Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jack Hartmann who wrote (380)	10/22/2000 8:15:22 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 24758

I would say I didn't gain from the collapse. You paid a lot of taxes over all these years, but have little government help to show for it. If the bailout didn't occur, there would have been S&L closures. Some of the people who profited were builders and property developers who were paid (handsomely) even those their projects of condos and other buildings went uncompleted Did they destroy the money they received? You are merely judging how money is spent. That's a moral judgement, not an economic one. Maybe there was a net benefit from this change of names in bank accounts. Idle money sitting there in abstract form was put to work perhaps only to generate final demand, but that's better than money that sits. Money that sits is the worst of economic circumstances. Fortunately we have Say's law. Fear can shut down Say though and that is when all the trouble begins. Prosperity is always attended by high risk taking which is associated with moving money. It was speculating old people trying to get some motion out of their dead money who got nailed in the S&L Crisis. They were doing the right thing, but they weren't doing it in the wrong way. This is the other side of the coin of choice.