Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
It's not really complex... the bailout did not solve, fix or correct anything, it did however create problems, a trillion and a half worth of them - during a time when we were at war, spending more than we already had.
|
So your contention is that the bailout did not solve the problem of frozen credit markets where companies and countries (like Brazil) who had nothing to do with CDS's, etc. found themselves unable to meet their obligations since they could not use the normal credit market.
Sorry, but it did fix that problem and all the other commentary you offered after that is just that, commentary.
Quote:
This also created a stronger monopoly for the banks and wall street firms, basically nationalizing them in micro ways, handing over 95% of the mortgage loans in our Country to a single firm that is fully managed by the fed, while allowing banks to collect more land rights. Basically, the bailout handed our Country over to corps.
Failing would have kept the power in the hands of the people... and let the free market pickup the slack, bad banks would have went belly up and good banks would have picked up the slack, which does happen when corps or industries start to fall, all over the world.
What wouldn't have happened is a major rebound in stocks, it would have taken longer, much longer - if they ever rebounded again. And without those money flowing towards those investments, it would have moved into local markets, like they naturally do, which benefit us much more than any market investment ever will.
It would have been tough at first, and most of us would have probably lost everything we invested... but we crawled out of that heap of a mess, we would have crawled out either way. I like to think the future without corps pulling every string, might be a little better than the shit hole we have to deal with today.
|
It would have been more than just tough at first. What your talking about experiencing is the great depression (same basic economics at play) but times 10. I think that is the difference that I'm driving at.
And the idea that the future wouldn't have corps pulling the strings after a collapse doesn't seem obvious to me either.
I still have not heard a reasonable explanation for why collapse would have been better.
.