tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post6793913296387108574..comments2024-03-28T02:46:41.090-05:00Comments on Supply and Demand (in that order): Is the Treasury Impotent?Casey B. Mulliganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03317454408275318282noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post-59422594654825197132008-10-29T11:11:00.000-05:002008-10-29T11:11:00.000-05:00Jarda, Thanks for the comment. Yes, I was only vie...Jarda, Thanks for the comment. Yes, I was only viewing it from the bank's point of view in my example.<BR/><BR/>Here's an interesting post in Alphaville today dealing with private investment in banks:<BR/><BR/>http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/10/29/17595/to-bailout-or-not-to-bailout/<BR/><BR/>To bailout or not to bailout…<BR/><BR/>Barclays non-governmental recapitalisation efforts don’t exactly appear to be thundering forward. In the US, meanwhile, as observed by footnoted, banks’ are exhibiting some peculiarly similar recap-PR lines:<BR/><BR/>NorthernTrust put out a press release yesterday to announce its $1.5 billion infusion because it “fully supports the U.S. government’s efforts to strengthen our nation’s financial system.” There’s also this one from Valley National: “Although Valley is a well-capitalized organization, we believe such a program provides an excellent opportunity for healthy strong banks like Valley to participate in and support the recovery of the U.S. economy”. Even relatively small banks seem to be on message, like First Niagara which said in its press release yesterday, “We are supportive of the Treasury Department’s efforts and remain strongly committed to supporting the economy in Upstate New York.”<BR/><BR/>Banks’ boards, indeed, face quite a tough call when it comes to using government money."<BR/><BR/>Read the whole post.<BR/><BR/>Here's my comment:<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> 1. 16:06 Posted by Don the libertarian Democrat [report]<BR/><BR/> Maybe the banks that don’t take money from the government should say something like the following:<BR/><BR/> ” We conducted our business in such a way as to not need government money, and are even getting private money in this environment, showing how much we are trusted. And, hey, we won’t lose the taxpayers a lot of money. So invest in us: Don’s Bank: I don’t need no stinking bailout!Donald Pretarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14493535232127084725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post-6017768636301830952008-10-29T02:25:00.000-05:002008-10-29T02:25:00.000-05:00Don,"If public money crowds out private money, who...Don,<BR/><BR/>"If public money crowds out private money, who cares?"<BR/><BR/>Well, I guess that you (at least partly) answered this question yourself in a comment to another post on this blog:<BR/><BR/>"This hybrid plan, subject to endless lobbying and so poorly planned that one can't even judge its effects, will end up costing taxpayers way more than a Swedish type plan."pinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13417355034888415640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7539577136486286096.post-48006530893717991262008-10-28T20:45:00.000-05:002008-10-28T20:45:00.000-05:00I'm sorry it wasn't printed, but two points:1) Giv...I'm sorry it wasn't printed, but two points:<BR/><BR/>1) Given the previous lending practices of these banks, one might well believe, if we give them taxpayer's money, we might want some say in what they do with the money.<BR/><BR/>2) If public money crowds out private money, who cares? If it's simply a question of funds, all that matters is the terms you get it for. If I'm a private company, and the government offers me a loan at better terms than I can get with private financing, are you saying that I should turn it down? Theoretically, I might be able to make more money with the better terms, whatever the conditions imposed.Donald Pretarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14493535232127084725noreply@blogger.com