Thanks for the link. :)

Well, I think we'll have to disagree a little on Bernanke's scorecard. He got us through the crisis, but some came out much better than others. Anyone with billions of dollars to lend could have done the same thing. I think a perceptive person would have recognized that you don't have to go around reimbursing bad debts at 100% just because you can. The current stir about the Fed could have been avoided if he would have given a few haircuts. He may soon get his own.

Well, Forgive me, because I don't know much about finance and the Fed, but Bernanke had other options other than the one taken didn't he? It seems he could have threatened doing a whole host of things including nationalizing AIG. He had bargaining power. It looks *very* bad to an outsider like me. Especially considering how bankruptcy works.

I'm with you. I think having banks that are nation-wide is very risky. Having that much cash in one place invites all sorts of corruption (the ultimate example being the federal government). My current bank is getting rather large through mergers and expansions and it has me worried. I'd support breaking banks into regional/state entities.

OK, I'm talking about the point at which AIG was insolvent and the government stepped in. Chairman Bernanke said the were no "resolution procedures in place for systematically important non-bank firms". Couldn't Paulson/Bernanke have played a little hardball on behalf of the taxpayers and given a "haircut" by talking directly to CDS creditors? fed link

Yeah, but there could have been some bargaining on the govt's part regarding a percentage of remuneration. I think one of the AIG creditors (foolishly) mentioned they'd accept something like 95 cents on the dollar. All debts were paid in full. It's easy to do that if you've got a blank check in your hip pocket from the govt. BTW, CDS's are *not* insurance. FWICT, they're just a device to allow CEO's to fool themselves and stockholders into thinking the company has no liabilities.

GS
AIG Really? I'd think the whole point would be preventing the tanking of the whole industry. Do you think that it would be possible for there to be a more even handed result? There's this thing called bankruptcy where creditors get a percentage of what's owed. Why is that not good enough for GS? AIG could have been protected (or not), the system could have been saved, and a certain company could have faced some real consequences. Don't see the rampant favoritism to one particular company yet?

But that would ruin the whole purpose of CDS's!! Where would a CEO be able to rat hole liabilities to improve the balance sheet!

I think it goes a little beyond AIG. The only difference between AIG and Goldman Sachs is that GS had the muscle to make its CDS's good at our expense.

Yeah, nice idea, but you'd need a legion of Paul Bunyan's to do that. Obama would probably chop his foot off on the first swing.

This will *never* happen. GS is far too powerful to let that happen. The AIG bailout was quite simply a giveaway to GS.

I made a real point about a dishonest poster, and someone thought is was necessary to attempt to censor me.

Well, when he claimed that "taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar" when preventing student from getting student loans, I have to say I was insulted.

And rightly so I think. My education involved no student loans. I suspect there is a significant amount of the audience that is in the same boat.

So, again, when I saw him claiming something that many of the readers know to be false, and then to see it so highly moderated when his central point is just wrong, I was again insulted.

So, I spoke, and apparently, someone thought it was a "troll". Well, my point was valid, so that's not it. Was it the language?

Well, adults speak here. Sometimes, when confronting others who are engaging in dishonesty, we say things with sharp points on them. Modding someone down for that is a misuse of your points and you should be ashamed.

In short, I said something that is 100% correct, in a tone that expressed my appropriate distaste for a case of misrepresentation, and you felt it was necessary to, what, punish me? Pretend you're my mom and chastise me for naughty language?

HOW DARE YOU?

There's a REAL point here, that your ham handed moderation ignores.

MANY MANY COLLEGE GRADUATES HAVE NEVER HAD A STUDENT LOAN, AND IT IS NEITHER IMPOSSIBLE NOR PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT TO BE ONE OF SAID GRAUDATES.

Which OP presumes is not possible when he incorrectly claims "taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar" is the result of not having student loans.

He was wrong.

And so was your moderation, and your attempt to censor me.

That is certainly true, but it would be interesting to see if there is some sort of periodicity, particularly considering that there are many different annual events and cycles that could affect insurgencies and the way that they plan and carry out attacks. The 2.5 exponent may be completely unrelated to the year, but it is interesting that it does roughly correspond to an order of magnitude larger attack on roughly annual timescales.

Let us interested Americans pool resources and start a nation wide non-profit cellphone company where we can all do as we please or where we can all utilize resources according to predetermined policies.

It would not be that hard.

Or, we could take over an existing company like Metro then do as we please. We surely can raise a few billion dollars, can't we?