Pianoman83 Posted December 29, 2008 Report Share Posted December 29, 2008 This article from the Charleston Daily Mail offers some insight on the reasons why BB&T accepted Treasury funds under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Given that BB&T has undoubtedly paid more in taxes than the amount they received from the Treasury, and that they actively oppose the program itself, are they ethically justified in electing to receive such funds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 Boy, I don't know what to say. There seems to be a lot of pressures coming from the government to leverage companies to take the money whether they need it or not. I cannot say that I know what the terms were, but, certainly, they must have been good enough that BB&T couldn't pass up the opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 Regardless of the need it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Why would the fed be begging banks to take this money, and at 5% interest for money that was neither wanted nor needed why did BB&T bite? I don't totally buy the line that they would be at a competitive disadvantage, other banks have refused it and do not appear to be hurting. The real shame is that banks that would have gone out of business without the government's cash for poor management scheme are not collapsing. It means that they can not be bought by the more successful/better managed banks which means that there are still serious problems in the sector. Once again the free market is not permitted to correct poor management, but hey, it was all the free market's fault in the first place... right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 I agree. Citibank apparently didn't need the money, but they were pushed into taking the money. Similarly, I don't understand why it was taken, but it was behind closed doors. What "weapons" were used against them? I really don't know. Anyone that takes government money, or might get it, gets smashed in the media for the things that they do as a part of their business. Like having a retreat, bonuses, etc. Honestly, that is the company's business. If it's bad business, yeah, it should fail. On the other side, there's very little in the way of value that is produced by a lot of government workers for the cost. But there isn't a lot of talk going on there. Lots of waste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prosperity Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 I agree. Citibank apparently didn't need the money, but they were pushed into taking the money. Similarly, I don't understand why it was taken, but it was behind closed doors. What "weapons" were used against them? I really don't know. Anyone that takes government money, or might get it, gets smashed in the media for the things that they do as a part of their business. Like having a retreat, bonuses, etc. Honestly, that is the company's business. If it's bad business, yeah, it should fail. On the other side, there's very little in the way of value that is produced by a lot of government workers for the cost. But there isn't a lot of talk going on there. Lots of waste. At least there are companies that are standing up and making it a point to say that they will not accept Government money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 I wonder if it would be worthy boycotting those companies that do take the money... and run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrock3215 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 (edited) In my opinion, people who say that it was wrong for BB&T to take the money don't understand Objectivism in the least. Objectivist ethics is highly contextual, it is not a set list of concrete Do's and Do Not's, it is not a secularized version of the 10 Commandments. BB&T did the morally correct thing in taking the bailout money. Similarly, I do the morally correct thing in driving on government provided roads every day, using government provided parks, taking advantage of government provided tax deductions on my mortgage interest, owning a mortgage that has been bought, packaged, and sold by Fannie Mae, opening a CD account paying government manipulated rates of interest, taking out subsidized student loans guaranteed by Sallie Mae, etc, etc. Government is involved in every single decision of our lives. If I was to go around rejecting any and all government funded projects, I would have to just roll over and die. Quite evidently, the standard in Objectivist ethics is life, not death. Edited December 30, 2008 by adrock3215 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 At least there are companies that are standing up and making it a point to say that they will not accept Government money. Ford is one. Happy to see that they don't seem to have the need for it as GM and Chrysler do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 In my opinion, people who say that it was wrong for BB&T to take the money don't understand Objectivism in the least. Objectivist ethics is highly contextual, it is not a set list of concrete Do's and Do Not's, it is not a secularized version of the 10 Commandments. BB&T did the morally correct thing in taking the bailout money. Similarly, I do the morally correct thing in driving on government provided roads every day, using government provided parks, taking advantage of government provided tax deductions on my mortgage interest, owning a mortgage that has been bought, packaged, and sold by Fannie Mae, opening a CD account paying government manipulated rates of interest, taking out subsidized student loans guaranteed by Sallie Mae, etc, etc. Government is involved in every single decision of our lives. If I was to go around rejecting any and all government funded projects, I would have to just roll over and die. Quite evidently, the standard in Objectivist ethics is life, not death. How can an organization whose battle cry to government is "Get your filthy hands off my market" continue to call for that when their hand is in the governments pocket? It might be perfectly acceptable but it doesn't mean it won't hurt their position the next time they attempt to claim to be market advocates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 I see adrock's point - after all, if the Gov't is going to forcibly tax them (and us for that matter) then we are morally justified in getting back as much of that as we can. If we can do it via the very system set up to rob us, all the better, as there's no risk to us if we beat them at their own game from within the arbitrary rules they set. But to an outsider who doesn't understand the morality, it could be much harder to accept the arguments for a free market coming from those who play the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 Government is involved in every single decision of our lives. If I was to go around rejecting any and all government funded projects, I would have to just roll over and die. Quite evidently, the standard in Objectivist ethics is life, not death. Roads are related to fuel taxes. Really not a bad pay off, in my opinion. So, while I'd like to have less government, I see that I'm paying for what opportunities I get. Similarly for the rest of the market place. As for government being involved in every single decision of our lives? I think that's a pretty big jump. There are lots of decisions that is still way out of their reach. Life, yes. Production is something that one can certainly make a decision not to do. And that is also about the Objectivist. Still, BB&T... I'm sure they had additional market motives, but it probably won't be anything that we'll be able to have any first hand knowledge about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrock3215 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 (edited) How can an organization whose battle cry to government is "Get your filthy hands off my market" continue to call for that when their hand is in the governments pocket? As illustrated above, by the same way you drive on government provided roads while calling for government to get out of your life. (I'm assuming that you don't live in Sealand.) There are lots of decisions that is still way out of their reach. Like what? Edited December 30, 2008 by adrock3215 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 Like what? Voting. There are obviously more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrock3215 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 Voting. How would you get to the voting place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 How would you get to the voting place? By choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrock3215 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 By choice. Would you choose car, foot, bicycle, motorcycle, scooter, boat, airplane, helicopter, skateboard, rollerblades, ice skates, snowmobile, unicycle, Segway, or some other means of transportation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 Would you choose car, foot, bicycle, motorcycle, scooter, boat, airplane, helicopter, skateboard, rollerblades, ice skates, snowmobile, unicycle, Segway, or some other means of transportation? Sure. All means of production by free men. All of which will work fine without government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrock3215 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 Sure. All means of production by free men. All of which will work fine without government. Nope. Stop avoiding the question. Which form of transportation would you choose? I want to know how you propose to get to the voting booth without using anything at all related to government . (I haven't even gotten to the fact that most voting takes place in public buildings, such as schools, townhalls, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 Nope. Stop avoiding the question. Which form of transportation would you choose? I want to know how you propose to get to the voting booth without using anything at all related to government . (I haven't even gotten to the fact that most voting takes place in public buildings, such as schools, townhalls, etc.) Related to them means nothing to me. When they didn't have their hand in it, people would walk to a church to vote. Government isn't a requirement. It should only be there to protect my freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 Nope. Stop avoiding the question. Which form of transportation would you choose? I want to know how you propose to get to the voting booth without using anything at all related to government . (I haven't even gotten to the fact that most voting takes place in public buildings, such as schools, townhalls, etc.) You said that government is involved in every single decision of our life, and Dave replied by naming a decision all of us are free to make on our own. Shouldn't that be the end of the conversation? As for the topic, you are absolutely right: the fact that Mr. Allison is rich doesn't mean that different standards apply to him. He should use the government the same way you and I should, that doesn't make him a hypocrite. One small amendment I'd like to make is that he did give away some of his freedom, by doing this. Depending on the nature of the deal (which I don't know), that may have been a concession not worth the benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 One small amendment I'd like to make is that he did give away some of his freedom, by doing this. Depending on the nature of the deal (which I don't know), that may have been a concession not worth the benefits. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenure Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 How can an organization whose battle cry to government is "Get your filthy hands off my market" continue to call for that when their hand is in the governments pocket? I think what you should look at, is the fact that that is the company's 'battle cry' and it is what John Allison has consistently stood for, with great integrity. If he made this decision, then you know he must have damn well had a good reason, whatever it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted December 31, 2008 Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 I agree with Tenure's last post. This same topic went around the OActivist email list a month or so ago when all this went down, but I must have deleted it. Among some of the better points was that Allison has a board and stock owners to answer to. He may not have been able to make the decision he wanted to make had he been the sole owner of the bank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted December 31, 2008 Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 I agree with Adrock's point about the government being involved in everything. And one of those things is the financial system, obviously. I have no problem with people taking the money. If our system wasn't weakened by eroding government intervention over the years, the private sector would of done something similar in order to avoid bank failures, like J.P. Morgan did a long time ago. I think the mistake being made by people like Zip above, is that they perceive a bank failure as a regular business failure -- which it isn't. If a car maker or glass maker goes out of business you lose some jobs, and only the people working directly with the company will be really "hurt." When banks fail, you run the risk of losing your entire financial system and with it, huge swaths of your entire economy. That's the case under our current system. It wouldn't be nearly that extreme in a free market, or a freer one. But over time it just becomes more and more unstable. This entire bail-out didn't and wont solve anything. But it could buy some time, if nothing else. Time to come up with a much better alternative and to begin implementation. In short, I don't condemn Allison either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.