Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is a post I wrote and good video from Marc Faber. Please tell me what you think? I believe we need to think about the long term effects of what we are doing and ask ourselves is it worth to continue down this path and prop up this flawed monetary system?
Here is a post I wrote and good video from Marc Faber. Please tell me what you think? I believe we need to think about the long term effects of what we are doing and ask ourselves is it worth to continue down this path and prop up this flawed monetary system?
Interesting, and a brilliant mind Mr. Faber is, but I don't agree with it. I think the consequences would be much worse than he estimates them to be, just my two cents. Peace yinz, and good luck
I think the magnitude is exaggerated to sell the deal. I would agree to the bailout provided one stipulation - Dick Fuld, Chuck Prince, Lloyd Blankfein, Stanley O'Neal, Angelo Mozilla, and all the other criminals from Wall Street and the mortgage business who have taken exorbitant salaries and bonuses from this debacle agree to put up the first billion (in cash). I know this sounds like petty revenge, but these people profited mightily while driving the bus off a cliff and deserve to pay.
In principal, I agree that we need monetary reform and that market forces should be allowed to correct the problem.
In practice, the gravest risk as things stand right now is whether there would be a payments system crisis, i.e. payments for day-to-day transactions like paying for transport, food, and utilities.
So the question is how far do we want to go to verify whether a payments system crisis would actually materialize. Also safeguarding the life savings of those who have prudently saved is a serious consideration.
In the meantime, I agree with the lawful prosecution of financial industry executives, both in the private and government sectors, and I do not agree with continuing to subsidize relatively unproductive people living in inefficient housing.
By this reasoning, any bailout should be designed to avoid a payments system crisis and the depletion of saving.
It should not be designed to save financial industry executives who promoted bad credit policy and relatively unproductive home-debtors. Financial industry executives suspected of having perpetrated fraudulent mortgage issuance and mortgage securities practices should be lawfully prosecuted.
It should also be designed to remove the relatively unproductive living in inefficient housing, give them retraining in something productive, put to real work, and offer them a fair chance to live in housing that is in balance with their real incomes and the real cost structure of the US economy.
The monetary system and any bailout should not be designed to prop up some fantasy land where production, income and costs relative to consumption do not matter.
Are we not a capitalist, free market economy?? This is pure socialism.
I would call it Corporate Welfare for the Rich. If we let the bad players fail and protect the people we will have new banks appear and they will have a lesson to learn from next time they are tempted to over-leverage themselves and get into bad position. Its all about the precedent we set is what will help to prevent or allow this to happen again in the future.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.