The collapse did not cause the downfall of GM and Chrylser. That had failed long ago but with the easy money and things seemingly going well they were able to continue to kick their problems down the road just like Europe is doing now. The problem is, they did not fix their problems. They also have simply kicked their problems down the road concerning their unsustainable legacy costs. A proper bankruptcy could have addressed this. I would have even supported limitied government involvement to make sure that at least a portion of these were retained before GM and CHrysler were allowed to start paying out bonuses and such.[\quote]
Poor management and product line up were factors in the bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM, but it occurred 6 quarters into the longest recession since the great depression. The great recession was the triggering event of their bankruptcy.
Indeed. I wasn't terrified.
Good for you, but that attitude is not representative of what most felt during the recession.
I completely dismiss this arguement. It was said that the markets would collapse without TARP. We enacted TARP and the markets collapsed. We shoul dhave left it alone right there. We should not have went on a program that's only purpose was to get the markets back up to where they were before the crash. I lost no money in the crash. I didn't make any but I also didn't lose any. (Yes, I was invested in my retirement account). I'm in for the long haul, not to move in/out in/out in/out to find the next bubble.
The stock market did not collapse at any time, nor did the economy. That's the point of TARP and Stimulus. DJIA dropped a serious 60%, but it did not collapse 90% like it did in the great depression. I do not remember any mention in the arguments over TARP that it would save the stock market from collapse anyhow. The purpose of TARP was to prevent widespread insolvency of the banking system, since the country needs a functioning banking system. By preventing widespread insolvency and giving Treasury time to arrange orderly takeovers of banks with serious problems, we prevented a serious credit crunch, where banks would not lend to anyone for fear they would go bankrupt and the bank would not be repaid. Indirectly that would be somewhat beneficial to the stock market, but that was not a primary objective of TARP.
Greenspan is a ****ing idiot. It was his idiotic policies that allowed the bubble in the first place. Anyone that would listen to anything that Greenspan has to say, well, I do not want to atract the ire of the mods but making no personal accusations to anyone but anyone that cares what Greenspan has to say has to be an idiot.
Greenspan had interest rates too low with fed funds at 1% in 2003-2004, and he failed to use his power to regulate the financial markets, but he was fed chairman for 16 years, 4 terms, and he is no idiot. He did not tell one bank to loan money to people with no chance to pay it back, and he did not tell one wall st. investment bank to load up their balance sheet with toxic debt; they did that all on their own.
The government is not a spender. They are a transferer.
You are playing semantics for the sake of argument, without much point really. Of course the govt. is a spender, they spend a lot of money with my company, and many others like General Dynamics and Raytheon. I don't care where they got the money, I just care that they spent it with me.
But, at the end of the day, you have chosen to pick semantic arguments, and you have NOT described what you other plan was to deal with the financial crisis, how it would have worked, how many industries would be affected, how deeply they would be affected, how many bankruptcies would have occurred, and how high the unemployment rate would have risen? If you don't know that, you don't have a plan, you just have a desire.
