|
Pure Blaxplotiation posted:literally just throw the CEOs in jail. who cares if what they did was technically legal? slavery was legal forever until someone put a foot down on that poo poo. Er, it's not a good idea to employ laws retroactively or imprison people when they haven't broken any. Unless you're Lincoln, that is.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
General Dog posted:Who went to jail for doing slavery? You're right, they shouldn't go to jail. They should just have all of their wealth appropriated and their properties burned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Shoulda drone struck them imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:Er, it's not a good idea to employ laws retroactively or imprison people when they haven't broken any. You can't apply laws retroactively in the USA, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
If we're all agreed that the financial system is fundamentally broken, and designed to fail - then the sensible thing isn't to do something retarded like shut it down, but to nationalize fraudulent & failing firms, then reform the entire system by force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:If we're all agreed that the financial system is fundamentally broken, and designed to fail - then the sensible thing isn't to do something retarded like shut it down, but to nationalize fraudulent & failing firms, then reform the entire system by force. Why would you nationalize a failing firm? The government would assume the assets and more importantly the liabilities of that firm. Ireland nationalized failing banks during the financial crisis and as a result had the liabilities of those banks AS A PART OF THEIR FEDERAL BUDGET. I can't tell you what a bad idea that is. What the US did was so much better. They let some banks just fail-Lehman, Bear Sterns. They arranged mergers of some others--Wachovia, and the truly hosed up cases they lent money to be repaid and let the bank unfuck themselves and save their own skin--AIG. If AIG failed he government would lose their loan money and that's it. Liability would be contained to that amount and the government was AIG's creditor, not the entity that would assumed its potentially huge debts that at that time no one really understood. In the end, the US government made money from the whole venture and stabilized the system without having to assume assets/liabilities or doing truly stupid poo poo like having to manage the operations of a gigantic financial institution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:In the end, the US government made money from the whole venture and stabilized the system without having to assume assets/liabilities or doing truly stupid poo poo like having to manage the operations of a gigantic financial institution. I can't think of anything more American than profiting off of a disaster while assuming minimal risk or responsibility and failing to address the actual immediate causes of the disaster, god bless capitalism  
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:I can't think of anything more American than profiting off of a disaster while assuming minimal risk or responsibility and failing to address the actual immediate causes of the disaster, god bless capitalism Dude, taxpayers already assumed the risk of lending money to AIG. You want them to to assume the risk of AIG liabilities which at time were unknown? The government tried to do its best to protect its own solvency and taxpayer dollars. I don't want to see a credit default swap paid out to Goldman Sachs as a line item on the Federal budget. It wasn't a perfect solution but I think it was the best one at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Actually Obama did a great job in 2009 with the financial crisis and I don't think he gets enough credit. Bernake also did a great job of back door liquidity injections to keep the economy afloat in the face of a hostile Congress. At this point Yellen be like 'I don't care what Congress do I'll loving QE this poo poo while you kiddies argue about stupid poo poo'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
My family lost everything in the crash while Obama played it cool & casual with his wallstreet buddies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Why would you nationalize a failing firm? The government would assume the assets and more importantly the liabilities of that firm. Ireland nationalized failing banks during the financial crisis and as a result had the liabilities of those banks AS A PART OF THEIR FEDERAL BUDGET. I can't tell you what a bad idea that is. It's actually an extremely good idea, because unlike Ireland the United States prints the world's sole reserve currency, and nationalizing such large firms gives the American government leverage to completely overhaul the financial industry. The United States government doesn't actually have to worry about its own solvency the way you seem to think it does. I only said that because it's a more "realistic" solution compared to what's actually needed, which is the socialization of the entire American finance industry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:My family lost everything in the crash while Obama played it cool & casual with his wallstreet buddies. Ok, but have you considered how cool and slick Obama & Bernanke bailed out the bankers who stole your family's net worth? Obama doesn't get enough credit for helping to create conditions that encouraged financial firms to become even larger, so they can hold the entire economy hostage & guarantee a bailout. Pener Kropoopkin has issued a correction as of 16:57 on Jan 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's actually an extremely good idea, because unlike Ireland the United States prints the world's sole reserve currency, and nationalizing such large firms gives the American government leverage to completely overhaul the financial industry. The United States government doesn't actually have to worry about its own solvency the way you seem to think it does. Dude just give them a lifeline to save themselves and contain the risk to taxpayers. The potential liabilities for these banks totaled in the trillions which would completely dwarf the entire federal budget. Printing money would have been fine as we did print trillions in QE but that would have been done in addition to whatever you're proposing here. I think the crisis was handled well and the government took the best possible situation. Like I said I don't want the federal budget to triple with bullshit payments on CDS and have he us taxpayer have to shoulder that burden for generations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Nothing was fixed, nothing was stabilized. Its still all a house of cards and the only two things we did were kick the can down the road and show that we're more than happy to reward banks for fraud
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Ok, but have you considered how cool and slick Obama & Bernanke bailed out the bankers who stole your family's net worth? The difference between my argument and yours is that I'm not willing to punch myself in the face just to see someone I hate get slapped in the face. Thank goodness Obama was an adult and did what was necessary at that time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Tens of millions of Americans shouldered the burden of that crisis when their entire net worth was wiped out. Family wealth for blacks & Latinos was eviscerated. We already have multiple generations that will shoulder the burden of Boomer spending sprees combined with their tax allergies. How loving delusional do you have to be not to get what's wrong with this whole picture? There was a ludicrously massive transfer of wealth from the working and lower middle classes to the financial industry, which was immediate and crushed entire families.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Honestly with all the problems we have is weed really all that important? It's something that can be unilaterally accomplished by the president and would take a common tool away form law-enforcement to stop them from abusing as much. The only reason not to do it is malice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:The difference between my argument and yours is that I'm not willing to punch myself in the face just to see someone I hate get slapped in the face. Thank goodness Obama was an adult and did what was necessary at that time. Except people got punched anyway and will get punched again the next time capitalism shits the bed, which is likely just about to happen again this year. They let big banks get away with foreclosing properties they didn't even have any title to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Tens of millions of Americans shouldered the burden of that crisis when their entire net worth was wiped out. Family wealth for blacks & Latinos was eviscerated. We already have multiple generations that will shoulder the burden of Boomer spending sprees combined with their tax allergies. How loving delusional do you have to be not to get what's wrong with this whole picture? There was a ludicrously massive transfer of wealth from the working and lower middle classes to the financial industry, which was immediate and crushed entire families. Ok that was set in the backdrop of the entire economic system grinding to a complete halt and 50%+ unemployment because there was no credit to meet payroll. The government did what it could to save the system in immediate threat and took the steps necessary to protect as many people as it could. Was it a prefect solution? No. But most alternate solutions are even worse. I personally don't care that bankers didn't go to jail and that our financial system wasn't destroyed and remade into a socialist paradise. The government did what it could to save hundreds of millions from pain and depravation and I'm happy with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:The difference between my argument and yours is that I'm not willing to punch myself in the face just to see someone I hate get slapped in the face. Thank goodness Obama was an adult and did what was necessary at that time. That's fine. I'll trust the economics of the crisis. But the active board of directors, CEO's and Executives during the crisis should be in jail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Dude, taxpayers already assumed the risk of lending money to AIG. You want them to to assume the risk of AIG liabilities which at time were unknown? The government tried to do its best to protect its own solvency and taxpayer dollars. I don't want to see a credit default swap paid out to Goldman Sachs as a line item on the Federal budget. It wasn't a perfect solution but I think it was the best one at the time. I look forward to you making this argument again the next 3 times the finance industry collapses in the next decade
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:I look forward to you making this argument again the next 3 times the finance industry collapses in the next decade If there's another collapse it would be because of Trump and not anything Obama did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
glad you've already got an excuse ready
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Ok that was set in the backdrop of the entire economic system grinding to a complete halt and 50%+ unemployment because there was no credit to meet payroll. It was actually a direct result of predatory lending entitling banks to steal properties when the time came for a credit crunch. They also used robosigning to steal property from people who were meeting their obligations, and nobody was prosecuted for it. You claim that alternative solutions were worse, but when it comes to your criticism of a specific alternative it doesn't hold up to scrutiny for even a second. Rather than taking the best option for resolving the crisis, the Obama administration took the easiest one. One that wouldn't require them to engage in the difficult political work of actually resolving the long-term structural corruption of the financial industry. The only place this line of argumentation can end up is in the chopping block of a guillotine. Then people could relieve their pain & deprivation from the blood of the rich, who stole their wealth to your satisfaction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:It's something that can be unilaterally accomplished by the president and would take a common tool away form law-enforcement to stop them from abusing as much. The only reason not to do it is malice. a neoliberal globalist just won a majority government in canada last year bait and switching LEGAL WEED LMAO to effectively kill the left wing opposition party, and they arent gonna legalise it after all. Politicians will never follow through legalizing it because the promise to legalise it gets single issue voters to pull the lever for them without fail, and the weedheads have smoked themselves permanent long-term memory loss so theyll fall for it again in 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Tens of millions of Americans shouldered the burden of that crisis when their entire net worth was wiped out. Family wealth for blacks & Latinos was eviscerated. We already have multiple generations that will shoulder the burden of Boomer spending sprees combined with their tax allergies. How loving delusional do you have to be not to get what's wrong with this whole picture? There was a ludicrously massive transfer of wealth from the working and lower middle classes to the financial industry, which was immediate and crushed entire families.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It was actually a direct result of predatory lending entitling banks to steal properties when the time came for a credit crunch. They also used robosigning to steal property from people who were meeting their obligations, and nobody was prosecuted for it. Obama saved total collapse first and then left the reform for later when we weren't in imminent danger from eating food out of cans and making GBS threads in a hole we dig in the ground. You can criticize his post-crisis reform and that's probably justified, but I think what he did during he crisis was exactly what was needed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Obama saved total collapse first and then left the reform for later when we weren't in imminent danger from eating food out of cans and making GBS threads in a hole we dig in the ground. You can criticize his post-crisis reform and that's probably justified, but I think what he did during he crisis was exactly what was needed. I actually think you're extremely confused about what we're talking about ITT. Maybe you should re-read the thread title.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I actually think you're extremely confused about what we're talking about ITT. Maybe you should re-read the thread title. Fair enough but going back to my original point. Nationalizing these banks is an awful idea for multiple reason. I have no idea why people love that idea so much and keep on suggesting it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Guys it was totally necessary that Obama save those bankers because ~reasons~ and that millions had their life ruined is just the mortar needed to make banks even greater!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Because it's a good idea, for all the reasons given. If you'd like, we could have just let those banks fail and then nationalized the remainder which engaged in fraud - like AIG, Bank of America, and etc. It's notable that this never even occurred to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
It's not like he wouldn't have had good grounds for nationalizing - why, exactly, should have they been 'bailed out', instead of 'bought out'? Reason: Because obama did not have a spine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Like I remember at the time there was legit so much agitprop on the part of capitalists that obama better not even think of nationalizing!!!, which was all the proof you needed that it was both feasible, and desirable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Because it's a good idea, for all the reasons given. If you'd like, we could have just let those banks fail and then nationalized the remainder which engaged in fraud - like AIG, Bank of America, and etc. It's notable that this never even occurred to you. Why would you want to assume the liabilities of those banks into the federal budget? That just boggles my mind. Those banks suck and they are failing, why do you want to tie the government and the taxpayer (i.e. everyone) to a loving sinking ship?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Why would you want to assume the liabilities of those banks into the federal budget? That just boggles my mind. Those banks suck and they are failing, why do you want to tie the government and the taxpayer (i.e. everyone) to a loving sinking ship? Nationalizing also means purging the people in charge and generally taking over. It doesn't mean "making Goldman Sachs execs employees of the federal government" except they were made that anyway when they named their own picks for Treasury.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Nationalizing also means purging the people in charge and generally taking over. It doesn't mean "making Goldman Sachs execs employees of the federal government" except they were made that anyway when they named their own picks for Treasury. Again I won't put myself and taxpayers into the same sinking ship as a failing bank just to purge these guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Again I won't put myself and taxpayers into the same sinking ship as a failing bank just to purge these guys. The bailouts already did exactly that. The lack of prosecution for blatant theft also slapped people in the face while the bankers walked. Watching the whole mess unfold was like going through an extended showing of Brecht's Die Massnahme.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:The bailouts already exactly that. No bailouts lent money and limited potential liabilities. If the banks died like Lehman and Sterns that sum on the paper is the limit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
instead of arresting or removing the idiot dicks who caused this crisis, we'll loan them enough money to not go bankrupt, allow their firms to give them seven-figure bonuses for being so good at receiving loans, let them cannibalize the other institutions that went bankrupt already, and appoint a few of them to Treasury positions so they can do this again once our party is no longer in power so we can keep the cycle going forever
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Why would you want to assume the liabilities of those banks into the federal budget? That just boggles my mind. Those banks suck and they are failing, why do you want to tie the government and the taxpayer (i.e. everyone) to a loving sinking ship? Maybe those banks wouldn't suck and be failing now if they had been forcefully reformed by the state years ago. Maybe, even, the government could have made up the money it invested into those firms and we would have ended up in the end with a better financial system - because the public took direct control of them instead of just writing them a blank check for catastrophic risk taking & fraud.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2017 17:54
|
|