Comments on: Big Banks Fail

By: anon

anon — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:31:58 +0000

Simon, as an interesting aside, the second bank of the US is now (although it has changed names many times) JP Morgan Chase.

By: Josh Fulton

Josh Fulton — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:55:10 +0000

“Pentagon to use cyborg flies to spy on people.”

http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/pentagon-to-use-brain-dead-cyborg.html

By: e-veblen

e-veblen — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:04:30 +0000

Minor reinforcing correction: once BLS announces its benchmark payroll revisions early next year, the number of jobs lost thru September will have been over 8 million, not almost 6 mn

By: notabanker

notabanker — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:47:48 +0000

The following is from Fox business news:
————————–
Consider the government’s 36% stake in Citigroup, a result of a conversion last February to common stock of some $25 billion in preferred Citigroup shares purchased by the U.S. Treasury in an effort to keep the banking giant afloat during the darkest days of the financial crisis.
—————————————
Some thoughts:
Oue money was changed from a recoverable loan to a no-obligation stock purchase! Was this supposed to be smart?

US Treasury probably now sees Citigroup stock as a dead loss. Ability to sell this stake on the market is ?? I suppose Treasury could ask GS to find buyers? Hahahaha.

Any cleaning of our financial Augean stables risks revealing true bank health followed by bank collapse? How many other banks at risk? Keep the MtM and other truth revealers blocked. Don’t rock the boat. Ask GS for guidance and assistance.

What then? Ohh help who can take Citigroup off Treasury hands? Well, Goldman Sachs may just offer to help. They will buy the good parts and we retain the rubbish?

So the President’s advisory team are probably saying ‘don’t change anything, just talk stuff’ Their plan is to wait until things turn up in dollar terms as pumping dollars into the economy must result in higher dollar numbers all round? Inflation, well actually just a recasting via devaluation as fiat currency dives. Hahaha how about that Beijing? Oh so sorry.

Now what would we expect banks to do in his scenario? Probably ensure their own survival and position themselves for the new economic model!

Maybe this is why President Obama is looking like suspended animation when it comes to applying the fix?

By: F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin

F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:45:51 +0000

What do you call sometihng too big to fail that is allowed to get even bigger?

“(Fatal) tumor” comes to my mind.

I read the first comment and then my attention started to wander. Come on. Lessons are to be learned – and you don’t have to go back to ancient Greece. Or back a few hundred years. Or decades. Or years. A near catastrophe nearly occurred and the aftershocks are continuing. Does anybody think that it was merely due to what Greenspan called a “flaw in the system”?

To whoever is reading this – consider these things:

1. What happened starting around 1999 up to 2008? And why.
2. What happened after? And why.
3. What’s happening now? And why.
4. What have #1, #2, and #3 taught us – and you?

Personally I think the idea that firms like Goldman Sach’s could get even bigger is petrifying. I’m disgusted at Obama for letting make off like bandits and not stopping them from getting bigger and stronger. Yeah, sure, getting bigger and stronger benefits them. But can anybody really say with a straight face that gigantic financial institutions will be a benefit to anybody else? If you think that you can – do me a favor and come back to this thread in 5 or 10 years time for a bitter laugh at yourself.

By: Observer

Observer — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:03:50 +0000

“A bear on ice skates attacked two people during rehearsals at a circus in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan, killing one of them, Kyrgyz officials said Friday. In the incident, which happened Thursday, the 5-year-old animal killed the circus administrator, Dmitry Potapov, and mauled an animal trainer, who was attempting to rescue him.”

Well, hopefully the federal government figures this out soon because putting ice skates on the bear (or dabbling in setting executive pay) will only enrage it.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:04:20 +0000

I have been puzzled by the term “Too Big Too Fail”. Isn’t this in direct contradiction to the market economy we have, in which firms are allowed to prosper and perish. We don’t live in a dictatorial regime, do we? So now some firms are saying, we are so important that we should escape the rule of the market. This is not an economic concept, this is a political concept. Government can’t fail. But exactly because of that, we need balance of power. These big banks do not convey to me any balance of power. Nobody can own enough shares to monitor what the executives are doing. The bigger they get, the less shareholders can do anything to them.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:54:00 +0000

@ Jake –

Wrong. Size matters, as far as being able to influence the executive powers, just as large planetary bodies exert gravitational pull. The larger the body, the bigger the pull.

We’re currently going through this same diatribe here in Switzerland with Credit Suisse and UBS.

By: Yakkis

Yakkis — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:17:42 +0000

You forgot two key pieces of the story:
*U.S. control of 95% of the world’s illegal opium production through occupation of Afghanistan
*Rampant drug abuse by the banksters with expensive drug habits

By: AJ

AJ — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:23:28 +0000

Believe it or not, that antitrust laws are typically not terribly concerned about going from something in the neighborhood of 10,000 banks to 9,900.

By: ella

ella — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:45:21 +0000

That and being able to rip off the taxpayer.

By: g

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:49:30 +0000

good one! thanks for the breakdown.

By: Sid

Sid — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:33:47 +0000

No lie Genie don’t want to go back in that bottle, and them bankers don’t want to be putting him in there.

Without the Genie, bankers face having to work harder for less money. Far as the banks be concerned, he can stay out and be making he self useful and [EXPLETIVE DELETED] fighting commies and [EXPLETIVE DELETED].

By: Sid

Sid — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:29:57 +0000

Well, in mathematics, if it is worth thinking of, a Russian person has probably already thought of it.

By: Sid

Sid — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:28:50 +0000

To me, it is fairly obvious: the citizenry will not give an [EXPLETIVE DELETED] unless and until the bread and circuses get cut off. So long as the citizenry have hot wings and Dr. House or whatever it is that they watch, the Republic remains safe.

The same can be said about the alleged new American propensity to save and not live beyond ones means. The citizenry will continue to borrow and continue to spend unless and until noone will lend them more money.