View Full Version : Admit it: TARP worked
An interesting article (http://www.frumforum.com/admit-it-tarp-worked) over at FrumForum, and one with which I largely agree:
Free-market capitalism and the constitution are among our noblest concepts and vitally important to the life-blood and character of this nation; they are what made us great, but they are not suicide pacts. And I ask those of my libertarian friends who love no government at all, those who claim they would have let the banks die, to consider the history of fascist states and remember that the rise of dictators and despots is often through the exploitation of major social/economic upheaval. America is not immune to this phenomenon. I was not willing to run the risk should the free marketers have truly underestimated the severity of the crisis and chaos which ensued.
I would be interested to hear the Orgah perspective on this.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/ITS20A20TARP.jpg
I think I said a reply to CR which pretty much said something similar to this. Unfortunately, he didn't reply to it, I was interested in how he would view what I said. :sad:
HoreTore
11-20-2010, 00:48
Planned economy
Mixed economy
Laissez-faire economy
Get with the program, people!
Free market capitalism didn't make us great. We got to the position we're at for two main reasons:
1. We protected the hell out of our industries during their infancy, and
2. All of our competitors were carpet bombed in WWII.
Free market capitalism didn't make us great. We got to the position we're at for two main reasons:
1. We protected the hell out of our industries during their infancy, and
2. All of our competitors were carpet bombed in WWII.
Actually, they were decimated during the First World War. The periods afterwards and growing independence movements, along with World War 2 just killed off its main European rivals, Britain and France, as both Britain and France dismantled their empires after the war as well. As Japan (America's biggest rival) was also taken care off, it allowed America to assume the position of being the most dominant power, filling up the vacuum of space being left by the other nations.
He's an idiot all systems are as good as their people, there's no evil in capitalism or communism or even national-socialism for that matter for extreme's sake. Libertarians take decency for granted, that may be stupid and unrealistic but I prefer it over the cynism that is control of any sorts. It's not the answer to anything, just a direction
“there's no evil in……..even national-socialism”: ???????? Err, a political doctrine based on Racism, war and natural right to expend and enslave eastern neighbours?
“there's no evil in……..even national-socialism”: ???????? Err, a political doctrine based on Racism, war and natural right to expend and enslave eastern neighbours?
That's what national-socialists did, there is no section on Siberian camps in Das Kapital as far as I know. National-socialism was a normal political movement in many a European country at the time, and social and racial darwinism as well, heck in the seventies people who didn't look all that vking were still sterilised in Scandinavia.
Rhyfelwyr
11-20-2010, 11:50
“there's no evil in……..even national-socialism”: ???????? Err, a political doctrine based on Racism, war and natural right to expend and enslave eastern neighbours?
If you strip all the racism etc that was associated with the historical national socialist movements, all it really is is a different take on the economy. A third way between capitalism and communism.
I actually quite like the national socialist approach to the economy, doesn't make me a neo-Nazi.
If you strip all the racism etc that was associated with the historical national socialist movements, all it really is is a different take on the economy. A third way between capitalism and communism.
I actually quite like the national socialist approach to the economy, doesn't make me a neo-Nazi.
Exactly, labour party hates to hear it, but what they basicly did is expanding on the welfare state that was introduced by the nazi's. That's not meant as an attack on labour, comparing them with nazi's is of course way of, but they share many ideas on society.
edit, love your openmindness you are my favorite relinutjob
“etc”: Well, actually that is the "etc" that makes problems, isn’t it.
As mentioned, nor Das Kapital or Marx’s writing include Gulags.
However, the unique book written by a National Socialist is clearly explicit about homosexuality, sub-human races and right of conquest and social Darwinism…
TARP prevented a chain-reaction destruction of the financial industry. Regardless of how anyone feels about that industry, such a situation would have resulted in an economic collapse several orders of magnitude worse than we are currently experiencing.
Louis VI the Fat
11-20-2010, 16:20
Disregarding the many fine benefits of nazism and its wonderful intellectual legacy, yes, I must grudgingly support TARP.
One can get caught with one's pants down. The situation left little alternative, I think.
“etc”: Well, actually that is the "etc" that makes problems, isn’t it.
As mentioned, nor Das Kapital or Marx’s writing include Gulags.
However, the unique book written by a National Socialist is clearly explicit about homosexuality, sub-human races and right of conquest and social Darwinism…
Your French you can read 'La question juive' (the jewish question, for you English, it was never translated) by that same Marx, it's not new, replace 'jews' witk captitalists, it's just the same thing.
HoreTore
11-20-2010, 18:06
Your French you can read 'La question juive' (the jewish question, for you English, it was never translated) by that same Marx, it's not new, replace 'jews' witk captitalists, it's just the same thing.
....By the jewish Marx, you mean?
Rhyfelwyr
11-20-2010, 18:15
....By the jewish Marx, you mean?
Hitler was part Jewish. Plus the Judeo-Bolsheviks ran the USSR. Not to mention the role of the international Jewish capitalists in upholding the western powers. Plus everyone from capitalist Britain to Nazi Germany to communist Russia worshipped a Jewish guy from 2,000 years ago.
Bah! Human history may as well be called Jewish history!
As if it were needed: :clown:
....By the jewish Marx, you mean?
ever heard of self-loathing? Take Amsterdam, it may be in Dutchland but it's really a jewish city at heart, always have been, it's also the last city where you want to be jewish after maybe Brussels
Skullheadhq
11-20-2010, 18:48
the Judeo-Bolsheviks ran the USSR.
Sure is 30's in here.
Rhyfelwyr
11-20-2010, 19:38
ever heard of self-loathing? Take Amsterdam, it may be in Dutchland but it's really a jewish city at heart, always have been, it's also the last city where you want to be jewish after maybe Brussels
Heh, I heard Ajax are proud of their Jewish heritage and style themselves as antifascists, kind of funny since now most people that call themselves antifascists and hate Israel openly protest with Muslims that do Nazi salutes, funny how things come round like that.
Define "worked".
It certainly succeeded in ushering in a new era of crony capitalism. It was great for lobbyists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/12/AR2009091202932.html?hpid=topnews).
Was the Troubled Asset Relief Program successful at buying up troubled assets? No, not at all- that was left for the Federal Reserve to do.
Did it succeed in stimulating more lending? Nope (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041503369.html).
Sasaki Kojiro
11-20-2010, 20:52
Aren't they defining "worked" as "only cost the taxpayer a little bit and prevented economic collapse"? Regardless of lobbyist's and lending etc...
Heh, I heard Ajax are proud of their Jewish heritage and style themselves as antifascists, kind of funny since now most people that call themselves antifascists and hate Israel openly protest with Muslims that do Nazi salutes, funny how things come round like that.
The antifacists don't get me started on them they are the most intolerant and violent lot you will ever see, anything that doesn't please them is a target, the extreme left is sickingly dangerous. Rediculously violent and uncompromising, activists my :daisy:
Hosakawa Tito
11-20-2010, 23:42
The big promise of TARP was supposed to keep the unemployment under 8%, epic failure there. Taxpayers are going to lose at least $10 billion on GM, not counting the loans GM still owes, cash for clunkers and the Chevy Volt subsidies.
The remaining taxpayer shares would have to jump from $33/share to $51/share just to break even on the loan, not gonna happen.
The Frank-Dodd financial reform bill codifies into law future bailouts. It creates a permanent new bailout authority that undermines our bankruptcy system and rule of law. Too big to fail is alive and well. This administration will trumpet how well Bailout Nation "worked" to justify future bailouts of other firms.
The chief economic case against the bailout was not that huge infusions of taxpayer funds and special exemptions from bankruptcy rules could not make G.M. and Chrysler profitable. Of course they could. Instead, the heart of the case against the bailout is that it saps the life-blood of entrepreneurial capitalism. The bailout reinforces the debilitating precedent of protecting firms deemed “too big to fail.” Capital and other resources are thus kept glued by politics to familiar lines of production, thus impeding entrepreneurial initiative that would have otherwise redeployed these resources into newer, more-dynamic, and more productive industries. The “success” of the bailout is all too easy to engineer and to see. The cost of the bailout—the industries, the jobs, and the outputs that are never created—is impossible to see, but nevertheless real. George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux
Sasaki Kojiro
11-21-2010, 01:24
Interesting. But kind of uncomfortably theoretical or "impossible to see" as he puts it.
Banquo's Ghost
11-21-2010, 09:33
Can we drop the endlessly amusing Socialism=Nazism=Whatever-I'm-Not debate for once and address Lemur's original post and the implications of TARP.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
Has anyone seen a thoughtful analysis of what would have happened if banks had been allowed to fail? Frankly, offloading all the costs of the bail-out onto taxpayers for the next several decades seems to have done wonders for those with banking interests, and very little for ordinary people. The economists who regularly offer the received wisdom that everything would have gone to Hell without the bail-out are, in the main, dependent on that very ecosystem.
Wasn't my intention to do so, thought I made that clear. TARP and libertarism is a conflict of ideas on government, don't think it was all that off-topic, didn't want to derail sorry if I did
Hosakawa Tito
11-21-2010, 12:12
If there has been any such analysis, BG, I have not read it. However, one of the primary causes, Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae programs still exist and need to be wound down and abolished. Real estate is still a huge problem, and banks are still weak due to bad loans on their balance sheets according to this article: What's Really Behind Bernake's Easing? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575621093223928682.html?KEYWORDS=bank+stress+tests)
Aren't they defining "worked" as "only cost the taxpayer a little bit and prevented economic collapse"?Did it though? Again, TARP didn't accomplish any of it's stated aims. The Fed injecting over a trillion dollars into the economy (and you know, actually providing troubled asset relief) had more effect than TARP. I guess "a little bit" is subjective too. TARP funds were poured into AIG and GM- we'll never recoup all the billions spent on those.
Vladimir
11-22-2010, 18:21
Too big to fail is an oxymoron. If a private organization grows so large and powerful that we cannot do without it, break it up.
I don't care if TARP worked; I don't think it should ever be needed.
gaelic cowboy
11-22-2010, 19:45
Too big to fail is an oxymoron.
Take it from me "Too Big to Fail" is old hat round here our banks were so large they sank our state basically. The Banksters must now be smashed there temples destroyed we should keep cattle in there branch offices.
Vladimir
11-22-2010, 21:15
Take it from me "Too Big to Fail" is old hat round here our banks were so large they sank our state basically. The Banksters must now be smashed there temples destroyed we should keep cattle in there branch offices.
The same laws used to breakup monopolies should be used against these organizations. I'm surprised that so few people argued for it.
gaelic cowboy
11-22-2010, 21:21
The same laws used to breakup monopolies should be used against these organizations. I'm surprised that so few people argued for it.
The plan has as of yet not been announced but the likely senario is the IMF will demand the Irish government breakup our banks into smaller entities to ensure no one of them ever become overly large.
Basically we have a structural problem in that the size of our banking market is not big enough to tempt some of the big banks abroad into it and it is still too small to safely retain such relatively large banks for such a small country.
HoreTore
11-23-2010, 19:57
The same laws used to breakup monopolies should be used against these organizations. I'm surprised that so few people argued for it.
Why do you hate freedom?
A monopoly and a cartel do not differ that much.
Ironside
11-23-2010, 23:13
Too big to fail is an oxymoron. If a private organization grows so large and powerful that we cannot do without it, break it up.
I don't care if TARP worked; I don't think it should ever be needed.
Too big to fail is about a chain reaction crippling the banking system, not individual banks. Compare to that the top 10 oil companies went simultainously bankrupt. It would probably take a year or two for the company cannibalism to be done, thus crashing production during this time.
What you did lack was a goverment with the guts to go. "You blew it (and they really did, since they bypassed laws inserted to prevent this). So now we own your companies. Bye." You can then sell off the banks after the market has stabilized itself.
Free-markets don't work properly in the oligopolic markets that form in long time, money investive markets, in particular when it's quite essential that it functions properly.
HoreTore
11-23-2010, 23:31
the company cannibalism
Hah! Consider that term stolen! :smash:
Hosakawa Tito
11-24-2010, 00:43
The same laws used to breakup monopolies should be used against these organizations. I'm surprised that so few people argued for it.
Too big to fail = Too big to exist.
Vladimir
11-24-2010, 14:39
Too big to fail is about a chain reaction crippling the banking system, not individual banks. Compare to that the top 10 oil companies went simultainously bankrupt. It would probably take a year or two for the company cannibalism to be done, thus crashing production during this time.
What you did lack was a goverment with the guts to go. "You blew it (and they really did, since they bypassed laws inserted to prevent this). So now we own your companies. Bye." You can then sell off the banks after the market has stabilized itself.
Free-markets don't work properly in the oligopolic markets that form in long time, money investive markets, in particular when it's quite essential that it functions properly.
Nope. The term was applied to individual institutions (e.g. General Motors), not to a system as a whole. That's kinda silly. About as silly as exploiting a recession to forcibly take over a business. If hostile takeovers are evil in the business world, how much worse is it if the government itself is the robber baron?
Ironside
11-24-2010, 17:01
Nope. The term was applied to individual institutions (e.g. General Motors), not to a system as a whole. That's kinda silly.
Considering what the crisis did to Saab and Volvo, the luckiest scenario would be that GM ended up chinese owned. Since they're larger, GM would probably cease to exist. Some chunks would be sold off, while the rest becomes dismantled, effectually killing off the car industry in the US. While you can't keep an industry on crutches forever (and shouldn't), that's one pretty nasty hit during a recession.
About as silly as exploiting a recession to forcibly take over a business. If hostile takeovers are evil in the business world, how much worse is it if the government itself is the robber baron?
Because you're not doing it as an excuse to take over the buissness, you're doing to save the system and/or jobs. It'll cost you, certainly at the beginning, so you better get something back from it. It keeps the system intact (if most of the major players are killed off, you won't have people taking over the companies whole). And you can freely fire the people creating this mess. You know that punishment some talks about. Sure your company might survive, but you're now broke.
You are aware that I'm using real life examples correct? Bought during a right-wing goverment and (mostly, still own about 20%) sold off during a left-wing goverment. The goverment can remove its clutches on things they get hold on, but in the US, that's probably as unheard of that Obama currently have the lowest taxes in 60 years.
Vladimir
11-24-2010, 17:34
You are aware that I'm using real life examples correct? Bought during a right-wing goverment and (mostly, still own about 20%) sold off during a left-wing goverment. The goverment can remove its clutches on things they get hold on, but in the US, that's probably as unheard of that Obama currently have the lowest taxes in 60 years.
Need to correct a few details here:
It isn't about political ideology it's about state control over the means of production. That's almost become a cliche but even though government can release these things doesn't mean state ownership is preferable. I understand where you're coming from but it is a recipe for, at best, mediocrity.
The current president has nothing to do with the "low" tax rate. He wants to raise them again and is using it as a bargaining chip with the new Congress. You'll also have to specify which taxes.
Tellos Athenaios
11-24-2010, 22:47
The current president has nothing to do with the "low" tax rate. He wants to raise them again and is using it as a bargaining chip with the new Congress. You'll also have to specify which taxes.
Well anyone tasked with getting the USA finances in order should want to raise taxes. Cost of sustaining the USA as it is run today is larger than the revenue, hence the deficits. The single best example that ought to drive this point home is California. The state decided it really didn't want to levy taxes anymore, and promptly went bust and had to be bailed out by the FED essentially. (Technically a specific single tax, but as it happened also the lifeline of the California state.)
Well anyone tasked with getting the USA finances in order should want to raise taxes.
And slash entitlements. Nothing less will bring fiscal sanity. But I despair at seeing that combination anytime soon. Ideal lemur solution: radically simplify tax code, cut marginal rates a bit, eliminate every deduction (yes, including mortgage, charity, etc.), raise retirement age, institute public opt-in healthcare to drive down hleathcare insurance costs system-wide, and watch the books balance themselves. Oh, and eliminate Medicare Part D, the most financially irresponsible legislation in my lifetime.
And slash entitlements. Nothing less will bring fiscal sanity. But I despair at seeing that combination anytime soon. Ideal lemur solution: radically simplify tax code cut marginal rates a bit, eliminate every deduction (yes, including mortgage, charity, etc.), raise retirement age, institute public opt-in healthcare to drive down hleathcare insurance costs system-wide, and watch the books balance themselves. Oh, and eliminate Medicare Part D, the most financially irresponsible legislation in my lifetime.
-Tax code won't be simplified nor deductions eliminated. There are far too many special interests influencing this.
-Raising the retirement age is an excellent idea. I love my grandfather to death, but retiring at 62 and living till your 80s (85 currently) without working simply doesn't work and bankrupts this nation
-How would this work? I'm not doubting you but I'd be interested in hearing more. The sad part is even if such a thing is a feasible, the right wing will always bring stupid things like death panels and "Obamacare" nonsense up.
-After briefly looking up what Part D was, how exactly are you going to provide prescription medication for eldery people that can't afford it? Using my family as an example again, my grandmother takes many different prescriptions that she could not afford without government assistance. How exactly will she still recieve her medication? "Let her die" is an acceptable answer... I'm just wondering where you are going with the whole thing.
rory_20_uk
11-25-2010, 10:27
Funny thing about death panels is that some of the earliest were in the USA regarding who received dialysis as there were a handful of machines.
Concerning prescriptions, there are often several options for any given condition, and some work better than others - usually the newer ones are better.
The price differential between older generic ones and the newest ones can be at least 1,000% if not vastly more. Do they work this much better? Not by any stretch.
Is it the case in the USA that medicare is based on cheaper generics, or full cost treatment for everything?
~:smoking:
Ironside
11-25-2010, 11:45
Need to correct a few details here:
It isn't about political ideology it's about state control over the means of production. That's almost become a cliche but even though government can release these things doesn't mean state ownership is preferable. I understand where you're coming from but it is a recipe for, at best, mediocrity.
It's the territory where free market systems aren't working properly. Within that framework, it will obviously be difficult to make a good system. It's not state control of means of production is always good, it's that in this case, it's better than the alternative.
Your suggestion is also that the state continously ripps apart companies to keep them in size. Who are then really in control of the means of production? :juggle2:
The current president has nothing to do with the "low" tax rate. He wants to raise them again and is using it as a bargaining chip with the new Congress. You'll also have to specify which taxes.
Federal tax income as a percentage of GDP.
And yes, the low tax rate has mostly to do with the Bush era tax cuts combined with the cuts during the stimulous package. Care to guess that most of the US will scream bloody murder when the taxes are restored to even pre-stimulous levels?
Hosakawa Tito
11-25-2010, 12:25
And slash entitlements. Nothing less will bring fiscal sanity. But I despair at seeing that combination anytime soon. Ideal lemur solution: radically simplify tax code, cut marginal rates a bit, eliminate every deduction (yes, including mortgage, charity, etc.), raise retirement age, institute public opt-in healthcare to drive down hleathcare insurance costs system-wide, and watch the books balance themselves. Oh, and eliminate Medicare Part D, the most financially irresponsible legislation in my lifetime.
8-14-23 or Fight! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620452768818116.html)Broaden the tax-base, lower the rates, slash entitlements and deductions. With lower rates the mortgage deduction wouldn't be missed, the problem is selling this to the taxpayers. Special interests & the Drive By Media will whip up fear mongering to new levels.
The chart illustrates the rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul reality of our current "system." If you want to retain favored tax breaks, like the personal exemption or earned- income tax credit, everyone's rates have to rise to make up for those "breaks." Subtract the breaks, and rates can fall. That's the devil's bargain the U.S. has made for decades. The tax system we have is anti-economic. The IRS code is best understood as a political document.
Time for some fiscal sanity, however it may take until Obama is voted out in 2012 before it can begin.
Time for some fiscal sanity, however it may take until Obama is voted out in 2012 before it can begin.
Honestly Hosa, if you think Obama is the biggest stumbling block between the U.S.A. and fiscal sanity, you're not paying attention (http://www.wordyard.com/2010/07/19/party-context-of-that-staggering-debt-chart/). Did Obama sign Medicare D into law? Did Obama launch two wars paid for entirely with credit cards? Did Obama say "deficits don't matter"? I mean, really. Come on.
Hosakawa Tito
11-26-2010, 12:08
Honestly Hosa, if you think Obama is the biggest stumbling block between the U.S.A. and fiscal sanity, you're not paying attention (http://www.wordyard.com/2010/07/19/party-context-of-that-staggering-debt-chart/). Did Obama sign Medicare D into law? Did Obama launch two wars paid for entirely with credit cards? Did Obama say "deficits don't matter"? I mean, really. Come on.
Which is why Republicans better pay attention to the fiscally conservative policy issues of the Tea Party movement, this isn't some fad. Republicans didn't win this last election, the Democrats got fired. Both party's are guilty of fiscal irresponsibility and they better stop kicking the can down the road and do something about it.
HoreTore
11-26-2010, 14:16
Which is why Republicans better pay attention to the fiscally conservative policy issues of the Tea Party movement, this isn't some fad. Republicans didn't win this last election, the Democrats got fired. Both party's are guilty of fiscal irresponsibility and they better stop kicking the can down the road and do something about it.
Fiscally responsible? The tea party? Are we talking about the same group?
Because the ta party I know are in full support of the current two wars and I doubt they'd have much of a problem with a third...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.