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.
I agree. I've been saying all along that the "precedent" set by the financial bailout is far worse than the bailouts themselves. From this point forward, I believe there will be little concern for financial accountability because, deep in the back of the minds of institutions nationwide, there will always be the comfort of knowing the government will come to the rescue. The boom/bust cycle has a completely new meaning, and that's not a good thing, in my opinon.
There is no such thing as a boom-bust cycle. The natural tendency of an economy is steady, moderate expansion. When things shoot off into either extreme, it is a sign that something is or has been done wrong, and that some protective reaction is called for.
Otherwise, your fears for the future are based on very questionable assumptions over lessons learned from the recent past. A far more cogent thought would be that concern for financial accountability will continue to act in the foreground for quite a long time. Some who lived through the Great Depression never put another dollar in a bank for the rest of their lives, and these various bailouts (as people want to call them) have hardly made many one-time fat cats fatter. If the past is any indicator, we may have more to fear from over-reaction in terms of financial accountability than we do from under-reaction. That will be something to guard against.
Depressions have always resulted from fractional reserve lending and loose monetary policy. Basically, the Federal Reserve creates a problem it later tries to solve. Would you feel so complacent if I were to intentionally break your leg, then be so kind as to heal it for you through painful physical therapy?
LOL.....yes,of course, no political ideology swaying your beliefs. It is difficult for some to grasp that they cannot pigeonhole others.... Especially those who do not fall into the 'either/or' political belief system that they themselves so fervently support.
This is your security blanket. The fact and reason that so severely wound your positions may be disregarded if they can be categorized as mere partisanship and ideology. Saves all the trouble of having to deal with the implications of fact and reason. You need to try much harder if you really intend to be what you presently only claim to be.
This is your security blanket. The fact and reason that so severely wound your positions may be disregarded if they can be categorized as mere partisanship and ideology. Saves all the trouble of having to deal with the implications of fact and reason. You need to try much harder if you really intend to be what you presently only claim to be.
Actually you might try looking within yourself.
As to dealing with 'fact and reason',quite funny coming from a poster whose first response in this thread has little to do with the topic but instead resorts to an attempted jibe at the poster.
She believes that a culture of easy but expensive credit, which she blames for the accumulation of unaffordable debts over the last two decades, should be replaced with a model of “tight but cheap credit”.
“Orthodox economists talk about cheap money being the cause of the crash. But it was not cheap — subprime homeowners were paying 19 per cent interest. It was easy money that was the cause.” This, in turn, led to the massive inflation in property prices — house prices trebled between 1997 and 2007. “We over-borrowed against these inflated prices. The rollicking times were rollicking and now we are getting a *******ing.”
Quote:
But how do we achieve cheap but tight credit? In terms of tighter lending standards, it means an enhanced role for bank managers. “When I and my partner took out a mortgage in 1970s we had to see the bank manager, who went through our finances with a fine-tooth comb,” she recalls. “That’s all you need — more bank managers making an assessment of risk.”
Since she believes that high interest rates were a key cause of the crash, she says that low interest rates for loans are essential.
What you take to be partisanship is merely a reflection of the fact that reality itself has a liberal bias. Deal from reality and you will hear no partisan or other complaint from me. Debate, perhaps...but not complaint...
You forgot to add the little sarcastic icon after this post... it was sarcasm right?
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.
It is difficult for some to grasp that they cannot pigeonhole others.... Especially those who do not fall into the 'either/or' political belief system that they themselves so fervently support.
