If you you really want to talk about throwing away money, look to the funds given to the auto companies.
In order to foster a decentralized distribution (organically) of wealth and power, you might not want to subsidize too-big-to-fails at the expense of the smaller, less positioned, local institutions. We complain about wealth and power gaps, but when the impetus and the opportunity (yes, opportunity) presents itself for local, small, distributed, community-centered solutions and actions to arise from the crises, we shoot it in the head and roll it’s corpse off a cliff. This is the new partnership. And it’s a helluva dangerous one.
Whether TARP was (a) necesssary, and (b) effective are two different questions than whether it really ran up the deficit. I think it was necessary to prevent some of the banks from failing but it did not function the way it was supposed to. It was used to purchase federal ownership of financial institutions and automobile manufacturers instead of buying toxic assests like it was supposed to.
You could also argue that these banks should have been allowed to fail. But all in all, TARP is probably a wash.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Whether TARP was (a) necesssary, and (b) effective are two different questions than whether it really ran up the deficit. I think it was necessary to prevent some of the banks from failing but it did not function the way it was supposed to. It was used to purchase federal ownership of financial institutions and automobile manufacturers instead of buying toxic assests like it was supposed to.
You could also argue that these banks should have been allowed to fail. But all in all, TARP is probably a wash.[/quote]
Maybe thats not a fair characterization either. I think I would say that TARP saved the banking system but failed at everything else. I do think this was necessary but it could be argued the other way.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Too many people think you can’t start a business without tens of thousands of dollars. Yet I know a couple of people who started businesses with just a mower or two, and they are making decent money.
[/quote]
This fact escapes people. They are looking for a “good job” where they can sit on their asses or hide on a shop floor for a couple of years making “good money”.
When you strip it down to the bare naked truth, a lot of people are lazy and like getting paid, but won’t work an honest day to save their own life. They have a disproportional sense of worth compared to their skill and motivation, and will turn every opportunity to accomplish something into an opportunity to fail and blame others.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
It does not take much effort to start up a business
[/quote]
lol wut?
[/quote]
It wasn’t hard when I did it.[/quote]
What is the business?[/quote]
500 Acre farm, read above. And if you also read, I was not talking about the people unemployed, I was talking about those in office and the people in the media complaining, instead of starting up a business.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Incidentally, I do have some friends who recently started small businesses. And you know how they were able to do it? The bank bailout which loosened credit and started loans to small business owners again. Specifically the $30B in TARP funds slotted to this. Something that many here opposed.[/quote]
Of course we did and still do. Kicking the problem down the road by adding to the problem will no longer be an option, before long. It’s time to break the cycle of creating larger future crises out of trying to solve the previous smaller crises. Instead, we decided to try and avoid much of the pain, again. It’ll come back around bigger and badder, ‘needing’ an even larger response. And so on, and so on. That is, until the snowball hits wall at the bottom of the hill. It is the defining characteristic of our times. Solving our problems by bankrupting future generations. [/quote]
Most of the banks that received TARP funds have already paid them back. WITH interest. The government (AKA the people) will ultimately profit from those particular initiatives.
I am much more skeptical of the stimulus than the bailout because I see little evidence that this money is actually calculated to foster growth and employment. I don’t think it’s really going to do anything except drive up the deficit. [/quote]
Your are completely misinformed. Most of the banks that received the TARP funds did not want them or did not need them. All the top banks were forced by Paulson to participate in TARP because the government did not want the public to know which banks were actually insolvent. The banks that did not need TARP payed them back as soon as they were allowed because it was costing them money due to the high interest rate of the TARP funds. Fifth Third banks CEO said they lost 100 million because of TARP but where forced to take it. Also, though not a bank, GM paid their TARP funds back with government stimulus money they received, even though they falsely calim to have repaid the government. We have along way to go
[/quote]
Some of the Banks that received funds did not need or want the money for capital purposes. But the were not ‘forced’ to take it. The implementing legislation did not grant the government that power. They were arguably strong-armed into taking the money, but they really did it for selfish reasons. Take JPMOrgan as an example. Jamie Dimon is quoted as saying that JP Morgan did not need the capital but also is quoted as, nonetheless saying “we accepted TARP funding because we believed it was in the best interests of our financial system and our country.” The real reason JP Morgan, Goldman and the banks that were doing ok all accepted the TARP money was so that AIG would make good on the CDSÃ?¢?Ã?¦ If AIG were left to fail, these banks would have lost a bundle…
With the exceptions of JP Morgan, Goldman, and Wells Fargo, most of the banks DID need help and most of THESE banks have paid back GM has not really paid the money back. There is a good argument that the banks that were doing well never should have been given or accepted TARP funds. But at the end of the day, the government made a nice little return on the “investment.” However heavy-handed. I am not misinformed. You are saying I said things that I never did. [/quote]
The strong arming occurred when Paulson bought all the bank execs into a room and wouldn’t let them out until they agreed to take the funds. The reason being that if any individual bank took the funds, the market would look at it as a sign or weakness, and unwind that banks debt causing it to collapse no matter how much liquidity was injected. This is exactly what happened to Bear. The “investment” returns where transfer of wealth from bank share holders and debt holders to the government so the politicos could score points by saying the funds were not a give away but an “investment” in the financial system. It was simple political cover. TARP should never have happened, the insolvent banks should have failed like Lehman and Bear Stearns, the financial system would not have collapsed and we would not have trillions of dollars of debt piled on top of us to support a shaky financial system. The government should not make investments. that should be left to the private sector. Now we are in the middle of a slow rolling financial collapse caused by the government trying to provide fixes for all the failed monetary and fiscal policies.
You want to have banks collapse and reduce unemployment at the same time?
[quote]espenl wrote:
You want to have banks collapse and reduce unemployment at the same time?[/quote]
You don’t understand pure capitalism, man! lulz.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Too many people think you can’t start a business without tens of thousands of dollars. Yet I know a couple of people who started businesses with just a mower or two, and they are making decent money.
[/quote]
This fact escapes people. They are looking for a “good job” where they can sit on their asses or hide on a shop floor for a couple of years making “good money”.
When you strip it down to the bare naked truth, a lot of people are lazy and like getting paid, but won’t work an honest day to save their own life. They have a disproportional sense of worth compared to their skill and motivation, and will turn every opportunity to accomplish something into an opportunity to fail and blame others.
[/quote]
Yes, and I have no sympathy for people who fail if they do not try. I guess my view is skewed, I’ve worked hard all my life. Now, I pretty much feel like I am lazy all the time because I am not up working from dawn until after dusk, hopefully my feeling of laziness will go away since it is summer time now.
[quote]espenl wrote:
You want to have banks collapse and reduce unemployment at the same time?[/quote]
I do not want to reduce unemployment, people can get a job themselves. If a system doesn’t work, scrap it.
[quote]espenl wrote:
You want to have banks collapse and reduce unemployment at the same time?[/quote]
Even after TARP, banks are failing at a record rate and unemployment has increased. Based on the governments own measure over 20% are unemployed or underemployed
What is happening in Greece is due to Policies like TARP. Government can’t keep manufacturing phony money to create a phony growing economy without it bursting.
I’ll throw my 2 cents in:
First, I think the best way to reduce unemployment is canceling all work visas and having a much stricter policy of workers hiring illegals. Monthly checks on suspected businesses which can result in fines up to 20-30k per illegal. This would give incentive not to hire these people as could hurt their bottom line, significantly.
Second, we should lower corporate income tax. It’s one of the highest in the world right now. Make it one of the smallest which gives a huge incentive for companies to locate over here.
Also, as far as opening your own business like you guys are discussing above, the difficulty (financially and labor wise) really depends on what type of business you open. If I opened a business that had inventory, I would have to have the capital to buy the warehouse, inventory, staff, etc etc. This would be expensive and hard work. I do business on the side as a freelance developer. It didn’t cost me a dime as it’s all done with equipment I have and no need for an office.
[quote]espenl wrote:
You want to have banks collapse and reduce unemployment at the same time?[/quote]
One will follow the other. Right now banks are consuming resources that other sectors do not get to consume while creating nothing real in value. Once those heavily leveraged banks quit consuming those recourses the structure of production can start to heal itself and employment will start to rise.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If a system doesn’t work, scrap it.[/quote]
Free market capitalism perhaps? (Purely inflammatory)
But Srsly
[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If a system doesn’t work, scrap it.[/quote]
Free market capitalism perhaps? (Purely inflammatory)
But Srsly
[/quote]
Alright I will bite, how did the free market fail.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If a system doesn’t work, scrap it.[/quote]
Free market capitalism perhaps? (Purely inflammatory)
But Srsly
[/quote]
By asking the government for help, instead of allowing itself to self-correct, and punishing those who made bad choices. But I’m guessing you knew that.
Alright I will bite, how did the free market fail.[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Question, why is everyone so emotionally involved of reducing unemployment?
[/quote]
The government is a giant ponzi scheme. As long as enough people are paying into it, the system stays propped up. When the flow of money stems a bit, the entire system is threatened. Secondly, employment is more than just a job, it’s also one of the few ways you can get health insurance. Moreover, if you have any sort of pre-existing condition, you are pretty much fucked without an employer-sponsored health plan. You either flat-out do not qualify or will be charged exorbitant amounts of money. Finally, the social services of the government are simply not equipped to deal with 8%+ unemployment.
It’s not that easy to simply start a business. Remember, most businesses fail. They also require a significant capital investment. Business is a zero-sum game. If I open a hardware store and so do my next 5 neighbors, something is going to give. In the end, the majority of people will have to be cogs in the machine and not drivers of the machine.
[quote]0mar wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Question, why is everyone so emotionally involved of reducing unemployment?
[/quote]
The government is a giant ponzi scheme. As long as enough people are paying into it, the system stays propped up. When the flow of money stems a bit, the entire system is threatened. Secondly, employment is more than just a job, it’s also one of the few ways you can get health insurance. Moreover, if you have any sort of pre-existing condition, you are pretty much fucked without an employer-sponsored health plan. You either flat-out do not qualify or will be charged exorbitant amounts of money. Finally, the social services of the government are simply not equipped to deal with 8%+ unemployment.
[/quote]
Tell me which hospital denies services to someone who needs it? And, just contact your local health department and they’ll get raped in the ass for violating regulations.
[quote]
It’s not that easy to simply start a business. Remember, most businesses fail. They also require a significant capital investment. Business is a zero-sum game. If I open a hardware store and so do my next 5 neighbors, something is going to give. In the end, the majority of people will have to be cogs in the machine and not drivers of the machine.[/quote]
Lawl, business is not a zero-sum game. And second, I stated above I have started up businesses before it is very easy to start up a business, but some people just aren’t cut from the same cloth.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
It does not take much effort to start up a business
[/quote]
lol wut?
[/quote]
It wasn’t hard when I did it.[/quote]
What is the business?[/quote]
500 Acre farm, read above. And if you also read, I was not talking about the people unemployed, I was talking about those in office and the people in the media complaining, instead of starting up a business.[/quote]
Where is the ranch (northern Oklahoma)? You can pm me if you want.