Looking back on it, we should have let the automakers and banks fail

Having done so may shave 5 or 4 years off of recovery time. Wasn't worth it.

but it should have been a takeover. If we bought it, we should get to keep it.

:)

Nationalizing banks is, to me, unacceptable--as a taxpayer I really do NOT want to be even more on the hook for all these fucking derivatives and loans-from-hell than I am now.

instruments too. It depends on how it's done. If the individual mortgages are separated out of those "bundles" and refied by a national non-profit bank, the biggest losers would be the financial capitalists who benefitted FROM those derivatives. And I could care less if they lose.

I think you should think about it a little more, and more in depth.

and it never will. The rash statement is the message - vacuous though it may be.

right is proposing here on DU, though.

It's an opinion.

I thought you were a bigger person than this. Useless slander of a Du'er simply because their opinion doesn't match yours.

out there is one that the right has been tossing out there for a long time. I did not say that the poster was a right winger, nor do I think he is. I suggested to him that he think longer about this and more in depth.

. . . at least I HOPE it is . . . :rofl:

an opinion parroted on countless RW venues since the idea was first floated, persisting to this very day...but I'm sure it's all just a huge coincidence - along with the countless other RW viewpoints that just *coincidentally* coincide with this person's viewpoints. Yup, just a big ol' coincidence...just like it's a big coincidence that those viewpoints are never explained - just the turd in the punchbowl, followed by a retreat from the thread to observe the pandemonium from a safe distance.

if bailouts were the right thing to do? In addition to the banks and the auto companies, we also have to acknowledge that certain parts of state and local governments were bailed out, too, the stimulus package for first responders, teachers, and other local government employees was designed to keep them employed until the economy could recover on its own by, say, the end of 2010, and local tax revenues could take over again.

We see that the latter didn't work, the bank bailout worked too well, and the jury is really still out on the auto industry. I know that thanks to the South Korea free trade deal, my next Hyundai will be an even better deal than I thought it would be.

offered an explanation of their 'logic' - just tossed out their codswollop without even so much as a cursory basis for their specious argument. I see you don't believe in backing-up your claims with anything of substance either.

That was one instance where a government bailout actually, on balance, HELPED the working class.

Of course, I would have done it differently. I wouldn't have "bailed them out", I would have BOUGHT them out. Stock values were running pennies on the dollar. What if we now had a "Bank of the United States" making DIRECT, not for profit loans to the American people and small businesses? I have a feeling we'd have a BOOMING economy. After all MUCH of the economic problems of the last few years has been because small businesses can't get loans for expansion because credit standards have shifted from the ridicously easy to the ridiculously difficult.

...and my mortgage when the bank that I'm with fails and they come knocking at my door with a 'due in full' clause?

on DU your rationale as to why bailing out the automakers and banks was a bad idea.

Thank you.

too many innocent victims would have also been harmed by doing that.

I agree with others up thread; then they should have been nationalized.

:)

to clear out capitalism once and for all. That is crazier than even the current Repugs.

If you want more of something, you simply remove the pain (subsidies). On the other hand, if you seek less of something, you increase the pain (taxes).

It's one of the most basic laws of human nature.

They oughta coin a term for that...oh, wait - they already have! :think:

It will stay with DU. Like herpes.

ha!

It sure would have been nice to have the time and the full data to make such far reaching decisions.
Bushco knew goddamned well things were in the crapper long, long before they said a fucking word.
Really lousy way to run a country.

It just kicked the can further down the road and made the problem even bigger.

needed..immediately..before the week is done..preferably yesterday.

comparitively speaking the auto makers employ more people and they actually make a product that is useful to people. Not so for the banks. So I can find justification for bailing out the auto makers but not the banks.

Don't need it!

:sarcasm:

They should have nationalized the Banks in 2008 as Paul Krugman stated in his book "Depression Economics." And the government should not be in the business of running car companies. If we are a capitalist system, we must follow the rules. But, it seems that capitalism only applies to profits, while losses are socialized.

Yes, the recovery will be delayed many years due to propping up this shadow banking system that is too big to fail. And we will see a second coming of "too big to fail" shortly, starting with Bank of America,

I wouldn't want to make fail the banks that would survive. :) Only the ones failing, including those failing that are too big to fail. Nationalize them regulate them and sell them off again. But, not before re-instating Glass-Steagall, so this mess won't happen all over again. But it will, shortly, because they haven't.

crisis...

:crazy:

Creating tax incentives for U.S. manufacturing? There are many ways to encourage manufacturing in the U.S., but the government should be in the car business. Unless we also socialize health care and education, which I'm all for. But the way the rules are presently are privatized gains and socialized losses, which is why we're seeing OWS now. People have had enough, finally.

And they (the FED, treasury) should not be allowing these too big to fail banks to stick taxpayers with their bailouts. The global banking crisis was created by eliminating Glass-Steagall, and similar moves, allowing banks to make risky bets with derivatives. It should be easy to fix that, just reinstate Glass-Steagall, but the genie out of the bottle. The other day we find out that Bank of America is being backstopped, by ultimately we the taxpayer, against their derivative exposure in Europe.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bank-america-forces-depositors-backstop-its-53-trillion-derivative-book-prevent-few-clients-dep

i agree 100% on both of those, and i'd like for Glass-Steagall to be reinstated.

the bailouts were done quickly because we were, imo, really close to a collapse. the problem is, doing things like that quickly can end up with no strings attached on the people getting bailed out, like the banks.

the whole affair seems to have been good for us, as far as detroit being saved, but bad for us as we saved the banks and they proceded to screw us.

but if we had let the big banks fail, a global depression could have ensued.

a bum deal for us.