Should we have bailed them out?
I think so.
It was really the initial explosion that triggered the panic.
If they had saved those first two firms, and then used bailouts and damage control the collapse of 2008 could have been spread out instead of every industry getting hammered for 2 years.
But I guess ultimately it wouldn't have changed TOO much. The shit securities and loan defaults had to be atoned for.
>>1263056
>talking as if we aren't sucking lehman' cock for money
>believing we had an option
>>1263084
The system was doomed before 2007. Letting Lehman collapse made a pretty clear statement pre-recession: the government will kindly watch you die. It moved a lot of banks in the direction of playing safe during 2008-2009, up until Dodd-Frank explicitly enforced stricter regulation. If Lehman had been bailed out, it still would have eventually failed (similar to Bear Sterns).
Bailing out AIG, however, was essential, and could not be avoided.
can anyone tell me how much the govt has profited so far from QE?
>>1263099
The avoided a great depression v2.0 and thus 'profited' by not losing a huge chunk of their tax revenue.
>>1263101
Counterpoint:
Now that everyone knows the lengths the government will go to to avoid another great depression, profit can be made at their expense.
>>1263104
Counter-point. The OLA, FSOC, and the Fed, under the powers issued by Dodd-Frank, will be more than capable of forcing other banks to cover future bailouts.
>>1263101
trick question: i know the answer
and there is a positive number for the answer
since the short time the govt has been in profit, they've profited about .3% of the us gdp
>>1263108
Yeah I meant as an investor you could profit from it.
>>1263115
As a lone individual? How so?
>>1263117
There's a participant in the market with a nearly unlimited chequebook and you know how he's going to act if/when he does.
There's a way to profit from this.
>>1263121
>There's a way to profit from this.
Do go on.
>>1263123
I haven't really given it much thought but, in principle if you know how a big market player is going to act ahead of time you can in principle profit from this action.
>>1263132
In principle I agree. In practice, I'm not so sure.
I can't even imagine QE continuing at this rate, or even being used again in similar fashion during a future recession. You'd be making a big gamble that based on this single past recession, the US gov't will always use QE.
>>1263134
They may not use QE again, but you can be nearly certain they will try to do something. If you can preempt what that something will be given the particulars of the problem which arises, you're good.
>>1263123
i have shares of a certain "company" that popped off like you wouldn't believe
i tried getting in recently again but couldn't get the price i wanted
>>1263056
Yes, but we had idiots in the office at that time.
>Christian Scientist, wtf is this anyway?!
>>1263134
The biggest theft in the history of humankind is shown in this chart
>>1263631
Could you explain this for a retard?
It does not matter now anyway. Im pretty sure the Current US administration will ensure NO BANK FAILS in future....don't know what TRUMP would do.
>>1263091
Agree I reckon the GFC started in early 2007. Most sources say it started in 08. naah 07 man
>>1263056
survey:
HOW MUCH DOES US GOVERNMENT CONTROL THE US STOCK MARKETS.
