Originally posted by RocasAtoll
If Obama hadn't decided to go on a plan of printing thousands of bills that weakened the value of the dollar, if Obama had not put tax money into businesses that are economically nonviable, if he hadn't put the government debt into a larger hole, the debt wouldn't have shot up so high and we wouldn't be in such a bad place when the next recession happens.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
If Obama hadn't decided to go on a plan of printing thousands of bills that weakened the value of the dollar, if Obama had not put tax money into businesses that are economically nonviable, if he hadn't put the government debt into a larger hole, the debt wouldn't have shot up so high and we wouldn't be in such a bad place when the next recession happens.What has the economy done so far? Recover? No. The market would have corrected itself and in the end become healthier for the cutting away of weak companies and strengthening of healthy companies.
Good posts, very true..glad someone is educating themselves.
Originally posted by lord xyz
So it's Guantanamo 2?Guantonomo Bay was the most humane part in America. Despite it actually being on the island of Cuba.
Change you can believe in.
Originally posted by RocasAtollAnd what would it have done otherwise? Correct itself while how many people suffer? It's like arguing about whether to strangle the people or the economy. I mean, you'll have to put the people through a certain level of suffering but you don't want to cut off so much support they're forced into survival mode...oh wait, I forgot, the democrats are always wrong...
What has the economy done so far? Recover? No.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's the idea. Free-market's are supposed to be self correcting. Assuming people are logical and intelligent short term suffering leads to long term benefit for everyone.
To which the counter argument would be that we don't have a truly free-market system.
To which the counter is that actually building a proper free-market system would require destroying all business and government then start from the ground up, which is something that will never get any support from anyone but anarchist and libertarians.
To which the counter argument is that I'm wrong about that assumption in some way.
Which is counter with "No I'm not shut up Ba- jerk!"
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's the idea. Free-market's are supposed to be self correcting. Assuming people are logical and intelligent short term suffering leads to long term benefit for everyone.
Correct.
Or at the very least a free market will rebound the best.
If you left the markets alone they would have had problems, but eventually rebounded.
Obama on the other hand chose to intervene and now we are having problems, eventually will rebound AND be a few trillion dollars more in debt.
Originally posted by KidRock
Correct.Or at the very least a free market will rebound the best.
If you left the markets alone they would have had problems, but eventually rebounded.
Obama on the other hand chose to intervene and now we are having problems, eventually will rebound AND be a few trillion dollars more in debt.
Originally posted by Quark_666
And what would it have done otherwise? Correct itself while how many people suffer? It's like arguing about whether to strangle the people or the economy. I mean, you'll have to put the people through a certain level of suffering but you don't want to cut off so much support they're forced into survival mode...oh wait, I forgot, the democrats are always wrong...
Originally posted by King Kandy
12 trillion dollars of debt under Bush. It's hardly shot up at all, actually.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I really haven't seen anything to suggest a true free-market wouldn't just be people endlessly scheming to rip each other off.
likely, but also in that market, the schemers would be separated from government in such a way that they would suffer the consequences of such terrible business practice.