View Poll Results: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 21.43%
  • No

    33 78.57%
  • Dunno

    0 0%
  • I don't care

    0 0%
Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 176

Thread: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

  1. #41
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    If things start to go nasty again and new bailouts are on the way, should the "too big to fail" be nationalised instead?
    No, they should be allowed to fail.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #42
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, they should be allowed to fail.
    They should be allowed to disintegrate along with every dime of their investors...after that happens to a few of them...Investors will reign these pigs in and make them more accountable...but as long as all the little peoples tax money goes to bail them out...they have nothing to lose.

  3. #43
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,593

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, they should be allowed to fail.
    I believe that you misunderstand what the BULK of the TARP bail-outs was about. These banks were not bankrupt, they had GOV'T backed insurance via Freddie/Fannie for over 90% of the "troubled mortgages" that they held. If they did call the notes due (via gov't backed mortgage insurance) then the taxpayers were still going to "bail them out", it would just have exposed congress for the morons that they are, rather than let congress pretend it was a "banking error", "real estate bubble", or "greedy bankers" that caused the need for bailouts, not simply stupid federal laws, that they had made. Did you not find it curious that not ONE bank was closed or charged with any wrong doing at all? This was NOT due to the action of "greedy bankers", it was due to the actions of DC morons, by creating "sub-prime" mortgage lending laws and then demanding that banks issue these loans, but either way the taxpayers get stuck with the tab. Yes they did!
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #44
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,593

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    They should be allowed to disintegrate along with every dime of their investors...after that happens to a few of them...Investors will reign these pigs in and make them more accountable...but as long as all the little peoples tax money goes to bail them out...they have nothing to lose.
    Please see post #43.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #45
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    I believe that you misunderstand what the BULK of the TARP bail-outs was about. These banks were not bankrupt, they had GOV'T backed insurance via Freddie/Fannie for over 90% of the "troubled mortgages" that they held. If they did call the notes due (via gov't backed mortgage insurance) then the taxpayers were still going to "bail them out", it would just have exposed congress for the morons that they are, rather than let congress pretend it was a "banking error", "real estate bubble", or "greedy bankers" that caused the need for bailouts, not simply stupid federal laws, that they had made. Did you not find it curious that not ONE bank was closed or charged with any wrong doing at all? This was NOT due to the action of "greedy bankers", it was due to the actions of DC morons, by creating "sub-prime" mortgage lending laws and then demanding that banks issue these loans, but either way the taxpayers get stuck with the tab. Yes they did!
    I didn't find it odd at all. Government protects the banks and bankers and wall street investors very well. It's the common man they don't really protect. This was an action due in part to "greedy bankers" for sure. Leveraging so high on a bubble isn't a great idea, and when everyone is doing it it's certainly a terrible idea. And when the bubble breaks, well we see what it comes down to. At the same accord, it is true that this is facilitated through improper government regulation. As they continued to relax regulation, the system broke a little each time and each time we realized some form of scandal or banking problem. And when enough regulations are removed, then we get what we got. Banks and Wall Street left to their own devices with nothing to keep them in proper working order. There's no market incentive for them to stop until the system explodes. Government restriction had kept them in the area of "functional".
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #46
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,007

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    If they are too big to fail they should be broken up not nationalized, like Standard Oil. But I think people should think carefully what too big to fail actually means. Does it mean economic collapse or the collapse of certain politicians careers?
    Last edited by Quag; 06-04-12 at 10:27 AM.
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

  7. #47
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,185

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by Disputatious71 View Post
    In a free market capitalist system those too inept to succeed should fail ! Nationalizing these companies would fundamentally change our system into either fascism or socialism both of which will rely more on the capriciousness of the controller. Think US Postal Service but delivering more than just mail !
    Generally when nationalized you wipe out shareholders and pay a portion to debt holders and then resell the bank. You nationalize on the short term so that they don't fail.

    It's suppose to be an alternative to letting them fail and pummeling the economy as a whole....or giving them money and them getting off scott free and creating the whole "too big to fail" advantage for some institutions.

    As for "they should fail"....it's pretty well proven that letting large financial insitituions fail left and right lead to bad things!
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  8. #48
    Guru
    Ben K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,717

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    If a private entity is considered too big to fail and is bailed out it starts to operate as inefficiently as a state owned company anyway. So no loss if it is nationalised, you at least punish the people involved but the essential problem isn't fixed.

    They shouldn't be bailed out however, but it seems like many nations have committed themselves to a losing poker hand and keep on raising.

  9. #49
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    If things start to go nasty again and new bailouts are on the way, should the "too big to fail" be nationalised instead?
    No- they should be allowed to fail and cease to exist as business entities.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  10. #50
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,593

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I didn't find it odd at all. Government protects the banks and bankers and wall street investors very well. It's the common man they don't really protect. This was an action due in part to "greedy bankers" for sure. Leveraging so high on a bubble isn't a great idea, and when everyone is doing it it's certainly a terrible idea. And when the bubble breaks, well we see what it comes down to. At the same accord, it is true that this is facilitated through improper government regulation. As they continued to relax regulation, the system broke a little each time and each time we realized some form of scandal or banking problem. And when enough regulations are removed, then we get what we got. Banks and Wall Street left to their own devices with nothing to keep them in proper working order. There's no market incentive for them to stop until the system explodes. Government restriction had kept them in the area of "functional".
    WRONG. The notion of "sub-prime" mortages was NOT invented by bankers, it was a gov't creation to attempt to allow the "poor" to become homeowners. Bankers reluctantly issued these "gifts", disguised as "low income" mortgage loans, ONLY through gov't pressure and offers of "safety" by the gov't backed "insurance" of these loans. This GOV'T CREATED artificial demand, for more private homes, caused the "housing bubble", having the (unintended?) effect of flooding the market with oversupply, eventually dropping the value of many existing homes on the resale market, placing otherwise innocent home buyers in a position of being "underwater" on their traditional home mortgages.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •