You want banks to fail?Government restructuring is failure. Heres the thing that guys like Jim Rogers dont get it, there is no such thing as a bank bankruptcy! So what kind of failure are you looking for? The FDIC takes banks over when they are illiquid, inadaquetly run, undercapilized. then they reestructure, clean it up, give some deposits to other banks, sell the clean up bank,etc This is not called nationalization but its essentially that. If the FDIC took C over and reestructured, then C failed, the austrians had their way, how come they are not happy with this? But of couse, free market fundamentalists seem to want bankruptcy judges with NO experience with bank failures to do the job just so they have satisfy their inate desires to make their free market heros to be proven right. They also have a view that nationalization=socialism=bad even though this has nothing to do with government running banks Last time I checked the bankruptcy system was run by government employees the same way the FDIC is
What Keynesian's don't get is this XX Trillion bailout was unnecessary to begin with. Government could have nationalized the toxic paper for around 2 Trillion. Problem solved. Why wasn't that solution adopted? Because it removes the conditions that allowed this massive power grab and plundering to continue.
Krugman is a Keynesian Cunt who's Nobel win is a strong indication that the US is not ready to move forward to capitalism, but more likely to move towards socialism/facism/worse...
Absolutely true. Something else to add. All govt help will be 9.7 trillion, that's about 90% of all the nation's mortgages (bloomberg). So??
And what Jim Rogers understands (but you don't, apparently), is Creative Destruction. Only one half of American banks are insolvent. Many good regionals are sound and profitable. They become the new Citi, JP and BoA after the old guard crash and burn. Nothing wrong with that. Thats what made America Great. Remember?? Personal Accountability. This bailout just rewards catastrophic risk-taking and speculative excess.
There is no doubt the krugman is a socialist who has a hardon everytime he hears 'socialized XYZ' and wacks off to spending as a % of GDP charts but he is dead right on this one
No he isn't and he doesn't even believe it himself most probably but his boss told him to say so. He is no economist any longer, he is a showman and a politician and we all know how well these two go together.
Nouriel Roubini says the same thing. And I think that there is a lot of merit in what he is saying regarding the Banks. Why on Earth would you (Paulson, Bush, etc. ) allow JP Morgan to buy an insolvent WAMU , or a Wells Fargo to buy an insolvent Wachovia, or a Bank of America to buy an insolvent Countrywide, and Merrill. It's like 2 drunks trying to hold each other up! Why does anyone with half a brain seem to think that having these LARGE ZOMBIE BANKS around is a good thing, and will help pave the way for economic growth again? Doesn't make any sense.