How we got screwed by the president

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Pekka
laurentius, right, right. I'm only after the decision to give mouth to mouth here. That's the only decision I'm after here, and how it has brought down many people and how everyone paid for it and pays for it. I'd like to see some good studies.

Actually there was this book(study or smthng) about it condemning the president few years back. I remember having the same thoughts back then as you are now about incriminating the decision makers. Now however it all seems more complex and nuanced to single out individual triggering the domino-effect if you wish. Some ****ed up more then the others but we were all in the same craze, and we have to deal with that **** on our own.

[Pekka]

And about suing, of course only if some if the .. authorities claimed did so outside their legal powers, that is, that an illegal act took place. Because I don't know if it was legal or not. I don't assume anything. So I'd like to know if it was legal. Of course if it was, then there's pretty much no suing to be done. I mean, you can't sue for poor results . That's obvious.

[Pekka]

laurentius, yeah it sure is more complex, plus, it was a result of many separate things, like SU collapsing, Germany, our currency etc etc etc. It's nto one single thing. It's lots of things combined.

The reason I pick this one is because it interests me the most. I'm nto blaming the president or any single person that recession happened. I think that in itself was not very voidable. THat's what happens.. it goes up and down.

But that decision interests me because that decision guaranteed that the peopel have to pay for it to no end, plus that there are parties that actually benefit from this, as in those who today are after 'their money'.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Yep....In capitalism, some people have to be poor. They are acceptable casualties, collateral damage for the rest of society, or for the mother country, or for the good of the corporation, or for the good of some country far far away

Capitalism schcapitalism I dunno. Some people just were very unfortunate, thats all.

You can always blame on the market forces or the value of Dollar or D-mark. It doesnt really matter who you blame. But it was you who took that loan and had it converted to foreign currency. A very stupid move. So which one do you want to sue, yourself or the currency rates?

[Nubclear]

It depends. Am I still able to wake up with a roof over my head in the morning?

[Pekka]

And the banks, I'd like to see some things happening because yes, the people who backed up loans, you know.. it's a responsibility. You are backing it up.

However, it's been paid collectively already, and many of those loans have been granted unethically. One example is kids backing up their parents. That's just, I think that's unethical. Depending on the situation, but like starting up businesses? I think a bank shoudl say get some other backers and come back for the loan, because your just turned 18 year old is not good enough for us.

Because they became screwed up for life as a result. Banks contributed so much to the recession, so they shouldn't be holding on to their raping sessions either when they gave loans unethically.

But that's my opinion.

[laurentius]

Frankly Tassadar, I'm not sure. Perhaps you should find that out by going to sleep.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by laurentius
Frankly Tassadar, I'm not sure. Perhaps you should find that out by going to sleep.

That is to say....Am I still going to have a minimum standard of living that I will not be allowed to lose, even after my stupidity? If so, then I don't have much to complain about. Otherwise, I'll choose to sue capitalism )

[Pekka]

Depends on the level of stupidity. Depends on the minimum level of living standards.

This is to say, if you are too stupid to wreck your house to the ground by yourself, don't expect anyone to pay for it and get you a new one. But demand some kind of housing so you get a roof over your head to sleep in.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Pekka
And the banks, I'd like to see some things happening because yes, the people who backed up loans, you know.. it's a responsibility. You are backing it up.

However, it's been paid collectively already, and many of those loans have been granted unethically. One example is kids backing up their parents. That's just, I think that's unethical. Depending on the situation, but like starting up businesses? I think a bank shoudl say get some other backers and come back for the loan, because your just turned 18 year old is not good enough for us.

Because they became screwed up for life as a result. Banks contributed so much to the recession, so they shouldn't be holding on to their raping sessions either when they gave loans unethically.

But that's my opinion.

And I agree. Still the way things went down was out of both the banks and the individuals controll. Most of these banks dont even exist anymore due to later mergers and acquisitions. The original papers for the loans are many times missing and the banks charge sweet money to find those for the customers. In the name of humanity most of the indebted and their backers should be given clemency.

Then again its contracts like these that ensure the freedom and effectiveness of our market economy. Easy loan gone fubar isnt supposed to give you free lunch, but neither is it supposed to put you on a rope either.

[Pekka]

Right, and I'm definitely not debating the ethics of loan. But banks do have responsiblity over their actions, and if they perform unethically, as in accepting backers that they did in many cases, I do see a problem if them claiming the rights they now have.

I don't see this as a market issue in itself. But of course the market needs banks and loans. And we should continue the tradition, but with more vision now.

Also there are benefits, to the economy, when we sometimes could help bankrupt people. That is, if you set up a business, it rolls over but say you didn't do anything really stupid, it was just something that happened. You did your business ethically and also responsibly. But you went bankrupt. In these cases I do see a benefit if we can nullify some of those credits, as in we give you your credit back and forget this ordeal. The people who are after that money get the money, and your credit is nullified from those bad remarks.

I argue that we need a society that forgets sometimes, we just need to find what those rules are, when it is benefitial to forget.

I think it is a social good and economical good. It increases people setting up businesses, and if one fails, but not due to stupidity or being unresponsible, I think sometimes they deserve another shot.

[laurentius]

Maybe we would need a law that would allow people to be declared bankrupt and given protection from his debtors for a certain period of time to get his feet back on the ground so he could actually pay back his initial loans.

[Pekka]

That sounds like a good idea. I don't know if it is a good idea when implemented and the downsides of that, but in general, that sounds like a good idea to me.

I think we treat people who are bankrupt pretty badly, I mean the cases when the person was being responsible. I think we should, as an added thing to your suggestion, to protect the responsible ones who meet some kind of requirements, to be able to enter a program where they get their credit fixed and forgotten.

[Pekka]

My argument is that the debtors should love it as they get their money, no hassle. The one in bankrupt should love it because they get another chance to normal life, and the society should love it because it's a social good, as in I argue that this helps teh economy and business instead of being some kind of free money treasury where everyone can just go and get their problems fixed, because that's not what I'm supporting.

[laurentius]

"Forgetting" debt sounds rather extreme and 3rd worldish to me. Maybe after the initial loan has been paid and the indebted is only paying the interests would such a measure be appropriate.