Romney's Embarrasing Announcement - Page 2

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I disagree on several points. First, AIG and other really were "too big too fail." They were.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

The government decided it had to let Lehman go, but that it couldn't go any further. If Merrill and AIG failed, our entire financial system would have collapsed. It would be the end of the world.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I disagree as well that this is akin to the auto bailouts. Those were incredibly stupid.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I disagree completely. This is a completely stupid idea. It is corporatist fear propaganda.



That's the claim. Doubtful though. You appear to have taken the bait.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I'm always open to a good conspiracy theory, but do you have any evidence to support your assertions? Seems to be that 2 of 5 major investment banks and the largest reinsurer in the world going down might not have pleasant effect.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Don't get the smilie on that one. I don't support the auto bailouts and don't see them as being the same as TARP. You apparently disagree, but is that hilarious?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

SDW2001, you actually believe economic collapse = the "end of the world"?

Do you not realize that - unless drastic reforms are made (such as ENDING THE FED) - economic collapse is inevitable?

We were in a better position 5 years ago to deal with an economic collapse than we are today.

But I have hope that revolutionary digital currencies like BitCoin will take off in the next few years. They could become viable alternatives when the dollar finally collapses.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

First, I'm not claiming it would have been pleasant or that there would not have been serious and bad consequences. But that's a far cry from the end of the world.

Second, I'm not claiming an outright or overt conspiracy but...there are a lot of very tight, intimate and strong connections to Wall Street. Additionally, even absent that, I'm not even saying that some of those people didn't actually believe that the end of the world was nigh. I'm sure some did. I'm saying their fears, their misconceptions and their analysis was wrong.

It is highly doubtful that this would have been the end of the world.

Finally, I hope you'd to apply the same degree of skepticism to the fear-mongering from the previous administration as you do from the current administration. They are different shade of the same color.

What's hilarious is you calling one stupid and the other critical. That's all.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Come on...you guys really thought I meant literally?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

No disrespect, but why is yours right?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I'd say carrying money around in baskets and not being able to buy food at the grocery store is pretty close to what most Americans think of as the "end." Maybe not the literal end of the world, but the end of the American way of life.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's because they are different. We're talking about an emergency bailout to keep the entire financial system from coming down versus the bailout of two companies that needed bankruptcy protection anyway. And yes, I do believe there was a good chance the entire financial system would collapse if Bear, Merrill, AIG collapsed. It would set off a cascade of failures across the globe. Simply not the same thing here.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

No. I'm addressing the hyperbolic predictions of economic armageddon which have only been claimed but never really proven or supported. They basically just said if we don't do something the whole system will crash, but offered no concrete or debatable reasoning, evidence and logic for this claim and just expected everyone to believe it, hand over almost a trillion dollars and a bunch of new power. Immediately.




Actually the burden of proof should have been on them. All they did was basically shout "The sky is falling!!!" and everyone believed them. They never made a case at all. There was never any debate. It was shouting "Fire!" in a theater and everyone panicked. But there was no reasoned, logic and fact-based discussion of their concerns and the probabilities of them or alternative possibilities. It was simply "The sky is falling!" give us a bunch of money to prevent it. Now.




I agree. But there's no evidence that this would have happened.




And I'm questioning the claim that the situation would have evolved to that. At this point all I've seeing is question begging.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I see the point. I do think their prediction makes sense, though. We know that these firms were going to fail...that is factual. Would you agree? And we also know that some of them were so heavily involved in so many parts of the financial system that their collapse would have had dramatic effects. The reason I think they were correct to predict disaster is that credit markets had completely frozen leading up to this. Credit is the lifeblood of our economy. No, I don't mean credit cards, but rather short-term interbank lending, business lines of credit, etc. It's not hard to imagine businesses being unable to continue operations without these lines. Virtually every business uses them, from grocery stores to car dealerships to clothing retailers to what have you. The line from the movie about "no milk on the shelves" suddenly makes sense, does it not?

As for the burden of proof, I again see the point. If I recall correctly, you're not saying that this was a conspiracy, but that many may have actually believed the system was coming down. Unless it's all a lie, I have to rely on the people who know these markets better than I. When the Federal Reserve, Treasury and major investment banks all say "we're screwed" I tend to believe them.

But as I stated, I'm always open to the possibility of conspiracy. In this world, we have no idea if we're being told the truth or not.

Edit: For got to address the bailouts: I just see it differently. There are certainly different views on TARP and its necessity. But I think you've got to acknowledge the good possibility that they were correct, especially given the condition of credit markets and failure of Lehman. With the auto bailouts, it seemed pretty obvious to me that this was a different situation. Bankruptcy did not mean Chapter 7 liquidation for them, it mean Chapter 11 protection. The government could have found a way to expedite things, and they would have rebuilt their businesses. Instead, we gave them billions and they went bankrupt anyway...not to mention the government controlling/owning GM for a time.