Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH -- 7 June 2012 [View all]Tansy_Gold
(17,847 posts)I just want the facts of the business dealings. It's always been my contention that the assholes in charge make everything too complicated for real people to understand. My job is to take everything back to the KISS principle.
So, the #1 assumption is that the banks had money at some point, and now they don't, but they want some.
If the banks used to have money, what did they do with it?
If they lent it out, why were the loans not repaid?
If they made bad loans, tough shit. Go after the borrowers or get the collateral back. If the loans were made without collateral, that's the bank's fault. Tough shit. If the collateral lost value, tough shit.
Someone, somewhere, has the banks' money and/or the collateral pledged as security for the loans. The banks need to run their businesses like real businesses, and either get the borrowers to repay their loans or foreclose on the collateral. There is no reason for the taxpayers to bail out the banks.
Unless I'm missing something in the basic business model. (political contributions, lobbyists, etc., are simply part of the normal business operations, and are not subject to clawback any more than non-exempt employees' wages are. CEO bonuses, on the other hand. . . . . )