US involvement in F1: How US bailed out some sponsors of F1

[Ciro Pabón]

We will know how that gearbox works, as soon as the banks repay their loans.

The US bailed sponsors with loaned money... Say thanks to China and Japan (Colombia throwed in 16 billion... so, you're welcome).

[nipo]

The US bailed sponsors with loaned money... Say thanks to China and Japan (Colombia throwed in 16 billion... so, you're welcome).

Hong Kong has a whopping 132, too~~~

And it is tax-paying season here now... depressing!!!

[Richard]

Ciro - Thanks for bringing some perspective to all this. I was surprised the thread wasn't locked when I read the bits about suicide, murder & jewish usury.

Tau - as for loans to companies linked to non-USA parents - the point of the bailout was to underwrite the toxic debt. Those loans were taken out by USA citizens and companies, it was USA debt bailed by USA bond issues. If for instance the USA holdings of Barclays Capital were not supported, then USA people employed by the USA subsidiary of Barclays would have lost jobs, USA companies with Barclays bank loans would have closed down, USA homeowners with USA mortgages based on USA Barclays mortgages would have been homeless.

Furthermore, the USA credit ratings would tumble, future foreign capital in the USA would be very hard to come by and that would have killed any hope of economic recovery.

[Pup]

The US bailed sponsors with loaned money... Say thanks to China and Japan (Colombia throwed in 16 billion... so, you're welcome).

Yes, thank you for your charitable investment in T-bills.

[Pup]

Ciro - Thanks for bringing some perspective to all this. I was surprised the thread wasn't locked when I read the bits about suicide, murder & jewish usury.

Tau - as for loans to companies linked to non-USA parents - the point of the bailout was to underwrite the toxic debt. Those loans were taken out by USA citizens and companies, it was USA debt bailed by USA bond issues. If for instance the USA holdings of Barclays Capital were not supported, then USA people employed by the USA subsidiary of Barclays would have lost jobs, USA companies with Barclays bank loans would have closed down, USA homeowners with USA mortgages based on USA Barclays mortgages would have been homeless.

Furthermore, the USA credit ratings would tumble, future foreign capital in the USA would be very hard to come by and that would have killed any hope of economic recovery.

Ahh, but that's the problem. The government hoped/thought that they could force reforms on the banks that took the money, but the banks just pointed to what would happen if they didn't get the cash, and said thanks but no thanks on the reforms. Its practically a protection racket.

[strad]

agree and AGREE

[Richard]

Ahh, but that's the problem. The government hoped/thought that they could force reforms on the banks that took the money, but the banks just pointed to what would happen if they didn't get the cash, and said thanks but no thanks on the reforms. Its practically a protection racket.

Yes it would have been nice to see more headline grabbing reforms. However, banks now have to show greater capitalisations and pass tougher "stress tests". We are likely to see separation of the capital (gambling) from the retail.

Oh, and it seems that most of the state bailouts will turn in a nice profit for the tax payer.