|
|
Is the goverment bailout of the banking industry going to be enough to avoid a prolonged recession? Should the auto industry - or any other sector - get a goverment bailout as well?
|
Posts:
1,981
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1198 of 1198)
Dec 4, 2009 12:32 AM
|
G'Night JP,
Point taken. You're a GOOD man!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
3,576
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1197 of 1198)
Dec 4, 2009 12:19 AM
|
Fine. Dance away from the issue. 
I think I'm going to sleep. Goodnight.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,981
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1196 of 1198)
Dec 4, 2009 12:12 AM
|
JaredP,
Granted,
The net effects of which are?
Hint: The possible answers are "+", or "-"
Accountants are funny that way.
Hint: I'm a quasi-government budget analyst/accountant.
I'm PAID to know the difference.
Although, I must say, your points are well made and taken. For what's its worth, I even sympathize with most of them.
Cheers!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
3,576
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1195 of 1198)
Dec 4, 2009 12:01 AM
|
> There was most CERTAINLY a federal TAX REVENUE
> bubble, or didn't you get that?
Either the federal government and private economy are linked or seperate. I accept either stance. However you switching back and forth mid discussion is a bit annoying.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,576
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1194 of 1198)
Dec 3, 2009 11:58 PM
|
The federal government is receiving interest payments from banks that were forced (yes, not all banks wanted bailed out) to take loans. Call that what you will, but it looks like nationalizing businesses to me.
Not even going into being stockholders in the car business.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,981
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1193 of 1198)
Dec 3, 2009 11:58 PM
|
|
There was most CERTAINLY a federal TAX REVENUE bubble, or didn't you get that?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,981
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1192 of 1198)
Dec 3, 2009 11:54 PM
|
JaredP,
If you're implying that "nationalization" of any specific financial business is an attempt to thus "off-shore" said business in a subsequent liquidization of government assets; you're WAY off base, at least at this point.
Never say never of course, but for me at least, I CERTAINLY RESPECT your line of thinking. Keep that shit up!
|
|
|
Posts:
3,576
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1191 of 1198)
Dec 3, 2009 11:49 PM
|
> Our Clinton era ability to pay down the debt has been since revealed to be largely a product of bubble economy (aka "wishfull") thinking. Fair enough.
There was a "federal" bubble? Not so much.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,981
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1190 of 1198)
Dec 3, 2009 11:43 PM
|
Further,
Our Clinton era ability to pay down the debt has been since revealed to be largely a product of bubble economy (aka "wishfull") thinking. Fair enough.
What does that say about our SUBSEQUENT thinking/political judgements in the face of what were almost CERTAINLY HUGE government deficits in the wake of 9/11, and the REASONABLY EXPECTED conservative political backlash?
Debt defenders/apologizers ALWAYS amuse me. I'm funny that way, since I ALWAYS pay mine. On time. Oh yeah, I also manage the payments to keep my creditor's interest at (minimal) heart. In short, your creditors OWN you if you let them. Question is: DO YOU LET THEM?
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
3,576
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1189 of 1198)
Dec 3, 2009 11:35 PM
|
|
Have you noticed an unwillingness for the government to nationalize businesses lately?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,981
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1188 of 1198)
Dec 3, 2009 11:25 PM
|
JaredP,
Sorry,
You've been misinformed. Federal government "assets" are an accounting entry. As in, national parks, lands, highways, and buildings (including military if you care) are included. "You, me, everyone else and what they own in the USA including businesses, infrastructure, and natural resources," are not. That's called private property. We're (the US) funny that way.
Our collective ability to thus "pay down the debt" is therefore somewhat limited.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
3,576
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1187 of 1198)
Dec 3, 2009 11:06 PM
|
Assets: you, me, and everyone else and what they own in the USA including businesses, infrastructure, and natural resources.
Clinton era is a good example of us paying down the debt. However, continuous reliable debt payment without paying down the principle is a banker's wet dream.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,981
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1186 of 1198)
Dec 3, 2009 11:01 PM
|
Info,
And that's EXACTLY the point. THANK YOU for getting it! The fact that most don't is the point in the first!
The debt has INDEED been monetized, albeit almost certainly not in the (near) current term. That is the BEAUTY of it in the FIRST PLACE!
I should add, "monetizing the debt" is a form of Ponzi scheme as well. In that sense, prosecuting Madoff is ENTIRELY hypocrytical!
Cheers!
DaN
--
Edited by DaNihilist at 12/03/2009 8:05 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
1,981
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(1185 of 1198)
Dec 3, 2009 10:53 PM
|
JaredP,
1.) Define federal government "assets."
2.) Expound on the long history of "meeting (current) debt payments," exclusive of the abilty of future debt to MAKE (aka "rollover") those payments.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
3,576
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(1184 of 1198)
Dec 3, 2009 10:23 PM
|
DaN,
Not quite that bad. The federal government is only in debt twice their yearly income with large assets. Bad, but long history of meeting debt payments.
|
|
|
|
|
