Comments on: Why Aren’t Banks Lending? They Are Being Rational

By: Small Business: Too-Big-To-Fail | Good Business International

Small Business: Too-Big-To-Fail | Good Business International — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:55:26 +0000

[...] community banks are not lending either. Why, you may wonder? According to finance blogger Barry Ritholz, because it is [...]

By: Wall Street’s payout for 2009: $145 billion | NWOTruth

Wall Street’s payout for 2009: $145 billion | NWOTruth — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:00:30 +0000

[...] will at most represent 5 percent of profits at the banks (according to the Journal), and given the overall lack of bank lending since the start of the [...]

By: Weekly Rewind: December 21-25 « Robert Lowery's Blog

Weekly Rewind: December 21-25 « Robert Lowery's Blog — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:08:47 +0000

[...] asks “Why aren’t banks lending?” and suggests their rationale is [...]

By: DeDude

DeDude — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:48:43 +0000

Stu; sorry the two party system is actually badly broke and we have nothing to replace it with unless we rewrite our constitution. The one and only purpose of the republicans right now is to block anything that the democrats propose. They have even stopped pretending and now refuse to come up with any realitic comprehensive proposals of their own. So the minute they get their 41 senators they will block all legislation and start hoping the country will collapse so they can show what a failure Obama is. The democrats may attach a few things to the defense appropriations bills and dare them to filibuster, but nothing of any substance will change. This whole experience with a willfully destructive opposition will turn democrats bitter enough that when the republicans finally get back in power the democrats will do the same to them.

Sorry stu the GOP could have “reined in” F&F back in 2005 when that really would have meant something, trying to close the door after the horse is out of the barn is just political theater for gullible souls.

By: DeDude

DeDude — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:45:28 +0000

wally; The banking bailout was done by the Bush administration because they had to prevent the collapse of the finaincial sector, and this was the only politically palatable way they could/would do it. The right way to do it was to nationalize all the failing banks like Sweden did. When you looked back in history at the Swedish solution and the Japanese solution and their respective outcomes, it was a no brainer. Problem is that even a no brainer was to much for Bush. Remember also that even the dumb a$$ way they did it, had huge numbers of Republicans foaming around the mouth about soci@lism – they would never have gotten the Swedish solution through congress if the had wanted it. After Obama came into office he had to try to unwind the banking bailout, and he has actually gotten most of the money back from the big banks (except Citi). The reform of the banking system that was supposed to prevent something like this from happening again has so far been a disaster, in great part because he chose the wrong advisers.

By: Pat G.

Pat G. — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:07:06 +0000

“Theior oplace in the economy is so distorted, as to become nearly economically meaningless . . .”

Their distortion causes them to be negatively, economically meaningful. Thanks Uncle Sam…

By: Mannwich

Mannwich — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:53:12 +0000

@Mike: This is a great post that relates somewhat to what you posted.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/12/is-kleptocracy-a-relevant-term-for-discussion-about-the-origins-of-the-crisis.html

By: Mannwich

Mannwich — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:45:39 +0000

@Mike: Totally agree. I had another post refuting Stu’s argument about so-called “liberal”, “soci@list” policies, but alas, it got eaten because of that word above was in it. There’s nothing “liberal” (progressive, if you will) or even “soci@list” about any of these bailout policies. Not a thing. It’s corporate f@scsism or f@scism-lite, if you will, but that one’s too complicated for the teabaggers, so they have to fall back on their tired old labels, however inaptly used they may be.

By: Mike in Nola

Mike in Nola — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:29:03 +0000

Give up Manny; you know the drill for the dittoheads. Someone chrisitened one of the post WWII Soviet negotiators “Old Iron Ass” because he could sit there and put forth the same position all day regardless of facts or argument.

Agree with you on this. As I’ve said before, our government is like the British governments of 18th century: everyone looking to get and keep power so as to line their own pockets.

By: tradeking13

tradeking13 — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:24:54 +0000

“We are lending, Mr. President — to you and your friends in government, so you can spend like drunken sailors”