4 ms·

Seriously? > The most recent example I can think of is Melvin Capital (a few months ago). They were bailed out by Citadel. Citadel buying a controlling intere

Seriously? > The most recent example I can think of is Melvin Capital (a few months ago). They were bailed out by Citadel. Citadel buying a controlling interest in a fund that was historically very profitable and hit a huge a landmine, allowing them to buy at a huge discount, isn't really a "bailout" in the same way you're suggesting. Citadel didn't slide them a couple billion dollars under the table and say "don't worry about it, you get me next time". > Citadel was bailed out by US tax payers in 2009 via AIG This was, quite literally 12 years ago. These events are in no way related. Almost every bank was subsidized in 2008/2009. This isn't some unscrupulous "tax payer to hedge fund" hidden money pipeline.

endisneigh 5y ago
> Citadel buying a controlling interest in a fund that was historically very profitable and hit a huge a landmine, allowing them to buy at a huge discount, isn't really a "bailout" in the same way you're suggesting. Citadel didn't slide them a couple billion dollars under the table and say "don't worry about it, you get me next time". Sure, but the context is that they were doing very poorly and needed liquidity to survive. They received it. That is being bailed out, no? The entire point I’m making is that they receive incredible assistance when very poor decisions are made. > This was, quite literally 12 years ago. These events are in no way related. Almost every bank was subsidized in 2008/2009. This isn't some unscrupulous "tax payer to hedge fund" hidden money pipeline. Yes, that is my point exactly. Many of these banks wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the tax payer.
- nrmitchi 5y ago
  > Sure, but the context is that they were doing very poorly and needed liquidity to survive. They received it. That is being bailed out, no? No, it is not. If they were given free money, or a loan with basically no interest, or some other sweetheart deal, that would be a bailout. Someone taking advantage of your misfortunate in order to buy you at a discount as not a "bail out".
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    I see, we're using different definitions. I'm using the Oxford definition of bailout: - an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse. I personally wouldn't consider a zero-interest loan to be a bailout. If I buy a car and receive a no interest loan I wouldn't consider myself to be "bailed out", per your definition; nor would I consider receiving a dollar from a friend for a pack of gum to be a "bailout".
    - xkjkls 5y ago
      Under that definition, bail outs are a fundamentally great part of capitalism. "Bail outs" in general parlance almost always correspond with government propping up businesses that would otherwise go bankrupt.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        indeed - however the different between bailing out your local barber and a bank is that when you bailout a bank the upside is contained, but the downside is spread, whereas with the barber, since barbers don't fundamentally engage in activities that allow for exponential gain the bailout is more directly given to citizens in the form of services, not captured by rich people.

endisneigh 5y ago

> Citadel buying a controlling interest in a fund that was historically very profitable and hit a huge a landmine, allowing them to buy at a huge discount, isn't really a "bailout" in the same way you're suggesting. Citadel didn't slide them a couple billion dollars under the table and say "don't worry about it, you get me next time". Sure, but the context is that they were doing very poorly and needed liquidity to survive. They received it. That is being bailed out, no? The entire point I’m making is that they receive incredible assistance when very poor decisions are made. > This was, quite literally 12 years ago. These events are in no way related. Almost every bank was subsidized in 2008/2009. This isn't some unscrupulous "tax payer to hedge fund" hidden money pipeline. Yes, that is my point exactly. Many of these banks wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the tax payer.

nrmitchi 5y ago
> Sure, but the context is that they were doing very poorly and needed liquidity to survive. They received it. That is being bailed out, no? No, it is not. If they were given free money, or a loan with basically no interest, or some other sweetheart deal, that would be a bailout. Someone taking advantage of your misfortunate in order to buy you at a discount as not a "bail out".
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I see, we're using different definitions. I'm using the Oxford definition of bailout: - an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse. I personally wouldn't consider a zero-interest loan to be a bailout. If I buy a car and receive a no interest loan I wouldn't consider myself to be "bailed out", per your definition; nor would I consider receiving a dollar from a friend for a pack of gum to be a "bailout".
  - xkjkls 5y ago
    Under that definition, bail outs are a fundamentally great part of capitalism. "Bail outs" in general parlance almost always correspond with government propping up businesses that would otherwise go bankrupt.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      indeed - however the different between bailing out your local barber and a bank is that when you bailout a bank the upside is contained, but the downside is spread, whereas with the barber, since barbers don't fundamentally engage in activities that allow for exponential gain the bailout is more directly given to citizens in the form of services, not captured by rich people.