4 ms·

Because it's embracing too big to fail. Unless we want 'too big to fail' to be the rule going forward, and unfortunately it seems that it will be, we should re

by jbooth 12y ago

Because it's embracing too big to fail. Unless we want 'too big to fail' to be the rule going forward, and unfortunately it seems that it will be, we should reject the idea that the rest of us are the beneficiary of having to bail out the banks.

rayiner 12y ago
Whether we embraced it or not, it was part of the calculus. So was the fact that we'd need continued investment into the economy to work our way out of the financial collapse. That meant that options like nationalizing banks, which might drive investment overseas in the future, could have a direct negative economic impact that needed to be considered.
- jbooth 12y ago
  Sure, I agree that we had no choice at that point but to bail the banks out. But when reviewing the decision afterwards, I think we need to reject lines of argument that the government did really great on the deal so it's not that bad what happened. We don't want it to happen again, we don't want to be in a no-other-options situation.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  The total loss in tax revenue over the Great Recession period is measured in trillions. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nkdzCkw8Rr0/U-qiPe1Tf-I/AAAAAAAARSU/-lmGCQ8MK6E/s1600/Federal%2BRevenues.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nkdzCkw8Rr0/U-qiPe1Tf-I/AAAAAAAARS... I'd suggest that's a much more direct and obvious economic impact than some maybe-perhaps about driving investment overseas. (How, exactly? Do you think money would suddenly stampede out of the US if regulators developed a spine and jailed the delinquent operators who caused the crash?) Anywway - clearly the decision was political. It was made for the benefit of the banker caste, and not for the general population. The underlying problem is unearned privilege. There's no rational reason for these bonuses. But bankers pay themselves these sums because they know they can, irrespective of the incredible damage they cause to the rest of the economy.

by jbooth 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

Whether we embraced it or not, it was part of the calculus. So was the fact that we'd need continued investment into the economy to work our way out of the financial collapse. That meant that options like nationalizing banks, which might drive investment overseas in the future, could have a direct negative economic impact that needed to be considered.

jbooth 12y ago
Sure, I agree that we had no choice at that point but to bail the banks out. But when reviewing the decision afterwards, I think we need to reject lines of argument that the government did really great on the deal so it's not that bad what happened. We don't want it to happen again, we don't want to be in a no-other-options situation.
TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
The total loss in tax revenue over the Great Recession period is measured in trillions. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nkdzCkw8Rr0/U-qiPe1Tf-I/AAAAAAAARSU/-lmGCQ8MK6E/s1600/Federal%2BRevenues.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nkdzCkw8Rr0/U-qiPe1Tf-I/AAAAAAAARS... I'd suggest that's a much more direct and obvious economic impact than some maybe-perhaps about driving investment overseas. (How, exactly? Do you think money would suddenly stampede out of the US if regulators developed a spine and jailed the delinquent operators who caused the crash?) Anywway - clearly the decision was political. It was made for the benefit of the banker caste, and not for the general population. The underlying problem is unearned privilege. There's no rational reason for these bonuses. But bankers pay themselves these sums because they know they can, irrespective of the incredible damage they cause to the rest of the economy.