Quote:
Originally Posted by J pold
I'm not for the big bonuses and people have every right to be upset about that. But the fact remains if you don't bailout the banks the American people suffer MUCH worse than they are or have. We are talking about unemployment levels in the high teens, banks runs, people losing their entire life savings, like I said earlier worse than the 1930's.
And yes I agree with the terms fraudulent and predatory in describing some of the loans made (ie. NINA) but it takes two to tango. I'm fine with bankers being dolled out the loins share of the blame but the consumer has some discretion and should bare some of the responsibility, without them they loans don't get made in the first place.
|
Is there any evidence for this? This is just fear mongering. So seriously, this post pisses me off every single time I read it.
Do you really think the "American people" (not rich bankers, but the average joe) would be any worse off? The banks would collapse, the individuals get $100,000 insured (which is far more savings than, say, 90% of people). You might get a staggering number for "wealth" destroyed - and I write that in quotations because that's all paper wealth, not real wealth like production and innovation.
Like others have posted, sticking the bill to the average citizen is not the way for banks to "shoulder blame" for the crisis. What has happened is that the bank took 0% of the blame, and the consumer took 100% of the blame.
Iceland, Malaysia and hopefully others to come give me hope for society, that we can actually break free from this corporate slavery. One day.