That’s what you call proof ? You think a stock price justifies the Fed using taxpayer money to “encourage” one bank to loot another to save the pigmen of Wall Street is a good thing ?
No wonder no one cares about freedom anymore and the Republican party puts up John McCain - you all are so busy begging the Fed to bail out the perps of the scam you will accept chains for you, your children and your subsequent generations if pretty please, we can just have another up day on the DOW.
That’s just pathetic.
The Fed acted to save all the ordinary people whose finances would have been decimated by this. The Fed didn’t give a crap which big financial institution got a windfall, but they only had one choice because only one institution was willing to commit to a deal on such short notice. This was an emergency caused by Bear Stearns, which for all practical purposes no longer exists (i.e. the guilty reaped what they sowed).
JP Morgan will probably end up with a nice fat profit on this, but nowhere near the amount that the individual taxpayers would have lost had the deal not been done. The Fed may well not end up spending a penny of taxpayer money on the deal — they gave a guarantee to pay IF Bear and its counterparties end up unable to pay. But even if the Fed ends up having to pay out the whole $29 billion of the guarantee, that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the hit that ordinary taxpayers would have taken without this deal.
To use a simplified scenario, the Fed was faced with a choice of 1) promising to tax you an extra $100 dollars IF the guarantee ever needed to be paid, in order to get the JPM deal done, or 2) sitting back and watching the global financial system undergo a total collapse, which would cause the value of your house to drop by about 50%, the value of your retirement savings to drop at least that much, and the unemployment rate to skyrocket, possibly costing you your job. Would you really have preferred that they choose option 2?