4 ms·

I think it's more like putting on a gorilla mask and hanging our ass out the passenger window while screaming like tarzan, so we can find the choke cable. The

I think it's more like putting on a gorilla mask and hanging our ass out the passenger window while screaming like tarzan, so we can find the choke cable. The car analogy is stupid. There is no brake and there is no gas pedal. There is a natural balance between savings, loan interest rates, and consumer demand. What's happening now is that demand and savings rates are trying to return to their natural balancing levels after having been knocked out of whack by fake interest rates. The powers that be don't like that rebalancing, but it will happen one way or the other. Government can only exacerbate the process (and make certain insiders rich at public expense). The simple fact is that thousands of businesses NEED to go under and lots of people NEED to lose their jobs. Many of the businesses and jobs were created to service demand that doesn't really exist. The demand was an illusion created by fake cheap credit. The faster this process is run through the better the ultimate outcome.

run4yourlives 18y ago
In that case, will you be declaring bankruptcy and putting everyone that much closer to recovery then? No? Then I don't see how it's seen to be acceptable to demand that action of others. The effects of the crunch will go much further than fat cats on wall street.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  You don't seem to understand that this is not a matter of choice. Many, many bankruptcies will be happening one way or the other as the macroeconomic fundamentals of saving and interest rates return to balance. The government is powerless to affect this. Thousands of nail salons and restaurants were built because cheap credit made them temporarily profitable as future consumption was taken today while debt loads rose. Well, the future arrived. And now consumption must be forgone. The nail salons and restaurants will go bankrupt and the workers will go unemployed. The faster we get it over with the better. The question becomes: would you rather have $700 billion to ensure unemployed people don't starve? Or would you rather use it to temporarily prop up nominal asset prices owned by rich people? > In that case, will you be declaring bankruptcy I have no debt at all, so that's kind of impossible. However, my savings are part of the solution. The problem is we need more savings. The solution to that is dramatically lower consumption, which is what a recession is all about.
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    My point is that for better or ill, every American is in this together. The nail salons and restaurants will go bankrupt and the workers will go unemployed. The faster we get it over with the better. Those nail salons and restaurants are real people with real money. It may in fact be that many of them are destined to fail, and that many of them shouldn't have been in business in the first place, but the people that allowed them to get in over their heads - that would be the collective American republic - have a duty to make sure they fall as gently as possible. By temporarily putting trust back into the credit markets, this bill would have bought the time to explore the options. To simply pull the rug out from under the little guy is a violation of the contract that the government has with its people.
    - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
      Absolutely none of that $700 billion will wind up spent a nail salon that is doomed to close, or otherwise enable someone to get a manicure. It will only serve to devalue the dollar and drive up import costs, drive up interest rates (as the credit worthiness of the US is questioned), and feather the nests of certain elites. You seem to favor emotional appeals over a discussion of the macroeconomic reality.
      - run4yourlives 18y ago
        The money would go towards strengthening the distressed loans that everyone is going crazy about. In turn this would (should) hopefully slow the housing crash enough that some real decisions could be made about how to get on with fixing this mess. It's not the end solution, I agree. It is however a better option than smashing headfirst into a recession, possibly even a depression. It will devalue the dollar, that much is true. Interest rates are fubared either way. Feathering the nest of elites was a major concern, but with proper oversight injected into a succeeding bill, this will be mitigated. You seem to favor emotional appeals over a discussion of the macroeconomic reality. And you seem to favour the "let the fuckers burn" attitude that is so similar to that which created this mess: greed and an unfounded confidence in the self.
- aswanson 18y ago
  +1, but you have to give it to him for the gorilla mask/ass hanging combination. Genius.[EDIT: Even more apropos given his handle.]
  - davidw 18y ago
    Not really - it's just hand waving. I want clear, cogent argumentation with pertinent facts, and refutations of other points of view, not silly imagery (he does better elsewhere). Like I said, I don't know if my car example is very good or not, but calling it "stupid" and going off on a rant is not the sort of commentary I'm after, which is, again, why I doubt I'll find much of value regarding the issue on this site - people here are hackers, not economists.
    - aswanson 18y ago
      Agree on all points, just that image was so inane and off the wall that it gave me a belly laugh after a tough day of coding. That was about the only thing I got out of the whole thread; for reasons you outlined this discussion conveyed zero bits of information to me as well. I expected the usual ideology and armchair analysis, and got it, along with an unexpected laugh.

run4yourlives 18y ago

In that case, will you be declaring bankruptcy and putting everyone that much closer to recovery then? No? Then I don't see how it's seen to be acceptable to demand that action of others. The effects of the crunch will go much further than fat cats on wall street.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
You don't seem to understand that this is not a matter of choice. Many, many bankruptcies will be happening one way or the other as the macroeconomic fundamentals of saving and interest rates return to balance. The government is powerless to affect this. Thousands of nail salons and restaurants were built because cheap credit made them temporarily profitable as future consumption was taken today while debt loads rose. Well, the future arrived. And now consumption must be forgone. The nail salons and restaurants will go bankrupt and the workers will go unemployed. The faster we get it over with the better. The question becomes: would you rather have $700 billion to ensure unemployed people don't starve? Or would you rather use it to temporarily prop up nominal asset prices owned by rich people? > In that case, will you be declaring bankruptcy I have no debt at all, so that's kind of impossible. However, my savings are part of the solution. The problem is we need more savings. The solution to that is dramatically lower consumption, which is what a recession is all about.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  My point is that for better or ill, every American is in this together. The nail salons and restaurants will go bankrupt and the workers will go unemployed. The faster we get it over with the better. Those nail salons and restaurants are real people with real money. It may in fact be that many of them are destined to fail, and that many of them shouldn't have been in business in the first place, but the people that allowed them to get in over their heads - that would be the collective American republic - have a duty to make sure they fall as gently as possible. By temporarily putting trust back into the credit markets, this bill would have bought the time to explore the options. To simply pull the rug out from under the little guy is a violation of the contract that the government has with its people.
  - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
    Absolutely none of that $700 billion will wind up spent a nail salon that is doomed to close, or otherwise enable someone to get a manicure. It will only serve to devalue the dollar and drive up import costs, drive up interest rates (as the credit worthiness of the US is questioned), and feather the nests of certain elites. You seem to favor emotional appeals over a discussion of the macroeconomic reality.
    - run4yourlives 18y ago
      The money would go towards strengthening the distressed loans that everyone is going crazy about. In turn this would (should) hopefully slow the housing crash enough that some real decisions could be made about how to get on with fixing this mess. It's not the end solution, I agree. It is however a better option than smashing headfirst into a recession, possibly even a depression. It will devalue the dollar, that much is true. Interest rates are fubared either way. Feathering the nest of elites was a major concern, but with proper oversight injected into a succeeding bill, this will be mitigated. You seem to favor emotional appeals over a discussion of the macroeconomic reality. And you seem to favour the "let the fuckers burn" attitude that is so similar to that which created this mess: greed and an unfounded confidence in the self.
aswanson 18y ago
+1, but you have to give it to him for the gorilla mask/ass hanging combination. Genius.[EDIT: Even more apropos given his handle.]
- davidw 18y ago
  Not really - it's just hand waving. I want clear, cogent argumentation with pertinent facts, and refutations of other points of view, not silly imagery (he does better elsewhere). Like I said, I don't know if my car example is very good or not, but calling it "stupid" and going off on a rant is not the sort of commentary I'm after, which is, again, why I doubt I'll find much of value regarding the issue on this site - people here are hackers, not economists.
  - aswanson 18y ago
    Agree on all points, just that image was so inane and off the wall that it gave me a belly laugh after a tough day of coding. That was about the only thing I got out of the whole thread; for reasons you outlined this discussion conveyed zero bits of information to me as well. I expected the usual ideology and armchair analysis, and got it, along with an unexpected laugh.