Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   $780 billion. Is this: A) The cost of Medicare and Social Security over the next decade, B) the value of spending cuts in Ryan's new budget, C) the size of the subsidies the US Government gives to the banking industry EVERY YEAR   (washingtonsblog.com) divider line 101
    More: Asinine, accounts receivable, Nouriel Roubini, TBA, free market economy, bankers, subsidies, secondary markets, accounting analyst  
•       •       •

3035 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Mar 2013 at 8:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-13 08:13:57 PM  
New York City?

/get a rope
 
2013-03-13 08:32:17 PM  
$120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.
 
2013-03-13 08:45:57 PM  
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the bankers!?  If they don't have enough money they won't be able to pay the bonuses, without which they will lose all that marvelous talent that periodically wrecks the world financial system.
 
2013-03-13 08:46:09 PM  
It's not B. Ryan's cuts are hyperbole and unicorn farts.
 
2013-03-13 08:46:32 PM  
But but but JOBS! Or some such bullshiat.
 
2013-03-13 08:47:13 PM  

GAT_00: $120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.


What about the other 660 billion? Also untouchable?
 
2013-03-13 08:49:20 PM  
GObama!
 
2013-03-13 08:52:09 PM  
1. Cause financial crisis
2. Get appointed by Obama to committees tasked with straightening it all out
3. Profit
4. Blame Republicans?
 
2013-03-13 08:53:59 PM  

GAT_00: $120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.


Okay, let's get rid of it. Let's get rid of everything on the list. Most of it serves to push the banking industry towards policy goals.

Let the unintended consequences take out the folks who haven't stopped whining.
 
2013-03-13 08:54:08 PM  
I'll take part expenditure in Iraq for death Alex....
 
2013-03-13 08:54:25 PM  
This all started on January 20th 2009.
 
2013-03-13 08:55:08 PM  

GAT_00: $120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.


The loan guarantee programs help alof of students and home buyers too.

What is the artificial rate spread?  If it's the banks paying me 0.10% on saving and using my money to buy treasuries, then yeah......that interest income is a HUGE multiple of interest expense, so viola, free spread!  But that is available to small banks too.  Any fark economist/accountant on here can figure out that's free money.

The good part is that the government has a big buyer (lender) to keep funding their spending.  The bad news is nobody can get a loan because who would make a risky loan when you have the guaranteed spread on treasuries vs. savings/cd rates?
 
2013-03-13 08:56:46 PM  

GAT_00: $120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.


Why do you hate capitalism?
 
2013-03-13 08:56:50 PM  

GAT_00: $120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.


Just because you socialise the losses, doesn't mean you have to privatise the profits. FDIC was created to protect small savers from bank failures, not to line the pockets of banks with taxpayer's money.
 
2013-03-13 08:57:56 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: $120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.

What about the other 660 billion? Also untouchable?


If you claim that the FDIC is an unnecessary bank handout, I don't give a fark about the rest of your numbers.  If that's their standard for a bad handout, I doubt any of the rest of them are anything bad.
 
2013-03-13 08:59:03 PM  
I like to hate on banks and bankers as much as anyone, but I just don't see how VA/FHA backed loans and the FDIC are bank subsidies. they protect and help the consumer, not the banks.
 
2013-03-13 09:00:23 PM  

Bad_Seed: FDIC was created to protect small savers from bank failures, not to line the pockets of banks with taxpayer's money.


Please explain how the FDIC is lining the pockets of the banks.
 
2013-03-13 09:01:22 PM  

Bad_Seed: GAT_00: $120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.

Just because you socialise the losses, doesn't mean you have to privatise the profits. FDIC was created to protect small savers from bank failures, not to line the pockets of banks with taxpayer's money.


Point of information:  the banks PAY an insurance premium for FDIC coverage.  The losses referred to in the article are the cost of bank failures in excess of the premiums.  It goes to make the depositors whole, not to profit anyone.

It's hardly a "subsidy".
 
2013-03-13 09:01:45 PM  
It's like the Republicans are actively sprinting towards the next depression.  Don't they read history books?
 
2013-03-13 09:02:13 PM  
Could we just not pay the banks for one year?  We promise to bend over again next year.
 
2013-03-13 09:04:35 PM  

log_jammin: Please explain how the FDIC is lining the pockets of the banks.


Like this.

cchris_39: The losses referred to in the article are the cost of bank failures in excess of the premiums

 
2013-03-13 09:05:04 PM  

log_jammin: I like to hate on banks and bankers as much as anyone, but I just don't see how VA/FHA backed loans and the FDIC are bank subsidies. they protect and help the consumer, not the banks.


The whole list is a little weird. It's making a point that all the government interference (good or bad) is  seriously screwing up the market. Calling these actions "subsidies" is misleading at best.
 
2013-03-13 09:08:25 PM  

Bad_Seed: log_jammin: Please explain how the FDIC is lining the pockets of the banks.

Like this.

cchris_39: The losses referred to in the article are the cost of bank failures in excess of the premiums


walkaway. think about that for a little bit. then come back.
 
2013-03-13 09:10:04 PM  

Bad_Seed: log_jammin: Please explain how the FDIC is lining the pockets of the banks.

Like this.

cchris_39: The losses referred to in the article are the cost of bank failures in excess of the premiums


If you want to argue that the premiums should be raised to the extent of losses, you have a legitimate point.  But then I'd have to threadjack you to Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, student loans, Fannie and Freddie, and every other federal insurance program that's in the red.

And none of us want that.
 
2013-03-13 09:10:37 PM  

log_jammin: Bad_Seed: log_jammin: Please explain how the FDIC is lining the pockets of the banks.

Like this.

cchris_39: The losses referred to in the article are the cost of bank failures in excess of the premiums

walkaway. think about that for a little bit. then come back.


No, you think about it. What would happen if a private insurance company had to pay out more than its premiums can cover?
 
2013-03-13 09:11:27 PM  

Over_Zealously_Apathetic: It's like the Republicans are actively sprinting towards the next depression.  Don't they read history books?


They are hoping it happens while the the President has a D behind his name, so they can blame it all on him like they did Carter.
 
2013-03-13 09:14:41 PM  
I'm not a real finance wonker but weren't some of those things stuff that don't actually "pay out"? LIke


$120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)At least $100 billion in government-guaranteed loans, especially mortgages And a question about the second one - what does that actually mean? The banks loan the money and government simply guarantees it?  How is that a subsidy if the loans don't fail (which quite obviously they have)?
 
2013-03-13 09:14:51 PM  
OK, guys.  Here's the new plan.

First, we kill most of the lawyers.  Some of the really nice ones, public defenders, the ones who get innocent guys off death row, some of the newish members of the ACLU - we'll let them slide for a while.  We'll be too busy with the bankers.
 
2013-03-13 09:15:38 PM  

ShawnDoc: Over_Zealously_Apathetic: It's like the Republicans are actively sprinting towards the next depression.  Don't they read history books?

They are hoping it happens while the the President has a D behind his name, so they can blame it all on him like they did Carter.


What's funny is they don't even bother denying it anymore.
 
2013-03-13 09:17:38 PM  

Bad_Seed: What would happen if a private insurance company had to pay out more than its premiums can cover?


hell would be freezing over. But I'm still not sure how that means the FDIC isn't covering the average consumer with an account, and how an insolvent bank can have it's pockets lined from it.
 
2013-03-13 09:18:52 PM  
The leeches are at the top.
 
2013-03-13 09:18:53 PM  

log_jammin: Please explain how the FDIC is lining the pockets of the banks.


It could be argued that guaranteed deposits remove the incentive to scrutinize your bank's lending and borrowing practices in order to make sure that the bank will be responsible with your money. Large, unscrupulous banks get customers that they otherwise wouldn't be able to attract if they had to be more transparent about their inner workings. So not only do the banks get more money in the form of deposits, but nobody bothers to pay close attention to their dealings, allowing them to make riskier bets with their customers' money.
 
2013-03-13 09:19:19 PM  
That works out to $2600 per year per person, give or take. Something doesn't seem right about this.
 
2013-03-13 09:24:42 PM  

cchris_39: If you want to argue that the premiums should be raised to the extent of losses, you have a legitimate point. But then I'd have to threadjack you to Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, student loans, Fannie and Freddie, and every other federal insurance program that's in the red.


It's more complicated than that. Social programs should be there to benefit the poor and middle class, not corporations and their shareholders. Obamacare, Medicare and student loans fail that test, at least in part, but that's probably due to lobbyists. Most liberals understand this and are pretty ambivalent about Obamacare, which they argue is better than nothing, or they hope that it's a stepping stone to a public option, or even (*gasp*) single payer.

But back to the topic, if this guy's analysis is right, then a market rate for FDIC would wipe out all of the banks' profits. No profits means, at a minimum, no bonuses and no rising stock prices. That would hurt rich people (slightly), and we can't have that, now can we?
 
2013-03-13 09:25:46 PM  

DirkValentine: I'm not a real finance wonker but weren't some of those things stuff that don't actually "pay out"? LIke


$120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)At least $100 billion in government-guaranteed loans, especially mortgages And a question about the second one - what does that actually mean? The banks loan the money and government simply guarantees it?  How is that a subsidy if the loans don't fail (which quite obviously they have)?


Oh boy, do they ever.
 
2013-03-13 09:26:26 PM  

log_jammin: Bad_Seed: What would happen if a private insurance company had to pay out more than its premiums can cover?

hell would be freezing over. But I'm still not sure how that means the FDIC isn't covering the average consumer with an account, and how an insolvent bank can have it's pockets lined from it.


The banks are pocketing the difference between the proper rate that they should pay for FDIC and the difference that they actually pay. That's the subsidy.
 
2013-03-13 09:30:57 PM  

cchris_39: Bad_Seed: log_jammin: Please explain how the FDIC is lining the pockets of the banks.

Like this.

cchris_39: The losses referred to in the article are the cost of bank failures in excess of the premiums

If you want to argue that the premiums should be raised to the extent of losses, you have a legitimate point.  But then I'd have to threadjack you to Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, student loans, Fannie and Freddie, and every other federal insurance program that's in the red.

And none of us want that.


Nobody cares about your gibberish. It's not even funny. "Threadjack" wherever you want, you won't change the opinion of anyone on Fark, because no one thinks you make any sense at all.
 
2013-03-13 09:31:32 PM  
I assume this is on Elizabeth Warren's radar.
 
2013-03-13 09:33:02 PM  
FDIC is paid through fees from the banks, so counting that money against banks as a "subsidy" is farking weird. While FDIC has the ability to borrow from the treasury if the fund ever run out (which would then lead to higher fees later to make up the shortfall), as far as I know it never has.

Given that failure with the first one I checked, it seems pointless to pursue the other items in the list, better to just assume it is just as ludicrously badly researched and not waste any more time.
 
2013-03-13 09:33:46 PM  

GAT_00: $120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.


Well, during the collapse of the housing bubble, it turned out that the FDIC hadn't bothered to collect any premiums for a long time.  Also, apparently the FDIC often ends up paying to keep the bank afloat when it is only supposed to cover the depositors.  And it was never intended to cover investment banks at all.  All of this amounts to subsidies to the banking industry that the FDIC was never supposed to provide.
 
2013-03-13 09:36:56 PM  

cchris_39: Point of information:  the banks PAY an insurance premium for FDIC coverage.


Which wasn't being collected, for some reason.
 
2013-03-13 09:38:00 PM  

Bad_Seed: log_jammin: Bad_Seed: What would happen if a private insurance company had to pay out more than its premiums can cover?

hell would be freezing over. But I'm still not sure how that means the FDIC isn't covering the average consumer with an account, and how an insolvent bank can have it's pockets lined from it.

The banks are pocketing the difference between the proper rate that they should pay for FDIC and the difference that they actually pay. That's the subsidy.


Not to mention that the rate banks pay is so low that the FDIC only ever has a little over 1% capital to cover the over $5 trillion worth of insured deposits.  In 2009, during the financial collapse, the FDIC actually went insolvent, and had to use the next three future YEARS of premiums to cover the payouts.  In the event of any real collapse, in which the FDIC wouldn't be able to use upcoming years to cover its lack of funds, the US taxpayer would almost certainly be left holding the bill for the banks.
 
2013-03-13 09:39:09 PM  

GAT_00: $120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.



So what?

That's a good thing, for sure. That doesn't disqualify it from being a subsidy. If you're making a list, you put that in there for completeness. The FDIC coverage is a great subsidy our government should extend across the banking sector as the kind of social good only government can realistically invest in.

Now how about the rest?

They've already bent the world economy over a pinball table, they're raking in mountains of cash, we ostensibly have a capitalist system... Why not split the big financial institutions up, pull their OTHER subsidies and make them compete like an actual goddamn market for the first time in a long time?
 
2013-03-13 09:43:44 PM  

pciszek: Well, during the collapse of the housing bubble, it turned out that the FDIC hadn't bothered to collect any premiums for a long time.


Yeah, Congress banned them from it.  In 1996.  Guess who was behind that?
 
2013-03-13 09:46:11 PM  

Giltric: 1. Cause financial crisis
2. Get appointed by Obama to committees tasked with straightening it all out
3. Profit
4. Blame Republicans?


Number 4 should have been number 1.
Number 5 should be Execute republicans.
 
2013-03-13 09:48:18 PM  

Over_Zealously_Apathetic: It's like the Republicans are actively sprinting towards the next depression.  Don't they read history books?


For the insanely wealthy, depressions are just fire sales. Good fun! Lots of sweet bargains.
 
2013-03-13 09:59:33 PM  
The thing is, if you don't subsidise them, the banks will all leave for foreign shores, or something.
 
2013-03-13 10:04:22 PM  

TalenLee: The thing is, if you don't subsidise them, the banks will all leave for foreign shores, or something.


Oh no! Where will we keep our money?!?!
 
2013-03-13 10:09:56 PM  

cchris_39: If it's the banks paying me 0.10% on saving


That there decimal point is a bit too far to the right if you're talking about run-of-the-mill traditional savings account rates.

The idea that you can be a conscientious saver and build your nest egg is dead. Everyone should now belly up to the craps table that is the stock market.
 
2013-03-13 10:10:27 PM  

Johnny Savage: GObama!


Yeah, I'm going take a wild guess and say this didn't start with Obama.
 
2013-03-13 10:12:29 PM  
I'm an Obama supporter, but unlike republicans I can criticize someone I support if I disagree with them.

This probably the biggest issue I disagree with. Stop supporting them, regulate the fark out of them, send 99% of them to jail and start over.
 
2013-03-13 10:16:46 PM  
This article is enlightening....

How did these hedge funds, with fewer than one hundred employees, make as much money as Apple, which relies on the incredibly hard work of its nearly 700,000+ workers?

How To Make A Million Dollars An Hour

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-make-a-million-dollars-an-hour -2 013-3#ixzz2NTbHCwva
 
2013-03-13 10:17:42 PM  

jaylectricity: TalenLee: The thing is, if you don't subsidise them, the banks will all leave for foreign shores, or something.

Oh no! Where will we keep our money?!?!


I know, right?
 
2013-03-13 10:27:54 PM  

TalenLee: jaylectricity: TalenLee: The thing is, if you don't subsidise them, the banks will all leave for foreign shores, or something.

Oh no! Where will we keep our money?!?!

I know, right?


Time to start buying mattresses.

I'll keep your money under one of mine, if you'd like.

;-)
 
2013-03-13 10:39:55 PM  

jaylectricity: TalenLee: jaylectricity: TalenLee: The thing is, if you don't subsidise them, the banks will all leave for foreign shores, or something.

Oh no! Where will we keep our money?!?!

I know, right?

Time to start buying mattresses.

I'll keep your money under one of mine, if you'd like.

;-)


Oh, hey, here we don't subsidise the banks as much. Plus we kind of bully them into changing their interest rates.
 
2013-03-13 10:41:03 PM  

Bad_Seed: No, you think about it. What would happen if a private insurance company had to pay out more than its premiums can cover?


see AIG
 
2013-03-13 10:45:34 PM  

phamwaa: The idea that you can be a conscientious saver and build your nest egg is dead. Everyone should now belly up to the craps table that is the stock market.


You know. That right there might be the strongest argument that we're headed for a Depression than any other I've seen today (and for some reason, the arguments are out in force today).
 
2013-03-13 10:46:18 PM  
Can't we get any new guilotine pics? I'm tired of the same old ones.
 
2013-03-13 10:48:47 PM  

Vectron: Can't we get any new guilotine pics? I'm tired of the same old ones.


Soon, soon.
 
2013-03-13 11:05:23 PM  

TalenLee: Oh, hey, here we don't subsidise the banks as much. Plus we kind of bully them into changing their interest rates.


I was trying to keep the joke going as a way of indicating that you and I are on the same page. Didn't realize you were on a different land mass.
 
2013-03-13 11:06:24 PM  
Hey you people voted for Obongo -- not me.
 
2013-03-13 11:11:15 PM  

Happy Hours: Johnny Savage: GObama!

Yeah, I'm going take a wild guess and say this didn't start with Obama.


I'm going to take an even wilder guess and say that, whatever the pre-existing corruption and waste within the American financial system might have been prior to his election, Obama will never be faulted by his fanboys for having taken it to an exponentially higher level during his administration.
 
2013-03-13 11:26:07 PM  
Somehow km ok with this.

I guess I've been desensitized to banking abuses.

/real estate appraiser
 
2013-03-13 11:27:05 PM  
They obviously need all that money because greedy teachers are overpaid.

Stupid libs are stupid.
 
2013-03-13 11:27:26 PM  
HA wait until people find out how much we spend to prop up the GLOBAL economy...
 
2013-03-13 11:27:35 PM  

enik: Hey you people voted for Obongo -- not me.


It's cute that you think these sorts of things are Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal instead of rich vs. poor.
 
2013-03-13 11:29:40 PM  

Peki: phamwaa: The idea that you can be a conscientious saver and build your nest egg is dead. Everyone should now belly up to the craps table that is the stock market.

You know. That right there might be the strongest argument that we're headed for a Depression than any other I've seen today (and for some reason, the arguments are out in force today).


Headed for?  We're already in one.  It's just that the bubble hasn't burst for the rich yet.
 
2013-03-13 11:41:14 PM  

cchris_39: Bad_Seed: GAT_00: $120 billion in federal deposit insurance (through the FDIC, backed by the Treasury)

Oh yeah, that's a terrible, terrible thing to have.

Just because you socialise the losses, doesn't mean you have to privatise the profits. FDIC was created to protect small savers from bank failures, not to line the pockets of banks with taxpayer's money.

Point of information:  the banks PAY an insurance premium for FDIC coverage.  The losses referred to in the article are the cost of bank failures in excess of the premiums.  It goes to make the depositors whole, not to profit anyone.

It's hardly a "subsidy".


If the insurance premiums don't generate enough revenue to cover the losses in all cases, then it sounds like the insurance premium is too small. Or am I misunderstanding somehow.
 
2013-03-13 11:43:13 PM  

jaylectricity: TalenLee: Oh, hey, here we don't subsidise the banks as much. Plus we kind of bully them into changing their interest rates.

I was trying to keep the joke going as a way of indicating that you and I are on the same page. Didn't realize you were on a different land mass.


Yeah, I'm typing this in now on the back of a kangaroo.
 
2013-03-13 11:47:53 PM  
Urge to kill... rising...
 
2013-03-13 11:52:13 PM  

foo monkey: It's not B. Ryan's cuts are hyperbole and unicorn farts.


Fun Fact: Ryan's cuts are based on things he objected to at the time.
 
2013-03-13 11:54:16 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-13 11:55:55 PM  

IlGreven: Peki: phamwaa: The idea that you can be a conscientious saver and build your nest egg is dead. Everyone should now belly up to the craps table that is the stock market.

You know. That right there might be the strongest argument that we're headed for a Depression than any other I've seen today (and for some reason, the arguments are out in force today).

Headed for?  We're already in one.  It's just that the bubble hasn't burst for the rich yet.


Fair point. I've been arguing that one with my family for some time now. I suspect the history books will be changed eventually once there aren't any political ramifications of calling it a Depression.

*sigh* The problem with fudging words so that people don't panic, is that the same people then don't realize just how big the problem is, so they see the bailouts and think it was too much, when in reality it was too little.
 
2013-03-14 12:04:32 AM  
I need a ruling on the play...  Was TFA herp, derp or tinfoil?
 
2013-03-14 12:13:07 AM  

log_jammin: Bad_Seed: FDIC was created to protect small savers from bank failures, not to line the pockets of banks with taxpayer's money.

Please explain how the FDIC is lining the pockets of the banks.


Agreed.  Of that list some are real (the spread in rates is just a cash spigot directly into the wallets of banks) and some I'm not so sure about.  I don't see how the FDIC is some kind of giveaway to the banks.  For the most part FDIC is self funding where all member institutions contribute to the fund and the fund pays out when a bank fails.  It's a required insurance program that's backstopped by the government.  Where I don't like what the FDIC is doing is that they are paying out more than the insured amount.  If you have a savings account with $300,000 and your bank fails, people have been getting $300,000 instead of the $250,000 they should be getting.  But yet again, this isn't money going to banks, it's going to grampa and his retirement fund.

The government guarantees on loans don't benefit the banks so much as borrowers who wouldn't be able to get a mortgage without the federal insurance.  Without FHA and the others the banks would still loan money and still make a profit.

I can't really speak to the other claims at all though.
 
m00
2013-03-14 12:19:25 AM  
Why do you guys hate banks & the free market? What are you, communists?
 
2013-03-14 12:23:44 AM  

Koalacaust: log_jammin: Please explain how the FDIC is lining the pockets of the banks.

It could be argued that guaranteed deposits remove the incentive to scrutinize your bank's lending and borrowing practices in order to make sure that the bank will be responsible with your money. Large, unscrupulous banks get customers that they otherwise wouldn't be able to attract if they had to be more transparent about their inner workings. So not only do the banks get more money in the form of deposits, but nobody bothers to pay close attention to their dealings, allowing them to make riskier bets with their customers' money.


I can read the annual report and vote for and email the directors of *MY* credit union

/ I don't, but I can
 
2013-03-14 12:30:29 AM  

m00: Why do you guys hate banks & the free market? What are you, communists?


Bank bailouts have nothing to do with the free market; under capitalism there is no such thing as "too big to fail". The bailouts involved the government extending its largesse to the private sector and demanding its pound of flesh in return.
 
2013-03-14 12:32:22 AM  
I dare any pol to try and take it away, they will get Lewinsky'd so fast. Someone in Israel is humming Stranglehold.
 
2013-03-14 12:47:54 AM  

Insatiable Jesus: I dare any pol to try and take it away, they will get Lewinsky'd so fast. Someone in Israel is humming Stranglehold.


+1
 
2013-03-14 01:07:42 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: m00: Why do you guys hate banks & the free market? What are you, communists?

Bank bailouts have nothing to do with the free market; under capitalism there is no such thing as "too big to fail". The bailouts involved the government extending its largesse to the private sector and demanding its pound of flesh in return.



This.
explanation.
 
2013-03-14 01:14:12 AM  
Synopsis in 1 sentence: Someone is writing an article with no concept of what they are talking about.

/ a lot of fark is qualified for this job.

.
 
2013-03-14 02:15:46 AM  

TalenLee: The thing is, if you don't subsidise them, the banks will all leave for foreign shores, or something.


No, the thing is that if we don't subsidize them then they'll not bother to follow US financial policy.

Pretty much the same reason we don't drop farm subsidies; we want people to be able to afford to eat, so we pay off the farmers with a fraction of what they'd gain by cutting production and allowing prices to increase to whatever the market will bear, which will result in a lot of people starving to death and the bigger companies finishing off all the smaller ones for good and then playing the telcom shell-game to keep their monopoly technically legal.

Similar deal with banks and loans.  Not all destructive behavior can be outright outlawed, so we provide a financial incentive against it.
 
2013-03-14 02:34:38 AM  

Jim_Callahan: we want people to be able to afford to eat


I wonder how the rest of the world does it?
 
2013-03-14 02:56:49 AM  

m00: Why do you guys hate banks & the free market? What are you, communists?



The current system of Global Corporate Socialism and Banksterism is brought to you by the very same people who brought Communism to Europe. You can look it up. The Banksters are the Commies, just come back in a different form. What I see now is a straight line from Kissinger to Wolfowitz to Bernanke.
 
2013-03-14 02:59:30 AM  
 
2013-03-14 03:16:37 AM  

Vectron: EvilRacistNaziFascist: m00: Why do you guys hate banks & the free market? What are you, communists?

Bank bailouts have nothing to do with the free market; under capitalism there is no such thing as "too big to fail". The bailouts involved the government extending its largesse to the private sector and demanding its pound of flesh in return.


This.
explanation.


Oh SNAP.jpg
 
2013-03-14 04:08:47 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: m00: Why do you guys hate banks & the free market? What are you, communists?

Bank bailouts have nothing to do with the free market; under capitalism there is no such thing as "too big to fail". The bailouts involved the government extending its largesse to the private sector and demanding its pound of flesh in return.


Yeah, that's bullshiat.  Under free market capitalism, there is nothing to stop companies from forming monopolies, collusions, and otherwise abusing their power.  At which point, they become too big to fail.   The libertarians will swear that it will never happen under a free market, but they also like to pretend that discrimination would never happen in a free market, even though it clearly did.

You can't have it both ways.  You can't claim that billionaire hedge fund managers deserve their salaries because they're irreplaceable financial wizards who are integral to the economy, and then claim that there would be no impact at all of they disappeared.

The only way to prevent "too big to fail" is to prevent corporations from amassing that much power in the first place.  That would require more regulation, not less.
 
2013-03-14 04:10:18 AM  

TalenLee: Jim_Callahan: we want people to be able to afford to eat

I wonder how the rest of the world does it?


Most of the world buys food from the US at our deflated prices.  It is a major element of our foreign policy, one of the reasons we subsidize to begin with, and one of if not THE most important element of our global political influence and financial power.

So... basically the rest of the world that doesn't do it is heavily dependent on the US because they don't. Or, you know, they starve.  Those are basically the options, apart form copying our system.  Some places actually do choose the starve option, strangely.

//Here's a reference to start you off if you really missed high-school-level political science, or social studies or whatever yours called it:   http://static.scribd.com/docs/4bh14golg7n02.pdf
 
2013-03-14 04:10:59 AM  

Saiga410: I need a ruling on the play...  Was TFA herp, derp or tinfoil?


Site includes links to Zerohedge and Infowars.  Article cites a no-named economist with no real credentials.

Seems legit.
 
2013-03-14 04:15:52 AM  

Jim_Callahan: //Here's a reference to start you off if you really missed high-school-level political science, or social studies or whatever yours called it: http://static.scribd.com/docs/4bh14golg7n02.pdf


cc.pbsstatic.com

Gotta say, some of your exports are pretty shiat.
 
m00
2013-03-14 06:18:01 AM  
I thought it was pretty obvious I was being sarcastic.
 
2013-03-14 07:33:21 AM  
Holy &!@& you guys are dumb as dirt.   Just because you read it on internet doesn't make it true.
What a joke.  You'll all be out beheading innocent people soon.
You lose because you have NO IDEA whats going on. You are not be robbed, you are being coddled.
 
2013-03-14 07:35:38 AM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Insatiable Jesus: I dare any pol to try and take it away, they will get Lewinsky'd so fast. Someone in Israel is humming Stranglehold.

+1


I guess stormfront has been alerted to this thread...
 
2013-03-14 08:03:46 AM  

Giltric: 1. Cause financial crisis
2. Get appointed by Obama to committees tasked with straightening it all out
3. Profit
4. Blame Republicans?


THIS!!!
And you forgot when when confronted by this you will get the "So vote REP" cry as some way of dismissing it or plugging fingers in ears saying "lalalala I can't hear you"....
 
2013-03-14 08:11:05 AM  

GAT_00: If you claim that the FDIC is an unnecessary bank handout, I don't give a fark about the rest of your numbers. If that's their standard for a bad handout, I doubt any of the rest of them are anything bad.


Fair enough, I'm curious nevertheless.
 
2013-03-14 08:21:39 AM  

jaylectricity: I assume this is on Elizabeth Warren's radar.


I don't know about anyone else, but I personally am putting way to much hope in Warren to break the stranglehold the banks have on Washington.
 
2013-03-14 08:21:42 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Most of the world buys food from the US at our deflated prices.  It is a major element of our foreign policy, one of the reasons we subsidize to begin with, and one of if not THE most important element of our global political influence and financial power.


Is that really still true?  Because the US seems to be importing a lot of food nowadays.  Not just spices and gourmet specialties, but ordinary stuff like beef, ketchup, canned soup, and so on.
 
2013-03-14 08:28:01 AM  

Boloxor the Insipid: You'll all be out beheading innocent people soon.
You lose because you have NO IDEA whats going on


That's fine as long as it's the "innocent" rich who have made the decisions to socialize losses while privatizing profits, sent millions of jobs and physical capital overseas, and corrupted our political system with their disproportionate wealth. The masses can just figure things out as we go. They're always behind the curve, anyway.
 
2013-03-14 09:55:50 AM  
Let me summarize it for you ignorant peasants. You know all those billions (possibly trillions) in dubious derivatives? Yeah the value they pulled out of their ass they are worth hasn't been revised, nor taken as a loss. They have been transfer to ALL of us via Federal Reserve "assets", and as the article states, artificially low interest rates creating a very nice bond market for themselves, with no consequences to them in any way, neither financially or criminally.

It's a huge slap to the face and yet most people don't WAKE THE FARK UP!
 
2013-03-14 10:53:41 AM  
Wait, they're counting what the Fed does? That's silly. That's the whole point of the Fed, to "subsidize" the banks with huge pools of cash. I mean, ok, if that's what you want to complain about then maybe Ron Paul was your guy after all.
 
Displayed 101 of 101 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report