And you're very shortsighted! As are many people who believe that throwing money at the problem is the answer.
This will just allow these unscrupulous lenders to maintain business as usual (assuming the companies are re-sold a few years down the road, which is the plan). That $700B will have to come from somewhere, and that place is nowhere. This may be disastrous for the economy.
And you misquoted me, leaving off "entrenched" in "entrenched poor." If you can buy a house, I have news for you, you are not a member of the entrenched poor. The middle and lower-middle classes were able to buy real estate like never before, and they will be bailed out.
Why, I ask, is rescuing new homeowners a priority now, when the third-world poverty of the inner city and rust-belt country is viewed as some incurable ailment? We know damn well why: Because this coincides with saving the bankers' asses.
Yes, we should be Santa Claus and give them presents. I'll turn elsewhere for a serious debate. If you think that's the only way the government could help the poor, or that the big-wigs who caused this mess will just vanish as their companies are bought out, you've got another thing coming.
That's exactly my point! They won't vanish, so bailing them out is not going to cause them to stick around. They'll stay either way.
Basically I'm saying that hoping we'll get rid of bad managers is a bad reason to be opposed to the bailout.
If you have ideas for what to do for the poor post them. I don't. But I do know that keeping some companies alive will do more to help people then giving the money to poor people will.
> What exactly do you want to do about the "entrenched poor"? Give them presents?
No let's give them to multi-billion corporations and banks. There is no capitalism in the US anymore. Bad decisions at the corporate level are not being allowed to be punished by Market. Instead Market is manipulated, so we all get punished. This my friend is called SOCIALISM. Even freakin' swedish don't bail out their business. This nation became a parody of values it used to represent.
Again, you don't realize what the bailout will mean to the companies - they will be gone! Kaput. The US will own them. They just won't renege on obligations is all.
BTW: Why do you exclude the gov from the market? These days the fed owns all sorts of things, maybe they'll make a profit.
Look, again, I'm not saying that the bailout is a good idea. I'm saying your stated objections to it were poor and based on "it's not fair" rather than analyzing what the effects on the economy might be.
I don't really care about fair or not: I want to chose the course of action with the best effect. We can debate which course is best, but I hope we don't have to debate if that's the proper thing to debate.
Sigh, this conversation is reminding me too much of reddit, and it's partially my fault.
> Again, you don't realize what the bailout will mean to the companies - they will be gone! Kaput. The US will own them. They just won't renege on obligations is all.
Good. This is how capitalism works. Right? You take risks and when you loose you pay the price. If it works out you rich. Banks have been going kaput since beginning of time, big deal. It is like with forest fire. It kills old and weak trees, so new forest can grow on it. Let the banks with bad, sometimes even illegal practices fail, so the new ones that will replace them won't take such a risky bets and give loans to people who can't repay them. What is wrong with that? Capitalism has 2 parts - boom and bust.
Why Wall St, is SOOOO capitalistic in boom times and SOOOO socialistic in bust times? Give them some of their own medicine. They made their decision they should pay for them, not a taxpayer. Let the market clean up the mess from the system!
> BTW: Why do you exclude the gov from the market? These days the fed owns all sorts of things, maybe they'll make a profit.
Oh yeah sure! Let's nationalize our insurance industry, our financial industry, our automotive industry and so on. Is how America was built?
> Look, again, I'm not saying that the bailout is a good idea. I'm saying your stated objections to it were poor and based on "it's not fair" rather than analyzing what the effects on the economy might be.
The effects on the economy would be great. Sure, there would be a period of deep recession, but this is better than popping up inflation. This will not make a single of these banks solvent. We will pay inflation tax for it and at the end of the day, we still have "toxic" assets in books. In government books instead of - so called private - banks - but the issue will be still there.
The bailout will mean a 100% loss for all the "rich" people. It's the "poor" that will win - they borrowed money, and don't have to pay it back.