It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down?

It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MasterHypnotist -> It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/24/2009 9:27:05 PM)
First, the Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090325/bs_nm/us_financial_aig from Reuters Second, the Headline: "Obama administration seeks powers to shut firms like AIG" Third, the first four paragraphs, "WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration on Tuesday mounted a full-scale push for government authority to shut down troubled institutions like insurer AIG to avoid the need for future bailouts. "U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, testifying before lawmakers still fuming about big bonuses for executives at bailout recipient AIG, called on Congress for new powers to take over big non-bank financial firms that run amok. "Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke strongly backed Geithner in testimony before the same committee, and President Barack Obama took the case public during a televised news conference on Tuesday evening. "'Keep in mind that it is precisely because of the lack of this authority that the AIG situation has gotten worse," Obama said. "We should've obtained it much earlier so that any institution that poses a systemic risk that could bring down the financial system, we can handle, and we can do it in an orderly fashion that quarantines it from other institutions.'" Fourth... WTF?!? These investment firms are failing because they are either made high risk loans following guidelines established by Congress, or because they bought high risk derivative packages created because banks were selling packages of high risk mortgages and loans based on imposed loaning regulations from Congress. Then, these banks and investment institutions are not allowed to declare bankruptcy and reorganize, but instead are SOCIALIZED by fiat TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, legislated by Congress. And now, the Administration is saying that it was "lack of this authority" that has made the situation worse? It was the authority of Congress that legislated the imposition of bad loaning guidelines that brought us here! Paragraph 8: "AIG ran a global insurance company but also had a division dealing in derivatives contracts that has been likened to a hedge fund. That unit took a big hit when the U.S. housing sector imploded, putting the entire firm at risk of a collapse that could have endangered the whole financial system." Paragraph 11: "Congress has already begun working on a revamp of financial regulations that is expected to include authority to wind down non-bank firms. Aides at the House panel said on Monday the committee would likely vote on a bill as soon as March 31." Paragraph 14: "'I welcome it,' Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told reporters. 'We've got to figure out a way to deal with this.'" Senator Dodd... who wrote the AIG bonus loophole INTO the bailout legislation, creating more angst and distraction, and lied about it until other sources were available to call him out. Paragraph 18: "Geithner laid out a plan on Monday to sop up as much as $1 trillion in toxic assets sitting on bank books, but success hinges on the willingness of investors to participate." Let me get this straight... they now want to resell these already proven TOXIC LOANS to MORE investors... ?? I promise, it will be arranged... but I believe the benefit will be political, not financial. Final paragraph: "Officials say if they had authority to shut non-bank firms, the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which touched off the most virulent phase of the credit crisis, could have been avoided." "the most virulent phase of credit crisis" could not have been avoided, because CONGRESS LOADED THE DECK and wrote guidelines that forced banks to make bad mortagage loans, and relaxed regulations on both personal credit debt limits AND interest charged which allowed greater credit card debt, far beyond what personal incomes can pay. The investment, credit, and mortgage sectors of the free enterprise system did not create this mess. Congress did. The Big Lie Technique, Fear, Information Saturation, Smoke and Mirrors, and Haste... Go ahead, attack the messengers, belittle the implications, disregard economic sense, game the system... the one thing you cannot do, financially, logically, or historically, is defend it. The only problem with drinking this Kool-Aid is that no one dies. MH

outlier -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/24/2009 9:50:11 PM)
I suggest you read this article: The Big Takeover by Matt Taibbi It was brought to these boards in this post by UncleNasty: http://www.collarchat.com/m_2522416/tm.htm The article will explain that it is not the government but was exactly the lack of government that allowed the events on wall street to happen. It tells what laws were changed and when to make it all possible. Outlier

DarkSteven -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/24/2009 9:52:19 PM)
WTF? On what basis would the government decide which companies should be shut down? That is, if market forces don't...

MasterHypnotist -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/24/2009 10:17:26 PM)
outlier, Eight pages may take a day or so before I can reply. Short answer is, creating a lack of law can be just as effective (more so?) than writing law. I'd say it was a combination of both... and it still happened through Congress. The point that I think will hold up, is that this was engineered. Whether by Congress, the people corporate behind Congressional leaders, or a combination of the two, is a moot point. Think of the comment in Heinlein's, "Friday," something along the line of, You can't nuke IBM. I look forward to the reading. Thank you! MH

Owner59 -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/24/2009 10:32:29 PM)
Enterprise and the economy are supposed to serve society.Not the other way around.

MasterHypnotist -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 6:42:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Enterprise and the economy are supposed to serve society.Not the other way around. ~blinks~ ?? Elegant, non-sequitar, yet inaccurate, all at the same time. You do have your own consitent style. At least give us a referrant for your comment? MH

Owner59 -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 7:07:48 AM)
Does truth need references? The people are in control.Not business interests,they are subordinate.I think folks get that now more than ever(at least since the Great Depression.)

rulemylife -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 8:19:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterHypnotist "the most virulent phase of credit crisis" could not have been avoided, because CONGRESS LOADED THE DECK and wrote guidelines that forced banks to make bad mortagage loans, and relaxed regulations on both personal credit debt limits AND interest charged which allowed greater credit card debt, far beyond what personal incomes can pay. The investment, credit, and mortgage sectors of the free enterprise system did not create this mess. Congress did. How about that. Congress forced banks to make bad loans. Was the military involved? Were guns put to bankers heads?

StrangerThan -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 9:03:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven WTF? On what basis would the government decide which companies should be shut down? That is, if market forces don't... I agree with your wtf, but apparently it takes government to keep them in business nowadays. We let the government bail them out. We let the government shut them down. And we don't call it socialism because that's a bad word. We figure out something else to call it and say it's about time.

MasterHypnotist -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 9:53:21 AM)
Enterprise and the economy are supposed to serve society.Not the other way around. < Message edited by Owner59 -- 3/25/2009 12:33:12 AM > quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Does truth need references? The people are in control.Not business interests,they are subordinate.I think folks get that now more than ever(at least since the Great Depression.) ~smiles~ O59, like I said, elegant, non-sequitar, and inaccurate. Let's take these irrelevant strawman statements and just show them for what they are. Pap. "Enterprise and the economy are supposed to serve society.Not the other way around." Enterprise/Economy, and Society, are not an either/or condition, but rather a feedback loop of existence. Critical Content of Statement? None. "Does truth need references?" In the posts in which I have interacted with you, you dismiss or ignore references and history every time they are inconvenient to you. (Please note this thread as your most recent example). At the same time, you expect your quips, observations, and opinions and the sources from which you draw other people's opinions, to be treated as having authority. Should information, such as verifiable statistics, quotations, and historical references be drawn from a conservative source that has taken time to do research, the source is vilified and the information is ignored. So yeah, truth needs references. To misquote Alan Greenspan, "Everyone is allowed their own opinion. No one is allowed their own truth." (He used the word "facts," but I think "truth" can be used synonymously). Critical Content of Statement? None. "The people are in control." At some very small number, "The people" lose control. Allowing for variables, that number of people quickly approaches any whole number greater than, "1". An excellent metaphor would be G. Orwell's, "Animal Farm." Accuracy of Statement? None. Business interests are subordinant to the people. Here, "business interests" is somehow disassociated from "the people." Logically, aren't people responsible for "business interests"? It's just that not all people are equally responsible for any given businesses' interests. Therefor, some people influence some businesses more than other people, even though most people may be affected by the business interests and activity. By the way, I would include politics within the broad definition of "business." Maybe some indiginous societies have come close to this ideal. Even then, "the people" generally subordinate their individual wants to the needs of the society, and the desires of their leadership. The closest the USA has gotten to this ideal in the modern era, is through the efforts of Ralph Nader in the late '50s and '60s. A good man I voted for President, twice. Ideological Content: High. I think folks get that now more than ever(at least since the Great Depression.) The Man is afraid of us! I feel your pain. Power to the people! Hope and Change. You betcha!!! An excellent metaphor would be, THE WHO, "We Won't Get Fooled Again!" O59... It is true that emotions overrule logic. As far as "the people" are concerned, feeling is more persistent and easier than thinking. Therefor, you win. However, I am a patient, cynical, factual, historically minded SOB... and emotions change. All the best, MH

MasterHypnotist -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 10:01:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife How about that. Congress forced banks to make bad loans. Was the military involved? Were guns put to bankers heads? rulemylife, Yeah... bankers DO NOT argue with Federal Regulations. For the most part, they testified and lobbied against these regulations. Once the fiscally unsound Federal Regulations were in place, it would have been illegal to not follow them. The banks and their officers would have been subject to both civil and criminal prosecution for not making these, now defined, Toxic Loans, as legislated by Congress. Sometimes it's just that simple. How about that, MH

rulemylife -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 10:09:09 AM)
How about it being total nonsense? No one was "forced" to make loans. Regulations were changed that allowed these things to happen, but there were plenty of banks and other mortgage lenders that were wise enough, and/or not greedy enough, to step away from it.

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 10:12:10 AM)
The one trillion 'bad loans' problem was a gun pointed at the bankers heads. The 500 trillion problem that resulted from turning their half-baked insurance schemes into a profit center of their own that led to the pursuit of addittional unqualified borrowers beyond government mandate was NOT a gun pointed at the bankers heads. How ironic that the intial toxic debt forced by the government would not have tanked these banks, but the insurance and investment schemes crafted by the banks themselves in response to it did end up tanking them. How about that

MasterHypnotist -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 10:38:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife How about it being total nonsense? No one was "forced" to make loans. Regulations were change that allowed these things to happen, but there were plenty of banks and other mortgage lenders that were wise enough, and/or not greedy enough to step away from it. How about what being total nonsense? On the micro-scale, banks who were in the business of making "High Risk" loans under the previous regulations, WERE FORCED to continue making such loans under the new regulations. If they didn't, some individual, group settlement lawyer, social activist organization, or the Justice Department would have taken them to court for... wait for it... d-i-s-c-r-i-m-i-n-a-t-o-r-y practices! On the mega-scale, have you noticed over the last few months just what happens in a consumer society when banks don't make loans? Only the banks not already making high risk loans were able to maintain their distance from the problem. So, you are right in your summary, if not in your premise. Regulations were changed by Congress (primarily high-risk mortgages and credit card consumer interest rates and limits) that allowed these things to happen. Greedy institutions were not allowed to opt out of their practices, even though Congress lowered the guidelines BELOW what these institutions felt safe, even in their corporate greed. Short of closing, these banks were required by Federal Regulation to make what are now called, Toxic Loans. Banks and other mortgage lenders that were not involved in High Risk mortgages, were not required to begin doing so. It's just that simple, MH

MasterHypnotist -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 10:53:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 The one trillion 'bad loans' problem was a gun pointed at the bankers heads. The 500 trillion problem that resulted from turning their half-baked insurance schemes into a profit center of their own that led to the pursuit of addittional unqualified borrowers beyond government mandate was NOT a gun pointed at the bankers heads. How ironic that the intial toxic debt forced by the government would not have tanked these banks, but the insurance and investment schemes crafted by the banks themselves in response to it did end up tanking them. How about that DD40, I'm not arguing, I'd just like to see the source of your statistics. We may differ on how we attribute the actions, but certainly not the results. I'm not sure how one could define a bank's "pursuit of addittional unqualified borrowers beyond government mandate," when they cannot legally turn anyone away who meets the Federal Regulation's requirements. Community banks sell their mortgages to national/international investment companies. It's called sharing the risk. It may have also been a scheme... it may have also continuing to do business as usual. What happens if the investment banks stop buying up local mortgages, even if they were what we now call, "Toxic Loans"? Is there an economist in the house? Regardless, you're commenting on the results... which were inevitable once Congress stacked the deck. Like I said, DD40, I'm not arguing. I'm just trying to strip down the vitriol and take a look at the content. As far as you take it, you might be right. I just want to find out the source of your opinions was of what the critical mass of Toxic Loans and their selling. Thanks, MH

MasterG2kTR -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 5:53:49 PM)
If the government wants to shut down companies that go toxic.....the simple answer is....."don't bail them out!!" They will collapse on their own.

Owner59 -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 6:02:25 PM)
The idea is to have a graceful shutdown.Like w/ a computer.You don`t want a crash and the damage involved in a crash. It`s about stability and market confidence.Things neo-cons and the OP know little about and care about even less..

MasterG2kTR -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 6:35:41 PM)
I dunno.....I think it would be interesting to see some real carnage (letting them collapse on their own) on wall street. It might actually get a few of the arrogant assholes to wake up and think about what they are really doing.

Owner59 -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 6:37:26 PM)
Let`s not and say we did.....

MasterHypnotist -> RE: It Now Takes the Gov't to Shut Companies Down? (3/25/2009 7:22:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 The idea is to have a graceful shutdown.Like w/ a computer.You don`t want a crash and the damage involved in a crash. It`s about stability and market confidence.Things neo-cons and the OP know little about and care about even less.. The OP simply never tires of calling your BS. Corporations and smaller businesses can merge or go through bankruptcy proceedings and reorganize. Granted not all do, but many do. Most of the major airlines have done it. Several insurance companies, many banks, transportation manufacturers, aeronautic companies, etc. They do it without destabilizing the markets, creating crashes, and the markets go along just fine. And they do it without machinations of Congress, manufactured hype, federalizing private companies, and trillions of dollars of Treasury debt. O59... how many shares of a TOXIC LOANS Mutual Fund can we put you down, for? Do you want to pay lump sum, or dollar cost average?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875