If you could do it over, what legislation would you change?

[Type Username Here]

Should have let all those banks and corporations fail.

 

[No1]

The stimulus package because everything else on that list can be fixed through legislation in the future and are being addressed in various ways. But the stimulus package should have launched a national public works and infrastructure rebuilding program and there is no will for such a measure now. It is the one thing on that list that could only be passed during that sort of panic.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Should have let the entire U.S. and global economy fail.

Fixed. You're insane.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Repealing Glass Steagall

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

The stimulus package because everything else on that list can be fixed through legislation in the future and are being addressed in various ways. But the stimulus package should have launched a national public works and infrastructure rebuilding program and there is no will for such a measure now. It is the one thing on that list that could only be passed during that sort of panic.

And there should've been more money to cover state budget shortfalls.

 

[Type Username Here]

Fixed. You're insane.

1) It's debatable that it would have caused major castrophic change. The people that were telling us this would happen also happened to be the people that had the most to lose from a change in human behavior as it relates to economics.

2) Your point also assumes that economics is the crux of the human species. The be-all and end-all. It isn't. Our species has survived a long time, and in some places continues to survive without the need of these economic systems

3) Iceland is on the path to a true recovery. They also had the balls to put people in prison for the financial crimes they committed. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/06/iceland-financial-recovery-banking-collapse

Here is your idol friend:

"Where everyone else bailed out the bankers and made the public pay the price, Iceland let the banks go bust and actually expanded its social safety net," noted Paul Krugman, admiringly. Iceland, he found, had demonstrated the "case for letting creditors of private banks gone wild eat the losses".

4) Even if your point is right, Matt Taibbi has written several fantastic investigative journalism pieces that says that "Too Big To Fail" has gotten worse. Now the damage in these same institutions would be much graver, but yet, these same institutions continue doing the same thing that led to 2008. So is the answer to always reward them for their greed and criminal-like behavior? This is not logical.

 

[J-Nice]

da emaciation prokamashun

da freedmen's burrough bill

da rekunsrukshun acks

da thurteenf amenmint

da forteenf amenmint

da fifteenf amenmint

da anti-lynshing law

harry truemans etseckutive order dat innagraded da militerry

brown vs. da bored uh ejaculation

da cibil rites ack uh 1964

da cibil rites ack uh 1968

da votin rites ack uh 1965

loving vs. vagina

evrything dat barah obomma passed

Lawd have mercy

 

[Yapdatfool]

I wanted to focus on economic policies. Really force folks to make that 1 decision.

We can definitely, or you can definitely start up a new thread with the same focus, but with a focus around those 2 issues.

What options could be added to round out the choices?

1) patriot act
2) Citizens United
3 / 4 / 5) ???

I see. WE could very well start a "what supreme court decisions would you change" thread. That's what I was thinking.
And talk about citizens united, 4th amendment/miranda rights, ACA, and anything else one can think of.

 

[the cac mamba]

da emaciation prokamashun

da freedmen's burrough bill

da rekunsrukshun acks

da thurteenf amenmint

da forteenf amenmint

da fifteenf amenmint

da anti-lynshing law

harry truemans etseckutive order dat innagraded da militerry

brown vs. da bored uh ejaculation

da cibil rites ack uh 1964

da cibil rites ack uh 1968

da votin rites ack uh 1965

loving vs. vagina

evrything dat barah obomma passed

 

[Meta Reign]

Fixed. You're insane.

Bro, after all these years you still don't get it.

We're being held hostage. Money isn't everything. Our freedom is worth so much more. When the banks put the figurative gun to our heads we need to tell them to "pull the fukking trigger, you bytch!" Any opportunity to take power away from them needs to be exploited to the max, as swiftly as possible.

Humanity has survived so much more. The Federal Reserve note is NOT needed to live. Chase isn't. BofA isn't. Goldman Sachs isn't. Citi isn't. . . Fukk them all.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

1) It's debatable that it would have caused major castrophic change. The people that were telling us this would happen also happened to be the people that had the most to lose from a change in human behavior as it relates to economics.

If by "the people telling that were telling us this," you mean the majority of people highly knowledgeable in the disciplines of economics and finance from the public and private sector and academia, then yes.

But it it isn't really debatable that not doing anything during the financial collapse would've had catastrophic consequences. When the housing bubble busted and all the toxic bullshyt bets made metastasized throughout the whole financial system via securitization, credit was frozen. The banks literally are too big to fail. The tragedy is how they were allowed to get that way.

Peoples' pensions, 401ks and life savings were tied up in those toxic balance sheets. The banks were insolvent. Businesses who employ people wouldn't be able to buy for their production needs and you would've had a massive dialing back of all economic activity.

I don't support TARP and how it was implemented, but just standing by why the banks and all their toxic tentacles imploded wasn't a viable option. The whole country would've failed with them. Austrians might want that and make fanciful claims about the economy rising again like a phoenix afterward, but there isn't historical data to back that up. Deflationary spirals compound themselves. I'm not trying to see another Great Depression or worse version of Japan in the 90's, with over 20% unemployment for an extended period of years destroying a whole generation of people. You shouldn't want that either.

2) Your point also assumes that economics is the crux of the human species. The be-all and end-all. It isn't. Our species has survived a long time, and in some places continues to survive without the need of these economic systems

I don't even really know exactly what you're trying to say here, but I'm not trying to live in a cave and be a hunter-gather, and I think most people agree with me there.

3) Iceland is on the path to a true recovery. They also had the balls to put people in prison for the financial crimes they committed. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/06/iceland-financial-recovery-banking-collapse

Here is your idol friend:

lol@making an observation about Iceland, a country with less than 3/4ths the population of Virginia Beach, and has an economy that's less than 1% the size of the U.S. and trying to extrapolate it into generalized conclusion about how the U.S. handled the financial crisis.

That being said, you don't really have a point here because Iceland didn't simply "let their corporations fail" like you suggested. They nationalized their major banks. They also implemented strict controls on capital flow and currency exchange, and they got a $5 billion sovereign debt package from the IMF and the Nordic countries. They also have a more robust social safety net than us which they expanded they didn't slash in the wake of the crisis. Iceland did tackle their inherent structural flaws in their financial system though, and we haven't, unfortunately.

Also, I'm not sure why you would link a Krugman quote. Krugman certainly never supported your stated stance of just letting the banks fail.

4) Even if your point is right, Matt Taibbi has written several fantastic investigative journalism pieces that says that "Too Big To Fail" has gotten worse. Now the damage in these same institutions would be much graver, but yet, these same institutions continue doing the same thing that led to 2008. So is the answer to always reward them for their greed and criminal-like behavior? This is not logical.

I never said that though. It seems this post you're framing a debate over supporting everything the Bush and Obama administration did vs. doing nothing. I support neither.

What should've been done imo is the insolvent banks should've been taken into conservatorship by the federal government, who already insures their deposits. Bondholders should become shareholders like a normal bankruptcy, but if they're insolvent and what they owe to depositor is greater than their assets, the government should've acquired them and filled the hole in their balance sheets, then hey should be reprivatized.

There should've been structural regulations to banking system. They should've instituted a modernized version of Glass-Steagall to separate commercial banking from proprietary banking to break the banks up and keep them from getting this big again and hazardous to the entire global economy again. They should've alterered the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and made derivatives visible on public exchanges, and gotten rid of this shadow banking system bullshyt. There should be a multi-layered system of regulation with regulator with expertise in specific financial markets, product safety regulators, and regulators who take a macro-look at the overall stability of the system. And the money should've went mortgage holders--specifically those who are underwater or have bad loans and the means to pay them back--allowing principle reductions.

And the execs at the zombie banks should've all been and investment fraud should've been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The government messed up by for whatever reason adopting this notion that this was just a crisis of confidence, and they had to treat the banks with kid gloves and "recapitalize" them a.k.a give them billions in taxpayer funds interest-free loans from the Fed without implementing the proper structural reforms. So no, I don't support that, nor do I support doing nothing and just letting them and whole economy fail. Both paths are insane.

Bro, after all these years you still don't get it.

We're being held hostage. Money isn't everything. Our freedom is worth so much more. When the banks put the figurative gun to our heads we need to tell them to "pull the fukking trigger, you bytch!" Any opportunity to take power away from them needs to be exploited to the max, as swiftly as possible.

Humanity has survived so much more. The Federal Reserve note is NOT needed to live. Chase isn't. BofA isn't. Goldman Sachs isn't. Citi isn't. . . Fukk them all.

 

[Type Username Here]

If by "the people telling that were telling us this," you mean the majority of people highly knowledgeable in the disciplines of economics and finance from the public and private sector and academia, then yes.

Are you telling me there weren't a multitude of economists who didn't think doomsday would happen? The doomsday scenario came straight from the people who were complicit in what happened in 2008. It was used as a transfer of wealth from the public to the private using fear mongering. It was successful and it will be successful next time. I'm not debating that people wouldn't have felt the difference, but it would have been like the Great Depression and the country did absolutely fine after it.

I don't support TARP and how it was implemented, but just standing by why the banks and all their toxic tentacles imploded wasn't a viable option. The whole country would've failed with them. Austrians might want that and make fanciful claims about the economy rising again like a phoenix afterward, but there isn't historical data to back that up. Deflationary spirals compound themselves. I'm not trying to see another Great Depression or worse version of Japan in the 90's, with over 20% unemployment for an extended period of years destroying a whole generation of people. You shouldn't want that either.

Are you ignoring economic and financial data post-Great Depression or are you going to come in here and give me the Neo-Con "FDR was saved by WWII" nonsense?

I don't even really know exactly what you're trying to say here, but I'm not trying to live in a cave and be a hunter-gather, and I think most people agree with me there.

It's not about that, it's a philosophical line of questioning about the subjectivity of economic systems. Since humans, for the last few thousands of years, have seen economics rise in conjuction with our "intellectual awakening" , we assume that these forms society and social order are somehow objective necessities. They aren't. Are you saying that we couldn't progress from our ancestral roots without modern economic systems or financial social order as we see it today? Seems kind of narrow minded and libertarian-esque.

I'd be willing to bet that as our species moves into the distant future (if capitalism and greed doesn't wipe us out first) that we will move away from these systems that we hold so dear in the present. We will probably look back at 401Ks, IRAs, Wall Street, Stocks, and so on in the same light you look back at hunter-gatherers.

lol@making an observation about Iceland, a country with less than 3/4ths the population of Virginia Beach, and has an economy that's less than 1% the size of the U.S. and trying to extrapolate it into generalized conclusion about how the U.S. handled the financial crisis.

How is population size relevant here?

That being said, you don't really have a point here because Iceland didn't simply "let their corporations fail" like you suggested. They nationalized their major banks. They also implemented strict controls on capital flow and currency exchange, and they got a $5 billion sovereign debt package from the IMF and the Nordic countries. They also have a more robust social safety net than us which they expanded they didn't slash in the wake of the crisis. Iceland did tackle their inherent structural flaws in their financial system though, and we haven't, unfortunately.

I have no issues with a nationalizing them. That would have been a true compromise. But Iceland absolutely let their private banks fail.

Also, I'm not sure why you would link a Krugman quote. Krugman certainly never supported your stated stance of just letting the banks fail.

He did for private banks.

I never said that though. It seems this post you're framing a debate over supporting everything the Bush and Obama administration did vs. doing nothing. I support neither.

Fair enough. That view didn't come across in your original post.

What should've been done imo is the insolvent banks should've been taken into conservatorship by the federal government, who already insures their deposits. Bondholders should become shareholders like a normal bankruptcy, but if they're insolvent and what they owe to depositor is greater than their assets, the government should've acquired them and filled the hole in their balance sheets, then hey should be reprivatized.

Nothing wrong with that except the re-privatizing part.

 

[Blackking]

probably would have faked my assassination.... in 08... when black people still liked me... so that they could 'possibly' be motivated by that. I would give a speech about black group economics a week prior to 1) give them that to think about 2) add to conspiracy


other than that... bank bailout for sure.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

Repealing Glass Steagall

I don't see how this would of stopped the crisis in the late 2000s

 

[88m3]

I'd reverse engineer the Jim Crow Laws so I could take a crackers head to school with me in a book bag.