lsully999

Why the U.S. Prefers Quasi-Nationalization of Big Banks

You are all missing the point - completely; your perspective is not broad enough.

What the B of A/Lewis story tells you (in fact, confirms) is: the primary purpose of gov't is to preserve the state; nothing else, period. Remember: Lehman just failed and the WORLD (not just the U.S.) was on the brink of a financial meltdown of nuclear proportions. Under those conditions, do you really think the national gov't gives a rip about Lewis or B of A shareholders (like the lunatic Mr. Finger) ? In normal times, perhaps; in times in crisis - absolutely not. Nor should they.

As much as you may not like it, central govt's are required to preserve the general welfare of the public first and foremost; that is why terrorists are tortured and bank CEO's are whipped like Missouri mules. Most people - including many who post here - look at things and say: why ? Thank god they don't run things. A better perspective: what would the alternative yield - and how would the population react. [Would you really (and I mean: really) want Merrill to fail if it meant a truly lost decade ? Do you really want Citi, or Bof A or another major bank to fail ? And if you say yes, you have not completely thought thru the maco-economic ramifications, you care only about your own self interest or you are a nihilist - which, clearly, the fellows at Tech Talk are.]

Viewed through that prism, everything is clear - and as it should be. And you should really quit complaining.

Citi's Desperate Straits

Am I the only one who remembers that this entity is supported by a middle eastern prince ? Cit's share price may drop - but this company is absolutely going to survive.

JasonC has a point; but it is also were noting that, after the TARP infusion, Citi's Tier 1 capital is in excess of $100.0 billion; they also have loss reserves of $25.0 billion. That's a heck of a lot of cushion.