USA election = Choosing a new captain for the Titanic?

[SamuelRSmith]

NJ5 said:

SamuelRSmith said:

 

 Well, the bailing out at this stage was kind of neccessary, as without it the economy would have had a massive drop. I believe it's best to "delay" the inevitable, as it allows for things to go down in a staggered manner.

I don't think the government stepped in earlier is because, from the fronts of things, everything looked really good. Even if the government had realised what had happened, they might not have stepped in thanks to the controversy that would have surrounded it. People, or shall I say, voters, would have seen banks reporting recored profits and such on one page of the newspaper, and on the next they would have seen the government putting down restrictions on it all, without any apparant reason.

At the end of the day, it's all just the nature of a free market. Things go up, then they go down, people learn from their mistakes, and, when it goes up again, it goes up even further as people don't repeat their missteps. However, the government must step in to try and curve the plummet, in order to keep people alive.

Sorry if that made little sense, but it made sense to me.

So in other words, being fiscally irresponsible is fine as long as:

a) the impact of your actions is bad enough to warrant being bailed out for the sake of the country; and

b) your actions don't make things look bad on the surface.

Thinking superficially about it may make your interpretation seem reasonable, but in reality you have just laid out a pretty good recipe for screwing up the economy and the country.

 

 

 Hey, I wouldn't do it myself. I'm just saying that it would be what these politicians would do, aslong as it would keep them up on the polls.