Times reporter Joe Nocera listened in on a Chase employee-only conference call and one employee asked, "Chase recently received $25 billion in federal funding. What effect will that have on the business side and will it change our strategic lending policy?"
Translation: When are we going to start making loans?The executive moderator replied:
Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase.. What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.
Later, the same executive said,
We would think that loan volume will continue to go down as we continue to tighten credit to fully reflect the high cost of pricing on the loan side.
Translation: We'll use that $25 billion as a war chest to buy other banks, and hoard it in case times get tougher.
"Read that answer as many times as you want," wrote NYT, "You are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy."
Furthermore, a new tax break allows banks to immediately deduct any losses they that are on the books of the banks they acquire.
What is the government doing to make banks use the money for loans? Apparently, jack, except for asking really really nicely. If this continues and banks don't use their government handout to open up loans, this bailout will be the single greatest ripoff in American history, and those responsible are naive if they don't think they'll have a giant bloody revolution on their hands—and I mean that in the literal sense.
So When Will Banks Give Loans? [NYT] (Photo: Getty)
]]>I would like to know why Chase was "forced" to take $25B but neither National City (9th largest bank) nor KeyBank (12th largest) were offered a cent by the Feds. If you look at the banks who did get the money you'll see almost all are in the Northeast. This wasn't a bailout, it was Paulson doing his Xmas shopping early.
]]>In fact, no normal troops will be involved, because anyone we now know as patriotic [yes they monitor the troops closer than anyone, and their families even looking for secret coded communications] well be 'debriefed' and either completely decommissioned, or if they are seen to be a serious threat, sent various places depending on their perceived threat level to the new world order, which is being constructed by the Bush's and their German and other West and East European architects.
Presently, I am writing a Sci-Fi thriller "Dry Ice: The Pentagon Records". It will be a shocker and a very scary movie, because its based around some serious truths.
And troop cloning is not as far fetched as one might think. Super soldiering has been going on since JFK's time and will progress as far as human genetics and the passive and ignorant American citizenship will permit it to go, and THEIR input will likely be for no real account by the time they really know the truth.
Along with the rise in hate crimes by isolated cells of fascists who are NOT patriotic [see today's news [news.yahoo.com]], and we have a situation ripe for war.
]]>@Haltingpoint: pass laws? no we should emotionally pass a bill that allows banks and governement to do wahtever they want!! duh! :P
while we're at it, lets pass a bill that distroys 2/3'rds our constitutional rights.. oh wait.. patriot act.
]]>In the words of Ben Folds Five:
"i want my money back, you bitch"
@woogychuck: 24 out of 30 Texas representatives voted NO both times. The only six that voted FOR the second bail-out (with more Pork) are puppets. And I HOPE the rest of the people in my district are mad enough to fire Mac Thornberry next week. I think some 80% of Texans said "FUCK NO" to the bailout.
]]>Look at how the bailout was conceived. Barney Frank was on the House Financial Services Committee. He oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. His boyfriend was an executive at Fannie Mae. They both lobbied to lower the lending standards for people who couldn't obtain standard loans because they didn't qualify i.e. low income minorities. The rest of the lending industry followed suit. Now there is a housing crisis which is a big reason for the bailout. Now Barney Frank is blaming the Bush Administration for the housing crisis when the Administration called for lending reform as early as 2001 because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were getting out of control. Nany Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Harry Reid as well as other leading Democrats opposed the reform to reign in out of control lending institutions. I don't agree with some of the Bush Administration especially is his tending to be socialist, but put the blame where is belongs, ON THE DEMOCRATS!
]]>@newgalactic: because somebody may get confused. you never know on the internet.
]]>@laserjobs: Fortunately the house members in NH voted against it and things are looking good for at least one of the senators that voted for it.
]]>"I'll just put in the tip...I promise!"
6 months later, we're knocked up, and the banking industry is dating the prom queen.
]]>Chase Banks says :"Let them eat our cock"
]]>The American people are going to do what they always do now. They're gonna complain, they're gonna "demand answers," and they're gonna blog.
Then they're gonna go back to work, pay their bills on time, and watch presidential debates all while taking it right up the chute. Just like always.
There will be no long-lasting questions, there will be no protests, and there certainly will be no revolution.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the government managed to pass another $700 billion bailout that went to the exact same uses.
]]>Will be? It already is.
]]>@kidjesus: US Army North is currently retraining 3rd Infantry 1st Brigade to handle non-lethal weaponry in case of domestic crisis. Enough to take on a city, but probably not enough to quell a full on civil war.
]]>But not nearly as much as I hate the bankers.
]]>@rekoil: The people have always been revolting, but now they're rebelling!
]]>Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1
3rd Infantry's 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping 'people at home' may become a permanent part of the active Army
By Gina Cavallaro - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Sep 30, 2008 16:16:12 EDT
The 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
Now they're training for the same mission - with a twist - at home.
Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force.
But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.
After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control.
The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced "sea-smurf").
"I don't know what America's overall plan is - I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come and help if they're called," Cloutier said. "It makes me feel good as an American to know that my country has dedicated a force to come in and help the people at home"
]]>So this is what France was like in 1789. Except there aren't any Croissants.
]]>We're following the first part of the Gordon Brown solution, but not the rest. Once you own the banks, you *order* them to start lending. Grow a pair, Paulson, and use the authority you have, now that you own the banks.
]]>"My gut instinct tells me you'd see massive military defections in a situation like that."
I read this as "massive military defecations" and nearly spit my coffee all over my screen.
]]>The big issue here is that the government forced banks that didn't need money, like JP Morgan, to take federal bailout funds. The reason was simple: if everyone didn't take the money, depositors with accounts at banks that did take the money would withdraw funds and go to the stronger bank. (ie. perpetuate the problem the bailout was supposed to solve)
At the end of the day, it's better for stonger banks like JP Morgan to absorb poorly capitalized bands. Remember that the objective here is to stabilize the financial sector. Enabling mergers and consolidation is a good way to do that.
]]>I hate to be that guy, I cant even belive I'm saying this but. A. yes the bailout was poorly conceived and it's doomed to fail. But if the banks dont buy the smaller ones and they fail, well the taxpayers will pay for that via FDIC and the loans that will be eventually made so that the smaller banks can be bought anyway.
It's just unfortunate that there are no good options.
]]>To be fair, Chase didn't want or need the money.
]]>The credit market is more than just home loans to the unprepared, its *everything*. I'd even be okay with the home loan sector stagnating for a bit, if we could keep normal mom and pop shops able to operate.
]]>And for some banks, I can see why they are pursuing an acquisition strategy. The government forced all banks to allow them to buy in, in order to hide which banks were actually in trouble. If the banks that aren't in trouble use the government money to start lending, they'd cause the marginal/failing banks to fail, despite the bailout. Up to a certain point, the consolidation is more healthy for the overall economy and the consumer than by forcing the marginal banks to compete with healthy banks flush with government money.
But, the bottom line is that: this isn't what congress and the taxpayers agreed to. The banks drank the Kool-aid, now they have to live with extreme government interference in their normal business operations. Or, I suppose they could just give the money back.
]]>Its no surprise to me that the Bail-out fund is being gang rapped. We should have skipped it and put the Guillotine back into service instead.
]]>The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
]]>If the military starts growing clone troopers, it will be a different story. Probably a stupid one written by George Lucas.
]]>I'd settle for executive blood.
]]>....Ah, the French Revolution?
]]>Apparently "socializing loss" means even more capitalism (with free capital!) for Chase. Good luck with getting back your money, American Q. Taxpayer.
]]>As a former American I can only look on in horror at this state of events (not that Canada would do likewise in similar circumstances, but at least when reporters like this find out, the shit will hit the fan).
Honestly people, did ANYONE think that this "bailout" would not be used by the bankers as a gift?
Everything about this is so wrong and so fucked up that it makes you wonder about what you're not hearing about.
]]>You'll see some change.
]]>class action lawsuit?
]]>Taxation without representation and all that.
]]>@opsomath: For a while now, my mom has been insisting that most of what's happened in the past few years has been deliberate, including this.
]]>Vote out any representative or senator who voted to give King Paulson that money. Freaking idoits should lose their political positions.
]]>I pray that's not money derived from the bailout, but something tells me it might just be. Wouldn't that be fabulous? That taxpayer money goes directly into hooking people up with new Escalades so they can continue wrecking the climate apace.
]]>I can't roll my eyes any harder.
]]>1) Big banks buy slightly smaller, failing banks with government-loan capital.
2) Surviving banks are ordered to turn over stock to government in return for capital to do (1).
Result? We get a federally controlled giant bank monstrosity. Bye-bye, free market. Just remember that we didn't have one of those before, either. Does anyone think this is deliberate consolidation?
]]>Corporation First!
]]>Anyway, revolution is pretty extreme for economic reasons. Very few people (myself included) would consider money enough of a reason to overthrow a government (especially at this point in time). I don't know of any successful revolutions in history that have had money as their primary goal (religion, freedom, yes; money, no)
]]>On the other hand, if by dividends you meant pay-outs to big-greedy corporate-execs, I am all with you.
]]>Hey, if lax government oversight and unchecked greed got us into this mess, it can get us out!
Right?
Who am I kidding, if anybody needs me, I'll be under my desk in the fetal position.
]]>The bills and acts that we should be most skeptical of are those of which leaders of both parties come together on. Granted, I'm a partisan hack, so when it comes to bipartisanship, I am usually pretty worried by it.
]]>Considering his first draft made him Tzar of $700B w/ no review or reporting requirements, it's due to Congressional dickering that we even heard of this attempt. Let's hope (demand!) for more "interference" until this option is beaten down. Hard.
I'd also like to see a provision banning dividends until each company has returned every tax-payer dime paid, with interest. Otherwise it's a giveaway in a different form.
I guess this puts (another) nail into the coffin of the "businesses can be trusted so let's not regulate them, evah" approach, hmm?
]]>Then there were these two other guys both spouting how this bill needed to pass and they're like running for president as well.. so like.. yea.. we should maybe elect them...
/sarcasm
stupid bill + greedy lobbyists + banking system broken + politicians = American Revolution 2.0?
]]>