"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...
One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market
and
restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and
sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the
way
it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when
Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids.


The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak.
Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be bailed
out.

The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The
government shouldn't be involved in these decisions.


Yes, well, that's easy to say, but the reality of it is lots and lots of
suffering. It's never worked right and even completely fascist dictators
didn't have the political stomach for it.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope, they postponed the complete disaster, and increased the intensity of
the disaster. Most of that Trillion bucks went to increase bonus money
and pay off campaign supporters and European governments who invested via
greed. It has not gone to make jobs, Give loans to buy affordable homes.
It has been wasted as a stimulus and stabilizing the financial markets.
Friday the 100th bank of the year failed. Goldman-sacks failing would
have been good for the country. Thy have been one of the major creators
of functional bubbles and disasters for 90 years.

It's certainly possible that it postponed a disaster, but the point is to
fix the system, now that the edge is no longer in sight.

If the gov't had done nothing, we would be now in the midst of another Great
Depression, and the last time this happened, a WW got us all the way out.

Bank failures are bad, but they're a resolveable issue, as long as there is
a reserve and as long as there's stability.

--
Nom=de=Plume