On Demand
Question Of The Day: Should We Bail Out Citigroup?
Monday, November 24, 2008
Citigroup stocks are up this morning after the US government agreed to rescue Citigroup. What do you think? Good move?
Comment Below!
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
Great idea! "Live Rickety"
Where is this bailout going to end?
Is there any interest by the powers that be in trying to retrieve some of $$$ paid out to the former CEO's of these bailed out companies?
Americans need to hold these executives accountable for all of these losses through whatever means possible.
Why are we bailing out the industry that got us into this mess. Why are the bankers gettting all the help. Thanks to the fall-out from their mistakes and mishandling of money my husband (in the construction idustry) just got laid off. Nobody will help that industry, I'm sure. He has been in the industry for 20+ years and this is the first time being 'laid-off'.
If Citigroup wants public financing, they should expect commensurate public ownership. Tit-for-tat.
Bailout? No. Nationalize? YES!
Should Citigroup be bailed out? NO.
But, let's tap the wealthiest to bailout themselves -- since so far, the ONLY beneficiaries of the bailout have been the wealthiest Americans.
Suggestion: Levy a special tax on every American worth more than 10 million dollars. An 80% tax on JUST the 400 wealthiest Americans would raise well over half of the bailout cost.
The most important question: WHY do financial institutions uniquely merit saving? Especially when they were monstrously incompetent. Citigroup was among the most irresponsible.
Finally, note that Robert Rubin, the patron saint of the Obama financial gurus, was front and center at Citigroup for a (brief) time. His son is, I believe, now at Citigroup -- he certainly was at some point after his father.
Since progressives like me are wholly excluded from the purportedly broad rainbow coalition of Obama economic discussion, I will cite Robert Kuttner: “What worries me is there is not one person in the senior group who is the outsider to this club.”
maybe the best and brightest university students will now aspire to be engineers and scientist instead of investment bankers
I don't think we have any choice - the economic situation in this country is far too dire for us to question whether we should bailout one company or another. Yes, on one level, these companies don't deserve it, because they've provided fodder for the economic meltdown in this country. But if we didn't bail them out, things would just get worse, and the stock market could easily, tomorrow, hit Great Depression levels, if it hasn't already.
OK to bail out Citigroup, provided that the terms include breaking up Citigroup into smaller enteties, that, should they fail, would not have major impacts on the economy
is this $20 billion on top of the $700 billion taxpayers have already paid?
Sandy WEILL
NEEDS TO COME TO PAPA...This is his ego on trial. Big Shot.
Here we have the strongest argument for pegging exec compensation to his or her company's future performance, 5 - 10 years down the line -- when the true results of an exec's actions play out. ESPECIALLY in a state-run economy like the one being crafted under the Bush Administration.
So is Citifield (Mets new stadium) destined for the typical corporate name change every year now? another bonehead move by the Mets.
I would really love to know what will happen if we DON'T bail them out before I make that decision. It's unclear to me what the implications will be for regular people, Citibank account holders, Citibank funded businesses, etc. if Citibank were allowed to fail.
Re NYS Common Retirement Fund's investment in Ford. They did not purchase 11m shares of Ford on Sep 30. The caller's source (MFFAIS) publishes 13F data (SEC regulatory filings). The 13F is a quarterly filing. As of 9/30 NYS Common Ret Fund held 11,501,885 shares, down 70,130 shares from 6/30. They've held in the range of 10-11m shares of Ford for several years.(Separately, NYS Teachers Retirement Fund holds about 6m Ford and has held between 6 and 8m shares for several years
My brother works for Citgroup in Long Island City. So far, his job is safe. He is waiting for the other shoe to drop. I said to him "I hope it doesn't drop too loudly".
Next "shoe"...
Commercial real estate.
Get ready.
Money speaks for money. Who speaks for the the middle class, the working poor, the unemployed? Isn't trickle down economic theory forever discredited?
The perversity of seeing executives from the institutions that helped engineer this crisis now cap in hand to the taxpayers is disturbing. Where's the contrition, the shift in thinking, the sense of social responsibility from the executive classes? The perception is that this is all too easy for those who have access to power. When there's easy money to be made from betting on the market, easy money that does not contribute to the overall health and growth of the economy, there needs to be real, enforced regulation.
only if they agree to waive my fees this year
What role did repeal of Glass Steigal in the mid 1990's under the Clinton Administration economists led by Robert Rubin & Larry Summers play in creating the Citigroup monster as too big to fail?
Did not critics of such repeal at the time warn of just such a scenario resulting?
What precisely were their forebodings?
At least Citigroup is a solvent company. It has bad assets, and the issue should be, not whether to provide Citigroup with what is essentially a bridge loan, but rather what form that loan should take -- an asset acquisition, securitization of mortgages and dervatives, or puchase of bad assets. I really would prefer that this decision be made by the Obama administration, not Paulson.
Money is supposed to represent value: real things you can eat, wear, and use.
Why is no one talking about the fact that our economic system allows money to be created and destroyed when the underlying value it is supposed to represent remains unchanged?
With regard to Mr. Freidman's comment on the big 3 auto executives:
Alan Mullaley, CEO of Ford Motor, has a plan and is implementing it. As noted on the cover of the November issue of Automobile magazine, Ford is staring production of 3 vehicles in the U.S. that are currently sold in Europe: the C-Max (41mpg), the Kuga (37mpg), and the Fiesta (56mpg). Rather than repeat, correctly, that it was silly to fly in on privte jet planes, Friedman should do his research
Brian:
This best way to to responsibly get out of the current economic mess is to immediately start paying down our own personal debt. This in turn will built up immediate capital for financial and business institutions to make available for public and private loans and mortgages. At the same time this will encourage and or change the mindset of the general public to balance their own budget as well as the national debt.
Increase spending will only increase debt aggravating the economical mess we find ourselves as a national. Let solve the real problem and that is spending beyond our means.
Thank you.
Let all of them fail: give taxpayers money directly to pay off the credit debt they are saddled with as a result of usurious corporations like Citigroup. Then they would be paid back fairly with taxpayers money. After all arent these the disingenuous organizations that entice people to borrow more as they become more and more indebted? When are we going to stop allowing these people to bleed us like cattle?
Mr. Lehrer: Yale economist Rober Shiller reminds us in the Nov. 10 issue of The New Yorker that, "'bailout' has no entry in the twenty-volume OED."
Using the term "bailout" for every proposed government/private transaction is inaccurate and, frankly, lazy journalism.
If it's a loan guarantee, asset purchase, capital infusion or subsidy, just say so. Using a catch-all meaningless term does little to advance thoughtful debate.
Peterson/24: Actually, it is a bailout.
The cruelest blow is that I've been paying off a Citibank card for years based on a 28% credit card interest rate. Now they get my tax dollars too.
The problem here is money, and our commitment to it and all of its non existent glory. So money will not be the solution, it further displays our bewilderment with what decreases our quality of life. We need a change in mindset, a shift away from the worship of a printed paper. A company that might fail because money is not plentiful enough should be allowed to fail, otherwise our existence has become nothing but than to sustain the almighty paper.
"Why are we bailing out the industry that got us into this mess"
No, actually Americans got us into this mess by purchasing morgages and using credit cards they could never pay back. Was there predatory lending? YES! Were there stupid morons who didn't read the fine print before sigining their lives away? YES! These products wouldn't have existed were there no market for them.
I don't believe in bailing ANYONE out. Lose your home due to bad decisions? TOO BAD. Lend to Joe the Plumber and now your company is drowning? Umm, sorry! But now, the trickle down effect is starting to suck the life out of honest, hardworking Americans who played by the rules, paid their debt faithfully, and are just trying to make ends meet.
Heads need to roll...
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.