I was wrong. We came alot closer to financial collapse than I thought

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's a YouTube clip of Representative Brad Sherman (D - CA-27) claiming that some members of Congress had been told that "martial law" would ensue if some bill wasn't passed (from the date, I'm guessing the TARP?). I still think it was probably just fearmongering to keep stuff like the non-reviewability provisions in, but I wonder if it was at the meetings that Kanjorski's talking about.

Cleo
 
Of course, a bit of a joke, but Paulson does get some credit here...

And really Cutlass, there is no solid evidence that points the finger at Bush for causing this at all. Certainly there is guilt by leadership, as he was running the boilers when we hit the iceberg.

~Chris
 
Some. But being panicked into doing the right thing doesn't deserve tons of credit.
 
Thanks, Whomp.

To anyone: in the event of a collapse, having money in a small community bank wouldn't really be any better than something like Bank of America, then, if everything goes down together?
 
having money in a small community bank wouldn't really be any better than something like Bank of America, then, if everything goes down together?

Or under your mattress?
 
Thanks, Whomp.

To anyone: in the event of a collapse, having money in a small community bank wouldn't really be any better than something like Bank of America, then, if everything goes down together?

There's still the FDIC.
 
Of course, a bit of a joke, but Paulson does get some credit here...

And really Cutlass, there is no solid evidence that points the finger at Bush for causing this at all. Certainly there is guilt by leadership, as he was running the boilers when we hit the iceberg.

~Chris
I think we'd need to go back to the first Diners Club card being issued to get the root of the problem. A lot has done to bring us to where we are today. The way I see it this whole thing was a series of "pop corn kernels" bouncing around and finally the kernels blew the top off.

Thanks, Whomp.

To anyone: in the event of a collapse, having money in a small community bank wouldn't really be any better than something like Bank of America, then, if everything goes down together?
Doesn't matter. Your assets are guaranteed for $250k. The FDIC is very good at determining insolvency and will shut a bank down at that point.

Understand money market accounts are very different than bank deposits.
 
Of course, I didn't have this information, no one did, except those on the inside, and I suppose that's why it didn't leak until now, because then collapse really would have happened. But wow, I'm shocked.

But here's this, today: (politico)

Rep. Paul Kanjorski's description, late last month, of how close to the brink the global economy came on September 18. That was the day, recall, when Congressional leaders emerged stunned from a meeting with Henry Paulson, and gave him broad authority to spend $700 billion.

Part of what he said:

On Thursday at 11:00 a.m. the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there.

If they had not done that, their estimation is that by 2:00 p.m. that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.

Would you mind linking me the story? I'm not used to navigating politico and my brain is barely functioning after an exhausting day but I would really like to have the story to read tomorrow. You OP was absolutely enthralling, I would really like to backtrack what happened.
 
Would you mind linking me the story? I'm not used to navigating politico and my brain is barely functioning after an exhausting day but I would really like to have the story to read tomorrow. You OP was absolutely enthralling, I would really like to backtrack what happened.
Here's the article...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/The_near_miss.html

To get an understanding of how it got there I strongly recommend reading at least this first article since it illustrates the weekend before. These got lost on the previous page...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122177811990254369.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15lehman.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143670579134187.html?mod=special_coverage
 
I appreciate those who posted without snark or smugness. Given how messed up things got, "neener neener" attitude are not helpful

I don't know if this has been asked before... There is still a chance we could end up right back to the edge of oblivion again, right? Just because we dodged a bullet the first time doesn't mean we will dodge the second?
 
Why are individual businesses allowed to become so large that their failure risks "the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it"? Is there some benefit to having this axe hanging over our heads?
 
No, not despotism. No, The opposite, I expect. This isn't the 1930s, and the great change has been the ease access to peer-to-peer communication. It's a recent change, and I believe that it will prove a very important one.
Despotism took advantage of the rise of the mass media and the propaganda it enabled. We're now far more used to propaganda, to the point where it became very ineffective. It no longer could create enthusiasm for some leader or ideology, the only thing it was good at was creating apathy. And a big crisis will put an end to even that. So whatever happens now will not happen irrationally - old assumptions will be questioned, and people will argue rationally about where to move from here.

They always say this.
 
Why are individual businesses allowed to become so large that their failure risks "the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it"? Is there some benefit to having this axe hanging over our heads?

Because anti-trust law needs to be adapted.
 
I appreciate those who posted without snark or smugness. Given how messed up things got, "neener neener" attitude are not helpful
Schadenfreude is very powerful. Don't discount how humans behave. It's not much different than the need to assign blame.
 
The issue was related to the commercial paper market coming to a complete halt after Lehman Bros. paper went bye bye. No one would trust anyone else's paper.

Money markets had never broke a $1/share in their history and one broke the buck at that point with heavy Lehman commercial paper. That started the run since money markets are not guaranteed. It was quickly followed by a guarantee program to right the ship. If the commerical paper market collapses payroll does not get met in many cases.

Just to clarify for myself...

When you say "paper," is that basically an IOU?

I can understand why firms wouldn't trust others if my understanding is reasonably accurate!
 
Just to clarify for myself...

When you say "paper," is that basically an IOU?

I can understand why firms wouldn't trust others if my understanding is reasonably accurate!

Yeah, it's a short-term IOU. I think by law it has to be under 180 days to maturity. (?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom