Display:
But they certainly did not have to rescue bank holding companies if the bank holding companies were not holding banks that were in trouble?

If a bank holding company is going down and that is threatening a healthy bank that they own, the solution is to take the healthy bank holding company into receivership to shelter it from the collapse.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 10:14:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
all the problem is from bank holding companies, which have been milking the banks with the hedge fiends. The Obamists have been deliberately confusing banks and bank holding companies. To protect rest of plutocracy. Basically as I have it in my incoming essay, they used the money making machine of banks to send all money to themselves and friends.
Exactly what the BANKINGA CT of 1933 wanted to terminate.
PA

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 02:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And this is a big part of why the "kill the bank, protect the banking operations" is nowhere near as complicated in most cases as it is made out to be ... go through the banks owned by the bank holding company, ensure that if dubious assets have been burrowed into their books, assets are shifted around so that they are solvent operations, and they can continue to operate under administration, with the balance of the junk assets and non-depository liabilities left with the bank holding company.

With the bank holding company disentangled from the payments system, it can simply go through bankruptcy like any other firm.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon May 18th, 2009 at 03:36:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series