Posted by Ray Kidder on 10/1/2008, 6:37 pm, in reply to "Re: Proposed $700 Billion bailout"
71.178.204.183
Jesse,
I suspect that something dishonest is afoot. How can such a bankruptcy problem need $700,000,000,000.00 to fit it?
I have not heard of an explanation as to where all of this money would be spent. Even if the baking industry is dealing with $700 billion in red ink, there should be cheaper ways to greatly help this industry. An example I thought of is a moratorium on new homes for awhile. This would reduce the supply such that the foreclosed homes would become more valuable, and the red ink would go away for those banks who own such homes.
The closest example I can think of that is analogous to this bail out is what the government did for Chrysler Corporation in the late 1970s. In hindsight, it worked out well since Chrysler became profitable again, and paid off these government guaranteed bank loans ahead of schedule.
If the US government guarantees $700 billion in bank loans and grants, what kind of precedent is this setting for other businesses that are mismanaged and become bankrupt?
How does this relate to feminism? I remember reading in the "Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell that what has happened in recent decades has been the trend for government to become a woman's substitute husband. If your company is mismanaged, or your family has been too irresponsible with the borrowing of money, then the government will bail you out, or else you can default on your loan. If there are too many loan defaults, on a macroeconomic scale, the government will bail out the banking industry.
I remember that about 15 or 20 years ago, a Washington Area Mortgage Company was being accused of and/or sued for discrimination against minorities. (I view such sensitivity to discrimination as something strongly associated with feminism). I do not know what became of the accusation, but this bank has opened plenty of branches since then, so I figure it must be profitable. It was pointed out on the radio that the accusations did not make sense, since if Chevy Chase Band was practicing dishonest discrimination against profitable customers, the competition would come in and serve such customers, for their increased profit. If the discrimination was only against minorities with bad credit or who asked for too much money, then such a lawsuit or criminal action against Chevy Chase Bank was unfounded and dishonest. Chevy Chase must have had to pay for attorneys to defend itself. If this was the case with Chevy Chase Bank, then I have reason to suspect that the anti-discrimination laws have payed a role in the present mortgage crisis. This makes sense if banks have been making irresponsible loans for fear of being sued if they decline the loans. Because I view anti-discrimination laws as being based on feminism, I suspect that feminism has payed at least a partial role in this crisis.
Ray Kidder
Message Thread:
« Back to thread