Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sanders Releases Explosive Bailout List [View all]girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)45. Your analysis relies on some fairly extreme historical revisions.
"most of these loans were paid back, the taxpayers made money."
I'm not going to get into a discussion on how the Fed operates, but it isn't correct to say that the taxpayers made money. First of all, many of these specific loans were paid back via secondary and tertiary government bailouts. Second of all, the Fed is still holding toxic assets purchased at mark-to-myth prices. It will be a long time before we know the ultimate outcome of these policy decisions.
"without a banking system, we are fucked. or at least, if the banking system we have crashes, we are fucked. "
Here you've offer up a false choice. Not a single critic of our bank bailouts was promoting the dissolution of the entire banking system. Most wanted to follow a course of action that is fairly standard and has been implemented many times throughout history. One which would have seen the bondholders and shareholders take losses rather than having all of those losses pushed onto the taxpayer.
"did it take too long to "trickle down" to the small businesses that were squeezed? yes. did it get there eventually? mostly. did we hit the kind of depths that we did in 1929? not by a long shot. "
There is no indication that the money ever trickled down to small businesses. Bank lending continued to decline after the bailouts. The only reason that we did not end up in a 1929 style depression is because of fiscal measures enacted by the federal government: the automatic stabilizers put in place after the Great Depression (unemployment, food stamps, etc., all of which increased sharply) and the stimulus and payroll tax cuts.
I'm not going to get into a discussion on how the Fed operates, but it isn't correct to say that the taxpayers made money. First of all, many of these specific loans were paid back via secondary and tertiary government bailouts. Second of all, the Fed is still holding toxic assets purchased at mark-to-myth prices. It will be a long time before we know the ultimate outcome of these policy decisions.
"without a banking system, we are fucked. or at least, if the banking system we have crashes, we are fucked. "
Here you've offer up a false choice. Not a single critic of our bank bailouts was promoting the dissolution of the entire banking system. Most wanted to follow a course of action that is fairly standard and has been implemented many times throughout history. One which would have seen the bondholders and shareholders take losses rather than having all of those losses pushed onto the taxpayer.
"did it take too long to "trickle down" to the small businesses that were squeezed? yes. did it get there eventually? mostly. did we hit the kind of depths that we did in 1929? not by a long shot. "
There is no indication that the money ever trickled down to small businesses. Bank lending continued to decline after the bailouts. The only reason that we did not end up in a 1929 style depression is because of fiscal measures enacted by the federal government: the automatic stabilizers put in place after the Great Depression (unemployment, food stamps, etc., all of which increased sharply) and the stimulus and payroll tax cuts.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
117 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yet again, a story created by the failure to understand that a loan is not a gift.
TheWraith
Jun 2012
#2
The government's responsibility should be to handle a crisis responsibly, not just to act quickly.
girl gone mad
Jun 2012
#54
They could have been given Jobs by small business's. That is were most jobs are created.
bahrbearian
Jun 2012
#47
Bush Jr didn't seem to have any trouble when he handed out $400 checks.
nashville_brook
Jun 2012
#52
spot on - if someone "loans" you 10 million dollars for no interest for as long as you want it...
nashville_brook
Jun 2012
#51
The loan isn't the gift. The way-below-market-rate interest on the loan is the gift. (nt)
jeff47
Jun 2012
#7
I totally agree with your observation. Don't you wish we could get free interest loans.
southernyankeebelle
Jun 2012
#14
The question is not whether an industrial economy needs a banking system - it does -
coalition_unwilling
Jun 2012
#19
The share- and bondholders of the TBTF banks (many of them in the 1%)
coalition_unwilling
Jun 2012
#31
What Bernie was reporting was the CONFLICT OF INTEREST between the bankers who got the loans and
Dont call me Shirley
Jun 2012
#109
Agree. But don't worry if things keep getting worse the little people are going to be in the
southernyankeebelle
Jun 2012
#16
Thanks I missed it. It would be good to know how much they actually netted. nm
rhett o rick
Jun 2012
#56
How seamlessly our representatives have transformed themselves into our "leaders."
woo me with science
Jun 2012
#88
Apparently we must hand deliver this list to all Americans. Our Corporate News Digest won't
SleeplessinSoCal
Jun 2012
#41