3 ms·

> Nationalisation was the alternative. Government acquires the failed banks. Manages the issue (even almost the same way the did). Profits flow back to the pub

> Nationalisation was the alternative. Government acquires the failed banks. Manages the issue (even almost the same way the did). Profits flow back to the public. When happy, privatise again with a healthy profit. Maybe keep one as a public asset. Are you unaware that TARP happened?

hndamien 8y ago
I'm aware, and it was a joke. "purchasing the illiquid MBS, and through that, reducing the potential losses of the institutions that owned them. Later, it was modified slightly to allow the government to buy equity stakes in banks and other financial institutions" Why would any rational investor purchase dog crap knowingly for the good of society, by spending that society's money on dog crap. Instead, buy the dog, discounted by the amount of dog crap it has, and squeezed by how desperate the seller is of what is left. No financial mercy should be shown to the institutions that put themselves in that position. Nobody has ever shed a tear for anybody else financially squeezed, and in this case it would have been good for society and fitting capitalistic justice. Instead, we pumped their bags, regained the value of equity and then had the debts repaid from the equity that was saved. Its a nice story, we got paid back, but the reality is, the Gov/ people should have made out like bandits while those bankers were kicked to the curb. This is how capitalism is supposed to work.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > Why would any rational investor purchase dog crap knowingly for the good of society, by spending that society's money on dog crap. Instead, buy the dog, discounted by the amount of dog crap it has, and squeezed by how desperate the seller is of what is left. I don't think you understand how TARP worked if you think that's even remotely applicable as an analogy > This is how capitalism is supposed to work. Maybe you should learn a little more about the system you claim to be critiquing, so your criticisms don't fall so completely flat.
  - hndamien 8y ago
    Since you are so wise, maybe you could enlighten me rather than responding with a response that amounts to - you know nothing, please learn more. This is supposed to be a forum for intelligent discussion. I literally quoted investopedia for how TARP works - so don't pretend that isn't how it worked. "Purchasing illiquid Mortgage Backed Securities" aka "Toxic Assets" aka "Dog Crap".
    - chimeracoder 8y ago
      > This is supposed to be a forum for intelligent discussion And yet you began with a sarcastic quip, followed by comparing TARP - a program that has generally been considered a successful part of mitigating the 2008 financial crisis by all mainstream economists, to different degrees - to passing around a bag of "dog crap". That's not what a good-faith intellectual discussion looks like, so don't expect replies to exceed the level of effort and discourse that you yourself are presenting.
      - hndamien 8y ago
        That isn't sarcasm, it is metaphor. You are looking for a pretty cheap out if you think using metaphor reduces discussion such that you can just respond by calling somebody dumb. I'm going to stop here because you have set this discussion on a path towards unhelpful negativity. I hope any moderator/ reader reading this can see that you side railed this and not me. None of my discussion was about you, but was about the issue. Your response might as well breach the name calling rules of this forum.
      - hndamien 8y ago
        I just realised you were referring to the sarcasm after your rudeness, to justify your rudeness. Makes sense /s

hndamien 8y ago

I'm aware, and it was a joke. "purchasing the illiquid MBS, and through that, reducing the potential losses of the institutions that owned them. Later, it was modified slightly to allow the government to buy equity stakes in banks and other financial institutions" Why would any rational investor purchase dog crap knowingly for the good of society, by spending that society's money on dog crap. Instead, buy the dog, discounted by the amount of dog crap it has, and squeezed by how desperate the seller is of what is left. No financial mercy should be shown to the institutions that put themselves in that position. Nobody has ever shed a tear for anybody else financially squeezed, and in this case it would have been good for society and fitting capitalistic justice. Instead, we pumped their bags, regained the value of equity and then had the debts repaid from the equity that was saved. Its a nice story, we got paid back, but the reality is, the Gov/ people should have made out like bandits while those bankers were kicked to the curb. This is how capitalism is supposed to work.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> Why would any rational investor purchase dog crap knowingly for the good of society, by spending that society's money on dog crap. Instead, buy the dog, discounted by the amount of dog crap it has, and squeezed by how desperate the seller is of what is left. I don't think you understand how TARP worked if you think that's even remotely applicable as an analogy > This is how capitalism is supposed to work. Maybe you should learn a little more about the system you claim to be critiquing, so your criticisms don't fall so completely flat.
- hndamien 8y ago
  Since you are so wise, maybe you could enlighten me rather than responding with a response that amounts to - you know nothing, please learn more. This is supposed to be a forum for intelligent discussion. I literally quoted investopedia for how TARP works - so don't pretend that isn't how it worked. "Purchasing illiquid Mortgage Backed Securities" aka "Toxic Assets" aka "Dog Crap".
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > This is supposed to be a forum for intelligent discussion And yet you began with a sarcastic quip, followed by comparing TARP - a program that has generally been considered a successful part of mitigating the 2008 financial crisis by all mainstream economists, to different degrees - to passing around a bag of "dog crap". That's not what a good-faith intellectual discussion looks like, so don't expect replies to exceed the level of effort and discourse that you yourself are presenting.
    - hndamien 8y ago
      That isn't sarcasm, it is metaphor. You are looking for a pretty cheap out if you think using metaphor reduces discussion such that you can just respond by calling somebody dumb. I'm going to stop here because you have set this discussion on a path towards unhelpful negativity. I hope any moderator/ reader reading this can see that you side railed this and not me. None of my discussion was about you, but was about the issue. Your response might as well breach the name calling rules of this forum.
    - hndamien 8y ago
      I just realised you were referring to the sarcasm after your rudeness, to justify your rudeness. Makes sense /s