Guest Post: The Wrong Answer

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by the Finance Addict

The Wrong Answer

So here’s an interesting question from American Banker.

Mind you, American Banker is an industry trade publication. It boasts that “when financial services CEOs speak, they speak to American Banker’s reporters.” AB is published by Source Media, which describes itself as “the pre-eminent provider of timely and essential market information [...] for members of the financial services community.” So it’s quite clear that those who read American Banker are likely to work for or to be in some way connected to banks.

Now here’s a snapshot of the survey results (as of 2:00am EST):

So here’s my question: if banks, themselves, do not believe that Too Big to Fail is over then why should we?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
vmromk's picture

Ben (the Ponzi master) Bernanke,

I wish to take a monstrous shit on your bald dome, after which I wish to utilize your nicely trimmed beard to remove the shit particles from around my asshole.

If this sounds tempting, please dial 1-800-FUCK-BEN



johnu1978's picture

There's going to be a whole lot more poverty before all this is over!


Primitive Skills Classes - Wild Edible Tours

Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

Someday when things start imploding, TBTF won't matter. The cascading defaults will even overwhelm Bennies printing presses. Default bitchez!

Peter Pan's picture

There is always the risk that some day everything will fail, both big and small. At that time, we better pray that the human spirit comes up trumps otherwise no one will be around to blog the eulogy.

Koffieshop's picture

Not EVERYTHING has to fail. Just the Treasury/Fed/Primary Dealers trinity and with it all financial institutions. And that failure WILL happen because they are helping to create it.
They have proven they can delay the effect of limitless money printing. It will only make it worse when something finally cracks though.
Countries as a whole DO recover from financial meltdowns. It really won't be the the first time a national currency fails, causing by a period of barter economy.

sessinpo's picture

Vampyroteuthis ...                     2329901

Someday when things start imploding, TBTF won't matter. The cascading defaults will even overwhelm Bennies printing presses. Default bitchez!



I think you are correct in a sense. At some point even the largest banks will start cannibalizing each other. We've already seen it with certain institutions. They are given loans to get in overleveraged positions and the bigger banks pick up the pieces when that institution gets in trouble. Now that would be normal in a free market, however, what is occuring is that the overleveraged institution is being fed liquidity by the very banks that pick up the assets on the cheap. Coincidence? But who else would loan that money, after all they are banks and that is what they do, right? The answer, is that the bankrupt institution should have never been loaned that money and should have been forced to downsize, become more efficient and profitable.

RafterManFMJ's picture

I concur. I'm learning how to make stone soup. Mmmmm!

takinthehighway's picture

Soup from a stone...fancy that...

The Big Ching-aso's picture



"It's easy to grin when your ship comes in and you've got the stock market beat.    But the man worthwhile, is the man who can smile, when his shorts are too tight in the seat."

Jamie Dimon Smails at the boat christening.  

rosiescenario's picture

...use turnip blood for coloring...

NOTfromSanFrancisco's picture




I love the stone soup story...I heard Captain Kangaroo read it on TV about 50 years ago...

killallthefiat's picture

Sad.  How can this comment get a +6 rating.  Is this witty and indicative of ZH readers IQ?

Peter Pan's picture

I agree that it's sad that this post gets a 6+ rating and more. I guess it's the final line that makes it half funny. Democracy doesn't always bring out the best because it's just an averaging process. After all, Greeks only invented democracy so they could all talk at the same time.

Random_Robert's picture

It is the indicative of the personal and individual rights enumerated in the First Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America...

IQ is irrelevant - every person has a voice that deserves to be heard.

XitSam's picture

"... every person has a voice that deserves to be heard."

Every American has a right to speak. Only some of them have earned the privilege to be heard.

ebworthen's picture


IQ is a fine device for polite debate and equivocation, but often useless when removing corruption.

In other words, IQ and fancy talk/debate delay the actions that need to occur.

OldPhart's picture

The way I learned to do it was to cut the head off first and shit down the neck.

Makes the beard easier to maneuver and the chin makes a nice scraper.

El's picture

If Dodd-Frank gave regulators power to allow big banks to fail, BAC would already be gone. It's dead already, but being carted around like Bernie.

eatthebanksters's picture

As much as I am not a fan of Obama, I have to give him credit, he wanted to shut down Citi as an example.  His Treasury Secretary disobeyed a direct order from the President (with the assisitance of who else but Larry Summers).  My question is, why does Gethner still have his job?

Real Estate Geek's picture

Timmy still has his job because he obeyed the order from his bosses, who are also Barry's bosses.  And they didn't want Citi dead.

Benjamin Glutton's picture Calculation Details

According to, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on September 30th, 1980, was $907,701,000,000. On September 30th, 1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day.

Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20th, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151.

Bill Clinton was the first president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt after the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981.

The final amount of the senior Bush debt was $4,174,218,594,232.91 (according to, and Clinton became president on January 20th, 1993. Bill Clinton saw $1,553,558,144,071.73 added to the national debt during the eight years of his presidency.

However, from the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton became president), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush.

The debt was at $5,727,776,738,304.64 on January 19th, 2001, the last business day before George W. Bush took the office of president. The debt was at $10,628,881,485,510.23 on January 16th, 2009, the last business day before Barack H. Obama became president.

During his administration, George W. Bush
increased the national debt by $4,901,104,747,205.59
and personally approved of the creation of 46% of the entire national debt,
in only 8 years.

Starting in 2003, George W. Bush destroyed the world economy by encouraging U.S. banks to make loans to those who could not afford them, through schemes such as the "American Dream Downpayment Initiative", and through the destruction of oversight, such as lawsuits to prevent state securities laws from being enforced on Bush's watch. Once Bush's policies led to their inevitable result of economic collapse, the United States found itself in a situation where it had to take on debt in order to restore the economy.

This means that all of the money spent to restore the economy, until it is restored, is also attributable to George W. Bush.

Further, with our interest payments on the current debt at almost half a trillion dollars per year, that amount will be attributed to Borrow-And-Spend Republicanism as well.

That means that Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush's borrow-and-spend Republican administrations oversaw, approved, or caused to be spent, almost all of the national debt, except for as much as $935,364,693,151.00.

The current calculation on the site is based on the U.S. Treasury's published Total Public Debt Outstanding as of Friday, April 06, 2012, when the debt was $15,618,640,279,582.90. On Tuesday, September 04, 2007, the debt was $8,995,145,905,720.62.

This means that with the current national debt around $15,634,720,284,792.50, we're adding $3,951,965,616.86 per day, or $45,740.34 per second.

You can also find more information at the U.S. National Debt Clock.
Or other sites:,

blunderdog's picture

   Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush.

You should drop that claim about "brought about the strongest economy since WWII."  Clinton came into power as the Internet was JUST BEGINNING to be shared with the masses, and the US dominance of the computer industry at that time provided massive economic benefit to American business.  Tax revenues went up significantly partly because of the early stages of "globalization."  He deserves ZERO credit for digital switching, the WWW, and the fact that the US was in the best position to seize the profits from labor-rate arbitrage in the mid/late 90's.

  This means that all of the money spent to restore the economy, until it is restored, is also attributable to George W. Bush.

This is flat-out bullshit.  Dubya was a lousy Prez and blew virtually everything he attempted very badly, but legislation is written by corporate lobbyists and passed by Congress.  Clinton is the one who signed Gramm–Leach–Bliley, and while Dubya certainly WOULD HAVE signed the same bill if it had been on his watch, he *definitely* doesn't deserve any more than "ambient" blame for the fact that the bankers got away with more money than exists in the world over the next decade. 

Seasmoke's picture

The Banks, Dodd and Frank should all die horrible deaths

eddiebe's picture

Naw, what would even be better is if all their wealth and priveliges were taken away and they were forced to live like the people they claim to represent. I would like to see them get turned down again and again while competing for a shit job without bennies along with all the rest of us who are trying to survive the fucking mess they helped create and perpetrate.

eatthebanksters's picture

I wannasee Barney bend Chris over and drive him around the block...

Yen Cross's picture

 Green on left / Red on right, when you dock!

bingo was his name's picture

It would probally be bad idea to take boating advice from the readership of zerohedge given the numerous boating accidents

gtb's picture

It's not merely boating advice, it's seamanship.  "Red on right when returning from sea."

eatthebanksters's picture

Red is Port (left), Green is Starboard (right)...when returning from high seas there is an old saying,"red right return."  On inland waterways it is the opposite...refer to 'Duttons' for further details....better yet, know how to read a chart do DR, and some form of non-electronic navigation and you should be in good shape.

LetThemEatRand's picture

The correct question is:  why does anyone accept the idea that regulators need to "let" banks fail?   This is what is wrong with the current concept of regulation today.  Regulation has been completely captured.  What we need are regulators that regulate, not coddle.

CH1's picture

What we need are regulators that regulate

LOL... and you expect us to believe that these mythical creatures really exist?

Power ALWAYS corrupts.

eatthebanksters's picture

Why do we need more regulations and regulators when the ones we have are useless?  Show me one prosecution od a senior exec of a TBTF bank from the housing crisis and I'll retract my statement.

Peter Pan's picture

If banks were allowed to fail then the people would do their own regulating by hanging crooked bankers.

Cursive's picture

False premise.

virgilcaine's picture

Zirp allows the zombies to walk another day. End zirp already!

mayhem_korner's picture



Wrong this:

Col. Jessep: We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It's that simple. Are we clear?
Yes, sir.
Col. Jessep:
Crystal. Colonel, I just have one final question before I put Airman O'Malley and Airman Rodriguez on the stand: If you gave an order that Private Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Private Santiago be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base? 

Reese Bobby's picture

Crito, we owe a rooster to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt.

Peter Pan's picture

And how do you propose we go about fucking the banks?

Conrad Murray's picture

Sprayers full of tert-Butyllithium.

IndicaTive's picture

I'm afraid to even google that particular substance. But I bet it would do the job.

ebworthen's picture


Preferably rough and splintery.

Reese Bobby's picture

Um, we shouldn't...obviously.  Do you believe much that the Federal Reserve tells us?

virgilcaine's picture

I believe The Atlantic magazine cover marked the Top for a long time.  There is probably an increase in laughing out loud at Fed meetings also. They were laughing all the way into 2006-07.. ha ha ha.

alfred b.'s picture


   Smoke and mirrors, shell games, ponzi schemes, rigged markets and fiat scams...welcome to the Fed, banking cartel and US treasury!