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.
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.