Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year?

Re:Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year? by danmaz74 on Friday February 22, 2013 @04:11AM (#5263434)

Too big to fail is a real problem, but the assertion in the article is more than "a bit" disingenuous. It is _very_ disingenuous, because what they try to measure (money saved by the big banks with lower interest rates) isn't at all what the taxpayers pay - economy isn't a zero-sum game. There will certainly be a correlation in the long run, but that number they throw there has 0 credibility imho.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year? by gadders on Friday February 22, 2013 @05:51AM (#5263688)

It's not just banks that are too big to fail - so was General Motors. What would the solution be there?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year? by damoncali on Friday February 22, 2013 @09:22AM (#5264283)

GM was not too big to fail. GM was propped up because the administration wanted to for political reasons.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year? by gadders on Friday February 22, 2013 @11:48AM (#5265164)

Is one better than the other?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year? by damoncali on Friday February 22, 2013 @01:02PM (#5265568)

Sort of. I'd rather have politicians handing out indstury subsidies by choice than being held hostage by their own frankenstein monsters. But I hear ya.

[ Parent | on HN ]