Good afternoon Ox,
I don't think you are interpreting me quite correctly. I agree with you. Both scammers and scammees should be held accountable. But your analogy is the one that is off base. For the ice cream parlor to state it was "heart healthy" would be a blatant lie. Lending institutions didn't lie and Joe Schmoe knew and was advised that interest rates would reset. They WERE told! When a scammer is carrying bucket loads of debt which is worthless or needs to be revalued, which in turn causes it's stock to drop, then the owners of the scammer company are held accountable and pay the price, right?? Just as there are many Merrills and Citis and B of A's, there are probably many financial institutions with nearly no hand in this matter (WL for example) So then, how is Paulson going to put some mandates in place that don't harm those that were not participating to anywhere near the same extent??? That is where it gets tricky. Weak banks should get taken out by stronger ones.
Furthermore, if the gov't comes to the rescue of every Joe Schmoe who is over-leveraged and in debt up to his eyeballs, then won't that just encourage more imprudent spending the "next time"????
If the stock market drops 50% will you call for a bailout of the average "investor" who was over-leveraged beyond what was prudent??? I would hope not. Lots of folks will lose their homes, unfortunately, rightfully so.
It seems to me that many, many Americans need to change their way of thinking/spending/saving. They need more of a post depression mentality of saving and less exorbitant consumption habits(like their Grandparents or Great-Grandparents had). The country could benefit from that.
A gentle slap on the wrist and "bailout" from Paulson doesn't teach anyone anything. I'm for letting the market work through it. Seldom, imho, do we benefit by govt interference in most anything.
I liked Paulson, until he showed these socialistic tendencies. |
