elizabeth warren is correct on this

[/dev/null]

And Citi was far weaker than SunTrust. I don't know how Citi survived, frankly.

Just a hunch, but Citi's survival might be somehwat related to their $33 Million in political contributions since 1989

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

[boyst]

It wasn't a bank bailout, it was a capital market bailout. Companies couldn't get short-term capital, because the banks had no cash to lend. The commercial paper markets were weeks (or maybe days) from seizing up, which would have been disastrous. To the point of "people not being able to cash paychecks."

 

And Citi was far weaker than SunTrust. I don't know how Citi survived, frankly.

SunTrust is much smaller then Citi, I knew that. Figured it meant weaker.

 

If that would have happened then other banks or people being able to come in and buy those banks up would occur.

 

 

 

Bailout is just more fun to say than forced liquidity measures. The Treasury and investors who bought 8 year warrants (LEAPs) associated with TARP have made a nice little return on this "bailout". My BAC class As tripled up until late last week and this week kicked my portfolio in the balls repeatedly.

 

http://projects.prop...ca.org/bailout/

using bailout is no different then using obamacare.

[Jauronimo]

using bailout is no different then using obamacare.

Please elaborate.

[boyst]

Please elaborate.

the term. using bailout is a pop culture misrepresentation of what the actual even is. obamacare is not obamacare - its the affordable care act. it's no different then saying romneycare, for example.

 

labels mean nothing. but your attempt to argue something is the frustrating thing about ppp arguments. you disagree and instead of actually disagreeing you question a statement then will come back and lamb baste me with a diatribe. well, maybe not you, but in general form that's what is done.

 

if you disagree that the term bailout can be used then the term obamacare should not be used or respected, either.

[Tiberius]

the term. using bailout is a pop culture misrepresentation of what the actual even is. obamacare is not obamacare - its the affordable care act. it's no different then saying romneycare, for example.

 

labels mean nothing. but your attempt to argue something is the frustrating thing about ppp arguments. you disagree and instead of actually disagreeing you question a statement then will come back and lamb baste me with a diatribe. well, maybe not you, but in general form that's what is done.

 

if you disagree that the term bailout can be used then the term obamacare should not be used or respected, either.

Your argument is like Obamacare

[DC Tom]

SunTrust is much smaller then Citi, I knew that. Figured it meant weaker.

 

Except SunTrust is fairly well-run. Citi's was, and as far as I know still is, a friggin' mess.

 

If that would have happened then other banks or people being able to come in and buy those banks up would occur.

 

Not banks. Companies. Industry. For example: GM relies on the commercial paper market to make payroll every two weeks. It's a cash flow measure - if they're receivables are net 90 (I don't know what they are, just assume), but they have to make payroll every two weeks, they need to borrow short-term to make payroll. If they can't borrow short-term - say, because the commercial paper market has ceased to exist, because the people who buy commercial paper have no liquidity - they can't pay their employees. That means, not layoffs, but likely an immediate bankruptcy (since payroll liabilities are senior to just about anything).

 

Now take that example, and multiply it by everybody. That was the crisis the bailout was trying to avoid. A failure of liquidity throughout the entire financial system.

[Alaska Darin]

Except SunTrust is fairly well-run. Citi's was, and as far as I know still is, a friggin' mess.

 

 

 

Not banks. Companies. Industry. For example: GM relies on the commercial paper market to make payroll every two weeks. It's a cash flow measure - if they're receivables are net 90 (I don't know what they are, just assume), but they have to make payroll every two weeks, they need to borrow short-term to make payroll. If they can't borrow short-term - say, because the commercial paper market has ceased to exist, because the people who buy commercial paper have no liquidity - they can't pay their employees. That means, not layoffs, but likely an immediate bankruptcy (since payroll liabilities are senior to just about anything).

 

Now take that example, and multiply it by everybody. That was the crisis the bailout was trying to avoid. A failure of liquidity throughout the entire financial system.

Shutup! Sneaky Republicans BAD!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I think this picture is germane to this conversation.

 

 

or this one:

 

[boyst]

Except SunTrust is fairly well-run. Citi's was, and as far as I know still is, a friggin' mess.

 

 

 

Not banks. Companies. Industry. For example: GM relies on the commercial paper market to make payroll every two weeks. It's a cash flow measure - if they're receivables are net 90 (I don't know what they are, just assume), but they have to make payroll every two weeks, they need to borrow short-term to make payroll. If they can't borrow short-term - say, because the commercial paper market has ceased to exist, because the people who buy commercial paper have no liquidity - they can't pay their employees. That means, not layoffs, but likely an immediate bankruptcy (since payroll liabilities are senior to just about anything).

 

Now take that example, and multiply it by everybody. That was the crisis the bailout was trying to avoid. A failure of liquidity throughout the entire financial system.

and if GM fails because of the banks failed to produce the monies needed to pay the employees that only shows that GM is operating poorly. I get an argument can be made opposite that, but if GM (and others) cannot afford to pay their employees then their business model is flawed.

 

at least in my train of thought and beliefs. Could be wrong, but I many companies are limping by and do not deserve it.

[meazza]

I think this picture is germane to this conversation.

 

 

or this one:

 

 

That's brilliant.

[DC Tom]

and if GM fails because of the banks failed to produce the monies needed to pay the employees that only shows that GM is operating poorly. I get an argument can be made opposite that, but if GM (and others) cannot afford to pay their employees then their business model is flawed.

 

No, it doesn't. Most, if not all, companies use short-term borrowing to manage cash flow. Every company I've ever worked for, well-run or not, has used a revolving line of credit for payroll, for the simple reason that they invoice me at net 30 at the end of the month, so for my paycheck for that month they have to pay me with money they won't receive for another 30 days. And that's worse in manufacturing...when you buy a truck, how long do you think it is before GM sees the cash from that sale? Or when GE sells a couple hundred jet engines or a dozen power turbines? Or when Boeing sells a couple airplanes? Would Boeing's machinists work for free, knowing they'd get paid when the plane was delivered?

 

Not only is commercial paper used by healthy companies, it's practically a sign of a well-run company. Poorly run companies can't float commercial paper.

[boyst]

No, it doesn't. Most, if not all, companies use short-term borrowing to manage cash flow. Every company I've ever worked for, well-run or not, has used a revolving line of credit for payroll, for the simple reason that they invoice me at net 30 at the end of the month, so for my paycheck for that month they have to pay me with money they won't receive for another 30 days. And that's worse in manufacturing...when you buy a truck, how long do you think it is before GM sees the cash from that sale? Or when GE sells a couple hundred jet engines or a dozen power turbines? Or when Boeing sells a couple airplanes? Would Boeing's machinists work for free, knowing they'd get paid when the plane was delivered?

 

Not only is commercial paper used by healthy companies, it's practically a sign of a well-run company. Poorly run companies can't float commercial paper.

That is happening, though. The furniture market, for example, has cannibalized itself. LaZBoy and Furniture Brands are examples of this.

 

I cannot speak for Boeing's product or employees and do understand the revolving line of credit to generate cash flow but still think more could be done to influence companies to stop overproduction or inflating production numbers. If more could be done to encourage producers to generate products on contract to meet demands instead of mass overproduction it would help adjust prices for the consumer. Further, reducing the cost of labor for the over production of many items in this country would reduce several costs incurred by the consumer, including storage and transportation.

 

However, we are a country in love with the idea of going to Lowes where we can buy from a selection of 2,000 different door knobs after traveling just 15 minutes. Or, going on Amazon and with just a few clicks have a movie or book on our tablet.

 

If the government wants to manipulate the market it needs to also look at the consumer. Maybe I am straying from the actual subject, but I don't feel I am. We are spending billions again to try to fix something that was beyond repair to begin with.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

That is happening, though. The furniture market, for example, has cannibalized itself. LaZBoy and Furniture Brands are examples of this.

 

I cannot speak for Boeing's product or employees and do understand the revolving line of credit to generate cash flow but still think more could be done to influence companies to stop overproduction or inflating production numbers. If more could be done to encourage producers to generate products on contract to meet demands instead of mass overproduction it would help adjust prices for the consumer. Further, reducing the cost of labor for the over production of many items in this country would reduce several costs incurred by the consumer, including storage and transportation.

 

However, we are a country in love with the idea of going to Lowes where we can buy from a selection of 2,000 different door knobs after traveling just 15 minutes. Or, going on Amazon and with just a few clicks have a movie or book on our tablet.

 

If the government wants to manipulate the market it needs to also look at the consumer. Maybe I am straying from the actual subject, but I don't feel I am. We are spending billions again to try to fix something that was beyond repair to begin with.

 

So let me get this right:

 

Less choice is better for the consumer.

[boyst]

So let me get this right:

 

Less choice is better for the consumer.

Who said they'd have less choice? I don't want one single car manufacturer or one single brand of toilet plungers. But, we do not need to over produce and oversell so many of the products we do. Think quality, not quantity.

[Jauronimo]

That is happening, though. The furniture market, for example, has cannibalized itself. LaZBoy and Furniture Brands are examples of this.

 

I cannot speak for Boeing's product or employees and do understand the revolving line of credit to generate cash flow but still think more could be done to influence companies to stop overproduction or inflating production numbers. If more could be done to encourage producers to generate products on contract to meet demands instead of mass overproduction it would help adjust prices for the consumer. Further, reducing the cost of labor for the over production of many items in this country would reduce several costs incurred by the consumer, including storage and transportation.

 

However, we are a country in love with the idea of going to Lowes where we can buy from a selection of 2,000 different door knobs after traveling just 15 minutes. Or, going on Amazon and with just a few clicks have a movie or book on our tablet.

 

If the government wants to manipulate the market it needs to also look at the consumer. Maybe I am straying from the actual subject, but I don't feel I am. We are spending billions again to try to fix something that was beyond repair to begin with.

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTc--4jz0GQ

Edited December 16, 2014 by Jauronimo

[GG]

Except SunTrust is fairly well-run. Citi's was, and as far as I know still is, a friggin' mess.

 

It's not a truly well-run bank and there's a reason it was the last to repay the TARP. Citi is a friggin mess, and nobody wanted to be anywhere near that implosion if it happened, which would have been catastrophic.

[GG]

Who said they'd have less choice? I don't want one single car manufacturer or one single brand of toilet plungers. But, we do not need to over produce and oversell so many of the products we do. Think quality, not quantity.

 

The market has a way to correct the over and under production. I'd say there is a fair correlation between what Amazon has on its virtual shelves and what somebody, somewhere needs to buy. And that entire payments & delivery chain, from you clicking the Buy Now button, to Amazon processing the order, sending it to its or the affiliates' warehouse, processing the credit card payment and then delivering the product to you is made possible by the money that's sloshing through the global financial system. Which was at serious risk of stopping for a day or two. So think of all the downstream effects of that daisy chain reaction, a sort of financial system butterfly effect.

 

That's why idiots like to cling to the Wall Street bank bail out theory, while people who understand how the global payments work, know it was averting a Main Street calamity.

[boyst]

The market has a way to correct the over and under production. I'd say there is a fair correlation between what Amazon has on its virtual shelves and what somebody, somewhere needs to buy. And that entire payments & delivery chain, from you clicking the Buy Now button, to Amazon processing the order, sending it to its or the affiliates' warehouse, processing the credit card payment and then delivering the product to you is made possible by the money that's sloshing through the global financial system. Which was at serious risk of stopping for a day or two. So think of all the downstream effects of that daisy chain reaction, a sort of financial system butterfly effect.

 

That's why idiots like to cling to the Wall Street bank bail out theory, while people who understand how the global payments work, know it was averting a Main Street calamity.

The bailout is being looked at by many and some as good enough to be a remedy with what is wrong. There still need to be work done to reduce the vulnerability of the market and heavy impact it has on the population.

 

We do not need to dumb it down, we just need to get the insiders out. Regulation and policy is just a farce for what is really happening and the corruption. There is no reason that a corporate investor in a Wall Street firm should have reasonable access to information before me, in my own home. That firms can pay the SEC for first hand knowledge is scary to me.

[GG]

The bailout is being looked at by many and some as good enough to be a remedy with what is wrong. There still need to be work done to reduce the vulnerability of the market and heavy impact it has on the population.

 

We do not need to dumb it down, we just need to get the insiders out. Regulation and policy is just a farce for what is really happening and the corruption. There is no reason that a corporate investor in a Wall Street firm should have reasonable access to information before me, in my own home. That firms can pay the SEC for first hand knowledge is scary to me.

 

I have no idea of what you just wrote, other than incoherent regurgitation of Wall Street Bad tidbits.

 

If the bailout was truly the work to benefit the insiders on Wall Street, how do you explain the disappearance of 3 major, bulge bracket investment banks, dramatic shrinking of the industry, coupled with 20%+ reduction in industry-wide employment?

[TakeYouToTasker]

The bailout is being looked at by many and some as good enough to be a remedy with what is wrong. There still need to be work done to reduce the vulnerability of the market and heavy impact it has on the population.

 

We do not need to dumb it down, we just need to get the insiders out. Regulation and policy is just a farce for what is really happening and the corruption. There is no reason that a corporate investor in a Wall Street firm should have reasonable access to information before me, in my own home. That firms can pay the SEC for first hand knowledge is scary to me.

You feel like you should real time access to information, and applied market research; which investment firms have paid for, and you have not; just as they do?

 

If real time access and applied market research are free use, rather than commodities, why did those firms pay for it?