By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 13 June 2012
Edit Thread
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
badgenome said:
Soleron said:

Yeah, I keep saying this. Where is the incentive to change how you operate, if the current practices mean you get huge bonuses during the boom and then unconditionally bailed out when it crashes?

There is none. Typically, after the bailouts there was no serious restructuring done to make sure that this never, ever happened again. Just a lot of talk that it would never happen again because... of some reason no one bothered to articulate, maybe because it doesn't exist. And since the big banks have an even larger market share than they did before the crash, they're even more too big to fail than before! It is, by turns, hilarious, infuriating, and terrifying.

And will be even more too big to fail once Dodd-Frank is finished because they've made their money off said practices, and nobody else will reach them.

First thing that should of been done when TARP was being considered was insisting that banks who agreed to tarp funds be broken up AT&T style.

And that gets framed as the government meddling with the choices markets make.  And attempts to fight against mergers is against free markets.  It would make sense though.  However, with the top getting the money, and it seen as a crisis that had to be adverted now, it didn't happen.  TARP was passed under the same panic mode that the Patriot Act was passed under.

How so?   If someone tries to frame it that way I'd simply say.   "They don't have to take the money if they don't want it."  It's no more meddling in the markets as TARP was anyway.  Hell i'd say less so in that it's actually "forcing back" some of the punishment that the government is preventing.

As for attempts to fight against mergers... I didn't see that anywhere in there... outside banks that fail and accepted government intervention being forced to stay apart for a while.

Just letting them die would be better.  However if you aren't going to do it... at least fix the damn problem!

 

Besides, i'm not against government regulations... I'm just against stupid blanket regulations that hit all buisnesses equally.  It's the same issue i'd have with a flat tax.... and that democrats should have with the regulations they purpose.

If we're going with regulations they should be progressive as well... allowing smaller companies to riskier, since smaller companies failing are going to have a much smaller effect on the economy.   Instead we want to implement laws treating every invesment bank and hedgefund the same as if the falling of some small mom and pop investment fund equals JP Morgan.