Skip to main content

View Diary: Save 300,000 Jobs--Boycott Chase [Update] (315 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fiduciary duty (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, boadicea

    Sure.

    If they were really surviving without relying on billions of no-risk sweetheart deals paid for by the taxpayer.

    But they are.

    Which means pissing off the entity that is keeping them afloat (US government and its taxpayers) is not necessarily a smart fiduciary move.

    This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

    by emptywheel on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 09:46:33 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, they pretty much aren't. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, Lying eyes, CrissieP

      They took some taxpayer guarantees because it was the only way they could be encouraged to buy Bear Stearns, a deal that was deemed essential to our economy at the time. No one's saying they didn't benefit from that deal, but the economy needed it as much or more than they did.

      The whole point is moot anyway. Just because they accepted government assistance in one scenario does not mean they're obligated to act against their own self-interests in another.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site