Vice-President Kamala Harris
Probably requires her own thread at this moment, lock/delete etc if someone else wins the nom
Or even crazier, a government that bails out corporations using taxpayer wealth after taking excessive risks but then turns around and claims it's socialism when those taxpayers are bailed out.
Stockholders have to be wiped out when that happens, and afaik that's how it went, so the risk takers still lose the money but you don't lose the structure that can generate money, like in chapter 11.
Which bail outs do you have in mind that made stockholders whole? if there are any those are wrong and shouldn't happen i agree.
Or are you just regurtitating some communist narrative ?
Stockholders have to be wiped out when that happens, and afaik that's how it went, so the risk takers still lose the money but you don't lose the structure that can generate money, like in chapter 11.
Which bail outs do you have in mind that made stockholders whole? if there are any those are wrong and shouldn't happen i agree.
Or are you just regurtitating some communist narrative ?
The entire finance industry was insolvent in 2009-2010, even the institutions who didn't directly themselves get into financial trouble but who had trillions in counter-party agreements that were worthless if marked-to-market and if called, would have required the liquidation of those firms too. So you want to know which stockholders were made whole? Just look up the equity or bond market price of any financial institution that was in business 24 years ago, that's who.
The entire finance industry was insolvent in 2009-2010, even the institutions who didn't directly themselves get into financial trouble but who had trillions in counter-party agreements that were worthless if marked-to-market and if called, would have required the liquidation of those firms too. So you want to know which stockholders were made whole? Just look up the equity or bond market price of any financial institution that was in busin
The entire finance industry wasn't insolvent in 2009-2010, but just take a glance at , say, citigroup share price and tell me how much the stockholders lost, and how making -95% is a "bailout", for the stockholders.
Are you guys really convinced that people didn't pay for their mistake of having invested in financial institutions that lost money?
Avoiding domino effects that would have destroyed society is a "bail out" of society, not of the financial sector, if , as it happened, the specific equity of the institutions that caused the problems got wiped out and stockholders with it.
I mean you can prefer the super-liquidaniost approach but that would simply have spread more pain to more people, first and foremost normal people with normal jobs.
The entire finance industry wasn't insolvent in 2009-2010, but just take a glance at , say, citigroup share price and tell me how much the stockholders lost, and how making -95% is a "bailout", for the stockholders.
Are you guys really convinced that people didn't pay for their mistake of having invested in financial institutions that lost money?
Avoiding domino effects that would have destroyed society is a "bail out" of society, not of the
The industry was insolvent. Money markets don't start to fail in a solvent financial industry. This is why all banks were required to participate in the bailout by accepting capital, including those who claimed they weren't in trouble like Chase. It was a forced recognition that if their insolvent counterparties were allowed to fail they would have failed as well. The banks knew those counterparties were underfunded and could never possibly pay out the agreements they entered, yet they entered into them anyway because it allowed them to profitably-structure their books as if they were financially sound and then employ plausible deniability when the sh*t hit the fan like it did.
And it didn't have to be like this. The "domino effects" could have been structured so that all those institutions were allowed to fail, with the government backstopping the actual principals in the economy and then rebuilding a private finance industry from the ground-up. The entire reason the players were allowed to grow as large and as "systemically important" to require taxpayer-funded bailouts was their corrupt influence on government regulation through their millions in political donations. You keep running around screaming "free market this" and "free market that" while being ignorant of the non-free market structural underpinnings of the entire system you profess to know.
"Art is over"
lol
The industry was insolvent. Money markets don't start to fail in a solvent financial industry. This is why all banks were required to participate in the bailout by accepting capital, including those who claimed they weren't in trouble like Chase. It was a forced recognition that if their insolvent counterparties were allowed to fail they would have failed as well. The banks knew those counterparties were underfunded and could never possibly
So your problem is that equity in banks did only -90/-95% instead of -100, and you call that a bailout of stockholders? they lost almost everything lol.
Ofc they grew so large because of regulatory capture that's the biggest problem of regulations themselves, the solution is not regulating and letting people get burn when they deal with nefarious agents. Like in crypto before the SEC was in the game. Let them risk everything everytime they don't do due diligence with their counterparties. *starting from normal people who choose where to bank*.
I am not ignorant of the massive regulations that make the financial industry not very free at all, but given them, you can't then comply if further intervention is necessary, it's a loop caused by the intent to over-regulate everything which systematically fails and generates more problems than the rules themselves were supposed to avoid or fix.
You went "they were bailed out using taxpayer wealth", i went actually no, the stockholders lost almost everything.
You still haven't addressed that which is the whole ****ing point, it's false to claim the government "helped banks" not in the sense of "the owners of the banks", who lost almost everything they had (in equity in the banks).
Same as some people lost their houses.
Luciom, I thought you'd be someone who disagrees with the state picking winners and losers. Shame on you.
So your problem is that equity in banks did only -90/-95% instead of -100, and you call that a bailout of stockholders? they lost almost everything lol.
Ofc they grew so large because of regulatory capture that's the biggest problem of regulations themselves, the solution is not regulating and letting people get burn when they deal with nefarious agents. Like in crypto before the SEC was in the game. Let them risk everything everytime they
Nope, not my problem at all. The banks were insolvent. Not 10% underfunded. Not 5% underfunded. Insolvent. Net out the assets and liabilities, including remarking the counter-party agreements to market/zero, and the banks were insolvent. You don't appear to understand how the finance industry works yet like most conservatives like to throw around terms like "free market" as if you know what you're talking about. You might want to stay in your lane and return to complaining about masks and Fauci. At least those arguments don't have a hard-stop of knowledge that are so easy to bludgeon you with.
Nope, not my problem at all. The banks were insolvent. Not 10% underfunded. Not 5% underfunded. Insolvent. Net out the assets and liabilities, including remarking the counter-party agreements to market/zero, and the banks were insolvent. You don't appear to understand how the finance industry works yet like most conservatives like to throw around terms like "free market" as if you know what you're talking about. You might want to stay in yo
I know how financial industry regulations work, but you are insolvent in the normal world only when you are called on your liabilities and you can't pay them.
In banks, because of regulations, you might be insolved just by looking at the books depending on a loooooot of details and rules, as you mentioned for ex about whether to mark to market or not some assets and so on.
Banks "could have been insolvent maybe if regulators pushed it" it's not the same as "they were insolvent in that very moment, all of them, they weren't able to pay liabilities that came due". Which is insolvency in the real world (ex-regulation).
So if you want to use regulatory definitions of insolvency, they were still NOT ALL INSOLVENT, otherwise regulators would have been forced by law to liquidate them and intervente differently. "they could all have become insolvent if the state didn't intervene and regulatory thresholds had applied" MIGHT be true (we will never know), still nothing to do with "they were all insolvent" at the time of intervention (your, objectively false, claim).
And again, for the 100000th time, still not a bail out if stockholders lose a lot of money.
And most of all still not a bail out if the government doesn't lose money intervening lol.
A bail out is: the state pays and loses a lot, someone gets saved and doesn't lose when he should have lost a lot.
When is Comrade Kamala gonna finally make most forms of private transportation illegal? As all communists/current American citizens know, current transit levels will lead to overwhelmingly massive and deadly climate change and other ecological problems.
Obviously, an avowed Marxist like Kamala Harris has already transferred multiple trillions of dollars of excess wealth of the hoarders/ownership class and built massive rail infrastructures in all of the major American urban areas and bus systems in rural areas. But I go outside, and I still see CARS all over the place! Is she breaking her campaign promise?
The most important thing to listen to is all the concerned predictions of right-wingers. After all, they spent 8 full years talking about how Obama was gonna take their guns any day now... and were proven correct when exactly that happened. Nobody in the US has a gun anymore, which I agree represents our continued decline into a Communist one-world state.
The most important thing to listen to is all the concerned predictions of right-wingers. After all, they spent 8 full years talking about how Obama was gonna take their guns any day now... and were proven correct when exactly that happened. Nobody in the US has a gun anymore, which I agree represents our continued decline into a Communist one-world state.
They tried repeatedly and courts saved the day, repeatedly.
"They aren't communists because our anti-communist institutions saved us against their attempt to be communist" isn't a prediction gone wrong
Although we must thank our lovely US Supreme Court for overturning known communist Donald Trump's ban on bump stocks!
So your problem is that equity in banks did only -90/-95% instead of -100, and you call that a bailout of stockholders? they lost almost everything lol.
This is a considerable overstatement. The stock price of some banks dropped by that much, but many did not. It really varied from bank to bank.
I know how financial industry regulations work, but you are insolvent in the normal world only when you are called on your liabilities and you can't pay them.
In banks, because of regulations, you might be insolved just by looking at the books depending on a loooooot of details and rules, as you mentioned for ex about whether to mark to market or not some assets and so on.
Banks "could have been insolvent maybe if regulators pushed it" it's n
No, they were insolvent because the market value of their assets and liabilities netted to a negative number, based on the short, intermediate, and long-term value of their holdings absent government intervention to inject trillions of dollars of liquidity into the market and keep it there for years until their underwater positions turned. You have it completely backwards about regulators "pushing" them into insolvency - it was the government that allowed the industry to "market to fantasy" for years, whereas a true market would have forced the liquidation of everyone.
Your claim about it not being a bailout because the government didn't lose money demonstrates how little you really understand about finance and how you're willing to compromise your own claimed ideology when you're at the wrong end of an argument. The fact the government has unlimited money to bail out any industry and is willing to use it means that no bailout will ever "lose", that is if you're completely ignorant to concepts like monetary inflation, moral hazard, and the list of failed economies whose governments tried mass intervention in markets.
No, they most certainly did not, unless you think voluntary gun buy-back programs or taking away illegally obtained guns from imprisoned felons constitute unconstitutional gun grabbing, lol.
I am talking about the zillions gun control laws that got passed and then courts had to stay and decleare unconstitutional
No, they were insolvent because the market value of their assets and liabilities netted to a negative number, based on the short, intermediate, and long-term value of their holdings absent government intervention to inject trillions of dollars of liquidity into the market and keep it there for years until their underwater positions turned. You have it completely backwards about regulators "pushing" them into insolvency - it was the governme
Your balance sheet showing a hole doesn't mean you are insolvent in normal business. It applies only to banks because of regulations. You don't need to have enough tangible, marketable assets to cover your liabilities to be solvent. You just need to always to able to honor debt payments when they come due from any source.
That, in normal business, ex-insane regulations
This is you denying (or not understanding? ) that the concept of bank solvency you describe is a regulatory one, not a factual one. Rules exist arbitrarily to define as insolvent a bank in this and that case. That's not a reality outside of the rules.
And, rules decide if and when assets are in the balance sheet at mark to market or at historical cost or whatever other way they concoct.
And it is not a bail out by government, if government doesn't lose
This is a considerable overstatement. The stock price of some banks dropped by that much, but many did not. It really varied from bank to bank.
Go by equity-weight of the banking sectors and tell me how much that went down
Citi, BoA, wells fargo, bankcorp and JP morgan were like 80% of the market
The industry was insolvent. Money markets don't start to fail in a solvent financial industry. This is why all banks were required to participate in the bailout by accepting capital, including those who claimed they weren't in trouble like Chase. It was a forced recognition that if their insolvent counterparties were allowed to fail they would have failed as well. The banks knew those counterparties were underfunded and could never possibly
For luciom, if a company been prevent bankrupt because of massive intervention by the fed or the government it cannot be called a bail out .
Go figure .
Just semantics .
But yeah , his got some deep hole on how how actual market workers and what happened and what actually still happens .
https://www.federalreserve.gov/financial...
Fwiw again, I’m not against how the system works because I believe the consequences would be even worst .
But it’s insupportable to hear crazy talk like baham and luciom about free market and anti taxation and yet don’t complain when corporations and the rich benefits from free socialize bail outs.
They should gladly pay taxes for having a social net under their feet when they $h!t the bed ….
Because that cost do exist presently and it is massive .
Just look at how the debt grows for the past 25 years…
Why you guys don’t block Lucium is beyond me
Although we must thank our lovely US Supreme Court for overturning known communist Donald Trump's ban on bump stocks!
You think Trump's ban on bump stocks was him unknowingly engaging in Communist praxis? LOLOLOLOL. Words truly mean nothing to libertarians.
I am talking about the zillions gun control laws that got passed and then courts had to stay and decleare unconstitutional
Uh huh. And how many of those "passed" laws were going to FORCIBLY CONFISCATE all private citizens' guns (non-hunting ones, at least), which was what I am talking about?
I didn't say unknowningly. Trump as well has some collectivist, authoritarian, anti freedom, anti constitutional tendencies (ie, communist tendencies).
Far less than democrats, but he is more Marxist than the average GOP candidate ever was except perhaps Nixon.
Just think about the "protect jobs" part of tariffs, that's Marxism 101
