How can they not? They watched (as it appeared from the regular guy’s POV) the elite destroy the global economy, then get bailed out by the government, while the rest of us got stiffed.
How much of the welfare state of mind contributed to the implosion? Subprime was directly driven by liberal policies and priorities.
That's a valid question, and we should explore it to prevent future similar crises. But it doesn't really have any bearing on the fact that we decided to respond to the crisis by bailing out large moneyed actors involved, while letting the small unmoneyed actors involved eat it. It looked - and still looks - like, if you are "too big to fail" (seen by most of us as "too rich to fail"), then the government will use taxpayer dollars to bail you out from your mistakes, but if you're just some random guy with a mortgage, the government will say, "Take responsibility for your decisions" and leave you to your fate.
P
I find it ironic that in a thread, where we are talking about the great recession and what caused it and what could have been done to solve it, you are complaining about feminization – the desire for safety instead of risk.
There is a not too subtle connection between the disillusionment with economic and political systems you mentioned and my links.
But if so, I guess we can put to bed the laissez-faire free market ideology, right?
Not at all. The heavy hand of public policies had a material influence on the financial crisis. Greed played a role in taking advantage, both on the consumer and lender side. I don’t think that was an example of laissez-faire free markets.
Some small, unmoneyed actors ate it. Some who lied and took big risks got away pretty much unharmed.How can they not? They watched (as it appeared from the regular guy’s POV) the elite destroy the global economy, then get bailed out by the government, while the rest of us got stiffed.
How much of the welfare state of mind contributed to the implosion? Subprime was directly driven by liberal policies and priorities.
That's a valid question, and we should explore it to prevent future similar crises. But it doesn't really have any bearing on the fact that we decided to respond to the crisis by bailing out large moneyed actors involved, while letting the small unmoneyed actors involved eat it. It looked - and still looks - like, if you are "too big to fail" (seen by most of us as "too rich to fail"), then the government will use taxpayer dollars to bail you out from your mistakes, but if you're just some random guy with a mortgage, the government will say, "Take responsibility for your decisions" and leave you to your fate.
How can they not? They watched (as it appeared from the regular guy’s POV) the elite destroy the global economy, then get bailed out by the government, while the rest of us got stiffed.
How much of the welfare state of mind contributed to the implosion? Subprime was directly driven by liberal policies and priorities.
The loans weren't the problem. It was the packaging of them into fraudulent AAA products that brought everything down.
if the loans weren’t the problem, the entire premise of your argument falls apart. They literally were the problem.
Some. Some was also driven by people taking too many risks at institutions that were supposed to know better. Some was driven by people selling crap they knew was crap while betting against it.How can they not? They watched (as it appeared from the regular guy’s POV) the elite destroy the global economy, then get bailed out by the government, while the rest of us got stiffed.
How much of the welfare state of mind contributed to the implosion? Subprime was directly driven by liberal policies and priorities.
Yeah, the loans were a problem. A big one.How can they not? They watched (as it appeared from the regular guy’s POV) the elite destroy the global economy, then get bailed out by the government, while the rest of us got stiffed.
How much of the welfare state of mind contributed to the implosion? Subprime was directly driven by liberal policies and priorities.
The loans weren't the problem. It was the packaging of them into fraudulent AAA products that brought everything down.
Meh. One can be completely rational and see there is a problem with the mythology and idealogy behind American versions of democracy and capitalism. I don't think you need any kind of masculine or feminine leanings to explain it. Good old fashioned common sense will do.P
I find it ironic that in a thread, where we are talking about the great recession and what caused it and what could have been done to solve it, you are complaining about feminization – the desire for safety instead of risk.
There is a not too subtle connection between the disillusionment with economic and political systems you mentioned and my links.
Of course there are problems. Human beings are in control of both the political and economic systems. I don’t understand how your mythology and ideology comment relates unless you are drilling down on human influence, which is different for men and women.
Meh. One can be completely rational and see there is a problem with the mythology and idealogy behind American versions of democracy and capitalism. I don't think you need any kind of masculine or feminine leanings to explain it. Good old fashioned common sense will do.P
I find it ironic that in a thread, where we are talking about the great recession and what caused it and what could have been done to solve it, you are complaining about feminization – the desire for safety instead of risk.
There is a not too subtle connection between the disillusionment with economic and political systems you mentioned and my links.
Separate the state from the money. Problem solved.
Some small, unmoneyed actors ate it. Some who lied and took big risks got away pretty much unharmed.How can they not? They watched (as it appeared from the regular guy’s POV) the elite destroy the global economy, then get bailed out by the government, while the rest of us got stiffed.
How much of the welfare state of mind contributed to the implosion? Subprime was directly driven by liberal policies and priorities.
That's a valid question, and we should explore it to prevent future similar crises. But it doesn't really have any bearing on the fact that we decided to respond to the crisis by bailing out large moneyed actors involved, while letting the small unmoneyed actors involved eat it. It looked - and still looks - like, if you are "too big to fail" (seen by most of us as "too rich to fail"), then the government will use taxpayer dollars to bail you out from your mistakes, but if you're just some random guy with a mortgage, the government will say, "Take responsibility for your decisions" and leave you to your fate.
True, but I was trying to circle it back to your OP, which I think still makes a valid point about the role the bailout played in the disillusionment of the average American voter.
@bradstevens this is very interesting. It was financially irresponsible to lend based on questionable financials - stated income etc. and the fat cats got rescued while middle America got foreclosed. I still believe that people, many, would have agreed that ultimately they were personally responsible. That they took out more than they could afford and failed to pay their bills.
the bad taste came with the callousness of the process. Robo foreclosures. So irresponsible lenders get bailed out and Joe bag of doughnuts gets kicked to the curb without even the care of a human
@goat not that simple. Property valuation etc. folks were way upside down. Those subprime loans threw valuations out of whack. Fck I had a buddy in a new development in riviera beach call his lender and tell them the keys are in the mailbox
@unclemark played a massive role in. Check the market at that time. The number of 13s and 7s filed. And 13s people were just fooling themselves again. Pissing money away. Delaying the inevitable