"AP - The government has abandoned the original centerpiece of its $700 billion rescue effort for the financial system and will not use the money to purchase troubled bank assets."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_ ... l_meltdown
I've never been a fan of having my tax money spent to support foolish bankers. Granted, America has been partially built on credit, but that's no reason why I should bail out the banks. Enough of what I think, though; waddya think about it?

Well, if the banks aren't bailed out, that money of yours won't mean a whole lot, at least if my theory that banks play a major role in our nation's economy holds any water.

I say let those banks die, and the people responsible for the economy problem go to hell; that is what we did over here and the economy is making a slow progress to recovery.

Seconded.

But wasn't it pretty much every major bank that did stupid things like they did?

Yeah, and that is why they all fell dead to the ground.

Allowing the banks to fail would be nothing short of disastrous. They facilitate the transfer of capital, and are essential to the way business works. Without the banks, the American economy grinds to a halt, with massive implications for the rest of the world.

Great Depression II: The Depressioning.

Also of note:

It's not like we're just giving them money we're never going to see again. This is pretty much a big government loan. Assuming they don't actually collapse, we'll get the money back a few years from now. We're all essentially shareholders now.


Also, did anyone actually read the article linked? They're pushing to expand the bailout to other non-bank companies, like credit card companies and our failing auto industry.

Perhaps Darwinism would benefic int he long run, even though it may be painful immediately.

After the banks here went down, the government constructed new ones with new administrations, but the staff of the old banks were rehired (well, most of them). Landsbankinn, Glitnir and Kaupþing became Nýji Landsbanki, Nýji Gltnir and Nýja Kaupþing. (ný = new)

Are you seriously advocating Social Darwinism here?

You seem to be under the assumption that the ones at fault are only ones getting hurt here. If the banks and auto industries go down, everyone gets hurt. Except maybe bankruptcy firms, or canned-food companies. It is not the fault of the assembly line worker that his company designs vehicles nobody wants. It is not the fault of the small business owner that he can't get a loan because a few bank execs got a little too greedy with doling out mortgages. Yet they would suffer the most here. Those execs that drove these companies into the ground? They may lose their jobs and their businesses, but they're still personally rich as hell.



What worked for Iceland won't necessarily work for us. You heard all the noise during the presidential election about SOCIALISM. The American populace could not stomach a complete government takeover of the banking and auto industry.


The bailout is not a reward for failure, unless you consider emergency airbags to be a "reward" for driving into a tree.

EDIT: Whoa, word filters?

Yeah, that part didn't slip past me. I never said it would not be painful for most or all of America, just raising the thought that it may make America stronger in the long run (i.e. 80 years down the road when most of us will be nice and dead). I don't really care if one would argue for it, against it, or completely ignore the idea. Just raising a though is all.

Oh, and I don't really see how your airbag analogy really fits. The failing banks are a result of premeditated stupidity. "Hmm, if I pretend I have more money than I really do, then life should be good." With air bags... well, you don't really plan to do something stupid on the road. Maybe an analogy that would fit better would be to compare the bank bailout to putting money into a stable savings account while you put some other money into a high-risk mutual fund.

This guy has a funny take on it.
http://www.unclejayexplains.com/2008/09 ... t-22-2008/

the banks need to die right now, they were set up all wrong. this whole credit system has been the lurking around the economy for the past 50 years, waiting to ♥♥♥♥♥ it up, and finally it is starting to. if we bail the banks out, they will continue their BS with giving out credit cards, massive loans for mortgages, and all the other things that basically rape the economy.

ill put it like this: if you want something and dont have the money for it, you better wait till you do, otherwise its gonna come back and bite a chunk off your ass.

sorry for the harsh language but it needed to be used.

We've already seen what serious bank failures can do. I don't think we want to go down that dusty road again.

Airbags and seat belts exist because of the potential for stupidity or bad luck on the road, although I suppose the car analogy would better describe something like the FDIC.

A closer analogy would be like a shipwreck. The CEOs at the helm of titanic bank firms refusing to heed warnings of potential icebergs. Allowing the firms to fail is like allowing the ship's passengers to drown, due to the importance of the firms to the economy.

Eh, that's not a very good one either. In any case, bank failures are indisputably Bad Things(tm), and I'd rather bail out a thousand greedy fools than allow an decent, hard-working man to lose his home and starve in the streets.

Man, what?

This fractional reserve system works pretty well, and it's been around far longer than 50 years. The more money we have in circulation instead of just sitting around in vaults all day, the more shit we can get done and the faster our economy grows. Every so often something bad happens, (like the aforementioned bank panics), but economists have gotten better at dealing with them.

The economy is just so damn big that we don't have a complete understanding of it all fits together, and still new stuff is added to the mix.

I don't think Siavash was referring to the real money people spend, but instead the fake money that banks pretend they have. It is a system that really does work as long as we don't get too many people who want their money all at once. Credit has increased the GDP above what it could have been without credit, but it does carry its own risks with consequences. We're just observing the consequence of the risk. Simple as that, right?

ditto, hence the word "credit"