Admit it: TARP worked

[HoreTore]

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]

....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!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As if it were needed:

[Skullheadhq]

the Judeo-Bolsheviks ran the USSR.

Sure is 30's in here.

[Fragony]

....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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Xiahou]

Define "worked".
It certainly succeeded in ushering in a new era of crony capitalism. It was great for lobbyists.
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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Aren't they defining "worked" as "only cost the taxpayer a little bit and prevented economic collapse"? Regardless of lobbyist's and lending etc...

[Xiahou]

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]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Hosakawa Tito]

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]

Interesting. But kind of uncomfortably theoretical or "impossible to see" as he puts it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.



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.