Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
Point is, they forced it to happen, without letting it unfreeze itself, which it would have done.
|
Before or after economic meltdown? That is the question. It was clear the markets were in free-fall, it was clear that credit was frozen, it was clear the institutions were failing, it was clear that no money was changing hands and it was clear that institutions were holding onto money because of the uncertainty of contagion. The last thing they were going to do was risk letting go of the cash. There was not a single indication that it would have unfroze itself in any time period that would have been soon enough to avoid a cascade of failures.
Quote:
|
It was pretty simple to understand..... someone would have given them the cash, a few days without wouldn't kill anyone. It's not like the entire world froze up.
|
There's not enough cash out there. Tell us exactly where it would have come from. Saying, "someone would have given them the cash" is both economically unfeasible and wishful thinking.
Quote:
|
Not the entire world... we can see samples of 'better off' in our own houses that don't live on credit.
|
The overwhelming majority of households are in their houses because of credit. Do you own a home? If so, did you pay cash?
But answer the question, if credit is the problem, point to the period in time we should revert back to. Or is this just imaginary?
Quote:
|
Nobody has to, less banks is a bad thing either way. Canada has shit ton of banks, 3 levels of them, multiple types, etc.
|
And again, it's not even relevant because not a single person is arguing for more control at fewer banks or larger "too big to fail" banks.
At a Domestic level, Canada has 22 banks as of October 2010.
source. A paltry amount compared to the USA.
Quote:
|
Production was nothing like today, revenue was nothing like today, hell the ability to move goods was nothing like today, no part of a 100 years ago is like today.
|
Now you're moving the goal posts. That's not what you started with.
Quote:
|
I've read other wise... as well, I've read that no spiral or signal of any kind was taking place before hand, then the code simply erased part of the market, our markets crashed, and the fraud was exposed to us.
|
I don't know how you can even argue that deflation wasn't unfolding. Even your own reply illustrates this. As you just noted, asset prices were collapsing (Equities, Real Estate, Commodities). 2009 CPI data ended the year at -0.4%. That's deflation in action.
Feel free to cite what you read that contradicts this. And try not to misdirect with "signals", "beforehand", etc.
Quote:
|
I already know the crash had happened, markets frozen, and yet our country did blow up and business was still moving, perfectly fine.
|
Are you missing a word in here? Do you mean "didn't" blow up? If so, look at the timeline of events and then venture a guess as to why. Hint: it wasn't magic.
Quote:
Well, you asked "I still have not heard a reasonable explanation for why collapse would have been better."
And that's what the answer was that I gave you, a very reasonable, logical, even works on kids, answer to why it would be better to let it collapse.
|
I'll give you that it is an answer, but I wouldn't characterize it as you have.
.