3 ms·
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 fundament
by 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 agoMy 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 agoAbsolutely 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 agoThe 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.
- chaostheory 18y agotoo bad the compromise bailout didn't have proper oversight either. Instead of making all transactions publicly available, it would still be a gov secret. The only difference is that it expands it from one person to two committees
- jodrellblank 18y agoThat rug really ties the room together.
- kingkongrevenge 18y agoIt's stained with piss.