EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Obama Did It For the Money
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Renowned Scientist Stephen Hawking Joins Academic Boycott of Israel
Popular content
Today's Top News
Of Big Banks and ShoreBank
The Obama Administration’s treatment of its current majority ownership
of bailed out General Motors and its standoffishness toward the
pioneering but troubled ShoreBank, a community bank based in Chicago,
are lessons in how the Big/Bad fare in Washington, D.C., as compared
with the Good/Small.
Having
shed its bad assets and abandoned its common shareholders, the new GM
emerged from bankruptcy in 2009 with a clean balance sheet and lots of
taxpayer cash. For the first two quarters of 2010, it has signaled a
comeback by reporting over $2 billion in profits.
In return for a federal infusion of well over $50 billion, the
government took a 61 percent ownership stake. The Canadian government
received 10 percent ownership for its financial assistance, and the
United Auto Workers received 17.5 percent ownership in return for major
concessions and a two-tier salary scale starting at $14 an hour.
The Obama administration exercises its trust duties on behalf of the
taxpayers by repeatedly saying it would not use any powers of majority
ownership at all. The Obama administration is urging GM to issue stock
sooner than later so that the government can sell its stock and get out
of the company completely.
GM’s CEO Edward E. Whitacre Jr., former CEO of AT&T, agrees. In
recent weeks, he has been telling the press that GM is losing sales
because of its moniker “Government Motors.” Not known for his
graciousness, he did not add that without the government a bankrupt
General Motors would not have any sales at all.
There are serious consequences for Obama’s absentee management style.
First, he did not prohibit GM from lobbying, as was required for the
bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a major member of the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, GM has been part of a lobbying
force that seeks to weaken auto safety legislation now moving through
the House and the Senate. Historically, GM has been the most strident in
its opposition to mandatory pollution control, fuel efficiency and
safety standards. The company’s strategy for decades has been to defeat,
delay or weaken efforts to clean your air, safeguard your motor vehicle
and get you more miles per gallon of gasoline.
Now, when the government, as a majority owner, can at last tell GM to
support long established national policies in these three areas, Obama
is hands off. The new GM is free to return to its old obstructive ways.
Moreover, GM’s recovery is just beginning. It has cut its costs very
significantly so that its breakeven mark is at a low production volume
by historical standards. Starting from nearly rock bottom sales volume,
GM is making money in the U.S. and booming in China. So why would Obama
want to sell the government’s share so early when waiting a couple of
years will make a nice profit for the taxpayers and, in the meantime,
restrain GM’s opposition to innovation-driven regulations for the
health, safety and economic well-being of consumers?
Now, consider ShoreBank’s predicament. This bank broke ground since its
founding in 1973 by providing loans for lower-income homebuyers,
apartment building owners and small businesses. Year after year, this
community bank proved it could make money by opening up markets that the
big banks chose to red-line in Chicago and later in Detroit and
Cleveland. Hundreds of articles and news reports heralded its success.
Then the Wall Street-produced recession struck the country. Through
little fault of its own, many of its hard-pressed lower-income debtors
began to miss or default on their loans. ShoreBank started to register
losses--$119 million in 2009. Unlike the big banks, ShoreBank did not
deal in risky speculative derivatives—like credit default swaps,
collaterized debt obligations or subprime mortgage lending.
Washington is drawn irresistibly to bail out the big banks’ wildly
speculative, toxic paper investments with no redeeming social value.
George W. Bush took the taxpayers to levels of corporate welfare beyond
the dreams of corporate avarice.
Neil M. Barofsky, the valiant special inspector general for the Treasury
Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) reported that the
giant AIG bailout ($182 billion) gave its trading partners—bonus-rich
Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Societe Generale and other banks—100 cents
on the dollar for their notorious credit default swaps. Had AIG
defaulted, it would have been a fraction of that sum.
Barofsky’s report denounced the Federal Reserve for not negotiating
strongly with the banks. Incredibly, the Fed gave the banks $27 billion in taxpayer cash and let them keep $35 billion more
in collateral already posted by AIG. Barofsky declared that these
vastly overpaid sums were way “above [these contracts’] market value at
the time.”
Compare these amounts to what ShoreBank needs in additional investment
to provide liquidity and adequate capital reserves to ride out the
recession. It projects losses of about $200 million before returning to black ink and another $300 million or so to support future operations.
The community bank has raised $150 million in pledges from several Wall
Street firms—a little p.r. redemption here—and it needs $75 million in
TARP funds from the Obama administration.
At this writing, Washington is balking and the Bank, willing to shink down further, finds its hopes dimming.
The Chicago Tribune editorial “Still Worth Saving” put it well:
“ShoreBank, for many years, showed that operating honorably in
low-income neighborhoods could pay off for everybody. One way or
another, we can’t let its shining example disappear.”
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
32 Comments so far
Show AllMy guess is that there are many small and locally-owned banks like ShoreBank that managed their capital well, but due to circumstances caused by giant international speculators like "bonus-rich Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Societe Generale and other banks," they are suffering financially.
There have not been, nor will there ever be, any bailouts for these small, well-run banks. Their crime is that they did not bribe their so-called representatives in the Amerikkkan government to ensure their financial success.
Maybe in the next presidential election the Amerikkkan people will have awakened from their stupor and elect someone like Nader president. No, that could never happen, but it's a nice fantasy.
Failing to help Shore Bank is another way to help Big Banks eliminate the competition, something that has been achieved very nicely by the way the "financial crisis" was originally handled. Certain favored Big Banks were bailed out while their competitors were allowed to die or be gobbled up cheaply. This was rather clear at the time, and continues on a smaller scale as well. To the extent Shore Bank is successful in dealing with its customers fairly, it provides an attractive competing model as compared to that of the loan sharking biggies which cannot, tch, tch, tch, be allowed. It's almost as if it's gotten to the point where one can tell who are the bad guys and who are the good guys by which ones this admin. chooses to save and which ones it leaves to drown, all the while claiming "It's not us, it's the almighty market displaying its divine wisdom ..."
"No, that could never happen,"
Yeah, it could, but not if one categorically excludes the possibility. You cannot achieve what you cannot conceive, so we could start the process by simply conceiving of it, and go from there ...
Two questions for Ralph Nader and everyone:
1. What do you think about each state having a bank of its own just like my state's Bank of North Dakota?
2. How do you get people who were pushed into bankruptcy through no fault of their own to join a credit union when credit unions are usually strict against such people?
I ask the second question because my parents had to search for a lenient credit union after getting out of bankruptcy and dumping their bank which failed them. It took a year to find one who'd sympathize. Bankruptcy abusers exist but not everyone who files for bankruptcy deserves to be denied a chance.
I also think that credit unions are better than small banks anyway.
(gee... brings to mind)...
,,,,
00
o
o
"say dad... since they took my neighborhood paper route away... i can get a job mowing grass across town!... i can use their push mower... but they said that someone will hafta bring me there... so could you please take me?"...
////
00
o
O
"sorry son... but after i make the big monthly payment on my super-duper tractor/mower/snow-blower... and then fill the over-sized tank on it... i won't have the money for extra gas to run you across town"...
(tell your lawmakers... no matter when their terms come to an end... and hopefully better workers begin!)... to wake up our government!... to care about the basics!... and stop misleading!... and end this war!... and don't waste anymore!...
(and here's one of many links you can use... and get congressional information etc too)... http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials
(and there's lotsa other stuff you can do too!)...
the best of wishes'n'ways'n'todays to each'n'everyone!... :)
What if 40,000 CD Facebook folks deposited $1000 each in Shorebank? That would up their assets a wee bit wouldn't it?
I clicked on many of them and saw that most of them who like CD also like Obama's facebook page. They probably wouldn't do what you suggested but good idea.
obama probably has these choice words for the small community minded banks:
"f'in retards"
Nader is a jewel.
Vote Third Party -
See a Clinton = Bush comment, think false-flag military PR ops.
There are real differences between the presidents named above, and obfuscation of those differences keeps us all confused and impotent. Remember the true differences:
WORST: GEORGE W. BUSH
#1 Ignored repeated warnings about an Al-Qaeda attack in the U.S.
#2 Warmonger—started a $3 trillion war that has killed more than a million people, based on deliberate lies
#3 Trickle-down/de-regulation/free market economic policies caused 2008 meltdown and Great Recession
#4 Deficit spending increased national debt by 89% (nearly double)
#5 Imperial presidency, government secrecy, human rights violations, torture, Constitutional violations
#6 Gas prices approaching $4/gallon (see #2 & #3) enriched oil companies, and hurt consumers, businesses, and government tax revenues
#7 Conservative/corporatist Supreme Court nominations
NEXT WORST: BARACK OBAMA
#1 Continued George W. Bush's disastrous economic and foreign policies
#2 Warmonger—escalated the Afghanistan War and increased military spending
#3 Continued trickle-down/free market policies even after 2008 meltdown and during Great Recession
#3 Continued George W. Bush's imperial presidency, government secrecy, human rights violations, torture, Constitutional violations
#4 Conservative/corporatist Supreme Court nominations
The good:
#1 Economic stimulus (but weak)
NEXT WORST: RONALD REAGAN
#1 Father of trickle-down/de-regulation/free market economic policies
#2 Cut income tax rate on richest Americans from 70% to 27%
#3 Deficit spending—mostly military, prolonging the Cold War—increased national debt by 189% (nearly triple)
#4 Great Recession of 1982/83 (see #2 & #3)
#5 Unemployment peaked at 9.7%, and stayed there for two years
#6 Covert ops and assassinations to overthrow democratically elected presidents in Chile and El Salvador
#7 Conservative/corporatist Supreme Court nominations
The good:
#1 Cut and ran from Lebanon when Marine barracks was bombed by Islamic militants
#2 Engaged Gorbachev in face to face meetings, which helped end Cold War
Next worst: GEORGE H.W. BUSH
#1 Warmonger—instigated Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and started Gulf War
#2 Invaded Panama on false pretenses
#3 Deficit spending—increased national debt by 55% in four years (equivalent to 110% in eight years)
#4 Unemployment peaked at 7.5%
#5 Negotiated and signed NAFTA
#6 One conservative/corporatist, one liberal Supreme Court nomination
Least worst: BILL CLINTON
#1 Helped implement Reagan/Bush trickle-down/free market policies, like NAFTA and Wall St. deregulation
#2 Severely cut social welfare programs
The good:
#1 Used the justice system, covert military ops and missile attacks on training bases, in response to Al-Qaeda attacks
#2 Closed military bases and cut military spending
#3 Declined Pentagon advice to invade Middle Eastern, South Asian and Eastern European countries
#4 Raised income taxes on the richest Americans from 27% to 39%
#5 Unemployment declined to a 30-year low of 3.8%
#6 Successively lower budget deficits the first five years, and successively higher budget surpluses the last 3 years (see #2, #3, #4 & #5)
#7 Liberal Supreme Court nominations
I thought it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA into law. He went weak on negotiations for labor and environmental groups. There have been debates about Bill Clinton being worse than Reagan on the issue of labor unions. I liked the way he negotiated on social issues and tried to keep it moderate just to keep the social wingnuts on the right from getting too rowdy. I voted for Hillary in the primaries. Even a lot of wingnuts thought she was better fit than Obama but I live in OK. Maybe she could give Obama a tough primary challenge in 2012?
Bush negotiated and signed the NAFTA treaty, as I said. Clinton added some labor and environmental protections (which were not strong enough), and then signed the bill that Congress passed to ratify the treaty.
On unions, Reagan was proactively anti-union. He busted unions. Remember the air traffic controllers. Clinton had a mixed record. He signed the NAFTA ratification and other free-trade legislation over labor's objections, but his overall economic policies brought near full employment which was good for unions, and for workers in general. Clinton was also,
"given high marks from labor for essentially defensive actions against right-wing Republican efforts to dismantle the social safety net... He signed into law the Family and Medical Leave Act, which labor appreciated... He also issued an Executive Order to prohibit the awarding of federal contracts worth more than $100,000 to any employer who had permanently replaced striking workers... Clinton’s strongest defense of unionization was unquestionably his veto of the 1995 "Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act" (TEAM). Clinton said the bill would abolish protections that ensure independent and democratic representation in the workplace."
http://www.ler.illinois.edu/faculty/papers/bruno-presidentiallabor.pdf
In 2008, I saw Hillary as the next JFK—flawed and something of a warmonger, but vastly superior to the alternatives. (I think I've been proven correct.) Don't know what the future holds for her now.
Ah, I checked wiki on NAFTA. It is amazing that it was signed on Dec 1992 during Bush Sr's lame duck presidency. Almost everyone who says Clinton signed NAFTA forgets to mention negotiations before he signed it. I don't think he really wanted to go with this but I remember the pressure put before him. Even Lou Dobbs was fine with it at the time but he was libertarian then. I am disappointed with Clinton's signing of the China PNTR agreement. Thanks for making me look a little closer at NAFTA. The international trade meetings never made any sense.
You left out the part where Bill Clinton maintained crippling and murderous sanctions against the Iraqi people, enforced the so-called "no-fly zone", carried out targeted strikes that took out Iraqi air force and air defense, so that it was pretty much a cake walk for the US ground forces to enter the country after the "shock and awe". Without major "contributions" during the Clinton years, US military could not have entered Iraq in 2003. As simple as that.
You also left out the part where Clinton and Gore showed utter dishonesty and pathetic "leadership" in taking the matter of climate change to the people. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted by practically all the nations in 1997. But it was never sent to the US Congress for ratification. Although I'll have to say, the larger blame has to be placed on Al Gore for not putting up a fight, despite being aware of the implications.
Of course, as Peter Pike points out, you left out NAFTA. Not just the signing of it, but the active selling of the concept to the public. Contrast the energy that went into the selling of NAFTA - essentially a full court press - with the wimpy manner of handling climate change and defending the need to ratify Kyoto Protocol.
Nope. Sorry. These distinctions don't matter much.
I listed the differences, and left out the similarities. That's the point: that there are differences. And, I did not leave out NAFTA. It's right there on the list of Bill Clinton wrongs.
Your absurd attempt to blame Bill Clinton for Bush II's invasion of Iraq in 2003, and for Bush I's Gulf War (which is what "took out Iraqi air force and air defense" as well as their army and navy) puts you squarely in the false-flag military PR ops camp. (Same with your failure to mention that Clinton's no-fly zones kept the Kurds and Shiites from being murdered by Saddam's regime.) Still pissed about those base closings and budget cuts?
Once again Nader proves (as if it needed proving) that he's a cut above the rest when it comes to understanding the big picture as well as the minutiae of issues. Here he rightly points out the failure of the Obama administration to make use of its majority shareholder status.
Nader rightly questions the wisdom of the hurry in divesting the government's stake in GM just when the company is starting to turn around. I pointed this out on a different story last month:
"The Great Decoupling of Corporate Profits from Jobs"
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/27-3
>>"Right now, the US and Canadian governments together own 72.5% of the company. So, if GM is making a profit, that should come back to the public. Right? No. It turns out that GM is getting ready for an IPO very soon, that would reduce the government holding. MOST of the bailout money was by way of acquiring stock in the company. The cash part of the bailout (from the US govt.) was less than $7 billion."<<
The US government is getting ready to shed its share before introducing (or forcing) some much needed change in GM's corporate culture - when it has a chance to do so.
>>Historically, GM has been the most strident in its opposition to mandatory pollution control, fuel efficiency and safety standards. The company’s strategy for decades has been to defeat, delay or weaken efforts to clean your air, safeguard your motor vehicle and get you more miles per gallon of gasoline.<<
Ralph Nader should know. While Michael Moore is a great guy in some respects, I cannot help pointing out the differences in their approach to go after a corporate giant like GM. Nader's was a methodical, relentless fight that ultimately benefited everyone, with little personal gain for himself.
As usual, to the point, succinct and well stated.
I wonder why, given the long history of Ralph Nader's pointed criticisms , and history has justified each one, his critics ( democrats all) refuse his truths for their own party's continued lies?
That is a good question but that could lead to another question. Why did Nader split with the Greens when he should have stayed and used his support to help not only his support blossom but also help the party grow? Had he done that, I think Nader would have broken 15% by 2008 or maybe come close to 25%. That would have forced more Democratic and Republican party supporters to look to Nader and the Green Party as a vehicle of change instead of viewing them as spoilers.
Peter Pike asked, "Why did Nader split with the Greens when he should have stayed and used his support to help not only his support blossom but also help the party grow? "
I don't know but I think part of the answer might be that Ralph Nader is not a politician, not even close to being one. Your question seems to be one that's relevant to someone who is. And, I for one, am grateful that he isn't a politician. Something happens to those who are and they somehow stop being fully human.
I like it too that Nader isn't a politician but people elect politicians to office.
From his first foray ,running as a Green candidate, Nader made it clear that he, himself, was not a Green. Here's an excerpt of a longer article that may, or may not, answer some of your query:
"In 2004, while Dean's presidential candidacy prospects rose rapidly only to crash with equal speed, Nader decided not seek the Greens' nomination, instead declaring an independent candidacy. Acrimony over both the result of the 2000 election and Nader's distant relationship to the Greens (more on that later) led to divisions within the Green Party that eventually resulted in a something of a split. Unknown Green Party member David Cobb campaigned nationally for the nomination and articulated what became known as a "safe state strategy" that involved largely staying away from contested swing states that were likely to determine the next president. (Of course, now some controversy exists as to whether this was, in fact, Cobb's campaign plan but I personally attended a meeting in San Antonio, Texas where Cobb clearly stated just such an approach.)
Nader, for his part, never joined the Green Party and refused to share donor/volunteer lists from his 2000 campaign with the Greens - this despite his oft-repeated campaign goal of building the party infrastructure and triggering federal matching funds with at least 5% of the national vote. Nonetheless, he did select a prominent California Green politician, Peter Camejo, as his vice-presidential running mate and asked the Greens for an "endorsement" of their ticket. At a contentious 2004 national convention, Nader's appeal was rejected and Cobb became the party's nominee.
Although Nader was on 44 ballots in 2000, both he and Cobb managed only a fraction of that total for the 2004 general election. Unsurprisingly, several states reacted to Nader's previous candidacy by raising already unreasonable ballot access standards even higher. The Democrats, fearing a repeat of 2000, contested the Nader campaign through a series of lawsuits designed to drain precious time, resources, and, ultimately, deny him ballot access.
Many Greens, especially those in the relative stronghold of California, went outside the party to support Nader leaving the Green candidate, Cobb, with only 118,000 votes nationwide - good for just 6th place behind Bush, Kerry, Nader and both the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates. Nader's support fell drastically to less than .4%."
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1248/1/
That is interesting to see the history of split between Nader and Green party. Thanks. I take it that the Green Party came off as once bitten twice shy after 2000 given their wish to play "safe state" strategy. What the Democratic Party did to Ralph Nader in 2004 is unacceptable. If he had joined the Green Party, do you think that the Green Party would have been better and he might have taken running for office not as hard on himself as he did? As for me, living in OK, the last time we could vote third party or do a write-in for president was in 2000. Subsequent presidential elections only allowed us to pick D or R for president. We can still vote third party on other races but they're working on "fixing" that too. The OK Democratic Party has been much more enthusiastic about keeping third parties off the ballot than the Republicans ever since Brad Carson was defeated by Tom Coburn 41-53 with Sheila getting 6% of the vote that year. The Democratic Party gets frustrating. All they want to do is be free to move as further right as they want.
I was going to reply to your query about Nader becoming a Green but '4thefuture' replied quite acceptably. I think, in this time of the possible death of our democracy as our empire crumbles, that unaffiliated gadflies like Ralph Nader are most necessary.
Every day there is something to like about Obama's "style".
It appears all he wanted to do after he lied to us to get elected was to become a member of the top predators club.
Ok so another bank is going down, just like any other business now over extended, may fall.
And we hear once again about how the executive/legislative/judicial leadership probably won't do much about it, unless you hop on their fast track agenda.
What level will you go to, to be on their fast track? Will you cut your unionized position for absolutely all the wrong reasons? hahahahahaa
YOU can see thru the chaos. The leaders justify their agendas with 'new laws to cover old crimes', and in some crooked little way they marvel when the people PAY to swallow the hook, line, and sinker.
But just so ya know, I never favored ANY of this $700 Billion swindle. This economic war against the world is to be just another important exercise of excuses.
whocares;)
You really should care, but, if you don't, why post here to begin with?
In any case, the point is not that "another bank" is failing, it is a bit more broad than that. I suggest you re-read the article, perhaps a bit slower this time and digest the dichotomy involved in the Govts. treatment of the largest vs. its seeming disdain for the smallest.
This citing might help:
"Now, consider ShoreBank’s predicament. This bank broke ground since its founding in 1973 by providing loans for lower-income homebuyers, apartment building owners and small businesses. Year after year, this community bank proved it could make money by opening up markets that the big banks chose to red-line in Chicago and later in Detroit and Cleveland. Hundreds of articles and news reports heralded its success."
We are engaged in a discussion, or should be, of the protectionism afforded the wealthiest and the pure capitalism expected of the rest of us. Would you care to join that discussion?
Whats is the reality to consider of ShoreBank's predicament is that what your saying DD?
Oh yeah this article claims they need $500 million to stay afloat. And for some unknown reason they have been shutout from TARP all this time? Ralph didn't mention previous applications for TARP. I heard that TARP for banks is just about finished anyway.
I mean I don't even live near Detroit, or Cleveland, or Chicago and I thought it was well known that these cities have been hearing the 'giant sucking sound' Ross Perot warned of back in 19friggin92! So the industry in those towns has been restructured for a long time now, thanks to executive/legislative/judicial leadership and I've been wondering for a long time also, who cares about that giant sucking sound?
The commercial airline industry was unable to fight off the momentum created by Reagan back in the 80's when he single handedly broke the back of unionized strength. You just go down to your local air port and apply for a full time job, see how many laughs ya get (30 yrs later). The non-benevolent U.S. industrial management teams, have happily run across borders to cut the throat of what was once a great place to live and work. Some pretty fine jobs have been freely traded off, in the name of NAFTA Clinton, and there have been plenty of Americans that took it in the teeth in divers ways ever since. And to be quite plain about it, I no longer try to 'figure out and reason why' a management team makes the goof-awful decisions it does, they literally do NOT make sense to me. And when the industries fall flat on their face, its a good chance that they already tried every cut-throat tactic imaginable.
And now the bankers, insurance, investment, real estate industry has been purposefully corrupted, a giant sucking sound even...and now our goof-awful executive/legislative/judicial leaders have fashioned it such that it's not just Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago to get crushed in the teeth. Its whole states, like California with 'economic girlie man Arnold' playing his leadership role.
Who cares that the rules have been rewritten, the audits ohhhhhhhhh my yes, very new accounting principals, standards even, laced with impractical excuses and techniques, and deftly manipulated/propagandized even to say whatever YOU wanna say. It is hilarious to me, I come here to laugh, except that it's so deadly. I laughed same way when my Senator sent me a reply, concerning the $700 Billion Swindle...the first half of the letter reasoned with me against the $700 Billion Swindle, the second half of the letter began with excuses and ended with a vote
'yes' for the Swindle. It has become easy for me, simply don't try to figure out the excuses, I'm not so good at that anyway...
I love Ralph, but Ralph said back in 2008 he was against the $700 Billion Swindle, and this article says he is flexible now or something with reguard to the Shorebank/TARP example. Ralph you said in the article that somehow Shorebank is honourable, ok great, and because of their clientele being just plain old people, getting kicked in the teeth thru this economic mess..........Ralph there IS NO WAY TARP IS GOING TO SAVE ANYTHING.
TARP was never and will never be a 'good deal' folks, and if you somehow believe it's a good deal now, and how 'world collapse' was averted because of it, then you should wrap Paulson, Cox, Bair, and Bernanke in your flag and continue to keep them as your heros. Oh thats right your executive/legislative/judicial leaders have already done that for you.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~enjoy~~~~~~~~~~~~~~the next couple of months, and years because these same ones have much more for us all.
DD to address your last point: 'of the protectionism afforded the wealthiest', may I suggest this too, 'of the corruption afforded the corrupt' is the way I see it. Plain and simple.
whocares;)
"So the industry in those towns has been restructured for a long time now, thanks to executive/legislative/judicial leadership and I've been wondering for a long time also, who cares about that giant sucking sound?"
Millions of unemployed Americans, millions of Americans who lost their jobs or got reduced pay and/or benefits all courtesy of NAFTA and later deals following the NAFTA model of free trading jobs.
"I heard that TARP for banks is just about finished anyway."
Where exactly did you hear that from. Banks couldn't have been that fast at finishing up TARP. They have a habit of cooking the books.
"but Ralph said back in 2008 he was against the $700 Billion Swindle, and this article says he is flexible now or something with reguard to the Shorebank/TARP example."
He was calling out on the double standards of bailing out a huge bank while letting smaller banks fair. He never changed his position btw.
Thanks for the input,Peter. I think that 'whocares' simply doesn't want to get it. This latest diatribe is a compilation of true enough events that continues to reach the wrong conclusions. If he still doesn't get the gist of the article perhaps it is because he doesn't want to get it?
Try this link, specifically on page 2 where the HEADING IS IN BOLD TYPE, and look for the title of said program: "Capital Purchase Program". It's really 2 month old news...but hey, ya wanted me to document WHO/when/ is saying that TARP is winding down. http://cop.senate.gov/documents/testimony-062210-geithner.pdf I'll restate my point: Ralph is a little too late trying to muster some help out of TARP. And I will concede that Ralph's position in this article, as stated in his introductory paragraph was to only educate people, and not actually his position about TARP and the difference between the good and the bad bailouts.
Also....as you quoted my line "So the industry blah, blah, blah..." , and the original point I'm making is: Just how savvy is Shorebank?, banking in the sector Ralph stated in this article, of which has been economically drying up for a long time now. If you don't understand that point maybe I can reexplain it for you another way. Would Shorebank expect to survive banking in Detroit, Chicago, and Cleveland if the clientele was "Millions of unemployed Americans, millions of Americans who lost their jobs or got reduced pay and/or benefits all courtesy of NAFTA and later deals following the NAFTA model of free trading jobs."? Shorebank made the decisions, to bank in exactly that climate, and now wonder of wonders, they are in the hole $500 million.
There is a simple saying about that 'if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging'. hahahahaarofl
whocares;)
First of all, Tim Geithner was always in favor of banks and their favorite treasury puppet so you should be skeptical of what he says.
Shorebank never went into being like most big banks and for being small, they're punished while the big ones aren't. If it became as big as Bank of America, then yesit would survive banking in other big cities but it didn't and wanted to prove its worthiness to its customers. Unfortunately, capitalism punishes good and small while rewarding and defending big and bad. That is what this article is all about. The winners and losers should be obvious.