The problem is not that the currency is centralized, but the fact that fiscal policy is de-centralized. This allows for the worse economies to utilize the centralized currency resting on the AAA-grade member states (Germany is the biggest one obviously).
Eurozone breaks up. Terrible terrible repercussions to the worse economies. The better ones will take a hit too.
The Eurozone needs to take a more serious stance on breaches of the Euro-contract. This will mean a more federal development. This is my personal preferred option.
Going more federated is the only real option. Honestly, the point to turn back was a long time ago, and the EU is way beyond that now. Personally, I think it should be called "The United States of Europe." =P
The rumor mills are buzzing about Germany getting out of the EU. I've been expecting this now for a while to happen. If so, good for them! Like I said the death of fiat currency. No disrespect proletaria but I haven't yet heard a Keynesian solution to this mess that makes sense, or at minimum was articulated well enough.
In my opinion these protests are sadly meaningless now. It started out people DEMANDING the government do something, now they're kindly asking. The government creates these problems and they're asking the government to fix the problems they created?
Problem is that although you and I are completely correct in theory, there is no common denominator among the "common folk". They feel themselves first to be Germans, Brits, Swedes and Finns, and only much later down the road Europeans. They'd need to feel more European before such a change is realistic, I doubt USA would hold together if every single American would identify as a Californian, a Texan, etc. instead of feeling themselves as American.
We don't have as strong a sense of nationalism as you might expect, though it's certainly more cozy than the relationship between say Germans and Poles or Bits and the French. I think the key to remember is at one time the colonies were confederated. They only federated when it became apparent the articles of confederation did not provide a stable system for (among other things) commerce. I think the biggest issue is going to be the plethora of language barriers and provincial dialects, which is certainly much more pronounced on the old continent.
In any case, I think there will be moves made to consolidate financial supervision in a manner that can be enforced and regulated intelligently and the US will (eventually) be doing the same. How either group goes about getting there is anyone's guess. The tangle of beuracracy and self-interest is thick on both sides of the Atlantic.
I'm sorry, but that rumor is less or more totally unfounded. Changing currency is not something that can be done in a controlled fashion quickly. It's a process that takes at least a year or two. Besides, it's more likely that the weaker states will be out, than Germany.
And your logic somehow eludes me, how is it going to prove that the fiat currency dies if Germany would abandon one fiat for another.
And the issue at heart is an issue of distrust. The only solution is to regain the trust. Adopting a gold-based currency won't help since it's not a distrust towards the Euro, but distrust against several governments.
If you read what the site says, and again I realize it's just a rumor at this point, what is said is this:
The Germans announce they are re-introducing the Deutschmark. They have already ordered the new currency and asked that the printers hurry up.
The site is quoting Dr. Pippa Malmgren, she's politics and policy expert who used to be Special Assistant to the President of the United States for Economic Policy on the National Economic Council and former member of the U.S. President's Working Group on Financial Markets. So it's a rumor by someone who has some connections.
No one is suggesting that Germany would dump the Euro overnight, obviously it would take time. It's no mystery that Chancellor Merkel has begrudgingly gone along with the Euro's plans at Germany's expense. It has been expected by a good many at some point she will be forced politically to say enough is enough.
I watch the economy and markets pretty vigilantly, the wagon wheels on the global economy are now starting fall off. The warning signs are showing themselves again. For example this today.
BBC Does It Again: "In The Absence Of A Credible Plan We Will Have A Global Financial Meltdown In Two To Three Weeks" - IMF Advisor http://www.zerohedge...wo-three-weeks-
Now this panic may well be another orchestrated effort by the banks to rake in undeserved profits, but really what we have been witnessing over the last 40 years is a slow fleecing of the middle classes wealth which has turned into a sovereign debt crisis, or what you might call a currency crisis. The largest bubble in history wasn't the housing bubble, it's bond bubble in US treasuries and it's doomed to crash.
I agree when you say "it's not a distrust towards the Euro, but distrust against several governments." what I don't think you are considering the only reason the Euro (or the dollar for that matter) has value is because the people have faith in the government s behind it. When that faith goes, so goes the faith in the currency. There is a trash heap filled literally hundreds of currencies that have come and gone, all of them died when the people lost faith in those that backed them. Here is good presentation on France and John Law which lead to the French Revolution and Bastille Day. What we are experiencing today is just history repeating itself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zvNV-vkEzc
Honestly, though (and I mean no offense) there isn't a single capitalist government out there that would return to a commodity standard of currency and I don't think a libertarian revolution is coming either. The marxists are right when they say that would bring on an international rebellion by the proletarian masses.
LinkX ... I'm sorry but everyone involved in this whole occupy WallStreet thing is off the bat ignorant and lacks any sense of personal responsibility.
It is not Wallstreet's fault that the American (and World) economy is in the slump that it is now. Take a fucking economics class and you will understand that it was the over consumption of the american consumer. People were buying houses, cars, TVs, computers, lawn mowers, etc that they didn't need and couldn't afford. If you make $50,000 a year as a single income you obviously cannot afford a $400,000 house.
These people could not afford their bills, causing a massive forclosure spike which caused alot of bad debt, thereby causing the banks to go under.
If you even try to fucking mention that the banks should not have made that much credit available, go look at which part forced Bush into making credit more available for the general public (hint: it wasn't the republicans).
Now that being said, why is it that you have absolutely NO respect for personal responsibility? Why is it that you blame the government for what your friends/family/neighbors brought up you/us? Why is it that you think capitalism is evil when in fact it has created the best/most powerful economy in the world?
Honestly, though (and I mean no offense) there isn't a single capitalist government out there that would return to a commodity standard of currency and I don't think a libertarian revolution is coming either. The marxists are right when they say that would bring on an international rebellion by the proletarian masses.
Wait and watch, the IMF has already stated a number of times that was a viable option. There are even people within the FED which have proposed it. China, Russia, Venezuela, all have plans on the table for a gold standard. While China is a communist state, free trade there is in many ways is capitalism than here in the US. You would be amazed at how an idea that seems crazy can suddenly become viable.
LinkX ... I'm sorry but everyone involved in this whole occupy WallStreet thing is off the bat ignorant and lacks any sense of personal responsibility.
And from what throne do you judge these people so broadly?
It is not Wallstreet's fault that the American (and World) economy is in the slump that it is now. Take a fucking economics class and you will understand that it was the over consumption of the american consumer. People were buying houses, cars, TVs, computers, lawn mowers, etc that they didn't need and couldn't afford. If you make $50,000 a year as a single income you obviously cannot afford a $400,000 house.
And wallstreet made money off those loans and dirivitives of those loans and agressively marketed them. This isn't a scenario with one evil character, I agree. It takes delinquent citizens and banks to cook this soup. The housing bubble is more of the same, except you get idiotic consumers, lenders, AND a contrived government entity in the mix. But, again, not just the fault of people who bought in and in-fact most of the people on wallstreet probably don't own a house nor had money in the crashed market.
These people could not afford their bills, causing a massive forclosure spike which caused alot of bad debt, thereby causing the banks to go under.
Banks take on risk to make money. If they take on too much risk they go under. They should have been allowed to collapse under their own weight. At that point the market was contracting back to normal volume. The banks were bailed out by a bipartisan effort of our crooked government and the bloated banks are now "struggling" (after giving out the bailout cash as major bonuses and retirement packages) to maintain themselves in a market that cannot support their current number. Too many banks, not enough demand for loans. This part is most-certainly the banks' fault for being short-sighted.
If you even try to fucking mention that the banks should not have made that much credit available, go look at which part forced Bush into making credit more available for the general public (hint: it wasn't the republicans).
Good thing nobody gives a shit about partisan politics! I'll be honest with you man, I don't think you have read or watched a single thing about Occupy Wall Street if you think they're pro-dem.
Now that being said, why is it that you have absolutely NO respect for personal responsibility? Why is it that you blame the government for what your friends/family/neighbors brought up you/us? Why is it that you think capitalism is evil when in fact it has created the best/most powerful economy in the world?
Personal responsibility as in what? Being born in an upper-class family with money? Being born without disease? Being born into a region of the world where getting a good education is possible? Boot-strap myths aren't the whole story of success in any market, espcially not one like we have in America. Blame the government when it is responsible. It is most certainly partially responsible and should be held accountable for it's actions.
Capitalism is a myth, the US has a mixed economy. Your attempt to blame US economic issues on these protestors is an exercise in futility and a display of ignorance.
And wallstreet made money off those loans and dirivitives of those loans and agressively marketed them. This isn't a scenario with one evil character, I agree. It takes delinquent citizens and banks to cook this soup. The housing bubble is more of the same, except you get idiotic consumers, lenders, AND a contrived government entity in the mix. But, again, not just the fault of people who bought in and in-fact most of the people on wallstreet probably don't own a house nor had money in the crashed market.
I don't care if the banks offered credit to people they shouldn't have. They fucked up... its their fault they went under... they should have done their due dilligence yes. However, this does not give people the right to place fault on the banks when they are the ones took out the loans.
It doesn't take a PHD in economics or finance to realize that taking a mortgage payment that is >= 50% of your net income isn't wise.
Banks take on risk to make money. If they take on too much risk they go under. They should have been allowed to collapse under their own weight. At that point the market was contracting back to normal volume. The banks were bailed out by a bipartisan effort of our crooked government and the bloated banks are now "struggling" (after giving out the bailout cash as major bonuses and retirement packages) to maintain themselves in a market that cannot support their current number. Too many banks, not enough demand for loans. This part is most-certainly the banks' fault for being short-sighted.
Oh I completely agree that the bailout was fucking dumb. Capitalism isn't broke natively... it breaks when you try to screw with the natural processes of it. Had we let them collapse... yes we would have seen a sharp recession. However, that recession would have brought about new smaller businesses and opportunity for growth. When companies make bad decisions they SHOULD fail.
Good thing nobody gives a shit about partisan politics! I'll be honest with you man, I don't think you have read or watched a single thing about Occupy Wall Street if you think they're pro-dem.
You are blaming capitalism for the woes of society. How is that not liberal?
Personal responsibility as in what? Being born in an upper-class family with money? Being born without disease? Being born into a region of the world where getting a good education is possible? Boot-strap myths aren't the whole story of success in any market, espcially not one like we have in America. Blame the government when it is responsible. It is most certainly partially responsible and should be held accountable for it's actions.
Capitalism is a myth, the US has a mixed economy. Your attempt to blame US economic issues on these protestors is an exercise in futility and a display of ignorance.
Its funny that this always relates to income disparity..... "Its not fair" is a tired argument. In the other thread we have discussed more than enough evolution. If everything was fair, humanity, society, culture, nothing would be where it is today. People are not inherently born equal. People are not born with the same gifts and worth to society. People with talents deserve to be rewarded for such.
This has nothing to do with being born into a <Fill in the Blank>. I have seen people come from rags to riches... and I have also seen people fall from grace. The United States USED to be land of opportunity... The United States USED to be the land of freedom. Maybe you haven't noticed but since the United States started socializing business the economy has been consistently faltering. I don't mean Obama... I don't mean Clinton... I don't mean the Bushes... I mean every god damned regulation we put on Wallstreet.
Consumers have proven that they have the power to change the world on their own. You don't need the fucking government to regulate... you need consumers that can make the right choices. Just look at Nike and the sweat shops ....
Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome. It simply means every person should have the same chances of developing him/herself.
I do think it's far too simplistic to say any limitation or regulation put on wallstreet has been to the citizens detriment. You only know the country is in trouble now, you don't actually know if it wouldn't have been so if things were done differently, though this is an assumption often made by people.
I've never been a great fan of arguments consisting of "In the olden days, things were better".
Maybe you haven't noticed but since the United States started socializing business the economy has been consistently faltering. I don't mean Obama... I don't mean Clinton... I don't mean the Bushes... I mean every god damned regulation we put on Wallstreet.
Consumers have proven that they have the power to change the world on their own. You don't need the fucking government to regulate... you need consumers that can make the right choices. Just look at Nike and the sweat shops ....
Wait... really? Let Wallstreet regulate itself? Yeah that'll work out real nicely. For the bankers.
Its not a throne. Its the fact that they are scapegoating their own self caused problems.
I would think a repbulican would admit that government causes problems too. And as a rational human being, I also know that causes outside our own control help us along the way. If you think everyone caused their own misery, explain young children with cancer.
I don't care if the banks offered credit to people they shouldn't have. They fucked up... its their fault they went under... they should have done their due dilligence yes. However, this does not give people the right to place fault on the banks when they are the ones took out the loans.
It doesn't take a PHD in economics or finance to realize that taking a mortgage payment that is >= 50% of your net income isn't wise.
Yes, I agree. It takes two. I'm not saying that everyone who took out loans from these banks is a victim. What I said is that you cannot blame these people and not blame the banks, or the government for that matter.
Oh I completely agree that the bailout was fucking dumb. Capitalism isn't broke natively... it breaks when you try to screw with the natural processes of it. Had we let them collapse... yes we would have seen a sharp recession. However, that recession would have brought about new smaller businesses and opportunity for growth. When companies make bad decisions they SHOULD fail.
Yes, failed companies should fail, but what has this to do with the people you are citicizing? I'm saying, the businesses and the government are both complicit in these problems. You refuted this in your first post and you insist this is all their fault, their choice. But the bailout and the practices of these banks before and after suggests otherwise. It is a systemic problem that should be reformed.
You are blaming capitalism for the woes of society. How is that not liberal?
What's liberal about that? I'm not blaming capitalism for anything. I'm blaming businesses for obviously making terrible choices, going bankrupt, and then the government bailing them out at the detriment of their taxpayers. I'm not insisting that no citizen is cupable, but I am willing to place blame where it is due. This isn't a liberal position, in-fact many republicans and libertarians are out there yelling the same things.
People are not inherently born equal. People are not born with the same gifts and worth to society. People with talents deserve to be rewarded for such.
Should we then remove people from society who are not worth as much? What about the mentally disabled, at least? If we killed them at birth we would be much more efficient, don't you think?
This has nothing to do with being born into a <Fill in the Blank>. I have seen people come from rags to riches... and I have also seen people fall from grace. The United States USED to be land of opportunity... The United States USED to be the land of freedom. Maybe you haven't noticed but since the United States started socializing business the economy has been consistently faltering. I don't mean Obama... I don't mean Clinton... I don't mean the Bushes... I mean every god damned regulation we put on Wallstreet.
Doesn't it? I have known a lot more succesful people who came from riches to riches than from rags to riches. Would you like to give me a list of people who have "fallen from grace," as you put it? The US is supposed to be a land of opportunity, but the reality is that our education and healthcare system isn't all that opportune for those who start with less resources. If you dispute this, I invite you to explain to me why a B- student from a private highschool in Maryland can get into Harvard while an A+ student from a downtown Baltimore public school couldn't get into a second-tier state school without exellent references and extra-cirriculars?
I have worked in the university system of this country for decares and I can spend a lot of time explaining to you what is going on here. The fact of the matter is, we do not have a system that allows for those born with skills in a given area to pursue whatever skill they have. They are able to pursue only the skills that they can afford to hone. If they are born rich, they can do whatever they want. If they are born poor, they had better be damned good at sports or extremely lucky in their connections. In my thirty plus years I have only seen a handful of students from poverty-stricken backgrounds come to attain a respectable degree and position in society. The vast majority of the students in my higher-end classes are from wealthy stock. Denying this is to deny reality.
Consumers have proven that they have the power to change the world on their own. You don't need the fucking government to regulate... you need consumers that can make the right choices. Just look at Nike and the sweat shops ....
So consumers are supposed to simply take their money out of banks? Boycott the banking industry?
LinkX ... I'm sorry but everyone involved in this whole occupy WallStreet thing is off the bat ignorant and lacks any sense of personal responsibility.
It is not Wallstreet's fault that the American (and World) economy is in the slump that it is now. Take a fucking economics class and you will understand that it was the over consumption of the american consumer. People were buying houses, cars, TVs, computers, lawn mowers, etc that they didn't need and couldn't afford. If you make $50,000 a year as a single income you obviously cannot afford a $400,000 house.
These people could not afford their bills, causing a massive forclosure spike which caused alot of bad debt, thereby causing the banks to go under.
If you even try to fucking mention that the banks should not have made that much credit available, go look at which part forced Bush into making credit more available for the general public (hint: it wasn't the republicans).
Now that being said, why is it that you have absolutely NO respect for personal responsibility? Why is it that you blame the government for what your friends/family/neighbors brought up you/us? Why is it that you think capitalism is evil when in fact it has created the best/most powerful economy in the world?
You sound to me like you are part of the Tea Party.
As such, I am going to assume that you are a red neck hick from Alabama and are spouting what Fox News says, and thus I am going to ignore your post. No disrespect intended, of course.
You sound to me like you are part of the Tea Party.
As such, I am going to assume that you are a red neck hick from Alabama and are spouting what Fox News says, and thus I am going to ignore your post. No disrespect intended, of course.
Have a glorious day!
No, I am not a tea party member, nor a republican. I used to consider myself a libertarian until I realized that people as a majority are ignorant and stupid, hence the reason I now believe in licenses to have children, a manditory test to vote, etc.
I am however a staunch capitalist, and as such realize that this whole thing is bullshit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's what I said, just in reverse. =)
Going more federated is the only real option. Honestly, the point to turn back was a long time ago, and the EU is way beyond that now. Personally, I think it should be called "The United States of Europe." =P
Germany Begins to Abandon the Euro
http://www.wealthwir...ws/economy/1986
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H47tHjR5oA
Oh yeah, print more money, that'll solve everything.
We don't have as strong a sense of nationalism as you might expect, though it's certainly more cozy than the relationship between say Germans and Poles or Bits and the French. I think the key to remember is at one time the colonies were confederated. They only federated when it became apparent the articles of confederation did not provide a stable system for (among other things) commerce. I think the biggest issue is going to be the plethora of language barriers and provincial dialects, which is certainly much more pronounced on the old continent.
In any case, I think there will be moves made to consolidate financial supervision in a manner that can be enforced and regulated intelligently and the US will (eventually) be doing the same. How either group goes about getting there is anyone's guess. The tangle of beuracracy and self-interest is thick on both sides of the Atlantic.
If you read what the site says, and again I realize it's just a rumor at this point, what is said is this:
The site is quoting Dr. Pippa Malmgren, she's politics and policy expert who used to be Special Assistant to the President of the United States for Economic Policy on the National Economic Council and former member of the U.S. President's Working Group on Financial Markets. So it's a rumor by someone who has some connections.
No one is suggesting that Germany would dump the Euro overnight, obviously it would take time. It's no mystery that Chancellor Merkel has begrudgingly gone along with the Euro's plans at Germany's expense. It has been expected by a good many at some point she will be forced politically to say enough is enough.
I watch the economy and markets pretty vigilantly, the wagon wheels on the global economy are now starting fall off. The warning signs are showing themselves again. For example this today. Now this panic may well be another orchestrated effort by the banks to rake in undeserved profits, but really what we have been witnessing over the last 40 years is a slow fleecing of the middle classes wealth which has turned into a sovereign debt crisis, or what you might call a currency crisis. The largest bubble in history wasn't the housing bubble, it's bond bubble in US treasuries and it's doomed to crash.
I agree when you say "it's not a distrust towards the Euro, but distrust against several governments." what I don't think you are considering the only reason the Euro (or the dollar for that matter) has value is because the people have faith in the government s behind it. When that faith goes, so goes the faith in the currency. There is a trash heap filled literally hundreds of currencies that have come and gone, all of them died when the people lost faith in those that backed them.
Here is good presentation on France and John Law which lead to the French Revolution and Bastille Day. What we are experiencing today is just history repeating itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zvNV-vkEzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4aRuiO1OuQ
This guy knows what he's talking about.
Yeah, this thing. =P
No, that would be the source of the federal government powers that he dislikes. =)
It is not Wallstreet's fault that the American (and World) economy is in the slump that it is now. Take a fucking economics class and you will understand that it was the over consumption of the american consumer. People were buying houses, cars, TVs, computers, lawn mowers, etc that they didn't need and couldn't afford. If you make $50,000 a year as a single income you obviously cannot afford a $400,000 house.
These people could not afford their bills, causing a massive forclosure spike which caused alot of bad debt, thereby causing the banks to go under.
If you even try to fucking mention that the banks should not have made that much credit available, go look at which part forced Bush into making credit more available for the general public (hint: it wasn't the republicans).
Now that being said, why is it that you have absolutely NO respect for personal responsibility? Why is it that you blame the government for what your friends/family/neighbors brought up you/us? Why is it that you think capitalism is evil when in fact it has created the best/most powerful economy in the world?
Wait and watch, the IMF has already stated a number of times that was a viable option. There are even people within the FED which have proposed it. China, Russia, Venezuela, all have plans on the table for a gold standard. While China is a communist state, free trade there is in many ways is capitalism than here in the US. You would be amazed at how an idea that seems crazy can suddenly become viable.
And from what throne do you judge these people so broadly?
And wallstreet made money off those loans and dirivitives of those loans and agressively marketed them. This isn't a scenario with one evil character, I agree. It takes delinquent citizens and banks to cook this soup. The housing bubble is more of the same, except you get idiotic consumers, lenders, AND a contrived government entity in the mix. But, again, not just the fault of people who bought in and in-fact most of the people on wallstreet probably don't own a house nor had money in the crashed market.
Banks take on risk to make money. If they take on too much risk they go under. They should have been allowed to collapse under their own weight. At that point the market was contracting back to normal volume. The banks were bailed out by a bipartisan effort of our crooked government and the bloated banks are now "struggling" (after giving out the bailout cash as major bonuses and retirement packages) to maintain themselves in a market that cannot support their current number. Too many banks, not enough demand for loans. This part is most-certainly the banks' fault for being short-sighted.
Good thing nobody gives a shit about partisan politics! I'll be honest with you man, I don't think you have read or watched a single thing about Occupy Wall Street if you think they're pro-dem.
Personal responsibility as in what? Being born in an upper-class family with money? Being born without disease? Being born into a region of the world where getting a good education is possible? Boot-strap myths aren't the whole story of success in any market, espcially not one like we have in America. Blame the government when it is responsible. It is most certainly partially responsible and should be held accountable for it's actions.
Capitalism is a myth, the US has a mixed economy. Your attempt to blame US economic issues on these protestors is an exercise in futility and a display of ignorance.
Its not a throne. Its the fact that they are scapegoating their own self caused problems.
I don't care if the banks offered credit to people they shouldn't have. They fucked up... its their fault they went under... they should have done their due dilligence yes. However, this does not give people the right to place fault on the banks when they are the ones took out the loans.
It doesn't take a PHD in economics or finance to realize that taking a mortgage payment that is >= 50% of your net income isn't wise.
Oh I completely agree that the bailout was fucking dumb. Capitalism isn't broke natively... it breaks when you try to screw with the natural processes of it. Had we let them collapse... yes we would have seen a sharp recession. However, that recession would have brought about new smaller businesses and opportunity for growth. When companies make bad decisions they SHOULD fail.
You are blaming capitalism for the woes of society. How is that not liberal?
Its funny that this always relates to income disparity..... "Its not fair" is a tired argument. In the other thread we have discussed more than enough evolution. If everything was fair, humanity, society, culture, nothing would be where it is today. People are not inherently born equal. People are not born with the same gifts and worth to society. People with talents deserve to be rewarded for such.
This has nothing to do with being born into a <Fill in the Blank>. I have seen people come from rags to riches... and I have also seen people fall from grace. The United States USED to be land of opportunity... The United States USED to be the land of freedom. Maybe you haven't noticed but since the United States started socializing business the economy has been consistently faltering. I don't mean Obama... I don't mean Clinton... I don't mean the Bushes... I mean every god damned regulation we put on Wallstreet.
Consumers have proven that they have the power to change the world on their own. You don't need the fucking government to regulate... you need consumers that can make the right choices. Just look at Nike and the sweat shops ....
I do think it's far too simplistic to say any limitation or regulation put on wallstreet has been to the citizens detriment. You only know the country is in trouble now, you don't actually know if it wouldn't have been so if things were done differently, though this is an assumption often made by people.
I've never been a great fan of arguments consisting of "In the olden days, things were better".
Wait... really? Let Wallstreet regulate itself? Yeah that'll work out real nicely. For the bankers.
I would think a repbulican would admit that government causes problems too. And as a rational human being, I also know that causes outside our own control help us along the way. If you think everyone caused their own misery, explain young children with cancer.
Yes, I agree. It takes two. I'm not saying that everyone who took out loans from these banks is a victim. What I said is that you cannot blame these people and not blame the banks, or the government for that matter.
Yes, failed companies should fail, but what has this to do with the people you are citicizing? I'm saying, the businesses and the government are both complicit in these problems. You refuted this in your first post and you insist this is all their fault, their choice. But the bailout and the practices of these banks before and after suggests otherwise. It is a systemic problem that should be reformed.
What's liberal about that? I'm not blaming capitalism for anything. I'm blaming businesses for obviously making terrible choices, going bankrupt, and then the government bailing them out at the detriment of their taxpayers. I'm not insisting that no citizen is cupable, but I am willing to place blame where it is due. This isn't a liberal position, in-fact many republicans and libertarians are out there yelling the same things.
Should we then remove people from society who are not worth as much? What about the mentally disabled, at least? If we killed them at birth we would be much more efficient, don't you think?
Doesn't it? I have known a lot more succesful people who came from riches to riches than from rags to riches. Would you like to give me a list of people who have "fallen from grace," as you put it? The US is supposed to be a land of opportunity, but the reality is that our education and healthcare system isn't all that opportune for those who start with less resources. If you dispute this, I invite you to explain to me why a B- student from a private highschool in Maryland can get into Harvard while an A+ student from a downtown Baltimore public school couldn't get into a second-tier state school without exellent references and extra-cirriculars?
I have worked in the university system of this country for decares and I can spend a lot of time explaining to you what is going on here. The fact of the matter is, we do not have a system that allows for those born with skills in a given area to pursue whatever skill they have. They are able to pursue only the skills that they can afford to hone. If they are born rich, they can do whatever they want. If they are born poor, they had better be damned good at sports or extremely lucky in their connections. In my thirty plus years I have only seen a handful of students from poverty-stricken backgrounds come to attain a respectable degree and position in society. The vast majority of the students in my higher-end classes are from wealthy stock. Denying this is to deny reality.
So consumers are supposed to simply take their money out of banks? Boycott the banking industry?
You sound to me like you are part of the Tea Party.
As such, I am going to assume that you are a red neck hick from Alabama and are spouting what Fox News says, and thus I am going to ignore your post. No disrespect intended, of course.
Have a glorious day!
Dexia bank; Europe's Bear Stearns Moment ?
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/why-americans-care-failing-european-bank-dexia-165732982.html
I couldn't agree more, let them fail.
No, I am not a tea party member, nor a republican. I used to consider myself a libertarian until I realized that people as a majority are ignorant and stupid, hence the reason I now believe in licenses to have children, a manditory test to vote, etc.
I am however a staunch capitalist, and as such realize that this whole thing is bullshit.