139 replies to this topic

[mentalfloss]

Shouldn't righties be the ones pissed about bailouts?

[Smallc]

Shouldn't righties be the ones pissed about bailouts?

Sure....so where's the bailout?

[The_Squid]

Sure....so where's the bailout?

Taxpayer money going to private business to shore up liquidity is a "bailout".

Not calling it a bailout is purely semantics.

But what has become clear -- and what neither side can really dispute -- is that the fantastical notion of Canada’s banks being immune to global problems is little more than an illusion. And it’s a notion that -- for the sake of our own well-being -- needs to be shattered.

Why? Because of the dangers of over-confidence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/30/canada-bank-bailout_n_1466219.html?ref=canada-business

[Smallc]

Taxpayer money going to private business to shore up liquidity is a "bailout".

No, actually, it isn't, and wasn't. The global credit market was pretty much frozen. What the Government of Canada did simply ensured that didn't happen here. There were no banks in danger of failing, but rather, there was a danger of increased damage to the economy.

[TimG]

Taxpayer money going to private business to shore up liquidity is a "bailout".

Only if the money provided benefit to the business receiving the funds. In this case, the banks were fine and did not need the money. The trouble is the economy would suffer because the banks needed to preserve capital so they would have cut back on lending at a time when many businesses needed to borrow money. The deal simply moved loans off of the banks books until things stabilized.

Edited by TimG, 01 May 2012 - 11:42 AM.

[cybercoma]

What the Government of Canada did simply ensured that didn't happen here.

And how did they do that?

By bailing out the banks.

So, the government gave banks our money, so the banks can lend it back to us with interest. Meanwhile, the executives raked in huge bonuses.

[Smallc]

And how did they do that?

By bailing out the banks.

No, it isn't even close to the same thing. They performed a business transaction to ensure the continuation of liquid credit. The banks would have been fine. Some of the rest of us wouldn't. This wasn't about helping banks.

[cybercoma]

They performed a business transaction to ensure the continuation of liquid credit.

A business transaction that saw billions of taxpayers' dollars go to the banks when they didn't need it.

[GostHacked]

No, actually, it isn't, and wasn't. The global credit market was pretty much frozen. What the Government of Canada did simply ensured that didn't happen here. There were no banks in danger of failing, but rather, there was a danger of increased damage to the economy.

It's a bailout.

[Smallc]

A business transaction that saw billions of taxpayers' dollars go to the banks when they didn't need it.

They didn't need it, you're right. We needed it. Banks borrow money from each other. That money flow freely across international boundaries. That money stopped flowing in 2008. The international credit markets started to lock up. The Government of Canada and the banks made a move to ensure that within Canada credit continued to flow, and we're all the better because of it. Trying to spin this into some kind of evil bailout after the fact is dishonest.

[Smallc]

It's a bailout.

[GostHacked]

If you are giving the banks money to either correct problems or prevent problems ..... it's a bailout. Nice to see taxpayer money shoring up banks that COULD have faced a problem. And how will the taxpayer be rewarded?? We've seen this thread already.

[TimG]

A business transaction that saw billions of taxpayers' dollars go to the banks when they didn't need it.

They did not need it but what they would have done to protect the bank from collapse at that time would have hurt the economy. The government had two choices: do nothing and watch 1000s of business go under because they could not access credit or inject cash into the banks in return for assets.

I take it from your response letting 1000s if businesses go bankrupt would have been a better option because only evil people would give taxpayer money to the banks to protect the economy.

Edited by TimG, 01 May 2012 - 01:45 PM.

[punked]

It was the right move at the time. I am not against this decision by the government. Hindsight is 20/20 but 2009 was a scary scary year and this was not a mistake. That might be the first and last time I say this about the government.

[Jack Weber]

They did not need it but what they would have done to protect the bank from collapse at that time would have hurt the economy. The government had two choices: do nothing and watch 1000s of business go under because they could not access credit or inject cash into the banks in return for assets.

I take it from your response letting 1000s if businesses go bankrupt would have been a better option because only evil people would give taxpayer money to the banks to protect the economy.

What's your response to the potential hundred's of thousands who would have been unemployed had the auto companies not been bailed out?

Edited by Jack Weber, 01 May 2012 - 02:00 PM.