![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, just so I'm clear on this....
Conservative socio-fiscal policy is, in a nutshell, "No hand-outs."
Can someone explain, using small words and diagrams where necessary, at what point a business becomes big enough to become exempt from this, given the Fed's current stance of bailing out, supporting, and offering discounted loans to the financial institutions in the wake of their own risky behavior?
Because, really, I'm not seeing a hell of a lot of difference[1] right now, fundamentally, between Bear Stearns' stock price going from $141 to $2 per share and them needing to be rescued by a combination of the Fed and JP Morgan Chase (with the government's blessing and assistence) and, say, a guy who loses his job and can't get another because he's got a meth habit and a penchant for fucking disease-ridden raccoons and finds himself out on the street with his dick falling off.
[1]The difference, of course, is that the financial institutions can grease palms, and continue to do so; and conservatives will argue that a financial market crash hurts more people; to this latter point, I'd like to pose the following question: "How is an unsafe, artificially supported financial system on the verge of collapse superior to a post-crash one that's learning[2] from those mistakes?"
[2] Unless, of course, they don't learn from them; this is always an option, and frequently the case.
Conservative socio-fiscal policy is, in a nutshell, "No hand-outs."
Can someone explain, using small words and diagrams where necessary, at what point a business becomes big enough to become exempt from this, given the Fed's current stance of bailing out, supporting, and offering discounted loans to the financial institutions in the wake of their own risky behavior?
Because, really, I'm not seeing a hell of a lot of difference[1] right now, fundamentally, between Bear Stearns' stock price going from $141 to $2 per share and them needing to be rescued by a combination of the Fed and JP Morgan Chase (with the government's blessing and assistence) and, say, a guy who loses his job and can't get another because he's got a meth habit and a penchant for fucking disease-ridden raccoons and finds himself out on the street with his dick falling off.
[1]The difference, of course, is that the financial institutions can grease palms, and continue to do so; and conservatives will argue that a financial market crash hurts more people; to this latter point, I'd like to pose the following question: "How is an unsafe, artificially supported financial system on the verge of collapse superior to a post-crash one that's learning[2] from those mistakes?"
[2] Unless, of course, they don't learn from them; this is always an option, and frequently the case.
◾ Tags:
