mf - story #4555

yes
posted by rick on October 1st, 2008 at 4:25PM

It's completely wrong philosophically and is very unpopular, but absolutely necessary to prevent an economic collapse.

posted by dennisn on October 1st, 2008 at 8:15PM

Sigh. Do you not like individual liberty? Don't you respect the "right to one's own life"? How can you possibly promote the violation of other people's liberties for OTHER people's mistakes?

There is NO justification for such a violation of our most fundamental social contract!!

Link

posted by rick on October 2nd, 2008 at 2:21AM

I already said that I disagree with it on a philosophical level. It's absurd that the bailout will, at least initially, benefit the financial institutions that created this mess, rather than going to the individuals who will suffer the consequences the most.

But I think the spiralling effect of the collapse of those financial institutions is a greater evil that needs to be addressed.

Link

posted by dennisn on October 2nd, 2008 at 9:38AM

No--it is most definitely NOT a greater evil to leave the market (*the people!*) alone. It has absolutely nothing to do with me. I have absolutely no obligation to "fix" it. Nobody has any right to force me to fix it. I don't know why you preface ideas of right and wrong with the term "philosophical". If it's wrong, DON'T DO IT!

Your eagerness to violate real-life individuals' freedoms, to *help* the perpetrators of this mess, for some *ethereal* notion of "the economy", is absurd. And most definitely *wrong*.

Link

posted by rick on October 2nd, 2008 at 10:00AM

First of all, market != people. Market is the relationship between supply and demand. I don't even know where your notion came from.

Also, you can keep believing in your black and white world while businesses shut down and everyone loses their jobs. You go tell the unemployed man who has to support his family that fixing the economy is wrong, and that the economy doesn't affect him. Because when the economy collapses, everyone is affected.

Link

Well, the conventional pedestr by dennisn on October 2nd, 2008 at 10:11AM.

I think the bailout takes away by rick on October 2nd, 2008 at 5:36PM.

by rick on October 3rd, 2008 at 5:12PM.

You know Ricky, you're a reall by dennisn on October 2nd, 2008 at 6:20PM.

Right. So it was wrong for the by rick on October 3rd, 2008 at 5:13PM.

>And it was wrong for consumer by dsk on October 7th, 2008 at 8:30AM.

Some random researching led me by rick on October 9th, 2008 at 5:09AM.

No argument here. That's consi by rick on October 7th, 2008 at 8:09PM.

>The investment banks successf by dsk on October 8th, 2008 at 12:26AM.

The problem is two-fold: The b by rick on October 9th, 2008 at 4:32AM.

Ricky, are you a part of the g by dennisn on October 9th, 2008 at 10:08AM.

I don't think anyone is in the by rick on October 9th, 2008 at 4:51PM.

Well, you seemed to be suggest by dennisn on October 9th, 2008 at 5:30PM.

>If we didn't have the balls t by story on October 9th, 2008 at 6:35PM.

If you can somehow say, with a by dennisn on October 10th, 2008 at 11:54AM.

>thus digging themselves into by dsk on October 9th, 2008 at 9:39AM.

No. The the banks did not beha by dennisn on October 7th, 2008 at 10:24PM.

>Housing prices were rising, w by dsk on October 9th, 2008 at 9:56AM.

Yes and no. The banks knew th by rick on October 9th, 2008 at 5:02AM.

As I said before, there are tw by dennisn on October 3rd, 2008 at 7:21PM.