paulson saved wall street and burned main street

[Eight]

Quote from jayre:

The idea that rescueing the big banks was not important is without merit.
If the US would have let BAC, AIG, Citibank follow Lehman, the result would have been the following.
-Every other bank, insurance co, brokerage, financial institution, would have been in danger
-LIBOR would have frozen completely
-Loans to consumers and business would be noneexistent
-The economy would have come to a standstill.
I can agree that wall street are crooks, have taken too much risk, and mabye some CEO's should have gone to jail. But to let the whole economy colapse because of that, is a STUPID argument.

Things would have fallen apart, institutions would have closed their doors, competent people would have bought up the pieces and the recovery would be well under way.. that is historically what happens in a crisis when there is no intervention at all. The intervention in the 1930's prolonged the bad economy. The rest of the world that didn't intervene so much recovered way before the USA did..

 

[Samsara]

Quote from empee:

Once again, we're dealing with a failed government. Its a failure of government to allow any institutions to become so big or powerful that they can't fail without destroying the whole economy.

Glad we fixed that!

Hey, laissez faire. Oligopoly, leveraged speculation with risk transferred to insuring entities, then leveraged speculation on that insurance, was a purely free market phenomenon.

Systemic risk will always be there when there are short term incentives for that behavior.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from jayre:


I can agree that wall street are crooks, have taken too much risk, and mabye some CEO's should have gone to jail. But to let the whole economy colapse because of that, is a STUPID argument.

Ya think? Considering they pretty much sent the whole god damn world into bankruptcy, yeah, some of them should have gone to jail. Instead they got sweetheart loan deals to regroup, and do it all over again.

 

[jayre]

Quote from Eight:

Things would have fallen apart, institutions would have closed their doors, competent people would have bought up the pieces and the recovery would be well under way.. that is historically what happens in a crisis when there is no intervention at all. The intervention in the 1930's prolonged the bad economy. The rest of the world that didn't intervene so much recovered way before the USA did..

The "heart" of the crisis in 1929 was in the US to begin with.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from jayre:

The "heart" of the crisis in 1929 was in the US to begin with.

It began in October, 1929 and by the time a Democrat came along in March, 1933, the banking system was dead.
That's three and a half years of this non-interventionist bs that we had to go through that time.
Because of the Internet and the my-balls-are-bigger-than-your-balls idiot posts calling for the economic nuking of everything, when the next Republican gets in, it'll be (xxxxx) fill in the number of years before someone, of either party, will be able to get in and do something. I used to think these guys were jokes - well, intellectually they still are utter, complete, ignorant-of-history morons - but because of the loudness of their idiocy their "thinking" has infected the real world, and now you can seriously look forward to the next crisis being the one where this approach, if you can call it that, will be used, with the same effect it had the last time it was used. Their fave is to point out with FDR that unemployment continued to be high (as they keep doing this time around; they never change). They forget the economy had ground to a complete halt when he was inaugurated, after, one more time, three and one half years of trying their approach. This time the economy didn't get a chance to grind to a halt, it just came close, which gives these fools enough wiggle room to make their ridiculous claims.
No manner of proof can be offered that will ever convince these people. Only making them as actually bankrupt as they already are intellectually will change their minds - maybe. You can never tell.

 

[jayre]

Quote from trefoil:

It began in October, 1929 and by the time a Democrat came along in March, 1933, the banking system was dead.
That's three and a half years of this non-interventionist bs that we had to go through that time.
Because of the Internet and the my-balls-are-bigger-than-your-balls idiot posts calling for the economic nuking of everything, when the next Republican gets in, it'll be (xxxxx) fill in the number of years before someone, of either party, will be able to get in and do something. I used to think these guys were jokes - well, intellectually they still are utter, complete, ignorant-of-history morons - but because of the loudness of their idiocy their "thinking" has infected the real world, and now you can seriously look forward to the next crisis being the one where this approach, if you can call it that, will be used, with the same effect it had the last time it was used. Their fave is to point out with FDR that unemployment continued to be high (as they keep doing this time around; they never change). They forget the economy had ground to a complete halt when he was inaugurated, after, one more time, three and one half years of trying their approach. This time the economy didn't get a chance to grind to a halt, it just came close, which gives these fools enough wiggle room to make their ridiculous claims.
No manner of proof can be offered that will ever convince these people. Only making them as actually bankrupt as they already are intellectually will change their minds - maybe. You can never tell.

+1