This all happened before. The system went on and generally the people who deserved to get their money back first were the ones who received it first. Now we have bail ins where those who take the biggest risks get paid while the foundation of the bank - the depositors (who were always first in line in the past to collect) were those who were being taken from.
I support consensual interactions. Other people support you while you lay in a hammock.
AL SHARPTON.
You are not comprehending the macro-scale of the problem. That's ok though, you are not in a position to make those tough decisions.
Hmm, you seem to be jumping from point to point here. I am not at all arguing with the above facts, I've even seen these before myself. What I am debating is your implication that the banks that were bailed out are not "mo' rich" because of the bailout as you asserted, but because they have adapted to 21st century fiscal commerce. And in no way am I arguing FOR these banks, personally I take a very conservative approach to this and would like to see a heavily regulated financial system. The same regulations that the Republican party did away with for the past 30 years, I'd personally like to see back in place.I'll just let you argue with the experts then since you are attempting to pose as one.
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-04-19/big-banks-now-even-too-bigger-to-fail
http://moneymorning.com/2014/08/07/dont-listen-to-the-gao-too-big-to-fail-is-bigger-than-ever/
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/time-break-big-banks-152900958.html
Just how big are the largest banks in the U.S.? Here’s a little perspective:
In the past few months, JPMorgan Chase has agreed to pay, depending on how you do the math, somewhere between $22 billion and $25 billion in fines and penalties for various illegal activities, from hiding its suspicions about Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff to misleading investors about the notorious London Whale.
Meanwhile, as of the third quarter of 2013, 99.1 percent of banks chartered in the U.S. had less than $20 billion in total assets on their books.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76342.html
All the while, the country’s biggest financial institutions continue to grow. The five largest, which controlled $6.1 trillion in assets before the collapse, by the end of 2011 had assets worth $8.5 trillion — equal to more than half of U.S. economic output, according to Federal Reserve data.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3222657/posts
At this point, the five largest banks account for 42 percent of all loans in the United States, and the six largest banks account for 67 percent of all assets in our financial system.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/too-big-to-fail-is-now-bigger-than-ever-andy-xie-2013-05-19
Too big to fail grows up
TBTF financial institutions were considered a key factor contributing to the 2008 global financial crisis. Five years later, the problem is worse.
While one too big to fail problem remains, another is rapidly growing. Some of the players in the shadow banking system, like hedge funds, non-bank lenders and insurance companies, have also become TBTF. If some of these players fail, the cascade effect on their investors and borrowers could lead to a systemic breakdown. Governments and central banks may be forced into bailing out some speculative outfits in the next crisis.
The surviving banks account for bigger shares of the global financial system. The lesson of Lehman Brothers is that even a mid-sized financial institution can’t be allowed to go bust. Hence, it would be unimaginable to allow any of the big banks to fail now.
Since you are so much more qualified to speak on this, I'll let these folks make my argument for me. Take it up with this small fraction of the sampling that says you are not really qualified at all.
I think name calling and pics suits you more.
nah, ginwilly hates regulations. that's nanny state collectivism
Just stop. You made the claim that their market share was smaller now, tried to pass yourself off as an expert, are now saying the bailouts have nothing to do with them being bigger and are calling for heavier regulations which inevitably favor those big enough to absorb them creating an even bigger monster and less competition.
I had to LOL.. in the last week I've been accused of being a libtard, a neo-con, an anocap, an Obama supporter, a republican shill and now a Rand Paul fanboy..wow I need to get my political views in line..or wait..maybe i have a wide range of opinions on political issues and don't fall into any one simple category that's easy for people to hone in on and attack?? Grow up, I can't take responses like this, with name calling as your big rebuttal, seriously.
I keep saying i would have let it all implode, mainly because I'm disgusted with it all, but it's an emotional response and totally irrational..but fun to think about though..
. And I realize in the aftermath the people who held money and power before the crash would have gained control of all of it after. I see no easy answer, and as population grows it isn't going to get any easier, it's hard enough ordering a pizza between 3 people..try getting a political system squared away with 350+ million..yaaaaaa...I'm gonna keep on
and try not to think about it too much anymore..happy little sheep baaaaa.
Actually, I read and understood your post clearly, agree with it and clicked the like button. Then, I clicked reply and accordingly responded in agreement with the sentiment of your post. Thus I said that the individual liberty line from rawn pawl fanbois is bullshit since the tone of your post also conveys the sentiment that shit happens when greater communities demand it.
i don't have any of that stuff (anymore) and i'm better off for it. i had all that shit (worked my ass off for it) and given the choice? i'm fine with monthly rent (with you fine people as my entertainment) and if i don't have the money for something..guess what?..i do without.
fixed it for you!
how is that commendable?
i don't have any of that stuff (anymore) and i'm better off for it. i had all that shit (worked my ass off for it) and given the choice? i'm fine with monthly rent (with you fine people as my entertainment) and if i don't have the money for something..guess what?..i do without.
living beyond your means is what got this country in trouble in the first place, aided and abetted by the banks and wall street.
if you haven't guessed by now, i'm completely anti-establishment and want to shack up with @Rob Roy.
and dear god help me..i've just agreed with @spandy.
because i know it's on the inbound from GW:
So do you think the financial institutions should be heavily regulated then? Or are you just complaining about shit for the sake of it without any solutions?
No doubt. Poor sap didn't see the bait. He is either forced to agree or is force to admit he is a whining hypocrite without solutions.
I think Glass-Steagall should be put back in place and Dodd-Frank repealed. I already said that, but I guess you were too busy explaining your awesomeness while getting everything wrong.
