[quote]Sloth wrote:
Just because I thought it funny, and this thread is the closest thing on page 1 of this forum to the topic of the cartoon…[/quote]
It’s funny because it is true.
You guys don’t have a clue about the economy, do you? Well, you vote for people who don’t have a clue either.
Might I suggest you read anything by Keynes. It was the Friedmanites that got us in this mess in the first place.
Nobody “profivided the expectation of bailouts”. We found ourselves in a situation all of a sudden where a bailout was needed. Didn’t smart people see this coming? Sure, but they and they instisted on more regulation.
They were dismissed by greedy capitalists who lobied succesfully against regulation. These people gladly took the bailout, but now want to get back to business as if nothing has happened.
If you warn your kid not to swim in the deep end, but he does anyway, and he gets into trouble, will you let him drown as a warning for the other kids?
Because that is the position you guys are taking.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
You guys don’t have a clue about the economy, do you? Well, you vote for people who don’t have a clue either.[/quote]
Should businesses that overextended their credit despite having no real productive assets to back up their debt be given a bailout? Do you think somehow the government can “fix the economy” by giving more money to the same people who took out loans they couldn’t afford in the first place?
As an individual consumer of credit do you expect a handout from taxpayers when you cannot make a loan payment?
Should individuals not be held responsible for their own actions?
This isn’t even a question of economics. It is a question of ethics. Though I agree the majority of “our leaders” do not understand the fundamentals of economics.
Are you talking about businesses, the banks (they’re not really banks, they don’t fall under the regulation banks fall under), or individuals?
I don’t expect the government to chip in when I can’t make a loan payment. My only loan is for buying my appartment. I don’t take loans to buy an LCD TV, a car, not any consumables. People should only take out a loan for investments that pay themselves back.
Anyway, should the governments (because this has been done everywhere around the world), should they have bailed out the banks that gambled on people being able to pay off their loans?
In my opinion yes.
Was it ethical? Perhaps not.
But how ethical is it to tank the entire economy just because you want to make a point. This disasters would have pushed (and this still might happen) sound business over the brink. If several of your customers go belly up and can’t afford to pay your for goods or services delivered, you might end up in trouble through no fault of your own.
How ethical is it to see a prudent business owner loose his job over the government making a point? How ethical is it see his employees loose their job, perhaps their house?
The point should have been made 5 years ago, and tighter regulation should have been put in place then. Was it ethical to oppose regulation then? No, it wasn’t, it was greed.
Is it ethical now? Certainly not, it’s greed again.
People will argue greed is good. Those people should be forced to give up a pound of their flesh. Because that’s what greed leads to. They’re just hoping (knowing) it won’t be their flesh.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
You guys don’t have a clue about the economy, do you? Well, you vote for people who don’t have a clue either.
Might I suggest you read anything by Keynes. It was the Friedmanites that got us in this mess in the first place.
[/quote]
This says everything we need to know about you. No need to read the rest.
I guess this one was good to. We haven’t seen deregulation since Ronald. We now have many more pages of regulation than we have ever had at any point in history. Good one genius.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
But how ethical is it to tank the entire economy just because you want to make a point. This disasters would have pushed (and this still might happen) sound business over the brink. If several of your customers go belly up and can’t afford to pay your for goods or services delivered, you might end up in trouble through no fault of your own.
[/quote]
Why would you bother to argue economics when you don’t even understand the very basic principals of the business cycle?
[quote]
People will argue greed is good. Those people should be forced to give up a pound of their flesh. Because that’s what greed leads to. They’re just hoping (knowing) it won’t be their flesh.[/quote]
Greed has givin us every necessity and luxury we have today. Yeah, pretty shitty.
It is not by the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or baker that we expect our dinner, but his from his own self interest. I butchered that one, but you get the point. Any idea who I am paraphasing?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
But how ethical is it to tank the entire economy just because you want to make a point. This disasters would have pushed (and this still might happen) sound business over the brink. If several of your customers go belly up and can’t afford to pay your for goods or services delivered, you might end up in trouble through no fault of your own.
How ethical is it to see a prudent business owner loose his job over the government making a point? How ethical is it see his employees loose their job, perhaps their house?
The point should have been made 5 years ago, and tighter regulation should have been put in place then. Was it ethical to oppose regulation then? No, it wasn’t, it was greed.
Is it ethical now? Certainly not, it’s greed again.
People will argue greed is good. Those people should be forced to give up a pound of their flesh. Because that’s what greed leads to. They’re just hoping (knowing) it won’t be their flesh.[/quote]
Greed has nothing to do with anything. It is an emotive word used to distract the possibility of having any real discussion about the issues. Am I greedy because I want to make the highest income I can in the market for the skills I can offer? Is a mother greedy because she wants to pay less for a gallon of milk to feed her children? Is a business owner greedy because he wants to charge the highest price he can for a product that other people demand?
You see unethical behavior that results in someone gaining an advantage over someone else and call it greed. But that is not greed it is merely unethical behavior. In the market there are only two possibilities for any exchange: those of the buyer who seeks the cheapest price and the seller who seeks the highest price. This is not greed it is catallactic reality. The market allows this to happen and it is good because it is the mechanism that allows producers to reach consumers at the BEST possible price. That is all that matters.
Your point of allowing the “economy to tank” by not bailing out the banks is nonsense. Bailing them out is what will make the economy tank and not bailing them out will trigger the correction that will “fix” the problem. Bad debt needs to be liquidated so that consumers can find the best prices; for example, over inflated home prices need to come down so that responsible people who save their money can start buying them up. This cannot be done when prices get inflated (which is what a gov’t bailout does) because it triggers artificial demand that would not have happened if banks had been forced to be more conservative with credit. Just knowing that banks can be bailed out if they fail is part of the problem – that is called moral hazard.
“Get out of US Dollars.”
I’d hate to live in America
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Quite right. And can you please explain to me how they did that?
Are you one of these tough guys who don’t need the goverment? You don’t need roads, schools, firestations, cops?
Noooh, government is BAAAAD ! ! ![/quote]
The government has placed the taxpayers in the financial position of being subject to a deficit of over $10 trillion dollars. Congress, who holds the power of the purse (as well as having the power to abolish the Federal Reserve), has failed utterly in reversing this trend.
Therefore, yes indeed, government is quite responsible for creating the situation. In a number of respects, it is extremely surprising this is actually being debated.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
jawara wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
jawara wrote:
What really scares me is if we end being like the Weimar Republic.
The governor of the Reserve bank of Zimbabwe has actually publicly congratulated the US for following its lead in regards to monetary policy.
You know what really pisses me off about that? For some reason we (Americans) seem to think that if we get approval from some other country its the greatest thing in the world. Who gives a damn about what Zimbabwe thinks of us? They suck!!!
You need like 400K of their dollars to buy a can of Coke, and some dumbass is like "Hey, Wow, Zimbabwe think we have great economic policy. Anyway, I got some some money in the bank, I’m gonna buy as much silver as I can with it tomorrow.
Lol, you completely misinterpreted my point.
Being endorsed by Dr Gongo is certainly not a good thing.
[/quote]
Haha, seriously. That went right over his head. Pretty soon it is gonna cost us $400k to cop a Pepsi.