Princess_Tina posted:Kimball_Kinnison posted: 2) No, you didn't answer that. You posted another op-ed. You have basically said that it is unregulated because someone else thinks it was mostly unregulated. Obviously, you cannot tell the difference between an op-ed and a news report... what I posted is not an op-ed, it is a news report quoting the U.S. Treasury Secretary. And that is just to show that even at the cabinet level, officials agree that non-depository banks should be more closely regulated.
Kimball_Kinnison posted: 2) No, you didn't answer that. You posted another op-ed. You have basically said that it is unregulated because someone else thinks it was mostly unregulated.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:It is effectively the same thing. You are basically saying that because someone else holds a certain opinion, you do too.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Tell me, are you completely incapable of original thought? Because I haven't seen any evidence of original thinking on your part at all. All you do is parrot what other people say. You post op-eds giving the author's opinions, or you post news reports reporting on other people's opinions, but you never actually post your own opinion as based on anything but a house of cards (those cards being other people's opinions).
Princess_Tina posted:Kimball_Kinnison posted:It is effectively the same thing. You are basically saying that because someone else holds a certain opinion, you do too. That is 100% wrong. It also shows that you didn't actually read the whole post. As I said before, I reached that position before I even read the statement by the U.S. Treasury Secretary. Even if we forget for a moment that Paulson said just as much, my position remains the same - non-depository banks need to be more closely regulated to avoid more situations which will lead to taxpayer-backed bank bailouts.
Princess_Tina posted:The original thread topic is, "Have we been duped?" and I think the answer merits being answered on both an individual and a collective basis. I think it is important to not just give our own personal opinions, but also look a little bit beyond our own personal position and see how other Americans react to the current crisis.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:If you reached that position before reading that statement, you haven't actually given any evidence of that. When you've been asked to back it up, you've simply pointd to other people saying the same thing, not the evidence that would underlie the opinion.
Princess_Tina posted:Could it be because you had completely misunderstood my statement?
Princess_Tina posted:In this thread topic, we are not discussing something that is very much subjective... whether or not we have been duped. When one expresses an opinion that is largely a matter of interpretation (how we interpret the facts of what has happened), how do you define if that interpretation is valid? There will be many different interpretations of what has happened here, in regards to the housing & mortgage crisis, and how it has spread to affect credit availability in other, unrelated areas.
Princess_Tina posted:It surprises me that you claim you do not see the logic behind the position I have expressed.
Princess_Tina posted:Widespread bank failures are bad for the whole economy... when you reach that situation, as we have in this case, there is so much more at stake than individual loans. It is unfortunate that when things get as bad as they have now, the government has to step in and bail out the banks. I've already seen this situation closely, because it is very similar to what happened in Mexico in the mid-90's. It basically led to the U.S. having to bail Mexico out.
Princess_Tina posted:You haven't said, as far as I can recall, what your personal opinion is regarding government-led bank bailouts, or have you? Why don't you give your opinion on this subject?
Kimball_Kinnison posted: Princess_Tina posted:You haven't said, as far as I can recall, what your personal opinion is regarding government-led bank bailouts, or have you? Why don't you give your opinion on this subject?My position is very simple. I have not yet seen evidence that they are necessary at this point. Until I see such evidence, I consider them unnecessary, as I believe that the government should interfere with the economy no more than is actually necessary to fulfill its functions. Kimball Kinnison
chibiangi posted:Well my totally ignorant, uninformed opinion is that no one should get a bailout that both these businesses and individuals who took advantage of the market should sink.
Princess_Tina posted:What evidence could exist at any point that a bank bailout is necessary? Obviously the government already felt it was necessary to step in in the case of Bear Sterns. We can agree or disagree with whether or not it really was necessary, but at the end of the day, the government has the power to step in as it sees fit, doesn't it? I don't think it is required to somehow show evidence that it was necessary to implement a bank bailout. Unfortunately, by the time we get to a situation like we have right now, it's hard to argue against bank bailouts because of the very real risk that letting a bank fail will lead to panic and to even more bank failures, which ends up being far more damaging to the economy. Shouldn't the government act to prevent a series of bank failures? In fact, that is what the Federal Reserve was created for: Just before the founding of the Federal Reserve, the nation was plagued with financial crises. At times, these crises led to “panics,” in which people raced to their banks to withdraw their deposits. A particularly severe panic in 1907 resulted in bank runs that wreaked havoc on the fragile banking system and ultimately led Congress in 1913 to write the Federal Reserve Act. Initially created to address these banking panics, the Federal Reserve is now charged with a number of broader responsibilities, including fostering a sound banking system and a healthy economy.
Kimball_Kinnison posted: So, as I said before, I don't see the need for the government to step in yet. (The Fed is not the government - it is independent.) Until I do see evidence of such a need, I am opposed to any government bailouts. Kimball Kinnison
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Ahh, since you had nothing to add, I take it that you have finally seen the light and agree with me. Kimball Kinnison
Princess_Tina posted:Yet the problems caused by the situation affect the economy as a whole, it arguably affects all taxpayers the moment it leads to things like bailing out Bear Sterns. So whose job should be to prevent these situations? Isn't there anyone in this country who should be held accountable for allowing things like this to happen? Or do we all collectively say "oops!" while the economy grinds to a recession?
anidanami124 posted:Princess_Tina posted:Yet the problems caused by the situation affect the economy as a whole, it arguably affects all taxpayers the moment it leads to things like bailing out Bear Sterns. So whose job should be to prevent these situations? Isn't there anyone in this country who should be held accountable for allowing things like this to happen? Or do we all collectively say "oops!" while the economy grinds to a recession? Yeah yourself if you can't control your own spending then how is any one else supposed to? How is it someone else job to bail out people who can't control there spending?
Hammurabi posted:We duped ourselves.
