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.
This country needs a clean slate. On some level, I think that's one of the few things conservatives, liberals, and everyone can agree on; it's just agreeing on what that process should be.
I've basically been a Keynesian guy, and I still am. I supported the bailouts, believing that it would be unconscionable to let our financial system collapse completely.
But then I read about Iceland's reaction to their own banking collapse, and I started to question some of my own beliefs a little. Not that I'm about to join the tea part anytime soon or anything but I think the biggest problem with the bailouts is that we have basically told banks, "Do whatever the hell you want - we'll pay for it" There's absolutely no incentive to stop engaging in these risky banking and investment practices.
Perhaps the best response would have been to take the banks into receivership; retained the management for a period so that the markets stabilized; and then gradually let the banks down in a sort of controlled collapse. I don't know if there's a mechanism for that, which may explain why that wasn't done. But it's something we should look into. Instead, the current emergency mechanism just kicks in public funding to ensure liquidity in the short term, but that's still a major long-term problem...and it might even make an already-bad problem and even more gigantic mess in the future.
Yes this country needs a clean state. I firmly believe that in order to do so, new laws need to be in placed to protect the people of a corrupt government that is solely being run by career politicians. That and the fact we need to start focusing on ourselves and say the hell with the rest of the world. No one is helping us, why should we help any of them.
I don't know if there's any way to keep a big from becoming too big to ignore, but we need to find a way to keep them from being too big to fail. They do not have to be one and the same. If a bank goes under and threatens to pull our financial system down with it, then we would obviously need to step in and figure out how to keep the economy solvent. But the bank in that failed incarnation needs to become extinct. I think that's something that both parties could actually work together and make some progress on. The Republicans would get to keep their 'risk-and-reward' free market, and the Democrats would get to humble the big banks once in a while.
This country needs a clean slate. On some level, I think that's one of the few things conservatives, liberals, and everyone can agree on; it's just agreeing on what that process should be.
I've basically been a Keynesian guy, and I still am. I supported the bailouts, believing that it would be unconscionable to let our financial system collapse completely.
But then I read about Iceland's reaction to their own banking collapse, and I started to question some of my own beliefs a little. Not that I'm about to join the tea part anytime soon or anything but I think the biggest problem with the bailouts is that we have basically told banks, "Do whatever the hell you want - we'll pay for it" There's absolutely no incentive to stop engaging in these risky banking and investment practices.
Perhaps the best response would have been to take the banks into receivership; retained the management for a period so that the markets stabilized; and then gradually let the banks down in a sort of controlled collapse. I don't know if there's a mechanism for that, which may explain why that wasn't done. But it's something we should look into. Instead, the current emergency mechanism just kicks in public funding to ensure liquidity in the short term, but that's still a major long-term problem...and it might even make an already-bad problem and even more gigantic mess in the future.
Why the heck do you think the "Great Depression" lasted as long as it did? It had everything to do with the government geting involved. Keynesians just don't get it.
As you keep questioning you Keynesian beliefs go over to Mises.com and read up on Austrian Economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrossjr79
Yes this country needs a clean state. I firmly believe that in order to do so, new laws need to be in placed to protect the people of a corrupt government that is solely being run by career politicians. That and the fact we need to start focusing on ourselves and say the hell with the rest of the world. No one is helping us, why should we help any of them.
We don't need new laws; we need to return to the old one: The US Constitution!
Ron Paul 2012
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.
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.
but I think the biggest problem with the bailouts is that we have basically told banks, "Do whatever the hell you want - we'll pay for it" There's absolutely no incentive to stop engaging in these risky banking and investment practices. 
