Current Events > In retrospect, were the government bank bailouts necessary?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I dont know. Im not convinced that banks could not bail them selves out.

Cannot the top management of Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, or others do things like cut their salary? Sell their houses and buy a cheaper house in the hood? Sell their yachts? Sell their cars?

Hell I think they couldve even closed more bank branches to save more money so that they dont have to depend on our hard earned tax dollars to bail them out

The CEOs on top management of these banks do not need to be rewarded for their failures and I see bailing banks out as a sign of rewarding their incompetence. So what if it affects the lavish lifestyle of their CEO. Their families dont have to live in the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

Brownsville or Queensbridge are still good.

bump?

The bailouts are a bit of a weird thing because they took the form of loans with interest that the banks actually paid back, meaning the government actually turned a profit on the bailout.

That being said, I would say they were necessary but needed follow-up. The best way to fuck up a society is to make it so a huge chunk of the population believes they no longer have access to their money, To that end, ensuring the banks remained stable made them necessary. However, more needed to be done AFTER the fact to ensure they didn't just repeat past mistakes while knowing the government would handle it if they screwed up.

EDIT: To the comment around CEOs, they should have been fired but we should never ask an employee of a company to sell personal assets to cover business expenses. A CEO might be the "leader", but it's not their business.

bump

AzNDarkSamurai posted...

Cannot the top management of Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, or others do things like cut their salary? Sell their houses and buy a cheaper house in the hood? Sell their yachts? Sell their cars?

Not even a drop in the bucket

AzNDarkSamurai posted...

Hell I think they couldve even closed more bank branches to save more money so that they dont have to depend on our hard earned tax dollars to bail them out

Why would they close revenue generating branches

Try researching even just a little bit before landing on an opinion

xAzNPimP4LiFex posted...

bump

Never understood why people bump other peoples topics without actually contributing themselves

while the motivation was nominally to restore investor/consumer confidence, it should be noted that many/most of the major banks were shareholders of the federal reserve; the fed controls monetary creation, also influences funding or at least lending rates for federal budget among other things

insolvent banks means restricted lending, restricted lending where fractional lending is the source of money likely means hyperdeflation, all hell breaks loose macroeconomically i presume

i could be wrong though; @Questionmarktarius probably knows far more about this than me

TheMikh posted...

i could be wrong though; @Questionmarktarius probably knows far more about this than me

I really don't, unless you want some hot takes.

Post #3 pretty much explains it.

Let 'em all fail

Could you imagine a bank having to revise every single agreement to free up money?

Yeah, all of my hot takes are going to be about why the bailouts were ever needed.
The actual bank bailouts pretty much had to happen, because the alternative of letting them burn would have wrecked shit even worse.

Is this a real question?

Obviously not

This is about TARP? That wasnt a donation of tax dollars.