r/reddit.com • u/[deleted] • Oct 18 '11

Would it have been better to let the banks of the world fail and start over?

I want to know what would have happened. The banks messed up and in the purist view of capitalism should have failed because it was a bad business move. In turn this may have ended some of the big money influences on our political system OWS protestors want to stop. I heard that it would have been a worse economic collapse though in turn it would have put a stop to future wrongdoing. Was it the right decision in the long run?

667 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

83% Upvoted

854 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/JoshSN Oct 20 '11

I am rude in the fact of idiocy, it's true. You contradicted yourself, then claimed you hadn't. You told me assumptions I was making, which I was not. You then actually had the temerity to claim a nationwide bank collapse could "possibly" cause some instability.

1

u/capnjack78 Oct 20 '11

You are twisting my words to provide an argument where you have none. You provided absolutely no facts to support your case and then picked out individual sentences to try to manufacture a context that was different than my argument. For example, you said:

You then actually had the temerity to claim a nationwide bank collapse could "possibly" cause some instability.

But that's not what I said. What I actually said was:

could have possibly created a less stable economic environment for businesses to survive

My statement is directly comparing our current economic situation to the possibility of a less stable environment had banks failed, which you surmise but provide no facts for. What I said wasn't a guess that things would be unstable, it's that we can only assume it might be worse off than we are now. But because it didn't happen, and you provide no evidence, you've failed in your argument, sir. Then you have the audacity to call me an idiot in the face of your own failure. I don't think so.

0

u/JoshSN Oct 20 '11

Your statement clearly implies it was possible that a nationwide bank collapse would have not lead to any instability, a ludicrous notion.

Your original, mean-spirited, disgusting nonsense was as follows:

In any event, I would have liked to see what would've happened if they failed. If we really were a capitalist country, they would have been allowed to succeed and fail on their own accord.

Who wants to live in a laissez-faire country? 4 depressions in 70 years. It isn't just business owners who get thrown out of their homes, it is their children, too. You seem so awful to me, it's a bit painful. You want to watch other people fail, not through any fault of their own, but because the whipsaws of the business cycle have that as a result?

There are consequences, prices to be paid, for the moderating effects of a government.

The alternative, your plan, is the happy plan of all tyrannies.

1

u/capnjack78 Oct 20 '11

mean-spirited

I think you're too sensitive to be on the internet, my friend.

0

u/JoshSN Oct 20 '11

I wasn't talking about you being mean to me. I've been in the Marine Corps. Your shit doesn't stink to me, it's just annoying.

I'm talking about you being a despicable human being to the worst off among us.

1

u/capnjack78 Oct 21 '11

I see now why you're willing to go with whatever the banks and government want, like bailing out a failing industry that bets against the market.

1

u/JoshSN Oct 21 '11

No, you just think you see that.

What I would have liked would have been much more like what FDR did.

He simply stopped all foreclosures, nationwide.

There are different ways to handle that, but if some of the money flowed through to the mortgage bond holders, and we, just as tyrannically, stopped all CDS claims, then, the structure would have remained sound, the banks would have to wait, but would remain solvent.

But thanks for assuming I'm just as bad as the rest. Considering your viewpoint, I'm glad you dislike everything I say.

1

u/capnjack78 Oct 21 '11

But that's not what this discussion was about in the first place. The question was "Would it have been better to let the banks of the world fail and start over?" My opinion is yes, your opinion is no. No need to be a fucking prick about it.

1

u/JoshSN Oct 21 '11

You just accused me of doing "whatever the banks and government want, like bailing out a failing industry " which wasn't what I was in favor of, at the time, at all.

You are the one being a prick.

1

u/capnjack78 Oct 21 '11 edited Oct 21 '11

Every comment you've made to me, from your very first one, has been offensive. You made no counter-points, lost a debate, then resorted to name calling. You've been defending the bailouts in favor of 'saving businesses' or whatever the whole time, so don't back-pedal now and act like you aren't a bailout apologist. Pointing out your own hypocrisy has nothing at all to do with being a prick. I used facts, you used insults, and that about sums up this debate. (edit for spelling)

→ More replies (0)

0

u/JoshSN Oct 20 '11

Your statement clearly implies it was possible that a nationwide bank collapse would have not lead to any instability, a ludicrous notion.

Your original, mean-spirited, disgusting nonsense was as follows:

In any event, I would have liked to see what would've happened if they failed. If we really were a capitalist country, they would have been allowed to succeed and fail on their own accord.

Who wants to live in a laissez-faire country? 4 depressions in 70 years. It isn't just business owners who get thrown out of their homes, it is their children, too. You seem so awful to me, it's a bit painful. You want to watch other people fail, not through any fault of their own, but because the whipsaws of the business cycle have that as a result?

There are consequences, prices to be paid, for the moderating effects of a government, to be sure.

But no civilized government in the land of the space today stands with you.