Originally posted by williamsvt
View Post
That leaves us with exactly 2 choices. Spend 30 billion now to prevent spending 300 billion later, or don't. If we don't, the economy will eventually recover and bottom out, but there is no telling when, where, why, or how. There is also no telling how much it would cost to not let those people starve, and what burden that would place on everyone else that might be able to keep their jobs.
As shitty a proposition as it is to keep them afloat, it is far less shitty than the alternative. This is why you are seeing previously free market biased people doing what they are doing. George Bush and Alan Greenspan come to mind. Having said that, Greenspan isn't completely convinced that regulation will do anything anyway, and I agree. The free market right now is being far more conservative than any proposed, suggested or considered regulatory change, and quite frankly, many of the regulatory tools that were supposed to be in place to prevent this failed just as miserably. If 100 laws are implemented and failed, then it serves to reason that an additional 1,000 laws isn't going to protect us nearly as much we want to pretend it is. Not to say that some change isn't needed, but frankly, wide sweeping change will probably do more harm than good.
Comment