Thread: Could the Economic Collapse have been deliberate?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

George W Bush bailed out the banks in September, '08. Obama bailed out the auto-industry.

Also, it's hardly a salient point. The bail-outs ensure the lenders face no consequences, whether they were the ones giving out the bad loans or the ones the buying them up.

I don't think "salient" means what you think it means. Might want to dictionary.com that shit.

Go fuck yourself. Do you have anything valuable to add?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Go fuck yourself. Do you have anything valuable to add?

Knowing the meanings of words is sort of a prerequisite for discussion, OD.

Stop derailing my thread and respond with something pertaining to the discussion or GTFO

Stop getting butthurt over stupid shit. If you didn't know what a word means, thank cmind for correcting you. If you did know what it means, rephrase the sentence without using the word 'salient'.

simple?

I was fucking exhausted last night, I had to edit every post I made just because I couldn't think clearly. I know what salient means, I was just reading cmind's tone and not paying very much attention. I have no intention of thanking him for this off-topic discussion. It sounds like he doesn't intend to respond to my points and would rather get hung up on my misuse of a fucking word.

Does that remind you of someone?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

It sounds like he doesn't intend to respond to my points and would rather get hung up on my misuse of a fucking word.

Does that remind you of someone?

Yes it does. Thank you very much. I have always tried to think clearly. How do you respond to a point if you don't know what it is? How do you know what a point is if you don't understand the language in which it's phrased?

Why don't you ask yourself the same question? You responded to my posts in Extra Dimensions while clearly showing you did not understand my point.

I'm still lost as to what Cmind was trying to say, actually. Do you know what he was trying to say?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Why don't you ask yourself the same question? You responded to my posts in Extra Dimensions while clearly showing you did not understand my point.

I'm still lost as to what Cmind was trying to say, actually. Do you know what he was trying to say?

The key point was that the moral hazard of backroom-guaranteed government bailouts are the factor that made risky lending profitable for banks. Without bailouts*, there would be no "predatory lending".

*Actually, bailouts and 0% interest loans from the Fed.

Exactly, the banks have no obligation to economic stability and are actually rewarded for plunging us into recession because they not only get to swallow up all the foreclosed farms and businesses but they don't even have to pay for them.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Exactly, the banks have no obligation to economic stability and are actually rewarded for plunging us into recession because they not only get to swallow up all the foreclosed farms and businesses but they don't even have to pay for them.

However, some folks differ on the solution. I say we take away the government's power to perform bailouts, print money, and control interest rates. Either go to a gold standard or just let the free people create their own currencies. See Liberty Dollars for an example of such an effort (shut down by the FBI, big fuckin surprise).

I think the only people that don't agree the government should be inhibited from loans, corporate welfare, bail-outs, etc are people not very educated in our economic system. Somehow the logic is that if you help the people with social welfare, they'll take advantage and become lazy... but the banks...

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I think the only people that don't agree the government should be inhibited from loans, corporate welfare, bail-outs, etc are people not very educated in our economic system. Somehow the logic is that if you help the people with social welfare, they'll take advantage and become lazy... but the banks...

Some welfare recipients take advantage too. Furthermore, from a strictly moral standpoint, it's always wrong to take one person's money by force and give it to another, regardless of who it eventually goes to. If it's wrong when I do it, it's wrong when the government does it.

The second thing to consider is that the only reason the welfare system is as expansive as it is, is because the government can sell bonds at a low interest rate and people buy them. The only reason people buy them is because the government gives them bailouts (sometimes through the IMF). So if you want to eliminate bailouts, you would also need to severely cut back on welfare, SS, pensions, etc. They are inexorably linked.

Anyone think the government will be overthrown any time soon?
That would really just be great.

Originally Posted by cmind

Some welfare recipients take advantage too. Furthermore, from a strictly moral standpoint, it's always wrong to take one person's money by force and give it to another, regardless of who it eventually goes to. If it's wrong when I do it, it's wrong when the government does it.

The second thing to consider is that the only reason the welfare system is as expansive as it is, is because the government can sell bonds at a low interest rate and people buy them. The only reason people buy them is because the government gives them bailouts (sometimes through the IMF). So if you want to eliminate bailouts, you would also need to severely cut back on welfare, SS, pensions, etc. They are inexorably linked.

This is not true, you're linking these systems with logical leaps when they aren't necessarily linked economically. They only became linked under GWB who started pulling from Social Security to begin with. Social Security was never intended to be tied to the federal monetary system nor the IMF.

Furthermore, when you make people work 50-60 hours a week in a factory at minimum wage (thank god we at least have that) and make millions in profit a year, that's stealing their work by force, too. They are required to submit to a system that robs them of their time and energy because it's the only way to feed their family, and all their hard work is used to line somebody else's pockets. This is the definition of taking advantage. Social Justice (such as Social security) is what our working ancestors fought for in order to correct this imbalance.