The U.S. didn't need to nationalize. The regulators had the tools to tidily close down the deadbeats without crashing the economy (contrary to what the bailout proponents will tell you). They didn't do it.
And they spent US$700 billion bailing them out
and got nothing back.
That US$700 billion, spent on space exploration, would have created hundreds of thousands of high-value jobs & put us closer to a permanent presence in GEO. Obama & his banker cronies threw it away.(Apologies for the rant.)
Except the deadbeats weren't all the banks. So you get rid of the likes of AIG & Goldman Sachs & change the rules to keep the others honest. (Actually, just enforce the existing rules.strangecircus said:The problem is the "deadbeats" were the banks themselves.
I have no disagreement with this, but...strangecircus said:If everything closes up it is Great Depression Mk. II all over again, only this time much worse because of globalization. Small and medium business are almost all the economic growth and new jobs in a first-world country, not the government or multinationals.
This IMO is economic nonsense. The money spent on the Apollo Program, or on infrastructure, isn't just "minted". It actually creates things, & gets recycled through the economy. Which is why I say it makes more sense than just giving it to the crooks. Given, of course, you've wound up the deadbeat banks & warned the rest.strangecircus said:That's why spending a trillion on NASA wouldn't work (an engineer is worth X dollars and there are only so many engineers but if you "printed" 700 million the engineers would be worth that much more), but just printing the money could to force the rich and banks to stop hoarding and spend their money to get the economy going.
There's no way this could happen without a serious POD.
The Democrats would get destroyed in 2010 and in 2012 for pursuing a socialist policy. Say hello to President Romney with a majority in both houses of Congress.
The U.S. didn't need to nationalize. The regulators had the tools to tidily close down the deadbeats without crashing the economy (contrary to what the bailout proponents will tell you). They didn't do it.
And they spent US$700 billion bailing them out
and got nothing back.
That US$700 billion, spent on space exploration, would have created hundreds of thousands of high-value jobs & put us closer to a permanent presence in GEO. Obama & his banker cronies threw it away.(Apologies for the rant.)
I for one like the idea of printing lots and lots of money during emergencies to force the rich wealthy and well off to spend their hordes of cash. It's the most direct, effective tool central banks have (which by the way is not the government).
That's not necessarily a bad thing since central banks has being struggling to induce inflation since 2008That's why spending a trillion on NASA wouldn't work (an engineer is worth X dollars and there are only so many engineers but if you "printed" 700 million the engineers would be worth that much more)
If you mean the central bank of Venezuela, then sure. Elsewhere the only struggle with inflation has been the reactionary types that have spent six years convincing themselves that hyperinflation is just around the corner.That's not necessarily a bad thing since central banks has being struggling to induce inflation since 2008
The U.S. didn't need to nationalize. The regulators had the tools to tidily close down the deadbeats without crashing the economy (contrary to what the bailout proponents will tell you). They didn't do it.
And they spent US$700 billion bailing them out
and got nothing back.
That US$700 billion, spent on space exploration, would have created hundreds of thousands of high-value jobs & put us closer to a permanent presence in GEO. Obama & his banker cronies threw it away.(Apologies for the rant.)
We didn't get nothing back--we got all of it back, plus some profit.
That's actually a really bad idea because the rich and wealthy holds non-liquid assets which don't get devalued by inflation, whereas your average person holds a lot of cash which inflation will wipe out.
Printing money and mailing every person $5,000 cheque is actually a better idea.
No that is not, if it happened. However the question becomes is spending hundreds of millions on space the right move to stimulate a economy. The answer appears no, because space and science spending is too slow. Sorry science, I like you but it takes decades to build up scientific acumen and infrastructure.That's not necessarily a bad thing since central banks has being struggling to induce inflation since 2008
deathscompanion1 said:The financial industry employs hundreds of thousands/millions of people and was in complete crisis with many expecting the depression. The Bailout could be done overnight in terms of government. Nationalising would be a drastic and long term project whilst the economy collapsed. Even a giant ass stimulus project solves nothing at all if the economy has already collapsed months before anything happens.
ph1138 said:This IMO is economic nonsense. The money spent on the Apollo Program, or on infrastructure, isn't just "minted". It actually creates things, & gets recycled through the economy. Which is why I say it makes more sense than just giving it to the crooks. Given, of course, you've wound up the deadbeat banks & warned the rest.
Did some money have to go into the system? Probably, tho I'm not econ savvy enough to say how much. (My first impulse is to say "none" & see what would happen, but...) Would something like TARP still be needed? I'd say so. Did something like prosecution of the bankers & mortgage lenders who sold the NINJA loans need to happen? Unquestionably.
It's not about doing nothing, it's about doing different.
Fair points, & I don't disagree. I'm not sure giving money to bankers who created the problem is the solution. I would agree a guarantee might be good. The best solution I've seen is buying back mortgages (or bailing out the homeowners & not the banks). Would that suit you?strangecircus said:question becomes is spending hundreds of millions on space the right move to stimulate a economy. The answer appears no, because space and science spending is too slow. Sorry science, I like you but it takes decades to build up scientific acumen and infrastructure.
Speed is key to stimulus. The financial industry and banks are key to a working economy, because banks give loans and loans create business opportunities.
Understood, but see speed above infrastructure and space is very slow, too slow to fix a collapsing economy.
TY.strangecircus said:I accept your warning about moral hazard.
I'm not convinced. If the government can keep the economy "flatter", steadier, it may grow less quickly, but it won't crash, either. In net, is that worse? Or better? IMO, it's better. (That said, not an economist.strangecircus said:However, this might be the only way capitalism works. Big booms, and big busts, followed by government assistance during the bad times the only question to who.