Nope they didn't but that was the whole reason for the creation of The Fed.They were to be a lender of last resort. Problem was that before The Fed came into existence the larger banks served that purpose. So the government usurped private businesses to take control. They failed massively.
The Federal Reserve is still comprised of private banking entities with few public restrictions. It’s a quasi-public entity.
I'm not being sarcastic or rude in saying this but I can find a humongous amount of failures with all these institutions of the government but I think its generally obvious.
Look at the situation predating the crash of 1929 and today’s mess: little oversight, unenforced regulations, rampant fraud etc. Those organizations are the referees of the financial football game so to speak. They keep up the veneer of propriety make sure the market participants operate on the level.
We were the US government. That time has passed. The people are asleep at the wheel. If they did wake up they are to uneducated to make smart decisions.
We still are the US government but impediments have grown: corporate lobbyists that grease our representatives, equating free speech with the dollar, the incessant demonization of government and basic government services to get government off the backs of industry. What’ wrong with a little clarity and transparency?
I know what you mean. I'm not trying to say toss them to the streets but at the same time they need to share more of their load.
The thing about taking away welfare and other benefits the government provides is that it forces people to be more productive. It forces them to make smarter decisions because if they don't it is their problem to deal with.
Someone on here in another thread pointed out that china's benefit structure (unemployment etc.) exists but that its not worth trying to get anything from.
As a result the savings rate among the people is much high than in the US.
What I’m trying to communicate is that for all the talk of potential and that everyone can be a financial success, I just don’t see it. I see a large segment of our population that will never rise above a certain level of achievement. They are followers.
Judge Smehls was right (Caddyshack) “The world needs ditch diggers too!” He’s right. And the vast multitudes will never surpass that station in life. I think they do valuable work and should have some modicum of security in their situation.
Nearly any program the government passes is experimental. That is why they shouldn't play with peoples lives and money if they don't know if it will work.
Let individuals come up with their own plan of action.
In the national interest, we cannot have these marginal people reaching for the unattainable brass ring. I know that sounds condescending but we have a small group of leaders and whole lot of followers. That’s how it has always been
I'll be nice to about it this time but I hate the word hoarding.
It is a subjective word. If you (not you specifically) "hoard" money then you are a smart saver, if someone else does it then they are an evil hoarder.
Those people who don't spend their money may need in case of a job loss or some other unforeseen situation.
The problem with everyone acting in their own self interest is that when they refuse to spend, the entire economy shuts down.
Here is something well worth reading. It is called the Tragedy of the Commons. It illustrates how society can be ruined by everyone acting in their own self-interest.
He asks us to imagine the grazing of animals on a common ground. Individuals are motivated to add to their flocks to increase personal wealth. Yet, every animal added to the total degrades the commons a small amount. Although the degradation for each additional animal is small relative to the gain in wealth for the owner, if all owners follow this pattern the commons will ultimately be destroyed. And, being rational actors, each owner ads to their flock:
Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit - in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. (Hardin, 1968)
Tragedy of the Commons Described
If an old generation pads their life with money borrowed that a future generation will have to pay, I do consider it robbery because they have no say in the situation.
If you can't pay for your life then don't dump your debt on your kids. That is wrong among all wrongs.
Their is a thread in "Breaking News" that talks about a guy working for the NY state government that makes roughly $90,000 a year and does nothing.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/43498-state-employee-i-get-93-803-no-work.html
Or the treasury paying to much for bank stocks. I think this is the tip of the iceberg in government inefficiency.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/43497-watchdog-treasury-overpaid-bank-stocks.html
Robbery is a legal terminology denoting an unlawful taking of another person’s property. The gov. has the right to tax. It’s in the Constitution. Debt is part of life. There is good debt—debt that improves our national infrastructure-roads, education, etc. There is bad debt—funding wars of choice and giving tax breaks to people who have no pressing need for more income.
Of course there is waste in government. There’s waste in all human endeavor. We try to address waste when we find it.
The Social Security funds have been spent. It is now a mandatory Ponzi scheme.
The social security trust has bonds supported by the full faith and credit of the US government meaning that they will be paid except in the instance that the US gov. is dissolved.
Tell Warren Buffet his bonds are just IOUs.
The population growth wasn't what I was referring to really. I'm talking about the economic run up then the sharp splat.
Like the Tech bubble and the Housing bubble.
There is an economic cycle no doubt—a series of expansions and contractions. We just don’t want those contractions to go as far as full blown depression.
I appreciate it :2wave: So far you have been a great person to discuss this with and I mean it honestly. A lot of people would not have waited for my responses and actually answer.
A little history of FDR and the supreme court. Most people believe that FDR was a great president but I think his actions proved otherwise.
He tried to usurp The Supreme Court by appointing extra judges that agreed with him.
Court Packing
I am sorry it took me so long to respond but through the week I'm super busy and the limited time I get wouldn't do our subject justice if I were to drop small blurbs.
The reason I came to this site is b/c I got tired of debating with people who would accentuate their points by calling me a dumb ass or the like.
So I guess I’m in your debt for that one. Dumb ass.
Sorry, hahaha, I had to that.
And I do agree with you that FDR did try to stack the US SCT.