Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "Bailing Out AIG: 10 Years After the Financial Crisis" video.

  1.  @TheSolarScience  Where is that citation, you clown? You're claiming that the bail out is more than what the country actually produced, that is impossible, because it's impossible. Money doesn't fall from the sky just because you write on a piece of paper.
    1
  2.  @TheSolarScience  You know, when i started to consider that you are a serious person with real facts, I start to read the document which you gave, and it's total nonsense. Don't be a troll, pal. I don't know where you get these kind of soundbite but it's not going to work among real people with real intelligence. The 2 documents link you provided, either you didn't read them at all, or you're just too stupid to understand what it means. First, "GAO, Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and Processes for Managing Emergency Assistance, GAO-11-696. Table 8 (page 131), 2011". Read page 130, pal, they specifically pointed out that the amount of money is accumulated due to the renewal of each loans, pal. PCDF loans which are renewed daily, let banks borrow money for one night, in exchanged of a collateral asset, and pay back the money the next day. However, during the financial crisis, the loans are made in the form of multiple loans in a row for the same asset. The first day you borrow money for an asset, the next day you return the money and borrow the money again, letting the same asset in as a collateral. These loans are accumulated as daily loans. But they are for the same asset, therefore it's just one amount of money. So your 16 trillions claim is actually 160 billions, because the loans are made in the span of 100 days. Don't just repeat the soundbite, read the actual report. Second "Levy Institute estimated the bailout cost to be $29 trillion (Levy Institute, Working Paper No. 698, December 2011", this report fails in page 5. If you had read it, it shows clearly the "trillion" word here, comes mostly from credit extension, which by the name, is not actually money being drawn out, it's called money capable of being drawn out. Being calculated so that if a bank has assets, they can withdraw how much money as loans. In the case of AIG, in 2009, they're valued low because of low liquidity, but in fact, they held multiple assets which can not be sold, but they are still assets that can produce wealth in long term. For example, a building is worth zero if nobody's willing to buy it, but it's still a building, the value of it is estimates in billions, because it's not the current price, but estimation of future price. The credit extension by the Feds, even though are trillions, are very much in line with what assets AIG have at the time, they also hold asset of nearly trillion. So yeah, with after finding fatal flaw in those 2 document alone, I decided that you're a troll, and it's probably too complicated for you to understand what I've just explained. So here, GO BACK TO SCHOOL, TROLL, DON'T REPEAT THE SOUNDBITE, IT'S NOT TRUE.
    1
  3.  @TheSolarScience  You still don't know anything, pal, I don't know where you get these propaganda, I admit, these propaganda are effective and it sounds like they're solid, but that only works with little kids. Read the real report troll, I just pointed out the lies you make. Pathetic. You can't make dollars out of thin air, because that is not real money, if it's not real money, you can't trade it therefore it loose the value of being dollars. Credit, loans, they're all required to be backed up with physical assets, the only money not backed by anything is the physical dollar bill, they can print it, and there are only 1.5 trillions in circulation. So your claim of 60 trillions, it's ridiculous, I pointed out the flaws, you're troll, I suspect, so stop spreading lies
    1
  4.  @TheSolarScience  So your 2 only verifiable document was shred to pieces so now you go on to base your ridiculous argument based on hearsay? 1. And pal, I have destroyed your lies about the " GAO, Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and Processes for Managing Emergency Assistance, GAO-11-696. Table 8 (page 131)", so yeah, re typing that is just pure trolling. Read page 130, they specified in their own reports why the 16 trillions number is stupid, for the likes of you. https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf, page 130, pal. 2. "Levy Institute, Working Paper No. 698, December 2011, $29,000,000,000,000: A Detailed Look at the Fed’s Bailout by Funding Facility and Recipient". Again, this piece of evidence was also debunked, page 5, read closely, pal. Extension credit, not loans, not money. Learn some math. 3. The testimony of the people given above is not about the money being given out in the bailout, you troll, it's about the potential losses of every default swap on the market. Which it will be 62 trillions, if every single swaps being defaulted. And it has nothing to do with the bail out money because the bail out is only 180 billions. The potential losses of 62 trillions, is not referring to AIG alone, it's referred to the entire market of swaps, and if you actually heard the testimony. https://www.c-span.org/video/?281644-1/aig-bailout-oversight-hearing-panel-1&start=5435 1:31:27. The total amount of debt is substantially less because every swap are made against one another, so if a company wins, another company loss, and that loosing company might win on some of the swaps as well, the worst case scenario is 17 trillions. And that number has no yet to occur, because if that's so, then there would be some really wealthy people walking the planet cashing in from credit default swaps. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/if-the-amount-of-62-trillion-d Poor troll, you see, when you try to lie but provide real evidence, it's very easy to tore your lies apart. Because they're lies. 4. Your claim of withholding of disclosure, has nothing to do with the the figure 62 trillions, the report only says about the threat and the liabilities of the federal reserve acting as an independent agency providing loans. And yes, they might have loss billions, but it's no where near your conspiracy theory of "trillions". YOU ARE A BIG FAT LIAR. Your proclaim "facts" are actually not facts but lies, you're either intentionally lying about the reports you quote, or you're too stupid to understand what the report accurately say. Nice try, you troll. You don't proclaim to know anything, probably because you barely know anything. Learn to read reports properly. Last time, I destroyed only 2 of your fake evidence to spare you your dignity. But this time I destroyed all of your fake evidence. Have some shame, kid.
    1
  5.  @TheSolarScience  You didn't do any review at all, kid. You don't know anything, you quote the material, and then you lie what the material actually is. I just pointed them out. Pal, the material is worthless if you don't how to read it. So first off, learn to read.
    1
  6.  @TheSolarScience  You still do not read, huh, kid? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/if-the-amount-of-62-trillion-d 60 trillion is the amount of swaps available on the market owned by every bank, not just AIG, also Goldman, JP Morgan, Bank of America, everyone, not just AIG, and in that hearing, 5 congressman mentioned the amount in their questions, and the answer debunked that number in the minute blow, why don't you stop being a moron? https://www.c-span.org/video/?281644-1/aig-bailout-oversight-hearing-panel-1&start=5435 1:31:27, your number is debunked. The estimate if every swaps is defaulted, which didn't happen, the cost will be only 17 trillions, but that shall never happen, because it didn't happen, nobody cashed in the swaps, because they know by doing so, they shall destroy the US economy. The withholding from disclosure has nothing to do with 60 trillion, you only have that the withholding is withholding information. It could withhold a few billions, it withhold just a few hundred millions. Even in the report you cite, they only uses billions, you can not make up a number and then use the fact that they're withholding information, to claim that your number is correct. So yeah, kid, you have been destroyed, here. Like I said, go back to school, you troll. Nobody finds that you're correct, because you're not correct. In the reports you quote, they pointed out why you're not correct. So why don't you go back to school and stop living in a bubble?
    1
  7.  @TheSolarScience  The final questions are simple, Did they lend out money to the banks? YES. Did they withheld information while doing so? YES Is the number 60 trillions correct? NO The report you cite destroys your argument, probably because you don't know how to read those reports. You have been destroyed, pal, go back to school.
    1
  8.  @TheSolarScience   @Jens Hoekendijk  You still do not read, huh, kid? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/if-the-amount-of-62-trillion-d 60 trillion is the amount of swaps available on the market owned by every bank, not just AIG, also Goldman, JP Morgan, Bank of America, everyone, not just AIG, and in that hearing, 5 congressman mentioned the amount in their questions, and the answer debunked that number in the minute blow, why don't you stop being a moron? https://www.c-span.org/video/?281644-1/aig-bailout-oversight-hearing-panel-1&start=5435 1:31:27, your number is debunked. 6 congressmen mention the number, all being debunked by an answer. I suggest you stop trolling.
    1
  9.  @TheSolarScience  And secrecy in the loan process is mainly to preserve the reputation of the banks. The banks don't want their numbers being exposed because that shall hurt the reputation in certain businesses. Your assumption of hiding information equivalent of "totally shocking and unreal information" is just pure stupidity. Why don't you read the actual report you cite, and watch the hearing you cite? They debunk your argument. I even gave you a link. Stop being a troll, pal.
    1