mf - story #4558

Yes
posted by Driusan on October 1st, 2008 at 5:58PM

It's completely wrong philosophically and is very unpopular, but absolutely necessary to ensure enough further damage down the road to bring upon the collapse of the american empire.

Link | Parent

posted by rick on October 2nd, 2008 at 2:23AM

If you're looking for a catalyst to a revolution, wouldn't a complete and utter collapse of the economy serve that purpose as well?

Link

posted by Driusan on October 2nd, 2008 at 10:56PM

Yes. I guess I wasn't clear.

I think the bailout will ensure that the economy recovers for a bit in the short term, but there's a depression or outright collapse in the long term. The obvious alternative (no bailout) would mean that there's a recession in the short term, but people learn and the market eventually corrects itself in the long term.

Therefore, I support the bailout in order to have it act as a catalyst.

Link

posted by dennisn on October 1st, 2008 at 11:46PM

Why do you want to force such a dramatic and violent revolution?(--even though a revolution is far from guaranteed. It could just as easily, if not more easily, revert back to the same old injustice.) And how can you accept enslaving millions of people in the process. In the unlikely event that freedom should be at the end of your proposed violent tunnel, would history look back upon you as a promoter of freedom, or sadism?

Link