blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh but it is. the alternative will hurt the consumer ALOT more than the tax increase.
Bullshit the loses are the same either way. The only difference is who pays.
No, they aren't. Collapsing credit and the liquidity of the entire economy will create a much larger loss.
Bailing out these companies sucks, and I think heads should roll all around, but it's still the 'better' bad alternative.
Trying to convince him about that is like convincing him that physics is true. He can't understand either.
You won't know angular momentum if it rolled over you.
Yea the loses would be immediate and felt by the banks if they where not bailed out. Instead it is felt by everyone and will be for the next 20 years like Japan.
Exactly. Japan cut their interest rates to zero, and their housing still went in the toilet, plus their economy has gone nowhere in almost two decades. In the meantime, emerging countries went through defaults and bank collapses and are now growing like gangbusters.
And Japan is still one of the most advanced and productive country's in the world, despite their problems. The alternative was that they completely trash their country, economy, banking system, major corporations, and consumers, and start all over again.
Great alternative! Sign me the fuck up!
Capitalism = creative destruction.
You want never ending government bailouts for rogue and stupid players, you are signing up for a permanently dysfunctional system. You want long term malaise over short term pain, sounds like a great plan.
So, are you ignorant, naive, trolling, or renewing your passport to move to a more socialist friendly country?