|
posted by dennisn on October 2nd, 2008 at 10:11AM
Well, the conventional pedestrian idea of "the market" is simply the mutual transactions among people. That's all. It is usually referred to in opposition to government-forced transactions (ie. nationalized institutions). Ie. governments mandating the national supply and demand isn't, at least in this conventional definition, a valid market phenomenon.
Also, I actually strongly feel that this bailout will destroy the US economy further. It takes away more and more freedom from individuals. It makes government bigger.
BUT. Most importantly. You conveniently ignore my loudest complaints--that I had absolutely nothing to do with this mess, and that NOBODY has the right to force me to "fix" it. (Fix is in quotations for the aforementioned reason.)
It is basically just this last point that I should brought up--everything else is just personal opinion.
|
posted by rick on October 2nd, 2008 at 5:36PM
I think the bailout takes away more freedoms from financial institutions than individuals. It does make government bigger, in the form of regulations for these institutions. I think it's worth the effort to investigate and discuss what the bailout actually is, because there are misconceptions about it and it hasn't been sold very well by politicians. (Admittedly, I don't know enough about it to start this conversation, so I'll need to do some investigation myself.)
Yes, you did nothing to cause this mess, but you will definitely feel the effects of it. Something needs to be done, and no one wants to pay for it. This was evident in the vote in the House; everyone secretly wanted the bill to pass, but no one wanted to commit to it themselves.
But this is where one of the misconceptions come in. From what I understand, the bailout is more of a loan than a hand-out. Someone coined the term "bailout" at the beginning of the process and it kind of stuck. Again, I don't know enough about it to discuss in detail at the moment.
|
posted by rick on October 3rd, 2008 at 5:12PM
|
|
posted by dennisn on October 2nd, 2008 at 6:20PM
You know Ricky, you're a really stubborn guy ;P.
Here's a brief history of what happened. Decades ago, the Democratic party (which hasn't changed much/at all) began interfering in housing markets, under the misguided goal of giving poor people houses. They created Freddie and Fannie--essentially government monopolies which blindly gave out loans to anyone who "needed" them. Clinton perpetuated this fiasco by actually *forcing* mortgage lenders (primarily Freddie and Fannie) to give out loans to poor (risky) home-wanters. This government interference created a bubble in housing prices, since people knew they could charge whatever they wanted for their houses, knowing that the government would ALWAYS grant them a loan, which was essentially GUARANTEED. (The government would never allow itself to "default"--considering it has millions of willing slaves to steal from.) The bubble inevitably popped and, as was always expected, the government became/is under pressure to back it's loans.
In conclusion, government made this whole mess, knowing that gullible slaves (like you) would always be there to dutifully rescue them.
It was wrong decades ago. It is wrong today. Stop doing what you know is wrong!
(I'm afraid you have been deeply indoctrinated to believe in everything The State tells you. I hope it's not too late to save you ;D.)
|
posted by rick on October 3rd, 2008 at 5:13PM
Right. So it was wrong for the lenders to give out risky loans. And it was wrong for consumers to live beyond their means and take on debt they can't afford. I don't deny that. If anything I thought it was government /de/regulation of the last few years that allowed this to happen.
That doesn't change the fact that right now we are in a situation where no one can get credit, in an economy driven by credit. This is what the bill addresses.
|
|
|
|
