Bailout funds unwanted, not needed. Why? Executives and executive compensations. What the banks are there for.

The Foxnews story under the title "Official: Banks Seeking to Return Bailout Funds Must Meet Guidelines" announce that

"Banks .... want to return government bailout funds .."

Absurd but a fact. Bailout funds unwanted, not needed. Why?

"That would free the banks from federal restrictions on executive compensation."

What is in their minds. What they want to protect. Their executive compensations.

Bank Executives out there ready to fight, tooth and nail for their rights. The fat compensation checks, the pure essence of them being there at all.

I am pretty sure, in their minds they think, that they are doing a service to the public. For them being there, for them running the banks, for them receiving fat checks, that it is owed to them and should be recognised by anyone, by everyone. By the public, the governments, the states. Weird, and wonderful, as a friend of mine, says. No, not at all wonderful.

Most certainly, they have recovered quick, the credit crunch of a few months away. Already a long lost, forgotten memory. I do not know what are the reasons of this recovery. Short memory, the pinch from the constantly underlying greed, an eagerness to get back to "normal". Anything goes.

Should they be allowed to?

The government

"...said banks will have to demonstrate that they do not need debt guarantees ..."

Demonstrate? That they can do the job? What they are entrusted to do, what they are supposed to be there for? Government doubts what of the banks? Doubts their sanity, their integrity? Whether they do the right thing, checks upon them?

How low have they stooped, in order to protect, their executives compensations, they are willing to forfeit their bank's position. Who cares whether the banks can or can not handle their debts. What matters for them, are the fat compensations, they receive. The sense of security gone out of the window. Who cares? Do the banks and their executives care? ... certainly not.

Do banks need their services ... certainly not ... or ... in a more appropriate manner. Hell not

Toxic assets?

"... instead of an illiquid toxic asset."

... so toxic assets are illiquid? Can not be liquidated into hard cash? Can not be re-possessed? Regular payments are made but this is not what they want. They want to have the money the property worths right now, not later. But where did all the cash they had, went? It was swallowed by the entrepreneurs? They left no cash at all? Or even, being invested further into god knows what other instruments to make more money? To talk about greed is a commonality that offers nothing. But what can be said about, is the insipid feature of capitalism, its intrinsic tendency to grow big and devour all other competitors, says a lot. There is an insatiable hunger in accumulating more and more that adds nothing at all for the individuals in societies. Burgeoning corporations full of hot air, they were bound to deflate sooner or later.

And now what? Do they demand another round. They want to be rescued? What for? They are bound to follow exactly similar paths, their insatiable hunger for more and more profits, is genetic. Their Darwinian trait, their intelligible mark that guides their evolution. They can not get away from it.

Banks and similar corporations bear no trust, deserve nothing. Let them default.