9 ms·

It seems you're pushing an agenda, here. > then random parts of the country / random parts of the economy blow up, in ways we don't understand. This is dising

It seems you're pushing an agenda, here. > then random parts of the country / random parts of the economy blow up, in ways we don't understand. This is disingenous. The fallout from the banking disaster in 2008 was not random in effect, and we understood it at the time perfectly well. > It was easier to understand / fix the issues through a bailout, rather than randomly seeing thousands of people get fired at effectively random, as factories close. You're saying 'random' a lot. Again, the fallout from the economic and banking mismanagement in the US at that time was in no way random, nor inexplicable. You're trying to smear around blame to dilute the responsibility pool. > Over the next few years, the plan was to reduce the "too big to fail" effect. [...] In 2008, we were too dumb and ignorant to see "too big too fail". But in 2022, we remember the issue. This is absurd and wrong. The US in no way planned to reduce the "too big to fail" effect. You are simultaneously implying that the US glibly ignored "too big to fail" in 2008, and somehow was too ignorant to know about it?? > With any luck, our banking system is properly containerized and safe. No bailouts should be necessary to save our economy. Bailouts in 2008 and later years were not intended to save the economy. A simple understanding of calculus would show a competent onlooker that the amount of money dispensed in government bailout schemes came nowhere close to the amount of money needed to stop the economic collapses in the US. The bailouts were, and are, only capable of -- and only intended to -- prevent rioting in the streets. You're pushing a really weird agenda in a very half arsed way.

dragontamer 4y ago
> You're saying 'random' a lot. You're saying "agenda" a lot. > The US in no way planned to reduce the "too big to fail" effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street... > An Act to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. Now maybe you don't like Dodd Frank, or maybe you don't think it goes far enough. But anyone who was paying attention to politics can easily list off the laws and changes we did to our economy to try to fix the identified problem. We _tried_ to fix it. No way to know if we really fixed it until our next crisis. But I can always point to what our President did (both George Bush _AND_ Obama handled this mess, with the same plan btw), as well as Congress's laws. The very phrase "Too big too fail" exists because of the outstanding effort this country put into identifying the problem, and discussing possible solutions. You're literally using the language of Congress whenever you use those words. -------- USA isn't perfect. And Republicans / Democrats have different ideas of what "would fix" the problem. But what I can say with 100% certainty, is that George Bush + Obama acted in similar manners through the crisis, suggesting that the two grossly different ideologies came to similar conclusions about what would solve the issue. EDIT: There are also multiple days / weeks worth of Congressional hearings on this subject, proving that Congress was discussing solutions for a long time.

dragontamer 4y ago

> You're saying 'random' a lot. You're saying "agenda" a lot. > The US in no way planned to reduce the "too big to fail" effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street... > An Act to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. Now maybe you don't like Dodd Frank, or maybe you don't think it goes far enough. But anyone who was paying attention to politics can easily list off the laws and changes we did to our economy to try to fix the identified problem. We _tried_ to fix it. No way to know if we really fixed it until our next crisis. But I can always point to what our President did (both George Bush _AND_ Obama handled this mess, with the same plan btw), as well as Congress's laws. The very phrase "Too big too fail" exists because of the outstanding effort this country put into identifying the problem, and discussing possible solutions. You're literally using the language of Congress whenever you use those words. -------- USA isn't perfect. And Republicans / Democrats have different ideas of what "would fix" the problem. But what I can say with 100% certainty, is that George Bush + Obama acted in similar manners through the crisis, suggesting that the two grossly different ideologies came to similar conclusions about what would solve the issue. EDIT: There are also multiple days / weeks worth of Congressional hearings on this subject, proving that Congress was discussing solutions for a long time.