Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Downturn

3 (6%)

Recession

20 (40%)

Depression

11 (22%)

Paradigm Shift

6 (12%)

Apocalypse

10 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 50

[Aqizzar]

Even if I loose my job, I could probably find more work. And if nobody's hiring, well, there's always the Canadian Outback. Go up north with six buddies and a carfull of booze and start a new mountainhome... I mean commune.

You can't possibly really think that just tromping out into the woods with a gun will let you ride out a worldwide economic meltdown.  Though I admit that the Canadian wilderness is big enough that you could still turn into an oldfashioned mountain man.  I hear they still have plots of land open to first-come-claim homesteading.

Speaking seriously though, no economic depression is or ever could be the end of the world.  As long as a populace with educated people exists, an economy can be rebuilt to fulfill it's productive potential.  Economists point to Japan and Germany after WWII.  Their economies were as obliterated, financially and physically, as anything could ever be obliterated, and they were back on their feet inside of ten years.  Dark Ages don't happen within human lifetimes, because it requires the wholesale loss of technical ability and knowhow.  Even if all money disappears in a puff of smoke, eventually people get bored enough to just rebuild without an eye to cost.

[mainiac]

What I love about this crises is that it's finally giving hippie communism an intellectual equivalent in the capitalist camp.  Imagine the following statement in a wasted hippie voice:

"Man, the people on wall street are so greedy.  We can't trust them.  We need to get back the basics.  You know, what really matters."

Now read the same sentence, but in the angry bitter tone of those more recently outraged.  It fits perfectly!

...face it people.  Greed is always going to exist.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  Human greed has been channeled in very productive avenues in the past.  So please stop pretending that people will turn into angels if they just use the right kind of elbow grease or smoke the right plant.  The system was working pretty well until our leadership got stupid and ideological.  Getting stupid in favor of a different ideology would be learning the exact wrong lesson.

[Ignoro]

We have been so overdue for a depression. I fully expect another world-wide great depression.

[mainiac]

We have been so overdue for a depression. I fully expect another world-wide great depression.

"Overdue"?

[Bromor Neckbeard]

I voted for "depression".  Maybe it's more serious in small-town redneckland hicksville, but this morning when I looked in the help-wanted section of the newspaper, it said, "kittens free to a good home."  Yeah, there were exactly ZERO jobs posted in the help-wanted ads, so it skipped to the pets section.  I and roughly half of my friends have recently lost our jobs, and FUCKING WAL-MART and MICKEY D'S ARE NOT HIRING in my area!  Hell, the local day-labor place didn't send out a single worker after 5:45 this morning.

I actually had the water and gas turned off at my house this morning because I didn't get the check sent out in time, it would have bounced if I hadn't waited until yesterday to send it.  I'm eating ramen noodles and peanut butter three meals a day for the foreseeable future.

Paradigm shift?  I detest that phrase.  Apocalypse?  Well, I don't see any stars giving off black light or forty-foot letters of fire in the sky or the dead walking the Earth, so I can't say "Apocalypse", but it's pretty goddamn bad.

That said, I'm against the protection of banks. Frankly I hope they collapse. All of them. It'll be tough on the economy- in fact after the dust has settled it may never be the same- but our life-styles will be the better for it.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Better?  Unless you're Parker or Niko Bellic, I think not.  If the banking system collapses, how will you collect a paycheck?  Are your employers going to just pay everybody in cash?  It sounds like a great idea until somebody shoots you in the back of the head and takes your wallet so that his kids get something to eat this week.  Remember, losing is NOT fun in real life.

I think nationalizing the banking system is a nauseating idea (I'm a fairly conservative/libertarian type).  Go down to your local DMV if you want to see a good example of how well the government runs things, in my experience.  Despite that, I'm now leaning toward partially nationalizing the banking system, because as bad a job as the government could do at it, it would be physically impossible to do a worse job than Wall Street did this past year.  Freakin' Alan Greenspan admitted that deregulation didn't work because he didn't ever think that the banking system could be so full of such short-sighted greedy assholes.  (I may have altered his phrasing a little.)

We don't need the financial system to collapse.  We need a collective cultural move away from being superficial goddamn retards.  We need Barack to go on TV and say, "Hey, MORONS, if your job doesn't involve driving around in the desert and shooting Jawas, you don't need a Hummer to pick up dinner!  If you don't have your house paid off, you don't need to rent-to-own a plasma TV wider than your garage!"  Maybe if he had Tila Tequila and Kim Kardashian dancing beside him, Americans would pay attention.

[JoshuaFH]

I'm not adding anything to the discussion, I just want this topic to be listed in my "Show new replies to your posts" thing, so I can keep up-to-date!

I wish I were more knowledgeable, so I could discuss topics like these. I do enjoy reading them however.

[PTTG??]

We don't need the financial system to collapse.  We need a collective cultural move away from being superficial goddamn retards.  We need Barack to go on TV and say, "Hey, MORONS, if your job doesn't involve driving around in the desert and shooting Jawas, you don't need a Hummer to pick up dinner!  If you don't have your house paid off, you don't need to rent-to-own a plasma TV wider than your garage!"  Maybe if he had Tila Tequila and Kim Kardashian dancing beside him, Americans would pay attention.

I think that's what it all comes down to. People living beyond their needs.

[Granite26]

We don't need the financial system to collapse.  We need a collective cultural move away from being superficial goddamn retards.  We need Barack to go on TV and say, "Hey, MORONS, if your job doesn't involve driving around in the desert and shooting Jawas, you don't need a Hummer to pick up dinner!  If you don't have your house paid off, you don't need to rent-to-own a plasma TV wider than your garage!"  Maybe if he had Tila Tequila and Kim Kardashian dancing beside him, Americans would pay attention.

I didn't need anyone to tell me that... Come to think of it, I'm employed (although my company is in a merger and bankrupt) and have good prospects even if my company goes under.  If that fails, I've got enough cash to live on for a while

Saying that the president needs to play father figure just shows how juvenile we've become as a society. 

You're right... people need to be responsible, but it's not the governments job to tell them or make them, unless by make them you mean take away the other options

[Aqizzar]

Look, there's a lot more going on here than failure of personal responsibility.  There are serious economic concerns at work, some of which (the bad loans, price undercutting, massive federal budget waste) are precisely the fault of an inoperable government.  There are rules against a lot of the banking practices that got this mess started in the first place, and room to write new rules for things that aren't covered.  The problem is that for the last 25 years, and the last 8 especially, the nation and the people it elects have been convinced of the idea that the less the federal government does about anything, the better.

Governments don't spring into existence just to be the enemy of progress and efficiency, and aren't run by mustache-twirlers who cackle as they light your money on fire.  Demonstrably, quite a few banks are.  That is what the government is for, stopping practices that take advantage of people's money or trust, and helping solve problems without an eye to personal profit.

For this banking problem specifically, that is exactly why nationalization is the answer, because it can short-circuit the market logic that has destroyed the credit pool.  Right now, there are loads of banks stuck with mortgages that can never be repaid and bond-bundles in other banks stuck with similar bad mortgages.  So they can't lend out credit to responsible businesses and customers, because they've got too much capital tied up in these funds that will never return to them to give up now, at least according to the rules of operating a normal business; but at the same time can't do anything with them, and risk being dragged into complete insolvency.  If the government takes over a bank, it can then liquidate or even just dissolve those crippling assets, because a government is under no obligation to turn a profit.  Once those assets are gone, the banks will then be solvent enough to attract clients and customers again, and then afford to lend credit, and on we go with a functioning market.  It worked in Sweden and Germany, and it'll work here too.

This crap about how the government taking any direct action into a business will instantly turn it into a bastard child of the Vagonka and the Post Office has to stop, along with the rest of this Reagan-myth, "the government is always the problem" nonsense.  Every two years, politicians of every stripe are forced to go out and campaign on a platform of how government is wasteful and paralyzed, and only they can solve it.  Then they get in power and proceed to throw money away and cripple programs, then go back out and campaign on waste and paralysis again.  Maybe, just maybe, if you had a little faith in your government and elected people who wanted to make it do things for you, you'd actually see some activity you can be proud of.

[Yanlin]

Look, there's a lot more going on here than failure of personal responsibility.  There are serious economic concerns at work, some of which (the bad loans, price undercutting, massive federal budget waste) are precisely the fault of an inoperable government.  There are rules against a lot of the banking practices that got this mess started in the first place, and room to write new rules for things that aren't covered.  The problem is that for the last 25 years, and the last 8 especially, the nation and the people it elects have been convinced of the idea that the less the federal government does about anything, the better.

Governments don't spring into existence just to be the enemy of progress and efficiency, and aren't run by mustache-twirlers who cackle as they light your money on fire.  Demonstrably, quite a few banks are.  That is what the government is for, stopping practices that take advantage of people's money or trust, and helping solve problems without an eye to personal profit.

For this banking problem specifically, that is exactly why nationalization is the answer, because it can short-circuit the market logic that has destroyed the credit pool.  Right now, there are loads of banks stuck with mortgages that can never be repaid and bond-bundles in other banks stuck with similar bad mortgages.  So they can't lend out credit to responsible businesses and customers, because they've got too much capital tied up in these funds that will never return to them to give up now, at least according to the rules of operating a normal business; but at the same time can't do anything with them, and risk being dragged into complete insolvency.  If the government takes over a bank, it can then liquidate or even just dissolve those crippling assets, because a government is under no obligation to turn a profit.  Once those assets are gone, the banks will then be solvent enough to attract clients and customers again, and then afford to lend credit, and on we go with a functioning market.  It worked in Sweden and Germany, and it'll work here too.

This crap about how the government taking any direct action into a business will instantly turn it into a bastard child of the Vagonka and the Post Office has to stop, along with the rest of this Reagan-myth, "the government is always the problem" nonsense.  Every two years, politicians of every stripe are forced to go out and campaign on a platform of how government is wasteful and paralyzed, and only they can solve it.  Then they get in power and proceed to throw money away and cripple programs, then go back out and campaign on waste and paralysis again.  Maybe, just maybe, if you had a little faith in your government and elected people who wanted to make it do things for you, you'd actually see some activity you can be proud of.

I agree. But you should watch your wording. You sounded like a government agent right now.

[Granite26]

Every two years, politicians of every stripe are forced to go out and campaign on a platform of how government is wasteful and paralyzed, and only they can solve it.  Then they get in power and proceed to throw money away and cripple programs, then go back out and campaign on waste and paralysis again.  Maybe, just maybe, if you had a little faith in your government and elected people who wanted to make it do things for you, you'd actually see some activity you can be proud of.

So the reason that government is wasteful is because we don't believe in our politicians?

Poppycock.

I'm sorry, but I DO believe that the government is the problem, that bad loans are a personal problem for the banks and individuals involved, exacerbated by a federal government promoting the selfish desires of the uninformed masses, and that everytime we think the answer is 'give the government more power, they'll use it wisely and give it back when they're done' God eats a kitten.

I believe that the problem is caused by giving uninformed, uninterested people a say in the affairs of others and enforcing that say with threat of force, that being the definition of modern democracy.

You may be anxious to give up any form of personal responsibility or independence, but I'll kindly thank you from assuming that it is a given fact that the government should shove a gun in my face to make me do what you think is right, and worse yet make me pay for the bullet beforehand.

Sure there are companies out there doing bad things, BUT NONE OF THEM HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FORCE YOU TO INVEST IN THEM.  Should the government stop companies from lying to investers and prosecute those that do, sure.  Should the government get to define what an investor needs in order to invest?  Who is more able to make that decision?  Who is best able to determine where I should spend my money?

Modern democracy is little more than mob rule, where the mob doesn't even have to put up with the consequences of it's actions.  Politicians are elected based on 3 second sound bytes because all voters have to put on the line is a pull of the lever, and beyond that have no control over the process.  At least I can choose which companies get my money.

[Andir]

The problem I have with Bailouts is that people have no sense of loss or care.  They think that they just have to bring down enough people and someone will step in and fix their mistakes.  People need to fail to learn.

[Aqizzar]

I believe that the problem is caused by giving uninformed, uninterested people a say in the affairs of others and enforcing that say with threat of force, that being the definition of modern democracy.

You may be anxious to give up any form of personal responsibility or independence, but I'll kindly thank you from assuming that it is a given fact that the government should shove a gun in my face to make me do what you think is right, and worse yet make me pay for the bullet beforehand.

Who said anything about "personal responsibilities or independence"?  This is exactly the kind of paranoid, pigheaded Internet-libertarianism I'm talking about.

Temporary nationalization of a banking system does not equate totalitarianism.  It does not mean that all the private banks would suddenly disappear and be replaced by a monolithic Big Brother Bank.  It means the government would dissolve assets these banks can't get rid of themselves, while they continue to otherwise manage their own affairs.  Then, after a certain time or conditions are met, the banks are released back out as public companies, as would be written into the the bill authorizing the action from the get go (or you can be sure it would never pass anyway).

Is it an absolution of responsibility, both on the part of the poorly run banks and the fools who bought into them?  Yes.  Will it fix the solvency problem crippling the business world?  Yes.  Is one more important than the other?  Yes, and which is a matter of ideology.  But it's a choice with practical outcomes - favoring one side of the argument will accomplish nothing but further paralysis, while the other will allow credit to keep sound companies operating and employing.

All in all, you need to get over yourself, and realize that sometimes the system does work as advertised, and that people aren't stupid just because they make decisions you wouldn't.  Cynicism and indignation does not make you factually correct, and the government is not out to get you.  You live in America, you're subject to it's system.  In the end, you've got a pretty limited selection of choices.

Do you want to vote for a guy who promises to make the government help you, and maybe fucks it up along the way?  Or do you want to vote for a guy who actively promises he'll keep the government from trying to help you?

Do you want to live within the system and find good results under the noise of criticism?  Or do you want to live within the system and be ineffectually pissed off about it?

Those are your options.  If you're not happy with them, find a candidate for a meaningful office who agrees with your views and help him win.  If that sounds like an unrealistically daunting challenge, you're right.  No one ever promised you life would be accommodating.

The problem I have with Bailouts is that people have no sense of loss or care.  They think that they just have to bring down enough people and someone will step in and fix their mistakes.  People need to fail to learn.

When you say "people", who are you talking about exactly?  The managers of these firms?  Voters?  There's a lot of blame being cast about in here, and I can't tell where it's all falling.

[Yanlin]

Sigh. This is just going to turn into a "You're wrong!" war.

But I'm going to side with Aqizzar. Those uninformed masses you talk about, you're no better than them Granite.

[Aqizzar]

One of us has demonstrable history on our side, and the other has outmoded rhetoric.  Besides, I haven't been in a proper flamewar in a while.