3 ms·
I don't know whether they're also the most risk-seeking investors, but they'd likely be (strongly) affected, yeah. I don't see an alternative short of massive
by luckylion 7y ago
I don't know whether they're also the most risk-seeking investors, but they'd likely be (strongly) affected, yeah.
I don't see an alternative short of massive regulation (that essentially removes them from the stock market completely and move them into a government service; that'll still be done when they've burned down), because I see it more like a slow moving infection that starts in a toe. We've missed the right moment to amputate and only lose that toe, we've missed the moments for all the other toes on that foot as well, and the whole foot is beyond saving now.
It sucks to lose a foot, but waiting and consuming massive amounts of pain killers to be able to hobble along just means that it's going to be the whole leg next year. The best time to interfere was on the first try to socialize the losses. The second best time is now.
- bmelton 7y agoOh, I thought we were in search of a solution that obviates the need to socialize the losses. Socializing the losses is what we're doing now. I mean, sure, we could move them all to a government program, or we could just keep letting the government do what it's doing, as post-QE, the stock market basically is a federal program. I guess my sincere question here would be whether or not you'd be opposed to bailing out social security if it were in the same boat for whatever reason.