3 ms·

I get that the government has to do something, but what sucks about these bailouts designed to help America out are all the people that this won’t help. It’s th

I get that the government has to do something, but what sucks about these bailouts designed to help America out are all the people that this won’t help. It’s the nature of the deal in this case. Of course the executives at the banks and trade groups asking for these bailouts are trying to get the best possible deal for themselves, and once the money arrives those executives are the ones to decide how the compensation flows down the ladder - starting with themselves and shareholders. No promise from these banks that “don’t worry, all this money will trickle down and save us!” can be trusted. Honestly, I hope the US government remembers 2008 and doesn’t just bend over to the banking industry to only have this same thing happen again in 10 years. It’s such a ruse by the banking industry at this point. I don’t have an answer on what to do... that is something the American people need to push for. At least a starting point with figuring out the unknown is determining what not to do. The government can’t keep acting like trust fund parents to the banking industry and other industry lobbying groups to enable executives and shareholders to live in a world where business consequences don’t affect them.

yzmtf2008 7y ago
> what sucks about these bailouts designed to help America out are all the people that this won’t help. Contrary to what you might think, this helps more people than just the banking industry. Without the banks giving out loans, your neighborhood McDonalds stops being able to hand out paychecks. Without incentive to do investments, your own company starts hoarding cash and laying off people just to survive. If a bank goes down -- not only does the bank and all of its employees suffer -- the banks are not prop shops: the money is owned by someone else. Your 401(k), your city's muni fund, pension fund, university endowment, etc., gone. None of this is supposed to be a justification for trickle down economics, of course. Trickle down doesn't work. This is about saving what we have right now. An argument could be made that the banks are too big to fail, sure, but that doesn't change what needs to be saved, right now. > I hope the US government remembers 2008 and doesn’t just bend over to the banking industry to only have this same thing happen again in 10 years. These are very different times. 2008 is probably caused by the financial industry itself, sure. But this time around, the fundamentals is the problem: no matter how good the banks are, they're just not going to survive without help if the whole economy just shuts down for a year.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  " This is about saving what we have right now. An argument could be made that the banks are too big to fail, sure, but that doesn't change what needs to be saved, right now." This is exactly how it sounded in 2008. You have to throw money at the banks right now or the world will go under! No time for thinking.
  - yzmtf2008 7y ago
    > You have to throw money at the banks right now or the world will go under! No time for thinking. Yes, that's exactly what you do. You fix the imminent problem now, and then introduce legislative measures later. See Dodd-Frank.

yzmtf2008 7y ago

> what sucks about these bailouts designed to help America out are all the people that this won’t help. Contrary to what you might think, this helps more people than just the banking industry. Without the banks giving out loans, your neighborhood McDonalds stops being able to hand out paychecks. Without incentive to do investments, your own company starts hoarding cash and laying off people just to survive. If a bank goes down -- not only does the bank and all of its employees suffer -- the banks are not prop shops: the money is owned by someone else. Your 401(k), your city's muni fund, pension fund, university endowment, etc., gone. None of this is supposed to be a justification for trickle down economics, of course. Trickle down doesn't work. This is about saving what we have right now. An argument could be made that the banks are too big to fail, sure, but that doesn't change what needs to be saved, right now. > I hope the US government remembers 2008 and doesn’t just bend over to the banking industry to only have this same thing happen again in 10 years. These are very different times. 2008 is probably caused by the financial industry itself, sure. But this time around, the fundamentals is the problem: no matter how good the banks are, they're just not going to survive without help if the whole economy just shuts down for a year.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
" This is about saving what we have right now. An argument could be made that the banks are too big to fail, sure, but that doesn't change what needs to be saved, right now." This is exactly how it sounded in 2008. You have to throw money at the banks right now or the world will go under! No time for thinking.
- yzmtf2008 7y ago
  > You have to throw money at the banks right now or the world will go under! No time for thinking. Yes, that's exactly what you do. You fix the imminent problem now, and then introduce legislative measures later. See Dodd-Frank.