General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#25 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
|
Originally posted by Lancer
Okay, thanks DanS. I'm looking for signs of a dollar drop vs the Philippine peso but so far nothing much. It will but slowly and continually as the Fed continues to inflate the money supply and interest rates keep falling in an attempt to goose the economy. What we really need is some form of responsible regulation to prevent the worst speculative behavior and to provide greater transparency on complex even arcane items like "mortgage backed securities". Supposedly the rules and system was so complex that even institutional investors couldn't judge risk accurately and unscrupulous firms were able to shift bad loans off on unsuspecting punters due to the risk/value of these securities being almost impossible to quantify. Lord knows if the taxpayer is going to continually pick up the tab for the failures while companies get to keep all of the profits during the boom cycle then the government needs to regulate away the worst practices of the offenders. |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
|
I'm kind of interested in what the real options are when dealing with a financial crisis. As I see it there are three main options:
1) Bail out, this is usually supported by people who have something directly to lose from the crisis, they point out the dire negative effects of doing nothing (jobs lost, companies going bust, pension funds & other investors going bust) and rationalize that a bail out is the only way to avoid those negatives. The con vote says that this only encourages bad behavior and costs taxpayers oodles of money. 2) Do nothing approach. This tends to be supported by the far right who point out allowing businesses to go bust makes and example of them and discourages others from such speculations in the future. Progressives point out that often it is not just the guilty but regular joes who get hit including pension funds meaning lots of penniless old folks in the streets while the financial crisis deepens into a possible depression taking down healthy companies along with the unsound ones. 3) Do some things but not others. A split the difference approach which says the risks of doing nothing are so dire that we must have some sort of bailout but at the same time acknowledging this will lead to more bad behavior. Thus regulations need to be enacted to stop the counterproductive speculative behaviors so that taxpayers aren't stuck cleaning up crisis after crisis. Which way is best and are there other solutions out there? |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
|
Originally posted by Oerdin
Not really a crisis like those three. More like the Japanese crisis of the early 90's. A burst speculative bubble made possible by laxed lending standards and real estate speculations. The worst part about the Japanese situation (probably not a crisis) is that consumer confidence was hit so hard. If consumer confidence gets hit like that in the US is will definitely be a crisis though. |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|