Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> George > wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel wrote:
>
>>> So, let's agree that throwing a trillion dollars of good money after bad
>>> is a very painful experience. So, would the "red" team have done this?
>>> Or would they have made it two trillion? Just speculation. And who is
>>> responsible for the mess anyway? Some folks think that the "red" team
>>> gutting the Federal regulations might have been a big factor. Was the
>>> "blue" team blameless? Of course not. Enough of them voted for these
>>> laws that they passed. The big one was signed by Bill Clinton, as
>>> President. Everybody, both red and blue, though that deregulation and
>>> the free market were good things.
>
>> Tell me more about this "free market" concept you mentioned in your last
>> sentence. From where I sit it appears we have a Capitalist profit and
>> Socialist loss system. If there were actually a "free market" the
>> companies that were poorly managed or that imploded because of greed
>> would simply disappear or their assets purchased by a stronger
>> organization wouldn't they?
>
> You hit the nail right on the head. When the Federal government (the
> FDIC and the FSLIC) is guaranteeing the deposits that the bankers are
> using to speculate with, it's not a free market. After the 1929 stock
> crash, laws were passed to regulate things. But we didn't learn again
> with the S&L crash in the late 80s, requiring a bailout of over US$100
> billion.
>
Right, and then the greedy parasite bankers bankers still thought they
were too restrained and they had their agents create the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which removed the remaining restrictions on their
greed. And after they made tons of money and drove the economy into the
ground they got their agents to transfer over a trillion dollars of
wealth to them.