Bail outs!! What do you think about it?
November 20, 2008 9:03pm CST
I dont't know about you, But I think all this bail out cr@p is Bull. These banks don't give a D@me about you when you are in need of help. Why should we worry if they go under. Take a look around your town...How many banks are there. I live in a town of less then 3000 people and we have 4 banks within 15 min of eachother. What is the point in that? The next big town to mine is about a population of about 5000 and there is a bank on every corner. Even duplicates of banks. If they gave you a loan, you have to pay intrest. So if they are going to bank on us to keep them in business, I think the tax payers should receive intrest on the bail out. If they don't want to do that, then maybe those bonuses that the employees are going to get of over hundred thousand dollars, should not be given. so they can pull themselves out of the whole. I'm mad over it all, How about you....What do you think??
21 Nov 08
Like you, I am also mad at the fat cats in the banks who have created this situation. There should be accountability and they should be punished. Any bank that has to go to the govt to get a bailout, then their CEO and board should quit immediately, as they have FAILED. However, despite my rage at the bank's antics, I also recognise the lessons of history when in the 1930s banks were allowed to go to the wall which was a key contributor (not the only one) in making the recession into a Depression. If a bank goes to the wall, then individual savers and shareholders lose their money. Now you might say, so what? Problem is that once one bank goes down, the shareholders and savers in other banks will start to panic and will stampede to withdraw their funds. Then other banks will close creating an increasing domino effect. When banks go bust, companies that had capital invested in them find their capital wiped out, then they go to the wall, laying off workers, etc, etc. So though I am deeply unhappy about this situation, I see no alternative but to bail out the banks. However, there should be strict conditions: we don't simply take their bad debts off them, instead we put in capital in return for the bank's shares. When the bank recovers and it shares go back up (as they will do at some point), the govt can then sell those shares and may, with luck, make a little profit. Also, no bonuses for the fat cat board members and no rewards for failure, ie the CEO/board leaving immediately once the govt gives a bailout to be replaced by a new CEO/board. Also, for existing shareholders, reduction of payment of dividend, or maybe even no dividend at all, as the govt will have saved their financial backsides.
21 Nov 08
As a UK citizen I see the current crisis in America as a watershed in the long process of Capitalism. It is sad that even in the world's economic powerhouse there exists a society of to parts, the very rich, and the rest. The very rich exploit the opportunities it creates by using resources worldwide. Ever since World War II western developed economies have been shedding traditional jobs in favour of smaller developing countries. The trump card for America was to create new technologies thus ensuring it's leading position. It is only in the past 20 years that this edge has been slipping as a huge increase in the global captalist economy (China and India)has made it difficult to exploit cheap labour sources. What the West is very good at is in recycling foreign earnings for its own domestic benefit. The problem is that it the funds have to be repaid.
• New Zealand
22 Nov 08
Yeah I absolutely agree, I mean whom in thier right mind would give money to an enterprise that is so obviously failing? Personally I think that governments should give some financial relief on the proviso that it is to protect the financial investments of the citizens in thier country. But also expect repayment of the financial package with a market interest rate. Of course you'd expect that top management of any failed enterprise to be dumped with no compensation if they want to get any financial aide. For banks, I think governments should primarily concentrate on protecting the financial interest of it citizens, any overseas interest should be completely ignored. I agree though, bailing out failed business operators isn't exactly the right way to go.
• United States
21 Nov 08
I personally think that this is sick. In the small city I live in I have seen the unemployment rate go up, and several more homeless people walking the streets. The only homeless shelter we have is strickly for families and they can hold around 30 people, so not a great deal of resources. The soup kitchen offers a hot meal once a week at a local church. By the way I live in northern Minnesota where it will commonly reach sub zero temps for the next 5 months. I have also seen many banks and insurence companies being built, while small businesses are going under and the buildings are not getting filled, nor are the businesses getting sold. One of the existing banks in our little city here just remodeled and added on. Oh, did I mention almost the entire building is covered with a layer of copper sheeting? Real copper, not the stuff that looks like it, real copper, and it is always being cleaned. Do I think this bail out is absurd, YES!!! They don't need money if they can line the outdoor walls with copper.
• United States
21 Nov 08
I think there are actually two problems contributing to the mortgage crisis. The first is the business practices of these financial institutions that allowed them to give loans to people who had little or no income - no real ability to repay the loan. The second is the American people who applied for and accepted these loans - knowing very well that they did not have the means to repay them. I don't feel that enough regulation and oversight has been included in the Bailout legislation. It was taken for granted that providing these funds to the banks would result in them loosening up and issuing more credit - they, instead, have used those funds for buy-outs of other banks for for their own executive perks.
• United States
21 Nov 08
See, the person before me had a good idea. I'll piggyback on that. First of all, I'm not mad if a person get paid good money in this country or anywhere else. i respect that; What I don't respect at all is the fact that companies that abused money by spending on stuff they had no business doing to begin with on luxuries and such while the Average Joe and Jill was barely scuffling by just to pay bills and get to work and if or when they lose their jobs, they cannot even get a lick of unemployment and you lose your home in a N.Y.minute. Now as for these folks paying outlandish money to these workers, you may have a point. What should have been done is reduction of pay. Of course when your used to getting a certain pay, it's hard to reduce for the good and eventually the excesses cause problems for all. I feel they need help but after helping the banks, they kind of hurt it for other folks.