[wernercd]

> The banks would scream bloody murder, obviously, but their slack policies got us into this mess in the first place.

So, your solution to "the banks" slack policies - which were actually caused by government meddling: Affordable Housing Act, guaranteed student loans, etc...

Your solution is more government meddling? Forcing the banks that didn't want to give out loans... to lose money on those loans?

How about stay-out-of-the-way economics?

Socialism - take from the "rich" and give to the "poor" - disincentivizes people from working and being productive. Why work hard, when the trash down the street lives better by being worthless?

I mean... it just blows my mind that people see these issues... issues caused largely by interference... and so many think that the answer is more interference.

[roymurdock]

The government plays a regulatory, distributive role in society, allowing profits to accrue to capitalists but setting taxes and running social programs at the proper level to ensure that society as a whole functions smoothly, and that there are opportunities for everyone to improve their situation.

Most of the economic world is in agreement that financial deregulation was a huge contributing factor in the crash of 2007-08. The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to take on too much risk with too little supervision.

This would have been fine if the banks had been the only ones punished when their bets went bad - but they had also been allowed to accrue so much power (through consolidation/M&A) that it was impossible to let them face the consequences of their own bad decisions and fail. So they had to be underwriten with public money in the form of QE.

A functional society requires healthy levels of both capitalism and socialism to survive. But the most important thing in my opinion, is that those who intentionally commit fraud or do not act in the fiduciary interest of their stakeholders are adequately punished. This last part is of course the rub - how can you tell if the leaders of business and finance were intentionally setting up their dependents for a crash? What is the adequate punishment?

[anigbrowl]

Nobody forced the banks to participate in those markets. The government interference has been limited to demanding that banks treat the public equally instead of reinforcing structural discrimination.

[saint_fiasco]

If they have to treat people equally then they are forced to either participate in "those markets" or not participate in any market.

[anigbrowl]

/world's_smallest_violin

You don't get to take advantage of structural discrimination and then whine about how hard it is to have to treat people fairly. If that's a problem for a bank then they should find another asset class to invest in.

[maxxxxx]

Nobody takes about "taking from rich and giving to the poor". How about at least stopping giving more and more to the rich?