RSS Feeds
Should some banks go under?
1.
I cannot believe that Mr. Landsberg is an economist. It is my understanding that the two GSEs currently fund or guarantee 80% of the mortgages in this country. Do you really want to repeat the Fed's experiment of 1930 & let them fail??
OK maybe in the long term, they need to die. But not right now!
My personal view, in 5 years historians will say: Ben Bernanke saved the system from total meltdown.
2. I agree with "Fred". NO BAIL OUT! Plenty of you have made a mess of your lives. You folks that got a mortgage and didn't know what it said are now calling on the rest of us that did make sure we understood ours said. As for the folks that got plenty of mail for new credit cards or second mortgage applications and surccumbed to those vultures, you're not worthy to get any sympathy at all. As for "Wake up People", you're looking at folks who didn't create this mess to make you whole. NO BAILING OUT FANNIE AND FREDDIIE And Henry Paulson can go to HELl.
3. Let them fail. Failure is good for progress. We do not want high taxes and socialism, where the Kings make money (bankers and politicians) and everyone is poor.
4. Should banks be left to fail? NOo YEESss NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Now. Discuss.
5. How can the investors monitor anything when the financial numbers provided by these institutions is bogus? Reported quarterly earnings and book value are the basis for such an investment. After several years, the financial institution announces that all its reserves and earnings were wrong. Everything is reversed and written off and the investor loses his money. Letting the market place decide is valid only if my purchase of the stock can be reversed and my money refunded if the financial statements that I depended on are restated.
6. What should be done and what will be done are two very different things. We've come a long way from a meritocracy in this country.
7. Take taxpayers off hook for rot at Fannie, Freddie By John McCain, Special to the Times In print: Thursday, July 24, 2008 http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article735638.ece
8. The fat cat's need to go on a 'crash' diet.
9. Bailing out Fannie or Freddie equity holders is outrageous. The debt holders/creditors of these organizations need to be protected, not the equity holders. Why would the government buy equity in these entities? If they need to be saved, wipe out the existing equity holders and bring Fannie and Freddie 100% under the federal government's control. The current plan basically spreads the downside risks to the taxpayers while the upside goes to the creditors. It is disturbing there isn't more outrage about what the federal government has done and will probably do in the future.
10. We support the free markets but... we don't support the results? Banks are just like any other business. We never had any problems when we were a principled country. Things sorted out by themselves. Our money were safe. Now we follow nothing and therefore we are nothings, with banks or without banks what's the difference. We might actually be better off if we had less of them.
Submitted by: justthefacts
2. I agree with "Fred". NO BAIL OUT! Plenty of you have made a mess of your lives. You folks that got a mortgage and didn't know what it said are now calling on the rest of us that did make sure we understood ours said. As for the folks that got plenty of mail for new credit cards or second mortgage applications and surccumbed to those vultures, you're not worthy to get any sympathy at all. As for "Wake up People", you're looking at folks who didn't create this mess to make you whole. NO BAILING OUT FANNIE AND FREDDIIE And Henry Paulson can go to HELl.
Submitted by: elainekramer
3. Let them fail. Failure is good for progress. We do not want high taxes and socialism, where the Kings make money (bankers and politicians) and everyone is poor.
Submitted by: jag
4. Should banks be left to fail? NOo YEESss NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Now. Discuss.
Submitted by: EvenStephen
5. How can the investors monitor anything when the financial numbers provided by these institutions is bogus? Reported quarterly earnings and book value are the basis for such an investment. After several years, the financial institution announces that all its reserves and earnings were wrong. Everything is reversed and written off and the investor loses his money. Letting the market place decide is valid only if my purchase of the stock can be reversed and my money refunded if the financial statements that I depended on are restated.
Submitted by: Robert Ward
6. What should be done and what will be done are two very different things. We've come a long way from a meritocracy in this country.
Submitted by: davecccc
7. Take taxpayers off hook for rot at Fannie, Freddie By John McCain, Special to the Times In print: Thursday, July 24, 2008 http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article735638.ece
Submitted by: Anonymous
8. The fat cat's need to go on a 'crash' diet.
Submitted by: Radical Raul
9. Bailing out Fannie or Freddie equity holders is outrageous. The debt holders/creditors of these organizations need to be protected, not the equity holders. Why would the government buy equity in these entities? If they need to be saved, wipe out the existing equity holders and bring Fannie and Freddie 100% under the federal government's control. The current plan basically spreads the downside risks to the taxpayers while the upside goes to the creditors. It is disturbing there isn't more outrage about what the federal government has done and will probably do in the future.
Submitted by: Former OC Resident
10. We support the free markets but... we don't support the results? Banks are just like any other business. We never had any problems when we were a principled country. Things sorted out by themselves. Our money were safe. Now we follow nothing and therefore we are nothings, with banks or without banks what's the difference. We might actually be better off if we had less of them.
Submitted by: Celeste
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT