so the bailout bill is now 451 pages long

[Galleleo]

Man, I should really stop trying to argue with Jerome on anything economic or government related, it is so useless.

In the end, I dont worry about this stuff. I see no point in worrying about it. I live in a country where the government takes care off people who hit hard times and I am sure eventually things will bounce back.

As a socialist though, why would I put my faith in the free market? I mean, as a socialist I am of the opinion that governments should help the people who, for whatever reason, cannot help themselves at a particular time (for instance the people who lose their jobs and homes).

[Stompa]

Do you really, really think that it is because of "the free market"? I've written a mini-novel on the hundreds of causes, none of them free market. So - tell me, exactly, how the "free market" caused it.

Really we have a "freer market than some" and I assume you are of the opinion that the freer the market (ie the less external governmental regulation) the healthier or "better" the market. This is my take on what you believe (I call it a belief since economics is fairly theoretical).

It seems clear to me that government regulation exacerbated the demise of this sector of American economics. Regulations and incentives for banks to make more and more and riskier and riskier subprime lendings, under the guise that those poor Americans struggling in their jobs could live in a nice house. Would you tend to agree? What are some other examples? I've spent a lot of time reading up but this is such a complex problem that I've only found a few instances of this kind of direct effect from Congressional legislation.

I have a feeling you will fall short, because the explanation you just gave - is absolutely wrong. In a sense - yes. Banks did make way too many risky loans. If they fail, then it's good - that means morons are no longer making the loans around here.

There seem to be three main culprits in this issue: Absent-minded government intervention on the economic system, banks taking advantage of opportunities to give money to people who probably won't pay it back, and the people convinced they should live above their means. Correct me if that is misguided. Measures like the CRA seem well-intentioned but unchecked it puts too much money in the hands of those who shouldn't have it and can't pay it back. And it is interesting I use the word "unchecked" as that implies once you have regulation, you will need more regulation to regulate the changes you've made, as kind of a cycle of regulation that ends in the government monopolizing the market, or the collapse of the market you are regulating. At least this current example may lead one to believe.

Is that what socialists rest all of their faith on? That the free market will continue to operate and produce untold wealth, no matter how much they strangle it?

It's ironic this is a "socialist" belief you are calling out. What have we done but thrown an absurd amount of money at a very complex problem, and expect all that money to magically "fix" everything? That is not what we are hearing now ("..will take time" "..hard road ahead") but that is not the message we were getting before. Before, Bush was calling for a bipartisan agreement (laughable since he has been the most polarizing president in US history) to throw all this money blindly at the issue. Many articles I read suggested with no government intervention these larger banks; Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, would create a new landscape in banking, possible an even more prosperous one (not that that isn't the case any longer). It just felt like the idea was "look at all this money, it has to fix something" and because the amount was so astronomically unimaginable people were convinced something that big must fix the economy, but it's really a very expensive band-aid on a broken leg.

I've spent a few sleepless nights and some heavier doses of Vyvanse this past week trying to learn something about this situation (as not to be an uneducated willfully ignorant fuck with some knee-jerk opinion based on nothing of substance other than my assumed knowledge of all things), I haven't really learned that much other than the basics, and that this issue is too complex to throw money at.

Unfortunately Obama and McCain had no choice but to support the bailout from the get-go. It was pretty obvious to even me that some kind of similar measure would pass, and whoever didn't support it would then be ridiculed and fall in the polls. Sad considering so much of America (whose residents I give little credit to know what the fuck should be done in the world) was against the measure and now that it has past, the outrage leaves much to be desired.

Jerome your The Hollow Men reference was appropriate earlier. Not in its severity but in the disappointing and pessimistic result of the actions, as if protest and the democratic ideals amount to very little in the scheme of things, but then again I don't highly value the democratic opinion anyway.

[Lucon]

Is that what socialists rest all of their faith on? That the free market will continue to operate and produce untold wealth, no matter how much they strangle it?

Except for the strangling part, yes.

[Izor]

Im really surprised that with a 10 page thread about a fairly meaningless election (compared to this) theres not more commenting on the passage of this bill. I mean seriously. It has no guidance on how to spend it and it has no goals to say if its working or not and in another month or 2 im sure theyll ask for more money. This could possibly be the worst thing thats happened to this country in out lifetime outside 9/11 and everyones caught up in debates between palin and biden...

[Jerome Scuggs]

Really we have a "freer market than some" and I assume you are of the opinion that the freer the market (ie the less external governmental regulation) the healthier or "better" the market. This is my take on what you believe (I call it a belief since economics is fairly theoretical).

I'll always prefer less government to more, but I'll say that until there's no government. The argument against government intervention is as much focused on direct, short-term implications as well as long-term - and ultimately the former destroys prospects for the latter, which is why I oppose any and all government regulations - it's as much about specifics as about the idea of government intervention itself.

Regulations, by their very nature, create unintended consequences - because lawmakers can't consider the myriad of variables. This is a truly inherent flaw that arises out of a system that must pass laws that affect an entire country - yet they must do it quickly enough as to actually have an impact.

You can have truth (and thus answers, and thus solutions) - or you can have expediency. The two are mutually exclusive when it comes to the types of decisions that governments must make.

It seems clear to me that government regulation exacerbated the demise of this sector of American economics. Regulations and incentives for banks to make more and more and riskier and riskier subprime lendings, under the guise that those poor Americans struggling in their jobs could live in a nice house. Would you tend to agree? What are some other examples? I've spent a lot of time reading up but this is such a complex problem that I've only found a few instances of this kind of direct effect from Congressional legislation.

Unlike a market which comprises of a near infinite amount of individual choices and therefore an infinite amount of causes (if not infinite, then certainly beyond any scope of true/meaningful comprehension), governments leave a paper trail in most cases. For this particular instance of government failure, I'd start with the Federal Reserve Act and go from there. From one law, thousands more had to be created to deal with the problem - which was the adoption of fractional-reserve banking.

[kthx]

I was going to send bags of tea to my representatives in Texas, but its taxed way too high, oh well I guess ill sit here and do nothing.

[DankNuggets]

you were going to teabag ron paul? shame on you