quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Ben did save the world economy, and particularly the US, from imploding.

So if billions of dollars weren't created out of thin air and failing companies weren't saved, we'd actually be in a worse position then we are today? If the markets were allowed to allocate scarce resources back to where they are most in demand, the economy would be in much worse shape? Please, explain.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT So if billions of dollars weren't created out of thin air and failing companies weren't saved, we'd actually be in a worse position then we are today? If the markets were allowed to allocate scarce resources back to where they are most in demand, the economy would be in much worse shape? Please, explain.

It is an unfortunate fact that our modern economies are dependent upon sound financial structures in order to function effectively. Look at the credit crisis even with the lending of last resort on an unprecedented scale. There were still more than 100 bank collapses. Look at the systemic risk in play once lehman fell. Nobody knew exactly how deep that hole would be if the dominoes were allowed to keep falling. So yes, absolutely the US would be in a worse position without the intervention(s) taken. Credit markets would have disappeared, businesses that depend on credit would have been squeezed, unemployment would have risen even further. Your lip-service “scarce resources” would have been non-existent.

Sure, we could argue all day about the ifs/buts/maybes, which is nice and easy for us armchair critics, and in your case, ideologue fanatics. But for those people actually places where their decisions had meaningful impacts, it would’ve been a ballsy Fed or Treasury that decided to say “fuck it” and then watch the fireworks go.

But, I know that market externalities are a figment of imagination according to people like you, and government intervention is always evil. So I don’t expect your opinions to intersect with reality at all.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN It is an unfortunate fact that our modern economies are dependent upon sound financial structures in order to function effectively. Look at the credit crisis even with the lending of last resort on an unprecedented scale. There were still more than 100 bank collapses. Look at the systemic risk in play once lehman fell. Nobody knew exactly how deep that hole would be if the dominoes were allowed to keep falling. So yes, absolutely the US would be in a worse position without the intervention(s) taken. Credit markets would have disappeared, businesses that depend on credit would have been squeezed, unemployment would have risen even further. Your lip-service “scarce resources” would have been non-existent. Sure, we could argue all day about the ifs/buts/maybes, which is nice and easy for us armchair critics, and in your case, ideologue fanatics. But for those people actually places where their decisions had meaningful impacts, it would’ve been a ballsy Fed or Treasury that decided to say “fuck it” and then watch the fireworks go. But, I know that market externalities are a figment of imagination according to people like you, and government intervention is always evil. So I don’t expect your opinions to intersect with reality at all.

I just wanted to know where you were coming from with your comment. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by jester

Which brings up the unfortunate insurance policy the US has that allows our government to basically do whatever they want:



Our dollar is backed by our military might. In theory, if we run out of money, we have the power to go take it from somebody else.

___________________
www.soundcloud.com/jpamusic

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk At least last time you Brits got pissed off, we got punk music out of it. This time, it'll probably just end up being embers breaks

and for some reason it concerns me that over 70% of trading at the NYSE is completely done by computers . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_trading



http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ries-abound.ars

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Quazar Which brings up the unfortunate insurance policy the US has that allows our government to basically do whatever they want: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RaZ7btje5...r-bomb-test.jpg Our dollar is backed by our military might. In theory, if we run out of money, we have the power to go take it from somebody else.

China's got lots of nukes, too. And waaaay more manpower. That's a fight nobody really wants, and posturing about it would just be idiotic.

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions China's got lots of nukes, too. And waaaay more manpower. That's a fight nobody really wants, and posturing about it would just be idiotic.

I'm not saying the US will posture, I'm simply saying that's the underlying principle behind the fact that the US is allowed to continue borrowing. Our existence as a nation is "guaranteed" for a long time due to our military, and therefore we'll be around for a theoretical infinity in which to pay back the money.

___________________
www.soundcloud.com/jpamusic

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk At least last time you Brits got pissed off, we got punk music out of it. This time, it'll probably just end up being embers breaks

quote:

Originally posted by Quazar I'm not saying the US will posture, I'm simply saying that's the underlying principle behind the fact that the US is allowed to continue borrowing. Our existence as a nation is "guaranteed" for a long time due to our military, and therefore we'll be around for a theoretical infinity in which to pay back the money.

The Soviets had more nukes and a larger army...

Military won't run without money to buy fuel, raw materials, and pay soldiers. The better guarantee is our earning power, due to our large workforce, (crumbling) infrastructure, and (now increasingly beset) financial system.

That is also what Soviets lacked. You can direct a huge proportion of GDP to military spending all you want. Won't matter if your GDP shrinks to nothing.

I wasn't trying to say it was a smart way to do things, I was just saying how it is.

Our borrowing power has long been backed by our military supremacy. The "strongest" nation on the planet gets to borrow the most money cause they're (supposedly) more likely to stick around than even the country that lent it to them.

___________________
www.soundcloud.com/jpamusic

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk At least last time you Brits got pissed off, we got punk music out of it. This time, it'll probably just end up being embers breaks

borrowing power has nothing to do with the military (directly). Borrowing power is determined purely on the belief that a country is good for the debt.

___________________