On January 09 2010 09:56 Newbistic wrote: Didn't watch the first video, but his logic is faulty in the second video.
Schiff didn't prove that loans caused increased tuition, he simply stated that a correlation exists between the arrival of government loans and increases in tuition. Correlation does not mean causation.
Also, logic states that with all the new technology, education should be more expensive, not cheaper because more money would need to be spent to acquire the new technology. Technology did not change that fast back in the day, neither did progression in academics. Nowadays more knowledge is produced and at a faster rate, so universities need more resources to acquire newer, costlier ways of producing knowledge.
Of course, there are other reasons why tuition costs more today exclusive of the need to acquire more technology, but it still doesn't mean he's necessarily right.
First, technology makes everything cheaper, for example, cars used to cost more than houses in USA and then Ford came along and with some ingenuity and technology he cut the cost in half.(It was also a goverment monopoly before Ford, and suprise goverment sucks at business since it is politicians calling the shots and not businessmen) Second, we are not talking statistics, we are talking about the rules and the models we use to understand the economy so take your "correlation does not mean causation" bullshit somewhere else. It's too late for me to write a long, eloquent reply with many diagrams and links and shit so I just won't bother. I might return when I wake up to show you just how ignorant you are.
EDIT: And dont spout out that crap about healthcare becoming more expensive because of new technology because then I will hunt you down and pimp slap you
On January 09 2010 09:31 iamho wrote: this guy was in the times or the economist a few months ago. but honestly, it doesnt take a genius to spout government is evil libertarian doomsday crap
Actually it is pretty difficult and he clearly demonstrates why with the resistance he receives from people like you. It would be nice if you mentioned a view of Libertarianism that is "doomsday bull crap." It would help! Since you wish me to evoke telekinesis may I start by asking you why it is a good idea for a government to give peoples money to save nonperforming failing companies? Is it so perhaps its CEOs and directors can buy a plane or their children a Ferrari (what deep thinkers like you call stimulating the economy)? That would seem like a really stupid idea. It would seem like it is a better idea to let performing companies survive and prosper to take their place. Isn't that the whole damn point to a free market; a certain evolution of the economy. I might have to agree with you that this stuff is easy after all!
you guys clearly do not understand the idea of cash flow im not saying that we should be bailing out companies but at this point we really had no choice.
consider this: I have 1 brillion dollars in assets. Most of these assets are in the form of money that I have loaned or invested into many different things. For instance, I may have 500 million in the form of a CD, or certificate of deposit, or something with a similar policy (i.e. I can't touch the money without penalties before the due date) Let's say I borrowed some money to make an investment (which is necessary in this day and age for tax reasons) and I thought that it was good and would be a safe investment. Say... 300 million dollars. I use leverage, which means that I can invest 100 million to make an investment worth 1 brillion. Therefore, a gain of 10% in the investment will profit me 100 million dollars. Similarly, a loss of 10% would make me lose 100 million dollars, or would wipe out the initial investment. Now let's say this investment was flawed, because people were lying about the actual securities and nobody (especially Fannie and Freddie) knew what was going on. So I take a 40% loss on my investment. Now I'm out 400 million. I don't have enough in liquid money to pay back the 400 million, so I'm forced to call in my assets (such as the loans from other companies) at a steep discount rate to pay it back. By discount rate, I mean since I'm calling back loans before they are due, I forfeit interest on my loan, etc. so I may sell 500 billion in assets and end up with 350 million instead. So not only do I lose money from the initial investment, but I lose money in selling assets to pay it back. So in the end, I'm actually down 550 million from a 10% loss.
The second thing it does is it causes money to be taken from other people who are using the money. If I am a company that borrowed 100 million from the bank above, and they call back their loan, sure, I may save money by not paying interest. But I don't have 100 million in cash on me. Therefore, I need to sell off my assets to get this 100 million, which in turn means that I either have to take a loss or call in outstanding loans/credit, which continues the chain of recognized losses.
Without the bailout, we would have taken at least a 40% hit immediately.
I'm not saying it was a good thing, however-it was basically extortion.
When Schiff was talking about federalism and marijuana/gay marriage laws in the video that was edited out of the OP, it made me think of this quote from Karl Hess.
The States' rights lapse is simply that conservatives who would deny to the Federal government certain controls over people, eagerly cede exactly the same controls to smaller administrative units. They say that the smaller units are more effective. This means that conservatives support the coercion of individuals at the most effective level. It certainly doesn't mean that they oppose coercion. In failing to resist state segregation and miscegenation laws, in failing to resist laws maintaining racially inequitable spending of tax money, simply because these laws were passed by states, conservatives have failed to fight the very bureaucracy that they supposedly hate — at the very level where they might have stopped it first.
On January 09 2010 09:31 iamho wrote: this guy was in the times or the economist a few months ago. but honestly, it doesnt take a genius to spout government is evil libertarian doomsday crap
Actually it is pretty difficult and he clearly demonstrates why with the resistance he receives from people like you. It would be nice if you mentioned a view of Libertarianism that is "doomsday bull crap." It would help! Since you wish me to evoke telekinesis may I start by asking you why it is a good idea for a government to give peoples money to save nonperforming failing companies? Is it so perhaps its CEOs and directors can buy a plane or their children a Ferrari (what deep thinkers like you call stimulating the economy)? That would seem like a really stupid idea. It would seem like it is a better idea to let performing companies survive and prosper to take their place. Isn't that the whole damn point to a free market; a certain evolution of the economy. I might have to agree with you that this stuff is easy after all!
you guys clearly do not understand the idea of cash flow im not saying that we should be bailing out companies but at this point we really had no choice.
consider this: I have 1 brillion dollars in assets. Most of these assets are in the form of money that I have loaned or invested into many different things. For instance, I may have 500 million in the form of a CD, or certificate of deposit, or something with a similar policy (i.e. I can't touch the money without penalties before the due date) Let's say I borrowed some money to make an investment (which is necessary in this day and age for tax reasons) and I thought that it was good and would be a safe investment. Say... 300 million dollars. I use leverage, which means that I can invest 100 million to make an investment worth 1 brillion. Therefore, a gain of 10% in the investment will profit me 100 million dollars. Similarly, a loss of 10% would make me lose 100 million dollars, or would wipe out the initial investment. Now let's say this investment was flawed, because people were lying about the actual securities and nobody (especially Fannie and Freddie) knew what was going on. So I take a 40% loss on my investment. Now I'm out 400 million. I don't have enough in liquid money to pay back the 400 million, so I'm forced to call in my assets (such as the loans from other companies) at a steep discount rate to pay it back. By discount rate, I mean since I'm calling back loans before they are due, I forfeit interest on my loan, etc. so I may sell 500 billion in assets and end up with 350 million instead. So not only do I lose money from the initial investment, but I lose money in selling assets to pay it back. So in the end, I'm actually down 550 million from a 10% loss.
The second thing it does is it causes money to be taken from other people who are using the money. If I am a company that borrowed 100 million from the bank above, and they call back their loan, sure, I may save money by not paying interest. But I don't have 100 million in cash on me. Therefore, I need to sell off my assets to get this 100 million, which in turn means that I either have to take a loss or call in outstanding loans/credit, which continues the chain of recognized losses.
Without the bailout, we would have taken at least a 40% hit immediately.
I'm not saying it was a good thing, however-it was basically extortion.
Consider this, how is it morally justfiable to use taxpayers money to speculate in a failing firm? If you have bad cash flow, take a loan but is itsn't the goverments business at all.
Yeah I remember this guy. A few of his videos have been posted here before this. I believe it was a video of him giving a lecture on why the housing markert collapsed. It was a pretty entertaining and funny lectrue if i remember correctly. He seems like a really smart guy and i hope he wins his seat. Still if he has aspirations beyond the senate he should just bite the bullet and call himself a republican.
On January 09 2010 09:46 grechkay wrote: I'd like to say that as an in-state NC student, my tuition + fees is about $5,500 a year. Now this is because I go to a public University that is subsidized by the government. I somewhat agree that the government shouldn't be giving students loans, however there are other forms of subsidies. Government scholarships are good, and the government could subsidize the professors. Tuition for in-state students of public schools is not that expensive because of government backing.
I go to the university of colorado, also a public university that is subsidized by the government. My tuition is about $22,000 per year. If I was an out-of-state student, it would be about $40,000 per year. There are about 25,000 students that attend my university, so assuming that 90% of the kids pay in-state tuition, my university makes almost six hundred million dollars per year from student tuition. If that were divided up between all the 3,293 members of faculty and staff evenly, each person would be paid about $182,204 per year. I don't think that sounds like the kind of income professors make. Also, most of the staff are surely minimum wage janitors, chefs for the dorms, security, etc. I know I didn't take into consideration the expenses of my university, but that's only because I don't have accurate information in that regard. Either way I feel like I'm getting shafted for my education after watching that video.
On January 09 2010 09:56 Newbistic wrote: Didn't watch the first video, but his logic is faulty in the second video.
Schiff didn't prove that loans caused increased tuition, he simply stated that a correlation exists between the arrival of government loans and increases in tuition. Correlation does not mean causation.
Also, logic states that with all the new technology, education should be more expensive, not cheaper because more money would need to be spent to acquire the new technology. Technology did not change that fast back in the day, neither did progression in academics. Nowadays more knowledge is produced and at a faster rate, so universities need more resources to acquire newer, costlier ways of producing knowledge.
Of course, there are other reasons why tuition costs more today exclusive of the need to acquire more technology, but it still doesn't mean he's necessarily right.
I think given the situation he then gave his best possible proofs avaliable. He has imperfect information. You can't really give fact statistics on how a countries performance would improve under the same certain conditions (in a certain era) without doing simulations (which is impossible.) So instead he gave the outcome of doing the simulation in others eras when they were unregulated.
Ask yourself if these conditions are true...
1. When a politician implements more student loans he gets a big pat on the back and reelection, and those who want to cut them don't get elected. Thus, student loans/grants increase.
2. Does irresponsibly giving government money to students create more of a demand in its best colleges?
3. Does that demand force universities to compete (for instance over professors) with money generated with simply no restraint (except the will of politicians to offer more)?
The guy knows what he's talking about, I've actually been wathcing a lot of his stuff the past few weeks and we shoulda listened to him 3-4 years ago rofl......
On January 09 2010 09:31 iamho wrote: this guy was in the times or the economist a few months ago. but honestly, it doesnt take a genius to spout government is evil libertarian doomsday crap
Actually it is pretty difficult and he clearly demonstrates why with the resistance he receives from people like you. It would be nice if you mentioned a view of Libertarianism that is "doomsday bull crap." It would help! Since you wish me to evoke telekinesis may I start by asking you why it is a good idea for a government to give peoples money to save nonperforming failing companies? Is it so perhaps its CEOs and directors can buy a plane or their children a Ferrari (what deep thinkers like you call stimulating the economy)? That would seem like a really stupid idea. It would seem like it is a better idea to let performing companies survive and prosper to take their place. Isn't that the whole damn point to a free market; a certain evolution of the economy. I might have to agree with you that this stuff is easy after all!
you guys clearly do not understand the idea of cash flow im not saying that we should be bailing out companies but at this point we really had no choice.
consider this: I have 1 brillion dollars in assets. Most of these assets are in the form of money that I have loaned or invested into many different things. For instance, I may have 500 million in the form of a CD, or certificate of deposit, or something with a similar policy (i.e. I can't touch the money without penalties before the due date) Let's say I borrowed some money to make an investment (which is necessary in this day and age for tax reasons) and I thought that it was good and would be a safe investment. Say... 300 million dollars. I use leverage, which means that I can invest 100 million to make an investment worth 1 brillion. Therefore, a gain of 10% in the investment will profit me 100 million dollars. Similarly, a loss of 10% would make me lose 100 million dollars, or would wipe out the initial investment. Now let's say this investment was flawed, because people were lying about the actual securities and nobody (especially Fannie and Freddie) knew what was going on. So I take a 40% loss on my investment. Now I'm out 400 million. I don't have enough in liquid money to pay back the 400 million, so I'm forced to call in my assets (such as the loans from other companies) at a steep discount rate to pay it back. By discount rate, I mean since I'm calling back loans before they are due, I forfeit interest on my loan, etc. so I may sell 500 billion in assets and end up with 350 million instead. So not only do I lose money from the initial investment, but I lose money in selling assets to pay it back. So in the end, I'm actually down 550 million from a 10% loss.
The second thing it does is it causes money to be taken from other people who are using the money. If I am a company that borrowed 100 million from the bank above, and they call back their loan, sure, I may save money by not paying interest. But I don't have 100 million in cash on me. Therefore, I need to sell off my assets to get this 100 million, which in turn means that I either have to take a loss or call in outstanding loans/credit, which continues the chain of recognized losses.
Without the bailout, we would have taken at least a 40% hit immediately.
I'm not saying it was a good thing, however-it was basically extortion.
Consider this, how is it morally justfiable to use taxpayers money to speculate in a failing firm? If you have bad cash flow, take a loan but is itsn't the goverments business at all.
i didn't say it was morally justifiable to use taxpayers money, i said it was extortion.
like i said, the problem with such a big fucking bank is that it tend to give tons of loans to many many companies. The collapse of such a large bank like Goldman Sachs would completely cripple monetary flow for a much larger area that just financial services-many companies would be forced to call in loans and sell assets, which begins a massive chain reaction that severely destabilizes our economy. In that sense, to protect the rest of America from the collapse of a bank, they had to bail them out.
Consider the following situation: a scientist accidentally releases a culture of a supervirus that could kill millions. The only ones that are able to deal with the virus are the very group that released it. The government would thus give them money and funding to contain the virus, even if it was their fault that they released it.
Like Ron Paul, this guy makes sense. i'm just surprised they actually put him and ron paul on major tv network at all, common sense in government and media? Blasphemy!
On January 09 2010 09:31 iamho wrote: this guy was in the times or the economist a few months ago. but honestly, it doesnt take a genius to spout government is evil libertarian doomsday crap
Actually it is pretty difficult and he clearly demonstrates why with the resistance he receives from people like you. It would be nice if you mentioned a view of Libertarianism that is "doomsday bull crap." It would help! Since you wish me to evoke telekinesis may I start by asking you why it is a good idea for a government to give peoples money to save nonperforming failing companies? Is it so perhaps its CEOs and directors can buy a plane or their children a Ferrari (what deep thinkers like you call stimulating the economy)? That would seem like a really stupid idea. It would seem like it is a better idea to let performing companies survive and prosper to take their place. Isn't that the whole damn point to a free market; a certain evolution of the economy. I might have to agree with you that this stuff is easy after all!
you guys clearly do not understand the idea of cash flow im not saying that we should be bailing out companies but at this point we really had no choice.
consider this: I have 1 brillion dollars in assets. Most of these assets are in the form of money that I have loaned or invested into many different things. For instance, I may have 500 million in the form of a CD, or certificate of deposit, or something with a similar policy (i.e. I can't touch the money without penalties before the due date) Let's say I borrowed some money to make an investment (which is necessary in this day and age for tax reasons) and I thought that it was good and would be a safe investment. Say... 300 million dollars. I use leverage, which means that I can invest 100 million to make an investment worth 1 brillion. Therefore, a gain of 10% in the investment will profit me 100 million dollars. Similarly, a loss of 10% would make me lose 100 million dollars, or would wipe out the initial investment. Now let's say this investment was flawed, because people were lying about the actual securities and nobody (especially Fannie and Freddie) knew what was going on. So I take a 40% loss on my investment. Now I'm out 400 million. I don't have enough in liquid money to pay back the 400 million, so I'm forced to call in my assets (such as the loans from other companies) at a steep discount rate to pay it back. By discount rate, I mean since I'm calling back loans before they are due, I forfeit interest on my loan, etc. so I may sell 500 billion in assets and end up with 350 million instead. So not only do I lose money from the initial investment, but I lose money in selling assets to pay it back. So in the end, I'm actually down 550 million from a 10% loss.
The second thing it does is it causes money to be taken from other people who are using the money. If I am a company that borrowed 100 million from the bank above, and they call back their loan, sure, I may save money by not paying interest. But I don't have 100 million in cash on me. Therefore, I need to sell off my assets to get this 100 million, which in turn means that I either have to take a loss or call in outstanding loans/credit, which continues the chain of recognized losses.
Without the bailout, we would have taken at least a 40% hit immediately.
I'm not saying it was a good thing, however-it was basically extortion.
Consider this, how is it morally justfiable to use taxpayers money to speculate in a failing firm? If you have bad cash flow, take a loan but is itsn't the goverments business at all.
i didn't say it was morally justifiable to use taxpayers money, i said it was extortion.
like i said, the problem with such a big fucking bank is that it tend to give tons of loans to many many companies. The collapse of such a large bank like Goldman Sachs would completely cripple monetary flow for a much larger area that just financial services-many companies would be forced to call in loans and sell assets, which begins a massive chain reaction that severely destabilizes our economy. In that sense, to protect the rest of America from the collapse of a bank, they had to bail them out.
Consider the following situation: a scientist accidentally releases a culture of a supervirus that could kill millions. The only ones that are able to deal with the virus are the very group that released it. The government would thus give them money and funding to contain the virus, even if it was their fault that they released it.
ur example given is valid in justifying the government's action/intervention in ur example, but sadly u can't compare a viral outbreak with an economic bubble bursting, its like comparing a apple to an orange...
On January 09 2010 09:31 iamho wrote: this guy was in the times or the economist a few months ago. but honestly, it doesnt take a genius to spout government is evil libertarian doomsday crap
Actually it is pretty difficult and he clearly demonstrates why with the resistance he receives from people like you. It would be nice if you mentioned a view of Libertarianism that is "doomsday bull crap." It would help! Since you wish me to evoke telekinesis may I start by asking you why it is a good idea for a government to give peoples money to save nonperforming failing companies? Is it so perhaps its CEOs and directors can buy a plane or their children a Ferrari (what deep thinkers like you call stimulating the economy)? That would seem like a really stupid idea. It would seem like it is a better idea to let performing companies survive and prosper to take their place. Isn't that the whole damn point to a free market; a certain evolution of the economy. I might have to agree with you that this stuff is easy after all!
you guys clearly do not understand the idea of cash flow im not saying that we should be bailing out companies but at this point we really had no choice.
consider this: I have 1 brillion dollars in assets. Most of these assets are in the form of money that I have loaned or invested into many different things. For instance, I may have 500 million in the form of a CD, or certificate of deposit, or something with a similar policy (i.e. I can't touch the money without penalties before the due date) Let's say I borrowed some money to make an investment (which is necessary in this day and age for tax reasons) and I thought that it was good and would be a safe investment. Say... 300 million dollars. I use leverage, which means that I can invest 100 million to make an investment worth 1 brillion. Therefore, a gain of 10% in the investment will profit me 100 million dollars. Similarly, a loss of 10% would make me lose 100 million dollars, or would wipe out the initial investment. Now let's say this investment was flawed, because people were lying about the actual securities and nobody (especially Fannie and Freddie) knew what was going on. So I take a 40% loss on my investment. Now I'm out 400 million. I don't have enough in liquid money to pay back the 400 million, so I'm forced to call in my assets (such as the loans from other companies) at a steep discount rate to pay it back. By discount rate, I mean since I'm calling back loans before they are due, I forfeit interest on my loan, etc. so I may sell 500 billion in assets and end up with 350 million instead. So not only do I lose money from the initial investment, but I lose money in selling assets to pay it back. So in the end, I'm actually down 550 million from a 10% loss.
The second thing it does is it causes money to be taken from other people who are using the money. If I am a company that borrowed 100 million from the bank above, and they call back their loan, sure, I may save money by not paying interest. But I don't have 100 million in cash on me. Therefore, I need to sell off my assets to get this 100 million, which in turn means that I either have to take a loss or call in outstanding loans/credit, which continues the chain of recognized losses.
Without the bailout, we would have taken at least a 40% hit immediately.
I'm not saying it was a good thing, however-it was basically extortion.
Consider this, how is it morally justfiable to use taxpayers money to speculate in a failing firm? If you have bad cash flow, take a loan but is itsn't the goverments business at all.
i didn't say it was morally justifiable to use taxpayers money, i said it was extortion.
like i said, the problem with such a big fucking bank is that it tend to give tons of loans to many many companies. The collapse of such a large bank like Goldman Sachs would completely cripple monetary flow for a much larger area that just financial services-many companies would be forced to call in loans and sell assets, which begins a massive chain reaction that severely destabilizes our economy. In that sense, to protect the rest of America from the collapse of a bank, they had to bail them out.
Consider the following situation: a scientist accidentally releases a culture of a supervirus that could kill millions. The only ones that are able to deal with the virus are the very group that released it. The government would thus give them money and funding to contain the virus, even if it was their fault that they released it.
ur example given is valid in justifying the government's action/intervention in ur example, but sadly u can't compare a viral outbreak with an economic bubble bursting, its like comparing a apple to an orange...
What the hell are you guys on, crack?
I used to think just like you guys in that the bailout is the stupidest thing ever.
I still think it's the stupidest thing ever. But it was also unfortunately necessary.
The economic damage done by both a viral outbreak and the massive collapse of the economic bubble would be roughly equivalent. Sure, some people may value human lives as being virtually infinite in value, but in terms of just sheer destruction the "collapse of the economic bubble" and a viral outbreak would be virtually similar. Millions, while they may still be alive, will lose everything they have, and will roam the streets preventing their kids from starving. I think people would be far more concerned about being unable to deal with something that they know they could rather than dealing with a virus that they have no control over.
On January 09 2010 09:31 iamho wrote: this guy was in the times or the economist a few months ago. but honestly, it doesnt take a genius to spout government is evil libertarian doomsday crap
Actually it is pretty difficult and he clearly demonstrates why with the resistance he receives from people like you. It would be nice if you mentioned a view of Libertarianism that is "doomsday bull crap." It would help! Since you wish me to evoke telekinesis may I start by asking you why it is a good idea for a government to give peoples money to save nonperforming failing companies? Is it so perhaps its CEOs and directors can buy a plane or their children a Ferrari (what deep thinkers like you call stimulating the economy)? That would seem like a really stupid idea. It would seem like it is a better idea to let performing companies survive and prosper to take their place. Isn't that the whole damn point to a free market; a certain evolution of the economy. I might have to agree with you that this stuff is easy after all!
you guys clearly do not understand the idea of cash flow im not saying that we should be bailing out companies but at this point we really had no choice.
consider this: I have 1 brillion dollars in assets. Most of these assets are in the form of money that I have loaned or invested into many different things. For instance, I may have 500 million in the form of a CD, or certificate of deposit, or something with a similar policy (i.e. I can't touch the money without penalties before the due date) Let's say I borrowed some money to make an investment (which is necessary in this day and age for tax reasons) and I thought that it was good and would be a safe investment. Say... 300 million dollars. I use leverage, which means that I can invest 100 million to make an investment worth 1 brillion. Therefore, a gain of 10% in the investment will profit me 100 million dollars. Similarly, a loss of 10% would make me lose 100 million dollars, or would wipe out the initial investment. Now let's say this investment was flawed, because people were lying about the actual securities and nobody (especially Fannie and Freddie) knew what was going on. So I take a 40% loss on my investment. Now I'm out 400 million. I don't have enough in liquid money to pay back the 400 million, so I'm forced to call in my assets (such as the loans from other companies) at a steep discount rate to pay it back. By discount rate, I mean since I'm calling back loans before they are due, I forfeit interest on my loan, etc. so I may sell 500 billion in assets and end up with 350 million instead. So not only do I lose money from the initial investment, but I lose money in selling assets to pay it back. So in the end, I'm actually down 550 million from a 10% loss.
The second thing it does is it causes money to be taken from other people who are using the money. If I am a company that borrowed 100 million from the bank above, and they call back their loan, sure, I may save money by not paying interest. But I don't have 100 million in cash on me. Therefore, I need to sell off my assets to get this 100 million, which in turn means that I either have to take a loss or call in outstanding loans/credit, which continues the chain of recognized losses.
Without the bailout, we would have taken at least a 40% hit immediately.
I'm not saying it was a good thing, however-it was basically extortion.
Consider this, how is it morally justfiable to use taxpayers money to speculate in a failing firm? If you have bad cash flow, take a loan but is itsn't the goverments business at all.
i didn't say it was morally justifiable to use taxpayers money, i said it was extortion.
like i said, the problem with such a big fucking bank is that it tend to give tons of loans to many many companies. The collapse of such a large bank like Goldman Sachs would completely cripple monetary flow for a much larger area that just financial services-many companies would be forced to call in loans and sell assets, which begins a massive chain reaction that severely destabilizes our economy. In that sense, to protect the rest of America from the collapse of a bank, they had to bail them out.
Consider the following situation: a scientist accidentally releases a culture of a supervirus that could kill millions. The only ones that are able to deal with the virus are the very group that released it. The government would thus give them money and funding to contain the virus, even if it was their fault that they released it.
ur example given is valid in justifying the government's action/intervention in ur example, but sadly u can't compare a viral outbreak with an economic bubble bursting, its like comparing a apple to an orange...
What the hell are you guys on, crack?
I used to think just like you guys in that the bailout is the stupidest thing ever.
I still think it's the stupidest thing ever. But it was also unfortunately necessary.
The economic damage done by both a viral outbreak and the massive collapse of the economic bubble would be roughly equivalent. Sure, some people may value human lives as being virtually infinite in value, but in terms of just sheer destruction the "collapse of the economic bubble" and a viral outbreak would be virtually similar. Millions, while they may still be alive, will lose everything they have, and will roam the streets preventing their kids from starving. I think people would be far more concerned about being unable to deal with something that they know they could rather than dealing with a virus that they have no control over.
the largest issue i have w/ your analogy is that for it to be more accurate would be to acknowledge that you cannot ever be sure if the company that created it can really resolve it how they say that can, and also, you can never really be that sure that they are the only method for resolution...
EDIT: Especially if that company has been operating in the negative for all of it's recent history, and has given you no reason to believe them.
On January 09 2010 09:31 iamho wrote: this guy was in the times or the economist a few months ago. but honestly, it doesnt take a genius to spout government is evil libertarian doomsday crap
Actually it is pretty difficult and he clearly demonstrates why with the resistance he receives from people like you. It would be nice if you mentioned a view of Libertarianism that is "doomsday bull crap." It would help! Since you wish me to evoke telekinesis may I start by asking you why it is a good idea for a government to give peoples money to save nonperforming failing companies? Is it so perhaps its CEOs and directors can buy a plane or their children a Ferrari (what deep thinkers like you call stimulating the economy)? That would seem like a really stupid idea. It would seem like it is a better idea to let performing companies survive and prosper to take their place. Isn't that the whole damn point to a free market; a certain evolution of the economy. I might have to agree with you that this stuff is easy after all!
you guys clearly do not understand the idea of cash flow im not saying that we should be bailing out companies but at this point we really had no choice.
consider this: I have 1 brillion dollars in assets. Most of these assets are in the form of money that I have loaned or invested into many different things. For instance, I may have 500 million in the form of a CD, or certificate of deposit, or something with a similar policy (i.e. I can't touch the money without penalties before the due date) Let's say I borrowed some money to make an investment (which is necessary in this day and age for tax reasons) and I thought that it was good and would be a safe investment. Say... 300 million dollars. I use leverage, which means that I can invest 100 million to make an investment worth 1 brillion. Therefore, a gain of 10% in the investment will profit me 100 million dollars. Similarly, a loss of 10% would make me lose 100 million dollars, or would wipe out the initial investment. Now let's say this investment was flawed, because people were lying about the actual securities and nobody (especially Fannie and Freddie) knew what was going on. So I take a 40% loss on my investment. Now I'm out 400 million. I don't have enough in liquid money to pay back the 400 million, so I'm forced to call in my assets (such as the loans from other companies) at a steep discount rate to pay it back. By discount rate, I mean since I'm calling back loans before they are due, I forfeit interest on my loan, etc. so I may sell 500 billion in assets and end up with 350 million instead. So not only do I lose money from the initial investment, but I lose money in selling assets to pay it back. So in the end, I'm actually down 550 million from a 10% loss.
The second thing it does is it causes money to be taken from other people who are using the money. If I am a company that borrowed 100 million from the bank above, and they call back their loan, sure, I may save money by not paying interest. But I don't have 100 million in cash on me. Therefore, I need to sell off my assets to get this 100 million, which in turn means that I either have to take a loss or call in outstanding loans/credit, which continues the chain of recognized losses.
Without the bailout, we would have taken at least a 40% hit immediately.
I'm not saying it was a good thing, however-it was basically extortion.
Consider this, how is it morally justfiable to use taxpayers money to speculate in a failing firm? If you have bad cash flow, take a loan but is itsn't the goverments business at all.
i didn't say it was morally justifiable to use taxpayers money, i said it was extortion.
like i said, the problem with such a big fucking bank is that it tend to give tons of loans to many many companies. The collapse of such a large bank like Goldman Sachs would completely cripple monetary flow for a much larger area that just financial services-many companies would be forced to call in loans and sell assets, which begins a massive chain reaction that severely destabilizes our economy. In that sense, to protect the rest of America from the collapse of a bank, they had to bail them out.
Consider the following situation: a scientist accidentally releases a culture of a supervirus that could kill millions. The only ones that are able to deal with the virus are the very group that released it. The government would thus give them money and funding to contain the virus, even if it was their fault that they released it.
ur example given is valid in justifying the government's action/intervention in ur example, but sadly u can't compare a viral outbreak with an economic bubble bursting, its like comparing a apple to an orange...
What the hell are you guys on, crack?
I used to think just like you guys in that the bailout is the stupidest thing ever.
I still think it's the stupidest thing ever. But it was also unfortunately necessary.
The economic damage done by both a viral outbreak and the massive collapse of the economic bubble would be roughly equivalent. Sure, some people may value human lives as being virtually infinite in value, but in terms of just sheer destruction the "collapse of the economic bubble" and a viral outbreak would be virtually similar. Millions, while they may still be alive, will lose everything they have, and will roam the streets preventing their kids from starving. I think people would be far more concerned about being unable to deal with something that they know they could rather than dealing with a virus that they have no control over.
the largest issue i have w/ your analogy is that for it to be more accurate would be to acknowledge that you cannot ever be sure if the company that created it can really resolve it how they say that can, and also, you can never really be that sure that they are the only method for resolution...
EDIT: Especially if that company has been operating in the negative for all of it's recent history, and has given you no reason to believe them.
valid argument but i was thinking of something off the top of my head. the very idea of a metaphor is that there will be some inherent flaws with it. Still you're nitpicking here.
On January 09 2010 09:31 iamho wrote: this guy was in the times or the economist a few months ago. but honestly, it doesnt take a genius to spout government is evil libertarian doomsday crap
Actually it is pretty difficult and he clearly demonstrates why with the resistance he receives from people like you. It would be nice if you mentioned a view of Libertarianism that is "doomsday bull crap." It would help! Since you wish me to evoke telekinesis may I start by asking you why it is a good idea for a government to give peoples money to save nonperforming failing companies? Is it so perhaps its CEOs and directors can buy a plane or their children a Ferrari (what deep thinkers like you call stimulating the economy)? That would seem like a really stupid idea. It would seem like it is a better idea to let performing companies survive and prosper to take their place. Isn't that the whole damn point to a free market; a certain evolution of the economy. I might have to agree with you that this stuff is easy after all!
you guys clearly do not understand the idea of cash flow im not saying that we should be bailing out companies but at this point we really had no choice.
consider this: I have 1 brillion dollars in assets. Most of these assets are in the form of money that I have loaned or invested into many different things. For instance, I may have 500 million in the form of a CD, or certificate of deposit, or something with a similar policy (i.e. I can't touch the money without penalties before the due date) Let's say I borrowed some money to make an investment (which is necessary in this day and age for tax reasons) and I thought that it was good and would be a safe investment. Say... 300 million dollars. I use leverage, which means that I can invest 100 million to make an investment worth 1 brillion. Therefore, a gain of 10% in the investment will profit me 100 million dollars. Similarly, a loss of 10% would make me lose 100 million dollars, or would wipe out the initial investment. Now let's say this investment was flawed, because people were lying about the actual securities and nobody (especially Fannie and Freddie) knew what was going on. So I take a 40% loss on my investment. Now I'm out 400 million. I don't have enough in liquid money to pay back the 400 million, so I'm forced to call in my assets (such as the loans from other companies) at a steep discount rate to pay it back. By discount rate, I mean since I'm calling back loans before they are due, I forfeit interest on my loan, etc. so I may sell 500 billion in assets and end up with 350 million instead. So not only do I lose money from the initial investment, but I lose money in selling assets to pay it back. So in the end, I'm actually down 550 million from a 10% loss.
The second thing it does is it causes money to be taken from other people who are using the money. If I am a company that borrowed 100 million from the bank above, and they call back their loan, sure, I may save money by not paying interest. But I don't have 100 million in cash on me. Therefore, I need to sell off my assets to get this 100 million, which in turn means that I either have to take a loss or call in outstanding loans/credit, which continues the chain of recognized losses.
Without the bailout, we would have taken at least a 40% hit immediately.
I'm not saying it was a good thing, however-it was basically extortion.
Consider this, how is it morally justfiable to use taxpayers money to speculate in a failing firm? If you have bad cash flow, take a loan but is itsn't the goverments business at all.
i didn't say it was morally justifiable to use taxpayers money, i said it was extortion.
like i said, the problem with such a big fucking bank is that it tend to give tons of loans to many many companies. The collapse of such a large bank like Goldman Sachs would completely cripple monetary flow for a much larger area that just financial services-many companies would be forced to call in loans and sell assets, which begins a massive chain reaction that severely destabilizes our economy. In that sense, to protect the rest of America from the collapse of a bank, they had to bail them out.
Consider the following situation: a scientist accidentally releases a culture of a supervirus that could kill millions. The only ones that are able to deal with the virus are the very group that released it. The government would thus give them money and funding to contain the virus, even if it was their fault that they released it.
ur example given is valid in justifying the government's action/intervention in ur example, but sadly u can't compare a viral outbreak with an economic bubble bursting, its like comparing a apple to an orange...
What the hell are you guys on, crack?
I used to think just like you guys in that the bailout is the stupidest thing ever.
I still think it's the stupidest thing ever. But it was also unfortunately necessary.
The economic damage done by both a viral outbreak and the massive collapse of the economic bubble would be roughly equivalent. Sure, some people may value human lives as being virtually infinite in value, but in terms of just sheer destruction the "collapse of the economic bubble" and a viral outbreak would be virtually similar. Millions, while they may still be alive, will lose everything they have, and will roam the streets preventing their kids from starving. I think people would be far more concerned about being unable to deal with something that they know they could rather than dealing with a virus that they have no control over.
the largest issue i have w/ your analogy is that for it to be more accurate would be to acknowledge that you cannot ever be sure if the company that created it can really resolve it how they say that can, and also, you can never really be that sure that they are the only method for resolution...
EDIT: Especially if that company has been operating in the negative for all of it's recent history, and has given you no reason to believe them.
valid argument but i was thinking of something off the top of my head. the very idea of a metaphor is that there will be some inherent flaws with it. Still you're nitpicking here.
It wasn't my intention to nitpick, I was simply saying that while your analogy works for many things. The real issue here is that while the bailout is one possible solution. It's not the only one. Renationalizing the FED, and rebalancing the budget, and numerous other options are available.
What I'm saying is that, by bailing out companies we're just perpetuating a failing system. Bailing them out is great is we're also going to make big changes to policy (which isn't happening). If we don't change the system, we're just fueling an engine, and we're running out of gas.
On January 09 2010 09:31 iamho wrote: this guy was in the times or the economist a few months ago. but honestly, it doesnt take a genius to spout government is evil libertarian doomsday crap
Actually it is pretty difficult and he clearly demonstrates why with the resistance he receives from people like you. It would be nice if you mentioned a view of Libertarianism that is "doomsday bull crap." It would help! Since you wish me to evoke telekinesis may I start by asking you why it is a good idea for a government to give peoples money to save nonperforming failing companies? Is it so perhaps its CEOs and directors can buy a plane or their children a Ferrari (what deep thinkers like you call stimulating the economy)? That would seem like a really stupid idea. It would seem like it is a better idea to let performing companies survive and prosper to take their place. Isn't that the whole damn point to a free market; a certain evolution of the economy. I might have to agree with you that this stuff is easy after all!
you guys clearly do not understand the idea of cash flow im not saying that we should be bailing out companies but at this point we really had no choice.
consider this: I have 1 brillion dollars in assets. Most of these assets are in the form of money that I have loaned or invested into many different things. For instance, I may have 500 million in the form of a CD, or certificate of deposit, or something with a similar policy (i.e. I can't touch the money without penalties before the due date) Let's say I borrowed some money to make an investment (which is necessary in this day and age for tax reasons) and I thought that it was good and would be a safe investment. Say... 300 million dollars. I use leverage, which means that I can invest 100 million to make an investment worth 1 brillion. Therefore, a gain of 10% in the investment will profit me 100 million dollars. Similarly, a loss of 10% would make me lose 100 million dollars, or would wipe out the initial investment. Now let's say this investment was flawed, because people were lying about the actual securities and nobody (especially Fannie and Freddie) knew what was going on. So I take a 40% loss on my investment. Now I'm out 400 million. I don't have enough in liquid money to pay back the 400 million, so I'm forced to call in my assets (such as the loans from other companies) at a steep discount rate to pay it back. By discount rate, I mean since I'm calling back loans before they are due, I forfeit interest on my loan, etc. so I may sell 500 billion in assets and end up with 350 million instead. So not only do I lose money from the initial investment, but I lose money in selling assets to pay it back. So in the end, I'm actually down 550 million from a 10% loss.
The second thing it does is it causes money to be taken from other people who are using the money. If I am a company that borrowed 100 million from the bank above, and they call back their loan, sure, I may save money by not paying interest. But I don't have 100 million in cash on me. Therefore, I need to sell off my assets to get this 100 million, which in turn means that I either have to take a loss or call in outstanding loans/credit, which continues the chain of recognized losses.
Without the bailout, we would have taken at least a 40% hit immediately.
I'm not saying it was a good thing, however-it was basically extortion.
Consider this, how is it morally justfiable to use taxpayers money to speculate in a failing firm? If you have bad cash flow, take a loan but is itsn't the goverments business at all.
i didn't say it was morally justifiable to use taxpayers money, i said it was extortion.
like i said, the problem with such a big fucking bank is that it tend to give tons of loans to many many companies. The collapse of such a large bank like Goldman Sachs would completely cripple monetary flow for a much larger area that just financial services-many companies would be forced to call in loans and sell assets, which begins a massive chain reaction that severely destabilizes our economy. In that sense, to protect the rest of America from the collapse of a bank, they had to bail them out.
Consider the following situation: a scientist accidentally releases a culture of a supervirus that could kill millions. The only ones that are able to deal with the virus are the very group that released it. The government would thus give them money and funding to contain the virus, even if it was their fault that they released it.
ur example given is valid in justifying the government's action/intervention in ur example, but sadly u can't compare a viral outbreak with an economic bubble bursting, its like comparing a apple to an orange...
What the hell are you guys on, crack?
I used to think just like you guys in that the bailout is the stupidest thing ever.
I still think it's the stupidest thing ever. But it was also unfortunately necessary.
The economic damage done by both a viral outbreak and the massive collapse of the economic bubble would be roughly equivalent. Sure, some people may value human lives as being virtually infinite in value, but in terms of just sheer destruction the "collapse of the economic bubble" and a viral outbreak would be virtually similar. Millions, while they may still be alive, will lose everything they have, and will roam the streets preventing their kids from starving. I think people would be far more concerned about being unable to deal with something that they know they could rather than dealing with a virus that they have no control over.
Caller I have one request and one question because I know your a ecomonics major . First Say "God of war" Second does a bailout really cure this collapse, or just delay it it in your oppinion? Because it seems like the bad practices that got us into this mess are just being renewed by the bailouts and delaying the inevitable "outbreak"
On January 09 2010 09:31 iamho wrote: this guy was in the times or the economist a few months ago. but honestly, it doesnt take a genius to spout government is evil libertarian doomsday crap
Actually it is pretty difficult and he clearly demonstrates why with the resistance he receives from people like you. It would be nice if you mentioned a view of Libertarianism that is "doomsday bull crap." It would help! Since you wish me to evoke telekinesis may I start by asking you why it is a good idea for a government to give peoples money to save nonperforming failing companies? Is it so perhaps its CEOs and directors can buy a plane or their children a Ferrari (what deep thinkers like you call stimulating the economy)? That would seem like a really stupid idea. It would seem like it is a better idea to let performing companies survive and prosper to take their place. Isn't that the whole damn point to a free market; a certain evolution of the economy. I might have to agree with you that this stuff is easy after all!
you guys clearly do not understand the idea of cash flow im not saying that we should be bailing out companies but at this point we really had no choice.
consider this: I have 1 brillion dollars in assets. Most of these assets are in the form of money that I have loaned or invested into many different things. For instance, I may have 500 million in the form of a CD, or certificate of deposit, or something with a similar policy (i.e. I can't touch the money without penalties before the due date) Let's say I borrowed some money to make an investment (which is necessary in this day and age for tax reasons) and I thought that it was good and would be a safe investment. Say... 300 million dollars. I use leverage, which means that I can invest 100 million to make an investment worth 1 brillion. Therefore, a gain of 10% in the investment will profit me 100 million dollars. Similarly, a loss of 10% would make me lose 100 million dollars, or would wipe out the initial investment. Now let's say this investment was flawed, because people were lying about the actual securities and nobody (especially Fannie and Freddie) knew what was going on. So I take a 40% loss on my investment. Now I'm out 400 million. I don't have enough in liquid money to pay back the 400 million, so I'm forced to call in my assets (such as the loans from other companies) at a steep discount rate to pay it back. By discount rate, I mean since I'm calling back loans before they are due, I forfeit interest on my loan, etc. so I may sell 500 billion in assets and end up with 350 million instead. So not only do I lose money from the initial investment, but I lose money in selling assets to pay it back. So in the end, I'm actually down 550 million from a 10% loss.
The second thing it does is it causes money to be taken from other people who are using the money. If I am a company that borrowed 100 million from the bank above, and they call back their loan, sure, I may save money by not paying interest. But I don't have 100 million in cash on me. Therefore, I need to sell off my assets to get this 100 million, which in turn means that I either have to take a loss or call in outstanding loans/credit, which continues the chain of recognized losses.
Without the bailout, we would have taken at least a 40% hit immediately.
I'm not saying it was a good thing, however-it was basically extortion.
Consider this, how is it morally justfiable to use taxpayers money to speculate in a failing firm? If you have bad cash flow, take a loan but is itsn't the goverments business at all.
i didn't say it was morally justifiable to use taxpayers money, i said it was extortion.
like i said, the problem with such a big fucking bank is that it tend to give tons of loans to many many companies. The collapse of such a large bank like Goldman Sachs would completely cripple monetary flow for a much larger area that just financial services-many companies would be forced to call in loans and sell assets, which begins a massive chain reaction that severely destabilizes our economy. In that sense, to protect the rest of America from the collapse of a bank, they had to bail them out.
Consider the following situation: a scientist accidentally releases a culture of a supervirus that could kill millions. The only ones that are able to deal with the virus are the very group that released it. The government would thus give them money and funding to contain the virus, even if it was their fault that they released it.
ur example given is valid in justifying the government's action/intervention in ur example, but sadly u can't compare a viral outbreak with an economic bubble bursting, its like comparing a apple to an orange...
What the hell are you guys on, crack?
I used to think just like you guys in that the bailout is the stupidest thing ever.
I still think it's the stupidest thing ever. But it was also unfortunately necessary.
The economic damage done by both a viral outbreak and the massive collapse of the economic bubble would be roughly equivalent. Sure, some people may value human lives as being virtually infinite in value, but in terms of just sheer destruction the "collapse of the economic bubble" and a viral outbreak would be virtually similar. Millions, while they may still be alive, will lose everything they have, and will roam the streets preventing their kids from starving. I think people would be far more concerned about being unable to deal with something that they know they could rather than dealing with a virus that they have no control over.
please try to avoid using personal attacks to get ur arguements/points across, lets not go down the route of barbarous shouting at each other...
no doubt that the aftermath of a viral outbreak and an economic collapse causes suffering and chaos to countless individuals, but that is not my point, what u have to understand is that the economy doesn't function like a biological entity, my point is that u don't fix them both the same way because they both function of different set of laws... u don put an economist in a clinic and a doctor at a bank do u?
before we even get to debate whether if a government bailout would help the economy, u should at least know if the money of the bailout is going to be spent for the american people in the first place...
ur giving 787 Billion dollar to these incompetent fools and hope that they could fix the problem they first cause, do u realize how much of an astronomical amount of money that is? debt that will ultimately be shouldered by the american people to gamble their fate in the hands of these idiots that has proven their incompetence for over eight years? no point crying over spilt, if u are convince that these bailout is a necessary evil that people have to endure to get an economic recovery going...
can u prove that the bailout has actually benefitted the economy as a whole? where exactly have those gigantice amount of cash went? i think modern economist would very much like to see the implication of such a huge amount of cash flow does to the economy..
On January 09 2010 09:31 iamho wrote: this guy was in the times or the economist a few months ago. but honestly, it doesnt take a genius to spout government is evil libertarian doomsday crap
Actually it is pretty difficult and he clearly demonstrates why with the resistance he receives from people like you. It would be nice if you mentioned a view of Libertarianism that is "doomsday bull crap." It would help! Since you wish me to evoke telekinesis may I start by asking you why it is a good idea for a government to give peoples money to save nonperforming failing companies? Is it so perhaps its CEOs and directors can buy a plane or their children a Ferrari (what deep thinkers like you call stimulating the economy)? That would seem like a really stupid idea. It would seem like it is a better idea to let performing companies survive and prosper to take their place. Isn't that the whole damn point to a free market; a certain evolution of the economy. I might have to agree with you that this stuff is easy after all!
you guys clearly do not understand the idea of cash flow im not saying that we should be bailing out companies but at this point we really had no choice.
consider this: I have 1 brillion dollars in assets. Most of these assets are in the form of money that I have loaned or invested into many different things. For instance, I may have 500 million in the form of a CD, or certificate of deposit, or something with a similar policy (i.e. I can't touch the money without penalties before the due date) Let's say I borrowed some money to make an investment (which is necessary in this day and age for tax reasons) and I thought that it was good and would be a safe investment. Say... 300 million dollars. I use leverage, which means that I can invest 100 million to make an investment worth 1 brillion. Therefore, a gain of 10% in the investment will profit me 100 million dollars. Similarly, a loss of 10% would make me lose 100 million dollars, or would wipe out the initial investment. Now let's say this investment was flawed, because people were lying about the actual securities and nobody (especially Fannie and Freddie) knew what was going on. So I take a 40% loss on my investment. Now I'm out 400 million. I don't have enough in liquid money to pay back the 400 million, so I'm forced to call in my assets (such as the loans from other companies) at a steep discount rate to pay it back. By discount rate, I mean since I'm calling back loans before they are due, I forfeit interest on my loan, etc. so I may sell 500 billion in assets and end up with 350 million instead. So not only do I lose money from the initial investment, but I lose money in selling assets to pay it back. So in the end, I'm actually down 550 million from a 10% loss.
The second thing it does is it causes money to be taken from other people who are using the money. If I am a company that borrowed 100 million from the bank above, and they call back their loan, sure, I may save money by not paying interest. But I don't have 100 million in cash on me. Therefore, I need to sell off my assets to get this 100 million, which in turn means that I either have to take a loss or call in outstanding loans/credit, which continues the chain of recognized losses.
Without the bailout, we would have taken at least a 40% hit immediately.
I'm not saying it was a good thing, however-it was basically extortion.
Consider this, how is it morally justfiable to use taxpayers money to speculate in a failing firm? If you have bad cash flow, take a loan but is itsn't the goverments business at all.
i didn't say it was morally justifiable to use taxpayers money, i said it was extortion.
like i said, the problem with such a big fucking bank is that it tend to give tons of loans to many many companies. The collapse of such a large bank like Goldman Sachs would completely cripple monetary flow for a much larger area that just financial services-many companies would be forced to call in loans and sell assets, which begins a massive chain reaction that severely destabilizes our economy. In that sense, to protect the rest of America from the collapse of a bank, they had to bail them out.
Consider the following situation: a scientist accidentally releases a culture of a supervirus that could kill millions. The only ones that are able to deal with the virus are the very group that released it. The government would thus give them money and funding to contain the virus, even if it was their fault that they released it.
ur example given is valid in justifying the government's action/intervention in ur example, but sadly u can't compare a viral outbreak with an economic bubble bursting, its like comparing a apple to an orange...
What the hell are you guys on, crack?
I used to think just like you guys in that the bailout is the stupidest thing ever.
I still think it's the stupidest thing ever. But it was also unfortunately necessary.
The economic damage done by both a viral outbreak and the massive collapse of the economic bubble would be roughly equivalent. Sure, some people may value human lives as being virtually infinite in value, but in terms of just sheer destruction the "collapse of the economic bubble" and a viral outbreak would be virtually similar. Millions, while they may still be alive, will lose everything they have, and will roam the streets preventing their kids from starving. I think people would be far more concerned about being unable to deal with something that they know they could rather than dealing with a virus that they have no control over.
Caller I have one request and one question because I know your a ecomonics major . First Say "God of war" Second does a bailout really cure this collapse, or just delay it it in your oppinion? Because it seems like the bad practices that got us into this mess are just being renewed by the bailouts and delaying the inevitable "outbreak"
The bailout did only delay it, but the whole idea was only marginally more stupid than giving each man, woman, and child, a few thousand dollars. (which, they could have done) At least in that situation, people could have made the individual choice to pay off some debt and stop supporting the corrupt companies, but we are unwilling investors at this point.
EPT
Second does a bailout really cure this collapse, or just delay it it in your oppinion? Because it seems like the bad practices that got us into this mess are just being renewed by the bailouts and delaying the inevitable "outbreak"
