6 ms·
It seems an awful lot like the Wall Street explanation was "If you don't give us rich guys lots more money then poor people will lose money." Couldn't we have
by ALittleLight 5y ago
It seems an awful lot like the Wall Street explanation was "If you don't give us rich guys lots more money then poor people will lose money." Couldn't we have let the corrupt and incompetent banks go broke while giving money to the individuals who lost money? Like, bailout retail instead of Wall Street?
- JackFr 5y ago> Like, bailout retail instead of Wall Street? That’s a nice sentiment, but on a practical level what does that really mean? Who do you want to cut checks to, and for how much? And more importantly why? As a taxpayer, why should someone who lost money get mine? If some retail investor put money with one of your so-called “corrupt and incompetent” banks why should they be made whole with my money?
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThe ideal would be a universal basic income where if you make bad bets, you start back at the UBI level. There is no special bail out for someone based on how much they lose, simply a constant, level bailout for everyone.