Reply to Thread

The worst that would happen, is americans would need to learn new names of new companies.

Who wants to do that? We have been able to ignore reading, and just grab the familiar logo off the shelf! So to save us time in walmart, create $10,000 Billion in debt, just keep things familiar. Lord forbid we get goods and services from companies that can survive on their own!

---------

The fact is, allowing them to fail would not be any more harsh than it will be by propping them up. The fact is, it may be easier.

Supply, and demand, not government intervention, is what is to drive the economy. As soon as government gets involved, supply and demand is defecated on and thrown out the window.

Great Depression. Dismal Swamp...same thing.

The best will survive, and new companies will emerge. The way it should happen.
EDIT: To the lady that said I was wrong. Please go look at the results of the great depression. The new deal didn't actually save us, the war economy did.

Another Great Depression

What would happen is what should happen. The companies fail, those who put trust in those companies suffer their unfortunate fate. We move forward as a nation and work very hard not to let it happen again.

We no longer let Government interfere in the private sector (ie the Community Reinvestment Act) and Government's only role is to regulate this system and help prevent the same problems from happening again.

The Government promised to bail out the banks if their CRA program failed, well guess what, they are keeping their promise. And this is precisely why we should not let the Government try to push social programs through the private sector.

No one could cash their Pay checks . I noticed that some clueless people mention that only the strong would survive .
They have No idea about What the Heck they are talking about .

Most should be allowed to fail.

New banks and corporations would emerge, the strong would survive, the weak ones would cease to exist as should be. The taxpayers would not be holding the bag or propping up losers who get repaid with bailouts for bad decisions and greed. Those banks and institutions should have been allowed to fail! That was the right course of action, not socialism that bails out bad decisions and foolishness and greed! Bailouts are unconstitutional!

It would likely be a complete economic collapse. ALL businesses rely heavily on banks in order to conduct both long-term and day-to-day business, so all the financial institutions failing would grind the economy to a halt. Not just a slowdown, but a HALT. STOPPED.

People seem to think new businesses will magically appear - how will that happen? With all of the money that the no one has because it was lost in the financial collapse? Do you have enough money stuffed under the mattress to start a new business? Who's going to shop there when most of the nation loses their jobs because their companies collapse? If the banks fail, nearly everything will fail.

Even aside from that, how much of a deficit do you think the government will run up when the GDP suddenly plummets? If there's no business going on, you don't have anything to collect taxes on, and I'm sure with the skyrocketing unemployment social services will also be stretched well past the breaking point.

Trust me, it's a bad scenario.

I don't claim to understand it in its' entirety but it would certainly seem to be a financial melt down of hither to unknown proportion- virtually everything would cease to function as it formerly did and for quite some time there after- in the mean time the crops would not reach the shelves and food would rot at the starting point, cities would become even more lawless as waters cease to flow except perhaps for certain hours of the day while they were not under some form of attack by thirsty citizens, the same would go for food. Nope, this was definitely a disaster averted but not the end of all of our turmoil by any means. If anyone wants their end time scenario- Bush did his best, what can one say. Maybe next time.