Angry Congress Woman

[Cancel 2018. 3]

That's over simplistic. If the appropriate level of regulation had been enforced in the first place (Whhhooooops Bush dropped the ball again, another Frat boy asleep at the wheel) then the issue wouldn't have gotten to the point where bail outs were needed.

But no, even when it was obvious the general public that these companies were in deep shit they contintued to sit on their asses and do nothing.

So now if you allow all these institutions to collapse you risk collapsing the entire economy. So that isn't an option either. It's one big aggravating, piss you off, damned if you do damned if you don't Catch-22.

I really think criminal prosecutions of these pricks should be in order to set an example to Wall Street. One that makes them sit up and shit there pants. In China they would have shot some of them by now.

i don't think it would risk the entire economy, that is pure fear mongering on your part. look at JP morgan, they stayed strong and were able to buy up companies, sure they got it cheaper because of the government action, but had the government not intervened, it is possible that they could have waited out the market and still purchased the weaker company.

companies fail all the time. it is part of doing business. further, with the government bailing out mtgs, property values will now continue to hold a false threshold of value. if many mtgs default and the banks are forced to lower the price on the home to sell it in order to recover funds, then guess what, like JP morgan others that didn't blow their money will buy up the houses at a reasonable value.

i know a few doing that right now.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Not really. Prosecute those deserving, make those not deserving accountable, each company can and should do so. Stop the bailouts, save our future generations. Let those that deserve to fail, do so. Let those that need to suffer to come out at the other end, do so. Let those that just need to make a few tough choices, do so.

If only it were that simple. But then access to credit would dry up even worse than it has now. Capital would be divested and hidden away. Companies would stop making capital purchases and manufacturers would decrease production in anticipation of less purchasing all of which would require lay offs in order to save capital, meaning less people with purchasing power.

You see the interelated spiral that can be created?

It does make you understand why the Chinese would take the pricks out and shoot them.

Obviously we can't punish those who did not commit crimes as, in general, the rule of law means something in this nation. However, the government should be much more aggresive and proactive in investigating which persons at which companies have committed fraud and should aggresively prosecute the bastards.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

i don't think it would risk the entire economy, that is pure fear mongering on your part. look at JP morgan, they stayed strong and were able to buy up companies, sure they got it cheaper because of the government action, but had the government not intervened, it is possible that they could have waited out the market and still purchased the weaker company.

companies fail all the time. it is part of doing business. further, with the government bailing out mtgs, property values will now continue to hold a false threshold of value. if many mtgs default and the banks are forced to lower the price on the home to sell it in order to recover funds, then guess what, like JP morgan others that didn't blow their money will buy up the houses at a reasonable value.

i know a few doing that right now.

Well there's a whole lot of financial and economic experts out there who disagree with you. The history is there to back it up.

Herbert Hoover did not have the regulatory controls to shut down banks and the stock markets during the financial collapse of 1929. What had been a very bad situation soon became catastrophic as the Republican administration of that time did not believe it was the place of government to intervene. They were wrong now and the consequences of you're being wrong in this particular situation are to terrible to contemplate. This is hardly fear mongering.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Boo!

 

[Annie]

If only it were that simple. But then access to credit would dry up even worse than it has now. Capital would be divested and hidden away. Companies would stop making capital purchases and manufacturers would decrease production in anticipation of less purchasing all of which would require lay offs in order to save capital, meaning less people with purchasing power.

You see the interelated spiral that can be created?

It does make you understand why the Chinese would take the pricks out and shoot them.

Obviously we can't punish those who did not commit crimes as, in general, the rule of law means something in this nation. However, the government should be much more aggresive and proactive in investigating which persons at which companies have committed fraud and should aggresively prosecute the bastards.

I'm sorry, but your response to mine doesn't make sense to me. Why would companies that react with getting leaner, more efficient lead to a credit crunch? On the contrary I'd say. Same with those declaring bankruptcy, no loans, which would be a good thing.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

E=Mottleydude;394439]Well there's a whole lot of financial and economic experts out there who disagree with you. The history is there to back it up.

yeah, link up. i am sure we could have a pissing match over experts, you produce yours and i produce mine.... you really want to stick with your experts?

Herbert Hoover did not have the regulatory controls to shut down banks and the stock markets during the financial collapse of 1929. What had been a very bad situation soon became catastrophic as the Republican administration of that time did not believe it was the place of government to intervene. They were wrong now and the consequences of you're being wrong in this particular situation are to terrible to contemplate. This is hardly fear mongering.

how exactly is the current situation like the great depression then? you all keep claiming it is...how so?

to be honest, i am not sure about the role of government intervening. seems to me, less government is better. look at how efficient the government is. however, in terms of stock markets, corporations, they seem to be government made entities, in that, they would not exist save for government rules or law.

you brought up a good a point.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I'm sorry, but your response to mine doesn't make sense to me. Why would companies that react with getting leaner, more efficient lead to a credit crunch? On the contrary I'd say. Same with those declaring bankruptcy, no loans, which would be a good thing.

I'm sorry but haven't you been paying attention. That's exactly what's happening right now. Why do you think companies are laying off? Because people and companies are not purchasing and banks are not extending credit.

Guess what's happening with a lot of the TARP funds? The banks are returning to the feds because they don't see anything the want to invest in.

As a result of all this 100,000 people lost their jobs last week. The cycle gets worse.

I'm amazed you fail to see the interelationships here.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

yeah, link up. i am sure we could have a pissing match over experts, you produce yours and i produce mine.... you really want to stick with your experts?




how exactly is the current situation like the great depression then? you all keep claiming it is...how so?

to be honest, i am not sure about the role of government intervening. seems to me, less government is better. look at how efficient the government is. however, in terms of stock markets, corporations, they seem to be government made entities, in that, they would not exist save for government rules or law.

you brought up a good a point.

Spurt that's a self fullfilling prophecy and that's why I'll never vote for a libertarian leaning conservative (or any libertarian for that matter). How can you expect effective or efficient government from those who don't believe government is capable of being either?

Less government for just the sake of less government is for intellectually lazy people who want to hide behind ideology instead of doing the hard thinking and work required to serve the pubic interest.

No rational person wants a bloated and/or corrupt bureaucracy bogged down by red tape. Conversely no one wants a government that is to small, inefficent, incompetent and ineffective to serve the publics needs.

As JFK said when asked why he chose to be a Democrat. "I believe in effective Government."

 

[Annie]

I'm sorry but haven't you been paying attention. That's exactly what's happening right now. Why do you think companies are laying off? Because people and companies are not purchasing and banks are not extending credit.

Guess what's happening with a lot of the TARP funds? The banks are returning to the feds because they don't see anything the want to invest in.

As a result of all this 100,000 people lost their jobs last week. The cycle gets worse.

I'm amazed you fail to see the interelationships here.

I don't disagree with what you are saying here, but in fact isn't this what is needed to fix what has become a pervasive problem?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't disagree with what you are saying here, but in fact isn't this what is needed to fix what has become a pervasive problem?

No it's not. That's what happened during the Great Depresion and that, combined with protectionism made took a disaster and made it a catastrophe.