JPF Home Page Forums Stop The Bailout

I disagree with the FDIC explanation. It's an insurance policy and the banks in question simply pay the premiums to collectively cover it all. The reason the government puts it's name on it is to make investors and savers feel more secure. But it's insurance just the same that has been paid for. Of course no one has ever explained what happens if the government itself goes under. The premise is that our leaders would never let that happen, even though banks leaders might. Since the money system is backed by nothing in the first place, it's all hocus pocus to start right?

When the government takes actual ownership of the banks, that's a definite move towards socialism. I've also read that people feel if this was ever taken to court, they'd rule government bailing out private companies unconstitutional. I hope someone brings such a case. Why keep 1 badly run company in business to compete later with the ones that were well run all along? That's not capitalism in my book, modern or otherwise. It's the government choosing teams with a private company against all the others. Unfair to say the least.

The premise that socialism means taking the money and power away from the wealthy few and redistributing it to everyone else is also an indication we're moving away from capitalism.

As for the fed being at fault, though they no doubt deserve plenty of blame, I feel the ignitor of this collapse were Freddie and Fannie and that Barney Frank and his cohorts blocking of regulation of them (which was a political move in and of itself to protect their big financial supporters and friends running them) shows they are, in the end, most at fault. And ACORN, that little group that loves partisan election corruption, was also who pressured many banks to make these stupid loans in the first place claiming racism and bigotry if the banks didn't loan to poor minorities. They protested at branches etc. and the banks caved. That set a precedent that a lot of greedy sleazebags decided to cash in on.

I think your explanation is one of the most intelligent ones I have read, but I think it glosses over a lot of details that invalidate some of the premises. It's true we've not been a pure capitalist society, but this clearly moves us closer to being socialist than capitalist. I think we can at least agree on that 1 issue.

Socialism always sounds good on face value. But when it's tried, it fails. And when it slips further into communism, it can only be held together via military action and severe oppression. Ironic that a government idea that is supposed to help people usually terrorizes them in the end. As bad as the Nazi's were in WWII, the Russians murdered far more people during the same time frame. All in the name of communism. I doubt we're going to go there, but I don't doubt that unhealthy side effects that come with socialism will rear up their ugly heads as we inch more in that direction.

Brian

Brian