Your ideas on that banking bailout thing

[webcowgirl]

I'm curious - what do you think? Should Congress have passed the bailout or not passed it? Is it a good thing for the world economy? Is it just guaranteeing the demise of America as a superpower - er, either the passing of the bill or the non-passing?

Is it just staving off the inevitable?

What do you think?

In other news, I want new tea balls (I like the 1 1/2 inch size ball only, and they're hard to find), and I had to rebook Uffizi tickets (the first place was going to have us there in the morning after I'd specifically requested the afternoon). I'm a bit worried that there's something to do for the trip that I've forgotten (combo ticket for Colosseum and Palatine Hill?) I also stayed up late finishing my latest Charlaine Harris mystery (A Bone to Pick), and I did correctly guess the murderer! It was a fun book to read. Now I'm going to crack down on the Proust (I'm at page 255 of Time Regained, in the middle of a long and unflattering discussion of aging) - I have just more than a hundred pages to go and I want to have this finished by the end of the month. Oddly, I think I just might be done by Friday ...

Comments

I say, let it fail.

[mabel-morgan.livejournal.com]

It's over for the United States no matter what happens. The only hope is that Barack Obama does get elected and he really is a lightworker. If there was ever a plot in need of a magical Negro, this is one. Unfortunately, I don't think he's secretly Morgan Freeman.

As for whether this bailout is a good one...well I have read numerous articles saying that of all the responses this one is the most expensive and the least likely to work. The Economist is in favour apparently, but I couldn't get to grips with their reasoning.

Whatever, it's clear that free market capitalism "doesn't work". Personally, I would like them to not go ahead with the bailout and see what happens when the markets try and stabilise themselves. I think Free Market capitalism does work and this is how it works - badly for the vast majority of the world's population.

Re: I say, let it fail.

[webcowgirl.livejournal.com]

Do you think there will be another great depression? And if so, is it likely to be trigged by no bailout, or by a bailout?

Re: I say, let it fail.

[mabel-morgan.livejournal.com]

No idea on all counts. I think what a lot of economists are making clear is that the bailout will not really do anything except forestall the inevitable. I think what is clear to me is that this system is fake and that there are other systems out there - Participatory Economics for example - which would probably do a better job of it.

Re: I say, let it fail.

[madda-gaska.livejournal.com]

"Whatever, it's clear that free market capitalism "doesn't work"."
I thought there had been bailouts before?
If I'm right on that then it's not actually 'free market'- it's 'sort-of-free-market-but-look-at-this-nice-safety-net'.

So yes, if you keep paying people to make a ballsup of their profession then their profession will transform into one that is... well... unprofessional!

S

Re: I say, let it fail.

[mabel-morgan.livejournal.com]

Exactly, my point exactly. It's all fake and it's complete bullshit.

For over a decade now we have been told that Communism doesn't work and that's been proved. When you answer that what the Soviets and Chinese have had in place was not real Marxism the reply is "Ahh but that was the best that could be done. That's the best communism that can ever be on offer". Well the same applies. This is the best free market capitalism available. And just to prove a point lets see what happens when no bailouts occurs. Let's watch the markets stabilise themselves and see what happens to millions and millions of people across the globe.

Let them eat cake?

[madda-gaska.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, the Kalder book I'm reading at the moment (Strange Telescopes) suggests that Vissarion might actually have created a better example of Communism, although he doesn't call it that and does call himself the second coming (of Christ)...

It is quite... amusing, I guess (because I've been cynical for too long) to hear this described as the best free market capitalism available. The best would surely involve no subsidies or bailouts or any other outside intervention. Of course, that might not be the best to live in.

This does remind me though- doing some more reading up on the temporary rise of the anarchists in Spain around 1940 would be a good plan.

I would've suggested that monarchy under an ideal monarch is actually better than democracy under an ideal pack of politicians- because the monarchy lasts longer. Of course, a bad monarch is liable to last longer too, and the damage that can be caused is far greater, so I'm certainly not advocating a return to monarchy- although I think the US might be heading for that, given that at least one of the last two elections was awarded for reasons that had more to do with family than with votes.

S

Re: Let them eat cake?

[mabel-morgan.livejournal.com]

It is quite... amusing, I guess (because I've been cynical for too long) to hear this described as the best free market capitalism available. The best would surely involve no subsidies or bailouts or any other outside intervention. Of course, that might not be the best to live in.

Yes! My point exactly. They bring interventions, subsidies and bailouts precisely because the alternative, slavish adherence to market forces, leaving people to fend for themselves as the shit hits the fan, is morally reprehensible. Well, my point is that it's all bloody morally reprehensible and it always has been.

Stupid David Cameron said the other day that we should still remain positive about capitalism - have faith. We weren't complaining when we were reaping all the benefits. Actually, David, I was complaining, in fact lots of people were complaining ALL ACROSS THE GLOBE.

Re: Let them eat cake?

[webcowgirl.livejournal.com]

Well put, madam.

Re: Let them eat cake?

[madda-gaska.livejournal.com]

I find money itself to be a problem- not the amount I have/don't have, just the whole idea of money as an objective... it leads to lots of very intelligent people wasting their lives speculating on something that has no value outside of itself.

The real question is: Would a real Free Market Capitalism actually settle down without subsidies etc? Ultimately most people like stability, so would they thus cause there to be stability themselves if they had to?
I don't think you ever see how well something can be done except when it is done without safety nets, etc- the disadvantage being that the ground can be rather fatally far away without a safety net.

Heh- Cameron is talking about it like the religion it is!
And yes- reaping the benefits? When was this? I'm in a one fucking room flat and this is reaping the benefits? The benefits are hugely inflated house prices, etc? Well, I'll be glad to see those benefits go away, it might actually give me some options!

Incidentally, I really do think it would be amusing to see Jilted Ken performing Boris is a Moron.

S