🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug27.031854.9256@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.130122.3753@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupend writes...
...
>>> 1920's	followed by the 30's.
>> 
>>	Remarkable, given that a failure of government to keep the economy
>>going resulted in the largest period of government intervention ever.  And it
>>took a World War to get us out of it.
> 
> Some of what you said made sense, but this doesn't. The economy hit bottom
> in 1932. The "New Deal" didn't go into affect until the later part of 1933.
> When I say "hit bottom", I mean unemployment and GNP.

	Hoover attempted to fix the downturn with tax hikes and regulation and
protectionist measures.

	The fact that the economy kept getting worse didn't disuade people from
thinking "just a little more of this and it will be fixed".

>>	We had a massive crash in 87 also, but the market recovered.  We had
>>bank failures in the late 80s but the market is (slowly) recovering.  It would
>>be even faster if the RTC scam hadn't been done.
> 
> I'm not sure what the RTC scam is, but I can tell you that your bank failure
> comparison is faulty. When banks went under in the early 30's ALL the 
> investors lost ALL their money, now they are at lest partially reimbursed.

	That's what the RTC scam is.  Instead of simply covering the insured
amounts (which could have been handled quite easily), Bush protected the real
estate speculators (which include 98 of his top 100 contributors) by covering
*the entire amount of their accounts*.
	Which, needless to say, FDIC/FSLIC was not designed to do.  Hence the
RTC bailout where the speculator gets money from the government to cover their
losses, and with which they promptly buy up their old properties for pennies on
the dollar.
	I said government, but of course it's the taxpayer who is funding this
little scam.

> When a large bank goes under, and thousands lose all their savings, it
> doesn't take an economist to know that there will be a significant shock
> to the local economy.
> I'm not trying to preach the wonders of the FDIC, I'm just making a 
> significant point.

	If it had just been insured amounts, FDIC/FSLIC could have covered 
it.  Compare this to what would happen if the government decided to cover
everyone's losses in the securities market....

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!