4 ms·
Sure, but nowhere near as profitable as for the bank, which was saved from near-certain collapse. If you are in a negotiating position like that, you work it fo
by gbhn 15y ago
Sure, but nowhere near as profitable as for the bank, which was saved from near-certain collapse. If you are in a negotiating position like that, you work it for a lot more than the USG did.
Specifically, you have the moral obligation to negotiate that position for the benefit of citizens at large. The government did not do even really attempt to do that, which is a political crime for which there has not yet been a reckoning.
- jonknee 15y agoThe objective was to prevent collapse. The return was just a bonus. It would have been the height of irresponsibility to lose time while negotiating a bigger vig for the tax payers as the financial system burns to the ground. A 25% return in two years is nothing to complain about and if the return had been say 50% it would still be almost completely unnoticeable to the tax payers. That doesn't mean it was right to not change the source of the problem after the crisis, but that's a whole other debate.