4 ms·
Oh give me a fking break. > That $5 trillion dollars is not money invested in building roads, schools, and other long-term projects, but is directly transferre
by retube 15y ago
Oh give me a fking break.
> That $5 trillion dollars is not money invested in building roads, schools, and other long-term projects, but is directly transferred from the American economy to the personal accounts of bank executives and employees.
This argument applies to any salary paid by any firm. Plus of course salaries are spent and invested, which is the very definition of a successful economy.
> In other words, banks take risks, get paid for the upside, and then transfer the downside to shareholders, taxpayers, and even retirees.
Right. Just like any other public company.
This guy has made a career out of one single, simple premise, which through fortuitous timing on his behalf, made him a lot of money.
It's also extremely trite to be dissing the banks like this when everything he is is thanks to the banks. Doubly so as he profited from shorting the equity markets.
Whilst I'm not saying that banks don't have a fair amount to answer for, his arguments and assertions are bullshit, more characteristic of a hack journalistic seeking to sensationalise and troll, not a "Professor of Risk Engineering" at a top University. For some great comment on this and why Washington have a lot to answer as well, see Alastair Heath's piece [1] in today's City AM - a great journalist whose editorial column I read nearly every day and someone who actually knows his stuff.
1. http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/how-washington-created-sub-prime http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/how-w...
- gavanwoolery 15y agoI don't think you understand... The government is funneling tax-payer money into privately-owned organizations, like banks. Normal tax-payers are not reaping benefits from this (such as roads, schools, etc). But even then, I suspect most of this bailout money is going into golden parachutes for executives or bailing out bad/risky investments. The original logic behind these bailouts is that it would somehow keep the economy more stable and "save" the companies - the latter part is a joke though because most of the bailed-out companies now trade as junk stock (Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc).
- retube 15y agoAre you seriously trying to tell me that the banks are the only industry which either a) has been bailed out at some point or b) receives government subsidies?
- gavanwoolery 15y agoI never made either of those claims, so I am not sure what you are trying to ask me. Many industries are subsidized (and bailed out) by the government - the farm and auto industries come to mind. In some cases, these bailouts are warranted, in some cases, they are not. Regardless, the bailouts are not the real crime at hand. The real crime is that these bailouts are being used as a guise to stuff more money into the pockets of the already wealthy.
- maxxxxx 15y agoIt's probably the industry that gets the biggest bailouts, the fastest, without any serious questioning and without having to make any changes. I would have been OK with the 2008 bailouts if there had been any serious reform of the banking sector. I think they should have reinstated some version of Glass-Steagall.