http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/as-big-banks-repay-bailout-us-sees-profit/ We're not out of the woods yet on this deal, but this is promising.
How can it be considered "profit" when only $4 billion out of the $780 billion has been recovered? Or are they saying that $784 billion has already been recovered?
Eight of the biggest banks that were bailed out have repaid the government their obligations and then some, to the tune of $4 billion. Like I said, we aren't out of the woods yet, since there are some big institutions out there that have not yet repaid their debt, but this is far more profit than the modest 5% over the long haul that was estimated.
Nice to see. Reminds me of the late 1990's when we loaned about $40 bil to Mexico to keep their economy from spiraling down the drain. There was a huge stink at the time, but it barely made the newspapers when Mexico repaid it in full, plus interest, within a year.
They aren't saying either of those things. It means that for the assets they've sold, they've received more than they paid. For example, they put $10 billion into Goldman Sachs, and got $11.4 billion back. I think $780 billion is the size of the stimulus bill, not the bank bailouts. barfo
They were right about the same. TARP would go up to 700B, stimulus was 787B. Except one was a set of loans, one was a "stimulus".
Didn't the government do something similar during the great depression, buying stocks low and selling the later at a profit?
man, america is totally operating at another level. 4 billion is the entire gdp of small african nations
How about giving that $4 billion back to the people, and let them spend it the way they want to? The bailout money was our money to begin with, after all. Instead, the government is probably going to spend it in another wasteful boondoggle of a program.
Say you borrowed $100k from a loan shark. You turn around and lend it all to your friends. One of your friends pays you back, with a little interest. Now your plan is to go out and spend that interest because it was your money to start with? That seems kind of dumb to me. Obviously, you should go and pay off the guy you borrowed the money from. In this case, the Chinese.
This article is misleading bank propaganda. The AIG bailout was in fact a backdoor bailout of among other banks, Goldman Sachs. This supposed money they paid us back they got from us through another avenue ie the bailing out of AIG to pay off it's losses in the Credit Default Swap market. The losses for AIG were gains for Goldman. The banks haven't paid us shit. It's like robbing Peter to pay PETER! Let me do a math equation where the numbers represent billions. We bailout Goldman to the tune of 80. We then bailout AIG to the tune of 80 of which 15 goes to goldman. Then Goldman pays us back 84. We are still down 76. 11 of which went into the pockets of Goldman stock holders or more likely bonuses for the weasels, I mean financial wizards, who created this mess. We haven't got shit back it's a fucking shell game.
