I know all of this, I have researched it in depth and you are right. I agree with the bail out, the construction industry would have stopped if AIG would have failed. No doubt it was needed, but the Republicans in Congress are pissed off at Bush today. Because they would rather hold on to their ideals of this deregulated market than save the economy. My hope is you dont follow their outcry on this. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13555.html
The message here is don't listen to the politicians. They are all posturing, trying to insulate themselves and look good for their constituents. Read up on what economic experts are saying and make up your own mind. When all is said and done, this entire fiasco can be laid at the feet of Congess...BOTH parties.
Thats good advice, I will definitely take the politics out of my research on the subject. Blame does go around to everyone.
Yeah! And the Democrats fought them tooth and nail all the way. http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml It's good to see you're moving on, though. You didn't blame it on Bush.:wink:
if i mismanage my business, can i get a bail out? it wont cost nearly as much. silly me, i thought if my business failed in this economy, i was ****outtaluck. and we got it covered. both a pub and a dem in the house!
I don't like these government bailouts either. But the failure of AIG would not have sent ripples through the global economy; it would have sent a tidal wave. The government was caught between a rock and a hard place. It was damned if it didn't and damned if it did. I suspect it looked the situation over and decided on the lesser of the two evils.
There has to be closer oversight of the banking industry, but government regulation of the economy would be a disaster. Having said that, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 was a bad idea because it encouraged mergers between competitors, which weakens competition. As a conservative, I believe a strong, healthy competitive spirit promotes a strong economy.
Balance is the key. In the 70's regulation had become so tight that it was a problem and the initial Reagan deregulations were a boost to the economy. But in a mistaken belief that all regulation was bad and that all deregulation would lead to growth, they deregulated too much. Now we see the fruit of too little regulation. The thing now is not to swing wildly back to over-regulation but to find the proper balance point.
