number but I remember that McCain wanted to suspend the Presidential Campaign LynneSin May 2012 #51

What we didn't know then...... fredamae May 2012 #54

Then VS Now fredamae May 2012 #57

Without too much research, my recollection Sheepshank May 2012 #91

This is the bill. Obama didn't just *vote* for it--he lobbied his fellow Senators. Romulox May 2012 #58

I don't know that he lobbied fredamae May 2012 #66

Did he sign TARP into law as president? Ikonoklast May 2012 #122

The answer is that it would've been ARMAGEDDON if James Dimon hadn't lived to lose another $3 Bil Romulox May 2012 #31

Since you refer to 'Obama or his supporters' I take it you're not one? WI_DEM May 2012 #36

Not everyone here is an Obama supporter Marrah_G May 2012 #39

Wha? He's not far to the right on any issues. MAYBE a centrist on some but far to the right?? FarLeftFist May 2012 #52

You're certainly not "far left" if you don't understand Marrah's response. TBF May 2012 #61

I don't think you understand Marrah's response at all. And certainly don't tell me what I am. FarLeftFist May 2012 #75

Which is saying a lot about my lifetime, TBF May 2012 #82

Taxing the rich? Is that why he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire? Marr May 2012 #109

Except the GOP majority held tax cuts for the middle class hostage as well. FarLeftFist May 2012 #124

So you categorize Bush's tax policy as "moderate"? Marr May 2012 #133

On issues of national security he is very right wing. white_wolf May 2012 #118

He ended torture and ended the Iraq War. Again, a CENTRIST. FarLeftFist May 2012 #125

They can say the Iraq War is over all they want, but... white_wolf May 2012 #129

Does that mean the US is still fighting WW 2 considering where you have troops? n/t Bodhi BloodWave May 2012 #176

I will vote for 0bama as I've said repeatedly ad nauseum, because coalition_unwilling May 2012 #83

Bush signed TARP and bailed out the banks. The states got stimulus. FarLeftFist May 2012 #38

*****OBAMA DID NOT DO BAIL OUT IT WAS BUSH, OBAMA DID STIUMULUS******* uponit7771 May 2012 #43

Bailout was bipartisan. The mess was created by a Republican Admin with Republican policies. MatthewStLouis May 2012 #49

Just so everyone is clear - Obama was a US Senator when the bank bail-outs happened LynneSin May 2012 #50

Post removed Post removed May 2012 #53

It seems to me the auto-bail-out JNelson6563 May 2012 #55

+1 hear, hear, Julie!! nofurylike May 2012 #141

Agree - hell of a mess GWB got us into TBF May 2012 #60

OMG, if McCrazy had been elected in 2008 or the Romuloid in coalition_unwilling May 2012 #84

Banks keep the money, and if they fail treestar May 2012 #67

Good points. We did have a mechanism already in place (the FDIC) that coalition_unwilling May 2012 #86

The FDIC was clearly not sufficient Spider Jerusalem May 2012 #110

Understood, but if the problem was that the FDIC was underfunded, there coalition_unwilling May 2012 #182

I agree about the ordinary Joe being foreclosed upon treestar May 2012 #180

This is the way it always is. Nothing to do with Obama. raouldukelives May 2012 #77

As it turns out...... Sheepshank May 2012 #81

Well, a jury of my peers voted 1-5 to leave it standing (see below), so coalition_unwilling May 2012 #92

I didn't call for any sanction of your op... Sheepshank May 2012 #107

OP was alerted. Here are the results stevenleser May 2012 #87

Thank you for posting. With regard to Juror #5, I guess I should coalition_unwilling May 2012 #93

I am Juror #5. I particularly object to your blaming Obama for TARP, a Bush law and then stevenleser May 2012 #95

Hmm, maybe I have been mis-construing Stiglitz' book, or maybe coalition_unwilling May 2012 #96

A couple of points stevenleser May 2012 #102

This *precisely* the kind of conversation you voted to cut off. Should your post be alerted? Romulox May 2012 #115

No, it isnt. I voted to cut off a post that blames Obama for something Bush did. Nice try though. stevenleser May 2012 #117

I think your technique of denying the obvious leaves no room for an actual exchange. Romulox May 2012 #119

I think it is you who refuses to acknowledge that TARP was passed under Bush and therefore stevenleser May 2012 #123

I think I agree with all 3 of your points here, strange as that may sound. Well, I might have a few coalition_unwilling May 2012 #140

Senator Obama voted for TARP, and lobbied his fellow Senators for its passage. You're misinformed. Romulox May 2012 #97

I'm not misinformed. I know he was not President when it passed. nt stevenleser May 2012 #98

You spoke of "blaming Obama for TARP"--he is responsible for his vote as Senator, as well as Romulox May 2012 #101

See my #102 stevenleser May 2012 #103

Wherein you *finally* explain why you voted to hide a truthful post? I can hardly wait. nt Romulox May 2012 #112

The TARP funds were spent under his watch b/c it was signed into law by Bush. FarLeftFist May 2012 #104

Senator Obama helped pass it with his vote. I'm not doing the School House Rock thing for you. nt Romulox May 2012 #111

Yup. Just like every other sane person. Are you looking for a mentally unstable president? See: Bush FarLeftFist May 2012 #126

Sad that it was H2O Man May 2012 #94

Fair question, but didn't Bush bail out the banks? Obama and Congress bailed out the auto industry rustydog May 2012 #100

You are asking the wrong president. W bailed out the banksters. jwirr May 2012 #114

TARP occured under Bush Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2012 #120

Actually, I had not forgotten that TARP was passed during the coalition_unwilling May 2012 #128

I see you got your answer just1voice May 2012 #121

Because Bush bailed them out - not Obama - so ask the Bush supporters here jpak May 2012 #127

According to Joseph Stiglitz, in March 2009, Obama's administration launched coalition_unwilling May 2012 #132

What horseshit - try again jpak May 2012 #170

jpak vs. Nobel Economics Laureate Joseph Stiglitz = gnat vs. elephant. But coalition_unwilling May 2012 #171

I think that at the time, it was a matter of having no choice but to bail out the Super Banks GarroHorus May 2012 #131

I assume it was done largely to try and prevent a full 1929 style crash. cstanleytech May 2012 #134

OMG, no matter what one may think of Obama's stance vis-a-vis coalition_unwilling May 2012 #138

"a Romney presidency would simply be an unmitigated disaster for this country and the globe." cstanleytech May 2012 #142

This message was self-deleted by its author joshcryer May 2012 #148

Because when the Titanic is sinking... kentuck May 2012 #174

Wow, that is an apt metaphor. Or maybe something coalition_unwilling May 2012 #177