6 ms·

> the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) [...] the cash-for-trash facility, where Wall Street’s toxic waste from a decade of irresponsible trading and lendin

> the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) [...] the cash-for-trash facility, where Wall Street’s toxic waste from a decade of irresponsible trading and lending, will be purged from the balance sheets of the Wall Street firms and handed over to the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve Yay let's subsidize Wall Street using public funds! "We can't afford universal healthcare", but we can totally - yet unnaturally - bail out (mostly rentier) capitalist businesses that have been reckless and parasitical. Why not just let them die? Has anyone watched the movie Margin Call?

teh_infallible 7y ago
It’s about as logical as dealing with a health issue by plunging everyone into poverty and destroying all small businesses.
- thulecitizen 7y ago
  Well then we would at least finally get a massive inheritance in the form of the formerly corporate-owned patents!
signa11 7y ago
oh yes. "inside job", on similar lines is excellent as well.
jlmorton 7y ago
I know, personally I think in the midst of the largest world crisis of the past fifty years, the prudent thing to do is let the banks all fail, which will really teach them a lesson about not properly preparing for the totally-predictable near-halting of global commerce.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- totalZero 7y ago
  A bank failure often means that a better bank steps in to buy the failed bank's assets or divisions. Take a look at what happened to Lehman Brothers in 2008.
piiswrong 7y ago
Because they are more important than the goverment. If the big banks die the entire US economy dies with them. Why Americans would let a few bankers wield such power and be accountable to no one is another question.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Perhaps “die” is the wrong word. I prefer “nationalized and converted to financial utilities”. Shareholders? Gone! Existing management? Gone! Put adults in charge and have a relationship similar to the USPS or the Fed. Require an open platform so the APIs and underlying back office are solid but innovators can still get access to innovate (Europe mandated this via PSD2).
  - piiswrong 7y ago
    But nationalizing private business is the symbol of communism! How dare you say such a thing!
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Everyone is a socialist during a financial crisis.
      - piiswrong 7y ago
        but after the crisis do you give it back to the shareholders and let them brood for the next crisis, or do you remain a socialist forever?
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Public goods must be protected. USPS does pretty well IMHO, as a similar example. No reason to recapitalize with public shareholders if you don’t need them. The Fed doesn’t have them (their shares are unique and essentially non transferable).
lettergram 7y ago
These are loans not bail outs. Low interest sure, but not outright handouts. Additionally, a lot of the customers these companies lend to are about to default. Those low interest loans will not save a company if they can't also survive those defaults. Not saying companies weren't irresponsible or that it's "unfair", but it isn't the worst proposal.
- thulecitizen 7y ago
  It's funny how the most capitalist people I know can't see the hypocrisy when I use their neo-liberal arguments of 'meritocracy' and 'pull your boots up by your bootstraps' to show the contradiction in their arguments for a government funded bailout. Wall Street loves socialism for bankers!
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    To describe the idea of monetary policy as socialism, is not consistent with any definition of socialism that I’ve ever heard.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- BoiledCabbage 7y ago
  What's do you call a loan than never has to be repaid?
runawaybottle 7y ago
The root issue you are describing never gets the public’s attention during normal times. It’s an emergency right now, so we have to do it, but look - fuck the average person, they don’t give a fuck when things are fine. They don’t vote on real issues, and when shit hits the fan, I honestly don’t know anymore. It’s a seriously undereducated and literally unconscious public. We’ll forget about the underlying issues by summer.
- thulecitizen 7y ago
  What a great story to justify robbing other people. Keep telling that to yourself if it helps you sleep at night. In my experience, this sounds like grandiosity talking.
  - runawaybottle 7y ago
    You’re suggesting an alternative that compounds the current collapse. The end goal of that is just total collapse. This is the alternative you are suggesting? I enjoy making straw man arguments, it’s my favorite usually.
    - thulecitizen 7y ago
      > The end goal of that is just total collapse. So then you agree that capitalism with it's overly parasitic rentier/usury mechanisms is a ponzi scheme, waiting to collapse? After collapse, hopefully we have a transition to a p2p mutual credit paradigm. "They assert a belief in ‘free markets’ and want us to believe that economic policies are extending them. That is untrue. Today we have the most unfree market system ever created. It is deeply corrupt because its leaders claim it is the opposite of what it is becoming." "How can politicians look into TV cameras and say we have a free market system when patents guarantee monopoly incomes for twenty years, preventing anyone from competing? How can they claim there are free markets when copyright rules give a guaranteed income for seventy years after a person’s death? How can they claim free markets exist when one person or company is given a subsidy and not others, or when they sell off the commons that belong to all of us, at a discount, to a favoured individual or company, or when Uber, TaskRabbit and their ilk act as unregulated labour brokers, profiting from the labour of others? Far from trying to stop these negations of free markets, governments are creating rules that allow and encourage them. That is what this book is about." "…today, a tiny minority of people and corporate interests across the world are accumulating vast wealth and power from rental income, not only from housing and land but from a range of other assets, natural and created. ‘Rentiers’ of all kinds are in unparalleled ascendancy and the neo-liberal state is only too keen to oblige their greed. Rentiers derive income from ownership, possession or control of assets that are scarce or artificially made scarce. Most familiar is rental income from land, property, mineral exploitation or financial investments, but other sources have grown too. They include the income lenders gain from debt interest; income from ownership of ‘intellectual property’ (such as patents, copyright, brands and trademarks); capital gains on investments; ‘above normal’ company profits (when a firm has a dominant market position that allows it to charge high prices or dictate terms); income from government subsidies; and income of financial and other intermediaries derived from third-party transactions." - Guy Standing
manigandham 7y ago
Margin Call is a fictional movie and the 2008 financial crisis had many companies that died before bailouts. And those bailouts were loans that were paid back in full with interest so the US taxpayers actually made money for once. None of this has to do with capitalism. Governments exist to look after the citizenship and step in during exigent circumstances like war and pandemics. Of course we want better corporate ethics and accountability, but letting critical companies die now will only lead to further ruin. We want to avoid total societal collapse, not accelerate it.
- legolas2412 7y ago
  TARP recovered funds totalling $441.7 billion from $426.4 billion invested, earning a $15.3 billion profit or an annualized rate of return of 0.6% and perhaps a loss when adjusted for inflation. Amazing profit the taxpayers made! If the bailout was such a good deal, maybe the private industry could do it?
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Yes, taxpayers didn't lose any money, made a tiny profit, and the economy was stabilized while preventing catastrophic failure. You consider this a bad outcome? Public and private sectors work together. Private enterprise is great for growth and freedom but there are emergency situations where the government can help for the good of society. What is so controversial about this?

teh_infallible 7y ago

It’s about as logical as dealing with a health issue by plunging everyone into poverty and destroying all small businesses.

thulecitizen 7y ago
Well then we would at least finally get a massive inheritance in the form of the formerly corporate-owned patents!

signa11 7y ago

oh yes. "inside job", on similar lines is excellent as well.

jlmorton 7y ago

I know, personally I think in the midst of the largest world crisis of the past fifty years, the prudent thing to do is let the banks all fail, which will really teach them a lesson about not properly preparing for the totally-predictable near-halting of global commerce.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
totalZero 7y ago
A bank failure often means that a better bank steps in to buy the failed bank's assets or divisions. Take a look at what happened to Lehman Brothers in 2008.

piiswrong 7y ago

Because they are more important than the goverment. If the big banks die the entire US economy dies with them. Why Americans would let a few bankers wield such power and be accountable to no one is another question.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Perhaps “die” is the wrong word. I prefer “nationalized and converted to financial utilities”. Shareholders? Gone! Existing management? Gone! Put adults in charge and have a relationship similar to the USPS or the Fed. Require an open platform so the APIs and underlying back office are solid but innovators can still get access to innovate (Europe mandated this via PSD2).
- piiswrong 7y ago
  But nationalizing private business is the symbol of communism! How dare you say such a thing!
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Everyone is a socialist during a financial crisis.
    - piiswrong 7y ago
      but after the crisis do you give it back to the shareholders and let them brood for the next crisis, or do you remain a socialist forever?
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Public goods must be protected. USPS does pretty well IMHO, as a similar example. No reason to recapitalize with public shareholders if you don’t need them. The Fed doesn’t have them (their shares are unique and essentially non transferable).

lettergram 7y ago

These are loans not bail outs. Low interest sure, but not outright handouts. Additionally, a lot of the customers these companies lend to are about to default. Those low interest loans will not save a company if they can't also survive those defaults. Not saying companies weren't irresponsible or that it's "unfair", but it isn't the worst proposal.

thulecitizen 7y ago
It's funny how the most capitalist people I know can't see the hypocrisy when I use their neo-liberal arguments of 'meritocracy' and 'pull your boots up by your bootstraps' to show the contradiction in their arguments for a government funded bailout. Wall Street loves socialism for bankers!
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  To describe the idea of monetary policy as socialism, is not consistent with any definition of socialism that I’ve ever heard.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
BoiledCabbage 7y ago
What's do you call a loan than never has to be repaid?

runawaybottle 7y ago

The root issue you are describing never gets the public’s attention during normal times. It’s an emergency right now, so we have to do it, but look - fuck the average person, they don’t give a fuck when things are fine. They don’t vote on real issues, and when shit hits the fan, I honestly don’t know anymore. It’s a seriously undereducated and literally unconscious public. We’ll forget about the underlying issues by summer.

thulecitizen 7y ago
What a great story to justify robbing other people. Keep telling that to yourself if it helps you sleep at night. In my experience, this sounds like grandiosity talking.
- runawaybottle 7y ago
  You’re suggesting an alternative that compounds the current collapse. The end goal of that is just total collapse. This is the alternative you are suggesting? I enjoy making straw man arguments, it’s my favorite usually.
  - thulecitizen 7y ago
    > The end goal of that is just total collapse. So then you agree that capitalism with it's overly parasitic rentier/usury mechanisms is a ponzi scheme, waiting to collapse? After collapse, hopefully we have a transition to a p2p mutual credit paradigm. "They assert a belief in ‘free markets’ and want us to believe that economic policies are extending them. That is untrue. Today we have the most unfree market system ever created. It is deeply corrupt because its leaders claim it is the opposite of what it is becoming." "How can politicians look into TV cameras and say we have a free market system when patents guarantee monopoly incomes for twenty years, preventing anyone from competing? How can they claim there are free markets when copyright rules give a guaranteed income for seventy years after a person’s death? How can they claim free markets exist when one person or company is given a subsidy and not others, or when they sell off the commons that belong to all of us, at a discount, to a favoured individual or company, or when Uber, TaskRabbit and their ilk act as unregulated labour brokers, profiting from the labour of others? Far from trying to stop these negations of free markets, governments are creating rules that allow and encourage them. That is what this book is about." "…today, a tiny minority of people and corporate interests across the world are accumulating vast wealth and power from rental income, not only from housing and land but from a range of other assets, natural and created. ‘Rentiers’ of all kinds are in unparalleled ascendancy and the neo-liberal state is only too keen to oblige their greed. Rentiers derive income from ownership, possession or control of assets that are scarce or artificially made scarce. Most familiar is rental income from land, property, mineral exploitation or financial investments, but other sources have grown too. They include the income lenders gain from debt interest; income from ownership of ‘intellectual property’ (such as patents, copyright, brands and trademarks); capital gains on investments; ‘above normal’ company profits (when a firm has a dominant market position that allows it to charge high prices or dictate terms); income from government subsidies; and income of financial and other intermediaries derived from third-party transactions." - Guy Standing

manigandham 7y ago

Margin Call is a fictional movie and the 2008 financial crisis had many companies that died before bailouts. And those bailouts were loans that were paid back in full with interest so the US taxpayers actually made money for once. None of this has to do with capitalism. Governments exist to look after the citizenship and step in during exigent circumstances like war and pandemics. Of course we want better corporate ethics and accountability, but letting critical companies die now will only lead to further ruin. We want to avoid total societal collapse, not accelerate it.

legolas2412 7y ago
TARP recovered funds totalling $441.7 billion from $426.4 billion invested, earning a $15.3 billion profit or an annualized rate of return of 0.6% and perhaps a loss when adjusted for inflation. Amazing profit the taxpayers made! If the bailout was such a good deal, maybe the private industry could do it?
- manigandham 7y ago
  Yes, taxpayers didn't lose any money, made a tiny profit, and the economy was stabilized while preventing catastrophic failure. You consider this a bad outcome? Public and private sectors work together. Private enterprise is great for growth and freedom but there are emergency situations where the government can help for the good of society. What is so controversial about this?