by yesplease » Wed 22 Apr 2009, 17:35:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('IslandCrow', 'A')s far as I know the banks may well be insolvent now, but to claim it on the basis of a future senario (even if it seem mild to the doomers here) is very sloppy logic, especially if one is not prepared to release the source document.
It also puts the government's actions in context, since having a bunch of banks become insolvent would create a liquidity trap in that sector and grind the rest of the economy to a halt from a huge drop in lending. While it may not be fair if the fed gives the banks however much in loans so they don't become insolvent, the banks can go from writing down their losses over a year or two to over five years or so, and they can stay solvent and functional, keeping the rest of the economy going, and eventually pay off the government loans. It's a shame Bush put the regulatory agencies to sleep and this got as bad as it did in the first place, but considering how much money we're talking about we should expect people to game, or at least try to game, these kinds of systems.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!