On the one hand, this is a bit invasive and certainly sets a bit of a scary precedent in terms of revealing personal information of loanees.
On the other hand, **** the banks! I didn't get a bailout and I wasn't even ripping anyone off like they were.
I have some good friends in the finance industry. At the time of the bailouts, I got into some heated, but respectful, debates with one such friend. He was working for Merrill Lynch, so, obviously, his viewpoint was very, very different from my own. My stance was: People were defaulting on their loans because of ballooning interest, etc.. Yes, I know people should have educated themselves more about stuff like this, but I'm also sure that not every one of them had the terms clearly explained to them, in a way they understood. Furthermore, how dare the banks use bailout money to hand out bonuses.
My friend's stance: The bonuses were negotiated before the crash and the banks were contractually obligated to pay the out. Failing to do so could result in lawsuits against the banks. He's a smart guy, shutting me up like that.
In any event: Thoughts on the newest development? I'm sort of indifferent about it.|||Just finished reading a book: The Conservative Nanny State. You might find it interesting...
Ok, so people should know better than to take loans they can't pay back, right? Well, shouldn't *banks* know better than to give out loans at high risk, knowing they might not get the money back?
In a free market, this is what you'd get... high-risk loans are given by banks at higher rates because there's more likelihood that the loaner won't be able to pay back, hence you compensate for your potential loss by charging more (and by asking for collateral etc). Except now banks get the higher rates *and* the no-risk bailout, which I remind you, was not part of the contract to begin with. So the bailout ends up being "free money" to banks, as otherwise the banks should suffer the losses associated with poor decision in giving loans.|||Agreed: The bailouts really enraged me because, frankly, it's just not fair. If the banks collapse, the economy is effed. If they handed the families who were suffering a wad of money, it would have cost a LOT less, and we wouldn't have to feel like we're under the thumb of these corporations who only care about their own pockets.
I really liked the Japanese corporations' response to the economic turmoil. Some of their CEOs were still having lunch in the cafeteria, with the rest of the employees, and there was even one who agreed to make his annual salary $1 if the government agreed to bail his company out. Way different than here in the states where folks can't give up their private jets. Disgusting.
EDIT: Related article: Some corporations (including banks who got bailout money) don't even pay Federal taxes. This is why it drives me mad that executives are making so much money. But what happens when times get tough? Do they cut back their own excessive salary or lay off the lower- and middle-class workers, just struggling to support their families?|||Ok, don't read that book, I swear you'll pop a vein if you do.|||Save it for the revolution, brother!
Class warfare in this country burns me up more than anything, that's what politics really comes down to. Same old would-be gentry vs everyone else. Issues like religion, guns, gays and abortion are thrown in there to cloud bits, but the root issue always remains.
|||In a capitalistic nation, how does one regulate/legislate greed? If we can get that one down pat the world would be a better place.
No comments:
Post a Comment