Quote:
Originally Posted by wig
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.
|
After... the many markets had cash, money and business was still moving, a few dead spots did not shut the world down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wig
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.
|
Plenty had cash... all over the world, this was not every bank, gov, or the world bank, and most of business was fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wig
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?
|
Exactly, and look what happened because of it... credit has inflated the cost of homes. I'm part of the problem, I buy and sell, using credit, making money by only shifting ownership while not actually creating anything, yet increasing the value.
Depends on the type of credit I guess... It should be like a 1000x harder to get a home loan than it is, I would say equal or worse than the 80's would work. Bank wise, I don't know when it started, when they were allowed to loan out so much more than they actually had in the bank, so whenever that was. Then pre-1886 for corps, not being people would mean they could only run on the investors credit and not credit for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wig
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. |
It is relevant because less banks, and more importantly, more power by few banks... is the result of the bailout, so it's directly relevant and an issue, when those same banks created the mess and then got more powerful.
I mean really, this isn't complex or hard to understand, in America, this is a bad thing.
Canada is a socialist country, with banks controlled directly by the gov far better and more, than we do here. If America wasn't filled with a bunch of greedy shit stains, less banks would be fine, but until hell freezes over, a market where more banks can complete is greatly needed here.
This isn't hard to see, just by looking.. open your eyes and stop pretending it's not happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wig
Now you're moving the goal posts. That's not what you started with.
|
No, this is spot, it just clearly had to be explained to you differently. Point being, today and back then are so different and that they wouldn't be anything alike, in anyway, if the market crashed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wig
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.
|
That's piss deflation, that's not even deflation after inflation of years compounded, come on. A little piss backwards after fake inflationary growth, please....
Quote:
Originally Posted by wig
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.
|
Never said it was magic... fact is, business didn't stop, money flow kept going, everything did not shut down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wig
I'll give you that it is an answer, but I wouldn't characterize it as you have.
|
It's easier for me to translate images in my head to an example of sorts to help express the understanding of what I see as the problem.
Enablers that keep feeding have enabled people that never stop eating.