Friday, February 13, 2009

Financial Experts : Major US Banks Insolvent


Minimum Injection Needed $1,000,000,000.00
Posted by at
Labels:

4 comments:

  1. yanqui mikeFebruary 13, 2009 at 11:24 AM

    Hey Fred!

    I was just thinking about this:

    Today's NYT says:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/business/economy/13yen.html

    "TOKYO — The Obama administration is committing huge sums of money to rescuing banks, but the veterans of Japan’s banking crisis have three words for the Americans: more money, faster.

    “I think they know how big it is, but they don’t want to say how big it is. It’s so big they can’t acknowledge it,” said John H. Makin, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, referring to administration officials. “The lesson from Japan in the 1990s was that they should have stepped up and nationalized the banks.”"

    I wish someone would explain what we're getting for our One Trilski. I don't think we're getting anything other than making sure that our banksters stay comfortably ensconced.

    ReplyDelete
  2. FourpointFebruary 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM

    Mike,
    Great comment! It's seems crazy to bail out the banks so they can continue to make more bad loans, so they can get bailed out again! What do you think about applying the Swiss banking model that has no FDIC, but very very conservative regulations?
    I went nuts when it came out that Citi is sponsoring the Mets for $400,000,000, that's excess. And Japan has been stagnant for years after their banking crisis, and subsequent government 'stimulus'

    ReplyDelete
  3. yanqui mikeFebruary 14, 2009 at 6:52 PM

    I don't know. I really don't see any reason for private banking anymore.

    More precisely, I don't see why we need to have gov't guaranteed, then gov't rescued, places for people to leave their money safely and occasionally apply for a loan.

    All the money is now from the US Treasury; the banks large and small are insolvent. Why do we need this middle-man anymore.

    Why not deposit your money with the Treasury and borrow it from the Treasury? It's what we're doing now.

    It sounds cheaper and more efficient and less prone to this craziness.

    Private banking could go on ...but without guarantees nor bailouts.

    What would we lose under a situation like that?

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2009 at 1:59 PM

    I agree. Private sector in collusion with a corrupt bureaucratic organization (state) don't need efficiency, so it wont have it. See... what would be the best solution to this problem? Right! make sure the monopoly of the whole monetary system (or why not the whole economy?) is ran by that corrupt organization... that makes sense. They already have the monopoly of force, so it wont be a problem to get a hold of everything they need and want. Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)