[CA renter]

Let me add #4, which is really the most important one:

4. Because $700 billion is not large enough to make a difference. It will vaporize within weeks, if not days, and they will be back for more, but the next demand (and the one after that) will be even more urgent:

“Look how bad the markets are, they’re FROZEN!!!!! Hurry and give us another $3 trillion so we can stop the bleeding NOW. Clearly it’s worse than anyone could have expected as the disappearance of $700 billion shows us that the problem is HUGE and URGENT and it’s THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!!!”

Best to let the crack heads experience the withdrawl which will either kill them or make them healthier. No matter what, it needs to happen. The sooner we get this over with, the sooner we can create REAL jobs and get back to business. Until we reach bottom (either quickly via no bailout, or slowly via failed bailout after failed bailout — with longer periods of unemployment and declining wages/growth), we will not be able to turn the economy around.

[CA renter]

I hear a lot of anger, but so far the arguments I’ve heard against are as lame as the arguments for.
—————-

How about this:

1. By bailing out the very institutions that caused this mess, these speculators will feel entitled to take more risks in the future…the “moral hazard” argument.

2. We will need to preserve our resources for the deflationary debt destruction that’s coming, because it will be getting progressively worse (and will likely accelerate as we approach the bottom). We will need to backstop the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC (and other retirement accounts/funds, to an extent) and insurance companies, as well as job programs and domestic/national defense.

3. I am not necessarily opposed to deficit spending or attempts to ease conditions as we move through these tumultuous times. My opposition is to giving money to those who created the mess, and to prolonging the recession/depression by trying to keep asset prices (housing, stock, fixed income, etc.) artificially inflated at the taxpayers’ expense.

We need to allow asset prices to fall and the monetary base to contract so that we can cleanse the system of destructive debt and rebuild our economy from the ground-up,

[CA renter]

I hear a lot of anger, but so far the arguments I’ve heard against are as lame as the arguments for.
—————-

How about this:

1. By bailing out the very institutions that caused this mess, these speculators will feel entitled to take more risks in the future…the “moral hazard” argument.

2. We will need to preserve our resources for the deflationary debt destruction that’s coming, because it will be getting progressively worse (and will likely accelerate as we approach the bottom). We will need to backstop the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC (and other retirement accounts/funds, to an extent) and insurance companies, as well as job programs and domestic/national defense.

3. I am not necessarily opposed to deficit spending or attempts to ease conditions as we move through these tumultuous times. My opposition is to giving money to those who created the mess, and to prolonging the recession/depression by trying to keep asset prices (housing, stock, fixed income, etc.) artificially inflated at the taxpayers’ expense.

We need to allow asset prices to fall and the monetary base to contract so that we can cleanse the system of destructive debt and rebuild our economy from the ground-up,

[CA renter]

I hear a lot of anger, but so far the arguments I’ve heard against are as lame as the arguments for.
—————-

How about this:

1. By bailing out the very institutions that caused this mess, these speculators will feel entitled to take more risks in the future…the “moral hazard” argument.

2. We will need to preserve our resources for the deflationary debt destruction that’s coming, because it will be getting progressively worse (and will likely accelerate as we approach the bottom). We will need to backstop the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC (and other retirement accounts/funds, to an extent) and insurance companies, as well as job programs and domestic/national defense.

3. I am not necessarily opposed to deficit spending or attempts to ease conditions as we move through these tumultuous times. My opposition is to giving money to those who created the mess, and to prolonging the recession/depression by trying to keep asset prices (housing, stock, fixed income, etc.) artificially inflated at the taxpayers’ expense.

We need to allow asset prices to fall and the monetary base to contract so that we can cleanse the system of destructive debt and rebuild our economy from the ground-up,

[CA renter]

I hear a lot of anger, but so far the arguments I’ve heard against are as lame as the arguments for.
—————-

How about this:

1. By bailing out the very institutions that caused this mess, these speculators will feel entitled to take more risks in the future…the “moral hazard” argument.

2. We will need to preserve our resources for the deflationary debt destruction that’s coming, because it will be getting progressively worse (and will likely accelerate as we approach the bottom). We will need to backstop the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC (and other retirement accounts/funds, to an extent) and insurance companies, as well as job programs and domestic/national defense.

3. I am not necessarily opposed to deficit spending or attempts to ease conditions as we move through these tumultuous times. My opposition is to giving money to those who created the mess, and to prolonging the recession/depression by trying to keep asset prices (housing, stock, fixed income, etc.) artificially inflated at the taxpayers’ expense.

We need to allow asset prices to fall and the monetary base to contract so that we can cleanse the system of destructive debt and rebuild our economy from the ground-up,

[CA renter]

I hear a lot of anger, but so far the arguments I’ve heard against are as lame as the arguments for.
—————-

How about this:

1. By bailing out the very institutions that caused this mess, these speculators will feel entitled to take more risks in the future…the “moral hazard” argument.

2. We will need to preserve our resources for the deflationary debt destruction that’s coming, because it will be getting progressively worse (and will likely accelerate as we approach the bottom). We will need to backstop the FDIC, SIPC, PBGC (and other retirement accounts/funds, to an extent) and insurance companies, as well as job programs and domestic/national defense.

3. I am not necessarily opposed to deficit spending or attempts to ease conditions as we move through these tumultuous times. My opposition is to giving money to those who created the mess, and to prolonging the recession/depression by trying to keep asset prices (housing, stock, fixed income, etc.) artificially inflated at the taxpayers’ expense.

We need to allow asset prices to fall and the monetary base to contract so that we can cleanse the system of destructive debt and rebuild our economy from the ground-up,

[CA renter]

alarmclock,

I agree 100%. Everyone had a hand in this, but Greenspan is #1 because he forced people to move further out on the risk curve in order to break-even or beat inflation.

[CA renter]

alarmclock,

I agree 100%. Everyone had a hand in this, but Greenspan is #1 because he forced people to move further out on the risk curve in order to break-even or beat inflation.

[CA renter]

alarmclock,

I agree 100%. Everyone had a hand in this, but Greenspan is #1 because he forced people to move further out on the risk curve in order to break-even or beat inflation.

[CA renter]

alarmclock,

I agree 100%. Everyone had a hand in this, but Greenspan is #1 because he forced people to move further out on the risk curve in order to break-even or beat inflation.

[CA renter]

alarmclock,

I agree 100%. Everyone had a hand in this, but Greenspan is #1 because he forced people to move further out on the risk curve in order to break-even or beat inflation.

[CA renter]

Isn’t it very possible that banks begin to “ration” withdrawls?

A bit like gasoline (which will also be rationed in this case), where if your name or account number begins/ends with [XXX], you can make withdrawls on Mondays and Fridays, maximum of $200 or some other limit.

Yes, it’s tin-foil hat, but we should consider all the possibilities, no?

[CA renter]

Isn’t it very possible that banks begin to “ration” withdrawls?

A bit like gasoline (which will also be rationed in this case), where if your name or account number begins/ends with [XXX], you can make withdrawls on Mondays and Fridays, maximum of $200 or some other limit.

Yes, it’s tin-foil hat, but we should consider all the possibilities, no?

[CA renter]

Isn’t it very possible that banks begin to “ration” withdrawls?

A bit like gasoline (which will also be rationed in this case), where if your name or account number begins/ends with [XXX], you can make withdrawls on Mondays and Fridays, maximum of $200 or some other limit.

Yes, it’s tin-foil hat, but we should consider all the possibilities, no?

[CA renter]

Isn’t it very possible that banks begin to “ration” withdrawls?

A bit like gasoline (which will also be rationed in this case), where if your name or account number begins/ends with [XXX], you can make withdrawls on Mondays and Fridays, maximum of $200 or some other limit.

Yes, it’s tin-foil hat, but we should consider all the possibilities, no?

[Author]

Posts