4 ms·

How so?

• puredemo 16y ago
  Well, they gradually gained the public trust in the financial sector. Then they proceeded to threaten the country with financial and economic ruin if massive amounts of publics funds weren't transferred to them.
  • anamax 16y ago
    > Then they proceeded to threaten the country with financial and economic ruin if massive amounts of publics funds weren't transferred to them. Did they? From the outside, it looked more like "those institutions are too vital, so we're going to pump money in and tell them how to do things" from govt officials. Which reminds me - the US financial institution bailout is close to break even with the exception of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which the Dems insist on pouring more money into - they voted down liquidation early this week). GM and Chrysler aren't even close.
    • eru 16y ago
      > Which reminds me - the US financial institution bailout is close to break even [...] At least if you are only looking at the costs that have been accounted for.
    • puredemo 16y ago
      Except that it was Paulson who did almost all of the political leg work.
      • anamax 16y ago
        Paulson was a govt official at the time. (Yes, there is a revolving door between GS and govt.)
        • puredemo 16y ago
          Before which, he was working at Goldman Sachs since 1974. It was essentially his decision to do the bailouts (despite the obvious conflicts of interest.)