Question for Pro-Bailout People

[cawacko]

Well you could always, you know, NOT post in a thread. That is an option. Or are you so addicted that you need to say something in every last thread?
Don't answer that.

LMAO... of course he had to respond. Very few (if any) threads can escape a one-line response from citizen. He admittedly doesn't follow sports yet when I made a post about the struggles of Tennessee coach Phil Fulmer in the Sports category he was the first to respond.

Maybe its a pride thing to be more addicted than others?

 

[Good Luck]

This is pretty hypothetical, but it would depend on the circumstances. My initial reaction would be to say "no."

The only reason I support this one is because I don't see another option. I have come to believe that if this or something like it doesn't happen, the effects will be pretty far-reaching & long lasting, and my own life will be affected fairly dramatically...

The problem I see is this one will NOT be far reaching nor long lasting. It's a patch. A finger in the dike.

IMO, allowing this bailout will simply make the next crisis that much more difficult to deal with - and the more we patch, the longer it will take to recover when it comes crashing down. And it WILL eventually come crashing down. Just as an individual cannot maintain a household by constantly adding debt, a society cannot maintain an economy indefinitely based on debt.

The time has come, the Walrus said, to deal with our excesses of the past half century. The effects will be far reaching and long lasting. But if we have the intestinal fortitude to take on the crisis in a real manner and shake it out, we will be better off - and if not us directly, our kids. Let credit tighten like a bull's ass in fly season. Get the consumer off of a debt economy and we will be FAR better off in the long run than we will be if we continue to spend and patch.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

IMO, allowing this bailout will simply make the next crisis that much more difficult to deal with

That is simply not true. This is a failure, Good Luck, not a "correction". We can fix the machinery with a PATCH or we can sit on our asses and let the factories production grind to a halt because we don't feel like doing the work.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I've heard a lot from right-wingers that we will be "better off" if we let our economy crash and grind to a halt in the end.

Why? Just because something is difficult doesn't make it better in the end. It's like they're quoting their grandmothers "The worse the medicine tastes, the better it is for you". But there's plenty of horrible tasting medicine that will simply result in your death. The logic they are using is emotional, not rational. It will be extremely tough to go through the process of the failure - and we will be much worse off after the end of it, because we've let a small leakage in the system spiral out of control and destroy the whole thing.

 

[cawacko]

I've heard a lot from right-wingers that we will be "better off" if we let our economy crash and grind to a halt in the end.

Why? Just because something is difficult doesn't make it better in the end. It's like they're quoting their grandmothers "The worse the medicine tastes, the better it is for you". But there's plenty of horrible tasting medicine that will simply result in your death. The logic they are using is emotional, not rational. It will be extremely tough to go through the process of the failure - and we will be much worse off after the end of it, because we've let a small leakage in the system spiral out of control and destroy the whole thing.

And why do left-wingers want it to fail WM?

 

[Timshel]

I doubt you have heard much of that at all, water. AssHat does not count... he is an idiot. You're the one arguing this will cause the markets to grind to a halt.

If our economy fails in any catastrophic way it will be due to the Fed killing the dollar.

Why do you think there is not a bigger call to suspend mark-to-market rules?

 

[Good Luck]

I've heard a lot from right-wingers that we will be "better off" if we let our economy crash and grind to a halt in the end.

Why? Just because something is difficult doesn't make it better in the end. It's like they're quoting their grandmothers "The worse the medicine tastes, the better it is for you". But there's plenty of horrible tasting medicine that will simply result in your death. The logic they are using is emotional, not rational. It will be extremely tough to go through the process of the failure - and we will be much worse off after the end of it, because we've let a small leakage in the system spiral out of control and destroy the whole thing.

You are way out of your depth. The current crisis is a symptom of a much deeper problem. We're looking at the tip of the iceberg. It's the changed mole that is indicative of melanoma. Scraping off the mole and putting a band-aid on it is not going to do much good in the long run.

The defense for refusing the bailout has nothing to do with BECAUSE it will be more difficult. Who the hell wants difficult - except a few freakoid survivalist type. For myself, I like a robust economy. It presents me with all kinds of things to choose from. The DESIRE is to make things as easy as possible. But we need to look at the next few decades as well as the next few years when determining what route will be the easier.

You're right one one thing: the system is broken. But spending $700B is in no way going to fix what is broken. It is a patch over dry rot. It's shoring up sagging walls that are sagging because the foundation is cracked. Unfortunately, the only way to deal with a badly cracked foundation is to raise the place to the ground and then fix the foundation. From there it is possible to build a sound structure.

 

[Bonestorm]

You are way out of your depth. The current crisis is a symptom of a much deeper problem. We're looking at the tip of the iceberg. It's the changed mole that is indicative of melanoma. Scraping off the mole and putting a band-aid on it is not going to do much good in the long run.

The defense for refusing the bailout has nothing to do with BECAUSE it will be more difficult. Who the hell wants difficult - except a few freakoid survivalist type. For myself, I like a robust economy. It presents me with all kinds of things to choose from. The DESIRE is to make things as easy as possible. But we need to look at the next few decades as well as the next few years when determining what route will be the easier.

You're right one one thing: the system is broken. But spending $700B is in no way going to fix what is broken. It is a patch over dry rot. It's shoring up sagging walls that are sagging because the foundation is cracked. Unfortunately, the only way to deal with a badly cracked foundation is to raise the place to the ground and then fix the foundation. From there it is possible to build a sound structure.

Could you re-write this without metaphors and explain exactly what you mean? I'm interested, but the metaphors are meaningless. What exactly are you saying?

 

[ib1yysguy]

Fact: this bailout isn't going to solve the entire problem and there will probably be need for further action. I support the current bailout (with conditions) because the alternative (inaction) is unthinkable.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You are way out of your depth. The current crisis is a symptom of a much deeper problem. We're looking at the tip of the iceberg. It's the changed mole that is indicative of melanoma. Scraping off the mole and putting a band-aid on it is not going to do much good in the long run.

The defense for refusing the bailout has nothing to do with BECAUSE it will be more difficult. Who the hell wants difficult - except a few freakoid survivalist type. For myself, I like a robust economy. It presents me with all kinds of things to choose from. The DESIRE is to make things as easy as possible. But we need to look at the next few decades as well as the next few years when determining what route will be the easier.

You're right one one thing: the system is broken. But spending $700B is in no way going to fix what is broken. It is a patch over dry rot. It's shoring up sagging walls that are sagging because the foundation is cracked. Unfortunately, the only way to deal with a badly cracked foundation is to raise the place to the ground and then fix the foundation. From there it is possible to build a sound structure.

Yes, and we can do this by doing nothing.

You are not building a sound structure. This is delusional. All of the analogies we are using are idiotic anyway, and not real economics.

 

[Timshel]

Yes, and we can do this by doing nothing.

You are not building a sound structure. This is delusional. All of the analogies we are using are idiotic anyway, and not real economics.

We can fix the machinery with a PATCH or we can sit on our asses and let the factories production grind to a halt because we don't feel like doing the work.

 

[Onceler]

" It is a patch over dry rot. It's shoring up sagging walls that are sagging because the foundation is cracked. Unfortunately, the only way to deal with a badly cracked foundation is to raise the place to the ground and then fix the foundation. From there it is possible to build a sound structure."

That may be right, but I don't think it's necessarily true. For all we know this bailout could lead to a lasting resurgence in the economy, combined with a "lessons learned" passage of smart regulation & reform, and change the culture of Wall Street & the banks to one of more responsibility, accountability & prudence.

That's an ideal scenario, but I do think it could go either way. Regardless, I know what we'll get in the short-term if they don't pass anything.

 

[Good Luck]

Could you re-write this without metaphors and explain exactly what you mean? I'm interested, but the metaphors are meaningless. What exactly are you saying?

I am saying we have been on a credit economy since WWII. Credit economies are inherently unstable. That is why our economy is in constant need of adjustments and fixes. Additionally, credit economies cannot be indefinitely sustained. The minute people start saving (ie: paying down their debt) it slows the economy, and we face recession. So the government moves to open more credit through lowered interest rates, CRA and similar acts. So people start borrowing again (and not just for housing, it's simply the biggest market and therefore the first to collapse) and as a result of increased spending (via credit) the economy picks up again.

When the credit market reaches saturation, those who did not spend themselves into bankruptcy again turn to focus on paying down their debt. The economy slows, and we face recession again. So high risk lending is further encouraged through reduction of regulations. Spending increases - again through credit - and the economy picks up one more time.

And so it goes. But we have reached the point of diminished returns. The economy simply cannot support the debt built up. The economy slowed and as a result earnings dropped off. People have more and more trouble meeting their debt obligations, and now the whole structure is on the verge of collapse.

The credit economy is the cracked, unstable foundation. The banking crisis is the sagging wall threatening to collapse. The bail out is the shoring timbers used to support the collapsing wall. But the credit economy is still a cracked foundation. And as long as the foundation is cracked, no amount of shoring is going to keep that wall (ie: the lending market) in place - it WILL subside, and the roof (ie: the rest of the economy) will come down with it.

 

[Bonestorm]

I am saying we have been on a credit economy since WWII. Credit economies are inherently unstable. That is why our economy is in constant need of adjustments and fixes. Additionally, credit economies cannot be indefinitely sustained. The minute people start saving (ie: paying down their debt) it slows the economy, and we face recession. So the government moves to open more credit through lowered interest rates, CRA and similar acts. So people start borrowing again (and not just for housing, it's simply the biggest market and therefore the first to collapse) and as a result of increased spending (via credit) the economy picks up again.

When the credit market reaches saturation, those who did not spend themselves into bankruptcy again turn to focus on paying down their debt. The economy slows, and we face recession again. So high risk lending is further encouraged through reduction of regulations. Spending increases - again through credit - and the economy picks up one more time.

And so it goes. But we have reached the point of diminished returns. The economy simply cannot support the debt built up. The economy slowed and as a result earnings dropped off. People have more and more trouble meeting their debt obligations, and now the whole structure is on the verge of collapse.

The credit economy is the cracked, unstable foundation. The banking crisis is the sagging wall threatening to collapse. The bail out is the shoring timbers used to support the collapsing wall. But the credit economy is still a cracked foundation. And as long as the foundation is cracked, no amount of shoring is going to keep that wall (ie: the lending market) in place - it WILL subside, and the roof (ie: the rest of the economy) will come down with it.

Fair enough. I disagree for a lot of reasons but at least I understand the point now.

 

[Good Luck]

Fair enough. I disagree for a lot of reasons but at least I understand the point now.

Care to elaborate?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think we should take measures to improve Americas savings rates.

But I don't think those measures should include a financial markets failure.