dw57

Why Congress Is Asking Bernanke Bogus Questions

i think you forgot Citi. its has the most government support (with an exception of maybe AIG).

but i am not sure that leaving the rescue of the economy to the CEOs is like leaving the foxs in charge of the hen house after they raided it killing all but a few chickens. they created the debacle to begin with, and putting them in charge of fixing it, leaves the hen house empty. we have seen how well they perform. and its not pretty at all.

Credit Cards: Do the Banks Own the Senate?

if you have to ask the question, then you already know the answer. of course they do!

FDIC Regulation: Reason for Alarm

and add crony capitalism. thats where the regulator's help out their old buddies where they worked or who they worked for as a lobbyist

On May 06 12:08 PM History Buff 24/7 wrote:

> We need to add a new term to our dictionaries, "crony regulation".
> This has been practiced for years in Russia and some other countries
> where the rule of law is weak or nonexistent. It has always existed
> to some extent in the USA but is now becoming more and more prevalent.

FDIC Regulation: Reason for Alarm

not sure that we couldn't also say the same thing about regulators who didn't. and Congress at the time was very happy. Todays mess is a direct result of that. the police on the beat were to interested in helping the bad guys, than doing any thing for country as a whole.

How Bailouts Are Messing with Capitalism

not sure that capitalism hadn't already been messed up long before the bailouts started. and that problem was self inflicted and aided and abetted by their friends in government. capitalism works fine when there are rules and some one actually enforcing them. since capitalism is based on humans, we can end up with any and all issues from that (can you say crime? or fraud? or both?).

Added Debt Won't Rescue the Great American Ponzi Scheme

not sure that if we continue the former plan of pumping up the GDP using credit will work. Since wage destruction has been in full force for decades, and has in fact increased how will the economy do any thing but drift lower. after all, there is one rule that can't be over ridden in economics. business need willing customers will can buy and PAY for their products. business has been so enamored of pushing the wages of their customers down, that at some point there was going to a whirlwind for them to reap. that being the lack of customers at all. and that will keep inflation in check since it can only keep going if customer's can keep up. maybe this is that great equalization of the world economies with the US collapsing down to match others?

The Economy, And Why It's Taking So Long to Fix It

i think it was longer than that. try 30 years


On Feb 27 06:06 PM User 365859 wrote:

> The mess we got into is 20yrs in the making. It started with the
> most favorite nation status to China(by Bill Clinton). Since then
> we have shipped 7 million manufacturing jobs to China. and the 20
> million support jobs that go with them This was done with the help
> of wall street and complicity of our managerial and political class.
> In order to maintain the standard of living in the face of these
> losses of good paying jobs american middle class borrowed too much
> and again wall-street was complicit in selling mortgages credit cards
> and every other form of debt that they knew people would not be able
> to laon back.
>
> Let the larger banks fail and create an RTC which will then sell
> those assets that are worth something to the next tier of banks.Wipe
> out the common share holders and start over. There would be much
> less pain in the medium term and we could make the medium banks the
> abilityh to make good profits and grow.
>
> The individual howeowner like me who has 70 percent equity is just
> going to suck it up. There are a few million too many homes in this
> country and we have to work through the inventory which could take
> a long time.
>
> I am my brothers keeper so we the better off have to help those less
> fortunate.
>

The Economy, And Why It's Taking So Long to Fix It

this is a fraud. there was no rules that forced the mortgage brokers to make the notes they made. in fact there very federal regulation of mortgage companies or brokers. there is some state regulations, but in a lot of cases the states couldn't be bothered with performing their jobs. and allowed felons to be brokers and mortgage companies even though that was forbidden

On Feb 27 06:06 PM al-shaf wrote:

> Yea, and it could be the government, specifically the Democrats like
> Barney Frank, who opposed ANY regulation of the home mortgage GSE's
> so that lots of unqualified "poor" folks could buy expensive houses...
>

The Economy, And Why It's Taking So Long to Fix It

not sure that this is part of that cycle. this was a mess created by big business. by their fraud and stupidity.

it doesn't fit that business cycle


On Feb 27 04:28 PM drevno wrote:

> The only thing that is certain is that the recovery is coming. The
> business cycle (or the Kondriateff's long cycle, or whatever is happening
> now) is exactly what is says: a cycle. What goes up, will go down.
> And vice versa.
>
> The question for an investor is: what to do in the meantime? Time
> the cycle? Buy at this seeming through - even though we are likely
> going to be in a see-saw pattern for a few months more - and hold
> for the long term? What can be considered a save "bet" now? No one
> has a crystal ball. And as long as more and more unexpected items
> are coming to light, this is no ordinary recession or a simple bubble:
> this is the chickens of many excesses of the past coming home to
> roost.
> But it will come to pass, too. Give it another quarter or so. However,
> depressed levels of consumption (and their impact on investment)
> will likely remain for a longer period of time. Still, the opportunities
> to innovate, restructure and modernize are here, perhaps more obviously
> and urgently than ever before. And thus, clear opportunities for
> a productive use of the money on the sidelines.
>

The Economy, And Why It's Taking So Long to Fix It

i think that the down shift in consumption is good. but its also very bad. as just why would the economy come back? the biggest driver is gone or badly shrunk (last I saw consumer was up %77 of the economy. and the government was probably %10. which doesn't leave much of any thing.

and then there is this,

baby boomers (the biggest spenders) are retiring (or were) and they are cutting back (and would have been anyway). and none of the other generations have come any where close to being as big a contributors to the economy.

and of course there is also the collapse of wages.

where will the new consumer come from and why?

On Feb 27 04:12 PM Lilguy wrote:

> Couldn't agree with you more on the key issues in the economy and
> the time it will take to resolve them.
>
> One nuance I would differ slightly with you on is consumer confidence.
> Yep, it's in the pits and it will stay there for quite some time.
> But I see that as an effect of the loss of wealth from the housing
> bust and family financial investment--especially 401Ks--evaporating
> as well as the reality or threat of layoffs. People now see that
> they will have to work longer (or elders having to come back to work)
> and be more thrifty.
>
> And--on this latter point--I think we're going through a cultural
> shift from spendthrift to ol' fashion thrift. That is what I see
> as the key consumption driver that will have an adverse effect on
> economic growth well after the housing and financial system busts
> have been stabilized. So, even when confidence starts rising, I
> wouldn't look for much increase in personal consumption.

Privatize the Banks, Already

i don't think we could reprivatize any of these banks very quickly. it will take years and cost billions and billions more. and have we not learned any thing from Lehman. when it failed every thing seized up. and it was much smaller than either Citi of BOFA and less connected. if either or both fail the result would be hundreds of times larger than Lehman. and breaking them up will also take years (or decades). and just who will buy them any way? investors are fleeing them today because they don't know their risks with them. and the same issues (just a different flavor) is facing the regional banks too. in their case its commercial not residential mortgages.

Is Nationalization Contagious?

well lets just improve your idea. let them fail completely and totally and if they take the economy with them so be it. no help from the government for insurance on assets, or a buy back of assets. then when it has all collapsed, we can build a new bank system. in 20 or 30 years it might even be functional again. private actions created this mess. but they won't fix it, never have before. why start now


On Jan 23 06:01 PM mephistopheles wrote:

> Nice to see the "nationalists" begin to wake up to some of the real
> perils of this kooky scheme.
>
> Communism would work just perfectly if you could get everyone to
> contribute exactly the same and be content with equally exactly the
> same rewards.
>
> Looks at BCS and RBS- BCS has been crushed without taking a red cent
> from the British govt. compared to its peers RBS and Lloyds
>
> Shed the dis-ingenuity Mr. Salmon. And advice your fellow "nationalists"
> of the same. Nationalization of US banks will destroy wealth of epic
> proportions and put paid to any hopes of investing private capital
> into the very lifeline of our economy when we most need it.
>
> This kind of stuff never works in half measures and never ever in
> human history can be controlled precisely as its advocates deem it
> can.
>
> My other post to your fellow nationalist sets out an alternative
> which is simple-
>
> 1, valuation of assets is central to everything
> 2. value performing assets on cash flow
> 3. value non performing assets over a 12 mon time window average
> of valuations.
> 4. govt offers both an insurance program for assets as well as a
> reverse auction buy back of select assets.
>
> We'll be fine in 12 months and "bank nationalism" of your kind will
> thankfully remain a blogospheric illusion.

Is Nationalization Contagious?

the problem is private capital doesn't see any value in banks. they don't trust the numbers that have been published by banks. or by most companies any more. so how will you get private capital when nobody believes you?

On Jan 23 02:15 PM TPoise wrote:

> The nationalization of ANY major bank would spread instantly throughout
> the financial markets of the world. XLF would be $1/share or less.
>
>
> Nationalization is just a really bad idea. We need to ATTRACT private
> capital so the need is reduced for government money. However, not
> many people are willing to pile money into a bank right now knowing
> that their preferred shares or common will get wiped out just like
> TPG did with WaMu in 2008.

Is Nationalization Contagious?

The pint they were trying to make is this.

If a bank collapses the trust needed to have a bank is gone. That's why when the FDIC takes over a failed bank, that bank is sold to some one else and no longer exists. I would guess that if a to big to fail were to fail, there are no other banks able to take it over, so that bank is gone, but the money owed by it is also vaporized along with investors. and only deposits are saved. but only because of the FDIC. and banks do a lot more than almost any other company in our economy. And if a really big bank were to fail without a takeover, almost every other bank would start to have bank runs (which depositors come in and withdrawal their money) causing more banks to fail. and if enough banks fail, you could see what happened in the depression could repeat because that was a major cause of it. and a lot of today's problems are because nobody trusts any body else as they don't know if any body is not about to fail also.

I seem to be missing the point here. If a bank fails, doesn't it go into bankruptcy like any other corporation? Won't the bank continue to function? Will they not be getting relief from their debts? The banking system as a whole continues to work as it should but that corporation suffers temporarily. Sure the investors will lose out but that's part of investing.


On Jan 23 10:18 AM Larrysyr wrote:

> On Jan 23 09:47 AM Novice_Trying_to_Learn wrote:

JPMorgan Beats: For Banks, This Is as Good as It Gets

Otherwise, most divisions made money across the board: Commercial Banking, Treasury and Security Services, Asset Management, and Private Equity (due to an extraordinary gain).

not sure why any of these divisions will continue to make money next year. i would expect commercial banking to have problems (if not last year) because a lot of business's are in big trouble. and the others will not do well as they look like they are going to be related the stock market or treasuries. neither of which will make much in the way of money