To TVMAN, Wow!! Wow!! and more Wow!!TO Slurpee Summit:
The world economy is not in depression; it probably won't fall into depression, despite the manitude of the current crisis. But while depression itself has not returned, depression economics, the kinds of problems that characterized much of the world economy in the 1930's but have not been seen since, has staged a stunning comeback. How did the world become this dangerous? More important, how do we get out of the current crisis, and what can we do to prevent such crises from happening in the first place? Essentially it means that for the first time in two generations, failures on the demand side of the economy, insufficient private spending to make use of the avaiable productive capacity, have become the clear and present limitation on prosperity for a large part of the world. The obvious solution is to put in more capital. A financial rescue along similar lines is now underway in the United States and other advanced economies, although it was late in coming, thanks in part to the ideological tilt of the Republican party. My guess is that the recapitalization will eventually have to get bigger and broader, and that there will eventually have to be more assertion of government control, in effect, it will come closer to a full temporary nationalization of a significant part of the financial system. I won't try to lay out the details of a new regulatory regime, but the basic principle should be clear. Anything that has to be rescued during a financial crisis, because it plays an essential role in the financial mechanism, should be regulated when there isn't a crisis so that it doesn't take excessive risks.
Do you realize what you said? You stated that the idea of investing more capital was a republican stance. This implies more debt, correct?
Are you a democrat supporter? If not, you need to be. Investors have invested because America could guarantee growth. Groups such as the Tea don't want that growth, they want the American business to stall or decrease in size. More efficient doesn't equal better, in terms of life funded business.
In generalization I would make an attempt to respond but you've driven a conglomeration too big to fit in a pea into a pea. See governments as what they are, incapable of being self-sufficient; no matter what happens. America could easily give workers the leftovers and not go through the motions of allowing people to seem as if life is so complex.
Like the idea of simplifying the tax code, citizens think they'd still receive the same wages. Imagine applying for a job and they based your eligibility on your debts. It's happening now but you still get the option to pay or not pay. Now, imagine those payments were taken before you got a check. People would really think about what they were getting into.
This is what you're proposing as a regulatory medium and it's not because it will work. This idea is circulated because America is tired of waiting for it's money or not being paid at all. I never said America was in a depression. 80% of the workers are still okay, living a little tighter but still almost living.
The problem is who is almost living versus a concern of repairing the economy. The complainants are the same as the people who screwed it up, the consumer. Bankruptcy doesn't dissolve debt, it gets redistributed to the entire population. If we unknowingly assume the failures, then why not reap the benefits of the gains? We did but the gross domestic product had to be separated from the standard of living; hence the reason America doesn't feel as if we're out of the recession.