TARP was a huge success, I still don't get why people have issues with it - other than the what-happens-after being really lame.

 

But that's an interesting point about foreign banks getting the money. I'm not sure how I feel about that just yet.

The biggest, easiest complaint that anyone can make about TARP is that while it saved the current system...it saved the current system.

 

Yeah, it kept things from getting worse at a surprisingly low cost at the end. But it also put massive amounts of money into the hands of the very people who caused the mess, made 100% sure that they didn't do anything to reform and protected them while leaving everyone else in the country out to dry.

 

Whether we end up turning a profit on these plans or not is an argument that misses the point. We made low (or zero) interest loans to a bunch of financial institutions to protect them, with the U.S. government assuming all the downside risk, and in the process protected a certain class of U.S. citizens and world investment elites.

The biggest, easiest complaint that anyone can make about TARP is that while it saved the current system...it saved the current system.

 

Yeah, it kept things from getting worse at a surprisingly low cost at the end. But it also put massive amounts of money into the hands of the very people who caused the mess, made 100% sure that they didn't do anything to reform and protected them while leaving everyone else in the country out to dry.

 

Whether we end up turning a profit on these plans or not is an argument that misses the point. We made low (or zero) interest loans to a bunch of financial institutions to protect them, with the U.S. government assuming all the downside risk, and in the process protected a certain class of U.S. citizens and world investment elites.

That wasn't TARP. People seem to not understand this - what needed to happen (which I am sure we both agree with) is for TARP to go out, and quickly, then follow it up with more considered, deep rebuilding of the regulatory environment. The former was necessary no matter what, and the US ended up paying nearly net-zero dollars for it. The failure was not TARP - the failure was in the weak overhaul attempts that came after.

 

That wasn't TARP. People seem to not understand this - what needed to happen (which I am sure we both agree with) is for TARP to go out, and quickly, then follow it up with more considered, deep rebuilding of the regulatory environment. The former was necessary no matter what, and the US ended up paying nearly net-zero dollars for it. The failure was not TARP - the failure was in the weak overhaul attempts that came after.

But what you seem to not understand is that given the political power of the banks...the political power that allowed them to write the rules that allowed them to build the taxpayer-backed casino in the first place...the only point in the last 20 years at which we could have done anything about the regulatory environment was when the banks needed something...aka 2008.

 

By 2009, the jig was up. The Banks were back to happy, the DJIA was going up, and they were right back to buying Congresspeople and screwing everyone else. And oh by the way, see those campaign finance regulations? Yeah, those are gone too.

Other reports today...

 

Private sector job growth in November at 93,000 (vs 58,000 expected), the highest in 3 years and the 10th consecutive month of growth in the ADP report. October number revised up nearly double from 43,000 to 82,000.

 

Senate failed to advance jobless benefits extension.

I didn't bother to post anywhere that I was taking the under in the official job numbers? Damn. That was an easy one, they were projecting like 150,000, which would have required 57,000 public sector jobs on top of the private sector jobs report there. Well, anyway, small private sector job growth, small public sector job decreases, down quite a bit from the October pace, with Sept. and Oct. revised upwards slightly.

The economy continued to add jobs last month, but at a much slower pace than expected, while the unemployment rate rose to 9.8%.

 

U.S. employers added 39,000 jobs to their payrolls in November, the Labor Department reported Friday. That marks a major slowdown from October, when the economy added an upwardly revised 172,000 jobs.

 

November's numbers also fell short of the 150,000 gain that economists surveyed by CNNMoney.com were expecting.

 

Private businesses continued to hire for the eleventh month in a row, following nearly two straight years of private sector losses during the Great Recession. Companies added 50,000 jobs to their payrolls in October, also falling short of the 175,000 jobs economists had predicted for the sector.

 

Meanwhile, the government shed 11,000 jobs during the month.

That wasn't TARP. People seem to not understand this - what needed to happen (which I am sure we both agree with) is for TARP to go out, and quickly, then follow it up with more considered, deep rebuilding of the regulatory environment. The former was necessary no matter what, and the US ended up paying nearly net-zero dollars for it. The failure was not TARP - the failure was in the weak overhaul attempts that came after.

 

Call it whatever you want. Gigantic companies that f***ed up the country royally for a decade probably received zero penalty. That's just not right.

I didn't bother to post anywhere that I was taking the under in the official job numbers? Damn. That was an easy one, they were projecting like 150,000, which would have required 57,000 public sector jobs on top of the private sector jobs report there. Well, anyway, small private sector job growth, small public sector job decreases, down quite a bit from the October pace, with Sept. and Oct. revised upwards slightly.

 

It's a good thing the job stimulus created all those jobs.

Call it whatever you want. Gigantic companies that f***ed up the country royally for a decade probably received zero penalty. That's just not right.

Completely agree. Now what does that have to do with TARP?

 

It's a good thing the job stimulus created all those jobs.

Stimulus Bill, TARP, and QE efforts almost assuredly staved off a depression that would have seen far, far worse UE and deflation. So in that sense, they worked - they did create jobs, they did save jobs, they did protect assets.

 

Problem is that the Stim Bill was far too short-term, TARP was not followed up by appropriate regulatory changes (enough of them I mean), and QE puts us in a cycle that will result in serious inflation later. Basically, in all three cases, they worked, but needed to be parts of long term adjustments after the fact which aren't happening yet.

 

Completely agree. Now what does that have to do with TARP?

 

Wasn't that the vehicle used by the government to say "you have a bunch of s***ty assets that you negligently purchased/held onto, so now we're going to pay you for them so that you don't go out of business?" If so, that's f***ed.

 

"You're a crack addict that's self destructing? Here's more crack so you don't have to go through withdrawal."

Stimulus Bill, TARP, and QE efforts almost assuredly staved off a depression that would have seen far, far worse UE and deflation. So in that sense, they worked - they did create jobs, they did save jobs, they did protect assets.

 

Problem is that the Stim Bill was far too short-term, TARP was not followed up by appropriate regulatory changes (enough of them I mean), and QE puts us in a cycle that will result in serious inflation later. Basically, in all three cases, they worked, but needed to be parts of long term adjustments after the fact which aren't happening yet.

 

OK, so at the end of the day (now) it still didn't (doesn't) work, which is my point.

Wasn't that the vehicle used by the government to say "you have a bunch of s***ty assets that you negligently purchased/held onto, so now we're going to pay you for them so that you don't go out of business?" If so, that's f***ed.

 

"You're a crack addict that's self destructing? Here's more crack so you don't have to go through withdrawal."

 

Well, you don't just cut off a heroin addict cold-turkey. You ween them off and use things like methadone, otherwise you might kill them.

OK, so at the end of the day (now) it still didn't (doesn't) work, which is my point.

No, it worked quite well. This distinction is important - TARP had to be done in any case, and it worked. QE probably needed to be done, jury is still out there. Stim bill was probably needed in SOME form, but maybe not precisely the one that was used. They all worked, and then seperately, we've been failing to follow up.

 

Well, you don't just cut off a heroin addict cold-turkey. You ween them off and use things like methadone, otherwise you might kill them.

Which they did in this case, but then after its all done, you're supposed to also turn off the methadone.

 

Which they did in this case, but then after its all done, you're supposed to also turn off the methadone.

And especially don't give them the super-heroin, like they did in this case.

Call it whatever you want. Gigantic companies that f***ed up the country royally for a decade probably received zero penalty. That's just not right.

 

We do it all of the time when it is the Federal Government...

We do it all of the time when it is the Federal Government...

Yeah, Bush royally F***ed the country for a decade and he gets off scott free.

The employment/population ratio has now matched the 3-decade low that it reached 11 months ago, and therefore, employment/population has been awful and virtually unchanged for nearly a year.

There's nothing succinct enough to excerpt, but this is an exceptional story of how a 73 year old NY woman did nothing wrong, and yet the only thing that prevented BofA from taking her house illegally was the fact that she not only hired a lawyer, but she hired a lawyer smart enough to go to the NY Times.

Jobless claims 2nd lowest this year at 421k, beating expectations and making it 2 out of last 3 weeks that the number has been below the faux-magical 425k line.

 

Yesterday it was announced that the number of job openings was the highest in 2 years, and that the ratio of seekers to jobs has dropped in the past year or so from 6-7 per to about 4 per. Still ugly, but far better.

I thought this was interesting. A group of the uber-rich - 57 of them for now including Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg - have pledged to give away at least half their wealth before or upon their deaths. That's downright cool.

 

I thought this was interesting. A group of the uber-rich - 57 of them for now including Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg - have pledged to give away at least half their wealth before or upon their deaths. That's downright cool.

 

Is it really? I mean... ya'll are SO concerned about the wealthy and their tax rates, why don't they just give it to the government? It would reduce the deficit, and we are all learning about how much better the government can put money where it needs to go so much more efficiently then these charitable organizations can do, right?

 

Or, another angle, if you'd like... you mean these people get to CHOOSE where their money goes? The government can't take it away from them? Really?

 

Think about the ironly here a little.

There's no irony.

There's no irony.

 

 

None at all, huh? Which piece of the cake and eat it too do you want to talk about here?

I have a friend who is in the financial field in Chicago and he thinks it'll be 2 more years before the economy even starts to turn around for the better.

 

I have a question: A.) Do you believe this? And B.) Why isn't the economy a national crisis issue. This issue needs to be ATTACKED as much as the terror issue and all other SERIOUS issues.

WTF? People are outta work.