Results 1 to 10 of 107
Thread: I have changed my view.
Hybrid View
-
05-24-2009, 11:52 AM #1
Brother, I did go to the history books. Look up glass steagall on wiki, or the graham-leach-bliley act. Many of glass-steagall's provisions have been repealed over the years. The graham-leach-bliley act (phil graham) repealed a major portion of the glass-steagall which basically said that commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies must owned and operated SEPERATELY from one another. The repeal of this provision arguably paved the way for this economic situation. BTW, graham, leach, bliley, all Republicans and it was passed mostly by Republican vote in the house and senate. Unfrotunately, Bill Clinton didn't have the foresight to veto it.
Anyway, you had a lot of politicians and talking heads speaking out against the bailouts, but very few real economists. I listen to and read news from both sides of the political divide, and the vast majority of actual economists I heard were in favor of the bailouts (albeit reluctantly, as I think we all were)
And you're assumption that we'd be better off without the bailouts....we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see how letting every major financial institution in the US fail would have a minimal impact on our country. I think we would've ended up with a broken finger and a huge gaping hole in our head....i just really believe the bailout option is the lesser of the evils.
BTW, here's an interesting video from Byron Dorgan in 1999....this is part 2 of 2, check out 1 for more:
YouTube - Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999-Part 2
05-24-2009, 12:06 PM
#2

- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Location
- Berlin
- Posts
- 1,928
Thanked: 402
Jonny I'm afraid the bailout is just a small drop of water on a hot stone that leads increased debts on the other hand which make things worse. (Just like the German economy programs do)
Now our situation is a bit different since our economy lives from exports by 70% that dropped by 40% until now.
(Leading to layoffs and an impact on the consumption of the remaining 30% of course)
The US imports primarily and the consumption of goods and resources is much higher in average. Thats probably where the point for you is to change something.
Last edited by 0livia; 05-24-2009 at 12:10 PM.
05-24-2009, 12:34 PM
#3

- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Location
- Berlin
- Posts
- 1,928
Thanked: 402
Oh ok, haven't seen your last post when I answered.
A regulation is very desirable but the biggest company is the country economy itself. They have the biggest debts. And they need to recharge every now and then and start from zero. Much to the disadvantage of everyone who has money in a bank, stocks or else, cause that money will be worthless then and replaced by another currency.
Happened twice in Germany during the last century and people ARE horrified!
Not at least for their experiences with what it lead to after 1929 cause it has promoted the Nazis to come up.
05-25-2009, 01:27 AM
#4
Well there was the economic situation and there was also the vacuum left by the Socialist Party (SDP) after the failed (Trotsky would say strangled) revolution of 1923, which left the theretofore rather well-organized working masses disillusioned and in effect leaderless. This situation was ripe for ultra-nationalistic exploitation, among other things.
There were a lot of factors going into the rise of Hitler - as is always the case with the rise of any government.
05-25-2009, 12:43 AM
#5

- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Monmouth, OR - USA
- Posts
- 1,163
Thanked: 317
The only conclusion I can come to from this statement, is that you didn't read most of my last post.
My whole point, one more time with feeling, is NOT that we would have been just fine if we let all the major financial institutions fail. My point is that the ones that would have failed without the bailout, are not going to be saved by the bailout, and therefore, we would have been better off without a billion dollars of extra national debt.
05-25-2009, 10:25 PM
#6
I did read your post....I just think the bailout did a lot more than you are giving it credit for. You can't say a bank that is on the brink of failure because it's $40 billion in the red and can't pay it's creditors, is STILL going to fail if it receives $50 or $60 billion in federal assistance and thus CAN pay it's creditors, and get back on it's feet.
Now maybe in the LONG RUN, they still make poor decisions or employ bad business strategies, which I why Obama is asking for increased oversight, new management in some (extreme) cases, and re-instating regulations so this cannot happen again.....of course he's being labelled a socialist for this.....maybe rightly so....but it needs to be done right now....this is a terrible mess that he has to clean up, and he's getting dirty in the process
BTW, we're talking a total price tag of several TRILLION dollars, not billions.....here's a breakdown of where all the bailout funds have gone (again, the Bush bailout was terribly managed and nobody is really sure where some of that money went or how it was used)
Follow the money: Bailout tracker - CNNMoney.com
you can also see which banks, sepcifically were helped....most of these institutions are still in business or were sold off (with federal support) to other banks....they would have collapsed without the bailouts (and probably bought down a lot of other institutions with them)