5 ms·

If we're in a position where the options are a bailout or the catastrophic collapse of the world economy, we've already failed. This is why regulation is neces

by koboll 8y ago

If we're in a position where the options are a bailout or the catastrophic collapse of the world economy, we've already failed. This is why regulation is necessary.

maxxxxx 8y ago
"bailout or the catastrophic collapse of the world " In 2008 this is what the bankers told us but are these really the only options? I have my doubts.
- SuoDuanDao 8y ago
  That must be what they told Washington at the time, and what's more Washington obviously bought it.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I still remember how all the people who made decisions or got hired in Washington during that time had an investment banking background, ideally Goldman Sachs. It was infuriating.
    - mistermann 8y ago
      But "no one broke the law", so it's all good. Until it happens again.
- vkou 8y ago
  It's probably true in hindsight. However, when a bailout happens, what also needs to happen is nationalization. Quite obviously, that did not happen.
- rhino369 8y ago
  The panic and economic damage from just Lehman Brothers failing shows that the fear was reasonable. Finance is as important as energy, communications and food to the global economy. I think the key is just making sure the bail out hurts nearly as much as actual bankruptcy.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I agree with you but there was a lot of talk about other approaches like nationalization but they got shot down quickly so the only path left was what the bankers wanted. I still find it hard to believe that the people that ran their banks into the ground walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars.
- cm2187 8y ago
  I worked for one of the large banks that got out of this crisis pretty much unscattered. The Friday before TARP was introduced, which ended the succession of large banks collapses in the aftermath of Lehman, we were told internally that we didn’t think we could last more than a couple of weeks in the current market. And if we only had a couple of weeks left, most of the other (weaker) institutions had much less. Like for the cuban crisis, I think it is easy to forget how close we got to the brink. We have already witnessed a complete collapse of the banking system in 1929, in a world that was much less inter-dependent than it was in 2008. It is survivable but it is ugly.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Nobody wants a banking collapse. The question is whether the people who caused the collapse and profited greatly should get bailouts and keep their money. In my view the government should have supported the system but not single banks. Let them go down and make sure that executives end up with zero money. Their lifetime contribution to the economy was negative so their bank accounts should reflect that.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

by koboll 8y ago

If we're in a position where the options are a bailout or the catastrophic collapse of the world economy, we've already failed. This is why regulation is necessary.

maxxxxx 8y ago

"bailout or the catastrophic collapse of the world " In 2008 this is what the bankers told us but are these really the only options? I have my doubts.

SuoDuanDao 8y ago
That must be what they told Washington at the time, and what's more Washington obviously bought it.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I still remember how all the people who made decisions or got hired in Washington during that time had an investment banking background, ideally Goldman Sachs. It was infuriating.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    But "no one broke the law", so it's all good. Until it happens again.
vkou 8y ago
It's probably true in hindsight. However, when a bailout happens, what also needs to happen is nationalization. Quite obviously, that did not happen.
rhino369 8y ago
The panic and economic damage from just Lehman Brothers failing shows that the fear was reasonable. Finance is as important as energy, communications and food to the global economy. I think the key is just making sure the bail out hurts nearly as much as actual bankruptcy.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I agree with you but there was a lot of talk about other approaches like nationalization but they got shot down quickly so the only path left was what the bankers wanted. I still find it hard to believe that the people that ran their banks into the ground walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars.
cm2187 8y ago
I worked for one of the large banks that got out of this crisis pretty much unscattered. The Friday before TARP was introduced, which ended the succession of large banks collapses in the aftermath of Lehman, we were told internally that we didn’t think we could last more than a couple of weeks in the current market. And if we only had a couple of weeks left, most of the other (weaker) institutions had much less. Like for the cuban crisis, I think it is easy to forget how close we got to the brink. We have already witnessed a complete collapse of the banking system in 1929, in a world that was much less inter-dependent than it was in 2008. It is survivable but it is ugly.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Nobody wants a banking collapse. The question is whether the people who caused the collapse and profited greatly should get bailouts and keep their money. In my view the government should have supported the system but not single banks. Let them go down and make sure that executives end up with zero money. Their lifetime contribution to the economy was negative so their bank accounts should reflect that.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]