Saving capitalism form crony capitalism
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
© Copyright 2007-2024 iBankCoin All rights reserved under penalty of bodily harm. DISCLAIMER: This is a personal web site, reflecting the opinions of its author(s). It is not a production of my employer, and it is unaffiliated with any FINRA broker/dealer. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of anyone other than myself. The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only, and are not investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities. DATA INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE USERS "AS IS." NEITHER iBankCoin, NOR ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY THIRD PARTY DATA PROVIDER MAKE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND REGARDING THE DATA INFORMATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE. Privacy Policy
How about the fucking assholes who continue to call for free market capitalism experience it when their businesses go under. Fuck this bullshit 7.7 trillion and you barely turned a god damn profit?
Look what we have here. Another politician calling for an end to too big to fail.
But in the end, if he’s in charge and push ever comes to shove, and he’s staring at the reality of possibly having the majority of your citizen’s life savings fall into limbo…he too will bail them out. They all will.
At least he has a proposal, I’ll give him that much.
Why not bail out the citizens instead of the banks that have, and continue to lose the money?
Oh, I forget, redistributing money to people is communism, to companies is capitalism.
I get your argument, but I think in the heat of the moment politicians just took the easy road out. And it was a road that at the time most people thought would have the same effect. Not because redistributing money to people is communism, but because of the possible social unrest that could have happened if the majority of savings just disappeared.
I remember seeing a 60 minutes piece on the FDIC and how with every institution that goes under they need security out front trying to explain to panicked citizens that your money hasn’t disappeared. What would have happened if this took place on a national stage? Did the government want to role the dice and hope enough people that don’t understand the FDIC don’t go bat shit crazy? Yes it was the easy road and it has since pretty much been proven to be wrong, but at the time I don’t blame them for making the decision.
That’s ridiculous. The FDIC guarantees your deposits anyway.
It was guaranteeing the equity and bond debt of the banks stockholders that was rotten.
They should have let them fail and been broken up.
If the gov’t needed to create a temporary super bank to accomodate that, then at least there’d be no moral hazard for the investors.
______
Jake I completely agree with you here.
Even at the time I didn’t understand why the bond/share holders weren’t wiped out and a government alternative to fill the lending void was created. The idea that this would have been “inefficient” is frankly, stupid, given the massive inefficiency of the private lending industry that led up to the problem.
Oh well, unfortunately we are down a different path, throwing good money after bad in the hopes of preserving a status quo that is, at its root, the cause of these problems.
we would only redistribute the peoples money. so it would be a right pocket loan to the left pocket.
The problem is the corruption. Business and government are too well connected and intertwined. I am not against classical “conservatives” or “liberals” I am against them in the modern day system. You can’t have true “liberals” and true “conservatives” in this system, they are both expanding a function of corporate-government corruption that many left wingers mistakenly phrase as “capitalism” and many right wingers phrase as “socialism”. Both side’s labels are propaganda to put the blame on one “side” when they both contribute to the same system in different ways. They both enable the big government/business entity combo. If conservatives were really against BIG government, they should be pro small business in this system, not pro big business. If liberals were really against large business, they should support smaller government in this system. The system is designed to enhance the government-business monopoly.
Since when has a bailout been “capitalism”? Since when has big business been “socialism”? It’s all a function of the same system over time to either increase the ability for the big businesses to corrupt governments through giving government’s more power and more corrupted regulation agencies that helps the same “crew” (Larry Summers, Timothy Geithener, Robert Rubin, and the Major CEOs of banks)… Or about USING the power the other party created to actually carry out the agenda and funneling of money.
Are you really blaming the “capitalism” responsible for all major innovations and inventions of lightbulbs, railroad, radio, electricity, computers, technology, etc on the problems? Of course not.
Are you really going to blame “socialism” when big business is getting bigger and bailouts are directly aimed towards the wealthy?
Liberals tax and spend, but with corruption the majority of the taxes are not going to the “little person” anyways, it’s just going to go to the top 0.01-0.10%. The big businesses that are well connected (not top 1% as OWS labels them). Sure they may spin it that way and get on the soap box pretending they care, (and maybe some do and actually incorrectly think they are helping) but those that don’t believe in the santa claus called “political party” knows that isn’t true.
Conservatives borrow and spend. Like the system or not, if conservatives are not going to spend (‘tea party’) than they are going to cause deflation, or at least SLOW DOWN the inflation that the system requires for political-economic growth.
You have to expand the money supply and/or produce more at cheaper prices to fend off deflation. If you do not create enough NEW DEBT to make up for the OLD DEBT, there WILL be bankruptcies and there is NO way around that. The less spending, the more consequences down the road. If you are “okay” with that as a negative consequence to reduce the size of the government fine, but at least know what you support.
The “Occupy Wall Street” (at least the perception) who want the stimulus checks to everyone so you can bailout the home owners fail to understand how gas prices will rise, interest payments will go up and debt will increase. The government will increase in size and the government will in turn just enable businesses. They are dreamers. They think you can close the tax loopholes and eat the rich and still have high paying jobs in this country without low employment.
The conservatives that expand the money supply through borrowing are going to obviously increase the size of government.The democrats who put more money into a system that funnels cash out through government into big businesses are obviously going to tax and funnel wealth from individuals and small businesses to big businesses. GDP is associated with positive “economic activity”, but positive GDP growth means the government is growing in size and the monetary policy is expanding, and either the amount in debt or the borrowing power of the government is increasing. The government will in turn help the big businesses, because only big business has enough influence to keep the laws in it’s favors. Only big business runs out of room to grow so they can only maintain their monopoly by suppressing small business growth through corruption, lobbying, etc.
The real solution is low taxes for small businesses, or even no taxes for small businesses. The real solution is smaller government power, and getting private money OUT of campaigns to prevent the corruption
Bipartisanship is okay, but the modern bipartisanship is the act of both increasing taxes, borrowing more and enabling big businesses at the expense of small, rather than enabling growth through small business and limiting government. Currently, the problem is JOB SHORTAGES. that means we need more JOBS. We do not need 7 people to screw in a light-bulb just to give them a job, though. We need MORE entrepreneurs, and MORE small business opportunities. Most things needs to be aimed at the creation of small business and growth of small business. Some of that actually may involve making things tougher on big businesses so only the best survive, and others need to break up and innovate on 2 or more separate ideas, rather than try to monopolize the industry.
I personally would be more than happy to say “big business can get taxed more”, however, I think they should be able to avoid those taxes through specific loopholes if those loopholes require them to GIVE BACK, (rather than using the loopholes to pay larger bonuses and set prices.) Like big businesses should help give back by sharing knowledge to entrepreneurs and smaller businesses and spending money in the important areas. It is those who have proven their ability to grow and create jobs that have the most to teach us, and a productive society would require, or greatly encourage that service to further enhance humanity.
I agree with this idea. However, I question what would happen to the comparative advantage of these banks if their size is decreased?
There are advantages to being big, and there are also big disadvantages.
This is why you see a lot of large firms (banks or otherwise) turn to the gov’t to “shore up” their competitive advantages by erecting government enforced barriers to entry (usually in the form of some regulation only behemoths can afford designed to penalize the small and nimble).
This is the essence of fascism and my #1 reason for shrinking government at the federal level ASAP.
___________