- 21,365
- 812
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2003
^
ouch. he's screwed
ouch. he's screwed
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Originally Posted by finnns2003
^
ouch. he's screwed
Originally Posted by wawaweewa
Originally Posted by JordanFiend85
No need to argue with someone who posts a gem like the one you did. Your reasoning has no bearing on why the Fed wont let major banks fail...
It has nothing to do with owning stakes and the short term damage would far outweigh the long term benefits.
Like I said learn about money and banking.
The short term damage would be great. Outweigh, long term benefits? No way. I guess letting the market do what it does is bad all of a sudden.
It has nothing to do with owning stakes? The why is JP Morgan (whom the FED used to put a public face on the loan) already talking about acquiring BS's brokerage side.
You think that the Banks are just separate entities?That they don't do business with each other or aren't invested with each other and in each other's success to a point.
Keep reading all the official junk they put out. The Big Boys on Wall Street like it that way.
Oh, one more thing. I guess a number of the major economists and investors saying similar things also don't know about money and the banking system, right?
EDIT:
I couldn't pass this up. Was just reading an article in the WSJ and lo and behold.
While the short term risks of letting BS go is not known, the long term consequences of high inflation are.
Article
After initial relief, credit markets have taken a turn for the worse in recent weeks, breeding an every-man-for-himself attitude among Wall Street firms. With each firm intricately intertwined with others in a maze of loans, credit lines, derivatives and swaps, the Fed and Treasury agreed that letting Bear Stearns collapse quickly was a risk not worth taking, because the consequences were simply unknowable.