American in Paris

Citigroup Is Not Increasing Employee Compensation

I am quite glad that you are an angry banker. You're vastly over-rated and I probably make more money than you do now. So I am very happy. Poor banker.

Freedom of Information Act Disclosure Busts Paulson, Geithner, Bair

You're very confused. Without those capital infusions those banks were bankrupt today.

I am very glad the Federal Government rescued the banking system.

And yes, the government does have broad regulatory power over the banks.


On May 14 06:18 AM User 353732 wrote:

> What happened to separation of Bank and State?
> Well, the governing elites concluded many years ago that protecting
> investors, consumers and honoring both law and custom were major
> impediments to advancing the self interest of the political and financial
> barons. Collusion, in the name of the people, was a far more expedient
> strategy for self perpetuation.
> They decided that the quaint old way when money and sovereignty
> belonged to the people and Washinton DC and Wall St actually had
> to earn the right to make important national decisions and take
> and spend the people's money was neither efficient nor modern. The
> elites looked at the way the Chinese, Russians and Japanese did things
> and saw that it was good. So, the elites decided that "globalizing"
> this collusion between State and Bank would be the new, improved
> way for ensuring the continuity and advancement of Elitism in the
> US.
> Transparency, accountability and bright lines made the Washington-Wall
> St oligarchy anxious and fearful, so away with them.
> The old American model was: protect the people from the governing
> elite. The new model is: protect the governing elite from the people.
> The Chinese, Russians and Japanese approve and applaud.

The Terminator Banks

You are silly. Please become a stand up comedian!


On Apr 19 10:28 AM Ishortyou wrote:

> the bolsheivks will do anything to make the economy look good for
> the coming elections, in their agenda is to make sure the banks look
> good by whatever means necessary, do you really think they are going
> to let the big banks failed when elections are coming? they already
> made the mark to market account rules changed, they will not release
> the banks out of their grasps. The Terminator is the bolshevik agenda.

Krugman, Don't Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater Just Yet

That is nonsense. Sweden nationalized its largest banks and then later privatised them. It worked very well.


On Mar 27 08:55 AM atavist.avatar wrote:

> Krugman is flat out wrong because he is shortsighted in his assessment
> of the consequences. Consider what happened when Lehman failed and
> ask what will happen if the USG nationalizes the banks - mass arteriosclerosis
> in the financial system would result. And the impact of that on
> the economy would be disastrous.

The End of the Credit Crisis

Get a grip. Just because your ideology was a miserable failure doesn't mean it should be allowed to destroy the nation ...

It is hardly as though we have any choice other than to bail out the banks. And if the American people have to rescue the banks to save themselves, then the American people should get a good deal.

Upside, not just downside.

Obstinate clinging to a clearly discredited ideology is why your side on the bench ...


On Feb 28 05:06 PM nova wrote:

> Great, who needs Karl Marx or Adam Smith? We have Obama geniuses.
>
>
> Yes, Obama idea is brilliant: convert US real estate housing market
> into free-rent "public housing".
>
> Then, why stop there? The next will be commercial real-estate, etc.,
>
>
> Just one question: who will "eat" all these losses?
>
> PS
> Free lunch has to stop somewhere. Otherwise, farmers will stop growing
> food. Of coarse, Obama can nationalize agriculture the way it was
> done in Soviet Union and China (who counts 10% of the entire population
> starved to death and additional 60% were enslaved.)

The End of the Credit Crisis

The mark to market rule does not cause losses. It just forces the banks to recognize the reduced value of their assets.

If you bought a property in Las Vegas in 2005 and you hold it still today, then you have suffered a loss. The fact that you did not sell doesn't make any difference.

A loss by any other name is still a loss.




On Feb 28 11:15 AM henarl wrote:

> A straightforward description of the housing and banking crisis that
> anyone with at least an average IQ should be able to understand.
> Instead of the Obama solution tho, I would suggest the following:
>
> Eliminate the mark to market rule so that banks don't have to take
> these write-downs and suffer huge losses to their asset base..<br/>Curta...
> excessive short selling by reinstating the up-tick rule so that stock
> prices are not tanked by speculating traders.
> Eliminate fractional reserve banking so this kind of thing doesn't
> happen again in the future.

Are U.S. Banks Really Worthless?

Well, I think the pessimists among us, which includes me, believes a lot of the bad losses are yet to be recognized. There were almost three trillion in subprime mortgages made, but total recognized losses are 1.1 trillion. Add on top that the adjustable rate mortgages that reset in 2009 and 2010 and the negative amortization loans and you have a perfect storm for the US banks.

Why Bailouts Are Not the Answer

Peter reminds of those conservatives who during the early stages of the Great Depression worried about inflation! Between Peter and Reality lies the Veil of Ideology ....