This news story has 8 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »
•  
  

  • herbert hoover: 
  • Comments (1457)
  Is Citi still open?

  Oct 23 06:23 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • Albertarocks: 
  • Comments (824)
  On Oct 23 06:23 PM herbert hoover wrote:
  
  > Is Citi still open?<
  
  No, on Fridays they close at 5:00.
  
  The question is, will they open on Monday?

  Oct 23 07:09 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • Tack: 
  • Comments (442)
  Over 1300 failures in the S&L crisis, but now 100 gets us all excited.
  
  Give me a call when we get to 500, or even 300. (I don't think I'll wait up for the call.)

  Oct 23 08:02 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • battman: 
  • Comments (213)
  •  • StockTalk (1)
  Interesting. Glad to see you're so confident. Of course it helps when the government writes a $ 700 billion check.
  Had any of the big banks failed when Lehman failed we would have easily eclipsed 1300. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy they're not failing, but their non failure has nothing to do with the strength of the bank or the system as it does with the government intervention, which will create far worse problems in the very near term.
  
  
  On Oct 23 08:02 PM Tack wrote:
  
  > Over 1300 failures in the S&amp;L crisis, but now 100 gets us all
  > excited.
  >
  > Give me a call when we get to 500, or even 300. (I don't think I'll
  > wait up for the call.)

  Oct 23 08:17 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • Tack: 
  • Comments (442)
  Apparently, few understand how this country's socialized-capitalist system works. We have a long history of government intervention in financial crises, so to bring up "what would have happened if the government stood by and did nothing?", as if this was a precedent-setting event, is irrelevant. Besides, we had several huge institutions fail (Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Countrywide, Indymac, etc.) -- much larger and more prominent than any in the S&L crisis-- even with government involvement.
  
  What was the alternative to saving the financial system from a complete meltdown? Should the government just have done nothing and allowed a '30's-like bank run and an extended "bank holiday." All the indignation we read comes from folks in our modern society who wouldn't know real hardship if it hit them on the side of the head. It's easy to be critical from our nice warn homes with food, heat and 24-hour Internet access. Nobody should wish to go back to the '30's, if they're sane.
  
  Now, that said, the government has the large challenge to withdraw in a systematic fashion the excess capital that they have flooded into the system. If they fail to do that over time, then, we'll have to pay for the surplus largesse with elevated inflation. That's the price. That the economy will recover is a given --only fools think that there's no bottom and we're never coming back; they completely ignore history because it's easier to be negative, I suppose.
  
  If one wishes to worry about the government's action, don't sweat the bailouts, which have many historical examples; worry about the government's attempts to usurp the permanent control of our private economy, rather than withdrawing to the sidelines, as they've done in the aftermath of past financial crises. This is the real danger to this country and economy.
  
  And those that are mad and indignant about the use of "taxpayer" dollars and want to see private enterprise "punished" are just dangerous fools.
  
  P.S. Everbody talks about the cost of the bailout. That's populist fodder, of course. Nobody talks about the fact that the shares of the companies they've bailed out, and now own, have risen enormously in value, plus the government is being paid handsomely in preferred dividends from TARP. Hardly anybody understands the reality of all this, or maybe it just doesn't serve the cause of remaining angry.
  
  The funny and ironic thing is that the government's investment, through the bailout, in private companies was the best use of money they've made in decades. Compare that, which is having a nice return, so far, to the usual boondoggles on which the government spends money, which have no return and no value, even the same day the money is spent.
  
  On Oct 23 08:17 PM battman wrote:
  
  > Interesting. Glad to see you're so confident. Of course it helps
  > when the government writes a $ 700 billion check.
  > Had any of the big banks failed when Lehman failed we would have
  > easily eclipsed 1300. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy they're not failing,
  > but their non failure has nothing to do with the strength of the
  > bank or the system as it does with the government intervention, which
  > will create far worse problems in the very near term.

  Oct 23 09:00 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • dieuwer: 
  • Comments (371)
  •  • StockTalk (28)
  No bank failures in New England?

  Oct 23 09:28 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • ebworthen: 
  • Comments (811)
  •  • StockTalk (6)
  These are the small wakes before the tsunami.
  
  Don't hold more than $100,000 in any one bank or you will regret it.
  
  A run on the banks will occur in the next year or two, depending on how much taxpayer cash the FED is willing to spend.

  Oct 23 09:47 PM | Link | Reply
•  
  

  • hedonist: 
  • Comments (44)
  •  • StockTalk (1)
  Non-Farm payrolls were the worst in 3 months.
  Factory Orders were the worst in 5 months.
  Auto Sales were the worst in 5 months.
  Retail Sales were the WORST this year.
  
  And the PUNCHLINE, cause its crucial....
  
  Average workweek at 33.0 was the worst in ATLEAST FIVE years, and even in Sept-Oct 2001 after 9/11 it was 34....
  
  "To understand the importance of these changes in the workweek, note that a one tenth decline in the average workweek of 120 mln workers (roughly the current level of employment) results in 12 mln fewer hours worked. To create a similar decline in manhours through a change in employment, payrolls would have to fall 340K. For the purposes of production and income calculations, a one tenth of an hour change in the workweek is equivalent to a 340K change in employment. Needless to say, the workweek data are therefore critical in judging the overall strength or weakness of the employment report."~
  Briefing.com

  Oct 24 06:53 AM | Link | Reply