Articles and Analysis


US: Finance/Economy (Bloomberg 7/9-12)

Topics: National , poll

Selzer % Co. for Bloomberg
7/9-12/10; 1,004 adults, 3.1% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Bloomberg: deficit story, financial regulations story)


State of the Country
31% Right Direction, 63% Wrong Track (chart)

Which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the country right now?
41% Unemployment/jobs, 265 The federal deficit/government spending, 13% Oil spill in the Gulf

Let me ask you about the U.S. economy specifically├╣do you feel it is starting to get better, staying the same, or is getting worse?
28% Getting better, 36% Staying the same, 35% Getting worse

In general, would you say you are personally better off or worse off today than you were 18 months ago, or are you in about the same situation?
17% Better, 29% Worse, 54% Same

Do you think the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, was necessary to prevent the financial industry from failing and drastically hurting the US economy, or was it an unneeded bailout?
28% Necessary, 58% Unneeded

In general, what is your view on the need for government regulation├╣do you think there is a need for more regulation, less regulation, or about the same as we have now?
35% More regulation, 33% Less regulation, 30% Same

Congress is on the verge of passing a bill that creates new regulations for financial institutions. Is it your sense this legislation does more to protect the financial industry or more to protect consumers?
47% The financial industry, 38% Consumers



Financial regulation helps the banks more than consumers? What are these people smoking?




"Financial regulation helps the banks more than consumers? What are these people smoking?"

Reality. You should try a dose some time.




So you think big banks like more regulation? What universe do you live in?



Too many Americans are slaves to their ultra capitalist masters. THat is clearly what this poll shows.


Field Marshal:


Do you really think the banks are going to have any more regulation? Did you read the key points of the bill? It basically takes what happened in terms of socializing the losses over the past few years and doubles down on it.

Why do you think bank stocks jumped when it was passed?

Just another poor excuse for government regulation. I mean, Blanche Lincoln writing derivative legislation is equivalent to a 3 -year old doing calculus. Dodd and Frank writing the banking legislation, two people who had probably the largest hand in the housing crisis, is similar to Al Qaeda in charge of our anti-terrorism effort.


Field Marshal:

And farleft, way too many Americans are slaves to government masters for their handouts and risk mitigation.

What this poll clearly does show is that the administration and congress is out to lunch regarding the economy. I know, you're shocked!




The collapse did not happen because there was not enough regulation, the collapse resulted from excess regulation. The government intrusion into the economy, while meaning well, distorts free market forces and creates unbalances in the natural market place. The collapse could not have happened if it weren't for the influx of cheap money from the government, artificially low interest rates, and government backed loans. The governments mission to get everyone a home was the very thing that inflated the bubble in the first place. The government backed loans that they knew would never get repaid. As a result the businesses didn't care who they were giving out loans to or if they could ever be repaid because if they couldn't, the government would pay the mortgages. These created the moral hazard that set the stage for the collapse. Without the government alcohol, Wall Street could never have gotten drunk.

Unfortunately all Obama is doing to the fix the problem is replacing the vodka we gave Wall Street with Bacardi 151 and our economy is going to get a lot worse.


Poll Troll:

I love watching these progressive vermin implode. I haven't seen Maddow's "GOP in exile" segment recently... I wonder why?



"The governments mission to get everyone a home"

Wasn't it George W. Bush who talked about an "ownership society?" Owning your own home has been part of the American dream for most of the 20th century and especially since after WWII.

Sub-prime loans were less than 10% of the mortgage market. I believe they were 5-8%. Do you seriously think that small segment was responsible for what nearly destroyed the financial system. It was what banks did with the bad loans afterward that brought them down. The government did not force them to speculate.

Everyone was happy, including me, when financial stocks were through the roof in 2006-2007. Much of the growth since 2001 came from the financial sector as other sectors stagnated (big-box retail) or declined (transportation).

In my heart, I would've liked for no bailouts to have happened. Let the irresponsible banks fail.

But my head, and my mutual funds, said differently. The day the TARP failed first time around the stock market went down 787 points. It went down hundreds due to the failure of Lehman brothers, not even a particularly large investment bank. 6 or 7 banks hold more than 60% of the country's capital. I bank with Wells Fargo, there was legitimate concern they would have failed. I would have lost everything. Money disappeared.

That's what happened in 1932/early 1933 when banks failed across the country. The money literally disappeared and you were lucky if you got 20-50 cents on the dollar. More likely you lost 100% of whatever you had if you were unlucky enough to have your money in one of those banks.

The difference with today is that it would have been worse. Many pension funds, university endowments, cities, counties, etc... are invested, in general lots more people and their employers are far more invested than in 1932. If the stock market had lost half or more of its value due to such failures there would have been destruction.

Not only do those banks hold most of the country's capital, they are huge employers. JP Morgan/Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citibank, and several other financial firms are all in the top 25 employers in my metro area. The loss of a lot of those jobs is part of the problem with unemployment, and when the financial system weakens, it weakens a bunch of other sectors.

I would have loved to see the effects of even 1 or 2 major bank failures from an intellectual curiosity standpoint, even though I would have been selling apples on the street like everyone else. I would have at least gotten a sense of satisfaction at conservatism (or possibly capitalism as we've known it) become completely discredited for a generation.

No one knows what would have happened in the absence of a bailout, but I for one am glad we didn't get to find out.




What do you mean socializing losses? What part of the legislation are you referring to.

And you think a Consumer protection agency is good for the banks and not the consumers? That is idiotic.


That is the most ridiculous and incoherent pile of drivel that I have ever read. Not one of the things you said has any factual grounding whatsoever.

The government didn't force Lehman brothers to buy risky derivatives and over leverage themselves. The government didn't force AIG to issue credit default swaps. They did that all on their own, and they did it after regulations on derivatives were relaxed in the late '90s and early '00s.

And government back loans (i.e. FHA) are not considered to be sub-prime loans. Sorry to burst your bubble. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.



This got me thinking about possible scenarios just for my locale if there had been no bailout.

Let's say Wells Fargo and Citibank fail. They employ about 3000 locally, half those jobs are lost. Stock market goes down to about 4000 as a result. University of Texas is the 3rd largest employer, 16000+, they lay off thousands because the permanent fund is heavily invested and just lost half its value from 8.8 billion to 4.5. They'd certainly have to cut the ticket prices for the football games so people could still afford to go, there's a lot of lost revenue and fewer jobs. University federal credit union - 400 employees, they lay off half due to fewer depositors and investment loss. Dell and IBM sell less to the university and its system (would be a huge hit for Dell), those two employ 25,000, they lay off a few thousand. Time Warner Cable, they have 1500 employees, but all those folks just lost their jobs so they cut their cable, so they lay off too. It goes on.


Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.