What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
32 Comments
- borez, on 06/10/2009, -1/+26And how prey tell are these toxic assets then dealt with by this so called 'Bad Bank'? Are they written off, or does the 'Bad Bank' then start a procedure of intense foreclosures and early collections to claw the money back?
Sounds to me that the banks are jut being let off the hook without even a slap on the wrist...again. - teamtom, on 06/10/2009, -0/+13I've adopted the idea and now have "Good Tom" and "Bad Tom". Good Tom buys plasma TVs and sports cars, Bad Tom gets the "toxic" bills and has no way to pay for them. Works for me!
- juankovo, on 06/10/2009, -0/+10The H.R. 1207 bill in Congress will audit the Federal Reserve to help keep this crap from happening (again) in the United States. Digg it here: http://bit.ly/19yKMB and http://bit.ly/wI7dW
The gov't, the Fed, and the banksters are screwing us over big time. - poidh, on 06/10/2009, -2/+12Dumpkoff Bank AG.
- Solkre, on 06/10/2009, -0/+9This isn't one of the better ideas to copy from the US financial "bag of tricks."
- poidh, on 06/10/2009, -1/+8Pray tell.
- inactive, on 06/10/2009, -1/+8The solution should be to abolish the central banks and let the market restructure.
- inactive, on 06/10/2009, -0/+7Is the rug big enough? Keep sweeping, nobody will notice..
- JoeParanoid, on 06/10/2009, -0/+5Taking toxic assets off the balance sheets doesn't remove the debt, it only hides it. So basically they are approving accounting fraud.
- norman619, on 06/10/2009, -0/+5You aren't sopposed to look that closely to this government game of Hot Potato.
- mrbroli, on 06/10/2009, -0/+5Legitimate toxicity ftw.
- mokodo, on 06/10/2009, -1/+5Badbanken AG
- blipblopblip, on 06/10/2009, -1/+4This is a really really really stupid idea unless you want to rob the taxpayers.
- hivoltage815, on 06/10/2009, -0/+2I take exception to there being no direct conclusion. Nationalization is proven to be a more inefficient approach through economic postulates and theorems and general observations through history.
Not to mention if you claim to have a free market, you must accept that recessions are natural and that businesses must fail. Its inherent in the definition of achieving efficiency. If you always revert to nationalization when times are tough, you will never reap the benefits of capitalism. That being said, you must also properly regulate the markets in order to enjoy the full benefits as well. - BrownieMix, on 06/10/2009, -0/+2What the hell?
- inactive, on 06/10/2009, -0/+2Keep shifting the crap all you want, it won't disappear.
- zomgflamer, on 06/11/2009, -0/+2Well, unlike the U.S. Germany has huge savings.
- robEstyles, on 06/10/2009, -0/+1Hans Gruber approves
- pbs11, on 11/27/2009, -0/+1dumpken!
http://www.airaonline.com/page/page/2646023.htm - TheNik, on 06/10/2009, -1/+2According to whom? Fiscal conservatives in the United States? Germany has one of the strongest economies in the world and it has shown to be quite resilient lately and the collapse of these banks (and the consequent formation of this "bad bank") is primarily the result of said banks investing in US subprime debt. The ones that are still healthy rely on long-term investing in companies and usually have a roll in the company itself (via board members, etc). Nationalization isn't the reason banks were failing - risky investment was.
- Neonic7, on 06/10/2009, -1/+2Thanks for doing it so the rest of us didn't have to.
- hfactor, on 06/10/2009, -1/+2Dummkopf?
- buckrogers1965, on 06/10/2009, -0/+1I am so glad that the banks are being bailed out by the governments so they don't have to take any responsibly for their actions or bad judgment. /s
How come banks want no regulation, but then expect to be bailed out when they fail? - pbs11, on 11/27/2009, -0/+1Can we outsource AIG, B of A, Citibank and more than 100 banks which failed to Germany. I heard they can make something out of nothing there, such as the Beetle and the Rimowa.
- borez, on 06/11/2009, -0/+1Well, you know. I'm English.
- sooperdooper, on 06/12/2009, -1/+2By "the market," do you mean "market forces?" Do you mean the same market forces that have always benefited from government oversight, regulation, standardization, and legitimacy? Do you expect these same market forces to come up with a solution that makes their companies more competitive and their jobs less secure?
- hivoltage815, on 06/11/2009, -0/+1Based on your argument, there really is no difference between the nationalization scenario and the free market scenario when it came to the recession. They both made bad decision and were both affected in some way. The United States, the STRONGEST economy in the world, has been just as much resilient.
The key difference, as I already pointed out, is efficiency. Not just fiscal conservatives, but the vast majority of economists (they print this stuff in textbooks as fact you know) understand that free markets drive towards greater efficiencies and therefore more progress. You could argue that the number one driving force behind innovation in the last 200 years has been the concepts of democracy and free enterprise.
I will acknowledge the main point that you should hopefully be making. If a bank is "too big to fail" then it should be nationalized for the good of the nation because having greedy individuals controlling your money is risky. But my argument would be if we never allowed banks to be the size they are now and had a good competitive marketplace for the financial industry, this would be a normal business cycle recession and we would most likely be in a much better place than a nationalized bank that had made risks because there would be plenty of competition to swallow the bad bank up. - zbument, on 06/14/2009, -0/+0Here is a lovely list of all the banks that have failed:
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklis ...
It was 62 banks by my count, but please do your own research first. Would you have an entire collapse of the United States financial system? The Government let Lehman fail, and it did not bode well for anybody, worldwide. What would you do? What is your solution?
Most of the Governments moves have been to keep balance and appease foreign investors (by that I mean foreign countries/banks). They quickly jumped at Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac, not just because they own 50% of the 12 trillion dollar mortgage securities market in our country, but because China is heavily vested with them.
Same with AIG, who is so interlaced with so many banks/countries all over the world. To this day they are still unwinding that toxic debt and probably will for a while. They have no idea what would happen if they let AIG fail, but after watching what happened with Lehman, they could not risk even the slightest chance of a systemic collapse of the world financial system.
ok im bored...stopped typing now. - zbument, on 06/14/2009, -0/+0German debt to GDP
76.4% (according to IMF)
64.9% (according to CIA)
United States debt to GDP
61.5% (according to IMF)
60.8% (according to CIA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...
idiot - FreddieD, on 06/10/2009, -2/+2Ahhh the age old debate on the European style of bank nationalization versus the American style of "let them fail and let the market take it's course"... while we're at it, let's debate other things to which there is no direct conclusion, such as abortion and Windows vs Mac.
- andre1987, on 06/10/2009, -6/+1crisis affects everyone and all
- inactive, on 06/10/2009, -8/+3So their giving their money back to the jews?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is