My economic plan

AntiFreze

Golden Member
Oct 23, 2007
1,459
0
0
LET THEM BURN.

seriously. we want a capitalist economy when things are good and a socialist economy when things are bad. If we would just let the people who made mistakes crumble and die then new businesses would replace them that do it better. It's win win. No economy grows 100% of the time. It's cylical. So let the people over their head with mortgages they never could afford lose their houses, the banks go belly up, the stock brokers commit suicide. LET THEM F'N BURN.

We will have to lower our head and run through, but we'll come out better on the other end. All we are doing is putting a bandaid on a huge gash that is just going to bleed out anyways. We are prolonging the recession (possibly causing a depression). Anyone agree with me? Let the smart people do better and the greedy morons burn.

/rant

(drinking session + economics talk = this)
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Hope you brought your flamesuit, this might draw some of P&N's more asinine members out.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
71,312
14,084
126
www.anyf.ca
Originally posted by: AntiFreze
LET THEM BURN.

seriously. we want a capitalist economy when things are good and a socialist economy when things are bad. If we would just let the people who made mistakes crumble and die then new businesses would replace them that do it better. It's win win. No economy grows 100% of the time. It's cylical. So let the people over their head with mortgages they never could afford lose their houses, the banks go belly up, the stock brokers commit suicide. LET THEM F'N BURN.

We will have to lower our head and run through, but we'll come out better on the other end. All we are doing is putting a bandaid on a huge gash that is just going to bleed out anyways. We are prolonging the recession (possibly causing a depression). Anyone agree with me? Let the smart people do better and the greedy morons burn.

/rant

(drinking session + economics talk = this)

On one hand I agreed with the loans (they have to pay them back, it's not really a bailout) on the other hand, I do agree with what you said.

They made mistakes, let them learn from them even if it means going bye bye. Heck think they'd probably try to sell out first, so some people with more common sense in finances would hopefully just take over the companies.
 

gwlam12

Diamond Member
Apr 4, 2001
6,946
1
71
Unfortunately, the government is supposed to protect the people, i.e. bail them out.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Originally posted by: gwlam12
Unfortunately, the government is supposed to protect the people, i.e. bail them out.

No, that's what some people and the government believe it should be doing. There is nothing in the Constitution stating the government should be protecting people from their own idiocy or their own greed.
 

AntiFreze

Golden Member
Oct 23, 2007
1,459
0
0
Originally posted by: gwlam12
Unfortunately, the government is supposed to protect the people, i.e. bail them out.

they aren't protecting the people. they are protecting the CEOs and share holders. although you could be using sarcasm. my meter is f'n busted.... argh
 

gwlam12

Diamond Member
Apr 4, 2001
6,946
1
71
Originally posted by: AntiFreze
Originally posted by: gwlam12
Unfortunately, the government is supposed to protect the people, i.e. bail them out.

they aren't protecting the people. they are protecting the CEOs and share holders. although you could be using sarcasm. my meter is f'n busted.... argh

Oh actually I wasn't using sarcasm. You're talking about CEOs and shareholders. I was talking about the foreclosure mess (people buying homes they can't afford) which is what I thought of when I entered this thread. But yea, for the big businesses, I absolutely agree with you.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Great depression. What did hoover do after 1929? He did what you are prescribing. Economy finally got better with FDR spending programs, but that wasn't enough. The government needed to go into a unimaginable amount of debt with its entrence into ww2 for the economy to finally jump out of the Great Depression.

Your prescription for the currrent economic crisis is troubling. It reveals how little we learn from history.
 

Colt45

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
19,720
1
0
Where are the feds going to get their kickbacks from if these dinosaurs go extinct? :p
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
I agree with the OP. It may be more painful in the short term, but in the long term, the economy will be stronger for it.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
101,207
18,220
126
I don't have an issue with the bail out, just the implementation of it
 

Billb2

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2005
3,035
70
86
And what happens when the trucks stop delivering to the grocery stores, the phones go dead and the price of gas goes to $50/gal?

Yes, you can smugly starve/freeze to death knowing the those who caused the problem had been punished.

I think the consequences of what you propose are far worse than you imagine. "Hunker down" ain't gonna cut it.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Hacp
Great depression. What did hoover do after 1929? He did what you are prescribing. Economy finally got better with FDR spending programs, but that wasn't enough. The government needed to go into a unimaginable amount of debt with its entrence into ww2 for the economy to finally jump out of the Great Depression.

Your prescription for the currrent economic crisis is troubling. It reveals how little we learn from history.

FDR didn't spend all that much, not compared to other countries.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
101,207
18,220
126
Originally posted by: finite automaton
Originally posted by: sdifox
I don't have an issue with the bail out, just the implementation of it

Yeah. $15 a paycheck... WHAT?

I would have dumped the whole amount into nuke plants :)
Stimulate economy and take a big step in cutting down oil dependency.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: AntiFreze
LET THEM BURN.

seriously. we want a capitalist economy when things are good and a socialist economy when things are bad. If we would just let the people who made mistakes crumble and die then new businesses would replace them that do it better. It's win win. No economy grows 100% of the time. It's cylical. So let the people over their head with mortgages they never could afford lose their houses, the banks go belly up, the stock brokers commit suicide. LET THEM F'N BURN.

We will have to lower our head and run through, but we'll come out better on the other end. All we are doing is putting a bandaid on a huge gash that is just going to bleed out anyways. We are prolonging the recession (possibly causing a depression). Anyone agree with me? Let the smart people do better and the greedy morons burn.

/rant

(drinking session + economics talk = this)

Ok, now that we're done with the silly, ignorant, and foolish populist rant, let's get down to reality.


First off, the world economy works based upon faith. Faith that credit will be repaid, faith that things will be better, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually. Faith that overall, we have a good system. Once you remove faith you have chaos. Chaos causes irrationality since faith is gone and the one thing people have left is their own concerns.

So, what happens when we allow irrationality to get out of control? We get a downward spiral of insanity, eventually resulting in the collapse of the system.

This is what causes runs on banks and companies.

Now, in a modern economy, companies have stopped carrying a huge amount of cash on the balance sheet, since it's nothing more than dead weight and wasteful. They depend on short-term credit to get through the lulls within weekly business. Right or wrong, this is how things work. Additionally, businesses use credit to finance long-term investments, how else would you finance them? Saving is a silly notion since you can't possibly plan for every eventuality in replacement or operation, thus, you borrow when you need to. Provided it doesn't get out of hand you're good. Also, as long as you match-fund your assets, you're good.

So, what happens when we combine banking chaos with business? We get no investment or credit in business. Everything stops.

Sure, it must be nice to sit on the sidelines and scream about how bad it is, but you've got no fucking idea how bad it is. You don't even have the slightest inkling how bad it could be. Take Wyndham for example. Since they couldn't get financing they laid off 30% of their people. Take that and apply it to most companies out there.

30% unemployment, overnight, sounds good to you?

Ohh yeah, your tough love is all great, until every 3rd person you know is out of a job. Think of that, every third person.

Then it wouldn't be some quick fix either. Nope, since humans are irrational they will over-correct, causing even more pain. The GD would seem like a cakewalk. It would take a decade, or longer, for any faith to be restored.

All because you don't want to come to the realization that an economy that lands softly is far more preferable to one that crash lands. Sure, we are prolonging the downturn, but we are also mitigating the severity.

If your knee gets busted up, do you simply amputate your leg to avoid having to have reconstructive surgery and multiple years of physical therapy? Isn't going through surgery and PT nothing more than prolonging the pain? CUT IT OFF!

Cut off your nose to spite your face?

I get tired of people who don't even work in finance screaming about "free markets", when they don't even realize that no market SHOULD be free.

What smart people are going to do better? What banks will replace the old ones when nobody wants to invest in banks (at least not for a long while). Who will trade stocks of brokers die?
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
You let it burn, it spirals downward into anarchy. People lose jobs, the government loses tax income, thus the government can't afford to keep your sorry ass on welfare. You don't eat, you get pissed or die, the government is to blame. The government loses tax income, it can't support even federal jobs anymore, more people get laid off, go on welfare which the government can no longer support, more people starve. People now have zero disposable income, let alone ordinary income, hence they no longer spend even for the bare necessities. The remaining businesses post losses, without income they can't afford to stay in business. More people get laid off, go on welfare which the government can't support, more people starve.

So what happens then? The government props itself up by printing more money. With no economy to back the currency, thus begins rampant inflation. The remaining businesses respond to inflation by raising their prices but not wage, thus people that DO have jobs can no longer afford to buy things, so they starve. Businesses no longer sell product/service because it is now too expensive due to inflation, so they lay off workers. Workers go on welfare, which the government can no longer support, thus printing more money, causing hyperinflation, and yes, people starve.

At this point, nothing is left, there is no economy, the government fails, no one has work and everybody is starving. Where do you go from there?

I'm not saying that everyone needs to be bailed out - because then we're just skipping the first section and going straight for the second. What needs to be done is to look at the companies that can survive. Those companies need some form of help - but with a major price - they become nationalized. They now form the cornerstone of a hybrid economy. The remaining companies get to either sink or swim on their own. If they sink, they get snapped up by capitalist opportunists. If they swim, they offer a viable alternative to the nationalized companies. People themselves can make the choice. At least in the mean time a nationalized public bank would be able to abide by the government rules to get credit into peoples' hands, something the private sector ISN'T doing.

For individuals in foreclosure - I'm sorry, but you lose. I could see the banks rapidly displacing foreclosures, which resets the market once wholesale values are adjusted. We get a new marketplace of homes available, but with the influx of homes and the lack of lending and buyers - we now have massive amounts of rental properties. Because asset purchase values were low to begin with, the rental prices are readjusted, people can now rent homes. Mass foreclosure isn't necessarily a bad thing. It will sting the economy for a while, but it will generate a huge new industry after it gets sorted out.

The "stimulus" process - tax cuts aren't the way to go. If anything, I would have RAISED taxes in this position to help fund government projects with a viable source of income. A true stimulus would be a rapid infusion of cash into the economy that could be recovered with the increased taxes over time - not waiting until NEXT YEAR for these tax cuts to hopefully stimulate the economy.

You don't wait until the patient is cold and stiff to apply the defibrillator.