My last few posts have generated some replies that have shown the volatility of the issues at hand. I titled my last post "Greed". I was incensed that a preacher told his congregation that we were in this situation because of banker greed. I guess some agreed with that. My unstated point was that we bankers have been easy targets for that disingenuous remark.
My point in previous posts has been that we do not need government to fix these problems, especially by such heavy-handed interference.
Who comes to my rescue but Milton Friedman in a great 1979 Phil Donahue interview. The name of the video is "Greed"
Friedman's last questions for Donahue are the question for Obama supporters. I believe dim-wit Donahue even understood for a moment.
5 comments:
Big giggle, great piece.
You know one of the most interesting things Jenna came home with after her three month outreach in Jakarta was that in the most extreme places of poverty she visited, she found the happiest people. I was so puzzled. She said mom, they don't have a lot to worry about. They are pretty content to have food in there belly and a place to sleep. These were the folks who were living in the garbage slums. It was free rent and they made their living by recycling the garbage. Now I am not saying we don't have a responsibility to those who are so impoverished. Of course we do. But interestingly enough they did not seem to know greed. They were delighted to share what ever they had to strangers such as my daughter…
http://jennadear.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-touches-my-heart.html
"My point in previous posts has been that we do not need government to fix these problems, especially by such heavy-handed interference."
But that is precisely my point. You compromised your principles to do the governments bidding and make bad loans. Your motivation: profit. You compromised your principles and took a government bailout. Your motivation: profit.
Please don't misunderstand. You have every right to make a profit, as big of a profit as you can. You must do it on your own. You can not stand on your soap box and say it is wrong for someone to receive a bailout when you have received one yourself.
Give your $35 million dollars back, then pontificate. If your business cannot succeed on its own, without receiving a bailout, then it must fail. This goes for your little bank, as well as Citi, Wachovia, and all the others. Even GM and Ford deserve to fail if they cannot make it on their own.
What you don't seem to understand is that most of us are against the bailout/stimulus. But we were against the last one too. Why are you now speaking out against it, and you weren't then? Is it because a democrat is at the helm? Socialism is Socialism is Communism no matter what party is in office.
FYI to the last person who posted: The person who wrote this blog did not one of those giving out loans to those who did should not have received them, does not work for an institution where they regularly do this, has always been against this process, has spoken out about the wrongness of this problem in other financial institutions (maybe read some of his older posts), and believes the responsibility should fall solely at the doorsteps of individuals who created the issue. It's not the people making a living, or the general institution of BANKING at fault, just as the belief of any religion is not at fault for all the violence committed in the name of religion: In both instances it is the corruption of the heart of specific individuals who is at fault, not the institution in general. Don't blame this man: You come off as a person who is just hunting for some Christian banker to blame for all the financial woes of the country. Take a look around you with open eyes and notice all those who have actually done corrupt things, and then claimed "no fair, you can't blame me,etc, etc."
Anonymous, I have read every post TruthSeeker has ever made. I regard him as a personal friend, and a mentor in many respects. I have not made my posts as anonymous for transparency. TruthSeeker knows who I am, and knows how I regard him personally. (Too bad we can't say the same for you.)
It is in this issue that I take umbrage. If as you say, he does not work for an institution where they regularly do this, has always been against this process, why did his bank take a bailout? See the Tri-City Herald from early Jan/late Dec for the article.
I'm tired of the blame game. Everyone could see that home prices were over inflated. Everyone knew it was a bubble. And yet rather than risk government scrutiny every, yes every, bank in the country continued to write these loans.
Very little of responsibility for the current situation falls at the feet of the banking industry. It does not take a genius to understand that a 30% or more corporate tax rate is going to cost jobs. It doesn't take a genius to understand that unions demanding more and more pay for less and less work is going to cost jobs.
What burns me up, is that over a trillion dollars have gone to the banking industry as a whole. While I believe that money should never have been spent at all, imagine if you will, the effects of handing that money back to the people who paid it in the first place. Or imagine if instead of handing it to banks to do with what they wish, the government had just paid off mortgages. But they won't. Instead, they give the money to banks, who use the money to buy other banks.
I know TruthSeeker to be a deeply honorable man. But in this issue, while I agree with him in principle, I find several problems with his arguments. It is because of the fact that he is an honorable man that I am shocked and dismayed that his bank would have accepted a bailout. He is in a position of influence. He is a man with favor. Why, is it only now that he is speaking out against the bailouts? Why not speak out before, and reject receiving a bailout?
I was finally able to view the video. (No YouTube at work) Spot on!
This guy understands it. This is the problem I have with any and all bailouts! They are what lead down the slippery slope to the Socialism and Communism that he spoke about.
That leads me back to my initial thought. Why was the first round of bailouts okay, but not this one? In my mind no bailout is okay. No government intervention is good.
It may sound like I'm just trying to goad people into an answer, and maybe I am. I just don't understand the inconsistency.
Post a Comment