banks not giving an inch.Follow

Most people still believe that our currency is backed by the gold in Fort Knox, this is false.

http://www.webpennys.com/commentary/why_is_the_us_dollar_dropping_so_fast.html

The US dollar is based on credit, or the confidence in our ability to produce enough goods to satisfy our debts.

Consider that logic for a while in the face of this recession, or "credit crisis."

Looks like we just _______ ourselves over, eh?

Which leads to a recession which leads to a further devaluing of the US dollar making it much easier for wealth to accumulate wealth (banks being sold for dirt cheap) and more difficult for those without money to make ends meet.

This whole "crisis" was manufactured to further consolidate and control wealth by central banking families which control the federal reserve.

Yes. They setup a system to fail (deregulated markets) and then injected the poison that would make it fail (overvalued, worthless assets.)

It's actually brilliant. When all the dust clears, the government will own major stakes in all the banks, and will also hold the majority of those "poisonous" mortgage-backed securities.

The government made money on the Chrysler bail-out. I believe it made money on the S&L bailout (although I might be wrong). We could make money on this one too ultimately.

I'm just responding to your claim that we won't make money on the bailout. I'm not disagreeing with you in any other way.

And let me clear up something. I know we lost money on the FDIC insurance (I think we lost close to 150 billion on insured deposits), I mean that we made money on the mortgages we had to pick up. And I realize that is a net loss. I'm off my rocker this morning and remembering all the real estate here in Denver that the feds made a killing off of thanks to that idiot Neil Bush and failing to remember all the other garbage the country was stuck with.



Edited, Oct 31st 2008 12:15pm by baelnic

The government did make quite a bit of money from the Chrysler bail out of way back when. I suspect, in the end, they'll make a lot of money from the bailout of the financial industry as well.

But I could be wrong. In any event, by the time they get all that money + interest back, it will probably be worth nothing at all.

What you have to also consider Soul is how much you lose if the US car industry goes boom, both in terms of massive job losses and lost taxes both from wages, company profits and all the support industry that would follow them out of business.

Look at the fall of the UK coal industry, alot of those towns have never recovered and are now costing the British tax payer millions to regenerate and police.

Once industry's like that go they never come back, where if you save them now they may well recover and become strong once again, who knows they might even build a decent car for a change

Here's the problem though. We (the government) already interferes with most of these industries already. Typically, there is a balance of protectionist regulations and requirements in place which various industries are essentially forced to adopt if they want to do business. Car companies are a good example of this. The US applies some protectionist tariffs (and may intercede to help them out), but it *also* applies requirements for things like fuel economy, a certain percentage of cars must meet some definition of "hybrid" or "all electric", X% must be under some dollar value (to keep cars in reach of poor and working class folks), etc...

My point is that it's unfair to then blame the industries when they aren't "smart enough" to avoid some economic problem. If we apply no protections and no regulations, then the business will succeed or fail on their own and that would be fine (maybe). But once we start mucking with the industry, we (the government) kinda have to take responsibility for the results, don't we? And yeah, that sucks for the average joe taxpayer who'll usually get stuck footing the bill. But the time to do something about that is not 10 years down the line when some economic problem comes along that the industry can't react to, but when the government goes to apply the regulations on the industry in the first place.


How many of those saying to let these industries fail actively opposed things like requirements for banks to lend to poor people at subprime rates? How many opposed fuel standards and emissions standards on the automobile industries? Did you oppose each and every time the government either applied a protection or a regulation on the industry in question? If you didn't, then you can't fairly insist that the industry alone suffer the consequences of a downturn. It's not a truly "free market", but it's amazing how many people who don't support free market ideas when the issue is about forcing industry to do something they want tone, but then suddenly adopt them when said industry is in trouble.

Nope. I have no clue, and that's not the point. I'm saying that the act of regulating an industry makes the government to some degree responsible for the success of said industry. The more regulation, the more responsibility.


This is a core concept that many people don't understand when they push for government to get involved in something. It ultimately does take responsibility for it with all the attendant problems that may entail. That's not to say that government shouldn't regulate at all, but that we the people should understand this possible consequence before supporting said regulation in the first place and should *not* be surprised if sometime down the road a heavily regulated industry turns to the government to bail it out of some financial trouble.

I don't agree that government regulations make the government responsible for the success or failure of a business at all.

Governments regulate individuals to make sure that they not do things that are harmful to others. EG individuals are not allowed to kill others, not allowed to speed or drink-drive, not allowed to litter. That doesn't mean the government is responsible for individuals successes or failures in life, whether they lose their jobs or not, make money or not.

I believe in welfare safety-nets, but I don't tie the existence or not of welfare nets with laws preventing harm. A law telling me not to poison someone does not suddenly make the government responsible for paying me some minimal income if I lose my job. That's a completely separate issue.

Likewise laws about automotive safety including safe exhaust emissions don't obligate the government to rescue the industry when it's in trouble. All it obligates the government to do is to make sure that there are no competitors who are illegally breaking the regulations by selling products into the market that contravene them.

As for regulations that are protective of an industry, if an industry fails despite those, then the industry has even LESS reason to expect any government bailout.

Source please.



Actually, if I'm not mistaken, depending on the situation, yes it can.



Oh, not at all. But you act as though the Republicans are blameless in this. Pressured or not, a large amount of Republicans voted for the bill, they are still responsible for their actions. What possible threat could have been made to these people to make them change their vote? Seriously, I learn more about the way your country's government works every day, I want an answer to this.