The big bailout was supposed to soothe the markets, but the markets have become anything but soothed. This leads to the common conclusion that the bailout was not sufficient to soothe the markets, or that the markets would be even more upset had not the bailout happened.
But I have to wonder if the bailout has actually spooked the markets by highlighting a crisis and creating a sense of panic. After all when, in the name of solving the problem, you have the government socializing big chunks of our capitalistic system, which is represented by the markets, would not those markets feel threatened? Could the cure be more dangerous than the disease?
Bucyrus wrote: The big bailout was supposed to soothe the markets, but the markets have become anything but soothed. This leads to the common conclusion that the bailout was not sufficient to soothe the markets, or that the markets would be even more upset had not the bailout happened. But I have to wonder if the bailout has actually spooked the markets by highlighting a crisis and creating a sense of panic. After all when, in the name of solving the problem, you have the government socializing big chunks of our capitalistic system, which is represented by the markets, would not those markets feel threatened? Could the cure be more dangerous than the disease?
I heard the same supposition by some dude on NPR this PM. The other side of this is the gov't did nothing from 1929 to 1932 (expect to begin to try to measure GDP) and the markets weren't soothed a bit.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote: Bucyrus wrote: The big bailout was supposed to soothe the markets, but the markets have become anything but soothed. This leads to the common conclusion that the bailout was not sufficient to soothe the markets, or that the markets would be even more upset had not the bailout happened. But I have to wonder if the bailout has actually spooked the markets by highlighting a crisis and creating a sense of panic. After all when, in the name of solving the problem, you have the government socializing big chunks of our capitalistic system, which is represented by the markets, would not those markets feel threatened? Could the cure be more dangerous than the disease?I heard the same supposition by some dude on NPR this PM. The other side of this is the gov't did nothing from 1929 to 1932 (expect to begin to try to measure GDP) and the markets weren't soothed a bit.
The real problem is that this is a major election year: the President, the whole house, and 1/3rd of the Senate. Doing nothing is not an option but doing something that doesn't work shows "E(lection)" for Effort. What no one ever stops to think about is that on the day after election the sun rises in the East and whatever decision or project put off because of the election, has to be faced anyway.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Gentlemen,
This is just a friendly reminder that this thread and conversation needs to steer back towards the OP and away from politics. This is a forum dedicated to the discussion of and about trains. Thanks for your consideration.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
oltmannd wrote: I heard the same supposition by some dude on NPR this PM. The other side of this is the gov't did nothing from 1929 to 1932 (expect to begin to try to measure GDP) and the markets weren't soothed a bit.
I'm going to question this.
I think the government did plenty from 1929 through 1932 - and, as usual, it just made things worse. We'd had fininacial "Panics" (a good description of 2008) before 1929 - and none of them resulted in a "Great Depression".
What was different in 1929 was that the Federal Reserve had been established in 1913. When the economy began to contract the Fed stupidly responded by reducing the money supply. They saw their job as matching the amount of money to the amount of commerce. This, of course, drained liquidity from the system. This made commerce more difficult and caused further economic decline. This further economic decline caused the stupid Fed to further decrease the money supply which made commerce even more difficult and caused even further economic decline. This caused the Fed to reduce the money supply even more.
You get the idea, the economy was in an downward spiral that the Federal Government through the Federal Reserve accelerated.
There were also very dumb regulations on banking that greatly increased the likelyhood that US banks would fail. It is important to know that not one Canadian bank failed during the Great Depression while many US banks failed. Canada allowed branch banking. This allowed banks to spread risks. The US didn't allow branch banking so risks were concentated and localized. The prohibition on branch banking caused many failures which also made commerce much more difficult.
The government did plenty. The vast majority of what they did was harmful to US Citizens.
Kind of the same as today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related
tstage wrote: Gentlemen,This is just a friendly reminder that this thread and conversation needs to steer back towards the OP and away from politics. This is a forum dedicated to the discussion of and about trains. Thanks for your consideration. Tom
Unfortunately I have to agree with you Tom. It has been a great, intelligent, and interesting discussion done on a very high plain. Oltmannd, Bucryus, Greyhounds, NKP, and other participants should be commended for keeping the discussion centered on facts and ideas rather than falling ito the trap of personal attacks. I think Kathi Kube and TRAINS have been very fair and tolerant in allowing it to happen and evolve and we all should thank them. We somewhat strayed from the topic of discussing one item, namely Don Phillips' column in particular, and turned it into a broader discussion about political and social and econimic philosophies conerning railroads in particular, business in general, an politics overall. It is unfortunate that so many other forums fall into the nit picking, name calling, shouting matches that leave bad feelings and images of its participants; it is fortunate that this one did not. Thank you all for an invigorating and enlightening discussion, and thank you again, TRAINS, for allowing us the byte space! Hope we can all meet again sometime on just as friendly grounds.
The gracious and generous comments of henry6 are appreciated and symbolic of why it's so much fun to read the forum comments and comment on them. Yes, I also agree with Tom that the thread wandered; but where else can an old duffer make a comment or posit an idea and reach so many intelligent and earnest men that he has something in common with?
These are dangerous and trying days for our Republic and Trains magazine and the good folks who run these forums, to say nothing of paying for them, are to be commended for giving us an opportunity to read the comments and ideas of our fellows and have a place to share our own. Well done, Trains magazine!
Forty and more years ago The Illustrated London News would end similar squabbles in its Letters column with the standard sentence: "The correspondence on this subject is now closed."
Tom, of course, is the moderator who pulled my original posts trying to start this topic down twice.
Tom now wants us to steer away from politics. But Don Phillips writes a political column for Trains. So now Tom wants us to discuss a political column, which was the OP, without discussing politics. Go figure.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.