[kj] Killing joke and Communism

[Mister Black]

Governments should step back from big business and only get involved where necessary . You are basing your thesis below on the assumption that there are a few bank execs sitting on vast amounts of money , this isnt the case, the execs only draw a salary and this is probably spent as its received . They may have minimal savings on their own bank accounts, but is it right to relieve them of their savings because other people defaulted on their loan payments? Should these execs be forced to sell their belongings and to be thrown onto welfare? Should the people loose all their savings and should the borrowers also be financially punished.............or should the Government bail them out until the economy picks up ? In the long run , it will be financially beneficial to the economy and Country as a whole, for the Government to make  cash injection to the bank . Was the money from the Governement  loan deal or was it given with no strings attached?





========================================
Message Received: Aug 27 2007, 01:56 PM
From: "B. Oliver Sheppard" 
To: "A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)" 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [kj] Killing joke and Communism

Okay, so you are not a free market fanatic who believes the government 
has no role in getting into the economy -- that's good. There are a lot 
of free market enthusiasts who say the government needs to clear the 
way, get out of the economy, let free markets work ont heir own, etc.

But have basically said the government needs to come in and bail out 
banks. So you are pro-govt. intervention intot he economy.

However, one big aspect of our current economic system is risk. Risk 
means nothing if it means youd on't pay the price for it if the risk 
turns out to be bad. These subprime lenders took a risk. Well, as 
happens with risks, sometimes they go bad. So -- the public (me and you) 
should now come in and pay the price for them taking a risk? How about 
the folks at the top of these corporations be bled dry first, and then 
if there's still money needed to bail out the common folks, the public 
pitches in? That seems a just way to do it to me.

But for the government to come into the picture automatically on the 
side of the banks, instead of the folks who fell for the loan sharks' 
promises, seems more like a nanny state for the rich to me. Let the rich 
take the risk -- and if it doesn't pay off, let them suffer the 
consequences. That's good old capitalism, right?

-Oliver



Mister Black wrote:

>

> Well , it was the people who borrowed money and couldn't repay it that 

> caused the banks to fail in the first place . People burrowed on the 

> strength of their property price , property prices fall and the 

> birrowers are left with negative equity and cannot pay back the loan . 

> The Banks would have too take the property back and auction them off 

> on order to get said moneys back , this would cause property prices to 

> slump even further causing a depression in the economy , a downward 

> spiral.

>

> So Governments prop up the Banks to stop the economy sliding further 

> , also , if the banks went bust , it would be the people who have 

> savings that lose out , peoples pensions and savings would be lost , 

> so it could be argued that the Government is helping the people with 

> savings in the said bank , if the bank goes under , then its the 

> savers who will lose and NOT the people who took loans out

>

>


_______________________________________________
Gathering mailing list
Gathering at misera.net
http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20070827/43fa9207/attachment.htm>