- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would We Have Been Better Off If The Gov't Let The Banks Bottom Out, Not Bailing Em Out?
Posted on 5/16/17 at 12:10 am to Geauxld Finger
Posted on 5/16/17 at 12:10 am to Geauxld Finger
I understand that, but to me, that's a horrible approach to that kind of problem and that's not the way that the American economy is supposed to work. Businesses fail and businesses succeed. It's not the government's place to pick and choose who fails and who succeeds. It's on the consumer.
3
Posted on 5/16/17 at 12:14 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
I understand that, but to me, that's a horrible approach to that kind of problem and that's not the way that the American economy is supposed to work. Businesses fail and businesses succeed. It's not the government's place to pick and choose who fails and who succeeds. It's on the consumer.
I am a pretty big free market guy, but markets (and consumers) are not always rational. Bank runs and consumer credit collapsing are classic examples. It's a prisoner's dilemma for the consumer. That's where the government can (and sometimes should) step in. Where to draw that line of stepping in is the trick (and the source of many of our political disputes).
Posted on 5/16/17 at 12:17 am to TigerFanInSouthland
They were desperately trying to fix a broken system run rampant with greed and cirruption, all while trying not to make 1/8 of the nations bank accounts disappear.
It would have sent the country into a depression which would have a larger impact globally than it did in the 20's
The bailouts could have been handled differently than they were. I'm typically very fiscally conservative and want very little government regulation where I put my money, BUT I'm all for the government watching over these guy's shoulders. Too much was risked with the old ways of doing things.
It would have sent the country into a depression which would have a larger impact globally than it did in the 20's
The bailouts could have been handled differently than they were. I'm typically very fiscally conservative and want very little government regulation where I put my money, BUT I'm all for the government watching over these guy's shoulders. Too much was risked with the old ways of doing things.
Posted on 5/16/17 at 9:44 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
I understand that, but to me, that's a horrible approach to that kind of problem and that's not the way that the American economy is supposed to work. Businesses fail and businesses succeed. It's not the government's place to pick and choose who fails and who succeeds. It's on the consumer.
That is a text book definition.
In reality, the government has always had a hand (in crisis moments) of how fails and who lives. The USA is not a pure capitalism model.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News