5 ms·

The ongoing bailout list of the financial system

53 points by oblib 8y ago

dredmorbius 8y ago
In case hugged to death: https://web.archive.org/web/20181001000000*/https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list https://web.archive.org/web/20181001000000*/https://projects...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
acjohnson55 8y ago
Just wow. I don't really know what to make of this other than that the bailout seems like a project of pretty incredible proportions. As far as I can tell, it looks to have gone reasonably well.
- humhumhum 8y ago
  > it looks to have gone reasonably well. Look at it this way: this is $627b that have not been spent on schools, education, health or infrastructure. What could have been the return on those? It is $627b that have been spent to disrupt and hinder potentially flourishing competition. It's $627b spent to foster centralised industries and strengthen companies that already have a pretty high market share. The bailout program is massive and it is an absolute disaster and one of the most undemocratic acts that western nations have done in the recent decades... I mean they gave free money to Goldman Sachs! That is Goldman Sachs, the company that probably has the highest number of alumnis amongst presidents of countries and leaders of the most powerful state/international instituitions. And a company that keeps running at a pretty decent profit margin... Why should these organisations get free money when the rest is told to work for it?
  - realandreskytt 8y ago
    It isn’t free. Thus the profit.
    - humhumhum 8y ago
      Glossing over the fact that there is still the opportunity costs that you neglect, would you be happy with a ~13% return over ten years? Would you consider something like this as a business offering?
      - acjohnson55 8y ago
        Depends on my goal and risk tolerance.
        humhumhum 8y ago
        Sure, and that's sort of what I alluded to. What was the goal of the bail out? It wasn't profit since the return on the investment in economic terms is horrible (and was so predictably). Compare for instance how the dow jones developed over the same time period. The goal was to keep these massive corporations afloat, to subsidize them. Now you could say, so what? The problem with this is first of all the missed opportunity cost and second of all that it was a clear sign that tax money, if push comes to shove, will be used to bolster corporate profits. And that is what makes this such an anti-democratic act. Tax money is meant to be put back into the society, it is not meant to be re-purposed to be someone else's profit.
  - talltimtom 8y ago
    > they gave free money to Goldman Sachs! Well the facts are that they gave loans which are paying off when you look at the list. So the real “injustice” here is that the government went into the lending business and “stole profits” that otherwise would have stayed in the financial sector. Yet they only did so because the entire financial sector was devoid of liquidity to fix the situation. As for “what about schools!” And similar, well the investments in the financial sector which are now paying out can be used in these areas. Not going through with the bailout, putting all the money into the education system and watching as the entire country goes into a recession would not have procided eventual payouts that could be reinvested into the financial system down the line. When your house is on fire, you don’t gain anything from renovating the facade.

53 points by oblib 8y ago

In case hugged to death: https://web.archive.org/web/20181001000000*/https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list https://web.archive.org/web/20181001000000*/https://projects...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

acjohnson55 8y ago

Just wow. I don't really know what to make of this other than that the bailout seems like a project of pretty incredible proportions. As far as I can tell, it looks to have gone reasonably well.

humhumhum 8y ago
> it looks to have gone reasonably well. Look at it this way: this is $627b that have not been spent on schools, education, health or infrastructure. What could have been the return on those? It is $627b that have been spent to disrupt and hinder potentially flourishing competition. It's $627b spent to foster centralised industries and strengthen companies that already have a pretty high market share. The bailout program is massive and it is an absolute disaster and one of the most undemocratic acts that western nations have done in the recent decades... I mean they gave free money to Goldman Sachs! That is Goldman Sachs, the company that probably has the highest number of alumnis amongst presidents of countries and leaders of the most powerful state/international instituitions. And a company that keeps running at a pretty decent profit margin... Why should these organisations get free money when the rest is told to work for it?
- realandreskytt 8y ago
  It isn’t free. Thus the profit.
  - humhumhum 8y ago
    Glossing over the fact that there is still the opportunity costs that you neglect, would you be happy with a ~13% return over ten years? Would you consider something like this as a business offering?
    - acjohnson55 8y ago
      Depends on my goal and risk tolerance.
      - humhumhum 8y ago
        Sure, and that's sort of what I alluded to. What was the goal of the bail out? It wasn't profit since the return on the investment in economic terms is horrible (and was so predictably). Compare for instance how the dow jones developed over the same time period. The goal was to keep these massive corporations afloat, to subsidize them. Now you could say, so what? The problem with this is first of all the missed opportunity cost and second of all that it was a clear sign that tax money, if push comes to shove, will be used to bolster corporate profits. And that is what makes this such an anti-democratic act. Tax money is meant to be put back into the society, it is not meant to be re-purposed to be someone else's profit.
- talltimtom 8y ago
  > they gave free money to Goldman Sachs! Well the facts are that they gave loans which are paying off when you look at the list. So the real “injustice” here is that the government went into the lending business and “stole profits” that otherwise would have stayed in the financial sector. Yet they only did so because the entire financial sector was devoid of liquidity to fix the situation. As for “what about schools!” And similar, well the investments in the financial sector which are now paying out can be used in these areas. Not going through with the bailout, putting all the money into the education system and watching as the entire country goes into a recession would not have procided eventual payouts that could be reinvested into the financial system down the line. When your house is on fire, you don’t gain anything from renovating the facade.