Is it really a big deal if Hillary received speech money?

[Harry Bosch]

Well, first off, how do you define "too big to fail"?

Here is a primer  Too_big_to_fail.

I work for a small regional bank, so I should favor my competitors getting hurt. But I care about the economy as well. Just like any corporation, as a company grows it's economies of scales grows, it's OH decreases as a percentage of sales, and etc. Larger banks can offer greater pricing, better products. Larger corporations like Nike and Intel need larger banks to handle their work. A smaller bank can't handle a large corporation like that. Therefore, if we artificially hack off the larger banks, Intel and Nike will move to larger international banks like HSBC and etc.

So? If a bank is "too large to fail", then its incentives for prudent lending are reduced since it knows it will be bailed out. If other countries wish to bear the costs of having banks that are "too big to fail", then that is good for our economy since we will not bear the costs of their bailouts.

.
We did not have to "bail out" the large banks in 2009. If TARP had not been implemented, certainly at least another 100 smaller banks would have failed. Chase and BofA might have failed. US Bank and Wells Fargo (conservative banks that didn't do subprime loans) would have survived. Having said that, I believe that TARP restored confidence in the economy that allowed us to climb out of the recession earlier.

 

[laughing dog]

Here is a primer  Too_big_to_fail.

I work for a small regional bank, so I should favor my competitors getting hurt. But I care about the economy as well. Just like any corporation, as a company grows it's economies of scales grows, it's OH decreases as a percentage of sales, and etc. Larger banks can offer greater pricing, better products. Larger corporations like Nike and Intel need larger banks to handle their work. A smaller bank can't handle a large corporation like that. Therefore, if we artificially hack off the larger banks, Intel and Nike will move to larger international banks like HSBC and etc.

So? If a bank is "too large to fail", then its incentives for prudent lending are reduced since it knows it will be bailed out. If other countries wish to bear the costs of having banks that are "too big to fail", then that is good for our economy since we will not bear the costs of their bailouts.

.
We did not have to "bail out" the large banks in 2009. If TARP had not been implemented, certainly at least another 100 smaller banks would have failed. Chase and BofA might have failed. US Bank and Wells Fargo (conservative banks that didn't do subprime loans) would have survived. Having said that, I believe that TARP restored confidence in the economy that allowed us to climb out of the recession earlier.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was passed in October of 2008. The funds were not all distributed in the last quarter of 2008. Here is a list of the recipients - https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list. Chase, BoA, Wells Fargo and US Bancorp were all recipients of those funds.

Regardless of the efficacy of the TARP, that was welfare for the big banks.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Here is a primer  Too_big_to_fail.

I work for a small regional bank, so I should favor my competitors getting hurt. But I care about the economy as well. Just like any corporation, as a company grows it's economies of scales grows, it's OH decreases as a percentage of sales, and etc. Larger banks can offer greater pricing, better products. Larger corporations like Nike and Intel need larger banks to handle their work. A smaller bank can't handle a large corporation like that. Therefore, if we artificially hack off the larger banks, Intel and Nike will move to larger international banks like HSBC and etc.

So? If a bank is "too large to fail", then its incentives for prudent lending are reduced since it knows it will be bailed out. If other countries wish to bear the costs of having banks that are "too big to fail", then that is good for our economy since we will not bear the costs of their bailouts.

.
We did not have to "bail out" the large banks in 2009. If TARP had not been implemented, certainly at least another 100 smaller banks would have failed. Chase and BofA might have failed. US Bank and Wells Fargo (conservative banks that didn't do subprime loans) would have survived. Having said that, I believe that TARP restored confidence in the economy that allowed us to climb out of the recession earlier.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was passed in October of 2008. The funds were not all distributed in the last quarter of 2008. Here is a list of the recipients - https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list. Chase, BoA, Wells Fargo and US Bancorp were all recipients of those funds.

Regardless of the efficacy of the TARP, that was welfare for the big banks.

All the large banks were required to take TARP. And it was all paid off. It's my understanding that it was a net profit to the government.

 

[RavenSky]

I agree. No way Trump can use this. Sanders can use it to imply there's smoke and fire, but Trump can't.

What I suspect is that she said things that were not chastising banks. And there's nothing particularly wrong with that, it's a typical team-building kind of speech that most speech givers give. But it makes a good straw-man for Sanders die-hards, and she has no reason to provide their straw.

I understand why Bernie's fanboys are demanding the transcripts, but since when do conservatives demand that someone give up their work product for free?

 

[Axulus]

Wrong, he wants to do something unclear (he has not released the specifics) as well as unproven (there is no empirical evidence that such a breaking up will help the economy). As such, it is a faith based position.

Well, if they are no longer too big to fail, then they won't need or receive bailouts

[Citation needed]

 

[laughing dog]

Here is a primer  Too_big_to_fail.

I work for a small regional bank, so I should favor my competitors getting hurt. But I care about the economy as well. Just like any corporation, as a company grows it's economies of scales grows, it's OH decreases as a percentage of sales, and etc. Larger banks can offer greater pricing, better products. Larger corporations like Nike and Intel need larger banks to handle their work. A smaller bank can't handle a large corporation like that. Therefore, if we artificially hack off the larger banks, Intel and Nike will move to larger international banks like HSBC and etc.

So? If a bank is "too large to fail", then its incentives for prudent lending are reduced since it knows it will be bailed out. If other countries wish to bear the costs of having banks that are "too big to fail", then that is good for our economy since we will not bear the costs of their bailouts.

.
We did not have to "bail out" the large banks in 2009. If TARP had not been implemented, certainly at least another 100 smaller banks would have failed. Chase and BofA might have failed. US Bank and Wells Fargo (conservative banks that didn't do subprime loans) would have survived. Having said that, I believe that TARP restored confidence in the economy that allowed us to climb out of the recession earlier.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was passed in October of 2008. The funds were not all distributed in the last quarter of 2008. Here is a list of the recipients - https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list. Chase, BoA, Wells Fargo and US Bancorp were all recipients of those funds.

Regardless of the efficacy of the TARP, that was welfare for the big banks.

All the large banks were required to take TARP.

Even if they didn't need it?

[
And it was all paid off. It's my understanding that it was a net profit to the government.

I don't understand what the effectiveness of TARP has to do with having to bailout banks that are "too big to fail".

- - - Updated - - -

Well, if they are no longer too big to fail, then they won't need or receive bailouts

[Citation needed]

What citation? If banks are not too big to fail, then they either fail or they don't without a bailout.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Here is a primer  Too_big_to_fail.

I work for a small regional bank, so I should favor my competitors getting hurt. But I care about the economy as well. Just like any corporation, as a company grows it's economies of scales grows, it's OH decreases as a percentage of sales, and etc. Larger banks can offer greater pricing, better products. Larger corporations like Nike and Intel need larger banks to handle their work. A smaller bank can't handle a large corporation like that. Therefore, if we artificially hack off the larger banks, Intel and Nike will move to larger international banks like HSBC and etc.

So? If a bank is "too large to fail", then its incentives for prudent lending are reduced since it knows it will be bailed out. If other countries wish to bear the costs of having banks that are "too big to fail", then that is good for our economy since we will not bear the costs of their bailouts.

.
We did not have to "bail out" the large banks in 2009. If TARP had not been implemented, certainly at least another 100 smaller banks would have failed. Chase and BofA might have failed. US Bank and Wells Fargo (conservative banks that didn't do subprime loans) would have survived. Having said that, I believe that TARP restored confidence in the economy that allowed us to climb out of the recession earlier.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was passed in October of 2008. The funds were not all distributed in the last quarter of 2008. Here is a list of the recipients - https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list. Chase, BoA, Wells Fargo and US Bancorp were all recipients of those funds.

Regardless of the efficacy of the TARP, that was welfare for the big banks.

All the large banks were required to take TARP.

Even if they didn't need it?

[
And it was all paid off. It's my understanding that it was a net profit to the government.

I don't understand what the effectiveness of TARP has to do with having to bailout banks that are "too big to fail".

- - - Updated - - -

Well, if they are no longer too big to fail, then they won't need or receive bailouts

[Citation needed]

What citation? If banks are not too big to fail, then they either fail or they don't without a bailout.

My point is that the bailout wasn't necessary. I supported TARP as I think that it created optimism that the system wouldn't collapse. It brought back confidence in the US market. But if there had been no TARP, the economy and most of the banks would have survived. It probably would have just taken longer to recover, IMO.

 

[dismal]

My point is that the bailout wasn't necessary. I supported TARP as I think that it created optimism that the system wouldn't collapse. It brought back confidence in the US market. But if there had been no TARP, the economy and most of the banks would have survived. It probably would have just taken longer to recover, IMO.

I agree with the first point, but am unsure if TARP speeded the recovery as the banks became paralyzed dealing with TARP issues for what I recall was years.

I would also add that I believe a precondition of any government bailout is that the equity be wiped and a trustee or somesuch be put in place to manage the remaining value for the creditors, one of which is now the bailout tab which should be considered something like DIP financing.

 

[Axulus]

What citation? If banks are not too big to fail, then they either fail or they don't without a bailout.

What makes you think they won't still be given a bailout, especially if the crisis is widespread enough? There is no basis for that statement.

 

[laughing dog]

What citation? If banks are not too big to fail, then they either fail or they don't without a bailout.

What makes you think they won't still be given a bailout, especially if the crisis is widespread enough? There is no basis for that statement.

Except for history.

 

[Axulus]

What makes you think they won't still be given a bailout, especially if the crisis is widespread enough? There is no basis for that statement.

Except for history.

Which S&L companies in the 1980's were too big to fail requiring over a $100 billion bailout? What were their size?

What financial crisis has not resulted in a large bailout package? What history are you referring to?

 

[laughing dog]

Except for history.

Which S&L companies in the 1980's were too big to fail requiring over a $100 billion bailout? What were their size?

What financial crisis has not resulted in a large bailout package? What history are you referring to?

US history since 2008. See  List_of_bank_failures_in_the_United_States_(2008–present) for listings of banks big enough to fail.

 

[RVonse]

Is it really a big deal if Hillary received speech money?

Some of these items I could care less about like Gap Inc. But then should we be concerned with potential conflicts of interest?

Also why would Gap be paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars?

If she was in office at the time, shouldn't we get transcripts of the speeches?

Also, is this stuff actually a big deal?

Yes its a big deal even though it is probably legal.

Such practice of accepting bribes is considered unethical by just about all private corporations and would be grounds for immediate firing. Yet no one seems to care about whether its done by our politicians. And for some odd reason, we do not seem to care if our politicians engage in insider trading either. What Nancy Poloci does with inside trading is fine yet Martha Stewart gets house arrest.

Political leaders don't worry about any of the same rules as any of the rest of us. But this needs to change.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Is it really a big deal if Hillary received speech money?

Some of these items I could care less about like Gap Inc. But then should we be concerned with potential conflicts of interest?

Also why would Gap be paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars?

If she was in office at the time, shouldn't we get transcripts of the speeches?

Also, is this stuff actually a big deal?

Yes its a big deal even though it is probably legal.

Such practice of accepting bribes is considered unethical by just about all private corporations and would be grounds for immediate firing. Yet no one seems to care about whether its done by our politicians. And for some odd reason, we do not seem to care if our politicians engage in insider trading either. What Nancy Poloci does with inside trading is fine yet Martha Stewart gets house arrest.

Political leaders don't worry about any of the same rules as any of the rest of us. But this needs to change.

Da fuck?

They can't get money from bribes. They can't get money from insider trading. I mean ... holy shit, dude ... what is it that you want? A government full of dedicated public servants who commit their time to it due to their love of their country and a desire to help their fellow citizens or something?

Sheesh.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Such practice of accepting bribes is considered unethical by just about all private corporations and would be grounds for immediate firing. Yet no one seems to care about whether its done by our politicians.

It would be considered a conflict of interest at corporations where I've worked and also non-profits where I've worked if it was at the same time as speaking for the other place. However, how can you prove it's "bribery" (your word) if you cannot see the content of the speeches?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Is it really a big deal if Hillary received speech money?

Some of these items I could care less about like Gap Inc. But then should we be concerned with potential conflicts of interest?

Also why would Gap be paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars?

If she was in office at the time, shouldn't we get transcripts of the speeches?

Also, is this stuff actually a big deal?

Yes its a big deal even though it is probably legal.

Such practice of accepting bribes is considered unethical by just about all private corporations and would be grounds for immediate firing. Yet no one seems to care about whether its done by our politicians. And for some odd reason, we do not seem to care if our politicians engage in insider trading either. What Nancy Poloci does with inside trading is fine yet Martha Stewart gets house arrest.

Political leaders don't worry about any of the same rules as any of the rest of us. But this needs to change.

This position is garbage until you hold this standard to all people, not just Hillary.

 

[Harry Bosch]

My point is that the bailout wasn't necessary. I supported TARP as I think that it created optimism that the system wouldn't collapse. It brought back confidence in the US market. But if there had been no TARP, the economy and most of the banks would have survived. It probably would have just taken longer to recover, IMO.

I agree with the first point, but am unsure if TARP speeded the recovery as the banks became paralyzed dealing with TARP issues for what I recall was years.

I would also add that I believe a precondition of any government bailout is that the equity be wiped and a trustee or somesuch be put in place to manage the remaining value for the creditors, one of which is now the bailout tab which should be considered something like DIP financing.

I'm not following you exactly. The government forced all the large banks to take the bailout, so they couldn't put too many preconditions on taking it. What is DIP financing? My bank wasn't paralyzed dealing with TARP. We simply wanted to pay it off as quickly as possible due to it's negative conations.

 

[KeepTalking]

Is it really a big deal if Hillary received speech money?

Some of these items I could care less about like Gap Inc. But then should we be concerned with potential conflicts of interest?

Also why would Gap be paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars?

If she was in office at the time, shouldn't we get transcripts of the speeches?

Also, is this stuff actually a big deal?

Yes its a big deal even though it is probably legal.

Such practice of accepting bribes is considered unethical by just about all private corporations and would be grounds for immediate firing. Yet no one seems to care about whether its done by our politicians. And for some odd reason, we do not seem to care if our politicians engage in insider trading either. What Nancy Poloci does with inside trading is fine yet Martha Stewart gets house arrest.

Political leaders don't worry about any of the same rules as any of the rest of us. But this needs to change.

It may be a bit of a derail, but Martha Stewart was convicted for lying to the FBI, not insider trading.

 

[dismal]

I agree with the first point, but am unsure if TARP speeded the recovery as the banks became paralyzed dealing with TARP issues for what I recall was years.

I would also add that I believe a precondition of any government bailout is that the equity be wiped and a trustee or somesuch be put in place to manage the remaining value for the creditors, one of which is now the bailout tab which should be considered something like DIP financing.

I'm not following you exactly. The government forced all the large banks to take the bailout, so they couldn't put too many preconditions on taking it. What is DIP financing? My bank wasn't paralyzed dealing with TARP. We simply wanted to pay it off as quickly as possible due to it's negative conations.

I'm not talking about what did happen but what should have happened. The government should not have forced banks to take TARP. Any bank that took it should have seen its equity wiped out and its assets taken over. DIP financing is debtor-in-possession financing. It's financing that companies can get to help them through a restructuring. It is going to be superior to the pre-existing financing in the credit stack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtor-in-possession_financing

The point of all this is to make the government bailout a true option of last resort, and to preserve as much of the value of the taxpayers money as possible.

 

[RVonse]

Yes its a big deal even though it is probably legal.

Such practice of accepting bribes is considered unethical by just about all private corporations and would be grounds for immediate firing. Yet no one seems to care about whether its done by our politicians. And for some odd reason, we do not seem to care if our politicians engage in insider trading either. What Nancy Poloci does with inside trading is fine yet Martha Stewart gets house arrest.

Political leaders don't worry about any of the same rules as any of the rest of us. But this needs to change.

This position is garbage until you hold this standard to all people, not just Hillary.

I did not even mention Hillary although yes, she would stand at the top of the list. Hillary has become so corrupt as to not even be embarrassed by being infested with vested interests and consumed with power.

But yes, ALL of our political leaders should follow the same rules as the rest of us.