Still more proof that government bailouts don't work

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Britain is nearly bankrupt from government meddling in the banking industry.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...brings-Britain-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy.html

Gordon Brown brings Britain to the edge of bankruptcy
Iain Martin says the Prime Minister hasn't 'saved the world' and now faces disgrace in the history books

By Iain Martin
Last Updated: 8:41AM GMT 21 Jan 2009

They don't know what they're doing, do they? With every step taken by the Government as it tries frantically to prop up the British banking system, this central truth becomes ever more obvious.

Yesterday marked a new low for all involved, even by the standards of this crisis. Britons woke to news of the enormity of the fresh horrors in store. Despite all the sophistry and outdated boom-era terminology from experts, I think a far greater number of people than is imagined grasp at root what is happening here.

The country stands on the precipice. We are at risk of utter humiliation, of London becoming a Reykjavik on Thames and Britain going under. Thanks to the arrogance, hubristic strutting and serial incompetence of the Government and a group of bankers, the possibility of national bankruptcy is not unrealistic.

The political impact will be seismic; anger will rage. The haunted looks on the faces of those in supporting roles, such as the Chancellor, suggest they have worked out that a tragedy is unfolding here. Gordon Brown is engaged no longer in a standard battle for re-election; instead he is fighting to avoid going down in history disgraced completely.

This catastrophe happened on his watch, no matter how much he now opportunistically beats up on bankers. He turned on the fountain of cheap money and encouraged the country to swim in it. House prices rose, debt went through the roof and the illusion won elections.Throughout, Brown boasted of the beauty of his regulatory structure, when those in charge of it were failing to ask the most basic questions of financial institutions. (Sound familiar? -- j) The same bankers Brown now claims to be angry with, he once wooed, travelling to the City to give speeches praising their "financial innovation".

Does the Prime Minister realise the likely implications when the country joins the dots? He has never been wild on shouldering blame, so I doubt it. But Brown is a historian. He should know that when a nation has put all its chips on red and the ball lands on black, the person who made the call is responsible. Neville Chamberlain discovered this in May 1940 with the German invasion of France.

We're some way from a similar event. But do not underestimate the gravity of the emergency and potential for disgrace.

The Government's bail-out of the banks in October with £37 billion of taxpayers' money was supposed to have "saved the world", according to the PM, but now it is clear that it has not even saved the banks. Our money kept the show on the road for only three months.

As the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman Vince Cable asks: where has the £37 billion gone? The answer, as Cable knows, is that it has disappeared down the plug hole. (Sound familiar? -- j)

It is finally dawning on the Government that the liabilities of the British banks grew to be so vast in the boom years that they now eclipse the entire economy. (Sound familiar? -- j) Unfortunately, the Treasury is pledged to honour those liabilities because it has guaranteed not to let a British bank go down. RBS has liabilities of £1.8 trillion, three times annual UK government spending, against assets of £1.9 trillion. But after the events of the past year, I wager most taxpayers will believe the true picture is worse.

Meanwhile, the assets are falling in value. This matters, because post-nationalisation these liabilities are now yours and
mine.
(Sound familiar? -- j)

And they come piled on top of the rocketing national debt, charitably put at £630 billion, or 43 per cent of GDP. The true figure is much higher because the Government has used off-balance sheet accounting to hide commitments such as PFI projects. (Sound familiar? -- j)

Add to that record consumer indebtedness and Britain becomes extremely vulnerable. The markets have worked this out ahead of the politicians, as usual, and are wondering what to do next. If they decide our nation is a basket case, they will make it so. (Sound familiar? -- j)

The PM and the Chancellor , both looking a year older every day, tell us that for their next trick they will buy more bank shares, create a giant insurance scheme for bad debt, pledge to honour liabilities without limit, cross their fingers and hope it all works. The phrase "bottomless pit" springs to mind for a reason: that is what they have designed. (Sound familiar? -- j)

In this gloom, the Prime Minister has but one slender hope: that somehow, by force of personality, the new President Obama engineers a rapid American recovery restoring global confidence, energising the markets and making us all forget this bad dream.

Obama is talented but he is not a magician.
Instead, Gordon Brown's nightmare, in which we are all trapped, is going to get much worse.

If Obama decides to repeal the Bush tax cuts, and institute new and higher taxes in the middle of a recession, the hoped for "rapid American recovery restoring global confidence" will not appear. America will lead the charge, be it uphill to glory, or down a rat hole. That will be the responsibility of the new president for good or bad.
 
Jim, I'm not sure that bailouts are the best idea but this article can't really be considered proof of anything.

It's an opinion piece that doesn't really offer any evidence that they wouldn't have been much worse off without them.

If Obama decides to repeal the Bush tax cuts, and institute new and higher taxes in the middle of a recession, the hoped for "rapid American recovery restoring global confidence" will not appear.

The plan is for most Americans to be paying less tax. I'm not sure why you said this part.


America will lead the charge, be it uphill to glory, or down a rat hole. That will be the responsibility of the new president for good or bad.

I'm not sure why you think we will necessarily be leading or why you consider a problem inherited from the Bush administration Obama's responsibility when you have seemed very keen tio hold Bush responsible for something that happened on his watch.
 
When the BAnk of Scotland goes under, dragging Her Majesty, along with the royal subjects down with it, will that be proof?

Keep government out of the economy. Here, there or anywhere. Allow the market to control it.
 
The problem is that the 'market' isn't controlling it. If you're talking consumers and the ordinary Joe. The market and the pricing thereof is controlled through analysts and their almighty estimates.

A company can be selling it's product like gangbusters, but if the company only makes $1b this quarter but the analysts predicted $1.1B, the share price goes down. Why? Certainly not because the company is doing badly, or their product is bad..but because some computer program somewhere had the wrong numbers plugged in and gave an estimate that didn't match reality too well.

Regulation would go a long way towards ensuring that the numbers plugged in and how they're processed is more conservative/realistic.
 
The problem is that the 'market' isn't controlling it. If you're talking consumers and the ordinary Joe. The market and the pricing thereof is controlled through analysts and their almighty estimates.

If the price & terms are fair, it'll fly. If not, it won't.

To be fair, we've become so consumeristic that a "good deal" is highly subjetive. Far too many people are paying far too much for new cars & homes. Part of which has led us to where we are. However, we are in the middle of a natural corection. If the gov't stays out of it, it'll hurt then pass. If we allow them to keep spending our future, it'll never heal & the next time will be far worse.
 
I disagree. A good example would be Canada's baby NorTel. Still a high-tech company with a bevy of useful and sellable products at a decent cost. Used to be at $124/stock, now at .12c/stock and in bankruptcy protection.
 
I'm just wondering how much Obama thinks we need to spend before we're out of debt. If you keep throwing a 100 billion here and a 100 billion there, pretty soon it will add up to some real money!! I guess I screwed up when I got out of college. I budgeted my money to pay off the loans, when I should have spent more untill they went away.
 
When the BAnk of Scotland goes under, dragging Her Majesty, along with the royal subjects down with it, will that be proof?

How would that be proof? Banks going under was one of the reason for the bailouts.
 
True. They didn't get used as intended though, did they?

The major reason for the bailouts was the burst ballon of housing & that was tossed out on its ear almost immediately.
 
Sweden’s Fix for Banks: Nationalize Them

By CARTER DOUGHERTY
Published: January 22, 2009

The Swedes have a simple message to the Americans: Bite the bullet and nationalize.Officials in Washington are trying to figure out how to shore up American banks that once ruled the financial world but now seem to weaken by the day, despite receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in government aid.

With Sweden’s banks effectively bankrupt in the early 1990s, a center-right government pulled off a rapid recovery that led to taxpayers making money in the long run.

Former government officials in Sweden, many of whom come from the market-oriented end of the political spectrum, say the only way to solve the crisis in the United States is for the government to be prepared to temporarily take full ownership of the banks.

Sweden placed its banks with troubled assets into a so-called bad bank, where they could be held and then sold over time when market and economic conditions improved. In the meantime, it used taxpayer money to provide enough capital to allow banks to resume normal lending.

In the process, Sweden wiped out existing shareholders.

By contrast, the United States government, so far, has bailed out banks without receiving large equity stakes in return, said Bo Lundgren, Sweden’s minister of fiscal and financial affairs during the Swedish bank takeover.

“For me, that is a problem,” said Mr. Lundgren, who called himself more of a free marketer than some Republicans. “If you go in with capital, you should have full voting rights.”

More of the article here

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/business/worldbusiness/23sweden.html?_r=1
 
there will always be small lenders...somewhere.

I'll just stay with the privately owned bankers I know.
I know several that are, and will thrive, if the gov. will leave them alone.
 
True. They didn't get used as intended though, did they?

And they still aren't.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483007,00.html

Report: Rescued Citigroup Shelling Out $50M for Corporate Jet

Monday, January 26, 2009

Beleaguered Citigroup is upgrading its mile-high club with a brand-new $50 million corporate jet -- only this time, it's the taxpayers who are getting screwed.

Even though the bank's stock is as cheap as a gallon of gas and it's burning through a $45 billion taxpayer-funded rescue, the Citigroup's execs pushed through the purchase of a new Dassault Falcon 7X, according to a source familiar with the deal.

The French-made luxury jet seats up to 12 in a plush interior with leather seats, sofas and a customizable entertainment center, according to Dassault's sales literature. It can cruise 5,950 miles before refueling and has a top speed of 559 mph.

There are just nine of these top-of-the-line models in the United States, with Dassault's European factory churning out three to four 7Xs a month.

Citigroup decided to get its new wings two years ago, when the financial-services giant was flush with cash, but it still intends to take possession of the jet this year despite its current woes, the source said.

Click here for more on this story from the New York Post.
 
The government of Iceland has collapsed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,482828,00.html

Iceland's Prime Minster Says Government Collapsed

Monday, January 26, 2009

Iceland's coalition government collapsed Monday, leaving the island nation in political turmoil amid a financial crisis that has pummeled its economy and required an international bailout to keep the country afloat. (Alert the press: It didn't work -- j)

Prime Minister Geir Haarde said he was unwilling to meet demands from his coalition partners in the Social Democratic Alliance Party, which insisted upon the post of prime minister in order to keep the coalition intact.

Haarde, who has been prime minister since 2006, said he would officially inform the country's president later Monday that the government had collapsed.

Foreign Minister Ingibjorg Gisladottir, who heads the Social Democrats, is expected to start talks immediately with opposition parties in an attempt to form a new government. That government would sit until new elections are held, likely in May.

Haarde had previously said he wouldn't lead his Independence Party into new elections, because he has cancer.

He told reporters on Monday that he had proposed Education Minister Thorgerdur Katrin Gunnarsdottir, of Haarde's own party, be appointed Iceland's new prime minister — but Gisladottir rejected that offer.

"It was an unreasonable demand for the smaller party to demand the premiership over the larger party," Haarde said.

Iceland has been mired in crisis since the collapse of the country's banks under the weight of debts amassed during years of rapid expansion. Inflation and unemployment have soared, and the krona currency has plummeted. (Sound familiar? -- j)

Haarde's government has nationalized banks (Coming to a country near you soon. -- j) and negotiated about $10 billion in loans from the IMF and individual countries. In addition, Iceland faces a bill likely to run to billions of dollars to repay thousands of Europeans who held accounts with subsidiaries of collapsed Icelandic banks.

The country's commerce minister, Bjorgvin Sigurdsson, quit on Sunday citing the pressures of the economic collapse. Sigurdsson, a member of Gisladottir's party, said Icelanders had lost trust in their political leadership.

Thousands have joined noisy daily protests in the last week over soaring unemployment and rising prices.
 
From the article you posted, I didn't get the idea that Sweden's government ever went tits-up, though. That's kind of a big deal.
 
Back
Top