Thread: Anyone else celebrating our small success? BAILOUT FAILS IN HOUSE.

Deregulation (less meddling in the market) is what got us into this mess. When nobody's watching the cash register, people steal from it. Who woulda thunk it.

The solution is working regulation, not letting the market crash and burn and wipe out jobs and savings for millions of people. If we were smart, we would've passed a bill two weeks ago. Had we done that, in five years we might have been sitting pretty like Sweden was after they dealt with a similar crisis: their government stepped in, bought a bunch of assets to keep their economy going, then sold them off as their economy improved. Their taxpayers made 6 dollars for every 1 they put into the bailout, because they acted QUICKLY. Sweden's economy is in excellent shape now because they got their bailout done quickly, before things spiralled out of control. (Might or might not be too late for that for us.)

Or, we can follow the Japan model. Let the markets crash, THEN the government steps in to try to apply a bandaid to a now-gaping wound. Japan was in a massive recession for the bulk of a decade, and they got very little return on their taxpayer dollars. It was pretty much a total loss, because they waited to act. And where is Japan now, 15 years later? They still haven't recovered.

I like Sweden's model best, since the taxpayer kicked ass financially under that scenario. But I suspect we've waited a week or two too long to reap the rewards of acting quickly. Still, every day we do wait to address the problem is going to cost the taxpayer even more.

ron paul seen all of this coming over 1 year ago...

YouTube - Someone predicted this economic collapse A year ago, who?

Because now handing the cash register over to the exact people who were just stealing from it is the right answer? LOL. You have to be kidding me right?

The deregulation that helped cause this mess is a lot different than the price fixing they are trying to do by going in and trying to determine the worth of assets.. for example with the mortgages that were worth 100 grand before, and are now worth 60 grand the government wants to regulate the price and keep it at 100 grand- to prop up the market.. that isn't going to fix things, the market needs to readjust so we can see the real price of things at this point.

If someone is deathly sick wouldn't you rather know the extent of how sick they are to then fix things or cover it up every possible symptom with a bunch of small remedies so you can never see the whole illness?

The regulation that needs to be done is on our f*cking money supply- there's ZERO regulation over what the Federal Reserve does..

As far as these Sweden Japan examples you keep throwing around.. um, to compare them and the time it took for them to recover is kind of silly. Japan's economic fall was MUCH harder than Sweden's because they fell from a much much higher pedestal, Japan had much more to lose and a harder fall to take from their economic demise. And if you want to be technical- to this day Japan is wealthier than Sweden per capita.

Originally Posted by Roseman

ron paul seen all of this coming over 1 year ago...

YouTube - Someone predicted this economic collapse A year ago, who?

Ron Paul has been predicting this for well over 10 years, lol, the whole Austrian school of economics has.. they predict everything major in the economy..

.. part of an article I already posted here..

The Great Bank Robbery of 2008 - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Institute
"But Won't the Credit Markets Collapse?

Some observers would admit the legitimacy of my analysis above. "However," they might say, "the Paulson Plan, or something like it, is necessary to avert a total meltdown of the financial system. We're not trying to boost aggregate investment, so much as clearing out a clogged pipe."
This talk of a breakdown in the financial system is a bogeyman. Steve Landsburg does such a great job of exploding this myth that I will simply quote him:

So what's special about banks [that they deserve a bailout]? According to what I keep reading, it's that without banks, nobody can borrow, and the economy grinds to a halt.
Well, let's think about that. Banks don't lend their own money; they lend other people's (their depositors' and their stockholders'). Just because the banks disappear doesn't mean the lenders will. Borrowers will still want to borrow and lenders will still want to lend. The only question is whether they'll be able to find each other.
… [A]s any user of match.com can tell you, the technology for finding partners has improved since [the 1930s]. When a firm wants to raise capital, why can't it just sell bonds over the web? Or issue new stock? Or approach one of the hedge funds that seem to be swimming in cash? Or borrow abroad?
… I'm not sure these big Wall Street banks are really necessary, and I'm not sure we'd miss them much if they were gone. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but if so, I think it should be incumbent on Messrs. Bernanke, Paulson and above all Bush to explain what it is."