Ron Paul: No More Bailouts! Banks Should Be Allowed to Fail

[DA60]

 

[JP Hochbaum]

There was no way this would happen. The crisis would have been just as bad as the Great depression. The banks need more regulation and need to be smaller, but not bailing them out would have been disastrous.

 

[RGacky3]

This is nonsense, Goods do NOT pay for goods, and aggrigate demand does not always meet aggrigate supply, infact most of the time it does not and overtime leads to more and more excess capacity, he's treating capitalism as if it was some sort of stedy state entity, it isn't, Capitalism naturally develops, and as it does the internal contradictions kick in, such as the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, and growing excess capacity due to wage recession and profit growth, and so on, I find it hillareous that he quotes Ricardo, who inspired a whole generation of Ricardian socialist economics and was a major influence on Marx.

Also the Community Re-investment act didn't force banks to lend to anyone, all it did was basically say that banks cannot redline districts or discriminate based on race or area, so they basically had to treat each customer as an individual, and evaluate them individually, however what their standards were for a loan was still 100% up to the bank and who they decided to loand to was still 100% up to the bank. The reason lending was up so high had NOTHING to do with the Community Re-investment act, (for which you'll find absolutely no temporal corrolation), it had everything to do with the sercuritization of mortages, which allowed banks to shift the risk on to other people and hide the risk, which was all the natural development of private finance capitalism.

Also clearing debt can take decades ... and you're still in a depression after that, with HUGE excess capacity in housing, also when some of the banks fail, what happens is credit freezes, and Capitalism nowerdays is So leveraged that would mean a collapse of capitalism.

Also the banks DID NOT missbehave, they almost all did what has perfectly rational under the financial system, they had to in order to keep up with the competition, all of negative aspects were externalities that only effected the banks when they became systemic failures, but they HAD to externalize those negative aspects because it's their job to maximize short term profits for shareholders.

So demonizing bankers is rediculous, bankers did what anyone else would do in their situation, their job.

 

[Rainman05]

Sadly, nobody will shoot themselves in their foot.

 

[Helix]

I hated the bailouts. the sheer size and scope of these banks, however made a regular failure too big of a disaster to seriously consider. we would most likely be in depression right now, and that depression would be global.

the better option, in my opinion, is to not let a corporation get so big that it brings down the entire economy when it fails.

 

[wolfman24]

The problem from what I hear is that it is still going on. If memory serves at the rate of 40 million a month.

I think some help should have been provided but at the same time we needed to hold them accountable and install effective regulations to make sure this kind of stuff doesn't happen again. And then once they were more or less up and running cut off the aid.

 

[iliveonramen]

I think everybody agrees the bailouts with no strings attached was a horrible idea.

The fact that some individuals think the solution is the collapse of the Financial sectore is just crazy.

How about the recognition that capitalism is dependent on the strength of the financial sectore therefore we regulate the **** outta it with instead of deregulating and only intervening with piles of cash?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Ron Paul should be allowed to fail and wither away. Why do some insist on repeated bailouts to prop up his too-dumb-to-be-taken-seriously ideas?

As for J.B. Say, his thinking essentially eliminates the financial economy entirely. He sees a product-for-product, barter-level economy with money being just another good to be traded away as fast as possibe before something bad can happen to it. Say never quite came to grips with the precautionary sense of money that appeals to savers, the idea of speculation as a means for making more money, or even the idea that people held variable risk-preferences at all. The simple fact is that people who lived that long ago had serious tendencies to overlook things that more modern people might have seen right away.

 

[joko104]

Ron Paul should be allowed to fail and wither away.

That's all need be said.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Ron Paul should be allowed to fail and wither away. Why do some insist on repeated bailouts to prop up his too-dumb-to-be-taken-seriously ideas?

Fortunately that is not happening. Liberty is on the upswing in this country.

 

[DA60]

Fortunately that is not happening. Liberty is on the upswing in this country.

Yes, it is.

And the worse the country gets - the faster that upswing will go (imo).

And I believe it will DEFINITELY get significantly worse before it gets significantly better.

 

[RGacky3]

Fortunately that is not happening. Liberty is on the upswing in this country.

You guys use the word "liberty" in the same way Soviet leaders used the word "Socialism" i.e. in a way that was stripped of any real meaning.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

You guys use the word "liberty" in the same way Soviet leaders used the word "Socialism" i.e. in a way that was stripped of any real meaning.

It can all be a little like listening in on the conversation of two six-year old girls playing doll-house on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Just words with no legitimate concept behind them.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

It can all be a little like listening in on the conversation of two six-year old girls playing doll-house on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Just words with no legitimate concept behind them.

It is resorting to rhetoric that the right wingers have as their only weapon: "freedom", "liberty", "founding fathers", "evil government".

Neither of these terms are actually used correctly. Once you get that freedom from government coercion results in private coercion, liberty from government results in violence and mob rule, and our founding fathers were also the most progressive era in history up until that point.

 

[Jonsa]

No more bank bailouts. No more too big to fail.

Dodd/Franks.

Which of course the republicans want to repeal.

 

[DA60]

You guys use the word "liberty" in the same way Soviet leaders used the word "Socialism" i.e. in a way that was stripped of any real meaning.

When people's arguments lack credibility...they often resort to putting words in others' mouths. To tell others what they think rather then just simply ask when they do not know. To assume other's words have the most negative reasoning behind them, instead of taking them at their face value.
Rather sad, in my opinion.


For the record, I use the term 'liberty' in this way:

'Definition of LIBERTY

1: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice'

Liberty - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


That the desire for freedom and personal choice is thought of by many as rhetoric, childish and meaningless speaks volumes for the present state of America.

VOLUMES.

 

[specklebang]

Maybe they shouldn't have been allowed to fail but maybe they shouldn't have been lavishly rewarded for failing either.

As usual, the logical is in the region between all or noting. But americans don't see in grayscale, it's all just black and white.

 

[head of joaquin]

When people's arguments lack credibility...they often resort to putting words in others' mouths. To tell others what they think rather then just simply ask when they do not know. To assume other's words have the most negative reasoning behind them, instead of taking them at their face value.
Rather sad, in my opinion.


For the record, I use the term 'liberty' in this way:

'Definition of LIBERTY

1: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice'

Liberty - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


That the desire for freedom and personal choice is thought of by many as rhetoric, childish and meaningless speaks volumes for the present state of America.

VOLUMES.

"Liberty" as used by the Rightwing Noise Machine must be defined as it relates to policies. And from that we can discern that for conservatives liberty means the right of rich people (or people who live vicariously through the rich) to take the benefits of our advanced economy, but not pay for the burdens. It's basically "liberty" as used by a 15 year old adolescent male.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

"Liberty" as used by the Rightwing Noise Machine must be defined as it relates to policies. And from that we can discern that for conservatives liberty means the right of rich people (or people who live vicariously through the rich) to take the benefits of our advanced economy, but not pay for the burdens. It's basically "liberty" as used by a 15 year old adolescent male.

Bingo! They generally forget this part of liberty:

d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

How can one in poverty enjoy economic rights and privileges?

 

[Bigfoot 88]

You guys use the word "liberty" in the same way Soviet leaders used the word "Socialism" i.e. in a way that was stripped of any real meaning.

I actually use the real meaning of liberty.

Liberty doesn't mean equality. It doesn't mean good results necessarily. And it doesn't mean coercion.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

I don't know, I tend to associate liberty with freedom. That has traditionally been much more accepted than this idea that liberty means big government. It's Orwell double speak IMO.

"Liberty" as used by the Rightwing Noise Machine must be defined as it relates to policies. And from that we can discern that for conservatives liberty means the right of rich people (or people who live vicariously through the rich) to take the benefits of our advanced economy, but not pay for the burdens. It's basically "liberty" as used by a 15 year old adolescent male.

This must take place in the fantasy economy where "the rich" force consumers to hand over money for products against their will.

Bingo! They generally forget this part of liberty:

d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

How can one in poverty enjoy economic rights and privileges?

You do realize that economic rights and privileges do not mean free money, they mean the freedom to engage in free activity.

 

[iguanaman]

Bingo! They generally forget this part of liberty:

d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

How can one in poverty enjoy economic rights and privileges?

FDR put it this way..

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

 

[head of joaquin]

I don't know, I tend to associate liberty with freedom. That has traditionally been much more accepted than this idea that liberty means big government. It's Orwell double speak IMO.

Fortunately, those aren't the only two alternatives. But if you listen to tea baggers, you'd think they were.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Fortunately, those aren't the only two alternatives. But if you listen to tea baggers, you'd think they were.

You guys are really desperate to change the word, because it draws positive feelings.

 

[RGacky3]

When people's arguments lack credibility...they often resort to putting words in others' mouths. To tell others what they think rather then just simply ask when they do not know. To assume other's words have the most negative reasoning behind them, instead of taking them at their face value.
Rather sad, in my opinion.


For the record, I use the term 'liberty' in this way:

'Definition of LIBERTY

1: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice'

Liberty - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


That the desire for freedom and personal choice is thought of by many as rhetoric, childish and meaningless speaks volumes for the present state of America.

VOLUMES.

Great ... All of those definitions of liberty are restricted in Capitalism ... They are all limited by private power as well as governmental power ... so lets stop with the rhetoric and get to the economics.