Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Too Big to Jail (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=722218)

  • Dec 12, 2012, 07:38 AM
    excon
    Too Big to Jail
    Hello:

    When an institution is TOO big to fail, it means that IF they DO fail, We go down the crapper WITH them. We KNOW about that because it ALREADY happened to us. Having had that experience, I've posted several times about our need to BREAK up those institutions, only to be rebuffed by right wingers...

    Now, a LOT of things surprise me about their logic, but HERE we have the Sword of Damocles hanging over our economy, and for, apparently, ideological reasons, it MUST REMAIN..

    Not surprisingly, we've run into a criminal bank, HSBC, that SHOULD be torn apart and their managers THROWN into the clink... But, they're TOO BIG. If we did that, guess what? You got it. We'll go down with them...

    Why would WE put ourselves in that position? More importantly, why do the right wingers INSIST that we STAY in that position?

    excon
  • Dec 12, 2012, 07:42 AM
    tomder55
    BS a whole bunch of them should be frog marched wearing orange jump suits . By the way ;I am in favor of breaking up the banks .What I am not in favor of is bailouts. By the way . Where is Jon Corzine these days ?
  • Dec 12, 2012, 08:03 AM
    speechlesstx
    I'm not sure where you get this idea that we've rebuffed the idea of breaking up the banks. I don't like big banks, I especially despise Bank of America. My money is in a local family-owned bank... they're good people.

    Last I heard Corzine was raising money for Obama's campaign and pondering starting a hedge fund. No, seriously. He wants you to trust him with your money.
  • Dec 12, 2012, 08:16 AM
    excon
    Hello again,

    You said,
    Quote:

    Let them fail then .
    Steve said,
    Quote:

    let them fail Ex, let them fail.
    I said,
    Quote:

    Given that they're TOO BIG to fail, we're going to go down with them... Wouldn't it have been better to break them up in to smaller banks, like I suggested?? Then they could fail and we could thumb our noses at them...
    Now, you SAY,
    Quote:

    BS a whole bunch of them should be frog marched wearing orange jump suits
    Well, of course THEY SHOULD, but I have to remind you, that they WON'T because, they're still TOO BIG TO FAIL. If we do bust 'em, we GO DOWN TOO! I didn't then, and STILL don't think you grasp that. That's exactly what TOO BIG TO FAIL means..

    THIS is a PERFECT example of how it works out. The banksters are THUMBING their noses at US, and they're DOING it WITH your blessings.

    If ONLY you had listened to me and the OWS when we were TELLING you that..

    Excon
  • Dec 12, 2012, 08:28 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post

    Um, that was paraclete. I'm Steve, not tom, not clete.
  • Dec 12, 2012, 08:31 AM
    excon
    Hello again, Fred:

    You guys look too much alike.

    excon
  • Dec 12, 2012, 08:42 AM
    speechlesstx
    I'm the Blue Heeler puppy, tom's the Yankees logo and clete is some figure eight thingy - no resemblance at all. You need new glasses, or maybe it's trouble seeing through the smoke.
  • Dec 12, 2012, 09:21 AM
    tomder55
    And I said :
    creative distruction is necessary in a capitalist system. It is through government intervention that companies become too big to fail. The idea that a company can be bailed out creates a situation that encourages reckless and irresponsible risk taking . By guaranteeing the survival it encourages the ignoring the moral hazards inherent in excess risk taking .
  • Dec 12, 2012, 12:49 PM
    excon
    Hello again, tom:

    So, you think breaking them up IS bailing them out? Okee doakee.

    excon
  • Dec 12, 2012, 05:19 PM
    tomder55
    Nope I think bailiing them out extends their flawed existence . The only reason a breakup would be needed is because government intervention allowed them to prosper outside of normal market competition. In the case of HSBC the government should arrest anyone responsible for drug and terror money laundering . Nothing difficult about that . You think if HSBC went belly up there wouldn't be other banks ready to pick up the pieces ?
  • Dec 12, 2012, 05:26 PM
    excon
    Hello again, tom:

    Quote:

    You think if HSBC went belly up there wouldn't be other banks ready to pick up the pieces ?
    Nahhhh, it's not me. It's the Justice Department..

    Ok, I admit it WAS the governments' fault that they got TOO BIG TO FAIL... It probably had something to do with that scoundrel Barney Frank. Or, maybe it was the repeal of Sarbaines Oxley?

    In any case, WHO CARES who's fault it is? What I care about is that there are LOTS and LOTS of banks out there that are TOO BIG TO FAIL, just WAITING to bring us DOWN. And we'll SEE this happen AGAIN, and then AGAIN.

    You DIDN'T support breaking them up, no matter WHAT you say now... Do you NOW support government action to BREAK 'em up?? Am I all wet with my Sword of Damocles comparison??

    Excon

    PS> (edited) It's becoming clear to me that you don't BELIEVE that banks ARE, or EVER will be TOO BIG TO FAIL. I suspect you think the phrase is a liberal trick, or something.. I really don't know.
  • Dec 12, 2012, 05:27 PM
    paraclete
    Speech you are right what I say is let them fail, and speech and I are nothing alike in our views, and I say all those who break the law go to jail and particularly bankers who fail in their duty of trust. There is a whole class of people who have grown to believe they are above the law, that the end justifies the means, that corporate profit and bonuses as are more important than fairness and openness. Where did they get this, they signed on to the stupid capitalist ethic and began to worship money
  • Dec 12, 2012, 05:36 PM
    excon
    Hello again,

    Am I the only one in the whole wide world who KNOWS what TOO BIG TO FAIL means?? I'm beginning to think so.

    Of course, if a bank ISN'T too big to fail, then I agree with ALL of you. Let 'em FAIL.. But, if it's TOO BIG TO FAIL, it's not a good idea to let them fail, because they're TOO BIG TO FAIL.

    excon
  • Dec 12, 2012, 05:58 PM
    paraclete
    Ex, I say hard luck, no matter how big it is and who it will bring down with it. The reality is if it gets to the point of failing it was done something wrong because being a bank is a licence to print money. You cannot have the situation where the government is the banker of the last resort. This is why you need enforced prudential regulation and you need large conglometates broken up. There used to legislation against cartels and monopolies, when you say too big to fail, you are saying it is in a monopolistic situation, it has too much of the market. It doesn't matter that it has competitors, its market power is too great, so it fails and parts of its business are taken over by smaller banks. The banks should be forced to insure their deposits so if they fail depositors are not affected, just a cost of doing business
  • Dec 12, 2012, 06:11 PM
    excon
    Hello again, clete:

    You don't understand "too big to fail". I don't know WHAT you think it means, but being too powerful, or having investors that will lose too much money, AIN'T it...

    What do YOU think it means? Apparently, you think it's a POLITICAL phrase, geared to DO something, or SCARE somebody for political gain.

    Now, it COULD be ME who doesn't understand it.. But, nahhh... It ain't me. I KNOW what it is.

    excon
  • Dec 12, 2012, 06:18 PM
    paraclete
    Ex I understand it has economic implications and there will be short term chaos in certain markets and some rich dudes will lose some money and some ordinary people will lose some money too. Ex I have been through 9/11, I have been through the GFC, I have lost more money than I care to, but I doubt it would have been any worse if AIG or Goldman or GM or whoever had been allowed to fail. Saving them was just political, an attempt to lessen impacts and of course panic, but you will pay for it for generations
  • Dec 12, 2012, 06:27 PM
    excon
    Hello again, clete:

    Apparently, you don't believe the phrase, TOO BIG TO FAIL. I do. I'm not going to try to convince you either. But, this isn't about a few bucks. It's about our survival...

    This is like YOU saying we could survive a nuclear war, and me saying we can't. That argument wouldn't get solved either.

    excon
  • Dec 12, 2012, 06:39 PM
    paraclete
    The only thing I know of that is too big to fail is the US because it carries too much debt, but individual institutions, saying too big to fail is like saying we will have a war on banking failure, it is just convenient rhetoric for saying we don't like the consequences. Look ex if your government wants to become lender of the last resort, nationalise your banks, then they really will be too big to fail, as for HSBC, the bank of choice for money laundering, it trained its top executive well, he now is a minister in the UK government. Read whatever inferences you like into that
  • Dec 13, 2012, 06:52 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    You DIDN'T support breaking them up, no matter WHAT you say now... Do you NOW support government action to BREAK 'em up?? Am I all wet with my Sword of Damocles comparison??
    All you have to do is show me where I said they shouldn't be broken up.. Then show me where I supported TARP to bail them out. Yes you will find where I wrote many times that I don't believe any business is too big to fail .Someone who believes in capitalism would never say that . The real problem in this country is we have let the government grow 'too big to fail' .
  • Dec 13, 2012, 06:55 AM
    paraclete
    The government was always too big to fail Tom, I mean if it did goodbye constitution, you would have to start over
  • Dec 13, 2012, 06:58 AM
    tomder55
    Nope had we followed constitutional principles ,the government would not have grown to a point where we now have hidden fees revealed in legislation 2 years after it was passed... that no one knew about... because the idiot Dem majority leader never read the legislation she shoved up our keister... telling us we would have to pass it to find out what was in it.
  • Dec 13, 2012, 06:59 AM
    excon
    Hello again, tom:

    Quote:

    I wrote many times that I don't believe any business is too big to fail .Someone who believes in capitalism would never say that .
    Nahhh.. I'm a capitalist. I've also played monopoly.

    Excon
  • Dec 13, 2012, 07:03 AM
    tomder55
    Good then you are perfect for the next Sec Treasury . He has lots of monopoly money to play with.
  • Dec 13, 2012, 07:34 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Nope had we followed constitutional principles ,the government would not have grown to a point where we now have hidden fees revealed in legislation 2 years after it was passed... that no one knew about... because the idiot Dem majority leader never read the legislation she shoved up our keister... telling us we would have to pass it to find out what was in it.

    And we're still learning. Remember when Obama said Obamacare would lower premiums by $2500 a year? Not only are premiums still rising, there's a $63-per-head fee to cover those with pre-existing conditions that employers are most likely to pass on to employees.

    Also on Jan 1 we get a new "unearned income Medicare contribution tax" thanks to Obamacare.

    Quote:

    In the debate over the looming fiscal cliff, U.S. President Barack Obama often plays down any adverse economic impact from letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire for high-income Americans, claiming that the top tax rates would merely return to where they were during the Clinton years.

    Unfortunately, the president’s claim is incorrect because he ignores the impending arrival of the unearned income Medicare contribution tax, which will further raise tax rates on income from saving.
    Sponsored Links

    Scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, the tax, which was adopted as part of the 2010 health-care law, is a 3.8 percent levy on interest, dividends, capital gains and passive business income received by taxpayers with incomes exceeding $200,000 (or $250,000 for couples).

    Because the new tax was added to the health-care law late in the process without congressional hearings, it received little attention at the time. With only a few weeks left before it takes effect, it remains largely unknown.

    Its obscurity has allowed bizarre myths to circulate on the Internet -- despite what you may have read online, the tax is not a 3.8 percent levy on home sales.

    One problem with the unearned income Medicare contribution tax is the name Congress chose for it, which is a triple misnomer. The income that will be subject to the tax isn’t unearned -- it is earned by savers who receive market rewards for delaying consumption and providing funds to finance business investment.

    Also, because the proceeds will be paid into the general treasury, the tax will have no financial link to Medicare. And, of course, the tax will be a compulsory payment, not a voluntary contribution.

    But he's not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 right? I really don't get the logic of punishing success.
  • Dec 13, 2012, 04:40 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post


    But he's not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 right? I really don't get the logic of punishing success.

    No you don't get the concept, the inferstructure that enables you to earn that money doesn't come free and since you are benefiting more than most you get to pay. The idea that you can just make money because you are so brilliant it just falls out of the sky on you and you own nothing to anyone is fantasy. Without everything around you you couldn't make a dime, and since you have more you need more protection, more aircraft carriers, more survelliance, just more. You don't want more, tell your congressman to take a hike the next time he staples a boondoggle to a bill.
  • Dec 13, 2012, 06:00 PM
    tomder55
    I've been trying to get my congressperson to take a hike for years. Now ,for the 2nd time in a decade my district has been carved apart and gerrymandered . I went from a conservative rep in the 1990s to Eliot Engel ,a flaming lib who at least understood foreign policy ;to Nita Lowey , a flaming true lib believer .
  • Dec 13, 2012, 06:20 PM
    paraclete
    Ah demographics, you just need to keep moving, Tom, isn't that what your people did? Moved west to escape? Hey, speaking of moving west, have you seen the pictures of your country at night, a clear dividing line down what I can only assume is the Mississippi. Gerrymanders and Boondoggles, you have interesting political customs
  • Dec 14, 2012, 07:10 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    No you don't get the concept, the inferstructure that enables you to earn that money doesn't come free and since you are benefiting more than most you get to pay. The idea that you can just make money because you are so brilliant it just falls out of the sky on you and you own nothing to anyone is fantasy. Without everything around you you couldn't make a dime, and since you have more you need more protection, more aircraft carriers, more survelliance, just more. You don't want more, tell your congressman to take a hike the next time he staples a boondoggle to a bill.

    Does condescension come naturally to you?
  • Dec 14, 2012, 02:40 PM
    paraclete
    No I learned it at my mother's knee
  • Dec 17, 2012, 08:01 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    no I learned it at my mother's knee

    Well momma should've taught you some manners.
  • Mar 9, 2013, 07:26 AM
    excon
    Hello again,

    Eric Holder admits to concern about impact on markets of prosecuting bankers and banks suspected of violating the law.

    To ME, that means the banks run the United States of America. We don't run it. I think that's a DANGEROUS situation. We don't run the banks. I think we should.

    Elizabeth Warren thinks banks who launder money for the drug cartels, should be prosecuted. . You wingers don't?? I don't know what's unreasonable about that. I know you hate her, but for the life of me, I don't know why.

    I also believe that you DON'T believe in the concept of "too big to fail". Why not?

    excon
  • Mar 9, 2013, 07:31 AM
    speechlesstx
    I think Corzine should be prosecuted, don't you?
  • Mar 9, 2013, 07:45 AM
    excon
    Hello again, Steve,

    Quote:

    I think Corzine should be prosecuted, don't you?
    Unlike you, I think ALL the banksters who broke the law should be tried - NOT just the right wingers. Even your beloved Ronny Raygun put banksters in JAIL!

    Excon
  • Mar 9, 2013, 07:58 AM
    tomder55
    I think Warren has a valid point about HSBC. As far as 'too big to fail ' .Nope ;don't believe in it . You always have anti-trust laws if you think American banks have grown too big. I still contend that it is regulations that have the perverse effect of driving smaller competition to larger corporations out of the game. Do you think it is a coincidence that as Dodd Frank goes on line ;more and more consolidation is happening ?
    Quote:

    What's interesting is what he's not worried about:

    ... And not citing regulatory risk was interesting. He even pointed out that while margins may come down, market share may increase due to a “bigger moat” - We were surprised that regulatory risk was not mentioned as one of the key risks. In Dimon's eyes, higher capital rules, Volcker, and OTC derivative reforms longer-term make it more expensive and tend to make it tougher for smaller players to enter the market, effectively widening JPM's “moat.” While there will be some drags on profitability – as prices and margins narrow, efficient scale players like JPM should eventually be able to gain market share.
    The Four Things That Worry Jamie Dimon - Business Insider
    Quote:

    “Do I think it will be more difficult?” Barnes asks. “Yes. There is a certain size and scale that [banks] simply will have to get to in order to handle the new changes, and a little community bank that has one branch in one location in a small town will likely struggle to survive on its own.”
    Will Dodd-Frank Kill Small Banks? | Columbia Business Times
  • Mar 9, 2013, 08:12 AM
    speechlesstx
    Yep, Libs solution is to feed the beast.
  • Mar 9, 2013, 01:40 PM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Yep, Libs solution is to feed the beast.


    Both sides feed the beast. That the whole idea of having a ruling class.


    Tut
  • Mar 9, 2013, 06:29 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tuttyd View Post
    Both sides feed the beast. That the whole idea of having a ruling class.


    Tut

    Ok, whatever. Only one side is pretending to be beast slayers while in bed with them, and that would be to my left. Surely you can see the utter hypocrisy in liberal rhetoric on the subject.
  • Mar 10, 2013, 12:41 AM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Ok, whatever. Only one side is pretending to be beast slayers while in bed with them, and that would be to my left. Surely you can see the utter hypocrisy in liberal rhetoric on the subject.


    "Ok, whatever"

    This is a bit terse don't you think?

    So ruling elites are fine, so long as it can be demonstrated that Democrats are hypocrites?

    So yes, I can see the hypocrisy in exactly the same way as I can see what is regarded as priorities.


    Tut
  • Mar 10, 2013, 01:39 AM
    paraclete
    It's easy, if they don't comply with the law, if they get involved in money laundering and other undesirable financial transactions, cancel their banking licence. HSBC operates in many countries so cancellation in one country is not so much a disaster as an embarrassment and I sat the same for that other criminal bank UBC
  • Mar 10, 2013, 05:26 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tuttyd View Post
    "Ok, whatever"

    This is a bit terse don't you think?

    Just conceding a point to move along.

    Quote:

    So ruling elites are fine, so long as it can be demonstrated that Democrats are hypocrites?
    That's hardly an assumption I would have made. They're all hypocrites, I was merely pointing out their populist pretense. It's preached here at AMHD every day.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:19 AM.