http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf83f33c-6f6d-11e0-952c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1KeJ5WCyN

Quote :

"Last month the Dutch parliament approved a one-time 100 per cent tax to claw back all bonuses paid since 2008 by any company that received state support in the crisis – though lawyers say the tax can never be implemented. “There is a full backlash against accepting the notion that pay should be differential depending on achievement,” said Arnoud Boot, Amsterdam university finance professor. “People don’t trust that any more. They have the idea that the elite basically sets the rules in its own interests.” "

4/26/2011 1:01:16 PM

I can't wait for all their talented bankers to flee to America.

4/26/2011 1:02:42 PM

"Talented Bankers"? There's an oxymoron.

4/26/2011 1:05:43 PM

How about we just not bail them out in the first place?

4/26/2011 1:13:11 PM

^ but there's a small chance QE3 will prevent something bad happening. How can you argue with that?

4/26/2011 1:14:38 PM

How about we bring back Glass-Steagall and solve the whole problem. Clinton was a dumbass for repealing it.

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 1:16 PM. Reason : spelling]

4/26/2011 1:16:20 PM

Right, because glass-steagal somehow prevented all the bailouts of the 90s. Wait, no it didn't. If anything it made the bailouts worse!

4/26/2011 1:18:23 PM

Are you talking about the S&L Crisis?

4/26/2011 1:22:26 PM

If you are, that was also a result of deregulating the industry.

4/26/2011 1:27:15 PM

No, I'm revering to Long-Term Capital Management and Continental Illinois.

4/26/2011 1:31:28 PM

LTCM was a Hedge fund, not a bank.

And I'm willing to bet it was lack of regulation that lead to that debacle. Also, that's peanuts compared to S&L and the recent bank failures.

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2011 1:37:38 PM

Quote :

"How about we just not bail them out in the first place? "

winner

4/26/2011 1:39:34 PM

A lack of regulation? such as any regulation against bailouts?

And those bailouts are not small potatoes, as it is the opinion of many that it was those bailouts that caused these later bailouts by convincing the financial industry it was too big to fail and therefore the tax payers would always have their back. Privatised profits and socialized losses.

4/26/2011 1:42:48 PM

I say we socialize the banking industry completely. Gov't can run it much better and efficiently than private banks.

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 1:52 PM. Reason : Economies of Scale and efficiency.]

4/26/2011 1:44:02 PM

Quote :

"Gov't can run it much better and efficiently than private banks. "

That is usually the case. lol

4/26/2011 1:57:23 PM

Medicare has a much lower overhead than health insurance companies.

4/26/2011 2:03:34 PM

^that really isnt the case. On a per person basis the admin costs are higher than private. It appears lower bc Medicare uses other govt services to "lower the costs". ie, IRS collecting the taxes vs Medicare doing it themselves. In the private sector there is strong pressure to keep these costs down and reduce waste. In govt, there isnt much of those pressures.

But this is a discussion for a different thread. Or send me a PM if you wish.

4/26/2011 2:13:33 PM

I thought we got all our money back plus interest regarding bank bailouts. I know we lost money on AIG and GM, but I didn't think either of them were considered "banks".

4/26/2011 3:34:19 PM

Even if we do manage to get all our money back this time, we certainly won't next time.

4/26/2011 3:43:49 PM

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/31/people-have-this-story-they-te

4/26/2011 5:00:19 PM

Quote :

"Even if we do manage to get all our money back this time, we certainly won't next time."

People like me knew that we would get at least most of our money back, we simply weren't in that bad of shape. "Next time" will have to be judged on it's own. There is no neccesary correlation that because we bailed them out this time we'll do it next time too. We did it this time because it was the correct decision, they should be judged on a case by case basis.

4/26/2011 7:23:50 PM

We should tax the UN for all money the US has given it since forever.

4/26/2011 8:12:21 PM

^^^I looked at that article and then briefly perused the site. It's not really a shock that they would find someone to say how horrible TARP was, given the fact that every single article on the site is about how regulation of any kind is bad and that pure capitalism will work out wonderfully.

It's hard not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when the source is so biased.

4/26/2011 9:05:35 PM

Quote :

"because we bailed them out this time we'll do it next time too."

Yes, and just because Donald Trump divorced his first wife was no guarantee he would divorce is other wives. However, even you would admit his wife would be stupid not to keep in mind a possible future divorce.

The bailouts changed the expected odds of future bailouts from 5% to something less than 100%. These people calculate the expecture future returns for a living and they knew the odds of receiving a bailout in 2008 were far better than they were in 1960.

4/26/2011 11:58:42 PM

Quote :

"The bailouts changed the expected odds of future bailouts from 5% to something less than 100%. These people calculate the expecture future returns for a living and they knew the odds of receiving a bailout in 2008 were far better than they were in 1960."

The decision to bail someone out is a bit more involved than a coin-flip or whatever method Trump uses to determine his marital status.

4/27/2011 12:25:37 AM

Is that how you make such life changing decisions such as divorce and marriage? A coin flip? Damn, no wonder you're a communist.

4/27/2011 12:29:55 AM

You misunderstood me. You seem to think that the decision to bail someone out is up to a coin flip, as you use percentages to estimate them. I have no idea why you felt the need to also compare it to donald trump's marriages.

4/27/2011 12:32:16 AM

I agree, it is not up to a coin flip. Goldman Sachs' creditors can rest assured that its bailout enjoys a 100% chance, while other institutions must settle for dependency on negotiations with their friends in Washington.

4/27/2011 12:39:23 AM

I don't think so, most likely they are terrified of losing everything like Lehman Bros, otherwise, why would they have bothered to pay it back? You like to baselessly assume that bailing out is left to either "chance" or some sort of political connections, rather than even considering that there may have been analysis done to determine who was profitable to bail out and who was not.

4/27/2011 10:15:58 AM