>Shag
> > maybe i'm misremembering, but wasn't the next step in the predicted process
> > that there would be a run on all the banks?
>
>Gar
>The problem with this as a test is the Fed did several things that
>would prevent this *before* the bailout was passed - raising deposit
>insurance to $250,000, allowing mergers in violation of anti-trust so
>that survivors could eat the dead and prevent the waste of precious
>financial protein, lending money to banks in trouble without "frown"
>points. And I could swear that most of the discussion from Doug was
>about credit freezes and losses from that. And I mean a credit freeze
>really is a bad thing. If it does not loosen (and I have not check the
>news 11:00 A.M PDT so maybe it has) a lot of the things Yates was
>talking about will happen. For that matter I don't think the credit
>freeze can go on longer without bank runs. Anyway is that the line? If
>we don't have a run on all the banks the bailout succeeded? If we do
>it failed? Was that the bottom line back on Friday?
don't ask me! i was asking the question! i vaguely remembering reading, in some prediction about such a crisis, that a credit freeze would cause people to panic and run on the banks. oh. yeah. michael pollak wrote that IIRC.
anyway, what i'm finding fascinating is that my company's up for sale and things just keep moving along. which makes sense. the biggest problem, from a business perspective, is too much unpredictability. something seems to have sent the signal to the potential buyers to keep on their path. they seem to think they're going to be able to secure a loan to make the purchase -- which is a purchase by a growth equity company. iow, the whole point in buying the company i work for is to invest in it and turn a profit in 5-7 years. fun!
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)