Geithner Bailout Details

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by MrDODGE, Feb 9, 2009.

  1. zzt

    zzt

    Because usually theres a market for distressed assets, & in this case theres none. I guess what i am getting at is that the only model of a succesfull solution to a banking crisis similar to the one we have now, is that of the swedish govt after their banking crisis of the early 1990's.

    Definitions of socialism and whatever else aside, if a model exists that has worked in the past, lets just get on with it and stop trying to create a new, more complex and untested solution.
     
    #11     Feb 10, 2009
  2. Who dreamed that conservatives would be backing Axelrod? At least now we understand why Wall Street backed Geithner so hard and got republicans to drop their opposition to his nomination. One hand washing the other. Both dirty.

    Basically this is the Bush plan. Let taxpayers pick up the tab, let bank exec's keep their jobs and perks and insulate shareholders from the consequences of a bad investment.
     
    #12     Feb 10, 2009
  3. DblArrow

    DblArrow

    Except for the fact that Clinton (Hillary) and others in the democrat party, have called for a "windfall profits tax"; I think one could make an argument for a taking here, if they were to get their way.

    Being perhaps a little to cynical - government takeover of business is most certainly easier when the business is in trouble than when it is not. The masses are probably more willing to accept it at this point.
     
    #13     Feb 10, 2009
  4. 4XQs

    4XQs

    The biggest CHANGE we've seen so far has been with the Republicans. Whilst W still was President they were actively contributing to help solve the problems, but after Obama took over they're now playing partisan tactics: Let the Dems take the blame for every political measure trying to tackle the problems.

    There's no alternative from the Republicans, it's just a no.

    Of course the party in power cannot sit by and do nothing like the Republicans do.
     
    #14     Feb 10, 2009
  5. Mav88

    Mav88

    'no' is an alternative, and probably a better one.
     
    #15     Feb 10, 2009
  6. Agreed, and agree with other comments on wiping these banks clean. They are so screwed up though with so many interrelationships I wonder how something like that would actually be implemented. Anyway that would of been the right way to go. This throwing tax dollars and a never ending black hole is economic ritual suicide.
     
    #16     Feb 10, 2009
  7. DmanX

    DmanX Guest

    Change is merely that Barack Obama is the first half-black, or more approriately, bi-racial president.

    If you go by racist slave rules (1/10th black blood = black), then he's the first black president. In which case not much has changed except on the surface.
     
    #17     Feb 10, 2009
  8. #18     Feb 10, 2009

  9. Re: The windfall tax issue - saying a firm's tax bill will be slightly higher if crude oil spends "x" amount of time over $50/bbl or over $70/bbl is completely different than nationalization which essentially says "I now own you completely" or "I am - as of now - your 50% partner" or similar shove ins.

    With most of the proposed windfall tax ideas, the govt. would have absolutely no additional participation in the profit stream at current prices. With true nationalization - they would not only participate in the profits, regardless of where the crude market was (and that participation would be much greater compared to a situational tax), they would also either dictate or greatly influence most operational decisions as the owner or major partner in the business.

    So let's be clear vs. cynical - Neither the Dems or the Republicans are interested in nationalizing the major integrated energy firms.


    Re: taking over weak firms - If the govt. (Dem or Republican) simply wanted to nationalize firms just because they were weak - we'd still be flying around on planes with "Pan Am" "Eastern" and "TWA" logos on the wings. But we aren't.

    The banks clearly play an important role in the economy and are in need of some short-term govt. supervision until they somehow get past losing billions of dollars quarter after quarter.
     
    #19     Feb 10, 2009