And what evidence is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The last time it was tried it worked so the ALL the Evidence points to let the free market correct itself is the right move.
Printable View
And what evidence is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The last time it was tried it worked so the ALL the Evidence points to let the free market correct itself is the right move.
You can't talk about the consequences without the causes.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I ask you again, where would the credit have been for all these acquisitions, startups and investors? I've asked you this several times now?
In 1920 the private sector was in good shape and adapted to the drop in government spending leading to a rapid recovery.
In 2008 the private sector was in awful state due to the drying up of credit thanks to the banking crisis. The state bailed parts of it out.
How can you possibly say that this wouldn't have made any difference to the consequences?
What you are saying doesn't make any sense, it sounds more as if you're reading from a propaganda book.
Correct :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The likes of AIG, GM, banks etc were rewarded with bailouts for doing a poor job and running reckless businesses. It's like rewarding a criminal for breaking the law! The rest of the companies that had their houses in order were effectively penalised for their strong business models and disciplined trading.
What we have now is still weak bailed out organisations and false economies/markets. The current world problems will not go away until governments, companies and private citizens realise what the real problems are and stop trying to prop up weak structures. Until then, nothing is going to change.
And no, I am not interested in debating this post of mine, it's purely my opinion!
Sorry I'm not tuned into the financial markets as closely as I would like so i can't give you specific names. To know an unknowable past event that never happened, is a fairly hard task to accomplish. But to deny there would have been people stepping in is foolish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
The credit markets were freezing up because the government was wavering on what they were going to do. So no one wanted to do anything while the prospect of government intervention was hanging over everyone's heads. If they would have announced a policy of free markets, liquidity would have probably returned.
Despite all the changes it has itself undergone?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Big day today with the Occupy movement here in the USA.
The intention is peaceful but of course we will have all kinds of scenes developing throughout the day.
Occupy America | Common Dreams
An "Occupy" that hasn't been mentioned enough . . .
lest we not forget Japan:
Occupy Tokyo: Mass demonstrations go unreported by Japanese media -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net
Damn, where is a good sized Tsunami when you need one.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Bob, are you seriously of the view that people whose opinions don't tally with yours deserve to be killed? Or is this another example of your well-known 'sense of humour'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Even those of us who disagree vehemently with your opinions would never stoop so low as to advocate the death of you and your ilk.
Sorry but that doesn't tally with my understanding of events.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole problem kicked off when BNP announced that it had very serious reservations about the credit rating of CDS's and the rest of the world took note. When it was realised that BNP were indeed correct and that investors who had thought they were buying AAA packages were in fact buying a whole pile of home loans of variable ratings the system collapsed.
One of the problems with the banking sector is that while trades are performed almost instantaneously money isn't transferred until months later after the back office boys get through the paperwork. Financial institutions had no real way of determining what the liability of other organisations were to the CDS collapse. Given the size of the sums involved it was clear that some organisations would not survive, hence banks stopped lending money as they were unsure who owed what to whom and whether they'd still be around in a few months time.
This is why credit stopped flowing almost instantaneously, and those institutions that had increased their investment/asset ratios to stupendous levels to increase leverage and hence profit came to a shuddering halt and collapsed.
The government had nothing to do with the stop in credit, all they could do was react belatedly using central banks to release money in an attempt to get flowing again. Your version of events may be accurate for a later stage but it is not a description of the first days of the crisis.