Reply With QuoteWhat's going on with this?
What's going on with this?
No financing.
Another hole in the ground. This is Bloomberg's legacy.
Nothing to do with Bloomberg. It's Paulson and Geitner's legacy.
It is everyone's fault. Just as the RE bubble got out of hand due to Washington, it was Bloomberg's fault for not implementing greater oversight at the height of the building boom (e.g., by having too few building inspectors, as the crane collapse incident showed; by allowing developers to raze older structures willy nilly rather than have automatic scrutiny for, say, buildings over 75 years old -- now we've lost one of the city's oldest buildings at 213 Pearl; for nominating Tierney -- twice, etc., etc.). I am generally supportive of Bloomberg, but he wasn't "minding the store" when the real estate frenzy was at its peak, just as the White House, Treasury, SEC, etc., etc., weren't minding the store when CDOs and default swaps were at the peak of their frenzy.
There was a huge mess of unaccountability, and rather than either deny people were responsible or refuse to accept that they can change, we should pressure Bloomberg to change his ways (just as the SEC, Treasury and co. are being pressured to change theirs) now that the party's over and their errors are revealed.
No. If Lehman was saved this building would still have financing.
Not saving Lehman was quite possibly the most impactful economic policy blunder of the modern era. A US savings of 85 billion that has triggered upwards of 10 trillion (and counting) in worldwide losses, and more importantly, was the defining move that removed stability of, and faith in, the global banking system.
This decision rests with Paulson and Geithner. Maybe they'll have the balls someday to admit their mistake.
Don't let their superiors off so easy -- the boss had the ultmate responsibility (unless you don't believe that there is a head Buck Stopper).
In the case of Paulson: Bush.
In the case of Geithner: ?? (Bernanke?)
If this is true --and it seems to be-- why are the responsible rascals still in their jobs?Originally Posted by BrooklynLove
Here, here, the expectation on the street was that Lehman was ultimately going to be saved by the feds, when that failed to materialize it essential took the "cred" out of "credibility'. There is very little financial disclosure from the bank, thus, no one know who in trouble and who is not, consequently the banks "circle the wagon" and credit becomes constrained. If there is no trust then there is no financing based on credit. This is just one of the issues afflicting this economy.
Because the new rallying cry is: "Well, no one knows how bad things would have been if the government had done otherwise."*
Which is true. But those guys sure got people riled up and scared. Perhaps there would have been a huge implosion with domino-ing banks falling willy nilly. Or perhaps hardly nothing would have changed. No one knows.
They saved us from the boogeyman.
*This also seems to be the Bush / 43 motto.
Lehman had to go down, the example had to be set. If not, the bad lending practices would have still continued because bankers could be under the delusion that they can still count on uncle sam to bail em out no matter what and accountability would have gone out the window. Thus the lesson would have never been learned. Its painful now yeah, but pain is good in the sense that it is an indicator that something is wrong, dont do that again.
That example supposedly set by Lehman dissolution will be quickly forgotten. Once stability is established we'll see the same people that got us into this mess slowly but surely slide back into those practices that by-and-large were profitable to a precious few. What not being talked about is "financial regulation reform" the federal government needs to put back check and balances into the system, otherwise like I said "greed" will re-surface with renewed vigor.
Quite the contrary actually. The fallout from letting Lehman set the bar for too big to fail. Letting Lehman go resulted in the govt saving AIG and Citi and forced capital injections into numerous banks. It's so bad that insurance companies are converting to bank holding companies so that they can get govt money.
This is not right forum for a lengthy discussion on this topic so I will respect the house rules and stop here.
This complete a**. First he cries b/c his credit facility went bankrupt and he can no longer borrow money (meanwhile many and many are out millions of dollars that won't ever be paid back) and now it turns out that he's a deadbeat and actually owes the bank money.
http://www.observer.com/2009/real-es...5-broad-street
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks