Yes, Bush created TARP but be had nothing to do with its most recent implementation - that was all done under obama and his administration. Let me re-iterate that obama took equity positions ALL of the banks using TARP funds, regardless of whether or not they needed/wanted the money. He did not buy the toxic assets; he bought into the banks themselves. The left wing nutsacks, as you seem to be, were behind the whole "occupy wall st" movement as a way of adding some moral justification to their actions...did you read that load-of-crap anti-capitalism article on business insider (another left wing propaganda mill) about how the American dream is accessibility into the top 0.5% income bracket, and that fact that most people never make it there is proof that "our system is broken"? lol What next, we need to have at 1 in 2 chance to win the lottery for everyone who buys a ticket, else it's not fair and is broken? That's what would have happened and that would have been better for the US in the long term...but it would have been political suicide for obama. Where is the money deriving its value from? Money itself has no value. People used to pay for things by bartering services or trading goods. Money came into play as a mutually accepted IOU and that's where it derives its value. The original intent was not for currency to replace bartering or trading outright; it was to act as a temporary placeholder that says you'll be compensated at a later time for a value equal to the money you were given. As more people put their faith in currency, along with government "backing" increasing confidence, it became acceptable for people to transact exclusively with currency rather than real goods or services (items that have intrinsic value). Money you spend is you taking on debt. When you "buy stuff with money" you are only able to do that because of this mutual faith in the particular currency. The expectation that a person has by accepting your currency payment is that the money he accepted represents the value of goods/services he provided to you, and that he can use the currency to rectify your debt to him by spending it elsewhere. Money you receive as payment is debt someone else owes you. You expect that the money you are paid represents a specific value, and that you can use said money to redeem goods/services equal to its representative value from any other person and not just the person who originally paid you, thus enabling you to rectify the debt owed to you without having to rely exclusively on the person who paid you. Money you spend is you going into debt for the amount you spent. Money you receive is you accepting debt for the amount you are paid. Your ability to participate in commerce exclusively using currency and never relying on the transfer of goods or services is a function of a mutual belief in said currency - nothing more and nothing less. Taking what you learned here today, apply this concept to the stock market as it is today and see if you can spot any problems with respect to where the market is.
Dude, stop trying to spin your mistakes. TARP was actually reduced to $475B under Dodd-Frank during Obama's admin. The equity stakes (warrants) were actually reduced in scale (from the initial EESA 08 levels) due to the DF impact, and during Obama's first term. So tell us again how "they" circumvented Congress? Hmm? The Bush administration (Paulson) wrote EESA 08. It was HR 1424 which passed both houses and was signed by Bush, you turd. Only to be reduced in size and scope due to Dodd-Frank. You are a comical f*ckup. Please continue to spin how they "didn't go to Congress" and that Obama signed off on EESA and the warrants.
What am I "spinning"? Are you denying that under obama the fed took equity positions in banks regardless of whether or not they wanted "assistance" or are you simply trying to play down the fact that this is a classic bloated government play for power? You do realize that TARP funds were not allocated so that the government could participate in the stock market as an investor...or is that tidbit of fact also eluding you? Hey, to be fair, I'm willing to concede that some or even most of that may not have been obama's idea. In fact, he probably just rubber-stamped it without actually knowing the implications...but it doesn't change the fact that the US economy and, to a degree, the global economy is suffering for it and this is all going down on his watch. If your strategy is to "blame it on Bush" you may just want to give up because it's not working. Congress' primary role is to manage government spending, which includes approving and disapproving funding for programs that obama may want to put into play. Misusing TARP funds and taking an ownership stake in the banks is one way to get around congressional approval, but that wasn't the extent. The obama admin sought to coerce funding for projects they wanted to have happen from said banks...fail projects like the "green economy" (which you are probably heavily vested in on your DerpTrade account) continue to receive funding. Tesla, which builds cars nobody wants, gets nearly $40K in taxpayer subsidies for each car they sell ON TOP of the $7.5K in tax credits people get for buying an electric car. Just an example, but I'm sure you already knew this. Clearly a car company that's perpetually on the verge of going belly-up and is sustained almost entirely on welfare justifies share prices >$150 - I wonder how that's happening. GM isn't quite as bad as Tesla but the US taxpayers are still the proud owners of ~4% of the company. You might want to work on your reading comprehension there, brah. Am I using words that are too big for you or am I not including enough jargon for your tastes? That must make you mad.
Denying that banks took money under EESA while Obama was in office? Of course not. It was the implementation of HR 1424 passed by Congress and signed by George Bush. The Obama inauguration was three months later. No, nothing against Bush. My strategy is to expose you as the moron that you are, but truth be told, it wasn't necessary.
are you suggesting basic employees with a pension plan will benefit off the raise of the stock market anything near a top executive or the richest top 2%? why does walmart keep warning about earnings than?
Define "help." In what way? At what cost? In what time horizon -- short-term, mid- or long-term or what? It's funny how many people with advanced degrees can't make basic distinctions or spot fallacious thinking.
I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I have made no claim about who benefited more or less. I only wondered whether your statement meant that a broad class of people who are, in some shape or form, invested in the stock mkt benefited. It wasn't a statement, but rather a question. Again, pls see above. I am asking the question, rather than making a statement.
You have gone "full retard" here, my friend. Again, as atti has pointed out, you're bringing politics into this discussion for no good reason whatsoever. So let me just set you straight here. What you're referring to here is the TARP CPP (Capital Purchase Program), which consisted of the US Treasury Dept injecting capital into banks in exch for equity, debt and a hybrid of the two (warrantes). 2/3rds of the TARP CPP funds were disbursed to the banks by Jan 2009. Erm, no. You got this wrong, but, honestly, I lack the will to talk about this with you. It's a waste of time, so I will just disagree with you and leave it at that.
I agree and this is an interesting phenomenon. Some people, most notably Ray Dalio and Bridgewater's "risk parity" method, have made a LOT of money on this. How long will it persist and is it really true that "it shouldn't be this way" (the original Fed model which the negative correlation is based on a lot of questionable assumptions)?
QE and what transpired during the bailouts was almost exclusively, if not entirely, a political decision. We have a process called bankruptcy that exists for companies that have become insolvent. TARP was not created for the purpose of taking equity positions in banks or any other companies, no did all of the banks that received TARP funds want or need them. It was created to buy toxic assets in an effort to maintain market stability - again, interference I don't agree with. The toxic assets only exist because dipsh1ts like you exist. No, what I said is entirely correct. You got pwned by facts, again. Thanks for playing.