"Here’s Why Citibank Should Have Been Allowed to Fail in 2008"

[Anonymous]

What are your thoughts here. This is pretty interesting.

Article: https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-why-citibank-should-have-been-allowed-to-fail-in-2008"

[Revelate]

I think Paulson and others were dealing with an unprecedented situation for which there was no road map nor any safety net.

Say what you want about it, certainly the policies they took are tremendously unpopular and I'm a big proponent of personal responsibility and it wasn't just banks at fault (stated income has to be one of the worst UW decisioning criteria ever), but 10 years on, we're doing OK economically.

[fuzzle]

---

@Revelate wrote:

10 years on, we're doing OK economically.

---

on the path to paying $1 trillion interest on the national debt annually

[Revelate]

---

@fuzzle wrote:

---

@Revelate wrote:

10 years on, we're doing OK economically.

---

on the path to paying $1 trillion interest on the national debt annually

---

I had originally had "other than our deficit spending" in there but was trying not to make it political

[Anonymous]

... To avoid looking at eyesore management of a financial institution.

[Anonymous]

Good read! Appreciate the article. Believe that this bank has some company. Unfortunately "too big to fail" still lives on. Back in the day, banks generally were more regional in nature (which most everyone here knows) and the effects of their clout was so much less. Thinking of Wells Fargo Bank and when they tied up with Norwest Banks and then the culture of the two banks sent many folks down a road to a very hot place ... there demise would have been interesting. As was posted, no political.