|
And the Marx quote appears. QED
|
I am far from a marxist, just a quote. But if we look at ourselves, something is terribly amiss.
|
The corporate reputation will have a customer satisfaction impact. In other words not many people would want to do business with a Co. held to together with Government cheese. If they are not doing well with current clients it is going to be nearly impossible to get new clients.
Crude oil per barrel had its largest single day gain in ten years. |
I don't think we need to be bailing out any companies. It isn't the responsibility of government to prevent companies from going under due to greed or mismanagement. I understand their rationale in propping up AIG, but I still think they should not come in and take it over. Our constitution doesn't provide for the government to do this. In fact, it goes against everything this country stands for. We need to break up these mega banks and securities firms. When a smaller firm goes under it has less impact on our economy than a company such as AIG. If AIG is allowed to fall under it's own weight, the repercussions are likely to be felt worldwide. We have only delayed the inevitable by taking over this company. If the government does take over the company, shareholders should not benefit. They should lose their investment. The company is insolvent. The executives who ran his company should be held accountable. I would also like to know where the regulators were while this was coming together.
|
It might be something along the lines of "temporary nationalization."
|
VitoCorleone99, Thanks for the explanation, that most certainly clears a lot of things up.
For anyone interested, A Google search for "clinton low income mortgages" will get you a lot more information and confirm everything Vito's been saying. |
I hope this doesn't make it through congress, but I am fairly certain that it will. If the government does take over AIG, then the shareholders should not benefit. The company should be broken up and sold. In addition, these mega banks should also be cut up into smaller banks. Failure in smaller institutions has less impact on the national economy than a single mega bank or investment bank. Capitalism involves taking risk. When you take away the risk of investing, you no longer have capitalism. It is not, nor should it be, the role of government to prevent companies from failure.
|
|
All the blame of this financial quagmire falls squarely on the shoulders of Bubba Clintoon when he deregulated the financial industry......
|
Crystal ball or common sense? Another New York Times article, 9/30/99.
A few money quotes: Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'' In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 08:19 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved