I feel the same way. All this talk about recovery is pure BS. The underlying fundamentals of why this ongoing crisis occurred is still happening. Nothing has changed. Until the people in charge address the below with full force, we'll see a much greater crisis within 10-15 years. People like Roubini and others that predict an L-shaped recovery or even worse are on the mark. -"Financial innovation" and broken risk models based on faulty stochastic calculus, processes like the geometric/fractal Brownian motion, bankers love for normal distribution and copulas, etc. -Deregulation and toothless supervision. Enough D&D material on this. -Fed and ECB's myopia about asset prices because consumer prices under too much scrutiny leads to bad decisions about inflation targeting, price stability, and monetary policy. -Immense differences between the American current account deficit vs. current account surpluses of oil-rich ME nations + Chindia = false liquidity appearance and prevention of the exchange rate mechanism to kick in and adjust the imbalance.
Ah yes, another post with no actual content. Thanks for the useless substance-less contribution to this topic.
Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion? Or are you just the thread critic who adds nothing of value but instead just posts criticisms of other posters who are actually providing substance.
I personally believe government intervention was necessary, but it intervened in the wrong place. I haven't thought too much about the specific details, but the bailout probably should've went more like this: - Allow the overleveraged mega-banks to fail. Capitalism needs to have losers. Banks that made poor lending decisions should've been punished by the market. - "Bail out" the households instead. The FDIC comes forth and an guarantees all deposits to the penny. This would've prevented bank runs, and as the overleveraged investment banks toppled, we would've seen an influx of deposits into smaller regional banks that actually played by the rules. - Fast-track any legal approvals, etc. necessary for new banks to start their businesses. That's not to say we lower standards necessary to start a new bank, but we make it priority #1. It's not perfect and I'm not smart enough to figure out all the details, but the end result would've been a leaner, more efficient banking industry. Banks are vital to help the engine of capitalism run, but aside from that...they don't actually produce anything that adds to our standard of living. The financial sector is allowed to profit by taking extreme risks, but not fail. As a result, the best and brightest minds will continue to flock to the industry in spades to do nothing more than move money from one place to another in the secondary market. It just seems like it'd be better for the country (and the world in general) if some of those smart people see the risks inherent to investment banking and choose to become doctors, engineers, or teachers instead.
