quote:

Originally posted by MarkT TARP money is not a 'grant' though. some of these companies were mortgaging the future to survive now. The feds currently own a THIRD of Citigroup, do they not? I think 'hand-over-fist" is a bit of an exaggeration on the profits too...at least not industry-wide. Citi has apparently reported two quarters of positive earnings (the first seemingly due to accounting) and hardly out of the woods. a few of the investment banks, like Goldman Sachs, have profited from the whole thing...but that's not true of everyone. and they still have to pay back the TARP money. it's just shady that they even received any, isn't it?

What you're talking about in the first paragraph is precisely the kind of moral hazard I was describing. Although the money isn't "free", the expectation has been set with all of these financial groups that if they screw it up, they can count on another bailout, and so they're taking risks that a financial would normally never take. If it pans out - great, they pay back the TARP money. If not, the shareholders and taxpaying public are collectively left holding the (empty) bag.

I didn't say, or at least didn't intend to say that the TARP funds are actually helping all of the financials the way they were intended to. I was one of the few here against the bailouts, even before the actual pork-barrel bill was produced. My point was that if you're giving away free money - and to an investment bank, "interest-free loan" is practically a synonym for "free money" - then by definition everybody is going to want a piece of the pie. That's not hypocrisy, it's a classic tragedy-of-the-commons that so often becomes a manifestation of ham-fisted socialist policies.

(Yes, I'm aware that it's not "interest-free" either, just very low-interest... same thing)

And I won't even delve into all the problems with the government accepting stock as collateral - fortunately the fed is finally buckling under the pressure and looking for ways to unwind those positions.

Personally, I don't think you could ask for a clearer demonstration of corporate welfare's slippery slope. This doesn't reveal the supposed hypocrisy of capitalists, it reveals the debilitating effects of government interference - even "good" government interference - on a functioning capitalist system.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

thread as usual

quote:

Originally posted by TheVrk thread as usual

post as usual

this is why capitalism is evil

quote:

When getting beaten by your husband is a pre-existing condition With the White House zeroing in on the insurance-industry practice of discriminating against clients based on pre-existing conditions, administration allies are calling attention to how broadly insurers interpret the term to maximize profits. It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition. Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure. In human terms, it's a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence. In 2006, Democrats tried to end the practice. An amendment introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), now a member of leadership, split the Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee 10-10. The tie meant that the measure failed. All ten no votes were Republicans, including Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), a member of the "Gang of Six" on the Finance Committee who are hashing out a bipartisan bill. A spokesman for Enzi didn't immediately return a call from Huffington Post. At the time, Enzi defended his vote by saying that such regulations could increase the price of insurance and make it out of reach for more people. "If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state," he said, according to a CQ Today item from March 15th, 2006. Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for an insurance industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), said that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has proposed ending the discrimination. "The NAIC has a model on this that we strongly supported. That model bans the use of a person's status as a victim of domestic violence in making a decision on coverage," he said.

full article here

Last edited by mute79 on Sep-15-2009 at 16:46

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Hardly. His point actually demonstrates the biggest problem with corporate welfare, namely that as soon as you start offering handouts, everyone will want one. How can Citigroup compete with Bank of America if BAC has $20 billion in free money and C doesn't? We have the same thing in Canada on a smaller scale with programs like SRED. You'd be amazed at who applies for - and gets - those grants. If you're a small business working in the tech sector and you're not drinking from that well, then you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. It's not as if company execs walked up to their congressmen and asked for billions of dollars in bailouts (except for GM, but forget about their useless asses). The government offered it to practically anyone who was big enough and wanted some. What did you think that the CEO of JP Morgan was going to say? "No, thank you, we're doing just fine, you go ahead and send that $25 billion to Goldman Sachs instead, we really don't need it." Right. What a goddamn idiot Moore is, doesn't even bother to do a shred of research. And the long-term effects of these bailouts have yet to be seen. With markets trending up, these companies are now making money hand over fist, but the moral hazard that's been created could cause them to lose even more if the economic climate changes.

One of several comments: SR&ED is an incentive to take on risk. The benefits are realized through tax exemptions/tax credits on 'qualified work'. It is to encourage innovation and sharing risk. There are benefits to public/private partnerships such as this program because its return is uncertain (too risky) and would come at a considerable cost (capital). This is very different from TARP or TALF, etc other programs to recapitalize banks or provide liquidity in the market. As Schumpeter said...credit is critical.

Last edited by SSSanchez on Sep-15-2009 at 20:40

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT TARP money is not a 'grant' though. some of these companies were mortgaging the future to survive now. The feds currently own a THIRD of Citigroup, do they not? I think 'hand-over-fist" is a bit of an exaggeration on the profits too...at least not industry-wide. Citi has apparently reported two quarters of positive earnings (the first seemingly due to accounting) and hardly out of the woods. a few of the investment banks, like Goldman Sachs, have profited from the whole thing...but that's not true of everyone. and they still have to pay back the TARP money. it's just shady that they even received any, isn't it?

You had to 'make good' with your counterparties. GS I think got $12B in settling the outstanding CDS with AIG alone. You have to see that GS is not a retail bank (like JPM, BoA, Wells). They are purely investment bank (no depositor base). They make money from fees (securities, M&A, advisory, wealth management) , proprietary trading (all categories), money off loans to other firms/institutions/governments/funds, etc. I think something like $600M will be made in just being one of the primary dealers for Treasury. Allan Meltzer (A History of the Fed) argued against the 'too big to fail' syndrome. Allow bankruptcy to occur. There is a systematic method to deal with bankruptcies. Need more regulation on shadow money (quality of collateral).

(I don't have time to contribute much more than this, too busy contributing to capitalism)

quote:

Originally posted by mute79 this is why capitalism is evil

What does that inflammatory bullcrap have to do with any of this? Posting HuffPo articles, christ, GTFO.

quote:

Originally posted by SSSanchez One of several comments: SR&ED is an incentive to take on risk. The benefits are realized through tax exemptions/tax credits on 'qualified work'. It is to encourage innovation and sharing risk. There are benefits to public/private partnerships such as this program because its return is uncertain (too risky) and would come at a considerable cost (capital). This is very different from TARP or TALF, etc other programs to recapitalize banks or provide liquidity in the market. As Schumpeter said...credit is critical.

I know what it is, I've been personally involved in a number of SRED filings and worked with the auditors. I know how it works in theory, and I know that it can (and does) help some small businesses. I also know that it's immensely abused, there's a lot of money going to companies that really aren't "on the edge" at all.

I'll be honest though, when I posted that I was actually thinking of the HRDC, funneling millions of dollars into garbage like Environmental Defense.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut What does that inflammatory bullcrap have to do with any of this? Posting HuffPo articles, christ, GTFO. I know what it is, I've been personally involved in a number of SRED filings and worked with the auditors. I know how it works in theory, and I know that it can (and does) help some small businesses. I also know that it's immensely abused, there's a lot of money going to companies that really aren't "on the edge" at all. I'll be honest though, when I posted that I was actually thinking of the HRDC, funneling millions of dollars into garbage like Environmental Defense.

What do you qualify as 'on the edge'?