3 ms·

Would you care to elaborate?

unalone 18y ago
Yeah, I want to hear this too. Usually compromise is just being wishy-washy, so unless you've got a GOOD idea for compromise...
swombat 18y ago
Not particularly. I am not enough of an economist or politician to be able to tell you in detail what the ideal compromise is in this situation, nor do I care to claim that I am. What I do know, however, is things are not black and white. Baying for the banks' blood and shouting "liquidate!" is exactly what they did in 1929 and that kind of behaviour is even more reprehensible than the banks'. Similarly, handing the banks a giant wad of cash with no strings attached is not right either. The solution lies in the middle, as always.
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  It doesn't make sense to arbitrarily decide that, if there are two proposals, the answer is to do a little of both. In financial markets, that's often the worst possible course of action. With S&Ls in the early 80's, for example, Congress could have allowed them to fail, or nationalized them. Instead, Congress gave them extra deposit insurance and deregulated their lending -- which caused them to make lots of stupid loans, backed by government insurance. Similarly, California half-deregulated their energy market, which ended up bankrupting their power companies and costing their consumers extra.
- biohacker42 18y ago
  The middle and compromise are not in and by themselves the right answer. Moderation is often a far superior strategy then extremism, but a little of both is not a superior answer to the question: Is this circuit on or off? The "middle is always right" attitude reminds me of the US media, which will often juxtapose facts and spin, then idly stand by, pointing out that both "extreme" positions are equally valid.
  - swombat 18y ago
    Economics is not an on-off problem.
    - biohacker42 18y ago
      Never the less, compromising for the sake of compromising is by no means a smart strategy.
      - swombat 18y ago
        How about compromising for the sake of having a job/customers/money?
- yters 18y ago
  One analysis I've heard is that the current problem is due to compromising between strict regulation and strict deregulation.

Yeah, I want to hear this too. Usually compromise is just being wishy-washy, so unless you've got a GOOD idea for compromise...

swombat 18y ago

Not particularly. I am not enough of an economist or politician to be able to tell you in detail what the ideal compromise is in this situation, nor do I care to claim that I am. What I do know, however, is things are not black and white. Baying for the banks' blood and shouting "liquidate!" is exactly what they did in 1929 and that kind of behaviour is even more reprehensible than the banks'. Similarly, handing the banks a giant wad of cash with no strings attached is not right either. The solution lies in the middle, as always.

byrneseyeview 18y ago
It doesn't make sense to arbitrarily decide that, if there are two proposals, the answer is to do a little of both. In financial markets, that's often the worst possible course of action. With S&Ls in the early 80's, for example, Congress could have allowed them to fail, or nationalized them. Instead, Congress gave them extra deposit insurance and deregulated their lending -- which caused them to make lots of stupid loans, backed by government insurance. Similarly, California half-deregulated their energy market, which ended up bankrupting their power companies and costing their consumers extra.
biohacker42 18y ago
The middle and compromise are not in and by themselves the right answer. Moderation is often a far superior strategy then extremism, but a little of both is not a superior answer to the question: Is this circuit on or off? The "middle is always right" attitude reminds me of the US media, which will often juxtapose facts and spin, then idly stand by, pointing out that both "extreme" positions are equally valid.
- swombat 18y ago
  Economics is not an on-off problem.
  - biohacker42 18y ago
    Never the less, compromising for the sake of compromising is by no means a smart strategy.
    - swombat 18y ago
      How about compromising for the sake of having a job/customers/money?
yters 18y ago
One analysis I've heard is that the current problem is due to compromising between strict regulation and strict deregulation.