of the Banks, by the Banks, and for the Banks

[DirkFTW]

Link

I don't know what exactly to make of this. But it makes me want to buy lots of gold and canned goods.

[GermanDunk]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dirk Baked Beans again.

[mcsluggo]

it means that the FDIC fund is being used. It likely will go into the negative, and then the FDIC will recover some value from the carved up banks, and the fund will rebound some, (but not to its original values)

thats what happens in a financial crisis, the financial crisis insurance policies have to pay out some.

[Mavdog]

this is the very purpose of the fund, to be used when banks fail to pay the deposit insurance. the graph reflects that there have been some large bank failures over the past year or so.

the fund is already being replenished by additional fees being paid by the bank membership.

[DirkFTW]

So our bank accounts are still safe? This thing just looks ripe for a "What a Wonderful Life" bank run on the whole system.

[Mavdog]

"safe" is a difficult term to quantify....

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"safe" is a difficult term to quantify....

Here to help:

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

it means that the FDIC fund is being used. It likely will go into the negative, and then the FDIC will recover some value from the carved up banks, and the fund will rebound some, (but not to its original values)

thats what happens in a financial crisis, the financial crisis insurance policies have to pay out some.

plus, the government has a big printing press and they can print all the federal reserve notes they like and everybody will be happy--there's no shortage of bernanke bucks...that's certainly not a problem.

[alexamenos]

by the banks, for the banks....

Geithner Aides Reaped Millions Working for Banks, Hedge Funds
...
Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Some of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s closest aides, none of whom faced Senate confirmation, earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other Wall Street firms, according to financial disclosure forms.

The advisers include Gene Sperling, who last year took in $887,727 from Goldman Sachs and $158,000 for speeches mostly to financial companies, including the firm run by accused Ponzi scheme mastermind R. Allen Stanford. Another top aide, Lee Sachs, reported more than $3 million in salary and partnership income from Mariner Investment Group, a New York hedge fund.

As part of Geithner’s kitchen cabinet, Sperling and Sachs wield influence behind the scenes at the Treasury Department, where they help oversee the $700 billion banking rescue and craft executive pay rules and the revamp of financial regulations. Yet they haven’t faced the public scrutiny given to Senate-confirmed appointees, nor are they compelled to testify in Congress to defend or explain the Treasury’s policies.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Here to help:

Now, that is funny, I don't care who you are...



It is hard to quantify "safe"...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

by the banks, for the banks....

How much corruption do we have to continually find everywhere in this administration before we conclude that there is a problem???

[Mavdog]

it's fascinating to read criticism of people earning high levels of income (legally mind you) from those who champion free markets.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it's fascinating to read criticism of people earning high levels of income (legally mind you) from those who champion free markets.

What do a bunch of corrupt government employees with grotesque conflicts of interest have to do with free markets?

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

How much corruption do we have to continually find everywhere in this administration before we conclude that there is a problem???

are you serious?

Are you HONESTLY appalled and surprised that many top treasury department officials previously actually WORKED in the financial industry? Or is it the fact that you are appalled that they made the normal wall street salaries? Would it would be better to have former 7-11 clerks? Or do you think that the USG should've only hired entry level financial analysts?


This is a serious and honest question.... what is your outrage here? would you please try to articulate it a little?

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

What do a bunch of corrupt government employees with grotesque conflicts of interest have to do with free markets?

really?

REALLY?

Same question here.....?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Are you HONESTLY appalled and surprised that many top treasury department officials previously actually WORKED in the financial industry?

Would that be

"WORKED"

or

"WORK"

?????

-------------------------

The problem with your question is buried in an assumption...I don't agree that an unelected ministry of finance which controls the price and production of fiat money is desirable in the first place, hence the question of who best to manage the economy from on high is moot in my view.

And returning now to the title of this thread...it seems that you wholeheartedly endorse the idea of this governance of the banks and by the banks, the only question being is it for the banks as well.

(I've last track of how many trillions of dollars have been doled out to banks thus far to subsidize their losses, but it seems like pretty good prima facie evidence that we have 'for the banks' down pretty tight)

Anyhoo....if we accept your premise (and we can, I think), that a revolving door between Wall Street and the US Treasury/Federal Reserve is an absolute necessity, then should we be surprised if we get royally fucked over by the USG and Wall Street?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

What do a bunch of corrupt government employees with grotesque conflicts of interest have to do with free markets?

you hurl the phrase "corrupt" as if you have evidence of such behavior.

well?

oh, you don't have anything that exposes that these individuals as doing a "corrupt" act, merely the fact that they received a fair market wage from their previous employer, and that they received a fair market compensation from those groups who asked for and paid them to attend their meetings and give a speech?

you see, these individuals were given compensation in a fair market for their services. that is by both the private institutions that hired them, and also by the government who asked for these individuals to lend their knowledge and experience.

according to your falacious logic, anyone who works in the financial industry MUST be not only "corrupt" but they are also unable to contribute anything beyond their own self interest due to their inability to rise above the "grotesque conflicts of interest".

not a very complimentary picture of you I must say. bigotry and prejudice, not to mention unsubstantiated libelous accusations, are not positive attributes.

[alexamenos]

two animated teddy bears explain quantitative easing:

vid

A bit longish, but worth the effort. A select quote:

Bear 1: It (Quantitative easing) means they are going to print a ton of money.

Bear 2: So why do they call it the 'quantitative easing'? Why don't they just call it the 'printing money'?

Bear 1: Because the 'printing money' is the last refuge of failed empires and banana republics....

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

two animated teddy bears explain quantitative easing:

vid

A bit longish, but worth the effort. A select quote:

omg that was hilarious! well, it was also frightening, but having bears explain it made it more palatable.

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

two animated teddy bears explain quantitative easing:
vid

A bit longish, but worth the effort. A select quote:

Haha. The Ben Bernank