3 ms·

> I called my local elected representative about it, SPD (social democrat), and "voiced my concern", but only got met with talk about chain reactions and respon

by dan00 11y ago

> I called my local elected representative about it, SPD (social democrat), and "voiced my concern", but only got met with talk about chain reactions and responsibility. Perhaps I shouldn't have shouted. I think the problem is, that nobody really knows what had happened if we've let the banks die. The fear that the results might be a lot worse than the current situation is perhaps the driving force of politics of the last years.

robinei 11y ago
If the banks were going to default without taxpayer help, why didn't we just nationalize them and let the share holders take the loss they themselves have set themselves up for? Then we could shoulder the cost of getting the banks afloat again, and then subsequently regain some of the cost at least by selling them (instead of just giving taxpayer money to the risk-taking share holders like we do now)
- dan00 11y ago
  > If the banks were going to default without taxpayer help, why didn't we just nationalize them and let the share holders take the loss they themselves have set themselves up for? That sounds a bit like only risk-taking share holders would have been harmed and that wouldn't be much harm for the society at all. I really don't think that the harm would be that focused, because banks aren't only about risk-taking share holders and because of the interconnection of banks at the end someone might be harmed you've never thought about. I really don't envy any politician having to make a decision in such a case.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
lorenzfx 11y ago
> nobody really knows what had happened if we've let the banks die. I'm not even an economist, so obviously I have no idea what would have happened (even as is in "they don't really know" but I know even less). My reasoning is this: if I remember correctly Greek government bonds were already trading at ~70% of their nominal values two or even three years ago (cannot check, currently on a train along the Rhine with very limited internet access). To me this means, that the banks had already written off ~30 of the value of that bonds, and I bet if we look at their balance sheets we'll see that fact reflected.

by dan00 11y ago

robinei 11y ago

If the banks were going to default without taxpayer help, why didn't we just nationalize them and let the share holders take the loss they themselves have set themselves up for? Then we could shoulder the cost of getting the banks afloat again, and then subsequently regain some of the cost at least by selling them (instead of just giving taxpayer money to the risk-taking share holders like we do now)

dan00 11y ago
> If the banks were going to default without taxpayer help, why didn't we just nationalize them and let the share holders take the loss they themselves have set themselves up for? That sounds a bit like only risk-taking share holders would have been harmed and that wouldn't be much harm for the society at all. I really don't think that the harm would be that focused, because banks aren't only about risk-taking share holders and because of the interconnection of banks at the end someone might be harmed you've never thought about. I really don't envy any politician having to make a decision in such a case.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

lorenzfx 11y ago

> nobody really knows what had happened if we've let the banks die. I'm not even an economist, so obviously I have no idea what would have happened (even as is in "they don't really know" but I know even less). My reasoning is this: if I remember correctly Greek government bonds were already trading at ~70% of their nominal values two or even three years ago (cannot check, currently on a train along the Rhine with very limited internet access). To me this means, that the banks had already written off ~30 of the value of that bonds, and I bet if we look at their balance sheets we'll see that fact reflected.