4 ms·

> They have no authority to bailout a bank. Is the understanding of the financial crisis really this poor? Paulson literally forced the banks to take TARP. Th

by nikcub 13y ago

> They have no authority to bailout a bank. Is the understanding of the financial crisis really this poor? Paulson literally forced the banks to take TARP. The CEO of BofA and other banks that didn't need it spent a lot of time in the media complaining about it. He also forced the retail banks to merge with and absorb the losses of the investment banks. He wasn't able to do this because of direct permission, but because the Fed has so much power that everybody just has to listen to what they say.

gumballhead 13y ago
Paulson was Secretary of the Treasury; the bailout was a government program, not Federal Reserve. That said, the quantitative easing programs are basically bailouts, just not as overt as opening up the public treasury.
- nikcub 13y ago
  It was Paulson who lead it, but Bernanke and Blair were right there next to him during the TARP ultimatum meeting. The implicit threat was that if they turned it down, the regulators would force it upon them. The meeting minutes came out in an FOIA request and lawsuit[0]: > Ben, Sheila, John, Tim and I have asked you here .. > If a capital fusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance. [0] http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents/ http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judic...
hnnewguy 13y ago
>Is the understanding of the financial crisis really this poor? Yes. One of the great tricks of this disaster (as in most financial crises) is that the powers that be were able to convince to public that there was some single enemy that caused this problem, in this case the "banks", completely ignoring the banks' customers and clients (businesses small and large, mortgage brokers, house-flippers, home-buyers, honest investors, fraudsters, sovereign nations) or the fact that the banks consists of hundreds of thousands of actors working and thinking independently. This crisis was so much more complicated than "The banks were too greedy". But that's as deep as most people care to get.

by nikcub 13y ago

gumballhead 13y ago

Paulson was Secretary of the Treasury; the bailout was a government program, not Federal Reserve. That said, the quantitative easing programs are basically bailouts, just not as overt as opening up the public treasury.

nikcub 13y ago
It was Paulson who lead it, but Bernanke and Blair were right there next to him during the TARP ultimatum meeting. The implicit threat was that if they turned it down, the regulators would force it upon them. The meeting minutes came out in an FOIA request and lawsuit[0]: > Ben, Sheila, John, Tim and I have asked you here .. > If a capital fusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance. [0] http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents/ http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judic...

hnnewguy 13y ago

>Is the understanding of the financial crisis really this poor? Yes. One of the great tricks of this disaster (as in most financial crises) is that the powers that be were able to convince to public that there was some single enemy that caused this problem, in this case the "banks", completely ignoring the banks' customers and clients (businesses small and large, mortgage brokers, house-flippers, home-buyers, honest investors, fraudsters, sovereign nations) or the fact that the banks consists of hundreds of thousands of actors working and thinking independently. This crisis was so much more complicated than "The banks were too greedy". But that's as deep as most people care to get.