Comments on: Were bailed out banks healthy? http://www.poligazette.com/2009/10/05/were-bailed-out-banks-healthy/ Because Common Sense Transcends Distance Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:30:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Michael Merritt http://www.poligazette.com/2009/10/05/were-bailed-out-banks-healthy/comment-page-1/#comment-103249 Michael Merritt Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:39:48 +0000 http://www.poligazette.com/?p=16471#comment-103249 <blockquote>Another chapter in the onoing saga of crony corporatism?</blockquote> Careful, Patrick. Someone might accuse you of being a Democrat now. Thems fighting words in some corners. I was just reading up on it again, and remembered that Citigroup was supposed to get the company before WF and Wachovia made their deal. On that count...anyone thinking political cronyism?

Another chapter in the onoing saga of crony corporatism?

Careful, Patrick. Someone might accuse you of being a Democrat now. Thems fighting words in some corners.

I was just reading up on it again, and remembered that Citigroup was supposed to get the company before WF and Wachovia made their deal.

On that count…anyone thinking political cronyism?

]]> By: Patrick Glenn http://www.poligazette.com/2009/10/05/were-bailed-out-banks-healthy/comment-page-1/#comment-103232 Patrick Glenn Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:54:48 +0000 http://www.poligazette.com/?p=16471#comment-103232 One of the insider rumors was that Wells Fargo had had their sites on Walchovia for years. When the panic temporarily made Wachovia look vulnerable, WF jumped at the opportunity to make a windfall deal. As I understand it, Wachovia got TARP money, then was purchased by WF, which then was not bound by the same limitations as other TARP recipients. As it turned out, Wachovia was financially sound all along. So, WF aquired a strong asset on the cheap with TARP money thrown in for good measure. Another chapter in the onoing saga of crony corporatism? One of the insider rumors was that Wells Fargo had had their sites on Walchovia for years. When the panic temporarily made Wachovia look vulnerable, WF jumped at the opportunity to make a windfall deal. As I understand it, Wachovia got TARP money, then was purchased by WF, which then was not bound by the same limitations as other TARP recipients. As it turned out, Wachovia was financially sound all along. So, WF aquired a strong asset on the cheap with TARP money thrown in for good measure. Another chapter in the onoing saga of crony corporatism?

]]> By: Jay_C http://www.poligazette.com/2009/10/05/were-bailed-out-banks-healthy/comment-page-1/#comment-103229 Jay_C Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:11:30 +0000 http://www.poligazette.com/?p=16471#comment-103229 “These are healthy institutions, and they have taken this step for the good of the economy,” Paulson had declared at the time." My stance on all the bailouts aside... It is probably not the best policy to state things as fact, that are not known as fact, either "for the good of the country", with intentions, or even with good results. It's just not a good way to gain the public's trust. I realize they felt they needed to make a call, and fast, but I hope they know for future reference that when they do that, they pay a BIG price on public trust and transparency. The more either outright dishonesty / or even just "rolling the dice because they had to" and making errors like this in the future, the more fodder / facts for the "Big government is bad" / "can't be trusted camp". And the more it enables big banks to perpetuate this big governemnt bailout behavior going forward.. Have they learned their lesson? I would like to think the public has. It's not so much that I'm angry, I'm just very dissapointed “These are healthy institutions, and they have taken this step for the good of the economy,” Paulson had declared at the time.”

My stance on all the bailouts aside…

It is probably not the best policy to state things as fact, that are not known as fact, either “for the good of the country”, with intentions, or even with good results.

It’s just not a good way to gain the public’s trust. I realize they felt they needed to make a call, and fast, but I hope they know for future reference that when they do that, they pay a BIG price on public trust and transparency. The more either outright dishonesty / or even just “rolling the dice because they had to” and making errors like this in the future, the more fodder / facts for the “Big government is bad” / “can’t be trusted camp”. And the more it enables big banks to perpetuate this big governemnt bailout behavior going forward.. Have they learned their lesson? I would like to think the public has.

It’s not so much that I’m angry, I’m just very dissapointed

]]>