4 ms·

I don't see how it is substantially improved by instituting a tax backed financial insurance policy for gambling losses.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
You mean the moral ideological alternative would have been better even if it caused the economy to implode? This is why I'll never vote libertarian.
- AutoCorrect 13y ago
  So that is the price of your soul? Noted.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    Yes, I'm much more for avoiding economic collapse than ideological purity. I like not starving to death, while the tea partying libercrazians would destroy the whole nation just to see out their distorted principles.
    - fredgrott 13y ago
      the punch line is thee was no threat to economic collapse.. The FEd had full powers to ask that any bail out remove current bank leadership from power due to the threat of full Gov receivership of those banks by Fed..we were sold the idea of giving a free get out of jail card to banks based on lies
- mgkimsal 13y ago
  it was already imploding some. We'll never know how much more worse it could have been, but... Bear Stearns had already closed and the world didn't collapse. If a couple investment banks had closed, would everything have stopped? The big boys would have found a way to keep going pretty quickly. As it stands, the 'fix' still ended up keeping most previously normally available capital for average people on hold for years, grinding many regions to a virtual standstill with respect to housing/travel/construction/etc. So... even with the massive bailout, the majority of average people got hit pretty hard, and many are still recovering as their regions try to fight back from the economic collapse, while we read about bankers bitching that their bonuses were only in the single digit millions for so many years.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Eh? There are a lot more choices available than that. And is not about moral ideology, it is pragmatic to take the view that declaring organisations as too big to fail, bailing them and then letting them carry on as before is pretty stupid. That's not running an economy, that's making excuses for an abusive relationship.
tootie 13y ago
It doesn't. A bailout was 100% necessary, but it needn't have been as generous as it was. Especially considering it severely curtailed Congress's appetite for heavier demand-side stimulus in the aftermath.
- puppetmaster3 13y ago
  Sorry tootie, it was not necessary. More, it was not even wanted.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

You mean the moral ideological alternative would have been better even if it caused the economy to implode? This is why I'll never vote libertarian.

AutoCorrect 13y ago
So that is the price of your soul? Noted.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  Yes, I'm much more for avoiding economic collapse than ideological purity. I like not starving to death, while the tea partying libercrazians would destroy the whole nation just to see out their distorted principles.
  - fredgrott 13y ago
    the punch line is thee was no threat to economic collapse.. The FEd had full powers to ask that any bail out remove current bank leadership from power due to the threat of full Gov receivership of those banks by Fed..we were sold the idea of giving a free get out of jail card to banks based on lies
mgkimsal 13y ago
it was already imploding some. We'll never know how much more worse it could have been, but... Bear Stearns had already closed and the world didn't collapse. If a couple investment banks had closed, would everything have stopped? The big boys would have found a way to keep going pretty quickly. As it stands, the 'fix' still ended up keeping most previously normally available capital for average people on hold for years, grinding many regions to a virtual standstill with respect to housing/travel/construction/etc. So... even with the massive bailout, the majority of average people got hit pretty hard, and many are still recovering as their regions try to fight back from the economic collapse, while we read about bankers bitching that their bonuses were only in the single digit millions for so many years.
moocowduckquack 13y ago
Eh? There are a lot more choices available than that. And is not about moral ideology, it is pragmatic to take the view that declaring organisations as too big to fail, bailing them and then letting them carry on as before is pretty stupid. That's not running an economy, that's making excuses for an abusive relationship.

tootie 13y ago

It doesn't. A bailout was 100% necessary, but it needn't have been as generous as it was. Especially considering it severely curtailed Congress's appetite for heavier demand-side stimulus in the aftermath.

puppetmaster3 13y ago
Sorry tootie, it was not necessary. More, it was not even wanted.