Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 01:13 pm
Yes, I am advocating letting our market crash and heading straight for recession and maybe even the D word. I know, it will suck. We'll all lose a lot. It will have global implications. We'll all get hit hard and lose savings and houses. There will be higher crime and prices and everything will just really really suck.

For a while. But maybe if we take it on the chin now we can save our kids and grandkids from having to take it in the gut later. At some point, our debts will catch up to us and the mess will be too big to clean up. That can be now or it can be later. I'm proposing we suck it now. (please don't take that last bit as a sig line without context)

Who's in?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 42 • Views: 20,563 • Replies: 434

 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 01:34 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

But maybe if we take it on the chin now ... I'm proposing we suck it now.

Who's in?


I'm in.
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 01:41 pm
@FreeDuck,
I'm not a fan of borrowing the future's money. If for nothing else I'm going to be the future for a while. But the big danger the world is trying to avoid is not a recession but a collapse of the banking systems.

A recession we can take on the chin, but you'd change your mind if you saw a run on the banks. That's the real danger that we need to avoid here, and it's something that justifies even borrowing from the future.
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 01:42 pm
@McGentrix,
sure. let the low income people like me take it in the ass while people who have savings, investments , housing and other basic thigns secured just take it in the chin.

Yup.
I will volunteer my ass . Why not



( and yes... tongue in cheek here! )
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 01:45 pm
@shewolfnm,
Low income people are going to have the hardest time now, or in the future. This theory isn't about rich versus poor, it's about our problem versus the future's problem. In either scenario the poor don't have it easy.
patiodog
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 01:59 pm
As someone who thinks the future is going to be fucked no matter what we do at this point, I'm in favor of propping up the house of cards for a little longer.
dyslexia
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:09 pm
@patiodog,
patiodog wrote:

As someone who thinks the future is going to be fucked no matter what we do at this point, I'm in favor of propping up the house of cards for a little longer.
indeed.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:38 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

patiodog wrote:

As someone who thinks the future is going to be fucked no matter what we do at this point, I'm in favor of propping up the house of cards for a little longer.
indeed.


imagine that the effected areas of the u.s. economy are a huge sun. imagine that sun has reached it's full size. and now it begins to burn up it's resources.

imagine that once huge sun finally burning up so much of it's core resources that it eventually collapses.

what you have left is a black hole.

a black hole exerts such an over arching amount of gravitational pull that it sucks in all manner of matter and anti-matter. not even light can escape.

letting it crash is a very bad idea.



0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  4  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:41 pm
Maybe the real test, for once, is let those responsible crash and burn. Save the system, put in the necessary safeguards, but hold those responsible responsible.

A whole bunch of truly wiped out stockbrokers/managers will send a much better message.
FreeDuck
 
  5  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:42 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I (think) I understand what we are talking about here. I know we are trying to prevent a run on the banks. I have no real idea of what that would mean, but I imagine its something like an economic nuclear bomb. Complete collapse. What I'm wondering is, what if what we are doing now prevents total collapse now, but virtually ensures that it happens later, but worse. I'm not basing this on anything but a really bad feeling, but it seems to me that each time we step in like this to prevent actual market consequences, we end up with a worse situation down the line.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:42 pm
@FreeDuck,
I do appreciate the sentiment, but this time I'm going to disagree.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:43 pm
@JTT,
That would be nice but, unfortunately, we are all connected.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:44 pm
@FreeDuck,
My hope is that something minimally OK happens now, then Obama wins the election, and is president for 8 years, and does a whole bunch of basic stuff that helps the economy and prevents that possible worse outcome from happening.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:50 pm
@sozobe,
I think that is the best case scenario.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:53 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Poor people have been struggling for many decades, and more so during the past eight years when the conservatives didn't want to give them a minimum wage they could live on. On top of that, the infusion of $700 billion into our economy without anything to back it up is going to create more inflation - not less. The poor will be struggling much more after this bailout.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:55 pm
@FreeDuck,
I'm skeptical too, but Warren Buffett is investing $5 billion into Goldman Sachs which tells me there's something many of us are not aware of. As far as I'm concerned Buffett is way above in skills compared to Greenspan or Bernanke.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:55 pm
@roger,
I understand, Roger.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:56 pm
How 'bout the a-hole CEOs who've been making 6 figures to take company vacations and bonuses and have driven these companies into the ground in the first place take it up the ass and leave the rest of us out of it?
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Poor people have been struggling for many decades, and more so during the past eight years when the conservatives didn't want to give them a minimum wage they could live on. On top of that, the infusion of $700 billion into our economy without anything to back it up is going to create more inflation - not less. The poor will be struggling much more after this bailout.


taxes will go up.

funny how there's been nowhere near as much flap about spending scared money to prop up iraq.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 02:58 pm
@sozobe,
Help the economy in what way? Serious question -- statement, rather-- whoever is elected in November will have a $700 Billion line item in his budget. There won't be anything left for anything else.

I like the sentiment too, FD -- but I don't see anything to do but keep piling the cards onto the house. Unfortunately this is a very heavy card.
 

Related Topics

Who or What is Responsible? - Discussion by Merry Andrew
Debt ceiling? - Question by Buffalo
More Proof that HPQ SUCKS! - Discussion by hawkeye10
The Legacy of the Reagan Revolution - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The Bush/Obunga Dark Age - Discussion by gungasnake
No real limits to growth - Discussion by gungasnake
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
Wage discrimination - Question by zewittykitty
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Let it crash
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2019 at 09:15:05