Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › We should remove private banks

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 81 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Author
    Posts
  • May 7, 2009 at 1:33 PM #394555
    aldante
    Participant

    [quote=DoJC]And what would be the alternative? Do you actually think that government run institutions would be better?

    Weren’t Fannie/Freddie/Indy one of the first entities to encounter massive problems? How did these GSEs fare?[/quote]

    Best alternative I have seen is right here:

    Stress Tests and The Nationalization We Got

    Bottom line is that they are already nationalized the tax payer is just on the hook for losses…the executives get the profits – this is, unless something is done.

    May 7, 2009 at 2:41 PM #395067
    sdduuuude
    Participant

    Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant

    May 7, 2009 at 2:41 PM #395263
    sdduuuude
    Participant

    Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant

    May 7, 2009 at 2:41 PM #395120
    sdduuuude
    Participant

    Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant

    May 7, 2009 at 2:41 PM #394850
    sdduuuude
    Participant

    Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant

    May 7, 2009 at 2:41 PM #394595
    sdduuuude
    Participant

    Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant

    May 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM #394970
    patientrenter
    Participant

    I realize that we do have to use our govt to provide some public essentials like legal process, roads, etc. Why? Because sometimes it’s just too difficult to arrange for these things to be managed the way we like through private parties. It’s convenient to have a broad framework already set up for the “little people” (that’s you and me) to go about our personal goals of making our lives happier and more fulfilling.

    But we also have to be realistic about what we are doing when we cede control from private parties to the govt. The govt is just a bunch of politicians, supported by professional bureaucrats and special interest lobbyists. They are not (all) evil, but I don’t feel like giving them the keys to the kingdom either. And yes, I know the private parties are dominated by (evil) bankers and other people we don’t like, but we are all private parties. Would you rather give up all of your limited freedoms to ensure that the fat rich guy next door had none too?

    I would love to see all the nasty bankers get their comeuppance by having all govt support withdrawn. Then the bad banks would collapse, and the good banks would grow like gangbusters. Some very cozy relationships would be disrupted, and some very comfortable people would feel pain. By and large, the careless and irresponsible would lose the most, and responsible and careful people would do well. Suits me. But I don’t want the govt involved for any longer than it needs to be. We only need govt involvement for a long time if we plan to subsidize the irresponsible.

    May 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM #395382
    patientrenter
    Participant

    I realize that we do have to use our govt to provide some public essentials like legal process, roads, etc. Why? Because sometimes it’s just too difficult to arrange for these things to be managed the way we like through private parties. It’s convenient to have a broad framework already set up for the “little people” (that’s you and me) to go about our personal goals of making our lives happier and more fulfilling.

    But we also have to be realistic about what we are doing when we cede control from private parties to the govt. The govt is just a bunch of politicians, supported by professional bureaucrats and special interest lobbyists. They are not (all) evil, but I don’t feel like giving them the keys to the kingdom either. And yes, I know the private parties are dominated by (evil) bankers and other people we don’t like, but we are all private parties. Would you rather give up all of your limited freedoms to ensure that the fat rich guy next door had none too?

    I would love to see all the nasty bankers get their comeuppance by having all govt support withdrawn. Then the bad banks would collapse, and the good banks would grow like gangbusters. Some very cozy relationships would be disrupted, and some very comfortable people would feel pain. By and large, the careless and irresponsible would lose the most, and responsible and careful people would do well. Suits me. But I don’t want the govt involved for any longer than it needs to be. We only need govt involvement for a long time if we plan to subsidize the irresponsible.

    May 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM #395242
    patientrenter
    Participant

    I realize that we do have to use our govt to provide some public essentials like legal process, roads, etc. Why? Because sometimes it’s just too difficult to arrange for these things to be managed the way we like through private parties. It’s convenient to have a broad framework already set up for the “little people” (that’s you and me) to go about our personal goals of making our lives happier and more fulfilling.

    But we also have to be realistic about what we are doing when we cede control from private parties to the govt. The govt is just a bunch of politicians, supported by professional bureaucrats and special interest lobbyists. They are not (all) evil, but I don’t feel like giving them the keys to the kingdom either. And yes, I know the private parties are dominated by (evil) bankers and other people we don’t like, but we are all private parties. Would you rather give up all of your limited freedoms to ensure that the fat rich guy next door had none too?

    I would love to see all the nasty bankers get their comeuppance by having all govt support withdrawn. Then the bad banks would collapse, and the good banks would grow like gangbusters. Some very cozy relationships would be disrupted, and some very comfortable people would feel pain. By and large, the careless and irresponsible would lose the most, and responsible and careful people would do well. Suits me. But I don’t want the govt involved for any longer than it needs to be. We only need govt involvement for a long time if we plan to subsidize the irresponsible.

    May 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM #394716
    patientrenter
    Participant

    I realize that we do have to use our govt to provide some public essentials like legal process, roads, etc. Why? Because sometimes it’s just too difficult to arrange for these things to be managed the way we like through private parties. It’s convenient to have a broad framework already set up for the “little people” (that’s you and me) to go about our personal goals of making our lives happier and more fulfilling.

    But we also have to be realistic about what we are doing when we cede control from private parties to the govt. The govt is just a bunch of politicians, supported by professional bureaucrats and special interest lobbyists. They are not (all) evil, but I don’t feel like giving them the keys to the kingdom either. And yes, I know the private parties are dominated by (evil) bankers and other people we don’t like, but we are all private parties. Would you rather give up all of your limited freedoms to ensure that the fat rich guy next door had none too?

    I would love to see all the nasty bankers get their comeuppance by having all govt support withdrawn. Then the bad banks would collapse, and the good banks would grow like gangbusters. Some very cozy relationships would be disrupted, and some very comfortable people would feel pain. By and large, the careless and irresponsible would lose the most, and responsible and careful people would do well. Suits me. But I don’t want the govt involved for any longer than it needs to be. We only need govt involvement for a long time if we plan to subsidize the irresponsible.

    May 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM #395189
    patientrenter
    Participant

    I realize that we do have to use our govt to provide some public essentials like legal process, roads, etc. Why? Because sometimes it’s just too difficult to arrange for these things to be managed the way we like through private parties. It’s convenient to have a broad framework already set up for the “little people” (that’s you and me) to go about our personal goals of making our lives happier and more fulfilling.

    But we also have to be realistic about what we are doing when we cede control from private parties to the govt. The govt is just a bunch of politicians, supported by professional bureaucrats and special interest lobbyists. They are not (all) evil, but I don’t feel like giving them the keys to the kingdom either. And yes, I know the private parties are dominated by (evil) bankers and other people we don’t like, but we are all private parties. Would you rather give up all of your limited freedoms to ensure that the fat rich guy next door had none too?

    I would love to see all the nasty bankers get their comeuppance by having all govt support withdrawn. Then the bad banks would collapse, and the good banks would grow like gangbusters. Some very cozy relationships would be disrupted, and some very comfortable people would feel pain. By and large, the careless and irresponsible would lose the most, and responsible and careful people would do well. Suits me. But I don’t want the govt involved for any longer than it needs to be. We only need govt involvement for a long time if we plan to subsidize the irresponsible.

    May 7, 2009 at 5:50 PM #395194
    CA renter
    Participant

    [quote=sdduuuude]Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant[/quote]

    You’re missing the point.

    It’s entirely good if people want to loan money to others. The problem lies in them expecting the taxpayers to bail them out if their risky lending practices result in defaluts.

    If they want us (taxpayers) to take the risks, then ONLY the taxpayers should get the rewards.

    If they want all the rewards, let them take 100% of the risks.

    It really is that simple.

    May 7, 2009 at 5:50 PM #395387
    CA renter
    Participant

    [quote=sdduuuude]Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant[/quote]

    You’re missing the point.

    It’s entirely good if people want to loan money to others. The problem lies in them expecting the taxpayers to bail them out if their risky lending practices result in defaluts.

    If they want us (taxpayers) to take the risks, then ONLY the taxpayers should get the rewards.

    If they want all the rewards, let them take 100% of the risks.

    It really is that simple.

    May 7, 2009 at 5:50 PM #394975
    CA renter
    Participant

    [quote=sdduuuude]Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant[/quote]

    You’re missing the point.

    It’s entirely good if people want to loan money to others. The problem lies in them expecting the taxpayers to bail them out if their risky lending practices result in defaluts.

    If they want us (taxpayers) to take the risks, then ONLY the taxpayers should get the rewards.

    If they want all the rewards, let them take 100% of the risks.

    It really is that simple.

    May 7, 2009 at 5:50 PM #395247
    CA renter
    Participant

    [quote=sdduuuude]Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant[/quote]

    You’re missing the point.

    It’s entirely good if people want to loan money to others. The problem lies in them expecting the taxpayers to bail them out if their risky lending practices result in defaluts.

    If they want us (taxpayers) to take the risks, then ONLY the taxpayers should get the rewards.

    If they want all the rewards, let them take 100% of the risks.

    It really is that simple.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 81 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.