FORUMS BROKERS SOFTWARE
Home
 
    Forums > Main > Economics > paulson saved wall street and burned main street


View Poll Results: is obama following the path to socialism started by paulson
yes 10 52.63%
No 2 10.53%
paulson did not start anything 3 15.79%
don't care 4 21.05%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Aug 28th, 2011, 08:34 PM   #1
zdreg
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,001
because paulson, a republican and wall street, lead the way obama thinks he can turn america into a socialist country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/bu...street.html?hp
    Quote
Old Aug 28th, 2011, 11:24 PM   #2
jayre
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 183
Quote:
Quote from zdreg:

because paulson, a republican and wall street, lead the way obama thinks he can turn america into a socialist country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/bu...street.html?hp
The idea that rescueing the big banks was not important is without merit.
If the US would have let BAC, AIG, Citibank follow Lehman, the result would have been the following.
-Every other bank, insurance co, brokerage, financial institution, would have been in danger
-LIBOR would have frozen completely
-Loans to consumers and business would be noneexistent
-The economy would have come to a standstill.
I can agree that wall street are crooks, have taken too much risk, and mabye some CEO's should have gone to jail. But to let the whole economy colapse because of that, is a STUPID argument.
    Quote
Old Aug 28th, 2011, 11:49 PM   #3
nutmeg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Doddsville
Posts: 18,495
Quote:
Quote from jayre:

The idea that rescueing the big banks was not important is without merit.
If the US would have let BAC, AIG, Citibank follow Lehman, the result would have been the following.
-Every other bank, insurance co, brokerage, financial institution, would have been in danger
-LIBOR would have frozen completely
-Loans to consumers and business would be noneexistent
-The economy would have come to a standstill.
I can agree that wall street are crooks, have taken too much risk, and mabye some CEO's should have gone to jail. But to let the whole economy colapse because of that, is a STUPID argument.
I agree and also add, political implications around the world, if other countries lost confidence in our banking system based on the reasons our own country would not support financial inst of all kinds, confidence would be lost.

How did TARP morph into tax breaks for makers of wooden arrows. Paulson's didn't come up with various give aways unrelated to the funding?
    Quote
Old Aug 29th, 2011, 06:08 AM   #4
zdreg
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,001
Quote:
Quote from jayre:

The idea that rescueing the big banks was not important is without merit.
If the US would have let BAC, AIG, Citibank follow Lehman, the result would have been the following.
-Every other bank, insurance co, brokerage, financial institution, would have been in danger
-LIBOR would have frozen completely
-Loans to consumers and business would be noneexistent
-The economy would have come to a standstill.
I can agree that wall street are crooks, have taken too much risk, and mabye some CEO's should have gone to jail. But to let the whole economy colapse because of that, is a STUPID argument.

your scenario is not a given. the assets of the big banks would have been bought pennies on the dollar by better capitalized entities. the law could have been changed to allow non banking entities to become owners of banks. many competent economists believe that a reorganization of these failed entities would have been resulted in a better allocation of resources.

furthermore even if your scenario had turned out been correct the country would have been better off to let these entries fade away. . yes there might have been a great deal of short term pain but the business cycle would
have renewed itself with an upswing as the previous excesses were washed out of the system. instead these entities continued to exist and are being run by the same people who created the mess in the 1st place. the economy does not revive because these overvalued assets are kept on the books and act as an overhang on the economy which could last for years. the US has increased its debts by trillions of dollars which will hinder the growth of the economy for years if not decades to come.

it is a very similar to the following question do u prefer a broken bone which recovers or a dull lingering pain in a limb which does not go away.
    Quote
Old Aug 29th, 2011, 06:15 AM   #5
Butterball
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Medellin, Columbia
Posts: 515
Walker F. Todd, a research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research and a former assistant general counsel and research officer at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland:
Quote:
“What is the benefit to the American taxpayer of propping up a Belgian bank with a single New York banking office to the tune of tens of billions of dollars?”

So Dexia just had a single NY branch so this idiot figures it couldn't possibly have caused much of a shi*storm were they allowed to blow up?! You can't make this up.
    Quote
Old Aug 29th, 2011, 10:00 AM   #6
jayre
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 183
Quote:
Quote from zdreg:

your scenario is not a given. the assets of the big banks would have been bought pennies on the dollar by better capitalized entities. the law could have been changed to allow non banking entities to become owners of banks. many competent economists believe that a reorganization of these failed entities would have been resulted in a better allocation of resources.

furthermore even if your scenario had turned out been correct the country would have been better off to let these entries fade away. . yes there might have been a great deal of short term pain but the business cycle would
have renewed itself with an upswing as the previous excesses were washed out of the system. instead these entities continued to exist and are being run by the same people who created the mess in the 1st place. the economy does not revive because these overvalued assets are kept on the books and act as an overhang on the economy which could last for years. the US has increased its debts by trillions of dollars which will hinder the growth of the economy for years if not decades to come.

it is a very similar to the following question do u prefer a broken bone which recovers or a dull lingering pain in a limb which does not go away.
Changing laws.. gred deal of short term pain.. new business cycle.. previous excesses were washed out of the system..
I think we did all of this..
"IN 1933"
Do you think the outcome was better then? if yes heads off
    Quote
 
Reply
Thread Tools

Forum Jump



   Conduct Rules   Privacy Policy   Sitemap Copyright © 2014, Elite Trader. All rights reserved.   

WHILE YOU'RE HERE, TAKE A MINUTE TO VISIT SOME OF OUR SPONSORS:
Advantage Futures
Futures Trading & Clearing
Alpha 7 Trading Academy
Proprietary Trading Education
AMP Global Clearing
Futures and FX Trading
Bright Trading
Professional Equities Trading
CTS
Futures Trading Software
DaytradingBias.com
Professional Trading Analytics
ECHOtrade
Professional Trading Firm
eSignal
Trading Software Provider
FXCM
Forex Trading Services
Global Futures
Futures, Options & FX Trading
Interactive Brokers
Pro Gateway to World Markets
JC Trading Group
Direct Access Trading
MB Trading
Direct Access Trading
MultiCharts
Trading Software Provider
NinjaTrader
Trading Software Provider
OANDA
Currency Trading
optionshouse
Option Trading & Education
Rithmic
Futures Trade Execution Platform
SpeedTrader
Direct Access Trading
SpreadProfessor
Spread Trading Instruction
thinkorswim by TD Ameritrade
Direct Access TradingAdvertisement
TradersStudio
System Building & Backtesting
Trading Technologies
Trading Software Provider
Trend Following
Trading Systems Provider