Quote:
I don't think that the creation of this problem is the goverments fault. Which I guess we have to figure out what exact problem we are talking about and when we think it started. I believe it's people fault who thought they could pay for stuff when they really couldn't or people who were loaning out money at no worry. Which in turn had a domino effect.
I agree that the greed of individuals who were seeking to live beyond their means was at the root of the present banking crisis. However, I contend that the easy money policies that fueled these excesses were instituted by the government, via the Federal Reserve.
Quote:
The blame could go anyway we want because it is so complicated. Not just one problem with one solution. What I meant by that comment was that me and you can not provide the millions of people with the resources they need.
Just because the blame is diffuse doesn't mean one cannot accurately point fingers. I don't see any politicians out of work, nor any of their cronies at the Fed or Goldman Sachs, for instance. From my perspective, it looks suspiciously as if they've been manipulating this mess for profit.
Sometimes, looking at the problem at the macro scale is like a funhouse mirror that makes the problem look more overwhelming than it is. Not to say that we don't face one hell of a problem, but taking small bites is more productive than trying to plan a Solution To Everything. In fact, large scale economic meddling towards the end of "providing a solution" is one of the things that got us into this mess, as I will try to explain below.
Regarding resources: if you have ever bought anything, sold anything, had a job, or employed anyone, you have provided people with "resources they need." No one person or institution can supply any individual with everything they want or need, but in the broader context, most people tend to get what they want, within reason.
Quote:
Sure we can help but there has to be a central chain of command.
I disagree strenuously. Think of all the millions of available products and services on the market, and think about how your own needs and desires change day-to-day and even minute-to-minute, and how that affects what you are willing to pay for a given item at a given time. Then multiply this variability by the number of all of the consumers who purchase stuff in the market. It's mind boggling to consider. Now what would this "chain of command" do exactly, if we stipulate that it's job is to improve the situation? Maybe some regulation to discourage some business practices, or some stimulus spending encourage others ? I presume this chain of command would work off of some sort of plan, because that's what smart people do.
Well, the fact is that no central planner can comprehend the enormity of a national economy. Consider the market as a giant feedback loop that allows producers to rationally set appropriate prices and wages, and to figure out how much they can pay for the services and materials that allow them to supply wares and jobs. Attempts to control the market via artificial, externally-imposed regulation on the one hand, or stimulation on the other, create market distortions. These distortions act as noise in the feedback loop that interferes with producers' ability to judge their situation rationally, and thus lead to destructive and wasteful boom-and-bust cycles.
Quote:
If the gov wasn't extending unemployment benefits, postponing foreclosures,providing incentives to hire, etc I think it would be worse.
Where does that money come from? Individual taxpayers. And who is it being given back too, after after handling expenses and payroll costs have been taken out? You guessed it, individual taxpayers! Except now there's less of it, due to those handling expenses and payroll costs. To make up the shortfall, money is borrowed or printed . . . and who eventually gets to pay for that? Take a guess.
Quote:
I don't agree with everything that .gov does, but somethings help. BUT somethings make other things worse. I know we control our own destiny but if .gov said fend for yourself, you would literally be fending for yourself as would I. Hope you see what I'm trying to say.
When .gov is "helping" someone by giving them something, it is
ipso facto taking something from someone. The beauty of the present fractional-reserve banking system (from the .gov perspective) is that it allows the government to bribe us schmucks
with our own money! Fractional reserve banking allows them to spend money that isn't created yet. The balance (and interest) will come due later, and then (from the bureaucrat's perspective) it's someone else's problem. WE are that Someone Else.
I
am literally trying to fend for myself, BTW, just as you are literally fending for yourself. If we say we're "trying to make a living," it sounds less dramatic, it's not like we're all engaged in a giant street fight over a crust of bread. We all fend for ourselves in a number of ways, whether we do that peacefully via mutually beneficial trade in the marketplace, or by forcibly taking and redistributing wealth from each other through the agency of government.
Quote:
I was refering to the Great Depression when saying that. Before the GD there was really no government interference in peoples welfare. It came along, entered and made a difference for the good at that time. Funny thing was back them people were still spouting how it was socialism or communism as they do today. (Not being political just a history side note).
Not really the place, but I could make a spirited argument that FDR's (and to a lesser extent Hoover's) New Deal policies deepened and extended the Great Depression. I know that's not what they teach in American schools (and who runs those?), but it's what I've come to understand through my own research. People were decrying these policies as socialist because they
were and
are socialist. Any time a policy takes from Peter to pay Paul for the goal of modifying society, that policy is by definition socialist. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on one's individual outlook, but I think it's pretty obvious where I stand on the issue.
Quote:
Now there is full fledge interference and many many people will suffer for the problems caused by some one they never will know or meet.
The thing speaks for itself. If it's any consolation, they
said they meant well. Socialism is very good at meaning well.
Quote:
I guess what I'm trying to say is the government will make the decisions on what will get us out of this or make it worse. Sure we the people elect the government. But in the end what will effect millions is decided by a few.
If we eventually get out of this, it will be due to the efforts of individuals working on their own initiative, but I know the bureaucrats will be first in line to demand the credit.
Hope this clarifies my thoughts on the issue a bit. I'm not trying to be jerk.