Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks

Posted on January 27, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Homes, Investments, Law, Links, People, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Regulations, Resources, Security, Technology, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Big business depends entirely on the patronage of those who buy its products: the biggest enterprises loses its power and its influence when it loses its customers.

~Ludwig von Mises



Banks Forced to Nationalize



The Liars’ Poker: Economists Explain Why Hints of the Economic Crisis Eluded Them



Should U.S. Nationalize Banks?


Inhofe Angered by President’s Decision to Spend Second Installment of $350 Billion


Floor Speech: Inhofe Angered by President’s Decision to Spend 2nd Half of TARP



I urge all individuals and businesses to boycott those companies and banks that have accepted billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Do not do business with them.

View them as lepers.

Shun them and their executives.

Move your business and accounts to a business or bank that have not accepted a bailout.


The businesses and banks should have either been liquidated, taken into bankruptcy or merged with a financially sound company or bank.

The government is trying to use the current financial crisis and recession to “nationalize” banks.


The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.

~Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 1966 

Spreading socialism by making loans to mismanaged companies is not the function of limited government under the U.S. constitution.

This is a rip-off of the American people.

Shun the socialists looters and moochers!

The bailout businesses and banks  are no longer capitalist institutions.

They have joined the professional thiefs in Washington D.C.–the socialist of both parties.

Let prudence and not politics determine your action.

Would you do business with a company that needs to beg for billions of dollars from the Federal government  to just stay in business?

I would not and if you value your property and liberties you should not either.

Trust me does not cut it.

Remember what happened to all the investors that trusted Bernard Madoff  and did not exercise due dillengence.



Financier Bernard Madoff Admits 50 Billion Dollar Fraud


Bernie Madoff on the modern stock market


 Madoff in 2004: ‘Most Want to Comply With Rules’


What caused the financial crisis?–Greed, Arrogance, and Stupidity–the usual suspects. 

The Fascist Democratic Radicals (FDRs) are trying to force the nationalization of industry and banks.

Suggest you study what Hitler did in 1933.

Fight the socialists in Congress and the White House.


The Federal Government is stealing stockholder equity. This is a rip-off.


We shall not grow wiser before we learn that much that we have done was very foolish.

~Friederich Hayek



Background Articles and Videos


Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout

“Hundreds of banks and a handful of insurers and automakers have applied for funds from the Treasury Department as part of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. The Treasury Department has transferred capital to the majority of these companies. …” 



Firms That Got Bailout Money Keep Lobbying

“…Citigroup and Bank of America are hardly the only two financial firms to confront the issue. During the last three months of 2008, at least seven other firms receiving bailout funds — American Express, Capital One, Goldman Sachs, KeyCorp, Morgan Stanley, PNC and Bank of New York Mellon — all lobbied the government about the bailout, according to a review of their most recent disclosure reports.

The automakers that received billions under the same program lobbied as well: including General Motors; its financing arm, GMAC; and Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm that controls Chrysler. Other recipients of federal financing also lobbied Congress, the Treasury or both about other matters.

The American International Group, taken over by the government during an injection of more than $40 billion last fall to prevent the company’s collapse, has discontinued all its federal lobbying; it is now in effect government-owned. But its former executives continue to lobby.

Its former chief executive, Maurice R. Greenberg, ousted a few years ago amid allegations of securities fraud, is leading a group of shareholders lobbying for a chance to renegotiate the terms of the government takeover or buy back a bigger stake in the company. …”


The End

From that moment, Whitney became E.F. Hutton: When she spoke, people listened. Her message was clear. If you want to know what these Wall Street firms are really worth, take a hard look at the crappy assets they bought with huge sums of ­borrowed money, and imagine what they’d fetch in a fire sale. The vast assemblages of highly paid people inside the firms were essentially worth nothing. For better than a year now, Whitney has responded to the claims by bankers and brokers that they had put their problems behind them with this write-down or that capital raise with a claim of her own: You’re wrong. You’re still not facing up to how badly you have mismanaged your business.

Rivals accused Whitney of being overrated; bloggers accused her of being lucky. What she was, mainly, was right. But it’s true that she was, in part, guessing. There was no way she could have known what was going to happen to these Wall Street firms. The C.E.O.’s themselves didn’t know.

Now, obviously, Meredith Whitney didn’t sink Wall Street. She just expressed most clearly and loudly a view that was, in retrospect, far more seditious to the financial order than, say, Eliot Spitzer’s campaign against Wall Street corruption. If mere scandal could have destroyed the big Wall Street investment banks, they’d have vanished long ago. This woman wasn’t saying that Wall Street bankers were corrupt. She was saying they were stupid. These people whose job it was to allocate capital apparently didn’t even know how to manage their own. …” 


“…No investment bank owned by its employees would have levered itself 35 to 1 or bought and held $50 billion in mezzanine C.D.O.’s. I doubt any partnership would have sought to game the rating agencies or leap into bed with loan sharks or even allow mezzanine C.D.O.’s to be sold to its customers. The hoped-for short-term gain would not have justified the long-term hit.

No partnership, for that matter, would have hired me or anyone remotely like me. Was there ever any correlation between the ability to get in and out of Princeton and a talent for taking financial risk?

Now I asked Gutfreund about his biggest decision. “Yes,” he said. “They—the heads of the other Wall Street firms—all said what an awful thing it was to go public and how could you do such a thing. But when the temptation arose, they all gave in to it.” He agreed that the main effect of turning a partnership into a corporation was to transfer the financial risk to the shareholders. “When things go wrong, it’s their problem,” he said—and obviously not theirs alone. When a Wall Street investment bank screwed up badly enough, its risks became the problem of the U.S. government. “It’s laissez-faire until you get in deep shit,” he said, with a half chuckle. He was out of the game.

It was now all someone else’s fault. …”


Sen. Inhofe’s first YouTube channel vid: Show your TARP rage!

By Michelle Malkin 


“…Stalwart GOP conservative Sen. Jim Inhofe was opposed to the Crap Sandwich from the beginning — and has pushed vigorously for a rollback of the massive bailout. Today, he launched his YouTube channel with a salvo aimed at President Bush for moving to free up the rest of the $350 billion in TARP funds. Inhofe’s S. 64 would impose accountability restrictions on the bailout money.

Watch the vid and leave your feedback. Show your TARP rage! …”



“A boycott is a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some other organization as an expression of protest, usually of political reasons. …”

“…A boycott is normally considered a one-time affair designed to correct an outstanding single wrong. When extended for a long period of time, or as part of an overall program of awareness-raising or reforms to laws or regimes, a boycott is part of moral purchasing, and those economic or political terms are to be preferred.

Most organized consumer boycotts today are focused on long-term change of buying habits, and so fit into part of a larger political program, with many techniques that require a longer structural commitment, e.g. reform to commodity markets, or government commitment to moral purchasing, e.g. the longstanding boycott of South African businesses to protest apartheid already alluded to. These stretch the meaning of a “boycott.”

Boycotts are now much easier to successfully initiate due to the Internet. …” 



“In economics, a bailout is an act of loaning or giving capital to a failing business in order to save it from bankruptcy, insolvency, or total liquidation and ruin. [1] [2]

A bailout is a matter of circumstance, so the possible motives behind one are unlimited, though typically the bail-er demands some influence over the company he bailed out. A bailout could be done for mere profit, as when a predatory investor resurrects a foundering company by buying its shares at fire-sale prices; for social improvement, as when, hypothetically speaking, a wealthy philanthropist reinvents an unprofitable fast food company into a non-profit food distribution network; or the bailout of a company might be seen as a necessity in order to prevent greater, socioeconomic failures: For example, the US government assumes transportation to be the backbone of America’s general economic fluency, which maintains the nation’s geopolitical power. [3] As such, it is the long-held policy of the US government to protect the biggest American companies responsible for transportation–airliners, petrol companies, etc– from failure through subsidies and low-interest loans, or, in other words, through bailing them out. These companies, among others, are deemed “too big to fail” because their goods and services are considered by the government to be constant universal necessities in maintaining the nation’s welfare and often, indirectly, its security.[4] [5]

Emergency-type government bailouts can be controversial. Debates raged in 2008 over if and how to bailout the failing auto industry in the United States. Those against it, like pro-free market radio personality Hugh Hewitt, saw this bailout as an unacceptable passing-of-the-buck to taxpayers. He denounced any bailout for the Big Three, arguing that mismanagement caused the companies to fail, and they now deserve to be dismantled organically by the free-market forces so that entrepreneurs may arise from the ashes; that the bailout signals lower business standards for giant companies by incentivizing risk, creating moral hazard through the assurance of safety nets (that others will pay for) that ought not be, but unfortunately are, considered in business equations; and that a bailout promotes centralized bureaucracy by allowing government powers to choose the terms of the bailout. Others, such as Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, and economist Jeffrey Sachs [6], characterized this particular bailout a necessary evil and argued that the probable incompetence in management of the car companies is insufficient reason to let them fail completely and risk disturbing the (current) delicate economic state of the United States, since up to three million jobs rest on the solvency of the Big Three and things are bleak enough as it is. In any case, the bones of contention here can be generalized to represent the issues at large, namely the virtues of private enterprise versus those of central planning, and the dangers of a free market’s volatility versus the those of socialist bureaucracy.

Furthermore, government bailouts are criticized as corporate welfare.

Governments around the world have bailed out their nations businesses with some frequency since the early 20th century. In general, the needs of the entity/entities bailed out are subordinate to the needs of the state. …”



 Deconstructing the Subprime Crisis


Franklin Allen on Lessons from the Subprime Crisis


Franklin Allen on Past Crises


Jeremy Siegel on the Resilience of American Finance


Who made money from sub-prime crisis? Credit Crunch winners and losers – bankers, hedge funds, speculators and investors. Economic trends keynote conference speaker Patrick Dixon


Credit Crunch explained, Banking Nationalisation and Global Economic Crisis – What next after credit crunch and global market chaos? After bank share price collapse?


Banks Nationalisation in Credit Crunch . Future after huge capital injection by governments in exchange for banking shares. Impact on wider economy, global economic crisis and future of banking. Comment by keynote conference speaker Patrick Dixon


Personal Guide to Survive Credit Crunch 10 steps in 60 seconds. What to do in economic slowdown or recession keynote conference speaker and Futurist Dr Patrick Dixon


Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now!


Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

90 Responses to “Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks”

RSS Feed for Pronk Palisades Comments RSS Feed

[…] Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks […]

[…] Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks […]

Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: