Comment by roenxi
20 days ago
> It cost the taxpayers nothing (in fact it made us money)
Pull the other one, it has bells on it. If the government is involved in a financial transaction it is because nobody in the private sphere with money wants to be involved. That means either the return wasn't commensurate to the risk or there was dodgy accounting going on that nobody would actually thought represented a reasonable real return. If there was actually a prospect of making a reasonable return, money would have been found. Even the creditors might have been willing to make deals.
I bet the average taxpayer would much rather have the money given to them in their capacity as an individual and would have profited off it more than the hypothetical return the US government may claim it made.
> What part of that are people mad about, and why?
The gross unfairness of it all. I mean, it is bad enough that the failures in charge of the banking system got bailed out despite being incompetent at their jobs, but the average person had to guarantee them their high status role in society? It is a sick joke.
It is a terrible idea to be printing money to prop up asset owners. If that is the basic plan anyway, it shouldn't be mandatory to have incompetents mediating the handout process.
And it isn't like bankruptcy is that terrible. All the physical assets still exist. There is still food. Maybe set up a special welfare system for people who lost their life savings if something has to be done, but for heavens sake, taking (and I repeat myself) known, verified incompetents and guaranteeing them ongoing control of the financial system is wildly stupid. It is on par with a scheme like mandating people all buy in to cryptocurrencies.
We don't know what the other options look like. A broader collapse of the economy, runs on banks? If the government stayed out then the outcome could have been worse for the average taxpayer.
I do agree it looks bad if bankers can take huge risks and benefit (personally) from the upside without a downside risk. But it's not necessarily the bailout that's the problem here and the taxpayers do have the theoretical power to vote for people who can change this.
> We don't know what the other options look like. A broader collapse of the economy, runs on banks? If the government stayed out then the outcome could have been worse for the average taxpayer.
What courses of action does that argument not justify? "We had a predictable emergency and decided to panic and hand out money. Don't expect us to really think about alternatives." is not the course of action that really speaks to me for getting good results for taxpayers, or anyone except the people directly getting the money.
We have a playbook for getting a statistically good outcome when people run out of money. It is called bankruptcy. I can see how a banker could confuse that with a bailout because they both start with a "b" and there are a lot of letters - but the stark truth is they are different words.
But the issues here were systemic and there was worry of contagion. I guess a question would be whether the people who made the decision had conflicts of interest that impacted those decisions.
So this argument doesn't justify any course of action but is does justify a course of actions with poor optics that seems reasonable given the risks.
> The gross unfairness of it all. I mean, it is bad enough that the failures in charge of the banking system got bailed out despite being incompetent at their jobs, but the average person had to guarantee them their high status role in society? It is a sick joke.
This is a very valid narrative, although if you say it in public people will call you a socialist. It applies to people like Fred Goodwin of RBS (eventually stripped of knighthood) and Sean Quinn of AIB (who did actually serve jail time).
> And it isn't like bankruptcy is that terrible. All the physical assets still exist. There is still food
I think you're really underestimating how terrible "retail banking stops functioning" would have been in the short term. The loans allowed the problems to be addressed over the medium term. "Every retail bank has ceased trading" is a problem you have about three days to solve before the inability of people to buy food and petrol starts a much larger collapse.
Besides, some of the bailouts were very close to "flat-pack" bankruptcies. Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley were fully nationalized! Equity holders lost everything, that's a bankruptcy!
(Americans will say "who" there, but again: it was a global crisis. It more resembles climate change. It's very difficult to say that any individual is responsible for it, but somehow Australia ends up on fire as a result of unsustainable emissions, and the banking system collapsed as a result of unsustainable lending emissions.)
So your argument to the valid narrative of gross unfairness and people being above the law is to look the other way because you are afraid of being called a "socialist"? Holding criminals accountable for bad and reckless behavior is not socialism by any definition of the word.
It's not my solution, I'm not in charge of the SEC! I'm broadly supportive of anti-inequality measures against the financial industry. It's just that if you say that the peanut gallery will call it socialist.
I would however like people to be a bit more specific about what they think the crime was, who specifically committed what, and whether it was actually illegal at the time. It's a word people love to throw around. It's not actually illegal to make poor business decisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Quinn for example, while his misconduct cost the collapse of AIB, the thing he was actually jailed for was failing to comply with court orders.
> either the return wasn't commensurate to the risk
It's because the markets were frozen up; I was actually alive then and you can't really gaslight me about this
what does "frozen up" mean?
Corporate bonds were simply not being bought, at any price. Same with commercial paper. Nobody knew what firms were going to still exist in a week so nobody was willing to lend any money at all.
8 replies →