fastyxx said:
Huge dips versus gradual ones arguably are less able to be coped with and absorbed by larger numbers of people and perhaps a country as a whole. For example, is a steady downward march in the stock market worse for a total of 20% loss in value worse than a 17% one-week crash? I'd argue not. Had we allowed the economy and businesses to bottom out instead of infusing cash in to the system, we could have been facing much worse than we are. We'll never know for sure, but the global economy and ours in particular was in real danger in late 2008 and again in early 2009. You can't cure the people's cancer if you let them bleed to death in the meantime. |
That's because... it IS worse. You aren't facing too gradual dips.
You are facing the first dip... and then a dip that could end up being just as bad as the first.
Additionally, you are setting yourself up for future dips.
You aren't saving anyones lives. You are treating the symptoms without treating the root cause.
It's like treating heroin withdrawl with heroin.
The problem isn't the withdrawl. It's the addiction that caused the withdrawl.
If you want a cancer based analogy. It's like removing a tumor in parts but leaving in the surrounding cancerous cells... with the risk as well of the cancer spreading between each operation.
When the Banks were failing... new banks were already taking their place. New banks were opening, new credit unions. People saw the banks falling and a lot of people saw oppurtunity to do it better.
Instead, nobody is really going to get the chance, because doing things irresponsibility if your big enough will cause you to get bailed out... repeatidly. Meaning we're going to have the same problems over and over and over again.
The best analogy of all reminds me of something Charles Barkley said.
"I don't have a gambling problem. I'm rich!
It's just a matter of keep spending more money to support risky, and more important bad gamblers.
